cartoons are funny

I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.

the ministry

The Ministry is the title of a new show coming to a TV near you about a near-megachurch. Written by Joel Kilpatrick, the creator of Lark News, the evangelical version of The Onion. Check out more about it here. I wonder if it will be as good as I think it can be. I'm hoping it grabs on audience so we can see his ideas unfold.

how is your yahdaw?

"The church is the only cooperative society in the world which exists for the benefit of its non-members." - Archbishop William Temple

dangers of the emerging church

Well, the "shift" has hit the fan.

(hear Driscoll's comments about McClaren's new group Deep Shift).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Okay, I have wasted a lot of words and time below, and they pretty much reveal my own arrogance about "understanding" God and big theological concepts . . . what's the bottom-line: Pursue Jesus, not men. Which is Driscoll's ultimate point as well. So you may be better off stopping and reading your Bible to hear what Jesus is saying to you with the time you would have spent reading what I have written . . . seriously . . . stop . . . should you spend some time with Jesus right now . . . As it is said, "Today, if you hear his voice,do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion." - Hebrews 3:15 . . . take time to listen to Him before you even think about listening to me . . .

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

At the recent Southern Baptist Theological Seminary conference, Convergent, Mark Driscoll unloaded on the emerging church, at least part of it (hear it for yourself, you can skip the 16 minute intro).

I have been a reluctant fan of the emerging church, enjoying Dan Kimball, worried about Brian McClaren, and wanting to agree with Rob Bell. Driscoll did a pretty good job of laying out the dangers of certain streams of the emerging church. Although his style is not to my liking, so if you can be patient with some of his rhetoric and flaunting of his theological vocabulary, you will learn a lot about the trendy authors and artists people flock to . . . worship . . . listen to in cultural Christianity.

Driscoll breaks the emerging church into three streams:

RELEVANTS: Cool church crowd. Evangelical theology, innovative methodology. Examples: Dan Kimball, Donald Miller, Erwin McManus, & John Burke.

REVISIONISTS: Emergent Village (McClaren) and Bell. Genesis 3 - SIN = error and falling came through a conversation. Emergent has portrayed itself as a conversation on what God has said - "Did God mean what He said?" When God speaks, we are not to converse but to OBEY.

RELEVANT REFORMED: Contextual, confessional, evangelical New Reformed Calvinists. Examples: Driscoll, Matt Chandler, Acts 29 Network, CJ Mahaney, & Joshua Harris. Return to expositional Bible teaching that is theologically motivated and Jesus-centered.

I agree with Driscoll's concerns about who McClaren "talks" with and endorses. He, at best, misleads Christians into theological and philosophical waters which they are too deep for and does little to equip them for their swim (see Ephesians 4:11-15).

In principal I agree with his concerns about the emerging church's stance on homosexuality (which is often unspoken). However, in Driscoll's rant he clear example of why the emerging church is careful with their words. Driscoll is quick to lump the sin of homosexuality with those who have active sex outside heterosexual marriage, but does not put them in the same room as those who struggle with lust. This kind of careless discussion about homosexuality is what makes Christians into hypocrites to those outside the church.

Driscoll critiques Rob Bell's use of rabbinical tradition as suspect since rabbinical tradition does not recognize Jesus as the Messiah (personal note: I discovered recently most of what we know about rabbinical tradition is from the AD 100's, more than 70 years after Jesus). It's definitely not the cleanest approach to scripture, but Bell clearly sites his sources and encourages his readers to do their own investigation. Also, I wonder how well sited Driscoll's use of how Western Philosophy affects his interpretation of scriptural texts (much of current theology has been developed based on the philosophical views and approaches of the Greeks).

Driscoll also calls into question Bell's "trajectory hermeneutic" and sites Bell's support of Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals (see my comments on this book in a previous post). Driscoll's weakness here is that he believes this hermeneutic (which is actually called a "redemptive-movement hermeneutic" in the book) specifically does NOT lead to an endorsement of homosexuality (as explained in the book) like he claims. Not sure if Driscoll has any other concerns about this approach to interpreting scripture, but I recognize that any interpretation of scripture must be very carefully considered and critiqued.

Another major concern of Driscoll, which I share with him, about Bell is his trampoline analogy about theology (in other words theology needs to be flexible) and the example of the importance of the virgin birth. In Velvet Elvis, Bell, hypothetically, considers the translation of "virgin" in Isaiah as "young girl" (which is possible) and wonders if it changes anything about how early Christians viewed Jesus' conception. Driscoll misguidedly, but correctly, points out that the virgin birth was a HUGE part of the early church and goes to the heart of the integrity of the scriptures. Where he goes wrong is saying would we believe the word of a "lying whore" if Mary lied about Jesus' conception. How many whores does God use in the Bible to bring glory to his name? How many liars, thieves, drunkards, and more bring glory to God by proclaiming the truth?

Driscoll's bottom line is we need to return to Jesus and not get so caught up in current trends, culture, and celebrity hype . . . which leads me to wonder about my time writing this and whether I should have been pursuing something else . . . perhaps this will be helpful to some who have not considered the wider implications of those beautifully made NOOMA videos.

Either way, I hope you spend some time with Jesus now before moving on to something else so that you will take him with you:

I have set the LORD always before me;
because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken. - Psalm 16:8

a way of living

I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. - Jesus, John 14:6

I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. - Paul, Acts 24:14

To the Jewish way of of thinking there wasn't even a word in Hebrew for religion, because to them its simply a way of living. - Dwight A. Pryor, "Principles & Patterns of Jewish Prayer"

We are reading Acts as a church right now, both through teachings on Sundays and in our yearly read through the Bible plan. I have been paused by the few times that the group of people following Jesus have been called "the Way." Mentioned more than "christian" I have been perplexed by this, even a bit uncomfortable. It seemed perhaps I was missing something that was natural about following Jesus. I of course thought of Jesus' own words from John about how he is "the way." But it was listening to a teaching by Dwight Pryor that really caught my attention.

I have always struggled to express why Christianity is not a "religion" as classically conceived and often experienced. And I am sure many have heard the Evangelical idiom, "Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship (with God)." While, Dictionary.com expresses the idea of religion as primarily being a "set of beliefs" and the groups or practices that form from this "set of beliefs." Both left me with an incomplete way of expressing what Christianity means to me. It is certainly a relationship with God, which leads to certain beliefs, particular allegiances, and some disciplined practices. However, I have come to see much of what might be labelled in my life as sacred by Christians or religious by others, is simply "practice" for actual living.

This is why Pryor's words help pull together my struggle with "religion" and the haunting words of Acts about the early Church and its name "the Way." Perhaps now I might adopt this Jewish perspective of life with God as simply a "way of living." I would then be more comfortable to identify the practices and beliefs that I adopt on this life with God as "religious."

It would then serve to note that I recognize most of the disciplines of the Christian life as merely "practice" and not actually "counting" towards living. They serve as a means to receiving God's power (grace) to do what I cannot do on my own. This practice of grace then perfects my "play" on the field of life, where living counts.

Also, I would want to distance the group of people I journey with from such a rigid word as religion, for they are as family to me, and it would seem to limiting a word to express that gathering.

the god debate

I believe in both faith and reason. The more we learn about God, the more we understand how magnificent this universe is. There is no contradiction to it. When I look at history, I would disagree with Sam: Christianity has done far more good than bad. Altruism comes out of knowing there is more than this life, that there is a sovereign God, that I am not God. We're both betting. He's betting his life that he's right. I'm betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble. — Rick Warren, "The God Debate," Newsweek

Rick Warren is a trendy defender of the Christian faith these days. The Christian world is not to sure what to think of that, and neither is the rest of the world. I personally appreciate Rick. Having visited his church, Saddleback, a number of times I find a reassuring level of authenticity and depth to a way of life that might appear simplistic and naive to the casual reader of The Purpose Driven Life.

In article the "The God Debate," from Newsweek, I think you'll find an intriguing exchange between Sam Harris, an evangelizing atheist, and Rick. It's a pretty fair depiction of both sides (having read numerous Christian apologetics and some of the recent atheistic works like The God Delusion and Moral Minds). I pretty much think that if you come in an atheist you'll think Sam nailed Rick, and if you come in a Christian you'll think Rick exposed Sam for he really is. Both views might be right. But Rick's final words, quoted above, should raise some flags and hard questions for anybody reading.

laughter and tears

It isn't so much that Jesus laughed at the world, or wept at the world. He was celebrating with the new world that was beginning to be born, the world in which all that was good and lovely would triumph over evil and misery. He was sorrowing with the world the way it was, the world of violence and injustice and tragedy which he and the people he met knew so well. - N.T. Wright, Simply Christian
I have begun the journey through a new book. Simply Christian is a journey into the heart of Christianity for every day living. It is tauted as an instant classic in the likes of Mere Christianity.

This quote was quick to stand out among many. The tension of life is the combination of celebration and sorrow. With one seemingly fleeting and the other seemingly unending. In the midst of so many swings and changes, can we find a constant answer (hope) to our longings for justice, beauty, and good life.

Could it be that our longing for wholeness and rightness is more than a dream, but is actually an echo of what once was. An echo of what could be again. Here is where religion steps into the plain. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam say there is a God who wants to put it back. Their perspectives on how it happens is different, but at the core the message is the same. What we long for can be reality.

This is where Jesus' life strikes me as so amazing. He enters into the mess and crap of life. He is grieved and moved with compassion. He shares in the sorrow and suffering. And, he says good is at hand. In his laughter and celebration he proclaims, "the Kingdom is near." Hope is coming. God is here.

I have been broken, powerless, grieved, and alone. I have watched lives falling apart and relationships dashed. God grieves with us. God offers to bring us along in our brokenness and put us back together. As we are put back together, so our relationships and communities get restored, and creation itself moves towards being paradise again. It seems too good to be true . . . and it certainly has not gone as I suspected . . . but I have witnessed it in my life and the lives of those around me.

N.T. Wright begins his journey with the longing of humans for more. He says that journey will take us "into the Sun" where we find God at work. And ultimately leads us embracing life as a reflection of God's love and work in the world. More to come . . .

the lost tomb of jesus

James Cameron has discovered the lost tomb of Jesus . . . that's how I first heard about the documentary on Discovery Channel last night. And I have really enjoyed the publicity surrounding all this.

I have watched the documentary, the critical look hosted by Ted Koppel afterwards, and watched numerous TV interviews. What strikes me as most fascinating about Simka Jacobovici (the director) is that he continually voices the fact that he is not an expert, and is just reporting the facts. The commentator tone which he takes in interviews is one that is not apparent in the documentary where he speaks as the all knowing force behind these amazing links which compel him to his conclusions.

Ultimately he places himself so that in interviews he cannot possibly be wrong. He says he is simply hypothesizing and trying to encourage attention and study using the facts (as he chooses to report them) from other experts. While the documentary invited viewers to reach their own interpretations at the beginning and end, he seems unable to allow the experts and commentators around him in interviews to reach their own interpretations. This poses the critical thinker to wonder why Simka would want the general public to draw a conclusion versus having experts draw conclusions? Ratings = Money.

This kind of docu-drama and archaeo-porn, as it has been called, seems very loose in its ability to report on the science of archaeology. It has always been fascinating to me how the History channel, among others, puts on shows that reenact history as it happened, but are only based on very limit ted documentation from compromised sources and centuries separated from the events (research how we establish the history of the Caesars and the Roman Empire). The danger of this is that it communicates to the audience a surety about the history being reported, without expressing the tension behind the facts. This is why there can be so many TV shows which show the many renderings of historical events and our ever changing textbooks.

christian enterprise?

"Christianity started out in Palestine as a fellowship; it moved to Greece and became a philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution; it moved to Europe and became a culture; it came to America and became an Enterprise."

There is something disturbing about a quote like this. My first reaction was simple. "Ouch." It seemed clear that the philosophy, institution, culture, and enterprise were all unwanted additions to a pure . . . fellowship . . . movement . . . community . . . All these words seemed more appealing than the others used to describe the "change" in Christianity throughout history. However, after initial reaction to the established understanding of what each mean in regards to their current standing in the Christian world, I went back to the definitions. Here I found pursuits which I believe to be noble, worthy of effort, and should not be ignored by those who profess to follow Jesus.

Philosophy: the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct

Institution: an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program, esp. one of a public, educational, or charitable character

Culture: the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc

Enterprise: a project undertaken or to be undertaken, esp. one that is important or difficult or that requires boldness or energy; or a company organized for commercial purposes; business firm

Would one say that those following Jesus should not pursue rational investigation of the truths of Jesus and his teaching? I believe no. I believe what we react to in the above quote is the Greek philosophical influence on current "Christian" philosophy. This same direction of thinking could be applied to the rest.

Would one say that a fellowship following the teaching of Jesus should not unite as a group to be devoted to the cause of the Kingdom of God? Our initial reaction would be to the establishment of an institution that is so clearly corrupted by men, not the goal of Jesus' Way.

Would one say that those following Jesus should not concern themselves with the quality of a person who develops within the fellowship of those followers? Should they not express these qualities in the arts etc? Again, we most likely respond to the social norms that seem to breed a hypocrisy within "Christian" culture.

Would one say that those following Jesus should not undertake especially important tasks, like that of evangelism or service? Here, we might clearly see that the further definition of enterprise, which is surly in the mind of the one reading this quote, is the business and corporate establishment of such a cause. So perhaps the answer here is a bit more fuzzy. Surely Christians should devote ingenuity and effort to important tasks. The inherent fuzziness of enterprise for a religious community is when there becomes red tape and "administrative costs." The smaller "fellowships" would seem to have more accountability and less "overhead." Their ingenuity and effort would not diminish, and if they believe their "influence" or "power" is truly from the Spirit of God, then corporate backing may not be necessary.

So in the end I am challenged by this quote in a way I did not originally expect. Perhaps I might have initially intended to abandon these seemingly distorted changes to Christianity. Instead, I am actually inclined to consider the appropriate way to engage each to the benefit of the Kingdom.

What say you?

grace wins

Jon Sontag turned me on to this interview from Christianity Today with Bono:

Assayas: I think I am beginning to understand religion because I have started acting and thinking like a father. What do you make of that?

Bono: Yes, I think that's normal. It's a mind-blowing concept that the God who created the universe might be looking for company, a real relationship with people, but the thing that keeps me on my knees is the difference between Grace and Karma.

Assayas: I haven't heard you talk about that.

Bono: I really believe we've moved out of the realm of Karma into one of Grace.

Assayas: Well, that doesn't make it clearer for me.

Bono: You see, at the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics--in physical laws--every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It's clear to me that Karma is at the very heart of the universe. I'm absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that "as you reap, so you will sow" stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I've done a lot of stupid stuff.

Assayas: I'd be interested to hear that.

Bono: That's between me and God. But I'd be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge. I'd be in deep shit. It doesn't excuse my mistakes, but I'm holding out for Grace. I'm holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity.

It was challenging to consider whether "Karma" is in fact a truth of the universe. Bono makes some good support for that idea. The difficulty with embracing Karma for me is whether or not you believe Karma is an answer to the world's problems. If we, as humans, make enough "good" action will the world respond with an equally "good" reaction. I think that there are some basic concepts one can embrace, but if you have a Biblical worldview then Original Sin becomes a real problem for Karma being the answer. Those who are "good" from the outside must ultimately consider their "inside," just as Jesus challenged the religious leaders of his day to do. And the real question then is, "Does my 'bad' inside deserve an equal and opposite reaction of 'bad' if on the outside I am 'good'?"

Someone self aware enough, like Bono, is able to recognize that no amount of "good," spiritual, or religious effort is going to be able to overcome the true state of mankind and have a saving reaction. With the attitude "I can't do it on my own," we become open to Grace. Grace imparts to us what we cannot do on our own. It begins to reshape us in the form of ultimate Grace. The Bible argues that Jesus, as God and man, is that ultimate Grace. We then become students of Jesus in how he lived and moved outside of "Karma" and into life at its most complete.

The things I have heard Bono say about life and God have always driven me to be a better student of Jesus and the Bible. Here Bono says, "I'm holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don't have to depend on my own religiosity." I too want to choose to hold on to Jesus for life now and life to come.