Thoughts and Ruminations on Life

Ch ch ch ch changes...

2007-08-18T13:38:00.000-04:00

The amount of friends singing the praises of Wordpress, combined with the frustrating Blogger commenting option, has led to me making the switch there. I also have liked the option of buying a domain and going through Wordpress, so I've done so. So for those who've followed in bits and pieces with some of my thoughts along the way, if you would link to the following address;

http://anothernathanmyers.com

I'm still in the process of fiddling with things there (and likely will continue to be), but the moving has commenced!

Three men speak...

2007-08-11T14:23:00.000-04:00

Ever since reading Resident Aliens, I've greatly respected this guy as a wise follower of Jesus.

"The modern, essentially atheistic mentality despises mystery and considers enchantment and befuddlement an affront to its democratic right to know--and then use--everything for purposes of individual fulfillment. This flattened mind loves lists, labels, solutions, sweeping propositions, and practical principles. The vast, cosmic claims of the gospel get reduced to an answer to a question that consumes contemporary North Americans, though it's hardly ever treated in Scripture: What's in it for me?"

-Will H. Willimon

In other news, it's coming. Christians better start some serious thinking right now about what it means to be a follower of Jesus. We're less prepared today and more acculturated as the church than we were between persecutions in the Roman Empire.

Plus, Barack Obama shoots straight about whether he's "black enough" as a candidate to be the first black President. Scathing answer.

Art vs. Entertainment

2007-08-07T11:38:00.000-04:00

I haven't posted anything for awhile now...life has been busy. I'm still struggling to balance my schedule, work hard for my local church, love people, be honest with God and the folks I come into contact with about as much as possible, and struggle with issues I should be struggling with; that and dedicating myself to growing in what has become a beautiful relationship with Bethany that is better than I ever could have imagined. And that takes investment too!

Anyways, some events over the last week and half or so have come together to create some interesting thoughts in my head that hold the potential to transform some things for me, so I thought I'd write them out.

Things started a week ago when I listened to the Ryan Sharp interview from The Nick and Josh podcast, and they got into an interesting conversation about the difference between art and entertainment. I'll quote Ryan's thoughts in full on this subject...I tried to transcribe perfectly, but I know I didn't;

"I think that art can lose quite a bit of its value when it gets universalized. Most great art is great art because it exists within a certain context, so there's real meaning around the symbols that shaped the ideas. Very seldom is it artists just painting what they see; it usually comes from a series of conversations or inspirations they've had from a certain community.

Sometimes with art, whether it be a film or music or fine arts, when they go mainstream, they lose something...for example, say I'm going to watch an independent art film like Paradise Now...if I'm watching it as an art piece, I could say, "Wow, they're really flipping some things on their heads about terrorism, maybe I'll appreciate the cinematography as well or something. But if I view it as entertainment, (I might think) "Eh, it really didn't hold my attention...if they would've written it so it would've been more exciting, then I would've enjoyed it more. So there's a different relationship between entertainment and art. Too often, art is domesticated and placed under this entertainment umbrella, and when it is under that umbrella, people are able to distance themselves from it; they don't have to work through some of the issues that it's showing because it might just be too uncomfortable in the beginning and say, "Eh, yeah, I don't like what's going on here. It's not really my thing."

Basically, Ryan is addressing a culture-wide phenomenon in our country where nearly everything we do is judged by the criteria of how "entertaining" it is; and our spending habits reflect that reality. In this situation, marketers and movie producers and musicians aren't stupid, they give us what we're paying for, which is quite often "art" that is short on substance and long on persistent action and explosions and color and movement to keep us engaged and entertained. Some counter-cultural persons continue to give us movies and music, etc that is meant to draw us into the larger questios of life, but these are few and far between. We are enculturated from a young age to buy into the entertainment reality.

Just as a simple example, I'll use the movie Over the Hedge as support for this suggestion.

Over the Hedge was, by most accounts, a light, fun animated movie that follows the story of a group of forest animals who wake up from a winter-long hibernation to find themselves in a small patch of undeveloped land in the midst of a suburban subdivision that popped up overnight. Since their land to roam and gather food in is gone, the movie follows their hilarious adventures to try to find food from the suburban homes to fill up their log for their hibernation. The action keeps moving, certain characters keep the laughter going, and the animals end up banding together to have success. That's the entertainment value of Over the Hedge.

The art value of Over the Hedge came with often subtle critiques of individualism, suburban life and the whole mindset of suburban sprawl, SUV's, etc. Some deeper themes running throughout the movie include the value of family, the trouble of blind trust, the consequences of stealing, and the shallowness of much of our society's life. In one section, though, the point is slammed home very explicitly when RJ the raccoon introduces the other animals to suburban life;

One character asks, "What is that?" as they pass an SUV. RJ responds, "THAT is an SUV. Humans ride around in it because they're slowly losing their ability to walk." "Jeepers, it's big," another says, "how many humans fit in there?" And RJ remarks back, "Usually? One."

"They eat to live...these guys live to eat. Let me show you what I'm talking about. The human mouth is called a piehole. The human being is called a couch potato. That (pointing to the telephone) is the device to summon food. That (the delivery man ringing the doorbell) is one of the many voices of food. That (the door) is the portal for the passing of the food. That (the delivery man's scooter) is one of the many transportation vehicles for food. Humans bring the food, take the food, ship the food, they drive the food, they wear the food! That (match) gets the food hot, that (cooler) gets the food cold, that (the table with a family praying) is the altar where they worship food, that (alka seltzer) is what they eat when they've eaten too much food, that (treadmill) gets rid of the guilt so they can eat MORE food! Food, food, food, food, FOOD!!!!! So you think they have enough? Well, they don't! For humans, enough is NEVER enough!"

And the real kicker is in the song Ben Folds sings as the credits roll which is an adaptation of his earlier song "Rockin' the Suburbs." Check out the lyrics; biting!

But you know what the sad thing is? A vast majority of folks came out of the theater, gave the movie a one-word judgment; either "good" or "bad" (according to its entertainment value, of course), and went back to their lives that often included the very things the movie producers were critiquing without a shred of their conscience being affected. Why? Because they've been trained to exist on the surface level of the desire to be entertained and were oblivious to the deeper issues the movie placed before them.

And I know by using "them" language here it seems I am trying to exclude myself from being among that group. I am not. I write about this phenomenon because I am still deeply enmeshed in it, and have only recently become aware of how pervasive it really is in our society. It so thoroughly saturates our society that everything, and I mean everything is shifting to reflect this commitment to surface entertainment.

Governments love this, because a populace that is perpetually entertained no longer holds its leaders accountable for their actions and policies; they no longer have time nor the desire to do so; because why would someone dive into the complexity of policy making and long-term decisions (an area of frustration that requires depth of conversation and vision) when you can watch the newest Die Hard movie or stare at a female celebrity's body and sense that all is right in the universe? In fact governments can encourage this entertainment industry, especially when the movies provide simple categories of good vs. evil, right vs. wrong so that when the government labels someone as evil, the people channel some Bruce Willis or Clint Eastwood to eradicate the evil infestation.

And I dare say (some of my friends will sigh at this point that I've gone here) Satan loves this move to entertainment as well. Even those who make the move to be involved in church come expecting to be entertained, and so instead of an institution that has the guts and courage to challenge the status quo, the church becomes another provider of religious goods and services for the entertainment of the individual. One quickly finds if you are in the leadership of a church in our society if your message/presentation is more or less entertaining than the act down the road by how long folks stay at your church. If they leave relatively quickly, it might be because you're unhealthy and unfaithful, but more likely it's because you're not ministering to their felt needs quite the way they'd like, and so because their "feeling" is central to their understanding of what is "right," they leave for the spot down the road or, even worse, they're so crushed by the drive to be entertained that they stay paralyzed in their LA-Z-Boy in front of their 62" plasma with 3,000 channels with a Bose surround sound system, remote in hand, and with one click of the thumb can delude themselves to think all is right in the universe; or, at the very least even if they recognize the world is F-ed up, they have neither the time nor the energy to be involved in the complexity of saving it, so they settle for the pseudo-world in front of them.

There was a book written near the beginning of the twentieth-century that prophetically saw this coming called "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. Read it. Then pick up "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neal Postman and read it. Then check out "The Saturated Self" by Kenneth Gergen and see if these suggestions about the nature of our society aren't dead on.

Then you'll find yourself where I am. Knowing the system exists, that I am compelled to battle the urge to be entertained as the goal of life, yet only sporadically engaging the fight. To be sure, it is frustrating to be able to see how deeply my life has been enmeshed in the desire to be entertained, whether we're speaking of movie after movie or song after song or book after book that keep me moving enough in my life to avoid my own hungering for something more and disquieting thoughts about how I'm living a false life vicariously through celebrities and characters in books. I am finding that the more aware I am of this impulse and the more I subject it to Christ in favor of real life, the more free I am. I can watch movies and hear them making an argument about the nature of reality and human existence much more now; I can read a book that challenges me (like Obama's "The Audacity of Hope" right now) and take some time to think about what he's saying rather than hop to another one because I want to hear something "new" and "exciting"; I am recognizing the importance of consistency in direction in life that provides a deep satisfaction (sometimes in spite of circumstances) instead of hopping from thrill to thrill to "feel good" about myself. This is recognizing the beauty and challenge of art rather than the drive to be entertained.

This awareness impacts so much, and I'll have some more thoughts on this soon, as well as another glimpse at a movie much deeper in meaning than Over the Hedge that reveals a little further my perspective on the entertainment vs. art divide.

The cheater inches closer...

2007-07-19T17:34:00.000-04:00

Link here.

Every time he hits a homer I throw up a little bit in my mouth. The classy move would be to retire before he soils the record with his creams and clears, but that would be asking too much from the biggest ego in sports, now wouldn't it?

Know what sickens me the most? Barry Bonds is the best baseball player in history. And he was before the steroids and HGH. His short-sighted decisions were equivalent to dumping a city's worth of poo all over his career. He didn't NEED TO CHEAT!!!! But he couldn't bear to see McGwire and Sosa the center of attention. Maybe if he respected the game....nah. Too much to ask from someone whose dad and godfather are synonymous with everything baseball used to be about. Hustle, desire, respect for the sport, and love for the game.

Putrid.

The most clearly laid-out reality that every movement (or revolution) must become an institution; or die

2007-07-18T20:45:00.000-04:00

From Brian P (who I do not know), comment #7 on this site.

Before you read it, which I highly, highly recommend, I should tell you that I italicized some parts myself for emphasis, the first two quoted sections are Brian responding to the site owner, when Brian says "IC" he's referring to the "Institutional Church," and if you want some great reflections from Scot McKnight related to Barna's insights in Revolution that go beyond his more surface findings, listen to this podcast. I yield the floor to Brian;

“I’ve come to a point where I’m at peace where I am, and I enjoy being with ICers, nonIcers etc etc.”

I’m very happy for you!

” It’s just enjoying life and walking with Jesus, no labels”

Heh heh.

That works as long as it’s just you by yourself.

When it will fall apart is when you get together with your fellow Revolutionaries to do something together. Especially if they start having kids. When the blessed moment arrives, everyone in the church will be happy. But then the questions start coming:

So do we baptize the baby now, or wait until he/she is older?
If/when we baptize, do we do it by sprinkling, or by physically dunking people in water?
What exactly are we going to teach this child? Will we use a formal list of teaching points?
And of course now it’s time for Junior’s first communion. How often does that happen anyway? Once a week? Once a month? And what exactly is Junior drinking, anyway?
Wine? Grape juice? From little dixie cups or from one big communal cup?

I’m just getting started.

Think this stuff is trivial? Well, yes, yes it is. But you’re going to find that, in this and in so many other decisions, you have to make choices as to what you will and will not do together. And when you do, sure as sunrise, you’re going to have a small, offended minority who will walk out, convinced that you’ve fallen into error.

Eventually you’ve got a “way things are done”.

And after the first few times you have guest speakers come in who tear that order apart, you’re going to start making sure anyone who gets in your pulpit (or whatever) has the proper education in the way things are done, AND in the Bible. That means your own seminaries.

Until the day you wake up in about thirty or forty years with your own seminaries, your own governing structure, your own specific doctrine… and you realize that you’re a denomination in all but name. But of course you don’t call yourself a denomination. You call yourself “the community who seeks after God”.

Just like all the other denominations :). You’d be surprised at how many of them insist that they are *the* true church, usually started by rebels not much different from yourself.

And then in the second generation your kids start noticing all the flaws in the edifice you and your fellow revolutionaries have built. They make a noise, and pretty soon THEY are starting a revolution against YOU and complaining about the IC (or whatever the cool buzzword is) and how it ‘doesn’t get it’. And the cycle starts anew.

I say this, because I’m from a country that was started by just such religious movements. Ever hear of the Puritans? The word originally meant those who wanted to ‘purify’ the Church of England from what they considered it’s idolatrous practices … to make a clean church that would just follow Jesus without all the baggage. When they were run out of England, they came to America to build this ‘perfect church’ from the ground up.

The end result of that, four hundred years later, is places like Church O. How well would you say the experiment worked?

I’m not saying that a new denomination is necessarily bad. Very often, the IC *doesn’t* get it. I am banned from my parent denomination’s most prestigious university because I speak in tongues. A new denomination can very well be a move of God to prod the church *as a whole* in a new direction.

What I am saying is that what you and your fellow revolutionaries are doing has been done before many, many times in the history of the church. It can be a very good thing, as long as you don’t expect too much.

After all, what alternative do you have ? Quit associating with Christians altogether and go totally solo? That, IMO, is the biggest mistake of all.

Why? Because the fundamental lesson of Jesus is *love*. Love means learning to live with people who are very different from you. Church — revolutionary or not — is a perfect laboratory for this, because you find all kinds of rude, arrogant people whom you would otherwise have nothing to do with. Learning to function with such people in love is as good a lesson in being Christlike as anything else I can think of.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Gulping and sipping...

2007-07-18T20:02:00.000-04:00

What was that? The U.S. is intervening in Iraq and not intervening in Darfur for what reason?

ht: Drew Moser

And you thought ballplayers tuned out the crowd...

2007-07-14T17:14:00.000-04:00

Well, maybe Manny Ramirez is an exception to the rule, but here's a fun link for you.

Let's hear the tired phrase about freedom again...

2007-07-13T14:41:00.000-04:00

*Cue epic music* "Cause I'm proud to be an...."

Here's a link for your interest. Declassified documents showing the FBI's campaign to completely discredit MLK Jr. because he was upsetting the status quo too much; includes multiple illegal wiretaps. Have fun reading this bad boy.

A little excerpt; "As early as 1962, Director Hoover penned on an FBI memorandum, "King is no good." At the August 1963 March on Washington, Dr. King told the country of his dream that "all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last, free at last. Thank God almighty, I'm free at last."' The FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division described this "demagogic speech" as yet more evidence that Dr. King was "the most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country."

And another fun read here...illegal investigations into civilian citizens by the military over time. You get stuck on this page for very long, you might start to distrust some institutions you thought were always out to protect your "freedoms."

Hear that?

2007-07-12T19:32:00.000-04:00

It's the death of my overly idealistic world...a violent one, I might add.

At some point, if one desires to make a difference in this world, one will find that their ideals and the practicality of applying those ideals to reality often makes a sickening crunch and a grisly wreck scene.

This I find daily...will I live in a fantasy world of constant wheels-spinning-ideals and hypocritical action, or will I honestly engage the struggle to make my ideals reality...which includes ditching some ideals as they are exposed in their inadequacy and shallowness?

I feel like a failure today. Things may feel better tomorrow.

In other news, according to Salon.com, you might want to pass on the salmon from Wal-Mart. Because, evidently it seems, you are eating salmon raised in Chile where they "are generally raised in open-net pens...There is a metal cage on the surface, with nets hanging down to a netted bottom...they grow tens of thousands of fish per net, 1 million or 1.5 million per farm. Then they all go poo. There is a huge amount of waste going into the ocean. People say, oh, that's natural, all fish go poo in the ocean. But not in that kind of concentration. It just smothers the seabed." One million salmon produce the same sewage...as sixty-five thousand people. The ocean pens suffer from another source of pollution -- excess feed. Any food that isn't consumed settles to the ocean floor, adding to the layer of feces. The waste itself contains residues of antibiotics and other chemicals used to keep the fish healthy during the two years it takes them to grow to harvestable size." In the words of Jim Carrey in Ace Ventura, "Yummy."

In more positive news, it seems there are a few diamonds in the rough these days for your kids to look up to in professional sports. I've had my issues with blind idolatry of celebrities before, so I've tempered my view of them greatly, but Brian Roberts is a solid, blue-collar, tremendous example of a young man. I'm not surprised to find kids with leukemia have changed his life more radically, possibly, that he has theirs. Now, I'm hoping the listing of Brian's name in Jason Grimsley's arrest affidavit as a user of HGH/steroids/amphetamines isn't accurate. Crossing my fingers.

Simplicity and Honesty...

2007-07-07T11:56:00.000-04:00

Whoever said repentance was an easy one-time turn away (accompanied by punching one's golden ticket to heaven) from one's old life was a liar.

A Georgia friend, Josh Brown explores this. To put it simply, we all live in terrifying hypocrisy, and it is becoming more and more clear to me that we are called to a lifestyle, an attitude of repentance and humility in the pursuit of God.

When I think of the process of change, the picture seems pretty clear, if I (we) want to grow.

1) I recognize what I have been thinking/speaking/doing is against the expectations of God
2) I repent and seek to turn from my former way of thinking/speaking/doing.

This is where most folks stop in description...this is nothing more than behavior modification, though, in my view. We need;

3) Learning to love the way of thinking/speaking/doing God expects so we get to the place we really WANT what God wants.

And honesty demands that I insert
4) Wash, rinse, and repeat steps 1-3 until we die...because while we will see growth, we will not see the sort of growth that eliminates the possibility of falling right back into our old ways, most deeply because we haven't made the transition to running freely after God's desires.

This is messy. Messy doesn't even hint at the difficulty. Menno Simons, a giant in the faith, wrote in his Meditation on the 25th Psalm a personal confession;

"I find day by day that my righteousness is as filthy rags. When I think I walk, I fall; when I imagine that I stand, I am down; and when I think to be something, then I am nothing. O dear Lord, keep me, for the fear of my heart is very great, greater than I can write or say. At times I am as a woman in travail...the dangers of hell surround me, the marrow of my bones is dried up. For here neither money nor possessions are involved, neither flesh nor blood, but my poor naked soul, eternal life or eternal death."

This sort of thought wasn't unique in Menno's life. He wrote over and over again of the need for one's will and mind to be completely committed to Christ; that there was no price he would not have paid in obedience, but his heart was deeply troubled. He had grown to the point where he hated his old way of being, but found in his struggle to leave it behind that in many ways the battle had just begun...because this blackness of rebellion coursed through his veins and the only way he could emerge from that reality was a ruthless trust in and deep desire for the power of God to give him the power to stand. There's a confession in his thoughts here too, I think, in his understanding that in the presence of God he stands naked, with nothing covering his heart, the essence of his being. And he quaked in the presence of God and maintained a healthy fear of him that drove him to action.

Sufjan Stevens tries to put words to this struggle, I think, in his song "He Woke Me Up Again";

"And I hope, I hope you are tired out.
And I know, I know there is joy endowed.
But I was asleep,
And he woke me up again,
And he woke me up again to say...

Hold on, hold on to your old ways
Or put off, put off every old face.
And I know, I know you are changed out.
And I hope, I hope you're arranged out.
But I'm still asleep
And you woke me up again.
And I'm still asleep
But you woke me up to leave"

There's an interplay there; First, "he woke me up again," then "but I'm still asleep."

I have found in my life this happening time and again. I am woken up to the painfulness of the results of my separation from God, and it drives me to weeping and anger that I could be so hurtful to myself and others. So I commit myself to leave the specific thought/word/action behind, only to find it seeks to justify its existence, provides good arguments that pull at both my brain and my emotions, and woos me back time and again. "When I think I walk, I fall; when I imagine that I stand, I am down; and when I think to be something, then I am nothing." I keep thinking I woke up, only to come to my senses some days and in honesty confess I continue to sleep...

So where is my hope?

In the one addressed in Romans 8:12-17 and the life he has freed me to pursue...

And in never giving up.

God is easily pleased but never satisfied...how could I dare to suggest I could get to a point, believe I've traveled far enough, and sit down and wait for the sweet by and by? I know enough of God's character in Scripture to know if I do this, the by and by won't be so sweet.

Menno also said this;

"For we prefer to endure misery, poverty, tribulation, hunger, thirst, heat, cold, bonds, and death, in our mortal bodies, and continue in the Word of the Lord, rather than to lead secure, easy lives with the world, and for the sake of a short, transitory life ruin our souls"

A little high-brow for ya...

2007-06-20T12:02:00.000-04:00

Anyone catch anything of similarity between these two pictures...one from the 18th century and the other a 20th century book?

Stop whining and buck up.

2007-06-08T22:23:00.001-04:00

Paris Hilton is a joke, and she deserves to be right where she is right now. The Sheriff who let her off should be fired.

And this is how we should be handling this story.

Bmac sounds off on the kingdom...

2007-06-07T16:12:00.001-04:00

For my money, there's few persons I know of doing better, more searching thinking on the kingdom of God than Brian McLaren. This video is one example of that, and he isn't philosophizing about something from far out in left field.

A quote,"A lot of us think that the purpose Jesus came was to try to help us get to heaven after we die. Well, I'd like to raise some serious questions about that, based on the New Testament."

Pleasantly surprised...spread the love!

2007-05-31T10:41:00.000-04:00

Dude, I don't why this is true, but there's a box set of three GREAT Brian Mclaren books on sale for $13.17 on Amazon.com. Hardcover! Can anyone say, Christmas gift for my reading friends?

Interesting debate going on...

2007-05-25T11:39:00.000-04:00

I'm a contributing member of a website you can see on my links section to the right called "Young Anabaptist Radicals." It's a community of followers of Jesus in the spiritual tradition of an intrepid group of folks (I just wanted to say intrepid) called Anabaptists that got fired up in the 16th century and who have deeply informed my faith journey. One of my mentors-through-books-and brief-reallife-interaction, Brian McLaren, has also expressed a deep appreciation for this group of people, just so you don't get suspicious and think we're a cult.

Anyways, we've got an interesting little conversation going on about sexuality and Biblical and scientific perspectives on one of the posts there. Take a gander if you'd like. Here's the link.

A little Dan Brown never hurt nobody (except those who strictly define "fact")

2007-05-23T17:15:00.001-04:00

I'll be honest, like my friend Dustin who isn't a big fan of things that are popular (or, more specifically, faddish), I avoided Dan Brown like the plague for several years following the earth-shattering success of his book "The Da-Vinci Code"; and mainly simply because it was popular. But I picked up Angels and Demons at the EMU library awhile ago, and instantly was sucked in. I'm done now, and the book was a decent read, and like Da Vinci Code was shot through with errors and bad research (made further ridiculous by Brown invoking the literary device that the things he stated were "factual"), but one part in particular stuck out to me. I won't spoil the plot for you if you haven't read it, but the book is set up as a clash between two approaches, science and religion, that end up butting heads, and at one of the climaxes of the action, the former Pope's camerlengo gives a compelling argument for the role of religion in regulating the relentless drive toward advance in science that often obeys no signposts of morality along the way. Interesting stuff. Though I disagree with Brown's "all religions" schtick, I think he's got a point here;

'The wheels have been in motion for a long time,' the camerlengo said. 'Your victory has been inevitable. Never before has it been as obvious as it is at this moment. Science is the new God.

Medicine, electronic communications, space travel, genetic manipulation...these are the miracles about which we now tell our children. These are the miracles we herald as proof that science will bring us the answers. The ancient stories of immaculate conceptions, burning bushes, and parting seas are no longer relevant. God has become obsolete. Science has won the battle. We concede.

But science's victory has cost every one of us. And it has cost us deeply. Science may have alleviated the miseries of disease and drudgery and provided an array of gadgetry for our entertainment and convenience, but is has left us in a world without wonder. Our sunsets have been reduced to wavelengths and frequencies. The complexities of the universe have been shredded into mathematical equations. Even our self-worth as human beings has been destroyed. Science declares that Planet Earth and its inhabitants are a meaningless speck in the grand scheme. A cosmic accident.

Even the technology that promises to unite us, divides us. Each of us is now electronically connected to the globe, and yet we feel utterly alone. We are bombarded with violence, division, fracture, and betrayal. Skepticism has become a virtue. Cynicism and demand for proof has become enlightened thought. Is it any wonder that humans now feel more depressed and defeted than they have at any point in history? Does science hold anything sacred? Science looks for answers by probing our unborn fetuses. Science even presumes to rearrange our own DNA. It shatters God's world into smaller and smaller pieces in quest of meaning...and all it finds is more questions.

The ancient war between science and religion is over. You have won. But you have not won fairly. You have not won by providing answers. You have won by so radically reorienting our society that the truths we once saw as signposts now seem inapplicable. Religion cannot keep up. Scientific growth is exponential. It feeds on itself like a virus. Every new breakthrough opens doors for new breakthroughs. Mankind took thousands of years to progress from the wheel to the car. Yet only decades from the car into space. Now we measure scientific progress in weeks. We are spinning out of control. The rift between us grows deeper and deeper, and as religion is left behind, people find themselves in a spiritual void. We cry out for meaning. And believe me, we DO cry out. We see UFOs, engage in channeling, spirit contact, out-of-body experiences, mindquests- all these eccentric ideas have a scientific veneer, but they are unashamedly irrational. They are the desperate cry of the modern soul, lonely and tormented, crippled by its own enlightenment and its inability to accept meaning in anything removed from technology.

Science, you say, will save us. Science, I say, has destroyed us. Since the days of Galileo, the church has tried to slow down the relentless march of science, sometimes with misguided means, but always with benevolent intention. Even so, the temptations are too great for man to resist. I warn you, look around yourselves. The promises of science have not been kept. Promises of efficiency and simplicity have bred nothing but pollution and chaos. We are a fractured and frantic species...moving down a path of destruction.

Who is this God science? Who is the God who offers his people power but no moral framework to tell you how to use that power? What kind of God gives a child fire but does not warn the child of its dangers? The language of science comes with no signposts about good and bad. Science textbooks tell us how to create a nuclear reaction, and yet they contain no chapter asking us if it is a good or a bad idea.

To science, I say this. The church is tired. We are exhausted from trying to be your signposts. Our resources are drying up from our campaign to be the voice of balance as you plow blindly on in your quest for smaller chips and larger profits. We ask not why you will not govern yourselves, but how can you? Your world moves so fast that if you stop even for an instant to consider the implications of your actions, someone more efficient will whip past you in a blur. So you move on. You proliferate weapons of mass destruction, but it is the Pope who travels the world urging leaders to use restraint. You clone living creatures, but it is the church reminding us to consider the moral implications of our actions. You encourage people to interact on phones, video screens, and computers, but it is the church who opens its doors and reminds us to commune in person as we were meant to do. You even murder unborn babies in the name of research that will save lives. Again, it is the church who points out the fallacy of this reasoning.

And all the while, you proclaim the church is ignorant. But who is more ignorant? The man who cannot define lightning, or the man who does not respect its awesome power? The church is reaching out to you. Reaching out to everyone. And yet the more we reach, the more you push us away. Show me proof there is a God, you say. I say use your telescopes to look to the heavens, and tell me how there could not be a God!' The camerlengo had tears in his eyes now. 'You ask what does God look like. I say, where does that question come from? The answers are one and the same. Do you not see God in your science? How can you miss Him! You proclaim that even the slightest change in the force of gravity or the weight of an atom would have rendered our universe a lifeless mist rather than our magnificent sea of human bodies, and yet you fail to see God's hand in this? Is it really so much easier to believe that we simply chose the right card from a deck of billions? Have we become so spiritually bankrupt thta we would rather believe in mathematical impossibility than in a power greater than us?

Whether or not you believe in God, you must believe in this. When we as a species abandon our trust in the power greater than us, we abandon our sense of accountability. Faith...all faiths...are admonitions that there is something we cannot understand, something to which we are accountable...With faith we are accountable to each other, to ourselves, and to a higher truth. Religion is flawed, but only because man is flawed. If the outside world could see this church as I do...looking beyond the rituals of these walls...they would see a modern miracle...a brotherhood of imperfect, simple souls wanting only to be a voice of compassion in a world spinning out of control.'

'Are we obsolete?' the camerlengo asked. 'Are these men dinosaurs? Am I? Does the world really need a voice for the poor, the weak, the oppressed, the unborn child? Do we really need souls like these who, though imperfect, spend their lives imploring each of us to read the signposts of morality and not lose our way?

Tonight we are perched on a precipice. None of us can afford to be apathetic. Whether you see this evil as Satan, corruption, or immorality...the dark force is alive and growing every day. Do not ignore it. The force, though mighty, is not invincible. Goodness can prevail. Listen to your hearts. Listen to God. Together we can step back from this abyss.'

Simply no intro needed...

2007-05-22T01:00:00.000-04:00

Interesting debate

2007-05-18T18:17:00.000-04:00

Atheist Sam Harris and Pastor Rick Warren sat down for an solid face-to-face discussion at Saddleback Community Church in CA recently, and were interviewed by an NBC reporter. It's an interesting discussion to follow. Here's the link.

p.s. I greatly respect Rick Warren's approach to life, especially the way he loves people, is generous in dialogue, and deeply cares about issues of poverty and war that should be deeply important to Christians...and I think Sam Harris makes some challenging points. Give it a read, if you've got some time. Plus, that picture of Rick is flat-out ridiculously funny. What the crap?

p.p.s. In other news, Jeff Kent still has a pedostache

p.p.p.s. Check out this funny article title. And I'm spent.

Global warming and how one's perspective is deeply affected by one's environment

2007-05-17T00:23:00.000-04:00

The BBC did a nice little piece on different evangelical universities (Liberty University aka College of Falwell and Eastern Mennonite University where I attend seminary) here in Virginia on the issue of global warming that is worth a read. You can find it here. Read the article, if you would, before looking at my remarks.

Did you read it? : )

I just want to raise a point related to the nature/nurture discussion that is probably raging more deeply than it ever has in society. When it comes to bringing that discussion to bear on the church, I found what Brian McLaren had to say on the Nick and Josh podcast matters greatly as another voice in the conversation. I'll quote it in full here (and yes, I'm a dork that transcribed what Brian was saying to MSWord while he was talking);

"If we think the purpose of the gospel is to deliver souls to heaven after death, then we're going to read the entire gospel in a certain way; Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and the rest of the New Testament and all the rest of the Bible in a certain way.

But if that's not the primary problem that the Bible is addressing (though it is the primary problem in a lot of systematic theology approaches that say or assume that is what it addresses); but I'm asking a rather provocative question; what if that's not really the problem it addresses, what if the problem it addresses is that God has this beautiful and good creation, and human beings rebelled against God, we have left this relationship with God (what the Bible means by sin) and that sin is suicidal...sin destroys human beings and families and cultures and civilizations, and ultimately it will destroy the planet, i mean, that's easier for us to see now than for any generation in history (naive belief that WWI was last big war b/c humans were evolving beyond war). Other people had to take it on faith, for us it is sight.

We know very well that we can destroy the planet in our human rebellion. Human sin and evil and violence, and hatred and greed can destroy the planet, so if the gospel is the message of the kingdom, and the message of the kingdom is not evacuating Earth, but it's as the Lord's Prayer teaches us, "Your kingdom come," meaning come to earth, "your will be done on earth as it is in heaven," then we have to look at every area of life and say, "What would this arena of human life look like if God's will would be done?"

What Brian has to say I think matters deeply for the issue of global warming, and led to my conviction regarding this issue that I believe so strongly I created a Facebook group representing my belief that, ultimately; It's not about global warming, it's about caring for the earth. The issue is very polarizing (often driving folks to occupy one of two extremes), but as I see it (and Brian McLaren sees it), the issue of conservation (caring for the earth) is deeply a gospel-related issue. I would agree with McLaren that salvation as it is presently conceived of in most Christian groups is about how to get to heaven when you die rather than joining up with God in His movement to reconcile all of creation, starting now. Now, certainly, this will not happen in its fullness until the "Day of the Lord," but this should not lead us (as most folks often do) to the place where we sit on our hands and wait for the sweet by and by because salvation is all God's work. There's a strong thread running through Scripture that we are to be co-creators and collaborators with God in His work to reconcile and renew all of his creation.

Thus, how one reads and the environment one grows up in deeply shapes one's way of viewing reality. So, in a very real way, Christians should seek to embrace a deeper and fuller reading of Scripture and the purposes of God, both for their sakes and for the sakes of friends, acquaintances, and future generations. This is where my bias is exposed; I think Jerry Falwell's perspective on reality is handicapped by the way he interprets the gospel, and his perspective is deeply affecting a LOAD of people that uncritically accept his reading; both at Thomas Road Baptist Church, at Liberty University, in the conservative Christian camp across America, and globally when folks from other religious traditions and countries see him and think he speaks for all Christians. I'm sorry Jerry recently passed away, but his perspective on the gospel, in my view, was more destructive than it was helpful. In the grand scheme of things, I think Falwell's legacy is more negative than positive if we're speaking of the kingdom of God and the lifestyle we are called to exhibit.

Check out the practical differences between the EMU and the Liberty responses to the question of global warming;

"A lesson taught by Dr Thomas Ice, Liberty University's senior theologian, focuses on headaches like Armageddon, salvation and the Second Coming. Compared to these concerns, global warming is considered a mere sideshow at best, or a left-wing conspiracy at worst.

Asked his opinion on whether global warming is a reality or conspiracy, Dr Ice answers forcefully.
"It's a hoax, certainly," he says. "I think global warming is being used like many political issues to try to move the world from nationalism to internationalism or global governance." And his class? Asked how many of them are worried about global warming, not one raises a hand."

Hold that opinion and environment together with the EMU report;

"There is a massive and mounting body of scientific evidence that global warming is a reality," he (Loren Swartzendruber) tells the gathered congregation. "Hone your God-given talents, grow your entrepreneurial skills and stretch your scientific minds to co-create with God a better world. As disciples of Jesus, we can do no less."
Here, when asked if they are worried about global warming, almost everyone puts up their hand.

Now, I recognize that EMU isn't perfect, and is deeply in need of critique from others who might be more conservative and challenge the leftist message some of the faculty spout off, but at the very least there is a vigorous conversation on campus where more "liberal" and more "conservative" folks have a chance to be heard and interact. In addition, I think EMU embraces what I believe to be a much deeper Biblical understanding of the gospel that includes all of creation. That seems to be almost completely lacking at Liberty; I don't think I'm overstating the reality that, functionally speaking, Falwell is almost deity status in that environment.

If you aren't interested in anything at all in this post other than one nugget to take away with you, please re-read the McLaren quotation several times because I think it's so important to be aware of. What is the gospel? How does it affect the way I see the world? And how does it affect my relationships with my environment, both in human relationships and caring for the earth?

And maybe most pointedly, how can we break out of the liberal/conservative extremes that folks want to slot us into to embrace that a life of discipleship is one that will seem "liberal" to some and "conservative" to others? I'd point you to two previous posts I made that quoted Pres. Swartzendruber's excellent article "Liberal or Conservative?" here and here where he engages what it means to reject the either/or extremes and follow Jesus with all of our being.

I love one of his quips from a mentor of his who said often, "On some issues I am rather liberal...because I take the Bible very seriously. Which is a conservative position."

It's just like, just like, a heeeey!

2007-05-07T12:49:00.000-04:00

The importance of frustration

2007-04-25T23:29:00.000-04:00

"Educational theory tells us people really only learn out of frustration- the frustration that they don't know but need to, the frustration that life isn't working but there could be a better way. Frustration is not a bad thing- it's a necessary thing."
- Doug Pagitt

In case you hadn't grasped the connection yet, the picture above is of Pagitt himself. I've been reading Preaching Re-Imagined, a great great book that's scratching me where I itch right now. Introduction aside, my girlfriend Bethany and I have talked about Pagitt's subject often recently (really over the course of our entire friendship that moved into a dating relationship); reality is often frustrating! And we often interpret that frustration as a negative thing. But what if that frustration is neither positive nor negative, but instead teaches us that reality is mysterious and complex, and so we can't nail it down right away? So we wrestle with ideas and people and remain committed to growth and find that somehow, in the midst of the frustration, some degree of clarity arises that wouldn'tve if we hadn't let the frustration motivate us.

Some issues that were before complex will become clear, some issues that we assumed were clear before will become complex, and some of reality remains downright mysterious. I like that. I like that that reality demands I be in relationship with others. I love that Bethany and I have the kind of relationship to be able to wrestle with these things and trust one another along the way. I hope to continue to grow in my relationships with others to have that same kind of mutuality, trust, and room to wrestle, vent, and grow. A good goal, I think.

So what do you think? Frustration negative? positive? both? why?

Ravings of a tired young man...is there more? is this all? melodramatic, I'm sure.

2007-04-24T16:43:00.000-04:00

Just finished Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky a couple hours ago. Whew!

And Wow! Dark, foreboding, intense, plodding yet purposeful, truthful, authentic, filled with stark reason yet surprising in emotion at the end.

Afterwards, I slept for twenty minutes, but my mind didn't. It stewed and raged with the possibilities and the realities of Dostoevsky's thought. He writes in 1865, yet world leaders live into the thought of Raskolnikov today; making the world simplistic, cut-and-dried, black-and-white, good-and-evil, drawing those who don't want to think for themselves onto their coattails, stirring them to passionate action. that. is. sometimes. deadly. and. disgustingly. wrong. And yet they feel no remorse. And do not come to the brilliant realization of Raskolnikov, nor subject themselves to the great virtue of humility; their pride blinds them, destroys them, and shatters the world by extension through them.

We see this, and yet we are too lazy to emerge from the cycle. We claim certain emotions/reason/ethics/actions as "practical" and "necessary," yet our emotions/reason/ethics/actions only perpetuate the brokenness, only maintain the darkness of a world of "necessity" without considering whether our actions driven by "necessity" are truly necessary at all. They're often not.

Who will break the cycle? Can we break the cycle? Is God above and beyond Christianity and Judaism and Islam and Buddhism? Is the call of God transcendent? Built into every human being?

Do any systems of thought, any great persons offer a glimpse, a snapshot of the transcendent? And when they do, are we afraid? Are we too prideful to admit their honesty and their truthfulness? Do we indulge our cowardice of the truth while we hold our weapons that give us "comfort" and "safety" yet fill us with suspicion, questioning, and mistrust? Can those weapons both be physical and emotional; things we employ to give us distance from others for the sake of our own selfishness? Can we live free of this suspicion, questioning, and mistrust (short-term questioning that arises aside, can we be free over the long-term?)?

Is there nothing transcendent, with life being but a series of breathings, blinkings, eating, sleeping, copulating, and work under the thumb of a world already set, full of "laws" and "facts" already pre-determined for us by the confident assertions of those who have gone before us, those who have had "greater insight" into the machinations of our universe than us; insights that demand we knuckle under and passively follow?

Is life one damn "ought" after another, reality that which existed before us and will exist afterwards? One in which we do not matter; our lives either having no meaning, or a meaning and an effect that fades 5, 10, 50, 100 years later when our name falls from the lips and thoughts of those who remember us?

Can that suggested transcendence suggested of before enliven our human emotions/reason/ethics/thoughts/actions with something beyond us, something that ripples out into eternity whether we live five minutes or a century? Can our active role in living into that transcendent reality create deeper and more forceful ripples than passively or dispassionately living? Can my ripples( if healing) neutralize the ripples ( if destructive) of others perpetuating the cycle? Somehow provide a glimpse of the transcendent in the midst of reality that is often drudgery and brokenness? Am I capable of the opposite action, the destructive kind, the ripples of fragmentation, enslavement, and mistrust?

What if the transcendent breaks through in a shocking, miraculous, intensely physical way now...not because of my ability or giftedness but because of the transcendent working through my willingness, my fidelity, my passion? Is that what happened with Jesus? Can the transcendent be deeply transcendent, deeply "other," yet also deeply personal and relational? Can it (or He, or She) seek me, aggressively pursue me, love me in my brokenness? Is it possible?

All these, and more, flash through my head as I must settle down to the drudgery of finishing my semester. I compartmentalize my emotions, my thoughts, and place them in the recesses of my mind for the sake of necessity. They cannot/should not disturb what "needs to be done" right now.

What if I never return to these thoughts? What if I always shove them away, trivialize them for the sake of necessity, of "what needs to be done right now"? Will I have wasted my life, salted away my minutes, my days, and years for the sake of what is "necessary" only to find the "necessary" has enslaved me?

How can I balance what "needs to be done" (the practical) with what "deserves to be thought about," what compels me to "consider reality beyond the drudgery of daily reality"(the theoretical)? Will that balance ever be perfect? I think not. Will the pursuit of that balance send me careening either into emotionless duty or deeply emotional existential panic? I think so. Is it worth it to spit on the felt need to occupy one extreme or the other and to choose to struggle? To find myself erring on either side? To have friends honest enough to keep me accountable? Friends who will give me room to explore, to doubt, to laugh, to vent, to read, to feel ecstasy, to feel shattered?

All this, and more, rages in my mind right now. I didn't intend to be melodramatic, and I personally don't care if I came off that way. This was stream of consciousness; bare, raw feelings that spun off in response to this incredible book. I lay it before the world, because I'm finished hiding, finished knuckling under to what it supposedly necessary...or at least I claim I am. Until, five minutes from now, I return to segmenting sections of my life away from others because I am afraid of what they'll think or how they'll react...continuing to leave parts of my life in shadows...crippling myself before others can seek to listen and enter in. My life is mystifying, human existence is mystifying, and because I can sit down and in an hour experience these deep, visceral emotions and thoughts because of words printed on a page, I must consider the possibility of a reality bigger than myself that gave me the complex, creative ability to respond to another's complex, creative ability...the hungering for life beyond the drudgery of the day-to-day, the struggle of progress, the giving-in and slow attrition of laziness, and the commitment to actions of fragmentation, calling twisted temptations "natural" and choosing to regress.

It is in that regress that the only thing that separates me and Cho-Seung Hui is a difference of degree of evil. I am a walking wounded, and my continuance in such a wounded state without the pursuit of healing wounds others by extension as we rub shoulders and they move on to rub shoulders with others, touched by me in ways they (nor I) understand. I do not have the cold metal of the Walther and the Glock in my hands, dispassionately erasing the lives of others with cold efficiency, but I do have the cold reality of self-centeredness, of cynicism, of all the "oughts" that enslave me; and they do kill (maybe physically someday). But for now they kill insidiously and incrementally, in my cold, suspicious looks, in my desire and commitment for my own way, in my self-righteous exaltation of myself over the "disgusting, inhumane, evil" acts of Cho as if I am not capable of the same, in my laughter at the failures of others, in my hatred of those who hate and/or kill those closest to me without considering that they may hate/kill because those most like me hated/killed first. Do I have the right to hold court over them, then, knowing that even if I do not carry out an evil act with my own two hands, I can be just as complicit when I stand idly by and do nothing while evil is carried out? But I have to do what is "necessary," don't I? I have to busy myself with what I "need" to do, love or some other transcendent emotion or action only goes so far before I must put my foot down, must assert my individuality and right to fullness of life over others?

Bleh. I'm done for now. Back to the "necessary." I've already spent too much time in the theoretical, and that is dangerous, both for my academic life and the leaders who depend on my unthinking obedience to their expectations in order to maintain order in society...

I'm sorry, I just can't help it!!!

2007-04-09T12:13:00.000-04:00

From the 10 Spot on SI.com.

"Reader submission from Joe in Rochester, N.Y.: 'The plans for the Patriots to play a preseason game in China were scrapped. Ever conscious about population control, the Chinese were worried about allowing Tom Brady into the country.' Well played, Joe."

Five Questions your Pacifist Friends are Tired of Answering

2007-04-03T11:12:00.000-04:00

My title is the title of a good article by a fellow named Jonathan Fitzgerald at the Burnside Writer's Collective (BWC). The BWC is a solid site started by Donald Miller (author of Blue Like Jazz) and a few of his friends that deals with social justice, sports, general rants or thoughts, and other things. The reason I like the site is because they identify themselves as "an online magazine presenting an alternative to franchise faith." In other words, they're not afraid of disagreeing with some "Christian" perspectives on issues that are in fact twisted and not reflective of what Jesus cared deeply about.

And so, knowing this reality, Fitzgerald explores an area (pacifism) that is often marginalized in the church (some call it the ultimate and vilest form of immorality), with five subpoints of questions he's often asked as a pacifist:

1) What if your (insert loved one here) was attacked?
2) What about the Old Testament?
3) Didn't Jesus mean to live non-violently in our personal lives, but not corporately
4) What about Romans 13?
5) So, you're suggesting Christians sit back and do nothing?

Now, I don't always toe the same line as Fitzgerald, and I don't mind talking about these questions (I'm, in fact, deeply passionate about talking about them), but as a pacifist I often grow tired of people hauling out these questions as trump cards that trivialize and pass over central issues that drive those of us who believe Jesus called all of his followers to nonviolence.

Here's the link to the article.

p.s. I disagree with the picture I posted above. Just posted it for the sake of kickstarting the discussion.

In honor of the Florida Gators championship...

2007-04-03T10:07:00.000-04:00

Even though I was pulling for Ohio State. This video from Joakim Noah dancing to the Florida fight song after the SEC championship is utterly classic. I laughed. Hardcore. Just look at the silly look on his face and the announcers trying to work with him.

Blog love where needed...

2007-03-29T10:32:00.000-04:00

Brother Maynard has come up with the interesting suggestion of circulating a list of under-rated, under-appreciated, or under-valued emerging/missional blogs to help promote them in the wider blogosphere.

His list:

Emerging Grace

Robbymac

Lily a.k.a. Erin

Nathan Colquhoun

John Smulo

My (short but important) list:

Barry Falke

Trevor Debenning

To participate, copy this list into a new post on your own blog, and add the names you have to the bottom of the list, and encourage others to do the same. They should be people with under 150 links so we can truly skew the Technorati rankings. When you’ve done that, leave a comment at Brother Maynard’s blog so he can keep track of who ends up participating.

Prez Swartzendruber part Deux: or, "you Mennonites are among the few in the whole country making sense right now"

2007-03-28T20:37:00.000-04:00

As promised, here is the second part of EMU President Loren Swartzendruber's excellent article. And in case as you read this you're tempted to click away because Swartzendruber's context (Mennonites) is different than yours, I think he's making some serious points about cultural nonconformity for the sake of Christ that can be applied to all Christian traditions. It's not as if the "historic peace churches" are the only ones given the command to be peacemakers; or Lutherans are the only ones to emphasize justification at God's initiative, to be seized by faith; or Methodists are the only ones who should pursue sanctification. Denominational distinctives are not meant to be exclusive, and thus Swartzendruber's words (though spoken within a distinctive context) are deeply prophetic to all Christians. What is our witness in our different cultural realities?

And I'll put in a pre-emptive p.s. for you here. I'm not Mennonite...I do consider myself deeply influenced by Anabaptism, but I'm not just toeing denominational lines here by quoting Loren. He's got something to say to all of us. And so he continues;

"My observation is that many of us who grew up Mennonite have struggled to come to peace with our past experiences. We remember the days when we were, in fact, very different culturally. It was embarrassing to stand out in the crowd. It is so much easier psychologically to 'fit in' with the multitude. And, now, particularly in the U.S. context, we fear the possibility of being ostracized by our neighbors if we dare to challenge prevailing assumptions.

What does this have to do with EMU and Mennonite education? I've devoted most of my adult life to this mission for one simple reason: I believe Mennonite Anabaptists have had (and still have) a unique theological perspective- and practice- that is needed in our world. I am disappointed with the headlong rush to "be like everyone else" as though our theological forebears were badly mistaken. Frankly, I think the burden of proof is on those who have embraced the majority culture. Again, the New Testament hardly promises that the followers of Jesus will enjoy majority status.

I've frequently said that I am 'proud' to be a Mennonite, though I always add with a smile, 'I'm proud in a humble sort of way.' That's not because I value being Mennonite above being a follower of Christ. I do believe, however, that it's not possible to be a generic Christian. We are all part of theological streams with historical wellsprings, whether we are charismatic, Pentecostal, Lutheran, or Anabaptist- and whether we realize it or not.

If EMU and our sister Mennonite schools and colleges are not unique and thoroughly committed to being Anabaptists as followers of Jesus, there is little reason for them- for us at EMU- to exist. There are hundreds of good, academically strong institutions that do a great job of educating young adults.

I am astounded at the number of parents around the church who aren't aware of this simple fact: We're different from other colleges. Even other educational and denominational leaders recognize we represent something unique. One university president from South Dakota, himself a Baptist, told me recently, 'You Mennonites are among the few in the whole country who are making any sense right now.'

Jennifer Jag Jivan, a member of the Church of Pakistan (a merger of four Protestant denominations) and a recent MA graduate, described the difference this way in a recent letter:

'I feel richly blessed that my life crossed the Mennonites. Like all people, of course, they experience their ups and downs, church conflicts, and others, but they are a people whose commitment to walk in the love of God in humility renews one's spirit in the goodness of humanity. My deep appreciation for all the Mennonites, whether meeting them in the cafeteria, bookstore, or classroom- their culture of helping others and meeting others where they are, and spreading this culture of love and peace- is breath-taking indeed! But what is more, this environment is so catching that it enables others to embrace this spirit and be the miracle of this love-sharing life. This is unique and very special to EMU.'

These statements are not reasons to become prideful, but they do show that others see something distinctive, a difference worth preserving. It may seem strange for a university president to say that he doesn't really care is his institution exists in the year 2006, 20 years from now. And I don't, not for the sake of the university itself. But, I do care, with all my heart and soul, that the church's witness is strong in the year 2026. I'm convinced it will only be so if a substantial number of our youth receive a Mennonite education.

To those who have stuck with me to this point in my 'sermon' and who are surprised at my audacity and passion, I made a similar speech to the EMU Parents' Council one morning last spring. I made it totally off the cuff, after I had forgotten I was to join them, and then I apologized for my passion. I reflected that perhaps I'm getting old, and that I no longer feel as if I have much to lose. They were slightly stunned, I think, and then said, 'Put it in writing. You're preaching to the choir.'

My life would be blessed if the 'choir' would carry the message and deliver their young adults in large numbers to EMU and all of our Mennonite schools- and most blessed when those graduates have become the faithful members and leaders of the church tomorrow.

To those from other theological traditions reading this, I am grateful for your recognition of and appreciation for EMU's unique role in this world. I am grateful, too, for the insights you bring to us and to this role."

Ok, ok, these are radically different, but...

2007-03-26T11:12:00.000-04:00

First things first, click on the following link here to see one of Peyton Manning's skits from hosting SNL: hilarious at times, over the line others, but all in all it'll get a chuckle out of you. Here's the link.

Second, I'm going to post a great article in two parts (with the first part here) written by the President of Eastern Mennonite University where I'm going to seminary. It's a tremendous article, perceptive as well as in-your-face. Among other things, a college president having the brass ones to say that he doesn't care if the institution of EMU exists 20 years from now should grab a little of your attention (maybe the industry of cancer research that often seeks to treat symptoms rather than angle in on the cure for the sake of the perpetuation of the industry could take a lesson here).

President Loren Swartzendruber asks: "Liberal or Conservative?"

"'Are you a conservative or a liberal?' This appears to be a simple, straightforward question, yet my answer is never simple. It is: 'I don't know. I am both, and I am neither. It depends on the issue. It depends on the person or group to which I'm being compared.

I'm a pacifist because that's how I understand the meaning of following Jesus, but that is a very liberal position to some of my friends. I support certain lifestyles and am disheartened by other lifestyles- ones which I believe EMU should actively discourage- so some call me and EMU conservative. If you really want to know what I believe, you'd be safe to read the "Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective" (link here). Not that I agree with every last detail, but I do trust the discernment process of my church body. When I was baptized I committed myself to this: to follow Jesus and to 'give and receive counsel.'

I was surprised when EMU was lauded in a 2006 college guide book, All-American Colleges: Top Schools for Conservatives, Old-Fashioned Liberals, and People of Faith. Many, though not all, of the other 49 colleges in the guide book are 'conservative' in that they have a direct connection to orthodox conservative causes, such as educating and preparing students to serve in the U.S. military. Yet the profile on EMU is largely accurate.

The title of the guide underscores the dilemma that an institution like EMU faces in explaining itself to prospective student, donors, church people, and community members. How do we define ourselves within a cultural context that wants to reduce complex realities to simplistic cliches? Sometimes I receive calls from community folks who seem to know exactly how a Mennonite institution should conduct itself. These calls bemuse me since those of us committed to this expression of the church rarely possess such certainty, despite our heartfelt prayers for guidance.

Since my ordination in 1975, I have preached in more than 230 congregations, most Mennonite, but some other traditions. Frequently I have engaged folks in Christian education conversations and interacted with members and leaders over a meal. Though I am optimistic by nature, I have detected a trend that concerns me: I am troubled by the loss of identity among many who call themselves Anabaptist.

I am not referring to such simplistic identity labels as conservative and liberal. Do these really matter? I meet church members who eagerly embrace one in opposition to the other, as though it is really possible to be consistent across the spectrum, whether theologically or politically. As one of my Anabaptist mentors used to say rather frequently, 'On some issues I am rather liberal...because I take the Bible very seriously. Which is a conservative position.'

I have a deep concern that Anabaptist Mennonites have been derailed theologically by the influence of so-called Christian radio and TV. I grieve that we are increasingly unable to stand up for the Jesus of the New Testament who called us to another way. We are also subject to liberal theology that downplays the significance of Jesus' invitation to salvation.

The problem with drinking from other theological wells is that we are subtly lulled into thinking that all Christians share similar perspectives. Yet all do not read the Bible the same way. Many believers have a 'flat book' view of the Scriptures. The logical result is that Old Testament perspectives are put on the same level as the New Testament. Jesus himself demonstrated a different approach: 'You have heard it has been said...but I say...'

My Anabaptist theological ancestors interpreted the Old Testament through the eyes of Jesus and through the lens of unfolding revelation in the New Testament. Unfortunately, that's a perspective not heard from most speakers in the popular Christian media. Either my Anabaptist forebears were deluded, or they were right. I'm throwing my lot with them. They believed the example and words of Jesus must be our guide, and so do I.

What practical differences does this make? Some years ago I was guest preacher for several days just prior to a U.S. presidential election. One individual told me, in all seriousness, that she would not vote for a particular candidate because he ' would take away all our Bibles.' The same person appeared surprised when I responded that Jimmy Carter may well have been the most 'Christian' president of my lifetime. At least he attended church regularly, openly confessed his faith, and has been a life-long Sunday school teacher.

I wish I could report that her concerns were unusual. I've heard the wild-claims of what might happen 'if so-and-so were elected' all too often. Never mind that I doubt any U.S. political leader would denigrate the Bible, I have to ask the obvious question from a New Testament perspective: 'What difference would that make?' I've always understood that the strength of the church, and the faith-based stances of its believers, are not subject to the 'state.'

What kind of faith is demonstrated if we insist on being legitimized by government? Our friends in Ethiopia saw people flock to the church during a time of prolonged persecution. They didn't need governmental support for the church to flourish, even as they would certainly appreciate, as we do, the freedom to worship in peace."

Oh snap!

2007-03-22T14:22:00.000-04:00

"The New York Daily News is reporting that youthful Giants quarterback Eli Manning got engaged Tuesday night. Eli needed to move fast while there were still women available who hadn't been impregnated by Tom Brady."

From the SI article by Pete McEntegart here.

Oh no you didn't!

A personal intellectual hero...

2007-03-20T02:54:00.000-04:00

Richard Hays is an awesome, awesome guy. A quotation I love from his thought:

"One reason that the world finds the NT’s message of peacemaking and love of enemies incredible is that the church is so massively faithless. On the question of violence, the church is deeply compromised and committed to nationalism, violence, and idolatry. This indictment applies alike to liberation theologies that justify violence against oppressors and to establishment Christianity that continues to play chaplain to the military-industrial complex, citing just war theory and advocating the defense of a particular nation as though that were somehow a Christian value. Only when the church renounces the way of violence will people see what the Gospel means, because then they will see the way of Jesus reenacted in the church."[1]

[1] Hays The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 343.

Apostles Creed in TRUE evolutionary nationalized form

2007-03-19T22:05:00.000-04:00

Since the nation is obviously more important than the church in God's design, I propose a new creed to replace the Apostle's Creed so often affirmed by many of our churches that knuckle under to nationalism.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of the United States,
and giver of the Constitution, the second most heavenly document (though most practically
relevant one for daily life) on earth,
which provides an unparalleled moral code in its original form
that is only properly interpreted by fundamentalist "Christians":

America was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of mercantilism and colonization,
suffered under King George,
shed the shackles of British imperialism,
brought the land and its native inhabitants to their respective knees,
and became the pure city on a hill,
spreading the message of enlightenment and democracy to the uneducated masses,
and is worthy of the sacrifice of my life for its vision and ensuring of present status as top dog.

America has descended into the hands of liberals.
But through an emphasis on proper moral values,
the appointment of proper judges that know the aforementioned values,
and proper legislation that reflects those values,
will recover again.

America will retain its moral and physical position on top of the heap
and continue to sit at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
in continuing objectivity judging the living and the dead.

I believe in the American Spirit,
the holy rite of citizenship,
the message of freedom,
the beauty of materialism and individualism,
the sacrifice of my life for national and cultural goals
and life everlasting in submission to these goals regardless of my commitment to Christ.

Amen.

P.s. Feel free to amend this Creed to your individual nation-state as well...as long as you recognize that subjective creed is subordinate to (and derivative from) the objective American Creed. After all, Jesus came to fragment the world into a series of groupings of those in his church that are committed to the interests of their individual nations first and foremost. America is simply on top of the heap by providence

Poverty is more complex than you think...

2007-03-08T10:11:00.000-05:00

I've been reading Jonathan Kozol's book Amazing Grace: The Lives of Children and the Conscience of a Nation here recently, and I have been blindsided by the daily reality of poverty as well as the complexity of the problem. As a middle-class white male, I often find myself seeking to give easy answers for poverty like "if they worked harder, they wouldn't be poor," and "the system of welfare only perpetuates the cycle of poverty" or some other disconnected theoretical BS. Kozol refuses to allow me to stay in that coolly disconnected state. Here's an excerpt...a real story of poverty that just may wake you up like it has me.

"'If poor people behaved rationally,' says Lawrence Mead, a professor of political science at NYU, ' they would seldom be poor for long in the first place.' Many social scientists today appear to hold this point of view and argue that the largest portion of the suffering poor people undergo has to be blamed upon their own 'behaviors,' a word they tend to pluralize.

Alice Washington was born in 1944 in New York City. She grew up in Harlem and the Bronx and went to segregated public schools, not something of her choosing, nor that of her mother and her father. She finished high school, studied bookkeeping at a secretarial college, and went to work, beginning at 19. When she married, at the age of 25, she had to choose her husband from that segregated 'marriage pool' to which our social scientists sometimes quite icily refer of frequently unemployable black men, some of whom have been involved in drugs or spent some time in prison. From her husband, after many years of what she thought to be monogamous matrimony, she contracted the AIDS virus.

She left her husband shortly after he began to beat her. Cancer of her fallopian tubes was detected at this time, then cancer of her uterus. She had three operations. Too frail to keep on with the second of two jobs that she had held, in all, for nearly 20 years, she was forced to turn for mercy to the City of New York.

In 1983, at the age of 39, she landed with her children in a homeless shelter two blocks from Times Square, an old hotel in which the plumbing did not work and from which she and David and his sister had to carry buckets to a bar across the street in order to get water. After spending close to four years in three shelters in Manhattan, she was moved by the city to the neighborhood where she now lives in the South Bronx. It was at this time that she learned she carried the AIDS virus. Since the time that I met Mrs. Washington, I have spent hundreds of hours talking with her in her kitchen. I have yet to figure out what she has done that was irrational."
(from pages 21-22 of Kozol's book)

Now don't be deceived. In posting this excerpt of reality, I'm not seeking to occupy the opposite extreme of my cool detached classism and racism where every person in poverty is a helpless victim of the system, because that is just as false as saying the poor "just need to work harder." The reality in this mess is a need for both individual and systemic accountability for action. But I did post it for this reason.

The situation is complex, and if we are to speak of the poor and pursue concrete solutions to poverty, we must embrace the complexity, we must hear the stories from across the spectrum, and we must prepare ourselves to seek the truth in the tension erected between the poles of individual and system responsibility.

At this point in history, we have to deal with the reality, in my view, that the system should carry a heavy disproportionate weight of responsibility to provide help for the poverty-stricken, especially because urban poverty is often minority-heavy, and for over 80% of the existence of the United States of America, the purported "land of the free," African-Americans were considered (socially and by law) to be second-class citizens...sub-human. We're fooling ourselves to suggest that the last forty years has erased this disgusting reality.

The power of suggestion and twisted religion.

2007-03-02T18:02:00.000-05:00

I fear for Benny Hinn's soul, and I'm not joking.

Barry Bonds....

2007-02-28T10:22:00.000-05:00

...used to be my favorite player of all time. Used to be.

I've held the view I develop below here for quite awhile now, but the raid on two pharmacies yesterday morning in Florida and Texas for illegal steroid distribution that has already turned up the name of athlete Gary Matthews Jr. as a client has made all this fresh on my mind one again.

Sooooo, I used to respect Barry Bonds.

I even gave him the benefit of the doubt when the accusations of steroids came out in force, precisely because he was such a dominant force in the game before that point. No one, and I mean no one in the game of baseball EVER has been a talented in their raw tools as Barry Bonds. That might be a bit contentious to say, but I think it's true. I mean, for the love, in 1990 (his fourth full season in the majors) the boy hit .301, cranked 33 homers and 114 RBIs, stole 52 bases, won the MVP, AND won his first of EIGHT Gold Gloves in left field. Ridiculous talent there that he was living into in a BIG way.

In 1998, when Sammy Sosa was on his way to 66 homers (probably with the help of steroids) and Mark McGwire hit 70 homers (definitely with the help of steroids) as they "saved baseball", Barry quietly hit .303 with 33 homers and 122 RBIs. How one "quietly" does such a thing is tough to understand, though the obsession with Sosa/McGwire explains a lot, but without a doubt Barry's time out of the spotlight started the downward spiral that we are well aware of today. You could sum what precipitated that spiral in one word really. JEALOUSY. Supplemented by a false charge of the racism of the suits in the MLB offices against Sosa and Bonds and all black athletes everywhere, basically.

Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams quote Bonds in their book Game of Shadows as saying

"They're (MLB) just letting him (McGwire) do it because he's a white boy," (though several short seasons later, Bonds broke his record....hmmm.....). "The pursuit by Sosa, a Latin player from the Dominican Republic, was entertaining but doomed," Bonds declared. As a matter of policy, "they'll never let him win," he said. Link to the quote in full here.

It just so happened that 1999 (physical growth) and 2000 (numerical explosion) marked Bonds' prodigious growth and assault on the record books, with him reaching the pinnacle of achievement in 2001 (73 homers) and 2002 (batting an absurd .370 while shattering the MLB record for on base percentage (.582) that he promptly broke again two years later by getting on base a superhuman 60 % (.609) of the time). And just to quantify the change in Bonds' physique in this time, in his time with the Giants, Bonds grew from a size 42 to a size 52 jersey; from size 10 1/2 to size 13 cleats; and from a size 7 1/8 to size 7 1/4 cap, even though he had taken to shaving his head.

"The changes in his foot and head size," Fainaru-Wada and Williams write, "were of special interest: medical experts said overuse of human growth hormone (HGH) could cause an adult's extremities to begin growing, aping the symptoms of the glandular disorder acromegaly."

All because of JEALOUSY. Because Barry wanted his. All he had to do was wait the home-run-driven media firestorm out (especially since McGwire and Sosa had such steep dropoffs soon thereafter), keep producing like he always did, and he would have been a lock for the greatest five-tool athlete to ever play the game (maybe the best ever all around). But now, today, he has lost all respect in the eyes of fans around the game and worse, now is the model athlete held up as the seedy, disgusting, cheating element of competition instead of one to look up to in all manner of ways.

Sometimes I feel like I want to throw up now, that I ever invested this much and cared this much about an athlete like him (maybe that's a commentary on the nature of our society to exalt certain individuals in importance solely for their athletic prowess or good looks or a couple good movies rather than people of integrity who have worked hard to get where they're at; people who recognize they are looked up to and live into that responsibility). At one time, Bonds was my second-favorite athlete of all time behind (though leagues behind) Cal Ripken Jr, and just in front of Lawrence Taylor (and HE's a big winner too; if you want your kids to smoke crack, then by all means, have them look up to him, or Mike Vick, or Ron Artest, or Jason Grimsley, or Steve Howe). Today, I'm a bigger fan of the Dallas Cowboys than Barry, and for those who know me, that's saying something!

Fainaru-Wada and Williams document now in the afterword to their book added following 2005;

"For those who cared about the game (2005) was a difficult time, as Dodgers radio announcer Vin Scully, the dean of baseball broadcasters, told the Los Angeles Times. Scully had been at the microphone in 1974 when Atlanta's Hank Aaron hit his 715th home run, against the Dodgers, to break Babe Ruth's record. Scully cherished that memory, but he wanted no part of Bonds making history.

"With Aaron, it was a privilege to be there when he did it," Scully said. "With Bonds, no matter what happens now, it will be an awkward moment. That's the best word I can think of now. If I had my druthers, I would rather have that awkward moment happen to somebody else."

Keep shifting blame on others forever, Barry, and you'll die a sad, sad man knowing you have no integrity, cheated on your wife, were a poor example of fatherhood for your children, and carried no awareness of accountability to yourself or the beautiful game of baseball you stained with your decision. Today, you're a pariah, an overbulked joke of a man who used to be one of my heroes. I'm sorry I ever looked up to you. Maybe I can again someday. I hope to, because I'm in the pits now.

Insight into evangelism?

2007-02-25T18:18:00.000-05:00

"I'd look at one of my stonecutters hammering away at the rock, perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet, at the hundred and first blow it would split in two, and I knew it was not the blow that did it, but all that had gone before."

- Jacob August Riis

And no, I'm not talking about evangelism as a series of crippling blows...look at the Riis comment as a metaphor of long-term action and caring, not a direct parallel. :)

On the dangers of blind following...

2007-02-19T13:15:00.002-05:00

So Pat Robertson's a "Christian" leader, huh? I'm glad the church is more and more holding him accountable for his words AND his actions, but if there was any consistent pursuit of accountability, broadcasting stations would refuse to run his shows and/or folks would turn their brains on and quit watching his shows...but that sort of thinking could be applied to TBN as well.

You know what I think? I think those of us who know the religious hucksterism (see Steve Martin's movie Leap of Faith ) being pushed by Pat and the TBN folks should speak out louder and more often about how destructive this sort of "evangelical broadcasting" is to the message of the gospel. I often watch just long enough to either laugh or feel so angry or intensely sad that I want to cry/hit a heavy punching bag, then walk away.

But people watch these guys and ladies and think they're legitimate. Really.

Do I hold incorrect beliefs? I'm sure. Am I willing to be accountable to others for these beliefs? I endeavor to every day. Am I making millions off others in the perpetuation of twisted beliefs? No, and if I did, I'd have to trade in my soul...

Peter King words of wisdom...

2007-02-12T00:15:00.000-05:00

Leave it to a sportswriter to provide one of the most insightful political comments I've seen in awhile...

"There's a fairly significant decision coming in this country in 2008. We in New Jersey and New Mexico and New London and New Wherever have one simple request as you mull over the candidacies of a black man, a white woman and many white men in the coming presidential debate: Treat them as candidates, not black candidates or female candidates or white candidates."

I agree in principle with King's comments, because it's almost suffocating to live in this politically correct society sometimes.

I think it's downright lazy to vote for Hillary solely because she's a woman, and downright lazy to vote for Obama solely because he's black. With that being said, I don't think that flavor of downright lazy is any worse than voting for a candidate as a Christian solely because they're "pro-life" or "anti-gay marriage," as if those are the only moral issues on the table to figure out if a candidate is "really" Christian or not. I hate abortion (because I believe I'm called to value all life from conception to death), but I just may vote for a candidate who's pro-choice but much more consistent with my beliefs across the board: how the gospel's deep respect for life touches on the environment, the poor, war, marriage, etc.

As a result of that thinking, I'm a pretty big fan of Sen. Brownback from Kansas, who's a social conservative (with significant reasons to back up his positions; most Republicans use abortion, etc as election ploys and pay no attention to the issue in their job), is committed to reformation of the twisted aspects of government, and is opposed to the war in Iraq (though this is more likely a one-time thing). I think the guy's got his ducks in a row in a way that George W. couldn't even sniff at. I like Obama, even though I'm not a big fan of his social liberalism; I think he's a breath of fresh air.

p.s. Let's not forget Michael Jesus Archangel and Rev. Edward Allen Buck...legitimate candidates in my book. *cough cough*

With the warning of single-issue laziness being said, I certainly would LIKE to see a woman in the presidential office some time in America, and I would especially like to see a black person in office...given the social struggle they've had to undergo for equality in America (which is supposedly the land of the free but only granted equality under the law for blacks and other full-citizen minorities in 1964). So, while their gender or ethnicity might be a contributing factor among a host of other contributing factors for why I vote for them, I won't vote for them solely b/c they're a woman or a minority. You could apply this thinking to suggest to me that abortion is a more important issue among a host of important issues for you, and I'd be ok with that, but I'd want a conversation on why you think so. There are philosophical reasons behind being pro-life that apply equally to the death penalty, poverty, the environment, and war, but people don't often consider those because their churches aren't equipping them to be more educated voters, they're telling them how to vote. And that's dead wrong, both on the parts of church leadership and those who sit there and do exactly what they tell them without stopping to consider why in the world a responsible Christian should only care about two issues.

So I may vote for Obama, I may vote for Brownback, I may vote for McCain, and I may vote for Al Gore (if he runs). I know I won't vote for Hillary (well, I should qualify that; if it ended up being Hillary vs. Giuliani or Gingrich, I'll have to reconsider a bit), because she's just as flip-floppy as John Kerry was in '04, though I voted for him because the alternative was George Bush (who I'm not sure has ever allowed himself to try to connect the dots between his views on social conservatism [which I like] and how that intersects with big business, the environment, and the demand placed on his life by Christ to love his enemies).

In addition to all this, I need to revisit the discomfort I felt after voting for John Kerry; precisely because I felt the choice in 2004 was between bleh and double bleh. There are very legitimate third (or fourth or fifth) party candidates out there who I think more completely reflect my beliefs than the two political machines we call Democrat and Republican that often churn out candidates that I really don't care for (but feel compelled to choose between because any other vote is a "wasted" vote in our winner-take-all presidential elections). Is it socially irresponsible for me to vote for a candidate I know doesn't have a chance in hell of being elected, or is it the most socially responsible thing I can do to vote for that candidate, because I'm being true to the big picture of what I believe and subverting the system that demands I choose between two "legitimate" candidates? Is that a wasted vote or a maximized vote?

If all of this sounds like gobbledy-gook to you when you're reading it, it may be because it IS gobbledy-gook (I certainly allow for that ever-present possibility), or it may be because you haven't had enough time to grasp the big-picture reasons that drive me to think about politics, the state, and social issues in a certain way. It really boils down to two words for me as to my central concerns: primarily, Jesus. secondarily, church...somewhere way down the priority list, society. This commitment plays out in my thoughts often, and I'll leave it at that for now.

Bleh

2007-02-10T19:13:00.000-05:00

From Time Magazine's Feb 5, 2007 issue.

"The 2008 presidential campaign may show that race, religion, and gender don't matter, but money still talks, and more loudly than ever. In 2003, John Edwards surprised everyone by raking in $7 million in campaign donations in the the first three months of the year. That amount will be like Monopoly money after 2008. Strategists says the two eventual party nominees could well spend up to $500 million each before the general election."

Nine words, folks.

What. in. the. world. is. wrong. with. this. picture?

Evangelicals Behaving Badly...

2007-02-07T23:47:00.000-05:00

Christian Smith has written a tremendous article regarding the misuse of statistics by the church spun a certain way to get people alarmed and off their tushes...

"American evangelicals, who profess to be committed to Truth, are among the worst abusers of simple descriptive statistics, which claim to represent the truth about reality, of any group I have ever seen. At stake in this misuse are evangelicals' own integrity, credibility with outsiders, and effectiveness in the world. It is an issue worth making a fuss over. And so I write..."

Check this article out. It's entirely worth it. Seriously.

Just for the hey of it...

2007-02-06T14:02:00.000-05:00

I've thrown a widget a little further down the right side of my page that's recording the total and rising cost of the conflict in Iraq.

I've inserted it not because I think the economics of the situation provides a compelling argument why the United States should never have invaded Iraq (though in many ways it DOES underscore a raw, quantifiable cost of war), but as one thing among a host of others that George Bush is accountable for.

I mean, you tell me...what's better spent? 350 billion dollars to destroy a country and build it back up to be your lapdog (I guess the U.S. didn't learn from the Iran experiment in the 1970s). Or 350 billion dollars in invest in the infrastructure of your own country, to dedicate towards alternative fuels, to dedicate towards welfare reform, to dedicate toward educational reform, or to dedicate towards health care reform within your own borders.

I pray for George Bush, I do. I'm trying to respect him by not slandering him. So I'm not going to attack his character. But it's clear to me that his time as president will go down in history for an almost complete neglect of domestic issues for the sake of an ill-fated vengeance campaign against another sovereign nation that turns the clock back 70 years on international perception of the United States.

Domestic policy: failure (though there's a little more to discuss here)
Foreign policy : failure (not much wiggle room here)

And even worse, I hope and pray that George Bush really wasn't planning the attack in Iraq before he was even elected and, if so, repents publicly and comprehensively at some point in the future; as a confessing Christian, he is accountable to the church at large and centrally to God. I certainly would not want to stand before the judgment seat as GDub for his actions up to this point in history.

Let's raise a glass to '08 and the hope that Obama and McCain win their party nominations so I have to finally (for once!!!!!) decide between two qualified, principled, candidates of integrity who aren't so dagblasted deaf-in-the-ears when people express alternative approaches and opinions!

Like everything else, this is clearly my subjective opinion...I'd love to talk if you wanna; in person, or here

Further thoughts on femininity (see Anne Frank post)...

2007-01-31T16:15:00.000-05:00

I was putzing around a bit on the net today on a little break time from paper-writing and on the Resurgence blog, I found the thoughts of a certain Rebecca Jones entitled "Does Christianity Squash Women?" I could quibble a bit with her here and there, but she's giving voice to a lot of what I've been feeling recently as I wrestle with this issue. Here's an excerpt from her thoughts:

"In my own experience with women in the thirty years since I graduated from college, I have found that most of them--whether Christian or atheist, single or married, aged twenty or seventy--long for the same things. In their relationships with men, they want faithful fathers, brothers, husbands and sons who love and respect them, rather than mocking, ignoring, or hurting them. They want fun, but meaningful sexual relationships. In their relationships with women, they want honesty, and true sisterhood, as well as older women who can mentor them. They want the satisfaction of bearing and rearing children well. They want a place to call home--not simply an apartment, but an affectionate, safe "sit by the fire" home where they can be themselves without fear and where others can come to receive something from them. They want a sense of significance, of doing something that really counts in the world. Something only they can offer. "

Read the rest here. This is a loooooooong article, but full of nuggets of the good stuff. Gold, I mean. Not Jack's nuggets.

Memories of a life...

2007-01-31T13:46:00.000-05:00

Today marks the 59th anniversary of the death of a great pioneer of non-violence: Mohandas K. Gandhi. And I admire him for several reasons:

1) He had the courage to stand and lay his life on the line for something he believed in. No matter what that might be in someone's life (or how flawed what they believe in might be), investing the whole of one's life in something is admirable in principle.

2) He recognized the use of weaponry to achieve political purposes may win a battle (or series of battles), but in choosing to extinguish other human life to protect one's own, we have already lost the war.

3) This may be the most important to me, because like MLK in America, we have reduced Gandhi to a sugary-sweet nice guy and neglected to pay attention to the fact that both of these men endured great adversity in living for what they stood for. They didn't just pop up and say a little something, only to shrink away or shut up when others disagreed with them. They forcefully shoved the injustice of their present situation in the faces of their societies, and simply. would. not. let. up. in their pursuit of justice. And they both paid the ultimate price for their actions through assassination. Now, I believe MLK's definition of justice was much more far-reaching and comprehensive than Gandhi's, which leads me to my fourth thing I admire about Gandhi.

4) This one may also be the most important to me, because I believe the vision of life given by Jesus to his followers is so comprehensive, so life-altering, so demanding in its scope that it is the highest ethical standard this world has ever seen. And the thing that much of Christianity had become in Gandhi's day (and still is today) was disgusting to him. He famously said,

"It is a first class human tragedy that people of the earth who claim to believe in the message of Jesus, whom they describe as the Prince of Peace, show little of that belief in actual practice."

and

"Do not flatter yourselves with the belief that a mere recital of that celebrated verse in St. John makes a man a Christian."

Even though Gandhi is ultimately accountable for his lifestyle and who or what belief system he submitted himself to, I think his point stands as a necessary reminder. It should be appalling to Christians that one who is not a follower of Jesus could live in such a heroic fashion while we often claim to "believe" and turn around and jump with both feet into the systems of capitalism, materialism, self-preservation, and nationalism as if they were the best definition of reality offered to us...neglecting to see those the systems leave wounded and broken in their wake.

I agree with Gandhi. We're a pretty gutless bunch, that if you scratched a little below our surface platitudes, smiles, and fun little quotes of Scripture verses; you wouldn't find much. And I include myself in that reality too.

I'm starting to think that the life we were called to as Christians demands heroism every single day of the week in ways that our secular friends (with the exception of the Gandhis of the world) couldn't sniff at. And if we settle for less than this full development of our character and being in the image of Christ, we are failing the world and spitting in the face of God.

A thought or two...

2007-01-25T23:08:00.000-05:00

Each time a man stands up for an ideal,
or acts to improve the lot of others,
or strikes out against injustice,
he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope,
and crossing each other from a million
different centers of energy and daring,
those ripples build a current which can sweep down
the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.
- rfk

I like this quote...as long as there's serious thinking done about the ideal, what it means to "improve the lot of others," what is truly "injustice," "oppression," and "resistance."

I'm knee-deep in Alasdair MacIntyre right now, who through offering a disquieting suggestion of the state of morality (the fact that you're probably thinking about the Religious Right or some Bible-beating fundamentalist has something to say about the fall of the pursuit of morality), as well as suggesting a compelling alternative, is driving me to realize I have much to unlearn and relearn.

Probably most centrally the product of my society that the center of meaning in my life is ME...GLORIOUS ME. This is beyond untrue. I don't want to hear it, but the world doesn't revolve around the perpetuation of my life, my opinions, my desires, and my accomplishments. I must become smaller. My ego must shrink. My pride must die.

Richard Foster's doing the best he can to knock me down a notch too. I've walked around telling people Celebration of Discipline "ruined me in the best way possible" far too much now for me not to seek a systematic commitment to applying these disciplines to my life. As Foster says, "With discipline comes freedom."

I think (emphasis on "I think" because I often believe I have grasped something, only to fall down flat on my face time and time again with the same issue that I "thought' I had "grasped" or "beaten" or "moved beyond") I'm finally starting to get my grimy fingers around the truth that my life has been lived at a very surface level and will remain there if I'm not willing to make the sacrifices to go deeper. This has many implications for my life. I'm a big fan of what God is doing in my life, and this growing hunger to go deeper in that life-defining area. I'm a big fan of some sections of my life opening up into greater clarity: my relationship with Bethany, a growing calling and responsibility in my local church family, my role in the world, a bigger and more expansive definition of love (the range from tough discipline to scandalous mercy), things like that.

We'll see how things pan out. I'm workin' hard at this life, and figuring out the role I'm to play in this unfolding drama of humanity that's been taking place for a long time; the world existed before me and will exist after. I CAN affect the world for good; not mainly through my own effort, but through participation and citizenship in God's kingdom. I ALSO CAN affect the world in a negative manner; I did it in college on a consistent basis...it's hopefully less consistent now.

Just a couple thoughts.

Anne Frank's perspective on femininity (did I spell that right?)

2007-01-25T19:54:00.000-05:00

"One of the many question that have often bothered me is why women have been, and still are, thought to be so inferior to men. It's easy to say it's unfair, but that's not enough for me; I'd really like to know the reason for this great injustice!

Men presumably dominated women from the very beginning because of their greater physical strength; it's men who earn a living, beget children, and do as they please...until recently, women silently went along with this, which was stupid, since the longer it's kept up, the more deeply entrenched it becomes. Fortunately, education, work and progress have opened women's eyes. In many countries they've been granted equal rights; many women...now realize how wrong it was to tolerate this state of affairs for so long. Modern women want the right to be completely independent!

But that's not all. Women should be respected as well! Generally speaking, men are held in great esteem in all parts of the world, so why shouldn't women have their share? Soldiers and war heroes are honored and commemorated, explorers are granted immortal fame, martyrs are revered, but how many people look upon women too as soldiers?

In the book Men Against Death I was greatly struck by the fact that in childbirth alone, women commonly suffer more pain, illness, and misery than any war hero ever does. And what's her reward for enduring all that pain? She gets pushed aside when she's disfigured by birth, her children soon leave, her beauty is gone. Women , who struggle and suffer pain to ensure the continuation of the human race, make much tougher and more courageous soldiers than all those big-mouthed freedom-fighting heroes put together!

I don't mean to imply that women should stop having children; on the contrary, nature intended them to, and that's the way it should be. What I condemn are our system of values and the men who don't acknowledge how great, difficult, but ultimately beautiful women's share in society is...

I believe that in the course of the next century the notion that it's a woman's duty to have children will change and make way for the respect and admiration of all women, who bear their burdens without complaint or a lot of pompous words!"

I had a conversation with Bethany the other day about this very thing Anne Frank is talking about, and Bethany (I hope she's ok with me sharing this) shared her great frustration with one of the results of the modern feminist movement, and it is this: in the push for equality, the feminist movement in many ways has become reactionary instead of balanced justice-seeking. Instead of seeking to be recognized for their femininity that is in many ways very different from masculinity, many females have sought to be like men: play the same sports, do the same jobs...and that's not necessarily bad...that is, until some of the more traditional aspects of femininity are devalued and even forgotten in the pursuit of equality.

Simple example: Two women talking in a supermarket...move beyond the pleasantries and into deeper questions of identity.
One asks the other, "So what do you do?"
The other proceeds to talk about her successful career in marketing, her six-figure income, etc, then asks back, "What do you do?"
The first women answers, "I'm a homemaker with two children."

What do you think would be the typical response of the marketer female, and what might that say about our society's lack of focus on diversity in equality?

Either way, Anne Frank's words seem to be accurate and necessary today. In the pursuit of equality for women, we should not twist the quest into one of uniformity...though it often becomes a push for the latter.

this is RICH!

2007-01-22T22:12:00.000-05:00

I don't normally read Steve Rushin's column in SI because his writing style annoys and frustrates me. I don't really know why. He's probably a great guy. I just don't like his writing. I'm allowed to NOT read his column and still care about him, right? Anyways, in an article talking about a guy who's midway through a plan to run 52 marathons in 52 weeks in the October 2, 2006 SI, Steve says this:

"(Dane Rauschenberg) is just one more varietal in marathoning's can of mixed nuts. Ultra-marathon legend Dean Karnazes is one-third of the way through his 50 runs of marathon distance in 50 states over 50 consecutive days. Karnazes has been known, during exceptionally long runs, to eat a pizza and even to fall asleep, a feat few elite athletes have attained in competition, unless you count the Kansas City Royals."

Oh, now that one made my stomach knot up I laughed so hard!! And maybe I'm the only one that got cracked between the eyes by that quip, but it was worth it....ohhhh....so funny.

Good stuff from the Maestro...Mr. John Piper

2007-01-20T14:05:00.000-05:00

"Christians have access to God’s law in a more clear and authoritative way in the Bible, and we should shape our political convictions and actions by what we read there.

I will mention only two ways that the scriptures shape our involvement in politics.

First, we should use the Bible to guide us in what behaviors we seek to put into law. I would say it like this: Behaviors revealed in Scripture as essential to the common good—essential to the survival of a society—should be aggressively commended by Christians for enactment as law by every means of persuasion possible—with both biblical arguments and natural arguments.

One example. This would be true, I believe, for the present controversy over the nature of marriage and whether it can be redefined as a relationship between two men or two women. Marriage between a man and a woman is so fundamental to the survival of society that Christians should work for its legal protection.

If someone says that we are legislating our morality we should respond: Laws protecting marriage are in the same category with laws protecting life and property and contracts. But no one complains that the prohibition of murder and stealing and perjury is the legislation of morality. So no one should complain that the protection of marriage is the legislation of morality. Marriage between a man and a woman is a moral and natural reality so profoundly woven into fabric of human life and society that to undo it will probably be the undoing of our nation.

Other examples could be given. There are behaviors that destroy children. We call it abortion. There are behaviors that destroy the environment. And Christians should make a case from Scripture that God means for us not to burn the house down that he gave us to live in..."

A crushing, yet liberating enlightenment (paradox, anyone?)

2007-01-20T11:47:00.000-05:00

John Howard Yoder's book The Politics of Jesus is breaking me. Shredding me. There are times in reading where I nod along with what he saying, there are times where I feel myself about to fall apart in a mess of tears and conviction, there are times I don't understand what the crap he's saying because he drops ridiculous vocabulary, there are times I'm angry because he's Biblically and consistently showing me that I hold many of my views in opposition to God's expectations for how I would view and interact with others, and there are times my jaw drops because what he's suggesting is so revolutionary, so paradigm-shattering, that if Christians grasped it and lived by it, our witness in the world would be transformed.

In other words, when the world thought of "Christian", they wouldn't think "homophobic and judgmental," they'd think "radical love and commitment to their God."

Politics of Jesus is breathtaking in its scope, and I'm only now beginning to grasp it after reading large parts over a year ago. I cannot claim ignorance or justify my inaction in so many areas of my life.

I'm not just called to care about my friends and enemies. I'm called to actively give my life for them.

I'm not just called to be aware of God's being and expectations for my life. I'm called to stand in awe of Him and quake in his Presence, giving deep respect to Him as I recognize I am creation and He is creator.

I'm not just called to give intellectual assent to what God has done (and is doing). I'm called to line up my life in its entirety: intellect, emotions, thoughts, actions, and speech with a commitment to being transformed into the image of Christ.

My first and primary allegiance is not to liberalism or conservatism or democracy or moralism or judgmentalism: it's to a King and a Kingdom. Much thanks to Derek Webb for continuing to radically shape my thoughts as well.

In-shape?

2007-01-20T00:11:00.000-05:00

"The Padres and David Wells have agreed in principle on a one-year deal, pending a physical exam, club general manager Kevin Towers said on Friday.

The contract is for $3 million guaranteed with incentives that can add another $4 million. He'll earn $1 million based on staying healthy, and he'll make about $176,500 per start from starts 11-27.

"I think this gives us a rotation that stacks up with any in our division and our league," Towers said. "When I saw Boomer on Thursday, he looked like he was in good shape -- and more than that, I think he really wants to pitch and contribute."

From an article on mlb.com here.

Are you kidding me? This guy in "good shape"?

This is sad...

2007-01-18T12:03:00.000-05:00

When David Beckham visited Nelson Mandela some years ago, a British newspaper covered the summit in this fashion:

"One is an icon of his generation, adored by millions across the globe, who has brought hope to his nation where once there was despair. The other is Nelson Mandela."

From Frank Deford's SI article here.

In the words of Josh Brown, "that's a tad bit on the convicting side"

2007-01-04T10:44:00.000-05:00

"I am certain that many frustrations pastors feel come from a lack of discipline. Not only can regular devotional life and serious Bible study easily go by the wayside, but days can be frittered away fiddling on the insignificant and the little nothings. Without a pattern and discipline of meditation and prayer, study, sermon preparation, visitation, and relaxation the minister will accomplish little and become shallow and sluggish."
- John Drescher.

Maybe this quote means little to you after reading it, sort of light and airy, fluffy and meaningless like a vast majority of Ralph Waldo Emerson's flaky quote-writing (Hitch your wagon to a star...). But this quote carries meaning for me because this simple, humble man came to my seminary last year and through a simple, humble message tore me from limb to limb inside. I promise I'm not exaggerating this. His 45 minutes in my life was the most hard 45 minutes I've ever experienced.

Why? He loved God. He knew God. His presence that day was not unlike Gandalf in the beginning of the Fellowship of the Ring, when he had to use that shadow trick with the booming voice to get Bilbo to give up the ring...but much less scary. There are very few people I've had the benefit of being exposed to in my life who have carried the presence Drescher carried. A presence cultivated through simple, pure (as pure as possible) commitment to Jesus. Not complex at all, but most folks don't have the stones to discipline their lives to structure them around the pursuit of God consistently. I'd put myself in that category at this point. Time will tell if I emerge to embrace and pursue this discipline.

Time will tell.

Fun, Intellectually Stimulating Ways to put off work...

2006-12-30T16:17:00.000-05:00

1. Read Ariah Fine's blog.

2. Find some parallel thoughts to some disquieting thoughts you've had recently (that make friends shake their heads and tell you to shut it).

3. Share your own disquieting thoughts on your blog...

It is my contention that the American system of capitalism, while it is the most radically profitable system of economics this world carries at this present moment, it also is the most radically inequitable system of economics this world has ever seen, short of straight despotic tyranny. I'll simplify it down to one thought, because any attempt to make a sweeping comment about this would drain too much brain energy from my sermon-writing right now and would probably ramble like...someone who rambles a lot.

Capitalism is driven primarily by the profit motive. Thus, companies are judged to be successful or unsuccessful ultimately by their ability to make lots of bucks. In the process of the pursuit of this profit, corporations act like greedy individuals in this profit maximization pursuit, not caring about the impact of their actions on the third-parties that aren't directly involved in the company/client business.

As a result, we have situations like East St. Louis (drawn out most powerfully by Jonathan Kozol in his book Savage Inequalities...which I highly recommend despite some big-time biased investigation on Kozol's part), and the mercury-infested waters of the South River in Waynesboro 15 minutes away from me thanks to DuPont, etc etc.

Basically, in a vacuum, companies don't give a rip about the ripple-effect of their actions (called externalities) if their main pursuit is the profit motive. Even principled companies find themselves pushed into this rat race of pursuit of profit if they proceed uncritically. As a result, the people in the economic system apply the same thinking to their lifestyles (most food, staple items for the least money to maximize their money, etc etc). Hence, Wal-Mart.

And in all this process, we could assume that capitalism is the best we've got. I say the church is a model society that tells capitalism to take its pursuit of profit (and the earth it chews up and spits out when its done with it) and shove it where the sun don't shine. I say the church is meant to be a socialist system where the lives of individuals are NOT forgotten for the sake of the affluence of the whole. But maybe I'm stupid. You read the first five chapters of Acts and tell me what YOU see. You know, I just don't think it's possible as a human in our limited vision to suggest we love the whole and act for the health of the whole by ignoring or sweeping under the rug those who the system leaves behind.

I'm tired of this thinking in my life, and I will fight it. And this is longer than a short statement, but oh well.

4. a link to Ariah's disquieting thoughts.

p.s. I just saw Ariah's widget that suggests Savage Inequalities on his sidebar. Cool coincidence...he didn't have that book up last I looked.

Response to Lewis on the backburner...sermon on the front

2006-12-23T13:27:00.000-05:00

I'm (supposed to be) working on my sermon today...and I am. I'd like to spend some time going deeper with C.S. Lewis' stuff from a couple days ago for my own therapeutic interests, but I gotta hammer this sermon finishing up the three week journey through Haggai I've been walking with my church.

I did have time today, though, in a break, to read an interesting (challenging) article from a fellow named Bob Fisher. Have a look-see. Compelling stuff. It's all about Best Buy restoring humanity to business practices (in what is largely an impersonal and cold environment), and what that can look like in the church (that is in many ways more profoundly influenced by capitalism than the gospel)

"A ROSE by any other Name"

Article here.

Flashback to a little over a month ago...

2006-12-19T23:49:00.001-05:00

Let this be an example of hyper-obsession with a certain hobby. The funniest example is at the end of this video. You'll see what I mean. The flashback title refers to what my friends and I saw upon emerging around 9 at night from a restaurant to find a guy hanging out in a dark alleyway practicing his choreographed moves with his green and blue ridiculously-realistic-looking-and-sounding light sabers. Upon finding an audience in us, he proceeded to stop, step to the side, and pick up a more longish object, and light that baby up. That's right. Darth Maul. I was speechless, and didn't know whether to stand in awe at his commitment as he danced and spun with that saber or cry at the amount of time he had poured into that dance.

Get this video and more at MySpace.com
I guess I could use this time to make fun of my friend John Daubert, who heard the "Halo" movie was coming out sometime, and proceeded to scheme about what costumes he and Neil and Fong would wear to the movie, eventually deciding that they would come as a red guy and a blue guy, with the third one being the "flag" that they tried to capture from one another. Yes, John Daubert, Neil Thorne, and Dan Fong. Please make fun of them to their faces.

Ariah's good point...

2006-12-19T13:50:00.000-05:00

"Missions Cruise an Oxymoron?"

"...It’s also disappointing to see all the musician’s and speakers willing to join in this disgusting display of privilege. Starting at $695 per person, I wonder if anyone is going to be raising support for this mission trip from their church."

Rest of Ariah's post here.

Thoughts from a big fan of the concept here.

The "Vision" of Praisefest Ministries for this idea:

Vision

The vision of PraiseFest Ministries is quite extensive. It all revolves around reaching people for Christ. We seek to bring Christians of all denominations, races, and various backgrounds with one purpose. That is to reach people for Christ. We plan to do this through outreach crusades all over the United States and abroad and through efforts like the Cruise with a Cause. This may even involve multiple mission cruises at some point.

We would like to be able to host 10 crusades per year plus the Mission Cruise. That would be one crusade per month, excluding December and the month of the cruise. To do this, we would need to operate by raising at least $2 million dollars per year. This would enable us to offer a mission cruise at reasonable prices and then to take 10 two night crusades to areas all over the United States . We actually go into a community and invest a minimum of $100,000 into a two night crusade outreach effort. For information, please click PRAISEFEST CRUSADES. It seems like a lot, but we are believing God for this. Again, all money donated goes straight to reaching people for Christ."

My thoughts.

I have a major problem with this statement: "More than 1700 people saved through the efforts of the inaugural cruise with a cause." And this one "Thousands of people saw God face-to-face as a result from the mission opportunity they provided. Many souls were won for Christ and those who already were part of the family of God grew closer to the Maker during the week."

Why? One, for the reason Ariah mentions in his post. You're paying $695 dollars to listen to Josh McDowell, Kutless, hand out some flyers about Jesus, and give toys to people that come to listen to a crusade...and you're calling that mission!??!! This is a major problem on the scale of Bruce Wilkinson's Dream for Africa that's handled well here. One of my housemates was a missionary working with orphans in Swaziland who said Wilkinson's "Dream" was putrid, culturally insensitive, and had the long-term effect of numbing citizens of Swaziland to Western missionary efforts.

My problem stated quite simply is this: Missions efforts that define their successes by sheer numbers of folks who "come forward" at an event to be "saved" are inadequate and ultimately skewing the message of the gospel. I like that Billy Graham integrated a strong local effort over time to connect those who came forward to "make a decision" with local churches...and this "PraiseFest" organization seems to be doing this in evangelistic efforts in the U.S. But if the gospel is narrowly defined as several verses from Romans and "souls saved" through said message, we are dealing with a terribly inadequate understanding of the gospel.

A simple suggestion for PraiseFest ministries for your whole "Cruise with a Cause" crusade. Link up with a cut-rate airline organization to shuttle your folks down to the Bahamas instead of a coddling cruise down and back. Link up with local Christian organizations working to solve the problems of homelessness and poverty on a grassroots level in the Bahamas, and organize and push seminars for your participants where they get a chance to hear the reality of missions on a daily basis there. Plug your people in with what these missions are doing. And maybe throw a concert or ten where you share what you see Christ doing in the world and celebrate. Do this for ten years. Gain the trust of the populace. And once you've gained their trust, work to spread the message of Christ through the local contacts who are there...listening to their input on what is most effective over the long-haul for the spread of the gospel in the Bahamas and trusting their judgment.

(Ex. of a lack of cultural sensitivity from the website: "My group was given the assignment of canvassing the lower income areas of Grand Island. We walked from house to house, inviting residents to the crusade, passing out flyers, and telling them about Jesus. Each Bahamian met us with a smile and a few even sang songs for us. We talked about where we were from and why we were there, all while being received with an incredible spirit of hospitality.")

And keep this in mind:
The presentation of the gospel will deeply affect the concept of what means to be a Christian more than you will ever know.

Now think: how does a $700 cruise, listening to Sting, handing out flyers and talking about Jesus without taking time to understand what makes Bahamians tick, and pushing for "decisions" at a concert affect the concept of missions you build in the heads of those who participate?

This "missions" effort is typical these days of the perpetuation of the separation of the importance of the "soul" from the daily physical existence of humanity.

It is INCOHERENT (in my flawed opinion) to try to separate one's soul from their embodied existence today. This ridiculous emphasis on "souls" comes almost directly from the apocalyptic evangelistic message of D.L. Moody, who said,

"I look on this world as a wrecked vessel. God has given me a lifeboat, and said to me, "Moody, save all you can." God will come in judgment and burn up this world, but the children of God don't belong to this world; they are in it but not of it, like a ship on the water. This world is getting darker and darker; its ruin is getting nearer and nearer. If you have any friends on this wreck unsaved, you had better lose no time in getting them off."

Essentially what Moody is doing is giving a giant "F you" to the world and making sure people are "saved" from this darkening, nasty, sinful world. So let's all sit on our hands after we're saved, because there's no use in the gospel affecting anything else in this sinking ship. Let's all wait for the sweet by and by.

Dead. Freaking. Wrong. Moody. Deal with all of what Jesus says.

Rant. Over.

C.S. Lewis suggests...

2006-12-18T14:08:00.000-05:00

"Not many years ago when I was an atheist, if anyone had asked me, 'Why do you not believe in God?' my reply would've looked something like this:

'Look at the universe we live in. By far the greatest part of it consists of empty space, completely dark and unimaginably cold. The bodies which move in this space are so few and so small in comparison with the space itself that even if every one of them were known to be crowded as full as it could hold with perfectly happy creatures, it would still be difficult to believe that life and happiness were more than a byproduct to the power that made the universe. As it is, however, the scientists think it likely that very few of the suns of space- perhaps none of them except our own- have any planets; and in our own system it is improbable that any planet except the Earth sustains life.

And Earth herself existed without life for millions of years and may exist for millions more when life has left her. And what is it like while it lasts? It is so arranged that all the forms of it can live only by preying upon one another. In the lower forms this process entails only death, but in the higher there appears a new quality called consciousness which enables it to be attended with pain. The creatures cause pain by being born, and live by inflicting pain, and in pain they mostly die. In the most complex of all the creatures, Man, yet another quality appears, which we call reason, whereby he is enabled to foresee his own pain which henceforth is preceded with acute mental suffering, and to foresee his own death while keenly desiring permanence. It also enables men by a hundred ingenious contrivances to inflict a good deal more pain than they otherwise could have done on one another and on the irrational creatures. This power they have exploited to the full. Their history is largely a record of crime, war, disease, and terror, with just sufficient happiness interposed to give them, while it lasts, an agonized apprehension of losing it, and, when it is lost, the poignant misery of remembering.

Every now and then they improve their condition a little and what we call a civilization appears. But all civilizations pass away and, even while they remain, inflict peculiar sufferings of their own probably sufficient to outweigh what alleviations they might have brought to the normal pains of man. That our own civilization has done so, no one will dispute; that it will pass away like its predecessors is surely probable. Even if it should not, what then? The race is doomed. Every race that comes into being in any part of the universe is doomed; for the universe, they tell us, is running down, and will sometime be a uniform infinity of homogeneous matter at a low temperature. All stories will come to nothing: all life will turn out in the end to have been a transitory and senseless contortion upon the idiotic face of infinite matter." (The Problem of Pain)

It might be a temptation to write these comments off as the thoughtless beliefs of a cynic, but I don't think an honest look at this approach to life allows that conclusion. And while Lewis couches these thoughts in being the approach he carried when he was an atheist, I'd suggest they're immediately relevant for spurring all of us (whether Christian, atheist, Buddhist, or Muslim) on to deeper thinking about our existence and the effect of our lives on each other and this world we coexist in...some of his comments strike me as pure, unadulterated truth; not just the rambling thoughts of an uncritical thinker.

The quote, I think, will serve a the genesis (the muse, if you will), of some of my thoughts in the coming days. Some possible themes...

Entropy, Depth of definition of love, purpose, remembering, death...

Awesome off-the-cuff poem...

2006-12-14T23:50:00.000-05:00

...by my friend Matt Murphy. Seriously.

Her Sullied Name

Her sullied name is sex,
And to see her best, I suggest
You ask her to please undress.
You see, it seems we've clothed her
In disrespect.

Give it up for MEEEEE!!!!

2006-12-12T11:24:00.000-05:00

This is Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, and I have three things to say about these videos before you watch them:
1) If this guy was the CEO of my company, I'd either ridiculously love working for the company (because my CEO doesn't have to "keep up appearances") or be incredibly freaked out. Maybe both. I think I'd err more on the ridiculously love side (you'll see what I mean with the pit stains in the second video), if the company wasn't Microsoft, a modern-day example of the continual need for anti-trust watchdog organizations.
2) He reminds me of the youth pastor in the movie Saved!, which was a much more incisive criticism of the institution of Christianity than many would be willing to admit. (one great guy whose blog I read said only partly tongue in cheek "If I hadn't seen the Microsoft logo, I'd have sworn this guy was a worship leader *hehe*), and
3) He dances like every member of my family (including me); it is clear he is white and has zero (maybe negative) rhythm

Here it is in all its glory...as well as a remixed version that includes some of his other work (and the sweet pitstains) you simply MUST see. Oh, how I love Youtube.

Jesus is my boyfriend

2006-12-11T09:31:00.000-05:00

I just read an article that jogged my memory of a conversation I had with one of my good friends the other day centered on the phrase above. I not only think the phrase carries a dripping, overly emotional and sentimental Francine Rivers or Danielle Steele feel to it, I personally am repelled as a heterosexual guy by its connotations. And though my friend disagreed with me on this point, I think the reality that the church is the "bride of Christ" should only be employed in speaking of the church as a whole, not me as an individual. At any rate, I don't want to comment too much on this article, but it's the first real solid, even-handed look I've seen at the emotionally-charged, erotic relationship with Jesus stuff. It's not like this is new (see: Teresa of Avila), but it is rapidly gaining steam in the more conservative, Max Lucado-addicted crowd...and some of the examples the author of the article highlights seriously made my jaw drop to the ground.

There are two main dangerous effects (in my mind) of this overly sentimentalized emotional love towards our relationship with Jesus if engaged in uncritically:

1) It reduces Jesus to a subjective "friend" (buddy Jesus) without the equally true reality that he is Lord of the Universe. Jesus is not just some smarmy "I looooooove you" concept without serious expectations for our lives that demand we subordinate his friend status to his Lordship status. A simple look at what Jesus represents on the white horse in Revelation (as well as a couple conversations with Pharisees or the times he dresses down his disciples) wouldn't really fly in a Danielle Steele novel. Instead of asking "What is Jesus to YOU?" I think we should ask "Do we carry an understanding of Jesus that reveals ALL of who he was and is?" (because I'm accountable for the picture of Jesus I portray through my thoughts and actions). That way, we can see that Jesus not only is merciful and willing to help when we screw up, but also has eyes that flash with his commitment to righteousness and expectations for his followers. One without the other could lead to some twisted conclusions about Jesus.

2) Focusing on our emotional "feelings" of love towards Jesus without integrating other elements of love (consistency, commitment no matter what, trust, sticking it out through the hard times as well as the good) can create a situation where a girl (or guy I guess) can be terribly confused and feel terribly unloved when the highly charged emotions aren't there. Or, any challenge to their lives and their relationship with God becomes a personal attack on their private relationship with Jesus; and they reject out of hand anything that might ask of them commitment in the midst of a hard situation.

Just a couple thoughts. Here's the beginning of the article.

Dating Jesus: When 'lover of my soul' language goes too far. Agnieszka Tennant

"God loved the world with an extravagant tenderness. He spun into our genes a strand of divine DNA. Imago dei, this God with us—it's an astonishing intimacy..."

Read the rest of the article here.

John Piper is a good man.

2006-12-09T10:06:00.001-05:00

And I highly respect him as a leader and a committed disciple of Jesus. And agree with him much of the time (much does not mean all). And this happens to be one of those times. He's written a good article on the Islam/Christian/Muslim conversation that also digs deeper into his disagreement with NT Wright (another man I deeply respect) on the New Perspective on Paul (NPP). You'll have to read the article to understand what he's saying, because I'd like to simply post the link to the article, and if you have a comment or opinion, just post one and we can talk.

I think the article is even-handed and clear. I especially like the yearbook analogy.

Jesus, Islam, Pharisees, and the New Perspective on Paul.

Truth. Speaking. Is. Unpopular.

2006-12-08T20:09:00.000-05:00

Excerpt from video below in this post, "One of the things that 's always perturbed me...as we come to celebrate the life and living of Martin Luther King Jr, one of the things we can say with alarm since the legalization of the holiday is that Dr King has been reduced to the syrupy sweet Hallmark Card where he is no longer prophetic and he no longer speaks to the nation and he no longer causes us to speak to the nation in ways that shake the foundation of this nation's immorality..."

All my friends who are not Christfollowers do not need to listen to the following flash video. Feel free, but this message is mainly a convicting reminder that those of us who dare to claim that we are disciples of Jesus are expected to be peacemakers.

Peacemakers.

And that's not peacemaking as defined by Nathan Myers, or Jane Doe, or whoever else. It's peacemaking as defined by Jesus.

What was his example? What did his life scream to us about how to confront evil as a faithful disciple? How did his disciples live this out?

If you are a Christfollower, you and I don't have a choice with whether we "want" to be a peacemakers or not. We don't. Oh, we justify it...we say this and that....define peacemaking like this or that...in short, interpret peacemaking the way we do much of the Bible...seize onto the "For I know the plans I have for you" and "fearfully and wonderfully made" and "I call you my friends" passages while ignoring the "love your enemies" and "those who seek to protect their life will lose it" and "he was faithful to the point of the death, even death on a cross" and "for our battle is NOT against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities" passages because they challenge us too much.

As I watched this simple little flash from a simple speech, I was deeply convicted and tears welled up in my eyes as I thought about how often I shrink back from clear statements on truth when I'm around my fellow Christfollowers in church because I'm afraid they'll leave or reject me or hate me for that position. My friends that don't know Christ are begging to see me live like I love them and will give my life, my finances, my energy, and my prayers for them no matter what...they're CRYING out! And I'm often a shuddering, emasculated Christian who's ok with false unity in church in the name of comfort and "family" and all the easy Scripture; and I say I don't, but I really DO want you to look like me, dress like me, like the same things I like, hate the same things I hate...or at least PRETEND you do so our relationship doesn't challenge me. I'd rather not be called to take most of what I've learned in my life and unlearn it through pain and struggle and cyclical addictions to various things. I'd rather be comfortably numb in my self-centeredness, thank you very much.

But, MLK, for all his struggles, was a man who spoke truth...he would not let us sit in our seats and just nod along and afterwards say, "Good speech. Good delivery. Your voice intonation was tremendous." *pat on the back* "See you next week, Marty." Wouldn't let us do it. He chose to say what he said and live like he did and give himself like he did. He knew his life was in danger, and he wasn't afraid to confront the status quo and whoever stood to continue reaping the rewards from it. And for that, I am grateful. Because the status quo was and is continuing to rip us apart as humanity.

"Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies - or else? The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation...He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it. " -MLK Jr.

I'm tired of cooperating. I'm tired of my smarmy proof-text-quoting-Scripture-life that exists because I'm not disciplined enough to grow beyond it and don't have the stones to challenge my friends and church family and neighbors to take that step with me. But still I settle for recycling the same verses, saying the same prayers, and talking about the same issues I did a week ago...all the while, I'm spinning my tires and going nowhere! I'm TIRED of that life. I want MORE. There has to be MORE than where I am now. And we are now. And I don't really care that the beginning of this video has a strong message about Bush. Watch it all the way through. Give it a fair shake. Sit back and think a little about what it means to follow Jesus the way he told us to...no matter what.

And challenge me. Forgive me. Let me rant like this from time to time. Help me to love more, give more, forgive more, expect more, pursue more.

And if I'm going to hold the leaders of the United States to a high standard of truth-telling as I am by endorsing this flash video, I sure as heck better be pursuing it myself, or I'm a flat hypocrite.

Click on play, lower left corner.
http://www.djpauledge.com/wewillnotbesilenced/#

ht on video: Ariah

A couple thoughts on individualism and governance.

2006-12-07T08:19:00.000-05:00

Two friends and I have had a healthy conversation that I've been thinking about more recently. Their names are Matt and Paul, and I continue to deeply appreciate their perspectives on life...and that appreciation leads to good conversations sometimes over our similar and different perspectives on life. Penny for your time (and responses, if you so wish). Matt's the guy on the left, and Paul on the right.

The link to the original place of conversation (Matt's Myspace blog) is here. It may be a bit easier to follow there.

Matt originally made a suggestion that sparked all this, saying

"This is an offshoot of thoughts inspired by a sermon (his pastor) Kevin preached on the movie Crash, which has left me devestated and yet determined. You should listen to it. It's more than racism, and one of the parts that affected me most was his discourse and slight criticism of his own struggles with prejudice and especially most Americans' prejudices against foreigners.

It's been since about forever since altruism gained more Cash-Flow than greed. It's been about forever since the whole United States Knew the meaning of Philanthropy and how it feels to be part of the solution, not the problem; I'm not sold on the American Dream. Now, the media and government work together to make you feel worse and more afraid; and more afraid and more afraid, and more insistent on American Policies and Politics in the living rooms of our "enemies.." or so they're telling me. Guilt. Shame. The fuel that feeds political gain, but they're only the ethanol to the gasoline that is fear - without they're protection we're bound for destruction, but I'm not convinced that most of these enemies have a problem with me so much as my country and the coroporate greed it seems to feed with the blessings of the media and pork-belly policy. So we torture detainees in GitMo and we withhold love from border crossers: failing to see that's not our mission, which is to love God and love people. Just because I wear a cross does not mean I ride the elephant, or the donkey for that matter. Supporting policies does not mean withholding love and when you support policies, make sure they don't inherently prevent love, and make sure not to give away your only hope. Make sure the things you get upset about are worth it and make sure you don't become a machine, a wheel in the machine, or eventually you'll break down. He'll still pick you up though."

I originally responded with,

"Has the whole United States ever grasped the concepts of altruism, philanthropy, and how to be part of the solution rather than the problem?

Donald Miller said it best, I think, when talking about a conversation with his atheist friend Laura.
"One day Laura brought up an odd topic: racism in the history of the church. She had moved to Portland from Georgia where, though she is an atheist, she told me she witnessed, within a church, the sort of racial discrimination most of us thought ended fifty years ago. She asked me very seriously what I thought about the problem of racism in America and whether the church had been a harbor for that sort of hatred...

I told her how frustrating it is to be a Christian in America, and how frustrated I am with not only the church's failures concerning human rights, but also my personal failure to contribute to the solution. I wondered out loud, though, if there was a bigger issue, and I mistakenly made the callous comment that racism might be a minor problem compared to bigger trouble we have to deal with.

'Racism, not an issue?!' she questioned very sternly.
"Well, not that it's not an issue, only that it is a minor issue.'
'How can you say that?' She sat back restlessly in her chair. 'Don, that is an enormous problem.'
I was doing a lot of backpedaling at first, but then I began to explain what I mean. 'Yeah, I understand it is a terrible and painful problem, but in light of the whole picture, racism is a signal of something greater. There is a larger problem here than tension between ethnic groups.'

'Unpack that statement,' Laura said.

'I'm talking about self-absorption. If you think about it, the human race is pretty self-absorbed. Racism might be the symptom of a greater disease. What I mean is, as a human, I am flawed in that it is difficult for me to consider others before myself. It feels like I have to fight against this force, this current within me that, more often than not, wants to avoid serious issues and please myself, buy things for myself, entertain myself, and all of that. All I'm saying is that if we, as a species, could fix our self-absorption, we could end a lot of pain in the world.' "

That's from Blue Like Jazz, and I agree. I think it's important to acknowledge, also, how broken we are, that even though we're inherently selfish as people, somehow we buy into the ideas of nationalism and racism that extend "me" beyond myself to other whites and other Americans...so instead of being individualistically self-absorbed (or, more accurately, on top of the dominant reality of my self-absorption), I become absorbed into thinking other races or nationalities are inherently a threat to me because they're "them." We hate brainwashing, but we're all hopelessly enculturated by where we grow up, aren't we? Plenty of fodder to identify, subvert, and kill for the rest of our lives.

Racism, nationalism, and individualism are probably good places to start.

I'd say, in addition, I guess, that this clearly isn't an American problem only. America just happens to be at the top of the heap right now, so its self-absorption is all out there for the world to see. 70, 80 years from now, the globe will be obsessed with the self-absorption of China or the EU or something.

Either way, our commitment to being a global people as Christfollowers, together with the foundational expectation that we are to reject the artificial boundaries we put up for comfort and safety...called to serve instead of rule...should blow this whole selfishness and fear crap right out of the water.

The problem is, we're gutless...so, like Don talked about, we whine about the issue without dealing with the root. I'll be the first to stand up and say I pass the buck to someone else instead of living into my calling to the Kingdom of God first and foremost...I talk a big talk, but I end up buying into the same materialism, individualism, and artificial boundaries that Joe Schmoe beside me who doesn't know Christ does. And that's pathetic. The root of the issue is my pride and self-absorption. Everything else spins off it. Gotta strike at that root. I like your rant."

To which Paul responded,

"Nate wrote: "Has the whole United States ever grasped the concepts of altruism, philanthropy, and how to be part of the solution rather than the problem?"
Prolly not. Depends who you ask. For example, some would criticize the US on philanthropic grounds for not having entered WWII against the Germans soon enough. Perhaps an awkward example for this post, but it is a fact that that a strong undercurrent fueling American isolationism at that point was the significant amount of American investment in German industry (i.e., $ fueling the German war machine). It seems even our "peace" has been rooted in greed and self-absorption.

Sadly, the US's track record is not the exception, it's the norm. Like Nate said, it's just at the top of the heap now, but the clear problem is that it is populated with people. I, too, lay the problem at the feet of human selfishness.
For, "Has the whole [insert country, past or present, here] ever grasped the concepts of altruism, philanthropy, and how to be part of the solution rather than the problem?" Again, prolly not.
It seems a "wholly altruistic" nation will need at least a majority of components (people) that are likewise altruistic. My confidence is low that this will take place without individual moral renovation because we can do away with all the isms we want, but I've never needed the help of an ism to be a selfish prick. Indeed, it seems it's my selfishness that spawns self-serving rationalizations akin to racism, etc.

With that said, isms do seem to have the power to dull, paralyze, or misguide altruism, allowing injustice to thrive, so it still seems we must be as innocent as doves and as clever as serpents, and not the other way around.
True: "Make sure the things you get upset about are worth it."

Some relevant Police lyrics:
There is no political solution
To our troubled evolution
Have no faith in constitution
There is no bloody revolution

Our socalled leaders speak
With words they try to jail you
The subjugate the meek
But it's the rhetoric of failure

Where does the answer lie?
Living from day to day
If it's something we can't buy
There must be another way
We are spirits in the material world"

And I know this is getting far too long and you may have already abandoned ship, but I responded by saying,

"Paul said, "We can do away with all the isms we want, but I've never needed the help of an ism to be a selfish prick. Indeed, it seems it's my selfishness that spawns self-serving rationalizations akin to racism, etc. With that said, isms do seem to have the power to dull, paralyze, or misguide altruism, allowing injustice to thrive."

I see what you're saying, Paul, but I think you're underestimating the power those -isms exert on your life and mine. It's clear that the apostle Paul, the early church, and Jesus existed in a society with a much stronger emphasis on communalism. Their identity was found not as an empowered, free-thinking individual (our society's bent), but as a part of a movement or family or people that defined them much more than their thoughts or conscience.

Today, however, the dominant philosophy of individualism has its dirty paws all up in all our bidness...Whereas in Jesus' day you could find unfaithful comfort in being a Jew (or in NOT being a Samarian) or in being a member of the class of the wealthy elite (and NOT poverty-stricken); today the scope has been widened to the unfaithful comfort of the "rights" of the individual joining that whole mess. What seems to matter less is what others think or want: it's what I want, I "need," I think life should be all about...

It's just hopelessly fragmented and really unpredictable. I'm the one I care about most of the time, but if something happens where another race or nationality challenges my comfort within my own race or nationality, I personally invest in "my" people's struggle (immigration, English language, economic status, etc) to protect us from them...but when the crisis situation passes (or recedes to a low boil), I return to my self-centered existence until another crisis situation threatens.

So, in essence, in order to govern effectively in our day and age and move people beyond their inherent self-centeredness, leaders must get the society they lead to a consistent state of being on their toes...they need to identify a common "evil" enemy, they need the people to be sufficiently afraid to accept his/her definition of the enemy as evil, some sort of concrete action (war...limited to keep public outcry low and stories of heroism high) to unify the people, and an open-ended commitment to said enemy so the goal is always just...out...of...reach. War on terror, anyone?

It doesn't take much study of modern democracy to see that war or some degree of conflict is needed on a regular basis to move the people beyond their individualism to a common goal and identity. So, as a leader, you need to find a good enemy upon entering office to unite the people, if you want to be effective.

So the ism of individualism is so potent and defining that leaders need to be fully conscious of how to subvert it in order to effectively govern the whole.

That's insidious, very self-centered (if we can think of the modern nation-state as a freaking huge "self")...can I say sinful? Is it possible that the governance and discipline of the church (only possible with the power of the Holy Spirit and committed followers of Jesus) is in fact the highest form of "government" this world has ever seen? That heightens the importance of cultivating the atmosphere we are called to as the church...the world is crying out for people who would live like this and a system like this. It looks like the early church did this well. For a ridiculously short period of time."

Ok, I'm a dork. I admit it.

2006-12-05T15:20:00.000-05:00

I admit, I've posted nothing of substance for awhile. In fact, I haven't posted for over a week. One would think this would spur me to some great height of musing.

It hasn't. But seeing my friend John in Fredericksburg (the guy on the left below) introduced me to the beauty of the mindless game called Linerider.

Plus, Aaron in the picture below was like a kid in a candy store playing the game. But I'm not making fun of him, cause I was too.

And today I found this video. It is here for you. It is awesome. Don't persecute me for not thinking. I'm sensitive. I may cry. It is called "Jagged Peak Adventure," and don't ask me how he got all the other stuff in the picture. Wait for the sweetness at the end. It's worth it.

World's dumbest criminal...

2006-11-27T14:07:00.000-05:00

...or just athletically challenged. Either way, this will make you laugh. I laughed so hard I cried, and my stomach twisted into knots. And the second time I watched it, it got worse...I wept, and couldn't breathe I was laughing so hard. So here ya go. Don't say I never did anything for you. By the way, evidently this is real...my sister's boyfriend said he saw it on the evening news.

Some of my extended family...

2006-11-25T11:31:00.000-05:00

Oh yes. In watching this video you will laugh, you will gasp, you will think "What a bunch of crackheads," you will hide your eyes from hideous dancing, you will giggle as some allow themselves to be free, this is white-bred dancing at its finest...this video is all of these things and more:

I present to you the Extended Fike Family dancing to "Left Unsaid" by Winter's Longing (our cousin Mark's band...too bad we cut it off before it got hard-core...that would've been INSANE!)

For a good time, watch the video on silent...it gets 359% funnier.

Sorting through the Haggard brouhaha...

2006-11-21T08:49:00.000-05:00

The Ted Haggard story is shocking and sobering and gritty and sad. It reminds me of how broken I am; that just because my weaknesses are not specifically the same as Haggards', I am still broken nonetheless. I'm glad that that I moved quickly to a consideration of my own struggle first...a couple of years ago, this wouldn't have occurred. I've worked hard on hypocrisy, and still have a long ways to go. I've actually included some thoughts on the issue in two messages with my local church community. The first is here. The second is here.

In the last two weeks, as I've sorted through various people's thoughts on the fallout from the issue, I've seen a quote from Mark Driscoll (pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle) that many have absolutely ripped to shreds...He said:

"Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either."

And the lions attacked...I mean serious feeding frenzy. People all saying "How could you say this!" or "That's just simply not true," or "You're oversimplifying a complex issue," or whatever. And I must admit, seeing the comment by itself caused me to think the same things...mostly because Driscoll has a reputation for speaking his mind that often gets in the way of his calling as a Christian leader...

So I went to his Resurgence page to see it from the horse's mouth and give Driscoll a fair hearing. The first thing I find is that the quote most folks yanked out to rip into was a small part of a sizable chunk of thinking he put together for his blog post. Thus, when I read his quote in context, it makes a whole lot more sense, and is a whole lot more healthy. The second thing I find is that Driscoll handles the issue with care from beginning to end, isn't afraid to face the controversy, and gives some time-tested wisdom for pastors and others that is incredible to see. I highly recommend you reading his thoughts here.

And I'll say right off the bat that he should have balanced his "It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness" with the just-as-true "It is not uncommon to meet pastors (or male Christfollowers) who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their wife is a Christfollower, she is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness." What Mark said is true...it becomes skewed, however, when he doesn't apply the same thinking to the other side of the equation. And that, my friends, is why Driscoll carries the reputation he carries. He's a firebrand who speaks his mind; often without considering the twin concerns of how he might be heard and the need to balance his strong opinions with consistent logic.

I hope I stand up for what I think is true more and more, but I hope that in the standing up process I do not forget that

1)I am flawed and subjective as a person, and thus incomplete in my grasping at truth,
2)I should carefully watch my words, because once they exit my mouth, they can take on a completely different personality than I intended, and
3)I need to roll with the punches. Sometimes, like Driscoll, someone needs to acknowledge the elephant in the room that everyone else is pretending isn't there. It's true that once wives enter into a marital relationship, they often are tempted to let themselves go. But the same is true for men, and I think his thinking would've carried more impact if he had acknowledged that simple truth.

I mentioned a couple of months back in this post some great thinking David Fitch offered on obesity and pastors. It may be true that more pastors are obese than their wives...who knows?

Reality

2006-11-20T13:31:00.000-05:00

I was messing around on some blogs today (trying to avoid my paper) and happened upon Aaron Monts' blog and a shocking, raw picture. Almost immediately I heard Derek Webb start up in my brain..."poverty is so hard to see when it's only on your tv and twenty miles across town. where we're all living so good, that we moved out of Jesus' neighborhood...where's he hungry and not feeling so good from going through our trash." (from "Rich Young Ruler")

"young homeless man beavis shooting up in the tenderloin.
he picks his scabs to find a good spot;
and tries a few locations before he gets a vein.
he has the "love" and "hate" tattos from "night of the hunter" on his fingers.
he's showing "love" with his right hand as he sticks the needle in." Rest of his story here.

This stuff is real, and most of us (including myself) live in our insulated reality where we don't expose ourselves to this...or, if we see it on the news, we either look away quickly or flip the channel. Too uncomfortable. Might make our whining about money or cynicism pale in comparison to this man's situation.

So click away quickly. Wouldn't want to upset your world (or mine).

Or stare and absorb. Reality isn't easy, and demands a response.

So what'll it be? Naive insulated existence (aka ignorance of reality)?
Or do we let the gospel drive us to weep on our knees for this man...and compel us to action in our world in the name of Jesus?

Thanks for the dose of reality, Aaron.

Real life American History X, and thoughts on redemption...

2006-11-18T15:13:00.000-05:00

'Evil' teen jailed for savage party beating

POSTED: 8:08 a.m. EST, November 18, 2006

HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- A teenager described as a white supremacist was sentenced Friday to life in prison for savagely beating and sodomizing a Hispanic boy at a drug-fueled party...

...Defense attorney Chuck Hinton appealed to the jury's religious faith, saying that Jesus would show Tuck mercy.

"I know that justice has to be done. I know a terrible thing happened. Justice needs to be done, but with mercy," Hinton said.

He also said Tuck had an abusive, absent father and was raised by a single working mother. His only role model, Hinton said, was his older brother, a skinhead who is in jail.

Read the rest here.

What do I think this situation says?
1)Hatred has consequences, and our thoughts and actions have an effect on others...this boy's brother dropped the ball. When I was in high school and my sister saw me living two lives: one image I gave my parents and church folks, and the other image I gave to my peers...I dropped the ball too. I regret that. This boy's brother should too...his decisions almost killed someone by proxy.

2)This boy is not inherently evil or any different than you or me. He's a kid caught in the web of the system...evil has twisted him, but he is NOT beyond redemption. Somewhere deep inside this boy is the spark God placed in him at creation...who in this town of Houston will choose to love him and invest their life in him?

3) That defense attorney has no shame...using Jesus as a emotional ploy for this kid's defense. Shameless and dead wrong. I try to avoid stereotypes, but this proves to me ever more that a "successful" defense attorney cannot be a follower of Jesus. You simply cannot. You will either defend those along the way you know are guilty and will numb your conscience, or you will refuse to defend those who are not guilty and will never get a case because firms can't depend on you to be a "company man or woman" when it comes to getting things done.

Looking beyond the face of this evil, I read a Donald Miller quote today that is simply amazing.

I was raised to believe that the quality of a man’s life would greatly increase, not with the gain of status or success, not by his heart’s knowing romance or by prosperity in industry or schooling, but by his nearness to God. It confuses me that Christian living is not simpler. The gospel...is simple, but this is the gate, the trailhead. Ironing out faithless creases is toilsome labor.

God bestows three blessings on man: to feed him like birds, dress him like flowers, and befriend him as a confidant. Too many take the first two and neglect the last. Sooner or later we figure out, if we’re seeking, that life is constructed specifically and brilliantly to squeeze us into association with the Owner of Heaven. It is a struggle, with labor pains and thorny landscape, bloody hands and a sweaty brow, our head in our hands, moments of severe loneliness and questioning, moments of ache and desire. All this should lead us to God.

Life is a dance toward God, I begin to think. And the dance is not so graceful as we might want. While we glide and swing our practiced sway, God crowds our feet, bumps our toes, and scuffs our shoes. So we learn to dance with the One who made us. And it is a difficult dance to learn, because its steps are foreign...the first few lessons leave us feeling clunky and awkward, but soon they give way to a kind of graceful sway…

- Donald Miller “Through Painted Deserts: 90-91

Implied in that quote from Don (beyond the scattered metaphors at times here) is the necessary truth that in order to dance the way we have created to dance, we must display a constant commitment to dancing in midst of joyous times (when the dance seems to flow in perfect rhythm) and when we think we will never get it...or the practice required is too hard andthe dance too foreign. We cannot justify our self-centered approach by claiming we know better than God. We commit to dance His way because we were created to. We find that God's screwed upway of dancing is really right-side up...we realize we're the ones looking like a white country boy dancing at a hip-hop bar...so to speak. :)

You heard it here first (or hundredth); who am I to claim I'm alone in this?

2006-11-15T10:31:00.000-05:00

I don't think the Red Sox are going to sign Daisuke Matzuzuka. And the reason why I say this is because their posting bid for him was so obscenely above that of anyone else's that bid on this fellow that it simply looks like they were running interference on the Yanks.

Why do I say this? Scott Boras suggested Matzuzuka deserved big money not only because of the talent he'd bring to the table, but also because he'd be a marketing cash cow. And even though this is probably more a ploy to gain leverage than anything else, it's true. But last time I checked, there's another pitcher out there on the open market who would do the same thing for the Sox for less cash. Take a wild guess who.

I say the Red Sox run the negotiations with Boras all the way up to the midnight deadline of the 30 day time period, then throw up their hands and say, "We just couldn't get it done..." In the meantime, the Yanks have been denied a legit #1 starter, and the Sox'll get a chance in the Matzuzuka derby next year when everyone's in the mix...plus they don't have to cut the check for the aforementioned obscene posting fee. Most people disagree with me, Deadspin and writers from SI among them. I'm willing to go out on a limb, though. I don't think it'll happen.

Boras will push for too much, the Red Sox will low ball, and nothing will get done. In the meantime, the Sox will pick up Clemens for a year at close to 20 mil, start to rake in the marketing dough, deal Manny, and maybe make a serious push for some outfield help (Soriano?).

The impact of Half Nelson on my life...

2006-11-14T11:51:00.000-05:00

I saw the movie "Half Nelson" on Friday evening, Oct 27th, at Court Square Theater in Harrisonburg (which by the way is a sweet place), and I walked out of the theater with strong emotions. I've been trying to get a handle on those emotions since then, and in the process found two things:

1)It's not often (in this age of relatively shallow Hollywood movies that have resulted from our relatively shallow culture and our willingness to chuck out large amounts of cash over a long period of time to find something (anything!) to take our minds off reality) that I walk out of a movie feeling intense emotions, and
2)I often don't pay attention to tracing the emotions to their root, or at the very least spend some time thinking about why I was so affected, and thus walk right back into my life as if the movie and the time spent in it never existed. Given time and other priorities, the movie is often reduced to "good" or "bad" or "mediocre." And so I place it in the unofficial movie pecking order of my life and move on.

As a result of this awareness, I am going to try to slog through what I thought I saw in this movie, how it moved me, what it exposed in me (honestly!), and how I'll respond with my life. If there's one thing I'm tired of in my life, it's mediocrity and simply occupying a place in the long line of humans who have lived and died on this earth...sucking in my oxygen, exhaling my contribution to global warming, and living a life centered on Nate.

So what did Half Nelson have to say to me?

It's the story of a middle school history teacher who carries an ideal that he wants to affect at least one person in his life for the better. That's his goal, and in that mix he carries an unorthodox teaching style where he seeks to have his kids look deeper than just memorizing and regurgitating fill-in-the-blank and multiple choice answers that don't help his students comprehend and make sense out of reality.

The trouble is, Teacher Dan (Gosling) doesn't know how to make sense of reality himself. His life is full of mountains and valleys, and he copes with this unpredictable reality with cocaine, crack, and some quick booty without relational attachments. His drug problem exacerbates rather than evens out his bumpy life, and he makes the mistake of smoking crack in a spot where one of his seventh grade basketball players finds him. Instead of ratting him out, though, this girl becomes a positive influence in his life. Maybe she can be the one he impacts for the better? She seems engaged in his class, eager to learn...but in taking her home several times, he sees the lure of the drug trade and urban decay threatening to suck her in.

He tries to be the hero, and fails...continuing to exhibit a hopelessly broken life. But this girl, instead of packing it in and giving up, continues to care about and for him (maybe that's because she's got a teacher crush on him...very possible given the nature of emotional attraction for ignoring reality...or maybe she just genuinely cares and wants to be an influence for good in his life). In the mix of things, Dan spends some time at home, where his parents, once Vietnam agitators who had a compelling vision for their lives, have fallen into middle-class numb existence, thinking they're living out their ideals (while their ideals carry no practical reality) and ignoring reality by medicating themselves with perpetual drunkenness.

This has to be a commentary on the sad state of the American left; pretending to care about problems like poverty and social inequity in general while doing little to nothing about it other than punching a ballot, intellectually claiming to believe that liberalism is the answer for the world's problems, with no life-altering commitment to either. (this is where I insert my belief that the opposite extreme of conservatism is just as insidious and incompetent and elitist and sad as its polar opposite).

The movie didn't resolve. No, "I've been waiting for you," or "I'm drug-free and happy for life," or some heart-warming basketball championship for the girl and the teacher that enables both of them to exorcize their personal demons. And I'm glad.

Running with my idea of the status quo in our society mentioned above, I wasn't surprised in walking out of the movie theater to see all the endorsing blurbs on the movie poster having nothing to do with the substance of the movie...I don't know if they'll be big enough for you to read in the above picture, but the blurbs say, "Ryan Gosling gives an astonishing performance!" and "Powerful. Gosling is among the most exciting actors of his generation!" and "A near-perfect film. The acting is flat-out amazing. Epps is a major find." Are you kidding me? A movie like this, and all you can talk about is the careers (realized or potential) of the individuals? For my money, I don't go see a movie because you tell me the actor or actress has an "astonishing performance." Maybe I'm supposed to; that way I can maintain some degree of separation from the raw reality that this individual movie portrayed, and deny the fact that I see strong parallels in the weaknesses of humanity I share with the teacher. If I maintain that separation, I can walk out of the theater, plunge right back into my life, and forget that I ever felt uncomfortable at certain points as the story got close to MY struggles.

My thought upon seeing the movie poster was, "Finally, a solid movie that doesn't buy into the movie peer pressure to resolve a big problem with a neat little bow in an hour-and-a-half or less, and I gotta come out of the theater to this?"

And maybe my next thought illustrates how much my ADD mind flits around from idea to idea and situation to situation, but I immediately thought about how this applies to the church. How often, on average, would you say a pastor hears one of two things from the congregation?

1) That sermon was good. Well-delivered.
2) Thank you for what you said. Hearing it that way made me think about (this or that aspect of my life...or this or that weakness...or this or that calling)

I'd guess the average pastor hears the first 97% of the time. Because you and I are enculturated to be surface people...because we're enculturated to be consumers...and because we're enculturated not to pay attention to the cries of our hearts; just hop around from entertaining thing to entertaining thing; rate each thing on the 1 to 10 scale of the excitement it offered for you, and refuse to go deeper.

If there's anything I bring away from Half Nelson, it's two awarenesses:
1) The system is broken. We are broken. Irretrievably.
2) We need to admit we are powerless to effect any long-term change in the system by ourselves. (because the change will be short-term, and our problems cyclical)

In response to what I consider to be two truth statements, I need to be willing to ask myself and others some questions...deep, searching questions...about how that raw awareness impacts my life. Do I need to alter my life in response to this movie? What did it uncover in my heart? Will I seek to separate myself from the teacher but pointing a finger at his drug habit without pointing a finger at my weaknesses that are crippling me? Does it jog me out of the semi-numb state I exist in much of the time to be deeply invested in something?

The prevailing message screams at me daily, "Stay busy. Forget about the layers. Don't think about or listen to your heart. Just perpetuate the status quo." And more often than not, because I'm weak, I give in. I let myself be mediocre. But because God entered the picture, turned my life upside-down, and called me to follow Him, I don't want to be mediocre any more; I'm tired of being an object for others to manipulate and extract resources from; I want my life to matter.

The question that remains now is if my want will turn into a physical reality. My life will give the answer.

Tony Jones and electoral decision-making...

2006-11-09T16:50:00.000-05:00

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Tony Jones: Why I Didn't Waste My Vote

"For the third election in a row, I voted for the Independence Party candidate in the Minnesota gubernatorial election. (Yes, if you're counting backward, that means that I voted for Jesse "The Body" Ventura - and proudly so!) This year's candidate, Peter Hutchinson, garnered only 6% of the popular vote, but that means that the Independence Party will continue to qualify for public funding in statewide elections. And, more importantly, it means that there will be three candidates on stage again in four years..."

Read the rest of the article here.

I was especially struck by Tony's comment at the end of his article that read "I find that the rhetoric and mean-spirited politics of the Republicans and Democrats so rarely represents my own politics that I'd just as soon vote my conscience - even if it means that my candidate finishes a distant third."

That assertion is helpful to me as I continue to consider and reconsider how political involvement intersects with my identity as a follower of Jesus. Do I accept the status quo of a two-party system where I often find myself disgusted by both "legitimate" opponents? Or if a third (or fourth or fifth) candidate is running that I find myself much more comfortable with, is it "wasting my vote" to invest my vote in the ideology and approach of someone who has no chance of winning?

Tony's also a member of the group that goes by the name of Red-Letter Christians. Check out their site...interesting reading and thinking. I don't invest as much in politics as...say...a Jim Wallis or a James Dobson...and I think I have legitimate reason for that. But I think folks like Jim Wallis have an important counterpoint to the agenda of the Christian Right that seems to suggest if you're not a card-carrying Republican, you're about to be consigned to the seventh circle of hell. If nothing else, we need the voice of the Wallises and the Red-Letter Christians of the world to push us to think further and deeper than we tend to think...

Disgusting...

2006-11-09T08:14:00.000-05:00

ht on image: Josh

Israel Says Not Morally Responsible For Gaza Tragedy

November 9, 2006 6:51 a.m. EST

Ryan R. Jones - All Headline News Middle East Correspondent

Jerusalem, Israel (AHN) - While Israeli shells were the likely culprit behind Wednesday's killing of 18 Palestinian civilians in northern Gaza, moral responsibility for the tragedy lies solely with the terrorists who continue to use the area as a base for aggression against the Jewish state, said a senior defense official.

Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh said in an interview with The Jerusalem Post on Thursday that Israel had left Gaza in the summer of 2005 in order to give the Palestinians living there an opportunity to eschew violence and build a better life for themselves.

Read the rest of the article here.

I have a one-word response to this in immediate reaction. BULL.

How screwed up is our world and how unaccountable our governments that they can rub out any number of civilians (whether it's the 18 of Gaza or the over 200,000 killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and pass the buck of responsibility by blaming the results of their actions on the "enemy?" I seem to remember Allied outrage over the initial Japanese tactic to bomb cities in China pre-WWII, then outrage over the Nazis doing the same..."It's morally reprehensible!" the Allies cried out...then firebombed Dresden, then dropped atomic bombs on cities. That's right, CITIES.

Will we continue to remain silent and through that silence (and subsequent justifications) allow governmental elites to do such a thing?

I really really really really really really hope the IDF DOES take responsibility fully for their shelling at some point. Asymmetrical threats like terrorists are ultimately not responsible to anyone but their leadership; and they depend on the fear response to their activities to accomplish their organizational goals; as well as knee-jerk responses by governments that end up sucking the system spiraling into increasing violence (which ends up feeding the numbers of terrorists!). Governments are responsible and accountable for their actions, and MUST, MUST (it seems to me) go out of their way to avoid descending to the levels of "terrorists" and take responsibility when they screw up.

In other words, if Hamas and Islamic Jihad are morally responsible for rocket attacks from within the borders of Gaza, then Israel is responsible for treating the Gaza Strip as a ghetto for years, and treating Palestinians as second-class citizens, and Palestinians are responsible for linking up with the Arab attacks on the influx of Jews into Palestine...it's so cyclical, and SOMEONE needs to step in and break the cycle!

I often think of situations that have advanced to this level as a giant snowball, raging and bouncing and gaining speed and size as it moves down the hill. It started off small, but a series of small and giant decisions caused it to be what it is today. Do we just accept that and call it reality...we can't change the circumstances, so we simply respond in kind? Or will we recognize that the snowball wasn't ALWAYS this large and menacing and destructive, and choose to stand in front of it, knowing that in this sacrificial act some of those who act will be crushed? This DEMANDS losing a self-centered, self-preserving approach to life. Yitzhak Rabin did this, and was assassinated, and several other PMs of Israel did the same on a lesser scale (others reacted to this and chose to perpetuate and amplify the problem through violent means). Anwar Sadat did the same as Egyptian President on a lesser scale (he was probably more of the problem, but chose on some level to operate in opposition to the status quo). But Rabin and Sadat's examples are quickly fading in the mothballs of history because men and women of integrity are not rising to take their place...

And whether governmental leaders step up to the plate or not, I as a follower of Jesus am COMMANDED to do so...to subvert the system of spiraling violence and passing-of-the-buck by simply choosing to daily follow Jesus, be accountable for my actions (including, and maybe especially, failure), and refuse to hide the light of Jesus shining in my life under a bowl or behind a wall. And if I decide to make the faithful decision to step in front of the snowball, I (and my family and friends and enemies) should be fully aware of the reality that I may be crushed...and that that potential reality will not define whether I step out or not. I am called to be faithful. Justice is not being served in the halls of Israeli government OR the upper reaches of organizations such as Islamic Jihad or Hamas.

Who will stand up?

i love it!

2006-11-04T17:13:00.000-05:00

I'm sure some of my closer friends know the immense respect I have for John Piper as well as the discomfort I carry regarding his rigid Reformed approach to this business of following Jesus. All things being equal, he often lances into my heart with his messages and life witness...and thus I present you with this link for giggles.

:) Don't say I don't love you.

John Piper is bad.

ht: the D10s

Incredible.

2006-10-31T10:01:00.000-05:00

I happened upon a random person's myspace blog I don't know directly, and saw something incredible today. I'll share the beginning with you, and you can click the link to get the rest...it's a little long. Called "Vision"

From: Red Moon Rising: How 24/7 Prayer is Awakening a Generation
-By: Peter Grieg, David Roberts

So this guy comes up to me and says, "What's the vision? What's the big idea?" I open my mouth and words come out like this...

The vision?

The vision is JESUS—obsessively, dangerously, undeniably Jesus.

The vision is an army of young people.

You see bones? I see an army. And they are FREE from materialism.

They laugh at 9-5 little prisons.

They could eat caviar on Monday and crusts on Tuesday.

They wouldn't even notice.

They know the meaning of the Matrix, the way the west was won.

They are mobile like the wind; they belong to the nations. They need no passport... People write their addresses in pencil and wonder at their strange existence.

They are free yet they are slaves of the hurting and dirty and dying.

What is the vision?

The vision is holiness that hurts the eyes. It makes children laugh and adults angry. It gave up the game of minimum integrity long ago to reach for the stars. It scorns the good and strains for the best. It is dangerously pure.

Light flickers from every secret motive, every private conversation.

Link here

And if you don't have a myspace account, I copied the words into a link here.

Though some of these proclamations are a bit too simplistic (read: "it will come easily, it will come soon"), what a tremendous vision to have! I'm so sick and tired of just thinking the only way I can affect the world around me is with what I say or write...things others can see, hear, taste, touch, feel. I carry tremendous potential spiritually built-in at my creation for much more than that...and if I can catch that vision, discipline myself to live into it consistently, and find a group of folks to link up with that desire together...who knows? Honestly, who knows what could happen.

The problem here exists in placing before Christfollowers the vision (the ideal) without taking practical steps to seek to live into that ideal (cold, hard, sometimes painful daily reality). I especially like the comment "It gave up the game of minimum integrity long ago to reach for the stars"...echoes of John Howard Yoder there that the commands and teaching of Jesus were not the maximum level of faithfulness...reserved only for a special class of super-Christians...but were the minimum floor of faithfulness commanded by God for ALL followers. Proper goal-setting is what this is all about.

No messin' around here...that takes transformation! Sho' nuff!

ohhhhh noooooo!

2006-10-30T16:46:00.000-05:00

I've only seen 11 seconds of this video, but it's already lightened my day of slogging through thick reading and writing that made my head feel like sludge. So, completely unawares of the end, I post because I trust.

ht: jessica

Dan Kimball...such a timely voice...

2006-10-30T10:53:00.000-05:00

I keep making promises to myself about writing out some of my thoughts here on life in general, how I'm processing thoughts, and things like recent books, music, or movies that are pushing me to continue moving, transforming, and changing in my life, but it's sooooo hard to sit down and spend some time thinking sometimes; what with seminary and church, etc. In short, I still have major work to do in my life in the area of discipline in general (though I'm growing), and I continue to appreciate friends and others holding me to accountability...

Dan Kimball at a worship conference in above pic

Now ignore that little preface, because I'm giving a link here to one of the most balanced, innovative, and visionary Christfollowers I know, and hopefully this link will greatly enhance your life; the way you think, the questions you ask, the conclusions you come to, and the details along the way. The post is called Pews, Pulpits, Pastors, Preaching, and other things that can get in the way of the "church" being the church, from Dan Kimball's blog (a pastor at Vintage Faith Church in CA). Dan's written two great books, The Emerging Church, and Emerging Worship that I have purchased and would recommend to anyone with a sense of discomfort about the present state of the church and a longing that we would live into our destiny as followers of Jesus.

So, though I haven't launched into the opportunity to get this mass of thoughts, ideas, and junk all pinging around inside my head out primarily for my own therapeutic good and secondarily in the hope that someone might identify on some level with where I am...enjoy Dan's blog. The link above is to the specific post. His blog, quite simply, is http://www.dankimball.com/ But you probably already figured that out by simply deleting off the specifics of the post and going right to the central site anyways, didn't you, you little Internet-savvy computer literate 21stcentury-ite. :)

Change

2006-10-21T16:56:00.000-04:00

An incredible quote from Donald Miller in Through Painted Deserts.

"I could not have known then that everybody, every person, has to leave, has to change like seasons; they have to or they die. The seasons remind me that I must keep changing, and I want to change because it is God's way. All my life I have been changing. I changed from a baby to a child, from soft toys to play daggers. I changed into a teenager to drive a car, into a worker to spend some money. I will change into a husband to love a woman, into a father to love a child...keep changing with my wife, getting our love so it dies and gets born again and again, like a garden, fed by four seasons, a cycle of change. Everybody has to change, or they expire."

This has been a crazy last three weeks for me...lots of work, lots of people going through low times (some riding a little more easy), officiating at my first funeral ever (scary! but i made it), feeling broken down and torn apart inside, feeling whole and fulfilled inside, new friendships (one growing faster and deeper than I ever could have predicted), aching, mindbending stripping and building up going on (thanks God?)...this is the stuff of life. I'm fooling myself and leading others astray if I ever give the picture it's anything other than this.

Sometimes I want to give up.

If I'm honest, I'm petrified of the future. How will I make it? Will I make it? Can I grow up? Can I be faithful to what God has called me to? Will I be faithful to what God has called me to? Will I leave a "mark" on people's lives? What will that "mark" look like?

Beyond all the questions, there are several things I'm sure of.

God is good.
He asks of me radical faithfulness and committed love.
I must not be afraid to trust...to open the door of my heart (just a crack?) to let others see me for who I really am...to live with integrity and transparency.
As a Christfollower, the ordinary events of my life are charged with a transcendent reality that over and above my humanity, the more I am committed to Jesus, the more my light blooms in the darkness and reflects into the lives of others...
I am nothing special, and yet, my willingness to pursue life can transform my little corner of the universe and leave a legacy. What will my legacy be?

And yet, I am still afraid. I am growing to hate fear...

Authenticity. And honesty.

2006-10-17T17:38:00.000-04:00

I've been thinking about this a lot recently, because I hear it often. In one of my classes, the authors of a book kept talking about "authenticity" this and "authenticity" that, and that a leader is full of integrity and knows who they are...but they never really defined what authenticity is, and the temptation I think we carry to do and be something and justify it by saying we're being authentic...as if that's the trump card in a conversation that should cause people to step back and concede our point...

But doesn't being a Christ-follower kick up the conversation another notch?

I'm reading Erwin McManus, and he puts the itch I've been experiencing well.

"In recent times in our culture we have put an increasing value on authenticity and a decreasing focus on integrity...when calling for authenticity, we need to take seriously the brokenness and sinfulness of the human heart. Our claim that we are committed to being authentic can actually be a facade for self-indulgence. If we're not careful, authentic can be the new word for arrogance. As long as you're true to yourself- say what you mean- just get it out- how can anyone fault you in any way?

Authenticity can establish a self-righteousness that justifies abuse..

If we're committed to being the genuine article, we'd first better look closely at what we're made of. Authenticity without integrity is lethal. To be authentic when our hearts are dark and corrosive is equivalent to opening Pandora's box..."

I'll add some thoughts to this (maybe) after the youth gathering tonight but does that strike anyone else as they think and live?

Without further ado...

2006-09-29T18:28:00.000-04:00

I bring you "Little Superstar." He's graced the pages of Josh Brown's blog for a couple days now, and I showed it to some guys and gals at seminary; quickly causing several of them to laugh so hard they were crying. Evidently it's of Indian Bollywood origin, but wherever it's from, it's great fun to watch. :)

In the interest of balance...

2006-09-28T22:55:00.000-04:00

Here's the interview of George W. Bush by Matt Lauer earlier this month, where Matt asks him about the CIA secret prisons and techniques used to extract information. Watch and listen carefully to Bush's responses, and gauge if he handles the issues as upfront and as indepth as Clinton did.

Suggestion. I don't think he does. Snippets. "So what" "We're at war" "I'm protecting your family" "I won't discuss techniques because i don't want the enemy to adjust."

I'm trying (and have tried) to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. I'm just really struggling here.

Here's the link to the video for you to watch. I would urge you to take the same approach I asked of the Clinton/Wallace interview. Both Bush and Clinton responded with intensity. Did both respond with substance and integrity? Honestly now...consider what you heard.

Another development in the Clinton/Wallace interview

2006-09-28T09:18:00.000-04:00

For those of you who are in the dark about the Chris Wallace interview of Bill Clinton on Fox News, here's a link to watch the video. Just so you know where I'm coming from, I think it was one of the most effective frontal attacks on the Fox News conservative bias I've ever seen; plus Clinton exposed Wallace for asking one set of questions to him, and another set of questions to those more conservative. I spoke fairly clearly on Jessica's blog on the same issue..

Some people call Clinton's response angry, I call it someone finally speaking their mind in a principled and consistent manner without degenerating into baseless attacks...it was pretty obvious where Wallace was going, and Clinton willingly addressed his questions. We need more of that in this country.

But, predictably, the Fox News chief Roger Ailes suggested this morning that Clinton's response was an "assault on all journalists"...trying to play the network as a victim.

Here's the link to Ailes' response.

If you're one of those folks who gets all uptight about these political discussions without taking the time to step back and look at the situation, I'd urge you to watch the interview in its entirety before commenting. The call to truly listen to a situation, work through initial emotions, and then respond as best as one can is a laudable goal to work towards. Not uncritically supporting Clinton because you're a self-identified "liberal" or uncritically slamming him because you're a self-identified "conservative." Show some layers and the ability to go deeper, and I'd love to talk.

Check out this guy!

2006-09-26T12:05:00.000-04:00

Flying judo kick! Evidently this guy still believes he's the Man of Steel...the rest of us stopped jumping off the couch thinking we could fly at age 4.

Here's the link to the vid...from the Glass City 200...yes, Glass City. Can you already tell what this guy kicks through?

Further thoughts

2006-09-22T13:15:00.000-04:00

I was playing pickup basketball with some guys at EMU from 12 - 1 and I found myself humming over and over a tune that I finally started paying attention to. I haven't sung, hummed, whistled, or thought about this song for awhile, but it's been sitting in my subconscious self for awhile waiting to be rediscovered. One of the best songs ever. From the best cd (the first) of a great band. I thought I'd share...I'm thinking this was a God thing, this humming, judging from what I've been thinking of recently. You could chew over this song for a lifetime...it's got layers to it. Link to the lyrics here. The additional lyrics are great as well, but I didn't want to make this post too long.

Jars of Clay "Worlds Apart"

The ridiculously awesome (and flawed) life of Bonhoeffer

2006-09-22T10:54:00.000-04:00

Ok, so I've started "The Cost of Discipleship" (known just as "Discipleship" now, I think) by Dietrich Bonhoeffer recently, and the man is just slicing through all my layers of cynicism, self-protection, and defence mechanisms like a knife through warm butter. I'm always wary of things that sound good and get me emotionally fired up both because emotional ploys only last so long without heart change; and sometimes the "sounds good" stuff can rip the rug right out from underneath me (in a bad way)...so I try to be as objective as possible.

But just like AW Tozer, Bonhoeffer won't let me occupy this place. Both their writings pulse with life and truth, and make me want not only to be a better man and follower of Christ, but engage and embrace the hard steps of discipleship to get there. The glaring flaw of Bonhoeffer's life of seeking to assassinate Hitler (as well as his anguish in his decision-process leading up to and after his imprisonment) helps me to see him for who he was. A normal guy given an incredible opportunity at true life who pursued that life with all he was; who stumbled and fell, but had the guts and courage to get back up and keep running. Here's a longish quote from the Intro that keeps striking me...

"In the last resort, what we want to know is not, what would this or that man, or this or that Church, have of us, but what Jesus Christ himself wants of us. When we go to church and listen to the sermon, what we want to hear is his Word - and that not merely for selfish reasons, but for the sake of the many for whom the Church and her message are foreign. We have a strange feeling that if Jesus himself - Jesus alone with his Word - could come into our midst at sermon time, we should find a quite different set of men hearing the Word, and quite a different set rejecting it...the real trouble is that the pure Word of Jesus has been overlaid with so much human ballast - burdensome rules and regulations, false hopes and consolations - that it has become extremely difficult to make a genuine decision for Christ. Of course it is our aim to preach Christ and Christ alone, but, when all is said and done, it is not the fault of our critics that they find our preaching so hard to understand...it is just not true that every word of criticism directed against contemporary preaching is a deliberate rejection of Christ and proceeds from the spirit of Antichrist.

So many people come to church with the genuine desire to hear what we have to say, yet they are always going home with the uncomfortable feeling that we are making it too difficult for them to come to Jesus....They are convinced that it is not the Word of Jesus himself that puts them off, but the superstructure of human, institutional, and doctrinal elements in our preaching. Of course we know all the answers to these objections, and those answers certainly make it east for us to slide out of our responsibilities. But perhaps it would be just as well to ask ourselves whether we do not in fact often act as obstacles to Jesus and his Word."

If you took the time to read the entire quote, the end is what strikes me so directly. I can't help but think that society for a long period of time knew they had questions and assumed they could "go to church" to find answers to those questions. However, as they pursued, they found more and more that churches often hit them with careful and well-laid-out doctrinal formulas and systematic theologies that, by hook or by crook, ended up confusing them or frustrating them. Is it possible that incrementally people have darkened the doors of churches less and less because they weren't finding space there to investigate the longings and questions of their heart? Have our three-point self-help (or process-oriented, but just as empty) sermons and black and white answers to grey questions in fact driven people away from the very places and people they should have the space to explore?

Often the interplay between Emergent worship and more rigid structures of worship centers around preaching and worship structure. I think the heart of the issue runs much deeper than that. It's not about candles, but candles can help. It's not about preaching, though active-learning models help. It's not about participatory worship, though participatory worship can help. I think it's about strategic leaders in churches pursuing Christ first and foremost, though all else would fall away. It's not about the financial or butts-in-seats or sermon type or worship structure bottom line. God is forming a people to stick by Him and depend on Him no matter what...

When people come to Middle River on Sundays for worship, do they see more Nate and less Jesus or more Jesus and less Nate? When the youth God has entrusted us with see me during the week, do they see more Nate and less Jesus or more Jesus and less Nate?

I weep at my inadequacy and self-centeredness that is being so ruthlessly exposed by God through men like AW Tozer and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the other young men in our Bible Study, and the crisis situations of those suffering in our church. May we the global church define our lives by the "single eye," that whether we are busy or not, we cultivate the continual attention to God's movement and desires for how to use our lives...that as we simplify and obey the call to love God and neighbor sacrificially, we find true life and (not so ironically) that life glowing before others.

I'll probably have a few more comments in the future regarding thoughts this book sparks in me.

Thoughts on avoidance, alcohol, tobacco, and obesity

2006-09-09T08:18:00.000-04:00

In keeping with running my own avoidance pattern on posting blogs from my head, I stopped by David Fitch's (author of "The Great Giveway" pictured to your left) blog this morning, and read an incredibly insightful post on virtue/vice, the development of character, and the strange reality that in many churches that hammer alcohol and tobacco from the pulpit, the vice of overeating is overlooked...even encouraged. Combine that with the fact that your average pastor across the face of this land is heavier than his/her parishioner leads to some interesting thoughts.

Fitch manages to toss some post-postmodernism in there as well. ;)

The post is here.

Happy reading (thinking, and praying).

On the search for community...

2006-09-06T21:04:00.000-04:00

Hey all...

I haven't been the most active in the blog-o-sphere here for a bit because of the beginning of the seminary year, but there's a GREAT conversation taking place over at Josh Brown's blog, the one with the sweet name of iamjoshbrown.com/blog. To fill you in a bit on the conversation he started, he has a few friends and compatriots who have found themselves in ministry outside the organized church who have been writing about their stories and struggles. If you go to the main blog page, you can see them all one by one, but the one I've gotten involved in is Leslie's response to Josh's invitation...

Soooooo, in lieu of (isn't that phrase only used in funerals? "In lieu of flowers"...anyways) a post on my part, I think your life and your thinking would be tremendously sharpened if you link up with the convo over with Josh and the other ladies and gents. His blog is very substance-driven, he's not afraid to tackle important issues, and he has inspired a load of thinking for me over the last couple months. This most recent series is a part of that. So feel free to check it out...plus check out a couple of my thoughts as fodder for agreement or disagreement. :)

The vested interests of a search engine...

2006-08-25T21:59:00.000-04:00

Ever thought the search engines were just benign helpers...simply a means to an end?

Think no more!

Type in "failure" and check out the first link.

Then type in "French military victories" and see what happens.

There's a voice somewhere in the recesses of my mind whispering some programmer somewhere is just. a little. bored. :)

p.s. No political statements being made here. I'm just a benign helper. *teehee*

Free Derek Webb (with a little George Fox thrown in)

2006-08-23T12:05:00.000-04:00

Just as a heads up to those who either don't know about derek webb or know about him and desire to see his perspective on following Christ have a larger audience. On September 1st, he's offering all the songs from his CD Mockingbird online for free: to listen and download and keep. He's hoping to start a conversation amongst others who have what I would term a "holy longing" for the church to be more than who we are...we know it's more than Sunday, we know God wants our lives, but we struggle with how to link up with and feel like a part of this thing, this real life we are compelled to seek. The website is here. And here are a couple thoughts from Derek from the webpage that might pique your interest about the project.

"i love music. i have grown up with music as a close confidant. and i believe in the power of music to move people. there's something remarkable about the way a melody can soften someone to a new idea.

as an artist (and often an agitator), this is something i am keenly aware of. my most recent record 'mockingbird' deals with many sensitive issues including poverty, war, and the basic ethics by which we live and deal with others. but i found that music has been an exceptional means by which to get this potentially difficult conversation going. and this is certainly an important moment for dialogue amongst people who disagree about how to best love and take care of people, to get into the nuances of the issues.

one of the things that excites me most about the future of our business is how easy it is becoming to deliver music to people who want to hear it. i heard a story once about keith green caring so much that people were able to hear and engage with his music that he gave it away for free, which was a very difficult and expensive thing to do at that time. it's actually never been as simple as it is today to connect music with music fans. and i want people to have a chance to listen to mockingbird and engage in the conversation.

so this is why, on september 1st, we're launching freederekwebb.com, a place where anyone can go online and not just hear but actually download, keep, and share 'mockingbird' completely for free. In addition, freederekwebb.com will give you an opportunity to invite your friends to download 'mockingbird' in order to get them in on the conversation as well.

we hope this bold campaign will provide a jumping off point for conversations about all of these issues, and communicate my commitment to playing my part in starting them. so please help us spread the word: on september 1st, 'mockingbird' will be set free!"

derek webb

As an addendum, my guys' Bible Study on Monday night looked at a snatch of the life of George Fox (founder of the Quakers), and he had a pretty incredible word to share in a letter to others that I'll share:

"It is my joy that you all be ordered and guided by the mighty power of God. Know the Voice that speaks, the sound of the words, and the power of them. For words without power destroy the simplicity...therefore, walk in the power of the Truth that the name of the Lord God may be glorified among you, his renown may be seen in you and among you, and all the world may be astonished, and the Lord admired in the ordering of his people who are guided by his wisdom."

If you haven't heard about this guy, ask me...the Society of Friends is clearly a different animal than it was in Fox's day, so that may color some of your thoughts in a negative sense, but this was a tremendous man of God.

Boyz N the Hood, 8MM, and the problem of poverty

2006-08-21T12:55:00.000-04:00

In the past few weeks, I've seen two movies that pushed me into a painful spot, and I've been struggling with my thoughts (and even convictions!) since, and they still might not be terribly coherent, but isn't that what a blog is for? So here goes.

Both of these films revealed a world I do not know, yet painfully experienced over the course of their running. I struggle to put words to my emotions from these movies.

The first, Boyz N the Hood gave a realistic portrayal of the daily reality of living in South Central LA; drugs rampant, single mothers, a consistent sense of dis-ease (even in one's home), and the daily reality of death. It seems easy to me after seeing this movie how those who exist in this environment simply shut down emotionally and settle for surviving from day to day. Honestly, it gave me more ammunition to get angry (usually expressed in my inner self) when I hear the tired old lines like "the poor are poor because they're (lazy, won't pull themselves up by their bootstraps, immoral, insert a sweeping judgment)." It's just obvious to me that we are free to say these things when we don't immerse ourselves in the daily experience of those facing the daunting challenge of poverty and the devaluing of life...Josh Brown (and I'm sure others) call it the "Challenge of the Suburbs"; that we should be aware that many churches that claim to be working "for the good of the city" are really largely white, middle-class, and drive Acura SUVs and that their worship and dress screams that when others who do not fit the type enter the doors (are you listening, McLean Bible Church?). I pastor a country church, and it's just obvious to me what stands in the way of those struggling to make ends meet being a part of our community...the ethos bleeds middle-class. I mean, even when we talk about ministering to the poor or those who don't know Christ, it's as if we expect something immediately from them: "I gave you cash, why don't you get off your lazy *^& and get a job and succeed, for heaven's sake!" or "I'm investing my life in you, and you've got two more months of love from me before you have to make a decision to follow Christ...otherwise, I'm gone."

It seems to me the only way out of this is for us to be willing to enter into the discomfort and gray areas of humbling ourselves before and serving the poor and needy (all kinds of needs) all around us. Because we love them. Period. A willingness to consistently be there will stretch us beyond what we consider to be mission (chucking out a little cash, along with the annual soup kitchen visit) to recognize these are lives to give our lives for. Whether they accept what we have to offer or not. Because really, did Jesus meet instant success and sweeping acclamation by all he came into contact with? No...the guy was a status-quo-wrecker in a variety of ways. Sure, the countryside got turned upside-down by the fellow, but he was splitting families, hammering the rich, and showing a near "unholy" commitment to loving the poor and sick no matter what! Derek Webb addressed the middle-class comfort of the church within the boundaries of America I think in an incredible way:

"poverty is so hard to see
when it’s only on your tv and twenty miles across town
where we’re all living so good
that we moved out of Jesus’ neighborhood
where he’s hungry and not feeling so good
from going through our trash
he says, more than just your cash and coin
i want your time, i want your voice
i want the things you just can’t give me

so what must we do
here in the west we want to follow you
we speak the language and we keep all the rules
even a few we made up
come on and follow me
but sell your house, sell your suv
sell your stocks, sell your security
and give it to the poor
what is this, hey what’s the deal
i don’t sleep around and i don’t steal
i want the things you just can’t give me"

I continue to believe that Derek Webb makes ehhh...ok music with INCREDIBLE lyrics that need to be heard. In a Christian music scene dominated by mediocrity on both those counts, Webb is a clear breath of fresh air. I can handle less-than-stellar music if the words transform my lifestyle.

Just a couple thoughts from the peanut gallery...more on 8MM later. Sorry I didn't post for
awhile (for all six folks who read my thoughts) :)

I think I'll say one thing and let this rest for a bit: The problem of poverty is not simple, and cannot be solved by uncritically toeing the lines of either the liberal or conservative position. In fact, the problem is cyclical and can only be dealt with by a group of people seizing their calling from God to live with radical love and radical generosity and radical patience and energy to simply love others the way God loves them. A willingness to carry this out will stretch us to really grow in the multi-faceted response poverty demands. A good example of such a community (not a sweeping paradigm suggestion, an example) is this one in Philly:

The Simple Way

Their website has plenty of links to other communities undertaking the same endeavour.

2006-08-08T14:32:00.000-04:00

Except for the point, the still point,
There would be no dance,
and there is only the dance.

-T.S. Eliot

God, help me to be still. And listen.
And be free to dance.

U.S. slammed over secret prisons

2006-07-28T12:24:00.000-04:00

Link here.

Those of us who are citizens of the United States of America should read these articles and let them sink in. At the risk of sounding unpatriotic, it's about time something like this should be said:

1)The U.S. is not the Kingdom of Heaven. God is not an American. Christians uncritically endorsing the actions of America globally and domestically need to deal with an obvious case of idolatry.

2)God does not look at the world and see the artificial boundaries of nation-states we set up 300-400 years ago that last to this day. He primarily sees his creation, and secondarily sees those who are faithful to Him and unfaithful to Him.

3)Even if America finds itself as a part of the fallen world system on the side of God's redemptive action, Christians must hold it accountable to make sure it does not engage in destructive means for the sake of a just end.

4)The aforementioned points (and I'm sure a million more) apply to any modern state.

The secret prisons that I'm sure our "born-again" President knew of and rationalized away are despicable and stand as a fine case of destructive means engaged in to achieve a just end of seeking an end to terrorism. I'm ashamed to be an American today.

It's just collateral damage...

2006-07-21T12:02:00.000-04:00

No humanity to see here at all. Don't look at these pictures, for fear that you might be tempted to see this man and these communities as people incredibly loved by God. Don't consider the fact that this man had both his legs blown off in his house, and four of his children seriously injured. And please, please, don't see these urban neighborhoods in Haifa and Beirut and think that people lived there: buy the party line. For the Israelis, this neighborhood was a "Hezbollah stronghold." For Hezbollah, any attack on Israel is one on worthless land usurpers and "infidels." The problem here is if we engaged our thinking processes and saw each life that has been ripped out of this world or seriously wounded has worth, we might be tempted as Christ-followers to think "loving our neighbor" applies to them, and maybe, just maybe, could make the terribly un-pragmatic and extremist move of recognizing we're called to give our lives for them, as Christ was willing to do for us. Because God so loves the world, not just me (and those most like me).

And please, please, at all costs avoid putting yourself in their shoes...a terrible move if you want to make decisions objectively. So look quickly, and click away quickly. Then we can all maintain the proper distance and declare war "necessary" and continue to consider them nothing more than a number, a means to an end.

Sigh.

p.s. Avoid this link, too, of a jurist panel deciding there are significant war crimes offenses on both sides already. I wasn't surprised at their Israeli ruling, but I was surprised to find that Hezbollah can be charged under the Geneva Convention as well.

Lebanese death toll: 340 and rising (mostly civilians)

Israeli death toll: 34 and rising

Ask not what Blake can do for you, but what you can do for Blake!

2006-07-20T08:38:00.000-04:00

Ok, so here's the deal. There's this great guy named Josh Brown who likes to think and dream about what the church could be. This great guy has a little brother named Blake with a dream to be a DJ. Blake's in a competition not unlike the avalanche of reality TV that we see everyday, except I would imagine he's a bit more balanced than some of the folks you see in those shows. In addition, Blake is up against a whole passel of women, but I'm not going to make this a Title IX thing. Just vote for the brutha, ok?! :)

Here's the link to vote.

ht josh brown

Lebanon demands compensation from Israel.

2006-07-19T17:29:00.000-04:00

As well they should!!!!!!!!

Statement a: Terrorist organization seizes Israeli soldiers.

Statement b: Israel transgresses international boundaries sans diplomatic efforts and hammers the sovereign state of Lebanon for the terrorist organization's actions.

Does anyone, I mean anyone, else see this action not only as disproportionate but grossly out of line? Pay Lebanon back, Israel. For the love. Now that we mention reparations, Israel, how in the world are you going to pay for the lives of the innocent civilians that have died from your actions? You can't.

Welcome to the world of responding to a Red Ryder with a BFG (unapologetic Doom reference).

God's People Reconciling (Part 4 of 4)

2006-07-19T15:01:00.000-04:00

Here's part 4 of Ron Sider's address to the 1984 Mennonite World Conference, and the one I believe is the most powerful part of his speech.

This section directly confronts the "passivism" that has replaced Jesus' expectation of non-violent peacemaking for his people. Sider rejects gutless Christianity here, recognizing it for the cancer it is. I'd add (though the issue, I'm sure, is more complex than this) that I believe the spiritualization of Christianity (divorcing belief from necessary action) is part of the reason why there are declining numbers of men darkening the doors of churches along with a companion exaltation of military "heroes." I'm more and more convinced an essential part of manhood is wanting something you believe in enough that you'd be willing to die for (and the flipside of living all-out for whatever that might be). If the message of Christianity is essentially what we receive from God (forgiveness, heaven, etc) and not what we can give to him (the whole of our lives), pretty soon we've got a gutted belief system on our hands. Knowing that the military is very nearly the only vocation in which men and women are putting their lives on a line for an ideology very naturally leads many to respect that. They believe in America, so they give their lives for it (and are willing to slaughter others to defend it). It's a very Western way of thinking to think we can compartmentalize our lives and still be considered faithful, but God expects more from us.

If we are Christians, we should be willing to give our lives for it (and be willing to die to live for Christ). I think that's where the rubber meets the road. Being willing to lay down one's life for the sake of the kingdom shows we have rejected individualism's claim on our lives (but I want to live my life to the fullest, marry, have kids, retire, and sip pina coladas till I die!), and are placing ourselves soundly in the community of Christ-followers over the centuries (and millenia).

Lead on, Ron:

Living models impact history. Even small groups of people practicing what they preach, laying down their lives for what they believe, influence society all out of proportion to their numbers. I believe the Lord of history wants to use the small family of Anabaptists scattered across the globe to help shape history in the next two decades. ^{Back to Top}

Die By The Thousands

But to do that, we must not only abandon mistaken ideas and embrace the full biblical conception of shalom. One more thing is needed. We must take up our cross and follow Jesus to Golgotha. We must be prepared to die by the thousands.

Those who have believed in peace through the sword have not hesitated to die. Proudly, courageously, they gave their lives. Again and again, they sacrificed bright futures to the tragic illusion that one more righteous crusade would bring peace in their time. For their loved ones, for justice, and for peace, they have laid down their lives by the millions.

Why do we pacifists think that our way -- Jesus' way -- to peace will be less costly? Unless we Mennonites and Brethren in Christ are ready to start to die by the thousands in dramatic vigorous new exploits for peace and justice, we should sadly confess that we really never meant what we said. We did, of course, in earlier times. In previous centuries, we died for our convictions. But today we have grown soft and comfortable. We cling to our affluence and our respectability.

Unless comfortable North American and European Mennonites and Brethren in Christ are prepared to risk injury and death in nonviolent opposition to the injustice our societies foster and assist in Central America, the Philippines, and South Africa, we dare never whisper another word about pacifism to our sisters and brothers in those desperate lands. Unless we are ready to die developing new nonviolent attempts to reduce international conflict, we should confess that we never really meant the cross was an alternative to the sword. Unless the majority of our people in nuclear nations are ready as congregations to risk social disapproval and government harassment in a clear ringing call to live without nuclear weapons, we should sadly acknowledge that we have betrayed our peacemaking heritage. Making peace is as costly as waging war. Unless we are prepared to pay the cost of peacemaking, we have no right to claim the label or preach the message.

Our world is at an impasse. The way of violence has led us to the brink of global annihilation. Desperately, our contemporaries look for alternatives. But they will never find Jesus' way to peace credible unless those of us who have proudly preached it are willing to die for it.

Last spring I attended a large evangelical conference on the nuclear question. I shared my Anabaptist convictions and called for Christian nonviolent peacekeeping forces to move into areas of conflict such as the Nicaragua-Honduras border. A former chief of the U.S. Air Force who was there told me that he was ready to join in that kind of alternative. As we talked I realized he was so terrified by the current impasse of nuclear terror that he was ready to explore every nonviolent alternative for resolving international conflict.

A number of us Mennonites are part of the Witness for Peace which now has a small nonviolent task force permanently located on the Nicaragua-Honduras border. To be sure, those few dozen Christians can offer only symbolic opposition to the weapons of war that flow both ways across that border. But think of what a few thousand could do! What would happen if the

Christian church stationed as many praying Christians as the U.S. government has sent armed guerrillas across that troubled border?

What would happen if we in the Christian church developed a new nonviolent peacekeeping force of 100,000 persons ready to move into violent conflicts and stand peacefully between warring parties in Central America, Northern Ireland, Poland, Southern Africa, the Middle East, and Afghanistan? Frequently we would get killed by the thousands. But everyone assumes that for the sake of peace it is moral and just for soldiers to get killed by the hundreds of thousands, even millions. Do we not have as much courage and faith as soldiers?

Again and again, I believe, praying, Spirit-filled, nonviolent peacekeeping forces would by God's special grace, be able to end the violence and nurture justice. Again and again, we would discover that love for enemies is not utopian madness or destructive masochism but rather God's alternative to the centuries of escalating violence that now threatens the entire planet. But the cross -- death by the thousands by those who believe Jesus -- is the only way to convince our violent world of the truth of Christ's alternative.

I want to plead with the Mennonites. Brethren in Christ, and others in the Historic Peace Churches to take the lead in the search for new nonviolent approaches to conflict resolution. We could decide to spend 25 million dollars in the next three years developing a sophisticated, highly trained nonviolent peacekeeping force. The most sophisticated expertise in

diplomacy, history, international politics, and logistics would be essential. So would a radical dependence on the Holy Spirit. Such a peacekeeping task force of committed Christians would immerse every action in intercessory prayer. There would be prayer chains in all our congregations as a few thousand of our best youth walked into the face of death, inviting all parties to end the violence and work together for justice.

If as a body we started such a program, we could invite the rest of the Christian church to join us. In fact, as the Witness for Peace shows, other have already begun. If we are not careful, God will raise up others to live out the heritage we have feared to apply to the problems of our day. Together the Christian church could afford to train and deploy 100,000 persons in a new nonviolent peacekeeping force. The result would not be utopia, or even the abolition of war. But it might tug our trembling planet back from the abyss.

I have one final plea. I know we live in a vicious, violent world. I know it takes more than winning smiles and moral advice to enable sinners to love their enemies. Sinners will never be able to fully follow Jesus' ethic. But they ought to. That they do not is the measure of their sinful rebellion. But regenerated Spirit-filled Christians can follow Jesus. Our only hope is a mighty peace revival that converts sinners and revives the church.

In the next decades, I believe we will see disaster and devastation on a scale never before realized in human history, unless God surprises our unbelieving world with a mighty worldwide peace revival. Therefore, my final plea is that we fall on our knees in intercessory prayer pleading with God for a global peace revival. At the worst of times in the past, God has broken into human history in mighty revivals that led to social movements that changed history. The Wesleyan revival in the eighteenth century resulted in Wilberforce's great crusade against slavery that changed the British Empire. The same could happen in the next few decades. Pray that God revives millions of lukewarm Christians. Pray that God draws millions of non-Christians into a personal living relationship with the risen Lord. Pray that millions and millions of people in all the continents of our small planet come to see that Jesus is the way to peace and peace is the way of Jesus. Pray that with our eyes fixed on the crucified one, the church will dare to pay the cost of being God's reconciling people in a broken world.

Today is the hour of decision. The long upward spiral of violence and counter violence today approaches its catastrophic culmination. Either the world repents and changes or it self-destructs.

For centuries we Anabaptists have believed there is a different way, a better way. Our world needs that alternative. Now. But the world will be able to listen to our words only if large numbers of us live out the words we speak. Our best sons and daughters, our leaders, and all our people must be ready to die. The cross comes before the resurrection.

There is finally only one question: Do we believe Jesus enough to pay the price of following him? Do you? Do I?

This is putrid....absolutely putrid

2006-07-17T13:38:00.001-04:00

News story...it's getting deeper.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5188420.stm

I can't put into words how saddened I am by the mutual hatred on all sides of the Israel/Hamas conflict, the Israel/Hezbollah conflict, and the U.S./al-Qaeda network (and whoever can be "linked" to it) in which innocent civilians are paying the price for terrorist organizations and governmental elite to play their wargames and inflame the masses...I have friends who have lived with Palestinians and Jews, working alongside them, hearing their stories. And I can say this, 98% of those populating Palestine, Israel, and Lebanon are just trying to make it through the day, raise and provide for their families, and live a semi-decent life. I also know another thing; the violence that hangs over their heads and kills their family members takes those people just trying to make a living and inflames them to carry out vengeance on those who have taken away their wives, husbands, and children. I already know a couple near me here in the Shenandoah Valley who lost their nephew, and his younger brother, a teenager, hates Iraqis, and is joining up when he turns 18 to carry out "justice" for his brother's death. Anyone with any real concept of who pays the price in modern warfare should immediately take a step back from considering rushing into a war. And I'm not talking about Christians. Any Christian willing to be self-critical should hold themselves to a higher standard and ask some hard questions, both to governments of the world and to themselves...

Who's going to pay the bulk of the price for this military incursion? (civilians bear the brunt both in sanctions and in warfare, the lower socioeconomic classes populate the standing armies)

How does my complicity or lack thereof in this instance reflect my commitment to Christ? (Both military personnel and civilians). Newsflash: Christianity's not a hat you put on on Sundays and take off when you drop a bomb on a bridge covered with civilian automobiles.

Is my belief system simply that...a belief system? Or am I willing to take the hard steps to consistently show with my actions what I claim I believe?

When I talk about love and justice, whose definition am I working with? A secular one? Or am I letting Jesus define both the means AND the end to love and justice? If Jesus is not: I'm committing idolatry, the most heinous sin in the Old Testament.

Here's a call to consistency and courage of Christians around the globe: If we believe God is sovereign, that our earthly lives are but a vapor, that this world is a testing ground, and that Jesus showed us what love for our neighbors really means, we should stop sliding down the slippery slope of relativism (or climb back up where we should be, if we're already at the bottom), and show the world that following Christ means they can expect the same behavior from Christians whether they're under fire or living in comfort.

What do we want? Involving ourselves in the machinations of this fallen world to the point where we're clearly rationalizing and justifiying our unfaithfulness, or do we want to be conformed to the image of Christ? Which will impact the world deeper over the long haul? Do we trust God (the definition of faith), or are we engaging in another variant of functional atheism...thinking we've gotta make justice happen since God seems to be incapable of doing so Himself?

Important questions. We've got to deal with them. The status of the world hinges on whether you and I will live like we're part of a new community of boundless love, of self-sacrifice, of radical forgiveness, and the pursuit of righteousness. God won't force this on us, but he will judge us for our unfaithfulness should we blow this responsibility off.

Deep thoughts from the Tank

2006-07-17T09:58:00.000-04:00

I've come into contact with a couple in OK going by the last name Tankersley here recently (Andrew and Jessica), and while kickin' around on the net today, I read one of Andrew's posts on his blog. Talk about hitting the nail on the head (at least for me). Andrew's speaking as a married guy and dealing with how his selfishness (you could insert pride there as well) affects relationships around him, most notably his wife, in a negative way. His willingness to look at the consequences of that shows a willingness to be self-critical in a way many people don't ever approach. Anyways, I highlight this because the issue of pride and selfishness is one I'm deeply dealing with as well; as a young, handsome single guy ;) (you'll understand that quip when you read his post). I'm dealing with this fhead-on for three reasons:
1) I need to do the work necessary to subordinate my selfish desires now in continuing preparation for the day when I may get married,
2) I'm learning as a young church leader that in order to give of myself fully to my church community, I must subject my personal whims to the good of the community, and
3) It's my duty as a follower of Christ to lay my life down at God's feet and fully submit my life for examination and change.

Anyways, enough about me. Tank's post is the one that got me thinking. Maybe it will for you too. Here's the beginning.

Published Friday, June 30, 2006 by Tank | E-mail this post

REPOST ALERT: This is a repost from last December, but it is one of my favorites. I found it today and it helped me see where I have grown in the last six months. My marriage is just now becoming easier and we are learning how to be 'one'. Anyways here is the post:

Warning: I'm a young, handsome, newlywed. Some of this may not apply to you (if you are single), and some of you are probably years ahead of me, so be forwarned if this bores that socks off of your feet or beanies of your head.

I have been married for going on four months now, which just now strikes me as being 1/3 of the way to a year, that is so crazy. Anyways, it is hard, and when I say hard, I MEAN HARDER THAN HARD. I will stop you now, I'm probably not going where you think I'm going, then again if you are married, you might know all to well where I am going.

The rest of the post is here.

Just as a fair warning...later in the post, Tank makes a point about Christianity in the midst of his marriage analogy that's a kick in the teeth (a good one, I might add, if a good kick in the teeth exists). A simple reminder we're not in this ourselves. (hmmm........makes you think God intended marriage to be an analogy for selfless love and our connection to other followers of Christ)

God's People Reconciling (Part 3 of 4)

2006-07-15T17:54:00.000-04:00

Here's Ron Sider again, in his wonderfully stylish clothes. Must be time for Part Three. Yes, yes it is.

Just as a preface, this one's the longest. I urge you to overcome your internet-driven impulse to click away after the second paragraph and instead compel yourself to see what this guy's got to say. :) It's powerful.

2. Embrace The Biblical Vision Of Shalom

Acknowledging past temptations and misunderstandings is essential. But we dare not remain mired in our failures. Instead we can allow the fullness of the biblical vision of shalom to transform us into a reconciling people ready to challenge the madness of the late twentieth century.

The richness of the biblical vision of peace is conveyed in the Hebrew word "shalom". Shalom means right relationships in every area -- with God, with neighbor, and with the earth. Leviticus 26:3-6 describes the comprehensive shalom which God will give to those who walk in obedient relationship to God. The earth will yield rich harvests, wild animals will not ravage the countryside, and the sword will rest. Shalom means not only the absence of war but also a land flowing with milk and honey. It also includes just economic relationships with the neighbor. It means the fair division of land so that all families can earn their own way. It means the Jubilee and sabbatical release of debts so that great extremes of wealth and poverty do not develop among God's people. The result of such justice, Isaiah says, is peace (32:16-17). And the psalmist reminds us that God desires that "justice and peace will kiss each other" (Psalm 85:10). If we try to separate justice and peace, we tear asunder what God has joined together.

Tragically, the people of Israel refused to walk in right relationship with God and neighbor. They ran after false gods, and they oppressed the poor. So God destroyed first Israel and then Judah. But the prophets looked beyond the tragedy of national destruction to a time when God's Messiah, the Prince of Peace, would come to restore right relationships with God and neighbor. (e.g., Isaiah 9:2ff; 11:1ff).

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore (Isaiah 2:4). Jesus, Christians believe, was the long-expected Messiah. And just as the prophets had promised, shalom was at the heart of his messianic work and message. But Jesus' approach to peacemaking was not to lapse into passive nonresistance; it was not to withdraw to isolated solitude; it was not to teach one ethic for the private sphere and another for public life. Jesus modeled an activist challenge to the status quo, summoning the entire Jewish people to accept his nonviolent messianic strategy instead of the Zealot's militaristic methods.

Jesus' approach was not one of passive nonresistance. If Jesus' call not to resist one who is evil in Matthew 5:39 was a summons to pure nonresistance and the rejection of all forms of pressure and coercion, then Jesus regularly contradicted his own teaching. He unleashed a blistering attack on the Pharisees, denouncing them as blind guides, fools, hypocrites, and snakes -- surely psychological coercion of a vigorous type as is even the most loving church discipline which Jesus prescribed (Matthew 18:15ff).

Nor was Jesus nonresistant when he cleansed the temple! He engaged in aggressive resistance against evil when he marched into the temple, drove the animals out with a whip, dumped the money tables upside down, and denounced the money changers as robbers. If Matthew 5:39 means that all forms of resistance to evil are forbidden, then Jesus disobeyed his own command. Jesus certainly did not kill the money changers. Indeed, I doubt that he even used his whip on them. But he certainly resisted their evil in a dramatic act of civil disobedience.

Or consider Jesus' response when a soldier unjustly struck him on the cheek at his trial (John 18:19-24). Instead of turning the other cheek and meekly submitting to this injustice, he protested! "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?" Apparently Jesus thought that protesting police brutality or engaging in civil disobedience in a nonviolent fashion was entirely consistent with his command not to resist the one who is evil.

Jesus would never have ended up on the cross if he had exemplified the isolationist pacifism of withdrawal. Nor would he have offended anyone if he had simply conformed to current values as we are often tempted to do when we abandon the pattern of isolation. Rejecting both isolation and accommodation, Jesus lived at the heart of his society challenging the status quo at every point where it was wrong.

Jesus upset men happy with the easy divorce laws that permitted them to dismiss their wives on almost any pretext. He defied the social patterns of his day that treated women as inferiors. Breaking social custom, he appeared publicly with women, taught them theology, and honored them with his first resurrection appearance.

Jesus angered political rulers, smugly satisfied with domination of their subjects with his call to servant leadership.

And he terrified the economic establishment, summoning materialists like the rich young ruler to give away their wealth, denouncing those who oppressed widows, and calling the rich to loan to the poor even if they had no hope of repayment (Luke 6:30ff). Indeed, he considered concern for the poor so important that he warned that those who do not feed the hungry and clothe the naked will go to hell.

Jesus disturbed the status quo -- but not for mere love of change. It was his commitment to shalom, to the right relationships promised in messianic prophecy, that make him a disturber of an unjust peace. He brought right relationships between men and women, between rich and poor by his radical challenge to the status quo.

Repeatedly in our history, the terror of persecution and the temptation of security have lured us to retreat to the safety of isolated solitude where our radical ideas threaten no one. But that was not Jesus' way. He challenged his society so vigorously and so forcefully that the authorities had only two choices. They had to accept his call to repentance and change or they had to get rid of him. Do we have the courage to follow in his steps?

Jesus approach was activist and vigorous, but it was not violent. A costly self-giving love, even for enemies, was central to his message. He called his followers to abandon retaliation, even the accepted "eye for an eye" of the Mosaic legal system. He said that his followers would persist in costly love even for enemies, even if those enemies never reciprocated.

It is hardly surprising that Christians have been tempted to weaken Jesus' call to costly self-sacrifice -- whether by postponing its application to the millennium, labeling it an impossible ideal, or restricting its relevance to some personal private sphere. The last is perhaps the most widespread and the most tempting. Did Jesus merely mean that although the individual Christian in his personal role should respond nonviolently to enemies, that same person as public official may kill them?

In his historical context, Jesus came as the Messiah of Israel with a plan and an ethic for the entire Jewish people. He advocated love toward political enemies as his specific political response to centuries of violence. His radical nonviolence was a conscious alternative to the contemporary Zealots' call for violent revolution to usher in the messianic kingdom. There is no hint that Jesus' reason for objecting to the Zealots was that they were unauthorized individuals whose violent sword would have been legitimate if the Sanhedrin had only given the order. On the contrary, his point was that the Zealots' whole approach to enemies, even unjust oppressive imperialists, was fundamentally wrong. The Zealots offered one political approach; Jesus offered another. But both appealed to the entire Jewish nation.

The many premonitions of national disaster in the Gospels indicate that Jesus realized that the only way to avoid destruction and attain messianic shalom was through a forthright rejection of the Zealots' call to arms. In fact, Luke places the moving passage about Jesus' weeping over Jerusalem immediately after the triumphal entry -- just after Jesus had disappointed popular hopes with his insistence on a peaceful messianic strategy. "And when he drew near and saw the city he wept over it, saying, 'Would that even today you knew the things that make for peace!'" (Luke 19:4ff).

Zealot violence, Jesus knew, would lead to national destruction. It was an illusion to look for peace through violence. The way of the Suffering Servant was the only way to messianic shalom. Jesus' invitation to the entire Jewish people was to believe that the messianic kingdom was already breaking into the present. Therefore, if they would accept God's forgiveness and follow his Messiah, they could begin now to live according to the peaceful values of the messianic age. Understood in this historical setting, Jesus' call to love enemies can hardly be limited to the personal sphere of private life.

Furthermore, the personal-public distinction also seems to go against the most natural, literal meaning of the text. There is no hint whatsoever in the text of such a distinction. In fact, Jesus' words are full of references to public life. "Resist not evil" applies, Jesus says, when people take you to court (Matthew 5:40) and when foreign rulers legally demand forced labor (v. 41). Indeed, the basic norm Jesus transcends (an eye for an eye) was a fundamental principle of the Mosaic legal system. We can safely assume that members of the Sanhedrin and other officials heard Jesus words. The most natural conclusion is that Jesus intended his words to be normative not just in private but also in public life.

We have examined the horizontal shalom with the neighbor which Jesus brought. But Jesus also announced and accomplished a new peace with God. Constantly he proclaimed God's astonishing forgiveness to all who repent. And then he obeyed the Father's command to die as the atonement for God's sinful enemies.

God's attitude toward sinful enemies revealed at the cross is the foundation of nonviolence. Let us never ground our pacifism in sentimental imitation of the gentle Nazarene or in romantic notions of heroic martyrdom. Our commitment to nonviolence is rooted in the heart of historic Christian faith. It is grounded in the incarnation of the eternal Son of God and in his substitutionary atonement at the cross.

Jesus said that God's way of dealing with enemies was to persist in loving them. "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." Why? "So that you may be sons and daughters of your Creator in heaven." In fact, Jesus went even further. Jesus said that God's way of dealing with enemies was to take their evil upon himself. The crucified criminal hanging limp on the middle cross is the eternal Word who in the beginning was with God and indeed was God, but for our sake became flesh and dwelt among us. Only when we grasp that that is who the crucified one was, do we begin to fathom the depth of Jesus' teaching that God's way of dealing with enemies is the way of suffering love. By powerful parable and dramatic demonstration, Jesus had taught that God forgives sinners again and again. Then he died on the cross to accomplish that reconciliation. The cross is the most powerful statement about God's way of dealing with enemies. Jesus made it very clear that he intended to die and that he understood that death as a ransom for others.

That the cross is the ultimate demonstration that God deals with enemies through suffering love receives its clearest theological expression in St. Paul. Listen to Romans 5:8-10: "God shows love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. . . While we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of God's Son." Jesus' vicarious death for sinners is the foundation of, and the deepest expression of, Jesus command to love our enemies. We are enemies of God in a double sense. For one thing because sinful persons are hostile to God and for another because the just, holy Creator cannot tolerate sin. For those who know the law, failure to obey it results in a divine curse. But Christ redeemed us from that curse by becoming a curse for us. Jesus' blood on the cross was an expiation for us sinful enemies of God. He who knew no sin was made sin for you and me.

Jesus vicarious death for sinful enemies of God is the foundation of our commitment to nonviolence. The incarnate one knew that God was loving and merciful even toward sinful enemies. That's why he associated with sinners, forgave their sins, and completed his mission by dying for them on the cross. And it was precisely the same understanding of God that prompted him to command his followers to love their enemies. We as God's children are to imitate the loving characteristics of our heavenly God who rains mercifully on the just and the unjust. That's why we should love our enemies. The vicarious cross of Christ is the fullest expression of the character of God. At the cross God suffered for sinners in the person of the incarnate Son. We will never understand all the mystery there. But it's precisely because the one hanging limp on the middle cross was the word who became flesh that we know two interrelated things. First, that a just God mercifully accepts us sinful enemies just as we are. And second, that God wants us to go and treat our enemies exactly the same way. What a fantastic fulfillment of the messianic promise of shalom. Jesus did bring right relationships -- both with God and with neighbor. In fact, he created a new community of shalom, a reconciled and reconciling people. As Ephesians 2 shows, peace with God through the cross demolishes hostile divisions among all those who stand together under God's unmerited forgiveness. Women and slaves became persons. Jews accepted Gentiles. Rich and poor shared their economic abundance. So visibly different was this new community of shalom that onlookers could only exclaim: "Behold how they love one another". Their common life validated their gospel of peace.

And so it must always be. Only if people see a reconciled people in our homes and our congregations will they be able to hear our invitation to forsake the way of retaliation and violence. If I am not allowing the Holy Spirit to heal the brokenness in my relationship with my spouse, I have little right to speak to my president about international reconciliation. If our Mennonite and Brethren in Christ congregations are not becoming truly reconciled communities, it is a tragic hypocrisy for us to try to tell secular governments how to overcome international hostility. It is a farce for the church to try to legislate what our congregations will not live.

On the other hand, living models impact history. Even small groups of people practicing what they preach, laying down their lives for what they believe, influence society all out of proportion to their numbers. I believe the Lord of history wants to use the small family of Anabaptists scattered across the globe to help shape history in the next two decades.

p.s. Of all the points Sider attempts to make here, I think his ihighlighting of Jesus non-violence as NOT passivity and standing by in the face of evil is the most striking. Many people when confronted with a tough situation think they can react only either/or...Jesus refused to buy into this false dichotomy and instead showed a tremendous capability to respond to various situations with various responses. All, it should be noted, revealed his overarching commitment to non-violence as an example to his followers.

"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." -john 18:36

Question

2006-07-14T15:00:00.000-04:00

Is the new color scheme dizzying? Stupid? You like? I just wanted to change things up a bit, but I don't want to cause any seizures with the scrolling, ya know?