Impractical Theology

Video: Maybe We've Got It Backwards

2012-01-25T08:41:00.001-05:00

Here's a short (less than 3 minutes) video clip I wrote and produced to be used in my sermon last Sunday. Be sure to watch the whole thing.

Spiritual Formation Q & A

2011-11-22T11:22:00.001-05:00

A few days ago, a former student from my days as a youth minister sent Dana and I a few questions about Spiritual Formation for a project she was doing for a college class. Below are her questions followed by my answers. (If you'd like to see Dana's responses to the same questions CLICK HERE)

Q: How would you define "spirituality" or the "spiritual life"?

A: Spirituality: In both Greek and Hebrew, the word in the Bible that is translated as "spirit" also legitimately means "breath" and "wind" (Greek: pneuma and Hebrew: ruah). I think this is more than significant. Spirituality is about life and movement. I'd further argue that its specifically about moving further and further along the path to living "life to the full", as Jesus promises in John 10. Further, I think it has to do with living a God-directed (though not micromanaged) life that relies on guidance from God through his Spirit, as Jesus specifically describes in John 3. It's learning to understand that God is the source of true life, breathing that life in and exhaling it back out to the world around you (that he so loves). Its knowing that the same breath of God that is giving life to you is available to all, and understanding & embracing the connection. Its letting the wind of his Spirit fill your sails and propel you wherever it sends you, knowing that adventure awaits. Sometimes, its letting that breath sustain you when it seems like theres nothing else that can, and letting the wind propel you when you don't feel you have the energy to go on.

Q: What are some practices or things you do that play a formational role in your spiritual life?

A: Praying with Dana has jumped to the top of my list recently. This is one of the most life-giving practices that I've ever incorporated (I'm glad she suggested it). Also, I periodically incorporate fixed-hour prayer, especially when I'm having trouble praying spontaneously. I've found that art (music, visual, literature, etc) has begun to play a huge role in spiritual formation for me. Sometimes it intentional engagement with/enjoyment of it, and sometimes its the creation of it. Additionally the continual decision to remain in community with a church (congregation) is undeniably formational. To remain connected to diverse people (which can often be difficult) in a culture that tells me to just be a good consumer and treat these people collectively as a commodity that can be disposed of and traded for a newer, sleeker, more convenient model (which can also be traded later), shapes character in decisively positive and counter-cultural ways. (We could have a separate conversation about working as a minister in this situation, but I think that might take us too far off topic for now.) I'd also argue that whenever I'm engaged in works of service, both individually and collaboratively with others, to those who can offer no direct benefit (to myself or the church), my character is formed and shaped in positive, sometimes counterintuitive ways. I'd be remiss if I didn't also mention reading good books. The practice of reading has been an invaluable part of my spiritual formation. When I don't make time for it, my spirituality tends to suffer.

Q: What difference does it make for you to worship/fast/pray/praise communally/corporately vs. individually? Which do you prefer?

A: It's interesting that in the Bible, the only real reason you are given for gathering together appears to be to spur one another on toward love and good deeds," and to encourage one another (Hebrews 10). For this reason, I think corporate worship is essential (as that would be impossible to do alone). However, in our consumer culture we are somehow simultaneously tempted to believe that, a) Christian spirituality is really all about me as an individual (consumer), and b) the cultivation of my personal spirituality is the responsibility of the church (as my chosen and dispensable provider of religious goods and services) to cultivate within reasonable but optional time periods that don't take too much away from my already busy life. Both temptations must be resisted if we are to in any sense actually engage in worship, much less spiritual formation. Biblically, worship appears to be directed to God, but clearly involves our engagement in the lives of others for their encouragement and good. Loving God without loving others is an impossibility, and worshipping God devoid of any connection to others is a farce. In the context of The Lord's Supper/Eucharist, Paul tells the Corinthians that to partake of it devoid of community (without "discerning the body of Christ", which he's already defined as community with other believers), is to render it as not the Lord's Supper but your own, and further to eat and drink condemnation upon yourself. With all of that being said, a follower of the Way of Jesus also has the responsibility to cultivate formational spiritual practices within his or her own life. This is particularly true for me as a minister. No true growth comes from being comfortable and passive. I don't guess I have a preference, and I'm not sure it matters if I did. If anything, I think it would be an indicator that I should dive deeper into the one I didn't prefer, if it is actually growth that I seek.

Q: Of the "Spiritual disciplines", which is the most difficult for you? Do you see this as reason to push into this practice more or less?

A: Honestly, the one I struggle with the most is prayer. I'm not totally sure why this is, but I do see it as a reason to push into the practice more.

Q: When/how do you feel most connected with God? Prayer, praise, silence, service, something else?

A: This is a difficult question to answer. The best way I know to answer is, when I get outside myself. I'm finding more and more that God is found in connections. The ancient rabbis taught that when God created the world, he created it in a state of Shalom. This word means something like peace and harmony combined and on steroids. ;) They further argued that this Shalom basically played out in 3 ways: Harmony between God and People, Harmony between People and Other People, & Harmony between People and Creation. I find that the more I move into isolation, the more distant God seems to be, (Go figure!). I find that the more I look at and experience how everything is connected--in relationships, in nature, in worship, etc.--the more present God seems.

Q: When speaking with someone about growing in their relationship with Christ, how would you advise them to move forward?

A: I'd advise them to connect with a community of faith. I'd tell them not to look for a perfect one, as they don't exist, but rather to seek one that seems to be sincerely seeking to follow the Way of Jesus, and that is most obviously characterized by things like faith, hope and love. I'd also advise them to pray regularly, both alone and with others whom they love and respect. I'd advise them to do this, even if they didn't fully believe in the effectiveness of the practice yet. I'm also quite sure I'd have some books to recommend to them, relative to their particular situation.

Q: What do you perceive as the goal of these "practices"?

A: I see the goal of these practices is to form me/us further and further into the image of Christ, and to understand that this will be an ongoing, unfinished process that goes on for the rest of my life. It is to engage me/us in the Story of God; to help us find our place in it. It is to embrace our identity as children of light and people of love. It is to form us into the kinds of people who would actually be happy about it if God does what he promises in the end: The Restoration of All Things, The Renewal of All Things, The Reconciliation of All Things, The Lifting Up of The Downtrodden, etc, (See the Hebrew Prophets for more). It is to develop "eyes to see" and "ears to hear". It is to engage us in actively living life to the full, in partnership with God, in pursuit of his dream for the world.

The Rumors of Rob Bell's Heresy Have Been Greatly Exaggerated (my review of "Love Wins")

2011-04-28T15:23:00.000-04:00

The following is my review of Love Wins by Rob Bell. It was originally posted on The Englewood Review of Books . It was also posted on Jesus Needs New PR.

The fact that Rob Bell’s new book is considered controversial is as much a testimony to the marketing prowess of HarperOne (not to mention the unintentional marketing prowess of some critics), as it is to any theology contained in the book. The first lesson that can be derived from all of this is that if you want to publish a successful book, HarperOne isn’t a bad way to go.

To begin with, let’s look at two things that shouldn’t be surprises, but (based on the more angry reviews I’ve read) apparently are:

Rob Bell is not a Calvinist (“New”, “Neo”, or otherwise). He doesn’t write like one. He doesn’t adhere to exclusively Calvinist doctrine. He doesn’t see the terms “non-Calvinist” and “Christian” as mutually exclusive.
Rob Bell writes almost exactly like he talks. That means that there will be

words
             and half-sentences
                              laid-out unconventionally
                                                            throughout
                          the
                             book.

With that being said, there is much about this book that is worth discussing. I’ll go ahead and go on record as saying that the vitriol-fueled rumors of Rob Bell’s heretical universalism have been greatly exaggerated. Bell’s critics claim that the arguments in his book fall outside of historical Christian orthodoxy, while Bell himself claims to be saying nothing new, and that everything he argues for can be found within the stream of historic Christian orthodoxy. So, who is right? Well, that all depends on who you are asking, doesn’t it? In contemporary use, the term “orthodox” is quite subjective, though almost no-one attempting to employ the term as a theological trump card will admit this subjectivity. (Additionally, it should be noted that all reformers were technically heretics when they initially proposed their reforms, and that the way that the term “orthodox” is normally employed today seems more like a power game than anything else…but I digress)    Frankly, there isn’t much theological content in this book that you wouldn’t find in the work of N.T. Wright, Dallas Willard, and anyone who advocates a “restoration of all things” eschatology. Even on the particular subject of Hell and eternal punishment, Bell doesn’t say anything that isn’t in the same spirit of what N.T. Wright argues in his chapter on Hell in Following Jesus:

“First, it must be said as clearly as possible that as soon as we find ourselves wanting to believe in hell we find ourselves in great danger. The desire to see others punished–including the desire to do the punishing ourselves–has no place in a Christian scheme of things. There is, of course, a right and proper desire for justice, for the victory of right over might; the desire to punish, however, must be sharply distinguished from this.”

And later, Wright goes on to state:

“[M]ost of the passages in the New Testament which have been thought by the Church to refer to people going into eternal punishment after they die don’t in fact refer to any such thing. The great majority of them have to do with the way God acts within the world and history.”

If you’d like to see those ideas teased out and backed up, I’d recommend that you read Bell’s book and Wright’s work on the subject. I don’t offer these quotes from Wright as a sort of “trump card” here (Indeed, for some, Wright’s name won’t carry any weight at all). I’m merely attempting to show that Bell isn’t alone in his arguments and that it isn’t accurate to claim that only someone who doesn’t take the Bible or history seriously would make such an argument. It is simply not the case that in Love Wins, Bell is ignoring scripture and making an unbiblical argument. In his chapter on Hell, he actually lists and discusses every passage in the Bible that directly or indirectly discusses Hell. One may disagree with Bell’s interpretation of the Bible, but (particularly on this point) an accusation that he’s ignoring scripture is laughable.

It’s not that I don’t have any criticisms of the book. In his chapter on Heaven, Bell states:

“Jesus often referred to the ‘kingdom of heaven,’ and he tells stories about people ‘sinning against heaven.’ ‘Heaven’ in these cases is simply another way of saying ‘God’.”(82)

There is a sense in which this is sort of true, but, at the same time, it is so oversimplified that it is utterly unconvincing as it is stated. The fact is that the Gospel of Matthew records Jesus as using the term “Heaven” in this way, which is made all the more obvious when these texts are compared to the parallel texts in the other Gospels where the same term is rendered “Kingdom of God.” This comparison would make Bell’s case much more convincing than simply claiming that Jesus often used the word “Heaven” as a euphemism for the word “God” (while offering no more detail or supporting information).

Additionally, in his chapter on Hell, Rob cites Jesus warning to Capernaum in Matthew 10, and says:

“[Jesus] tells highly committed, pious religious people that it will be better for Sodom and Gomorra than them on judgment day?

There’s still hope?

And if there’s still hope for Sodom and Gomorrah, what does that say about all of the other Sodoms and Gomorrahs?” (84)

My problem here is that it’s just a weak supporting argument. The fact is that Jesus’s message here is directed at Capernaum, and Sodom and Gomorrah are brought in to the discussion for comparison’s sake. Jesus is also well known to use hyperbole as a rhetorical device in precisely this kind of scenario. Again, I’m not necessarily disagreeing with the point Bell is making here, I just don’t think he does himself any favors by using this particular text in this particular way.

This is not an academic book, and it doesn’t claim to be one. Rob Bell is more pastor than professor, more artist than engineer, and more conversation partner than debate opponent. He asks questions, not to undermine the Bible and/or faith, but rather because he thinks the Bible and/or Faith are so important…and because he thinks the people that God loves (read that as “everyone”) are so important. If you think that theology is best done by engineers and that “Christian books” should always and only reinforce what you already believe, then this isn’t the book for you. If you think theology is more art than science; if you believe that neither God nor truth are threatened by questions; and if you suspect that there may be more reason to hope than you’ve dared to hope for, you’ll really enjoy Rob Bell’s exploration of how “Love Wins”.

Thought Exercise: Jesus or Heaven?

2011-03-14T15:42:00.000-04:00

The following parable was written by Peter Rollins in his book, The Orthodox Heretic: And Other Impossible Tales. When I first read it a few years ago, it rocked my faith (in a very good way). If you are a person of faith, do yourself a favor and take a minute to read it. It is a very challenging and worthwhile thought exercise:

You sit in silence contemplating what has just taken place. Only moments ago you were alive and well, relaxing at home with friends. Then there was a deep, crushing pain in your chest that brought you crashing to the floor. The pain has now gone, but you are no longer in your home. Instead, you find yourself standing on the other side of death waiting to stand before the judgment seat and discover where you will spend eternity. As you reflect upon your life your name is called, and you are led down a long corridor into a majestic sanctuary with a throne located in its center. Sitting on this throne is a huge, breathtaking being who looks up at you and begins to speak.
“My name is Lucifer, and I am the angel of light.”
You are immediately filled with fear and trembling as you realize that you are face to face with the enemy of all that is true and good. Then the angel continues: “I have cast God down from his throne and banished Christ to the realm of eternal death. It is I who hold the keys to the kingdom. It is I who am the gatekeeper of paradise, and it is for me alone to decide who shall enter eternal joy and who shall be forsaken.”
After saying these words, he sits up and stretches out his vast arms. “In my right hand I hold eternal life and in my left hand eternal death. Those who would bow down and acknowledge me as their god shall pass through the gates of paradise and experience an eternity of bliss, but all those who refuse will be vanquished to the second death with their Christ.”
After a long pause he bends toward you and speaks, “Which will you choose?”

FAQ 4: What is Salvation?

2010-11-17T22:43:00.002-05:00

I'm currently preaching through a sermon series called "Frequently Asked Questions". The premise is that I'll take the most common questions that people have about God, Faith, etc., and respond to them. I'm not attempting to definitively answer these questions, per se, but I am publicly interacting with them. I've dusted off my blog and I'm writing a post that interacts with each week's question. So, without any further introduction, I give you my 4th question: What is Salvation?

Salvation. It's one of the most basic and fundamental concepts of Christianity. Do you have it? How can you get it? Can you lose it? What is it, anyway? Ask 7 Christians and you may get 7 answers. Most of the debates that revolve around the subject reduce salvation to a thing to be possessed or a status to maintained, and the general assumption seems to be that salvation is almost completely related to one's destination in the afterlife.

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word that is translated "salvation" literally means "rescue". As a Biblical concept, it finds its dominant expression in the Exodus,where the enslaved Israelites called out for generations to God, who eventually delivered them from their oppression. Most Biblical references to salvation seem intended to evoke this imagery again and again. Another prominent idea found in the Old Testament is that God IS Salvation. The New Testament relies heavily on the Old Testament imagery of Salvation, but there are a few subtle differences. In these texts, Salvation (rescue) takes place by Grace (unmerited), through Faith (trust, confidence) in Jesus. But even this short overview might lead one to an individualistic, escapist understanding of Salvation. Such an understanding would be deeply mistaken and profoundly unbiblical.

I have less than no interest in the debate between "Once Saved, Always Saved" and a Salvation that is called into question by the commission of a sin or the misunderstanding of a concept. The extremes at both ends of that spectrum are equally ridiculous, and frankly I question the spectrum itself. In Galatians, Paul seems to call out the Galatian church for thee distorted version of Salvation they were promoting. He says:

You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
-Gal. 5:4-6 NIV

That's right. The infamous phrase "fall from grace" actually originates in a passage that is arguing against trying to justify yourself by law, as if you were "paying off the god". He essentially says that to do so is to fall from grace...seemingly because you don't recognize it, and you don't believe you need it (or that it's sufficient in the first place). Salvation is not payment for services rendered. It is a gift from God. no Don't miss the next thought though: "The only thing that counts if faith expressing itself through love". Paul refuses to choose from their options. Instead, he transcends them. To do anything else is to reduce grace to a commodity and Salvation to a status game.

I've come to believe that the Christian concept of Salvation is rooted in the Hebrew concept of Shalom. Shalom is a word that the ancient rabbis used to describe both the original condition of the world in the Genesis creation narratives, and God's intention for how the world should be. It means something like "harmony", and the rabbis argued that it exhibited itself in 3 ways: Harmony between God and people, harmony between people and other people, and harmony between people and God's creation. They argue that what we normally refer to as "the fall" in the Genesis 3 narrative is not merely meant to indicate a break the relationship between God and people, but rather the breaking of Shalom in all three of the dimensions we've discussed and a new trajectory towards chaos. It can be argued that all sin can be traced back to the breaking of harmony in these 3 areas. It can also be argued that sin isn't a matter accumulating demerits so much as it is a matter of further distancing yourself and the world from the harmony God intends for it. Salvation then, is rescue from this situation by the God who is most clearly revealed in Jesus.

This re-framing has been profoundly helpful for me. However, there is another aspect of Salvation that I believe may be just as important and just as overlooked. Paul articulates it well in 2 Corinthians 5:14-21:

For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! …

Notice the language of "Creation" and "New Creation" here, and how resonant it is with what we've already discussed. Paul isn't the only one who makes this connection (and this isn't the only place he does it). In the Gospel that bears his name, John structures his telling of the story of Jesus after the Genesis 1 Creation narrative. He names 7 days (in order) in the course of the narrative, and lists 7 signs/miracles (each of which can be tied to the parallel day of Creation). On the 7th day, Jesus "rests" in the tomb. He is resurrected (in a garden, no less) on the first day of the new week, indicating that New Creation has begun. Although I could certainly keep going down that rabbit trail, I want to get back to Paul's argument in 2 Corinthians, because the next part of his argument is fascinating:

All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God

I've argued that Salvation is essentially reconciliation...rescue from the trajectory towards chaos...a return to the harmony (Shalom) that was broken, in all of its dimensions. Now, Paul lets the other shoe drop. Those who have been (are being) reconciled have also become agents of reconciliation. Those who have been saved/rescued by God become agents of salvation. It's not that you "have" salvation. It's that salvation has you. The writer of Ephesians makes a similar argument:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do
-Eph. 2:8-10 NIV

To be clear, I'm not arguing for a works-based Salvation. This text (as well as many others), deconstructs any such argument before it can even get started. However, I am absolutely arguing for Salvation-based-works. To be rescued is to become involved in the rescue. Individual Salvation is not an end unto itself. It is a means, by which we become active participants of what a living and active God is doing in the world. Biblically, Salvation isn't just a status to be claimed, it is a vocation to be embraced.

Salvation is the delightful surprise of having your little life caught up in the purposes of God for the whole world.
-Stanley Hauerwas and Will Willimon

FAQ Part 3: If I Have Faith, Why Do I Still Doubt?

2010-11-09T18:44:00.003-05:00

“Remember that these things are mysteries and that if they were such that we could understand them, they wouldn’t be worth understanding. A God you understood would be less than yourself.”
-Flannery O’Connor

I've written before about my basic beliefs concerning the relationship between faith and doubt, including in this recent guest post on Jason Boyett's blog. In short, I believe that the two are inextricably bound together. I believe that to say I have faith is, at the same time, to admit that I have doubt. I believe that words like "faith" and "belief" are more closely related to words like "trust" and "hope" than they are to words like "certain" and "irrefutable". Indeed, as thinkers from Tillich to Anne Lamott have pointed out, "faith" and "certainty" may be closer to opposites. Though it may be uncomfortable for many readers to see it stated this way, there is a real sense in which "faith" is at best, a hopeful agnosticism...a confident gamble in which we are betting our lives on what we hope is true. To say "I believe" is also in a sense to say, "I don't know".

While I argue that "faith" and "doubt" are in some ways inseparable, I'd also argue that not all doubts are equal. There is such a thing as "positive doubt". It would be impossible to learn anything new, if one did not doubt the adequacy and/or validity of what we already know and believe. Without doubt, no form of reformation would ever be possible. With that being said, there is also a type of doubt that is chronic, paralyzing, and decidedly unhealthy.

Where does this doubt come from? In his excellent book, O Me of Little Faith, Jason Boyett proposes 6 possible causes:

Sin--While doubt is not in and of itself sinful, it is often the result of persistent, unconfessed sin. When someone lives in violation of their own conscience and what they believe to be right or good, they begin to create distance between themselves and those who share these convictions...including God. This God, who is thus assumed to be increasingly distant and unforgiving, becomes less and less believable.

Familiarity--As much as familiarity can bring comfort, it can also eventually lend itself to contempt and boredom. For those who have been believers for some time, especially those who tend to think of faith as a static thing to be maintained, faith can be a lethargic, tedious exercise that eventually becomes untenable.

Depression--Boyett says "Some of us struggle to trust God when things are great. When things fall apart, it's even harder." As much as we'd like to believe that our emotional state has no effect on what we do or do not place our faith in, the reality is not so detached and compartmentalized.

Circumstances--Circumstances can bring us closer to God and they can also make us feel farther away from God. If you know anyone who has been touched by tragedy and loss, you know this to be true.

Being Human--In one of my favorite lines from the book, Boyett quips, "If you're afraid of doubt, being human isn't your best option." As human beings, we place our trust in other things and other people and often find that our trust was misplaced. If those we can see let us down, how much more difficult it is to trust an unseen God.

Intellectual Doubt--The deeper you dig, the deeper the rabbit hole goes. While some are able to accept simple explanations, others find themselves unable to turn off the questions that aren't satisfied with such answers. In his book, The Myth of Certainty, Daniel Taylor refers to such individuals as "Reflective", and rightly claims that their reflectiveness is both a blessing and a curse.

* * *

While I would never propose that you can (or even necessarily should) find away to rid yourself of all doubts, I can propose a few healthy ways of dealing with chronic doubt. This list is not meant to be exhaustive. I offer it from my own experience as what I have personally found helpful:

Prayer--I don't actually mean "just pray your doubts away" or some other trivial cliche'. When I'm in the depths of debilitating doubt, prayer is often one of the last things I want to do. I just don't have the words. Coming from a non-liturgical background, I have been surprised to find life and vitality breathed back into my faith by fixed-hour prayer. Praying these historical prayers that have stood the test of time, at specific times of the day when other believers all over the world are also praying (given time changes), is a powerful thing. I've found that they strengthen my faith and that they have even brought vitality back to my "spontaneous" prayers. For those who are unfamiliar with the practice, I can recommend Praying with the Church by Scot McKnight, and The Divine Hours Pocket Edition, by Phillis Tickle to get you started. Also, praying the Lord's Prayer a few times a day wouldn't be a bad place to start.

Confession--If the doubt you are experiencing is the result of ongoing sin (as discussed above), then I highly recommend that you find a few people whom you respect to confess it to. However, that kind of confession isn't necessarily what I'm talking about here. Doubt becomes malignant and harmful when we keep it covered up, as if it were something to be ashamed of. When you bring your doubts out into the light, confessing them to a few people you respect, you may find more hope than you ever thought possible. You may find that others have the same questions. You may find others who don't struggle with the same questions, but also don't reject you for thinking differently. These moments of "I'm not crazy" and "I'm not alone" can be wonderfully liberating, and will hopefully lead to the next practice on my list.

Conversation/Community--Christian faith is not a solo sport. It was meant to be done in community. Hopefully, the confession of doubt within community leads to hopeful and helpful dialogue that explores the way forward. By this I don't necessarily mean that others will talk you out of your questions. As we've already said, what you are doubting may well be worth doubting. The way forward is a path that is best explored together.

Nature-- I am not an outdoors person, as this blog post by my wife clearly illustrates. Left to my own devices, I'll stay holed up inside with a book. However, I've found that when I'm out in nature, there's something that I can't put words to that points to something greater than myself. There are many different proposals by many different people on what that "something" is. However, the point is that the vastness and complexity of Creation help me to feel an appropriate sense of smallness, awe, and wonder.

Art--When I started a Master's Degree in Theological Studies, someone offered me what I thought at the time was an odd piece of advice. They told me to make sure that I made a point to stay engaged with artistic things...listen to good music, engage with good stories/fiction, etc. As strange a suggestion as I thought it was, I found it to be incredibly valuable. I've found that faith is a very right-brained phenomenon (Daniel Pink writes persuasively about this in A Whole New Mind). When we try to have faith by approaching God from a totally left-brained perspective, we often become junior-high kids with scalpel in hand, who have relegated God to the role of dead frog to be dissected and labeled. Something is obviously lost in the process.

Action-- There is no better antidote to paralyzing, unhealthy doubt that to take action, for the sake of others. Introspection can be both a Spiritual discipline and a snare of self-absorption. Taking action, especially with other people for the sake of other people breathes new life into dry faith almost every time. It's not that the questions get answered--in fact, new questions may be generated in the process. Its that our more self-centered, self-absorbed questions tend to evaporate as we pour out the life and energy we've been trying so desperately to protect, for the sake of the world that God so loves.

“What if there is another category of reality in the universe, no less real just because it doesn’t shrink itself to our instruments and portals of ‘knowledge’? What if that category of reality--let’s call it mystery or spirituality--dwarfs all of our knowledge, as space dwarfs our little earth? Are we humble enough to look up from the little things we are so proud of comprehending and controlling, to face massive realities--humbling mysteries--greater than ourselves, and therefore greater than our ability to squeeze into our little boxes of certainty or ‘knowledge’? Are we willing to step off the narrow ledge of knowledge to soar into the broad spaces of faith?”
-Brian McLaren, Finding Faith

FAQ Part 2: Is Jesus a Republican or a Democrat? (or a Tea Partier, or a Libertarian, etc.)

2010-11-03T14:09:00.003-04:00

I'm currently preaching through a sermon series called "Frequently Asked Questions". The premise is that I'll take the most common questions that people have about God, Faith, etc., and respond to them. I'm not attempting to definitively answer these questions, per se, but I am publicly interacting with them. I've dusted off my blog and I'm writing a post that interacts with each week's question. So, without any further introduction, I give you my 2nd question:

Is Jesus a Republican or a Democrat? (or a Tea Partier, or a Libertarian, etc.)

No. (Thanks for reading ;) )

Of course, the title of this post is a silly, non-Biblical question. Nothing like our political parties existed at the time of Jesus, nor did anything like our political system. Someone might suggest "How would Jesus vote?" as a better question, but that one would have to be immediately followed by "Would Jesus vote at all?" I suppose the real question is more along the line of "How would Jesus have us use our vote?", or better yet, "What does political engagement look like for those who follow Jesus?"

Any good discussion of Christianity an politics has to at least briefly look at the effect that a Roman Emperor named Constantine had on Christianity. In the 4th century AD, Constantine had a dream or a vision in which he reportedly saw the symbol of the cross with the message: "Under this sign, you shall conquer". He had a cross constructed like the one he saw in his vision and had it carried at the front of his army like a standard. The battle was won, and Constantine claimed to become a Christian. He subsequently legalized Christianity, and by the end of the century it was the official religion of the Roman Empire. In his book, The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church, Greg Boyd sums it up well:

“For the first time, the church was given the power of the sword. Rather that viewing this new sword-power as Jesus did--as a temptation of the devil that needed to be resisted--influential Church leaders like Eusibius and Augustine saw it as a blessing from God…Once the church acquired power over others, everything changed…The faith that previously motivated people to trust in the power of the Cross now inspired them to trust in the power of the sword. Those who had previously understood that their job was to serve the world, now aspired to rule it. The community that once pointed to their love for enemies and refusal to engage in violence as proof of Christ’s Lordship, now pointed to their ability to violently defeat enemies as proof of Christ’s Lordship.”

I honestly have a growing concern that the political involvement and party devotion of many Christians is more than flirting with idolatry. Idolatry is essentially giving devotion, allegiance, etc. that are due only to God to something man-made. I would extend this to what Peter Rollins calls "ideolatry", where we begin to worship our own concepts and ideologies as if they were God. Forgive the string of quotes, but I think they explore this point well:

“There is no better way for a political party to establish the legitimacy of its political point of view that to declare that Jesus is one of its members. The remaking of Jesus is not just some kind of harmless campaign technique. It is not merely something sophisticated sociological observers can pass off with a wry smile and a wave of the hand. It is not just bad religion that needs correcting. The Bible calls it idolatry!”
-Tony Campolo

"Now, as kingdom people we are called to live in love, which means we are called and empowered to live free of fear. Because our source of worth, significance and security is found exclusively in God's love and God's reign, not our own immediate well-being and because we believe in the resurrection, we are empowered to love even those who threaten our well-being--for this does not threaten our essential worth, significance, and security. We are therefore, not to fear them (1 Pet. 3:14-18). If we do fear them, it is only because some element of our essential worth, significance and security is rooted in what they threaten. In other words, fear is an indication that we are living in idolatry, not love.
-Greg Boyd

"To confess that I play Tetris religiously isn't to say anything pro or con about religion. But to do it more than once a day, visit the Drudge Report every hour, check my cell phone every three minutes, and listen to Rush Limbaugh more often than I listen to any other human voice and then to claim that these things have absolutely nothing to do with my religion is to be, to some degree, delusional. My religion is my practice. It's what I do."
-David Dark

In truth, there are multiple Christian perspectives possible for sincere people of faith. There are intelligent people of faith on both the Left and the Right, who can make Biblical cases for the stances that they take. There are also Anabaptists and those who take a similar position of non-participation in the electoral process (as voters or candidates), who also have profoundly Biblical reasons for their own political positions. There are those who see party affiliation as the best way for them to affect positive, "Kingdom of God" changes in the world (Where Justice and Righteousness flow like a mighty river. Where the poor, oppressed and downtrodden are lifted up. See the prophets for further descriptions), and there are also those of us with convictions against political party affiliation because we feel they demand an allegiance that we are not willing or at liberty to give. There is no political party that can truly claim to be "Christian" or "God-ordained". To buy any propaganda that says otherwise is to reduce Jesus to a rubber stamp, and Christianity to a convenient voting block. To allow groups with political agendas to manipulate us based on fear is to say that we have placed our faith in something other than God. To allow political ideology to cause me to see another human being as an enemy or as less human or valuable than people like myself, is to sell out the way of Jesus for the sake of power. Chuck Colson puts it like this:

"Every human being is made in God’s image. This is the foundation of human value and is shared by all people, making all equal before God. We frequently appeal to the image of God to make a case for protecting the unborn, but we must recognize that Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh are all also made in the image of God. Simply put, Christians cannot demonize our opponents, because to do so is to insult the God in whose image we are made.”

The demonizing of those whom we disagree with politically, whether they are other voters, entire political parties, or famous politicians is not Christian...ever. To do so is to betray the Way of Jesus and to indicate where our strongest allegiance lies. Regardless of any label it applies to itself, unthinking partisan political engagement is not Christian...ever. To engage in such a way is to indicate where we have truly placed our faith. I'm not saying that the Bible prohibits Christians from affiliating with political parties. However, I am saying that when they do so, they are to be prophetic voices who offer relevant critique rather than compliant sheep who accept whatever talking points they are fed. Scripture tells us to "Seek first the Kingdom of God and all these things will be added to you." Political voices from all sides tell us that if we will only seek first these things, then they will give us the kingdom we want. As followers of Jesus, may we have the courage of our convictions as well as a Christ-like humility that allows us to listen and learn from those unlike ourselves. May our devotion to the Way of Jesus lead us to engage in a higher level of discourse, and may we resist the temptation to merely baptize partisan mudslinging as if it were somehow holy.

“Instead of participating in this kind of polarizing politics, I think Christians should embrace the politics of Jesus, which is a ministry of reconciliation…It’s not so much that Christians of various stripes on the political spectrum ought to be looking for common ground as that they ought to be looking for higher ground.
-Tony Campolo

FAQ Part 1: Why Do Bad Things Happen To Good People?

2010-10-19T12:01:00.002-04:00

This past Sunday, I began a sermon series called "Frequently Asked Questions". The premise is that I'll take the most common questions that people have about God, Faith, etc., and respond to them. I'm not attempting to definitively answer these questions, per se, but I am publicly interacting with them. As a part of that exercise, I plan on posting the audio as soon as its available during the week that each sermon is delivered, and I'm also dusting off my blog and writing a post that interacts with each week's question. So, without any further introduction, I give you my first question:

Why Do Bad Things Happen To Good People?

It's a question I've been wrestling with a lot lately. I could tell you the story of the 16-year-old girl that died when a tornado hit her High School a few years ago. My father was the police chaplain and was also her preacher. He identified her body, and then had to walk out to where her parents were waiting in the designated area behind caution tape, and inform them that their precious daughter was dead. I could tell you about my wife's cousin who suffered from cystic fibrosis all of his life, and wasn't expected to live past age 6. At age 38, he received a lung transplant that was supposed to give him at least another 10 years to spend with his wife and adopted son. He developed an infection in his new lungs shortly after the transplant, and died less than a year later at age 39. I could tell you about my friends from college Tony and Susan. Tony was the best man at my wedding. Susan stood in for my wife Dana at our wedding rehearsal. Tony and I decided to go into youth ministry on the same day. Susan and Dana developed the kind of special bond that often grows between those who walk a similar path. About a month ago, Susan went in for an outpatient medical procedure. Something went wrong, and by that evening the MRI showed no brain activity. The next morning, my friend had to give the word to turn off the machines, because his wife was dead. Then, he went home to their 3-year-old twins. No matter who you are, and how strong your faith is, there are times when you look to the heavens and scream "Do you even know what you are doing??? Do you care??? Are you even there???" Why do bad things happen to good people?

In order to Biblically engage with this question (as it is commonly asked), it seems to me that part of the question is itself questionable. Bear with me, because I assure you I'm not trying to get God off the hook on a technicality, but I have to ask, "What 'good people'?" Now before half of you give me the Mark Driscol/John Piper stamp of approval, and the other half slam your laptops closed in disgust, let me explain. I do NOT mean that in the hyper-Calvinist sense of "we are all so evil and depraved that we only deserve for horrible things to happen to us in the first place, so its a miracle that good things ever happen." I find such an explanation to be a theologically abhorrent cop-out. I think that Scripture makes quite clear the value that God places on human beings, and that he deems all of his creation as "good" and "very good". What I mean, is that followers of Jesus, who have accepted the grace of God, have essentially opted out of categorizing some people as better than others. Paul appears to argue (Romans and Galatians immediately come to mind) that to do so is to invalidate the Gospel of Jesus, and that to continue to insist on putting people into categories (Jew, Greek, Slave, Free, Male, Female, Good, Bad, etc.) that somehow sort them in terms of value and worth is precisely to "fall from grace", as someone who claims not to need it. To be Christian then, is to opt-out of the "US v/s THEM" system that deems some as "Good", deserving of blessings and protection from pain (because they've earned it), and some people as "Bad", rightly deserving all of the pain and suffering that might come their way.

So, I think a re-framing of the question is in order. The question isn't "Why do bad things happen to good people?" so much as it is "Why do bad things happen to God's people?" Essentially, the question posed to God is, "If we are supposed to have this special relationship with you...if you are really a 'Father' to us, how can you allow these things to happen?" I would argue that this is the most commonly asked question in the Biblical text, and much of Scripture is devoted to wrestling with precisely the issue at hand. I hate to disappoint you but, even so, no definitive answer is given in the Bible. The closest thing you get is found in the book of Job.

The book of Job is likely the oldest document in the Biblical text. Moreover, despite the claims of fundamentalists that everything in the Bible must be interpreted literally, the majority of the book of Job is written in Hebrew poetry. Many attempts at answering our question (even within the Biblical text) offer a solution that sounds a lot like Karma...Good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people. While the opening scene of Job is Theologically odd to say the least (with Satan walking into God's throne room and engaging God in a wager), it does make one thing very clear: What happens to Job is in no way his fault. In fact, the text describes Job's righteousness in such an over-the-top kind of way, you would think he was Jesus. As the narrative progresses, everything Job loves is systematically taken away from him, and even his relationship with his wife is twisted in a way that only adds to the misery. Job stands strong for the majority of the narrative...until his religious friends show up. In the beginning they do something that is very wise, observing a tradition by which they are present with the one in mourning, but do not speak. (We could actually learn a lot from them, because in these situations many of us say the dumbest, most insensitive things possible.) Then, after several days of this, they ruin it by talking. They explain to Job that BECAUSE (A) We all know that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people (a.k.a. "sinners"), and (B) Bad things are happening to Job, THEN (C) Job must be "bad people"/a sinner. Job assures them that this isn't the case, but they will have none of it, as their logic is perfect in their own minds. Finally, Job has enough and screams at the heavens, demanding that God would come down and explain himself. In humor that often escapes us, the youngest member of Job's band of friends speaks up for the first time, and explains to Job what a silly request this is, because God just doesn't do this kind of thing...Which is immediately followed by God showing up to respond to Job's question. God's poetic response is fascinating. He begins by establishing who is God and who isn't. He speaks of his knowledge, his power, and his role as Creator. He essentially asks Job, "Who do you think you are?" This is commonly assumed to be the essence of God's entire response to Job, as if God is just a colossal jerk who happens to be really powerful. Such a reading doesn't do justice to God or to the beauty of the text. As God's response continues, you begin to notice a subtle shift in the language. He begins to use very parental language (both paternal and maternal) to refer to his relationship with things like rain, dew and frost. He describes Himself as being greatly concerned with even baby birds who cry out in hunger. He depicts himself as counting down the days until pregnant goats and deer give birth. He begins to talk about lazy wild donkeys who he appears to love, though they don't produce anything of value like a domesticated donkey. He describes an ostrich as ugly, mean and sort of stupid...but then appears to take delight in how fast it can run. God essentially moves from asking "Who do you think you are?" to asking "Who do you think I am?" Not once in His response does God offer an answer or explanations. He appears to suggest that Job wouldn't understand, and it wouldn't be that helpful anyway. However, God follows all of that up by essentially saying "But don't you, even for a second, think that I don't care and I'm not suffering with you. I am intimately involved and deeply concerned with the most minute aspects of creation. Do you really think I don't care about your pain?" As Jurgen Moltmann says, a God who was impassive to our suffering "would not be a God, but a monster", and "God's power is not expressed by the fact that he controls all things (the opposite of love), but in that he bears all things and suffers all things."

In the Gospels, Jesus engages with the question as well. In the sermon on the mount, he says:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

-Matthew 5:43-48 TNIV

This is a fascinating text to me. By way of definition of his Father's perfection, he points out that he causes the sun to shine and also gives life-giving rain to both the evil and the good--both the righteous and the unrighteous. Then, he tells us to go do likewise.

In essence, the Bible offers no conclusive answer or explanation to the question that it wrestles with the most. Instead, it describes a God who suffers with us, and it issues a call for those who would follow this God to embody a response rather than offer an explanation. As the people of God, we are to bring light to darkness, hope to despair, and even life into death. We are not to spend all of our energy and resources insulating ourselves from pain and suffering, but rather we are to be the ones who enter into the suffering of others and help them to bear it. When those who are suffering cry out "Where is God?", our role is not to convince them with apologetics. As agents of Hope, it is our calling to reflect and embody God into the space where he cannot be easily seen or heard.

God and Monkeys?

2010-09-21T12:29:00.001-04:00

My friend Matthew Paul Turner asked me to write a review for of Evolving in Monkey Town by Rachel Held Evans, as a guest post for his blog, "Jesus Needs New PR". I loved the book (which was provided to me free of charge). You can read my review on Matthew's blog by clicking HERE, or you can just read it below...

The problem with polarized arguments is that both sides end up arguing for something stupid…against something equally stupid…with no way forward. One of the major problems with Christianity in our day is that, in many ways we have begun to let polarized arguments define us. We are in love with labels, and with categories of “us” versus “them”. We proudly identify ourselves as “conservative” or “liberal” in terms of politics and theology and claim that if you don’t apply the same label to yourself, you must be one of “them”, and thus not a “true Christian”, like us. We ratchet our categories ever tighter, to the point that if you even question any point of our collective unspoken creeds, we question your faithfulness and intentions.

This phenomenon has become particularly obvious in the dominant approach to Christian apologetics in America. Having “faith” has come to mean having certainty about a particular set of beliefs. It’s a sad situation in desperate need of a fresh perspective that dares to imagine a way forward.
Enter author/thinker/southerner Rachel Held Evans. As a resident of Dayton, TN (the site of the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial), a graduate of Bryant College, and a former poster-child for apologetics-oriented faith, Rachel is uniquely positioned to be exactly the kind of voice we need hear. In her book, Evolving In Monkey Town, Rachel offers a deeply personal and life-giving perspective. The book isn’t exactly what you might think, given the title. She doesn’t particularly attempt to settle the “evolution question”, so much as she argues that our approach to this and other questions like it has been deeply unhelpful. Equal parts memoir and Practical Theology, “Monkey Town” proposes an approach that doesn’t equate “faith” with “certainty”. Rather, Rachel advocates a faith that has room for ambiguity; that generates questions instead of fearing them; a faith that trusts and hopes even in the midst of doubt. She calls us to distinguish between questioning God and questioning our beliefs about God, and argues that, rather than being blasphemous, the later is both formative and necessary. She argues that faith was never meant to be a static, unchanging thing; but that living faith is alive precisely because of its ability to learn, adapt, and…well, evolve.

It doesn’t hurt that Rachel is a profoundly good writer. She’ll have you laughing one minute and in tears the next. At certain points you’ll be unable to put the book down, while at other you’ll have to put it down to ponder the implications of what you’ve just read. In a day when many would-be defenders of the faith are characterized by arrogance and ignorance, Rachel Held Evans may just be the humble and thoughtful kind of prophet we need. The fact that such a description probably makes her uncomfortable, only strengthens my case.

Buy Rachel's Book

Check Out My Guest Post about Faith and Doubt on Jason Boyett's Blog

2010-07-30T11:16:00.002-04:00

Several weeks ago, I wrote a review of Jason Boyett's new book, O Me of Little Faith: True Confessions of a Spiritual Weakling. Jason recently asked me to write a guest post for his blog on the subject of faith and doubt. Check out my contribution HERE.

At His (Glenn) Beck and Call?

2010-05-24T13:03:00.002-04:00

Author's Note: Matthew Paul Turner asked me to write this response to the video linked below. My response was originally posted at his blog, Jesus Needs New PR. There was a good bit of discussion in the comment section there, if you are interested.

OK. It makes my wife nervous when I wade into these kinds of discussions, especially when I do it publicly. Now, for the record, I claim no affiliation to any political party, as I think political parties tend to demand a level of allegiance that I’m not willing (or at liberty) to give.

That being said, this most recent clip of Glenn Beck “teaching” us about social justice and partnership is abhorrent in my opinion. Of course, it would be merely ridiculous and laughable if I were simply judging it based on content alone. But that’s not the only issue here. What bothers me is the blatant attempt to co-opt Christians for a political agenda (as well as for ratings). What bothers me more is how wildly successful it’s been. To that, some of you might say, “But isn’t that what they are arguing against?”

Yes, it is. And that’s the hypocrisy of it all.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think scripture mandates government-enforced socialism or communism (which are not the same thing). However, it should be noted that under the Mosaic Law, redistribution was actually mandated in some ways i.e. “leaving the edges of your field unharvested for the poor,” and the “year of Jubilee”. But scripture doesn’t advocate unregulated free-market capitalism, either.

The theme that I read over and over again in scripture is God’s concern with what kind of a people we are becoming–both collectively and individually. Are we becoming the kind of people who actually care about the other person…the poor and the oppressed…the widow and the orphan?

Are we becoming the kind of people who find ways to demonize and devalue other people, so that we can justify hoarding wealth and resources for ourselves?

Do we look for ways to baptize selfishness, or is the unconditional love of God that we’ve accepted making us more loving and generous people? Is grace something that we merely accept, or is it something that we embody?

Do we care more about the government trying to take our “hard-earned money” to help the poor and oppressed than we care about the fact that they are poor and oppressed?

Do we use one verse (out of context) from Second Thessalonians to justify our way out of more than 2000 verses of scripture that deal with our responsibility to the poor and oppressed?

(SIDE NOTE: Did you realize that the prophet Ezekiel identifies the “sin of Sodom” as the fact that they were “arrogant and overfed” and that they “did not care about the poor and the oppressed”?)

Are we so troubled by the plight of the poor and oppressed that we wrestle with the complex nature of the problem and the inadequate solutions offered by political leaders on all sides, or are we suckers for T.V. personalities whose confident, righteous-sounding rhetoric gives us ways to justify our selfishness, greed, and/or prejudice?

You see; the term “social justice” was coined because the word “justice” became obscure over time. That happened because the legal, punitive meaning of “justice” began to dominate society’s understanding of the term. But in the Bible, the dominant meaning of “justice” is more akin to what is currently meant by the term “Social Justice.”

(Glenn Beck badly mis-characterizes “social justice” in the video clip.)

Sadly, we Christians have a very pervasive tendency to remake God in our own image instead of the other way around. And we use Scripture as a tool to prop up what we already want to believe rather than allowing God’s story to change our hearts.

That’s why it saddens me to hear Jerry Fallwell Jr. and George Lillback happily lend their support and “wisdom” to Beck’s propaganda. In this clip alone, they oversimplify issues that are deeply complex (Biblical and otherwise), and even poorly reveal the actions and words of historical figures (like Rauschenbusch, for instance, which will be clear to anyone who has actually read his works) and concepts they cite. I’m unclear if their actions are because they haven’t taken the time to adequately research these issues, or if they think they’re serving some “greater good”.

To me, it seems they’ve allowed themselves to be co-opted and used. Multiple positions could be intelligently and compellingly argued by people of faith, if they would simply admit the complex nature of the argument. Instead, we get people passing themselves off as experts to support what is little more than political, social, and media propaganda.

Sure, I’m disturbed by the fact that Glenn Beck is presuming to tell people where they should and shouldn’t go to church. But you know what bugs me the most? The fact that so many Christians actually buy into Beck’s message. Where’s our discernment? Why are respected Christian leaders standing next to him and supporting his propaganda?

And why in the world do so many people of faith feel the need to be at this man’s beck and call and serve his agenda rather than the agenda of Christ?

O Me of Little Faith (Book Review)

2010-05-11T13:59:00.003-04:00

Note: This review was originally posted on my friend Matthew Paul Turner's blog. Be sure to also check out the follow-up discussion at Jason Boyett's blog.

I have always enjoyed Jason Boyett’s writing. I became familiar with him when, on a whim, I picked up his “Pocket Guide To The Apocalypse”. His good-natured sarcasm, combined with the fact that he takes the time to “know what he’s talking about” had me at “Hello”. Since then, I’ve read several of his other “Pocket Guides” and I follow his blog. When Boyett announced that he was releasing a new book with the provocative title, “O Me of Little Faith”, it would be an understatement to say that I was interested in reading it.

Now that I’ve read it, I must confess that Jason Boyett has created a problem for me. On one hand, he seems to have unknowingly written his book about me. I am a confirmed doubter. For me, faith and doubt are like eternal dance partners. It seems to me that “faith” is more closely related to words like “trust”, “confidence”, “hope”, “commitment”, and has less to do with words like “certainty” or “convinced”. I can’t turn off the questions. I don’t generally find books on apologetics helpful. I resonate with the man who cried out to Jesus “Lord, I do believe. Help my unbelief” in the gospel account. On the other hand, not everyone is like me. I’ve found that some people aren’t given to such incessant questioning, and that the things that are issues for me aren’t issues for them.

So here’s my problem: Jason Boyett has written a beautiful, hopeful, gut-wrenchingly honest book for people like me. I can’t even begin to tell you how refreshingly helpful it was, and how much life it breathed back into my faith. But, at the same time, I realize (as Boyett seems to) that for people who aren’t like me, this book could be devastating. He doesn’t shy away from hard questions, and he doesn’t answer them. He doesn’t defend the status-quo. He doesn’t whitewash problems. He makes no attempt to win any debates. He speaks with poignant honesty as one who is deeply committed to hope. I can’t recommend this book to every Christian I know. However, I know that I will, without hesitation direct my fellow faithful doubters to this beacon of hope. It is a well of living water that I will return to again and again.

The Gospel According to LOST (Book Recommendation)

2010-04-13T08:15:00.003-04:00

If you ask me, Chris Seay doesn't write enough. I have loved every book that I've read by him. His writing style is uniquely engaging...almost conversational...intelligent without sounding academic. As a reader, you find yourself drawn in, without feeling "talked down to". But where Seay really shines is when he explores the intersection of Pop-Culture and Theology.

In The Gospel According to Lost, Seay explores the ABC television series, that has become a cultural force. To be honest, I stared getting into the show in season 2, but gave up on it after I couldn't make sense of the polar bears on a tropical island or the black cloud that killed a guy. Even though I hadn't been watching the show, when the opportunity to review this book came up, I jumped on it based on how much I had enjoyed Seay's previous work. From the very beginning, he began revealing layers of meaning that I had missed in my brief stint of watching the show. I was quickly convinced that my rejection of LOST had been premature. I caught up with recaps on itunes and with full episodes of all previous seasons on hulu. I'm now an unabashed LOST devotee, fully engaged in the final season, due in no small part to this book.

While a few chapters are devoted to topical material, Seay devotes the majority of the chapters to exploring individual characters. It's a brilliant approach, as it allows him to explore various themes, but in a personal, almost relational way. It's also made me a more observant viewer, learning to notice the titles of books that that characters are reading, or even carrying. The layers of philosophy and theology woven into this show are astounding, and Seay teases them out beautifully. He released this book before the final season, but he doesn't totally shy away from making predictions about the answers to various as yet, unanswered questions. This is a quick and enjoyable read, that fans of LOST will love...and that just might make a fan out of you, if you're not already.

Grace & Peace,
Adam

P.S. Be sure to check out Chris Seay's video podcast on each episode of the final season of LOST. Good stuff.

* This book was provided for review free of charge through Amazon Vine.

"A New Kind of Christianity" by Brian McLaren

2010-03-08T10:32:00.007-05:00

Though I'm quite sure he would deny that anyone owed him anything, I owe Brian McLaren a debt of gratitude. Over the years, Brian's writing has breathed fresh life and vitality into my faith. To say that I was excited when Viral Bloggers offered an opportunity to review his newest book would be an understatement along the lines of claiming that Bono is kind of interested in social justice, or that Glenn Beck exaggerates a little.

Reviewing the Reviews

As I was finishing the book, I watched as reviews began to pop-up on the internet. The less-than-surprising news is that hard-core Calvinists (including the "New-Calvinists") hate it with a white-hot hatred they normally reserve for child abusers and made-for-TV movies on the Lifetime Network. Reading their reviews, you would think that Brian had done something to them personally, or had betrayed them in some sense (which is weird, sense they haven't liked most of his books). I was disappointed to pick up on this vibe even in a review by Michael Wittmer, whom I had generally considered to be one of the more level-headed thinkers from that perspective. Scot McKnight, whom I have a great deal of respect for, and who is not really thought of as a Calvinist, wrote a review for Christianity Today that, while much kinder and more respectful in tone, claimed that Brian wasn't really saying anything new, but was simply re-packaging the Classical Liberalism that was typical of German Theology before the 2nd World War as typified in Adolf Von Harnack. This struck me as odd, because Brian clearly intends to transcend such polarized categories (not merely repackage one category in a fresh way as "the right one"), and the point at which Brian's thought draws this criticism from McKnight, is actually closer to the much more contemporary (and 3rd-way) thinking found in the work of Peter Enns.

Most of the critics' objections essentially stem from concerns about orthodoxy. Maybe it's because I'm from a non-creedal tradition, but I've never quite resonated with the orthodoxy/heresy argument. (I realize I may have just painted a target on myself...but that kind of illustrates my point, doesn't it?). For starters, an enormous amount of what has historically been defined as "heresy" was so classified by people who were publicly executing people they disagreed with, in the name of the crucified Christ! I'm fairly sure that misses the point of the Gospel to a much greater degree than having different ideas about whether God and Jesus are made out of the same substance. Secondly, when certain subjects are off-limits for questions, it looks like we're not actually interested in "truth", but rather merely maintaining the status quo. Additionally, for large portions of church history, the "orthodox positions" were precisely wrong (slavery, women's rights, etc.) I could go on and on...but I won't.

The Actual Book

A New Kind of Christianity, is the book that many of us have been wanting McLaren to write for years. Ever since he sparked our imaginations with the fictional conversations between Dan Poole and Neil Edward Oliver in A New Kind of Christian, we've been dying to see those ideas teased out in non-fiction. He structures the book around 10 crucial questions, identifying the first 5 as theological in nature, and the remaining 5 as practical.

The Narrative Question: What Is the Overarching Storyline of the Bible?
The Authority Question: How Should the Bible Be Understood?
The God Question: Is God Violent?
The Jesus Question: Who is Jesus and Why is He Important?
The Gospel Question: What Is the Gospel?
The Church Question: What Do We Do About the Church?
The Sex Question: Can We Find a Way to Address Sexuality Without Fighting About It?
The Future Question: Can We Find a Better Way of View the Future?
The Pluralism Question: How Should Followers of Jesus Relate to People of Other Religions?
The What Do We Do Now Question: How Can We Translate Our Quest into Action?

McLaren's approach isn't coercive. He explains that he isn't attempting to answer these questions definitively but rather is responding to them and inviting us, as readers and willing participants into the conversation. He is seeking to get conversation out of the polarized deadlock that it is so often bogged down in, because of the bounded categories (liberal, conservative, etc.) imposed in modernity that serve to insure no real conversation can ever take place (which reminds me of the state of a certain country's political system...but I digress).

What Brian offers here is a beautiful and thoughtful way forward. Is it perfect? No. And he never claims that it is. Will his responses satisfy everyone? Uh, I've never read any book that did that. However, to Brian's credit, he doesn't pander to any particular category's concept of "orthodoxy." A New Kind of Christianity transcends unhelpful categories and sparks hopeful conversation that I believe could point the way forward. That is, if we have ears to hear, and eyes to see.

2 Brian McLaren Videos

2010-02-25T12:42:00.001-05:00

I recently read A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith, by Brian McLaren. I received my copy from The Ooze's Viral Bloggers Network, and I am working on a review that should be up in the next couple of days. In the meantime, TheOoze.tv has begun posting a series of videos featuring Spencer Burke interviewing McLaren about the major ideas in the book. I'm posting the first 2 here. If you have time, watch them and let me know your thoughts/reactions. I'm really interested in knowing what you think.

The Narrative Question

The Authority Question

So, what do you think?
AE

Book Review: "Hear No Evil" by Matthew Paul Turner

2010-02-16T14:10:00.002-05:00

Full Disclosure: Matthew Paul Turner is a good friend of mine, and I was provided with a free copy of this book for review (for that matter, I read several sections of it as it was being written).
That being said, if it wasn't a good book, I'd just conveniently never review it rather than fabricating a falsely glowing review.

In his latest offering, "Hear No Evil: My Story of Innocence, Music, and the Holy Ghost", Matthew Paul Turner gives us a memoir chronicling his somewhat turbulent relationship with the Christian music subculture/industry. The story spans from Matthew's childhood brushes with "Christian" fame, via a fundamentalist version of "Star Search" and a sort of one-sided friendship with teenage southern gospel "stars", to his present day observations and experiences. Turner, who in my opinion is equal parts humorist and satirist, is genuinely funny. He invites us to laugh with him as he recounts his college ambition to become "the Christian Michael Jackson". Don't get me wrong, though. Often, in the middle of side-splitting laughter, Turner will sneak up on you with a poignancy that will break your heart when you least expect it. It should also be noted that Turner isn't just some guy who's experience with the industry consists of listening to Christian radio. Though he claims to have been unqualified for the position, he is the former editor of CCM Magazine.

In all honesty, I think Matthew's writing gets better with every book. He has an uncanny ability to use humor to take an honest look at something, warts and all, while still speaking fondly of it. His narrative shines light in some dark places in the Christian music industry, while somehow retaining an impression of hopefulness. While Matthew unflinchingly uses humor to raise really good questions, he never comes across as mean or condescending. It frankly comes across as if he's talking about a quirky, stumbling relative, who is deeply flawed...a relationship that both blessed and scarred him. He doesn't attempt many answers, as it wouldn't really serve the genre...but he does raise many useful and helpful questions. For some, this book may work like therapy, providing a kind of catharsis. For others it may work like a flashlight, illuminating some things that were obscured from their view. I highly recommend it to anyone with a sense of humor and a love of music.

"A Million Miles in a Thousand Years by Donald Miller

2010-02-12T09:17:00.003-05:00

Note: As we are about to begin a discussion on this book at our church, I thought I would re-post my review

I freely admit that I love Donald Miller's writing style. Since I first read Blue Like Jazz, picking up one of Miller's new books has felt like sitting down for a good conversation with an old friend. His new book, A Million Miles in a Thousand Years: What I Learned While Editing My Life, is no different. Written in his typical memoir style, Miller invites us into a soul-searching re-examination of his own life. Apparently, after the success of Blue Like Jazz, Miller floundered a bit. He wrote a few other (in my opinion, excellent) other books, that did not sell nearly as well. He seems to have felt as if his life had lost its direction and momentum. His self-examination began after he was contacted by a movie production company who wanted to turn Blue Like Jazz, into a movie. As he began to work on the script with a couple of guys from the production company, he discovers that they must develop a "narrative arc" for the story. Miller began to learn about what makes movies compelling, and even attended a seminar on "story" by Robert McKee. As the book proceeds, Miller begins to apply the principles of Story to life, and even faith. The results are profound and compelling. Miller's keen wit and unflinching honest will take you from laughter to tears and back again...often in the same paragraph. You will be drawn in as he attempts to find his estranged father and deals with relational commitment issues. I could not put this book down (even as I was scrambling to finish the coursework for my Masters Degree). In short, I loved it. I think you will too.
AE

34

2010-01-12T13:51:00.003-05:00

I turned 34-years-old today. It feels oddly significant to me, though I'm not totally sure why. It may be because I got confused last year and thought I was turning 34 then, and was pleasantly surprised when I figured out my mistake. It may be because, as my friend Matthew Paul Turner reminded me this morning, I'm older than Jesus was at the time of his crucifixion. It may just be because I realize that if I live 34 more years, I'll be 68. Who knows? Maybe I'm just feeling particularly narcissistic and self-important today :)

At any rate, today I'm thinking about my life. All in all, the first 34 years have been fantastic, full of wonder, love and adventure. The most amazing person I've ever met married me and agreed to spend the rest of her life with me. We became parents of 2 wonderful little girls who teach me, make me laugh, and leave me awestruck every day. I worked for 10 years in youth ministry and then transitioned into preaching. I earned a Master's Degree in Theological Studies from Lipscomb. I've taught at the university level. I've found a church home that legitimately feels like family. It's been a good 34 years.

Additionally, I've also been thinking about what I'd like to do in the next 34 years:

I want to become as compassionate and loving as my wife.
I want my daughters to know beyond a shadow of a doubt how much I love them and how much I believe in them.
I want to continuously communicate to my wife how much I love, respect, admire, and appreciate her.
I want to write a good book and become a published author.
I want to make sure I communicate to my parents how much I appreciate who they are, and how thankful I am for the love and support they've given me.
I want to make sure my sister knows I'm proud of her.
I want to really learn how to play the guitar well.
I'd like to cultivate new friendships with people I haven't even met yet, while retaining and continuing to cultivate those friendships that have breathed life into me.
I want to pray and mediate more.
I want to continue to grow and learn every day for the rest of my life
I want to spend more time with people who make me laugh.
I want to be there more for people who cry.
I want to live a life full of shared moments that my wife and children will remember for the rest of my life...the kind of moments that will make them smile, even after I'm gone.
I want take better care of myself by eating better and exercising more.
I want to be an agent of hope, peace, love, and reconciliation
I want to be someone worthy of respect.
I want to care less who's watching
I want to reflect the characteristics of the God I see revealed in Jesus.
I want to listen more.
I want to learn to see each moment with a sense of wonder.
I want to make sure that my heart never becomes callous to the suffering of others.
I want to live a life worthy of the blessings I've been given.

Grace and Peace,
Adam

A few words regarding Tiger Woods...

2010-01-05T14:18:00.004-05:00

Several months ago, I was troubled by the almost gleeful judgment and condemnation that was heaped onto Michael Jackson upon his death...often by people who claim to follow Jesus. Now, in the wake of the Tiger woods scandal, I am experiencing a sense of deja vu. Woods' actions were certainly immoral and he violated both his marriage vows and his wife's trust. This is between him and his family...not us. The truth is, he is a fallible human being, just like the rest of us...who seems to be struggling to put his life and maybe even his family back together. The second we can no longer feel sympathy for him, his wife, and his children as human beings, is the second we stop being human ourselves. Followers of Jesus are to be people of grace. We have received grace, and we are to embody it. Grace. Healing. Redemption. Reconciliation. Shouldn't people who have received (and are receiving) such things be the first to reflect it back to those who need it most?

Sorry if I'm rambling, but it really bothers me. I'm reminded of a passage from David Dark's book The Sacredness of Questioning Everything:

"Pervert is a verb, and we do it all the time. To pervert is to degrade, to cut down to size – and we do it to people in our minds. We devalue them. We reduce them to the limitations of our appetites, of our sense of what might prove useful to us, of our sense of what strikes us as appropriate. We often only file them away – these living and breathing human beings – into separate files of crazy-making issues-talk. When we think of a person primarily as a problem, a potential buyer, a VIP, a celebrity, or an undocumented worker, we’re reducing them to the tiny sphere of our stunted attention span. This is how perversion works. Perversion is a failure of the imagination, a failure to pay adequate attention.
While perversion appears to be the modus operandi of governments and the transnational corporations they serve – and the language both speak in their broadcasts – the reductionism implicit in perversion doesn’t ultimately work. It doesn’t do justice to the fullness of what we are. We, the people, are always more than our use value. Like the God in whose image people are made, people are irreducible. There’s always more to a person – more stories, more life, more complexities – than we know. The human person, when viewed properly, is unfathomable, incalculable, and dear. Perversion always says otherwise. Perversion is a way of managing, getting down to business, getting a handle on people as if they were things. A person reduced to a thing has been, in the mind of the perverter, dispensed with, taken care of, filed away. Perversion is pigeonholing…
I tried to share some of this with my high school students, and a fellow who’s always quick with an encouraging, conspiratorial smile walked up after class (always a rewarding experience) and said, “So we’re all perverts then.”
“Yep,” I said. “But we aren’t only perverts. We certainly underestimate each other, misperceiving and misrepresenting other people from one moment to the next. But we also get it right sometimes. We aren’t just perverts. In fact, if we say of someone that he or she is a pervert and nothing but a pervert, we’re being perverts speaking perversely as perverts do.” Here I had to pause to take a breath. “Like calling someone a fool or an idiot. It’s one of those things Jesus tells us to never ever do. Calling someone a pervert without acknowledging our own inner pervert might lead to the destruction – or at least the perversion – of our own soul. We become perverts in our determination to catch a pervert.”

Grace and Peace,
Adam

Christmas Gift Book Recommendations...

2009-12-15T10:53:00.002-05:00

For those of you who are looking for last minute gifts for your bookworm friends and family, I offer a list of my current favorite books (and book related products).

Kindle Wireless Reading Device--If you are looking to spend a little more cash, I actually do recommend the Kindle. I know what you are thinking, but hear me out. I originally thought the same thing. However, consider the following benefits: There's a ton of free content available. The innovative screen technology is very easy on your eyes, as opposed to computer screens. Free web browsing. Text-to-audio feature for most books and documents via internal speakers or headphones. MP3 (music on random shuffle) and Audible (audiobooks) supported. I am very impressed with this device.

Strength in What Remains by Tracy Kidder--This was singularly the most engrossing book I read this year. I literally couldn't put it down. This is not a particularly "Christian" book (for those who care about such a designation), but there is something so inspiring and true about this book, that it strikes me as "holy". Read my full review HERE.

The Sacredness of Questioning Everything by David Dark--I have probably promoted this book more than I have ever promoted any other. What Dark does here is nothing short of brilliant. This is an engaging, mind-bending read. Read my full review HERE.

Churched: One Kid's Journey Toward God Despite a Holy Mess by Matthew Paul Turner--In this witty and insightful memoir, Turner manages to channel himself as a child growing up in a fundamentalist Christian subculture. "Churched" is both insightful and genuinely funny. Read my full review HERE.

A Million Miles in a Thousand Years: What I Learned While Editing My Life by Donald Miller--A great gift both for fans of Blue Like Jazz and for those who are newcomers to Miller's work. In this profound and entertaining book, Miller applies the principles of "Story" to his life and invites us to do the same. Profound and hilarious. Read my full review HERE.

God's Dream by Desmond Tutu--This is the only children's book on my list...but what a book! This simple and beautifully illustrated book is a poignant expression of the Christ-like love that characterizes the great man who wrote it.

Advent Conspiracy

2009-12-01T09:36:00.000-05:00

http://adventconspiracy.org

Seth Godin gets it right...

2009-10-15T09:26:00.001-04:00

Reposted from Seth Godin's blog:

The problem with cable news thinking

Not only the networks of all political persuasions that come to mind, but the mindset they represent...
When I was growing up, Eyewitness News always found a house on fire in South Buffalo. "Tonight's top story," Irv Weinstein would intone, "...a fire in South Buffalo." Every single night. If you watched the news from out of town, you were sure that the city must have completely burned to the ground.
Cable news thinking has nothing to do with fires or with politics. Instead, it amplifies the worst elements of emotional reaction:
Focus on the urgent instead of the important.
Vivid emotions and the visuals that go with them as a selector for what's important.
Emphasis on noise over thoughtful analysis.
Unwillingness to reverse course and change one's mind.
Xenophobic and jingoistic reactions (fear of outsiders).
Defense of the status quo encouraged by an audience self-selected to be uniform.
Things become important merely because others have decided they are important.
Top down messaging encourages an echo chamber (agree with this edict or change the channel).
Ill-informed about history and this particular issue.
Confusing opinion with the truth.
Revising facts to fit a point of view.
Unwillingness to review past mistakes in light of history and use those to do better next time.
If I wanted to hobble an organization or even a country, I'd wish these twelve traits on them. I wonder if this sounds like the last board meeting you went to...

Video: Psych--High-Top Fade Out

2009-10-03T10:17:00.001-04:00

Ladies and Gentlemen,
I present my favorite episode of my favorite show currently on TV:

Drops Like Stars by Rob Bell (Book Review)

2009-09-08T11:02:00.002-04:00

I was really excited when I recieved Rob Bell's new book Drops Like Stars: A Few Thoughts on Creativity and Suffering in the mail. I have a great deal of respect for Bell, and I've enjoyed his other books. I was a bit surprised by the sheer size of the book. I don't mean that it's particularly thick (its not). However, the book's dimensions are similar to a coffee table book. Additionally, the book is very artistic/conceptual, making use of photography and strategic placement of text.

Honestly, for the first few pages, I found the weird text placement sort of irritating and cheesy. Some pages include merely a word, a phrase, or no text at all. Normal black text would abruptly transition to much larger red text. In the beginning, it felt sort of contrived.

However...something happened several pages in. Something clicked, and it began to strike me as quite beautiful. Bell offers an innovative take on the intersection between creativity and suffering by way of an intersection between art and the written word. The text is vintage Bell and, if you've heard him speak, it is written exactly like he talks. After reading the entire book, I think this format may frankly be more Bell's style than traditional print books. I regard the reading of this book as beautiful and enlightening experience. I highly recommend it.
AE

Strength In What Remains, A review

2009-08-24T11:38:00.001-04:00

Strength in What Remains

This book is a masterpiece. It is possessed of a haunting beauty that gets inside you and won't let go. Pulitzer Prize winning author, Tracy Kidder recounts the true story of Deogratias and his harrowing escape from the genocide that ripped his country apart and his subsequent struggle to build some sort of a life in America. After arriving in the United States with $200 in his pocket with no grasp of the English language whatsoever, Deo, a former medical student in his home country, finds himself homeless, sleeping in central park, and delivering groceries for a living.

The horrors that Deo endured in his home country of Burundi are almost unimaginable. The mere fact that he survived is astounding. However, the true beauty of this book lies in how it cultivates hope. For all of humanity's darkness that threatens to close in on Deo, it is the kindness and compassion of strangers that saves, time and time again. I'm tempted to recount some examples of this, but I'd honestly hate to spoil it for you. It is often said that it is in despair that hope matters and it is only in the darkness that light makes a difference. That is the best way I can think of to characterize this book. It will restore your faith in humanity (even while reminding you how ugly we can be), and posses your heart with a beautiful ache to be a living conduit of hope to the world around you.
AE

Donald Miller's New Book

2009-08-18T11:18:00.002-04:00

I freely admit that I love Donald Miller's writing style. Since I first read Blue Like Jazz, picking up one of Miller's new books has felt like sitting down for a good conversation with an old friend. His new book, A Million Miles in a Thousand Years: What I Learned While Editing My Life, is no different. Written in his typical memoir style, Miller invites us into a soul-searching re-examination of his own life. Apparently, after the success of Blue Like Jazz, Miller floundered a bit. He wrote a few other (in my opinion, excellent) other books, that did not sell nearly as well. He seems to have felt as if his life had lost its direction and momentum. His self-examination began after he was contacted by a movie production company who wanted to turn Blue Like Jazz, into a movie. As he began to work on the script with a couple of guys from the production company, he discovers that they must develop a "narrative arc" for the story. Miller began to learn about what makes movies compelling, and even attended a seminar on "story" by Robert McKee. As the book proceeds, Miller begins to apply the principles of Story to life, and even faith. The results are profound and compelling. Miller's keen wit and unflinching honest will take you from laughter to tears and back again...often in the same paragraph. You will be drawn in as he attempts to find his estranged father and deals with relational commitment issues. I could not put this book down (even as I was scrambling to finish the coursework for my Masters Degree). In short, I loved it. I think you will too.
AE

Brian McLaren's Open Letter to Conservative Christians in the U.S. on Healthcare

2009-08-11T09:50:00.001-04:00

Reposted from http://brianmclaren.net

Thoughts?

Dear friends,
Although today I would not call myself a political or social conservative, I am grateful for my heritage as an Evangelical Christian: my faith is rooted in a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ, I honor and seek to live in harmony with the Scriptures, and I love to share the good news of God's love with others. Since my teenage years when I decided to follow Jesus, I have pursued wholehearted discipleship, and my life has been shaped by that commitment. After completing graduate school and teaching college English, I became a church planter and pastor and served in the same congregation for twenty-four years.

But for almost that many years, I have been growing more and more deeply troubled by the way so many from my heritage in conservative Christianity – in its Evangelical, Charismatic, and Roman Catholic streams - have allowed themselves to be spiritually formed by various conservative political and economic ideologies. It's been disturbing to see how many Christians have begun to follow and trust leaders who live more by political/media/ideological codes than by moral/spiritual/biblical ones.

As a result, I sometimes think that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Fox News may now influence many conservative Evangelicals, Charismatics, and Catholics even more than Billy Graham, Rick Warren, T.D. Jakes, Pope Benedict, or even the four gospels.

Now in a free country, people certainly have the right to choose their ideology. But Christians of all sorts, I think we all can agree, have a special calling - to increasingly harmonize our lives (including our lives as citizens) with the teaching and example of Jesus. My concern is that many of my sisters and brothers, without realizing it, have begun seeing Jesus and the faith through the lens of a neo-conservative political framework, thus reducing their vision of Jesus and his essential message of the kingdom of God. As a result, too many of us are becoming more and more zealous conservatives, but less and less Christ-like Christians, and many don't seem to notice the difference.

Thankfully, many Christian leaders are far more thoughtful and nuanced in their integration of faith and public life. They don't jump on talk-radio's latest conspiracy theory bandwagons, nor do they buy flippant talk of "death panels" or inappropriate comparisons to Hitler and so on. But still, so many of them remain silent about what's going on, and thereby grant it tacit approval.

I too was silent for a long time during my years as a pastor. But during the lead-up to the Iraq War, as I saw how little discernment was being exercised regarding the moral logic of pre-emptive war, I began taking risks that I hadn't taken before. I was similarly moved to speak out when, in the aftermath of Abu Ghraib, relatively few Christians in America took a stand against torture. (In fact, according to survey data, Southern White Evangelicals were the group most likely to support doing unto others as they would never want done to themselves.) And when I heard Christians (mis)using the Bible to argue against environmental responsibility, again, I could not be silent.

Now, in the debate about health care, I am similarly disheartened to see the relative silence of thoughtful Christian voices as counterpoint to the predictable rhetoric of the more reactive voices. Over the last few weeks, I’ve been getting mass-emails and weblinks from Evangelical and Charismatic organizations that present frightening and outlandish claims about what President Obama is planning to do regarding health care. I’ve checked into these claims, and in case after case, they are simply false. They’re based on rumors spread by certain dramatic radio and cable-tv personalities, but they are not based in truth.

Again, people are free to disagree humbly and respectfully with their fellow Christians and their government. (As readers of my books know, I take this freedom seriously in my own life). But we Christians, it seems to me, have a high calling – to be radically committed to integrity and civility, even (especially) with those with whom we disagree. God, after all, is merciful, generous, and kind to "the just and the unjust": how can we not have that same obligation regarding those with whom we disagree? Even if others resort to dirty political tricks and distortion of the truth through exaggeration and fear-mongering, we simply cannot. At the very least, we should be seekers of truth, seekers of wisdom, not consumers (or purveyors) of propaganda – even if it comes from members of our own political party and people who quote a lot of Bible verses (often out of context). We have a higher calling.

So, without going into health-care reform specifics (which is still difficult to do, since there are many fast-changing proposals in play and the process of developing a vote-able proposal is far from over), I would simply like to plead with conservative Christians – conservative Evangelicals, conservative Charismatics, conservative Catholics, and so on – to take a stand for integrity and civility in the health care debate, alongside and in solidarity with those of us who love Christ just as you do but do not rally around the conservative political banner.

If you take this stand, you will be heard by your fellow conservatives in ways that some of the rest of us can’t be heard. And lives could be saved as a result of our joint calls for Christian integrity and civility: we've already seen what happens when people translate religious and ideological passion into violent action. Recalling the words of that great 19th century British conservative Edmund Burke, think of what could happen in the next few years if too many good conservative people sit back and do nothing ... while less scrupulous and more desperate conservative people whip their followers into a frenzy through fear and inaccurate information.

I will continue to speak out on these issues as I have done in the past. But I don’t expect the most extreme Christian conservatives to listen to me much. Since I was an outspoken supporter of President Obama’s candidacy, and since before that I was equally outspoken against torture, against the invasion of Iraq, for environmental stewardship, etc., many of them have written me off (sometimes with quite spicy language). But if you are a conservative Christian who cares about integrity and civility in communication and debate, perhaps they will still listen to you when you call them to a higher standard. I hope you will take the risk of speaking out with that in mind.

As my friend Jim Wallis recently said so eloquently (http://blog.sojo.net/2009/08/06/truth-telling-and-responsibility-in-health-care/), we may have honest differences with our fellow Christians on the issue of health care and many other issues too, but even in our differences we can agree that debates should take place in the light of truth and civility, not in the shadows of misrepresentation and prejudice.

Be assured, I am no uncritical supporter of health care reform. I am no more in favor now of rushing into expensive health care reform without sufficient debate than I was a few years ago when we rushed into an expensive pre-emptive war without sufficient care and discernment. I’m eager, like many of my conservative friends, to see the kind of reform that encourages small business and entrepreneurship. I'm interested in the kind of reform that reduces the power of both unaccountable mega-corporations and unaccountable government bureaucracy. I’m eager to see the kind of reform that doesn’t pave the way for powerful health insurance companies to do to the public in the next few decades what "too big to fail" Wall Street debt-repackagers did to us over the last few. I’m eager to see the kind of reform that in the long term reduces rather than increases our growing national debt and that truly helps our poorest neighbors without creating reductions in real service for our more prosperous neighbors.

Getting the kind of reform we need won’t be easy, especially with so many powerful interests spending huge amounts of money to achieve their own ends, with too little concern for justice, the common good … or the truth. That’s why, for there to be the kind of debate that produces good results, we who call ourselves Christians - conservative or otherwise - need to stand for full integrity in communication, whatever our political leanings. We need to be sure that the best arguments on both sides are heard ... not being satisfied to compare "our" best with "their" worst, as unscrupulous politicians and media personalities so often like to do, and not reducing the views of others to absurdity, even if we disagree with them vehemently.

The moral authority of Christians has been severely compromised in our culture in recent years. The most serious kinds of sexual scandals have rocked the Catholic, Evangelical, and Charismatic communities, not to mention financial scandals, ugly denominational lawsuits, and high-profile divisions. Studies have shown that some kinds of Christians are not only more likely to support torture - they are also more likely to hold racist views, to engage in domestic violence, and to end their marriages in divorce. No wonder young people are turned off as never before to a hypocritical face of Christianity that radiates shame, anger, and judgment rather than grace, love, and truth.

Even if we disagree on health care reform and other political issues, I hope we can agree that it is time for us to start walking - and talking - more worthy of the calling to which we have been called, to use Paul's words, to speak the truth, and to do so always in love. Or as James said, we must remember in this fire-prone political climate that the tongue can set off tiny rhetorical sparks that create huge flames of unimagined and unintended destruction. It can spread a false wisdom that sounds good on the surface, but beneath the surface is driven not by love but by bitter envy and selfish ambition. In contrast, he said (3:13 ff),
"The wisdom that comes from above is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise of harvest of righteousness."

Wise and needed words to guide us in the weeks and months ahead as health care reform is debated for better or for worse. May both the debate and the outcome bring us to a better place.
+++++

By the way, if you’d like to do some fact-checking about the health care debate, here are some faith-based sources that I believe can be trusted to avoid uncritical and inaccurate reporting about health care. I understand they will be offering correctives to rumors and misinformation in the months ahead.
http://blog.faithinpubliclife.org/
http://www.sojo.net
http://www.catholicsinalliance.org/

Quoted in an article on MJ and Heaven

2009-07-10T10:36:00.000-04:00

I was quoted in an article by Jason Boyett today on "Is Michael Jackson In Heaven?" on The Daily Beast. You can read the article here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-10/is-michael-in-heaven/?cid=hp:beastoriginalsL1

I'm not unhappy with the segment of my larger statement that Boyett used in the article, and I think he did a great job with the article (despite most of the commentary, because...wow). Still, I thought I might post my full statement here, for whatever its worth.

My friend Matthew Paul Turner forwarded me following request from Boyett:

I'm working on an article assigned by the Daily Beast (www.dailybeast.com). The angle: ask pastors what they think about the faith of Michael Jackson. Raised a Jehovah's Witness, married to a Scientologist, converted to Islam. The big question: Is Michael Jackson in heaven? How do you -- as a pastor and Christian -- look at him in regards to eternity or the afterlife?

Here's my response:

Jason,
I'm a Christian and a full time preaching minister for a faith community in South Carolina. I think I'd respond to the question by pointing that Biblically, I don't find it to be a terribly helpful question. What I mean is that I can envision absolutely nothing good or helpful, in terms of God's mission in the world, resulting from pursuing that question on its own terms. Biblically, I think that those who follow Jesus are actually prohibited from definitively attempting to answer it. Scripture is quite clear that judgment is above our competency, and is frankly inappropriate for those who have accepted grace, mercy and unconditional love from God. Theologically, I think we are called to view "the other" through the lens of possibility...to view them from the standpoint of a creative imagining of their future as one redeemed by God, regardless of what we are presented with in the moment we live in. Understand, I'm making no comment and engaging in no speculation on the "eternal destiny" of Michael Jackson, and I believe it would be inappropriate for me to do so. That being said, if we who would follow Jesus celebrate Michael Jacksons' pain, his death, or some presupposition of eternal torment, I think we discredit the very Gospel we proclaim.

A Perspective on God’s Mission

2009-07-02T14:10:00.000-04:00

For at least 2/3 of my life, I had an easy answer to the question “What is God’s mission in the world?” I thought the answer was obvious. I honestly can’t remember anyone overtly teaching me the answer I would have given. It was easily assumed, and commonly held. After giving a blank stare and blinking a few times, I would have responded, “Saving souls.” If I had been asked to unpack my simple answer, I’d have wondered what rock you had been hiding under, and then said something like:

People have an immortal spiritual essence (component) called a “soul”. Because of the bad choices that all individual humans make, this spiritual essence is bound of an eternity of after-life torment in Hell. However, God has made a way through Jesus for our “souls” to be saved from this fate, and instead experience an afterlife of disembodied bliss in Heaven. One need only believe, follow the prescribed “steps” to accept one’s salvation, and stay out of trouble to change their eternal destiny. That’s all God’s really after in this world. He wants individuals to agree with the right ideas, and behave themselves, so that their “souls” will have a desirable afterlife.

My handy little definition of God’s mission served me well for a while. The really nice thing was that my main responsibility in regards to the mission was to make sure that I personally agreed with the “right” ideas, followed the “right” steps and reasonably behaved myself so that my fate in the afterlife was secure. Everything else seemed irrelevant. Even the idea of somehow participating in God’s mission to others, while a “good” thing to do, was rendered superfluous. I was oblivious to the more holistic Jewish understanding of a “soul”, and more oblivious to how much the definition that fed my spirit/matter dualism owed to Greek philosophy.

Eventually though, my simple and self-serving definition began to crumble. Among other things, as a sophomore in college I accompanied my father on a month-long mission trip to Ukraine. It was a paradigm-shifting, life-altering event that shook me to my core. Upon my return to the United States, I found my self-absorbed, afterlife-centered faith to be unsustainable, and the anemic, ethereal “god” it served to be unworthy of both worship and devotion. Unfortunately, both that version of faith and that understanding of God appeared to be prevalent in the church in North America. I thus came to a fork in the road: one path led away from Christianity and church altogether, and the other was the rocky and dangerous path of an active catalyst for change. One was a path of abandonment, while the other was the path of exploration. I chose the later.

My exploration of Scripture, Theology and history has led me toward a different understanding of God’s mission in the world. Theology enabled me to begin to see the narrative of scripture as a whole. No longer content to mine scripture for propositions and steps, I began to see a thread that ran throughout the entire story. In the Creation narratives, God tasks the human beings He created with bearing his image to the rest of his creation. Those humans make a selfish choice that throws the harmony of God’s creation into fractured chaos. Prior to that choice, creation is characterized by perfect harmony; between God and humans, between humans and other humans, and between humans and God’s creation. Human beings were able to find their value from the harmony that characterized their existence. After the choice was made, that harmony was shattered in all of its dimensions, and the world became a very different place. However, God would not be undone. As the world descended into chaos, God called a man we know as Abraham into a special relationship. Through Abraham, God would bring forth a people for Himself. God would bless them, and they would BE a blessing to the nations. In short, they were to bear God’s image; to reflect who God is. In spite of their noble calling and miraculous beginning, the people of God tend to be more interested in getting blessed than being a blessing to anyone else. Things don’t go so well for them in general because they tend to see their election as indicating favored status rather than as a commissioning. Even so, God does not give up on either his people or his mission in the world. God delivers them again and again, that they might live into their destiny. Eventually, God acts in a way that defies their imaginations, in order to move beyond the impasse. As his people cry out under the iron-fisted oppression of Rome, God became a human being. The Creator of all that is came into the world as an embryo in the womb of a teenage girl. Her song in the gospel of Luke, proclaims the redemptive work that she believed was being enacted by this incarnation. She believed that things were being set right; that the powerful would be torn down from their thrones while the humble are exalted; that the overfed would be left empty while the hungry would have their fill; that God was remembering His people and His promise. Her son grew into the man we know as Jesus, and powerfully proclaimed and enacted the Good News that God’s Kingdom is at hand; that it is “near”. He looked forward toward a time when “all things” would be “renewed”. Eventually, he was executed by the empire and the religious leaders of his own people. However, the grave doesn’t hold him. Whereas his life modeled the Way God intended His missional people to live, his death and resurrection open the door for all humans to become a part of this missional community, and free them from both the cycle of their sin and the threat of death. Liberated from guilt and fear, they are thus enabled to partner with God in His mission of the restoration of all things to the harmony that was lost in all of its dimensions. They are free to join God in reconciling the world to Himself.

Video: MPT's "Letter to God"

2009-06-29T18:44:00.000-04:00

Check out this video of my friend, Matthew Paul Turner's "letter to God"

Matthew Paul Turner-On Questions from Cross Point Church on Vimeo.

Recommendation: The Sacredness of Questioning Everything

2009-05-05T11:13:00.001-04:00

Every once in a while, I encounter a book that breathes life into me by the way it communicates profound truth. The interesting thing is that books like this almost always take me by surprise. Zondervan sent me David Dark's new book, The Sacredness of Questioning Everything, with the request that I review it if I liked it. I had heard of Dark, but had never read anything by him. The title intrigued me, so I opened to the table of contents...which intrigued me all the more:

Table of Contents

1. Never What You Have In Mind--Questioning God

2. The Unbearable Lightness of Being Brainwashed--Questioning Religion

3. Everybody to the Limit--Questioning Our Offendedness

4. Spot the Pervert--Questioning our Passions

5. The Power of the Put-On--Questioning Media

6. The Word, The Line, The Way--Questioning Our Language

7. Survival of the Freshest--Questioning Interpretations

8. The Past Didn't Go Anywhere--Questioning History

9. We Do What We're Told--Questioning Governments

10. Sincerity As Far As The Eye Can See--Questioning the Future

End Note: That Means To Signal a World Without End

That was enough to get me to start reading immediately. Halfway through the first chapter I was hooked. Dark artfully articulates faith in the context of what Lesslie Newbigin calls "A Proper Confidence"...faith that is not (cannot be) the equivalent of certainty...faith that recognizes our finite nature, our tendency to re-craft God in our own images and religion into self-justifying dogma. At times, he seems to be virtually channeling Kierkegaard in the context of 21st century Western culture. Dark offers us a thing of beauty, a life-giving breath of fresh air. His book invites us to take God a lot more seriously by taking ourselves a lot less seriously. Drawing from diverse voices (from Augustine and Aquinas to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to U2 and Arcade Fire) and various disciplines (Theology, Philosophy, Literature, Film, Music, etc.), he revives the Biblical tradition of questioning...as an act of humility in the pursuit of truth. He calls for us to cut through the propaganda, and resist any "powers that be" that would seek to subvert or co-opt the Way of Jesus. He beckons us to journey down a path that is characterized by faith, hope, and love (rather than certainty).

Pick up this book. You won't be disappointed.

Amen, Methodists. Thank you.

2009-05-02T22:31:00.001-04:00

Wow. Check out this new ad campaign from the United Methodist Church. Seriously...Wow.

May more churches, including ours, catch this kind of a vision.

Memories on our wedding anniversary

2009-04-24T09:01:00.000-04:00

My amazing wife put together a cool online slideshow of our life together so far. CLICK HERE if you'd like to watch it...if for no other reason, you might enjoy how dorky I look in the earlier years...and you might enjoy wondering how a girl that beautiful fell for such a dork. I wonder that myself all the time.

Choosing to Err on the Side of Grace

2009-03-19T09:30:00.000-04:00

Within the last couple of decades, many in our fellowship began to rediscover the concept of grace. In my opinion, this was a fascinating and much needed conversation that didn't go far enough. Many of us moved from a version of Christianity that often devolved into an earned and maintained salvation, to a version of Christianity that received salvation as a gift...that can often devolve into a subculture of entitlement, who's mantra is "I don't have to!" It never occurred to us that the question we were seeking to answer, might actually be a poorly framed question, suggesting a limited selection of anemic answers. We didn't notice that we were simply selecting the other side of an inadequate coin. We focussed on what grace freed us from, but stopped short of exploring what grace freed us "to".

Biblically, grace seems to be a proactive, transformative reality. It is a gift, but it is a gift that, once received, must be reflected and modeled to the rest of the world. As Scot McKnight suggests in his book, Embracing Grace: A Gospel for All of Us, once we embrace grace, we are to become an "embracing" people who exhibit grace toward the other...precisely because it is unmerited. It is less a benefit for members of a club...and more a new reality that they have bought into. To accept it for myself and refuse to extend it to others betrays both the gift of grace and the Giver. Don't just take my word for it, Jesus actually has quite a bit to say about this in the gospels (i.e. his comments on forgiveness after "The Lord's Prayer" and the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant...just for starters)

It's usually at this point that the fear impulse kicks in. What if we're wrong? This is the fear that haunts those raised in our tradition. Let me clear it up for you. We are. We have 3 pound brains and we dare to speak of an infinite God. When asked if he would fellowship a "brother in error", Fred McClure used to routinely respond "I don't have any other kind. We're all in error on something." N.T. Wright regularly begins his lectures by saying something to the effect of "I'm wrong about roughly 1/3 of what I'm telling you. I just have no idea which 1/3 that is." And thank God for His grace that washes over sin and "error" as he is actively working to form me into the image of His son... into the future where His dream for me and the world are reality.

The Bible is quite clear that the measure of judgment we apply to others will be applied to us. While I highly doubt that the Bible's concept of judgment is as equivalent to the American judicial system as we tend to presuppose in these discussions, the implications are hard to miss. We are going to be wrong about some things, but if, when it comes to judgment, "the measure I use" will be "measured to me", I want to "err" on the side of grace.

Reflections On Leaving Youth Ministry Part 3

2009-02-06T11:30:00.000-05:00

For many reasons, including some of the statistics I have already mentioned, many youth ministers can become consumed with a defense-oriented approach. They believe that "secular culture" is fundamentally opposed to faith... especially as it pertains to teenagers. Further, they know that on many "secular" college campuses (and even high schools), faith is overtly challenged in the name of "secular science". Because of these assumptions, many youth ministers adopt a multi-pronged strategy to counter these influences.

1) Alternative Christian Activity--The minister attempts to turn the students' attention to "christian alternatives" of all of the things that can be so attractive in "secular culture". Teens like parties...so we throw "safe" social gatherings like all night "lock-ins" and "fifth quarters" after the local high school's football game. Some go so far as to throw alternative banquets for Christian students to attend in lieu of their prom or homecoming dances. Additionally, the youth minister knows that simple idle time can be filled with the pervasive influence of this alluring secular culture... so we attempt to counter with a flood of our own safe, "Christian" activity. Keep them busy in our sanctioned and sanitized activity, and they'll "keep the faith", or so goes the conventional wisdom of youth ministry.

2) Alternative Christian Media--The minister attempts to turn the students' attention to positive music, movies, etc. produced by Christian artists and Christian companies. Special attention is payed to the details...emulating particular musical styles, and even in some cases going to great pains to emulate a particular band or artist. The idea is to isolate our students from the negative influence of all of that "worldly" entertainment, and intentionally surrounding them with the positive influence of media that knocks-off the worldly stuff in terms of style, while retaining control of content.

3) Alternative Answers to "Secular Science"--The assumption has generally been that since "the world" will be asking really tough questions of faith, we had better develop concrete arguments to refute the questions and claims of science. In many cases, much energy is put into the development, propagation, and indoctrination of these "answers", with the added implication that no ground can be surrendered or faith is no longer viable.

As common as it is, there are many problems with such an approach. First of all, the assumptions that support it are faulty. If Christianity is actually based on the Way of Jesus (as told in Scripture) then we would do well to note Jesus' engagement with his culture. As counter-intuitive as it seems to us, God seems to have sent his "only-begotton Son" because he loved the "world". Jesus' primary engagement seems to have been to those who the religious looked down on. To Him, they seemed to be very much the point. His engagement with the religious people seems to have been primarily to challenge them to become more than they had settled for and to engage with God's mission. In short, isolating students from the world around them in the name of Christianity is as antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus as it is ineffective.

Students do not need a standardized set of answers and counter-arguments to the questions of secular science. Frankly, a) the scientific community remains unconvinced and unimpressed, b) it serves to maintain both a dualistic worldview and a false perception that there is an either/or choice that must be made between faith and science or, on the other side of the same coin, that all things pertaining to faith must be explained in scientific terms...c) a casual study of history will show how the church's assumption that new scientific revelations were threats to faith has frequently led to our looking silly at best, and being brutally un-christlike at worst...d) when we promote the idea that this is an all or nothing choice, frequently our students actually get this message, and choose to abandon faith when the fallible extra-biblical systems and constructs we handed them begin to prove inadequate...and e) Frankly we are pouring our energy into answering questions that fewer and fewer people are even asking...and debating strawmen that no one is arguing anymore (particularly at the quantum level, science can be very friendly to faith again, as it turns out).

In truth, I suspect that on the intellectual level, the pressing questions that must be engaged are coming from the social sciences and philosophy, and that what students actually need is to learn how to use the narrative of scripture as an interpretive lens...that we must teach them to interpret and engage the world around them in light of Jesus. Even so, there is a much larger problem. All of this presumes that faith is primarily intellectual and taylored exclusively to the individual. It seems to me that faith is inherently relational and missional. In scripture, faith is spoken of primarily in relational terms...both in relationship to God and in community. Most of the New Testament letters are addressed to communities of believers, and most of the "you" pronouns are plural. We must figure out ways to help students cultivate community, rather than sending them out "against the world". However, this is not to suggest a bunker mentality. They are to cultivate community that actively seeks to partner with God in what he is doing in the world. We tend to talk about "faith" as if "having faith" is a matter of mentally agreeing with a list of concepts. What a bizarre definition! Faith has to do with confidence. Faith leads to proactive engagement. I think that character and mission may be the most powerful apologetics of faith, for good or ill. If we neglect these for the sake of intellectual coercion and defending the "rightness" of our arguments, we may find that we have lost everything we were trying to protect and ensure. If we settle for creating a bunker-mentality subculture rather than cultivating a life-giving journey of proactive engagement, we may find that many of our students leave us precisely because they are seeking Jesus, and can't reconcile his mission to the world in scripture with ours.
AE

Reflections On Leaving Youth Ministry 2

2009-01-26T11:06:00.000-05:00

Effective Youth Ministry will work with the desired end result in mind. This sounds very intuitive and one might wonder who could possibly disagree with such a notion. The truth is, that most of us would...if not with our words, then in practice.

There is an extraordinary temptation in professional youth ministry to cater to the pressures of the moment and the perceived needs of those we work with (parents included). These pressures combined with our culture's pervasive consumerism subtly but surely lures us towards an "attractional" model of youth ministry. We build youth ministry around events...events that will draw a crowd...events that center around the dynamic personality of our youth minister...events with lots of bells and whistles...events that serve as exciting and interesting alternatives to what "the world" is offering. This is precisely our downfall. We instill a version of "faith" that is dependent on the constant flow of these activities, events, personalities, "bells" and "whistles". In short, it is unsustainable by its very nature. It isn't true to the complexities of life. It doesn't prepare them for the isolation they may face or the painful questions they WILL face. It doesn't challenge them to be more than they are, or call them to something greater than themselves. Instead, it markets one more product (albeit a religious product) for them to consume. Of course it fails for the vast majority of them when they graduate and the personality (youth minister) of the is gone, the activities/programs are gone, and they are left with "just church".

What would it look like to develop intentional ways of cultivating a sustainable faith? How can we design approaches that begin with such an end in mind? I have some ideas and opinions about what that could look like, but they would be limited to my context and experience. These questions are yours to answer, but I'll argue that if you are going to "do" youth ministry, they are questions you must wrestle with if your ministry is to be in any sense "effective".
AE
(to be continued)

Reflections on Leaving Youth Ministry 1

2009-01-13T09:06:00.000-05:00

So, I know I'm late with these promised blog posts, but I honestly haven't been slacking on it. In actuality, I've already written two posts...and deleted both of them. The first post was frankly too emotional and dealt with frustrations that I had apparently not even processed yet (they sort of came to the surface as I wrote). After I finished it, I re-read it and asked Dana to read it. She confirmed what I was already thinking: it was very therapeutic for me, but frankly wouldn't be helpful to anyone else. In my second attempt, I tried to write a "What your youth minister wishes you knew" post. It really just didn't work.

So here's the thing...youth ministry is in trouble. For all the attention and resources devoted to youth ministry, the "retention" stats are abysmal. Roughly 75% of teens abandon their faith between high school graduation and College. (oddly enough, smaller churches with no organized youth ministry tend to have roughly a 75% retention rate) Those stats are actually pretty well known. Many people aren't aware of the fact that youth ministers are also burning out at an alarming rate.

I could lob out criticism about all of the problems in our current approach to youth ministry. However, I think it would be more helpful to simply propose some ideas about potential ways forward. Watch for my totally subjective thoughts on this next week.
AE

Reflections on Leaving Youth Ministry: Introduction

2009-01-12T11:29:00.000-05:00

I am currently working as a preaching minister, though I was a youth minister for roughly 10 years. When I first got into youth ministry (which is another story altogether), I passionately refuted any suggestions that youth ministry was some sort of a "stepping stone" to becoming a preacher. I sincerely believed that I would do youth ministry forever. While I still disagree with a perspective that relegates youth ministry to a mere rung on the ministry "success ladder", after 10 years I felt a pull towards preaching that eventually led to my career move last May. I loved youth ministry and still have a deep and abiding respect for anyone who sincerely engages in the Spiritual formation of teenagers. However, I am now roughly 7 months removed that particular vocation, and I'd like to offer a few admittedly subjective observations about the current state of youth ministry, for whatever they are worth. Over the next several days, I'll present a series of posts along these lines. If you think I'm wrong on any of these observations, you may very well be right, and I have no particular interest a debate (though you should feel free to comment, and I'm always up for dialogue). I'll post the first observation soon.
AE

Note: I had originally thought I would not post anything new on this blog after this series is completed. However, I have since reconsidered, and decided to keep this blog as a place to write about my life and family. I will also be launching a new blog that will focus on theology, and I'm planning on inviting several other bloggers who resonate with a "Post-Restorationist" ideology to come on as co-authors. I'll post a link to the new site at the end of this series.

As One Blog Ends...A New One Begins

2008-12-23T13:49:00.000-05:00

I've been a very inconsistent blogger for the last several months. Its sort of odd because there are lots of things that I want to write about, and in many ways, my current job is more conducive to such writing than youth ministry was. I think, to me, this blog is representative of a period in my life that has passed. It may seem silly, but I plan to launch a new blog in early January which I will announce and link here. I do plan on writing one final post on this site, which I will call "Reflections on Leaving Youth Ministry", which should be up in early January. I will leave this blog up as an archive, but I do not plan on posting much here after the new one is live. If you have journeyed with me here these past several years, I thank you for your attention and comments. Please come to the new blog once it is live. I plan on posting on a much more consistent basis.

AE

P.S. After a very long hiatus, Phil Wilson and I are also bringing back the Post-Restorationist Podcast in January. I'll provide links once that is live as well. Please come join the conversation.

Book Recommendation: Churched by Matthew Paul Turner

2008-12-15T13:16:00.000-05:00

What happens to a kid who grows up in a fundamentalist church when he or she rejects fundamentalism? Many times, because they "got" the message that fundamentalism is the only "true" Christianity, they wind up rejecting Christianity/religion as a whole. However, sometimes, some people find a path through this forest of legalism, conspiracy theories, and isolated subculture to Jesus...or maybe Jesus finds them.

Such is the case for my friend Matthew Paul Turner. In his book Churched: One Kid's Journey Toward God Despite a Holy Mess, Matthew recounts his journey of faith through fundamentalism. The narrative that Turner offers is equal parts memoir and satire. Though it could have easily devolved into a bitter rant decrying his upbringing, Matthew succeeds in virtually channeling himself as a child. As such, his story reads with a nostalgic sweetness that brings both laughter and tears. Churched is genuinely funny, and at times quite poiniant. Many readers will find the experience similar to a kind of group therapy...as they learn to laugh at their own stories too. Far from demonizing the "characters" in his story, Matthew excels at revealing their humanity and sincerity. As hilarious as the stories of his Sunday School Teacher's lesson on manna or his childhood pastor's "boxing match with Satan" are, you get the sense that Matthew also finds a way to honor and respect them. Though it is never explicit, you can clearly see the bruises and scars that Matthew carries and how he has wrestled to find a way to believe. In the end, the implicit main character of this memoir is not Matthew himself, but rather the Savior that he loves who shines through all of the craziness and has led Matthew to a genuine faith that is characterized by hope and love.

I simply cannot recommend this book highly enough. Even if you didn't grow up in a fundamentalist church or subculture, I think you may find surprising resonance and inspiration.
AE

Quoting Theology, Christmas Edition: N.T. Wright

2008-12-02T08:10:00.000-05:00

"...And remember the story of the shepherds and the manger. We are so used to hearing about it – indeed, most of us never use the word ‘manger’ in any other context – that we often forget the point. The shepherds were told something – or thought they were told something – quite ridiculous: that God’s Messiah, God’s only Son, had been born just up the road. Now how on earth are you supposed to believe that? And what on earth could you do about it? Ah, but they were given a sign: you don’t normally find babies in feeding-troughs, but that’s where this one is. And so they went, and they saw, and they believed, and they worshipped. What’s the equivalent for us today? Well, when you worship the Christ-child for yourself, and learn to open your eyes to the empires and your ears to the angels, you may well wonder whether there’s any point in even trying to do anything about it all. It all seems quite ridiculous. And then you may begin to notice places where there are, so to speak, babies in mangers: places where God seems to have been startlingly at work, in a hospice or a prison or a day-care centre or a play-group, in Bible Study groups, in gospel work going forwards among drug addicts and prostitutes, in campaigns about debt and unjust laws and fair trade, whatever it may be. And then: watch for the empires, listen for the angels, worship the Christ-child – and go for it. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and his kingdom shall be established with justice and righteousness from this time forth and for evermore."

--N.T. Wright, from his sermon entitled, "Emperors and Angels"

Book Review: The Faith of Barack Obama

2008-11-20T17:56:00.000-05:00

In this short, accessible book, Stephen Mansfield explores the religious beliefs, commitments and convictions of Barack Obama. Additionally, Mansfield supplies a short Spiritual biography for Obama and explores the theology that underlies his faith. Some might assume that Mansfield’s book is an attempt to “Christianize” Obama in order to make him more palatable to Evangelicals. Others might assume that it is a thinly disguised hatchet-job expose’, written with the intention of showing Obama’s supposed Christianity to be a politically expedient prop. Both of these assumptions are incorrect. For starters, Mansfield is also the author of “The Faith of George W. Bush”, and “The Faith of the American Soldier”. He approaches the subject as an investigative journalist, with neither rose-colored glasses or an ax to grind.

Mansfield offers us profiles of both Barack Obama and his controversial former pastor Jeremiah Wright. In this context, he also offers a brief, but accurate explanation of “Black Theology”. Mansfield has also really done his homework here, as he correctly points to the influential work of James Cone. Crucial to this theological perspective is the recognition that the Bible is primarily written by oppressed people to/for oppressed people. The assumption is that the experience of African Americans, with their history of slavery and oppression, are in a unique position to hear and understand the message of Scripture. Thus, a major focus of this theology is justice (with all of its social implications) for the poor and the oppressed. Even a casual reading of the Prophets, and the words of Jesus will prevent you from simply dismissing such a reading as completely ridiculous. This is the theological framework that underlies both Wright’s comments and Obama’s application and understanding of Christianity. While Wright is apparently a bit of an attention junkie, and I still find his comments to be inappropriate, the proper theological context certainly casts all of this in a somewhat different light. Mansfield also gives an insightful account of actually attending a service at Trinity United Church of Christ, which in some ways defied his expectations. As an interesting exercise in contrast and comparison, Mansfield offers one chapter comprised of short spiritual biographies/profiles of John McCain, Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush. Some may see this chapter as extraneous, but others may find the thought exercise helpful.

Mansfield does not shy away from posing difficult questions for Obama, particularly when it comes to difficult issues such as his position on the question of abortion. He examines several areas of Obama’s faith and its application that may be at least uncomfortable for may Evangelical Christians. However, he does not succumb to “Secret Muslim” conspiracy theories or wild sensationalism. His investigation is fair, and leaves it to the reader to make his or her own decisions and evaluations based on a reasonably non-biased and accurate account of Obama’s apparently sincere faith. Some Christians may find their fears or misconceptions dispelled. Others may be deeply troubled by what they read. However you react, you will at least be making an evaluation from a place of understanding rather than speculation or unsubstantiated rumor.
AE

CLICK HERE to go to Thomas Nelson's Page for this book.

Children, Mustard Seeds, & The Kingdom of God

2008-11-13T15:01:00.000-05:00

A couple of years ago, I was at the library with Dana and our oldest daughter, Emma. As we were walking back to the car, Emma suddenly bolted down a cement staircase right outside the library doors, which seemed to go down into an unused area of dirt and rather pathetic looking bushes. I started to say something to stop her, but then I noticed that she was picking up trash. I turned to Dana (who had also bent down to pick up some trash while I wasn't looking), and asked what she was doing. Dana said, "We always do that. People always throw trash down there and Emma likes to clean it up." Emma came back up the steps and started putting the trash in the trash can (which, incidentally, was approximately 5 feet from the stairwell, .) Fearing that I had a developing Adrian Monk on my hands I asked her why she picked up the trash. My (then) four-year-old daughter looked back at me with a mischievous grin (like she was inviting me into some kind of conspiracy), and said, "I'm making the world a better place, Daddy." I just stood there stunned until I was able to swallow the lump in my throat. Then, I walked down the steps, grabbed some trash and threw it in the garbage on my way to hug my smiling little girl.

Don't get me wrong. There was still a lot of trash at the bottom of those stairs. She couldn't possibly clean it all up herself. Even if she could have...even if the 3 of us had talked a group of people into helping us clean up that spot of ground...the world would still be a mess. I realize that there are bigger problems in the world than people who throw garbage on God's creation because it was too difficult to walk the extra 4 steps to the garbage can. But that's the trick, isn't it? We skip the little problems because, in our view they pale in comparison to the big problems. At the same time, we don't engage the big problems because we know they are far to large for individuals like us to have any kind of significant impact. The problem is, that every time I start to play that little justification game with myself about the issues in front of me, whether they are "too big" or "two small", I remember Emma's mischievous little grin and her conspiracy to "make the world a better place".

I remember Jesus saying:

"I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven"

Then, his words wash over me again:

"The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches.”

I am reminded that this is how the Kingdom of God breaks through...a conspiracy of childlike mischievous grins, defiantly planting mustard seeds of hope in a world that often appears to be littered with despair, injustice and hopelessness.

As we walked back to our car that afternoon, I silently prayed, "Dear God, please help me be like Emma. Thank you for Dana, who is teaching her to be like you."
-Adam

2 Great Speeches and the end of the Election

2008-11-05T08:41:00.000-05:00

I watched 2 great speeches last night. I am well aware that opinions are very divided on this election, particularly among Christians, but I must say that both speeches were inspiring to me.

McCain was gracious, noble and honorable. His plea for unity and his pledge to help (an offer I sincerely hope Obama considers, as a means toward unity) displayed character. His heartfelt comments about Obama's grandmother were touching. Thank you for the way you handled this John McCain. May your supporters display the same grace and character.

Barack Obama's speech was inspiring. As someone who speaks for a living, I was impressed by the delivery. I was further impressed by the absence of gloating. Obama displayed character in his comments about John McCain and Sarah Palin. I was further impressed by his plea for unity and his insistence that, though a segment of the population didn't vote for him, he intended to be their president too and he was listening.

I was also impressed by the way that President Bush congratulated President Elect Obama and called our country to unite.

The call to unity is refreshing after such a bitterly divided political season. May we heed it in prayer, while at the same time we remember that our "first allegiance is not to a flag, a country, or a man. Our first allegiance is not to democracy or blood. Its to a King and a Kingdom."
AE

Live Election Results

2008-11-04T11:27:00.000-05:00

This gadget I'm embedding from Google Maps should track the presidential election results live. I'm really interested to see how it turns out, but I"m also ready for this to be behind us.
I should get back to blogging next week. I have a few theological thoughts I'd like to flesh out here and a few book reviews/recomendations I'd like to post. Until then...enjoy!
AE

Final Presidential Debate Video and Factcheck Info

2008-10-16T09:04:00.000-04:00

As promised, here is the factcheck info from www.factcheck.org:

Summary

Spin and hype were apparent, once again, at the third and final debate between McCain and Obama:

McCain claimed the liberal group ACORN “is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history ... maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.” In fact, a Republican prosecutor said of the first and biggest ACORN fraud case: “[T]his scheme was not intended to permit illegal voting.” He said $8-an-hour workers turned in made-up voter registration forms rather than doing what ACORN paid them to do.

McCain said “Joe the plumber” faced “much higher taxes” under Obama’s tax plan and would pay a fine under Obama’s health care plan if he failed to provide coverage for his workers. But Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher would pay higher taxes only if the business he says he wants to buy puts his income over $200,000 a year, and his small business would be exempt from Obama’s requirement to provide coverage for workers.

Obama repeated a dubious claim that his health care plan will cut the average family’s premiums by $2,500 a year. Experts have found that figure to be overly optimistic.

McCain claimed that Obama’s real “object” is a government-run, single-payer health insurance system like those in Canada or England. The McCain campaign points to a quote from five years ago, when Obama told a labor gathering that he was “a proponent of a single-payer health care program.” But Obama has since qualified his enthusiasm for Canadian-style health care, and his current proposal is nothing like that.

Obama incorrectly claimed all of McCain’s ads had been “negative.” That was true for one recent week, but not over the entire campaign. And at times Obama has run a higher percentage of attack ads than McCain.
McCain described Colombia as the "largest agricultural importer of our products." Actually, Canada imports the most U.S. farm products, and Colombia is far down the list.

Obama strained to portray himself as willing to break ranks with fellow Democrats. His prime example was his vote for a bill that was supported by 18 Democrats and opposed by 26. Congressional Quarterly rates him as voting with his party 97 percent of the time since becoming a U.S. senator.

For details on these and other misleading claims, please read on to the Analysis section.

Analysis

Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama met for their final debate Oct. 15. The face-to-face was held at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., and was moderated by CBS News' Bob Schieffer.

ACORN and Vote Fraud

McCain made some dire claims about a liberal group he said was out to steal the election:

McCain: We need to know the full extent of Sen. Obama's relationship with ACORN, who is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.

It's true that the voter registration wing of the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now has run into trouble in several states. ACORN employees have been investigated and in some cases indicted for voter registration fraud. Most recently, more than 2,000 registrations in Lake County, Ind., have turned out to be falsified.

But does this constitute "destroying the fabric of democracy"? More like destroying the fabric of work ethic. There's been no evidence that the ACORN employees who submitted fraudulent forms have been paving the way for illegal voting. Rather, they're trying to get paid for doing no work.

Dan Satterberg, the Republican prosecuting attorney in King County, Wash., where the first ACORN case was prosecuted, said:

Satterberg: [A] joint federal and state investigation has determined that this
scheme was not intended to permit illegal voting.

Instead, the defendants cheated their employer. ... It was hardly a sophisticated plan: The defendants simply realized that making up names was easier than actually canvassing the streets looking for unregistered voters. ...

[It] appears that the employees of ACORN were not performing the work that they were being paid for, and to some extent, ACORN is a victim of employee theft.

The $8-an-hour employees were charged with providing false information on a voter registration, and in one case with making a false statement to a public official. ACORN was fined for showing insufficient oversight, but it was not charged with masterminding any kind of fraud.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the table, Obama wasn't entirely forthcoming about his relationship with ACORN:

Obama: The only involvement I've had with ACORN is, I represented them alongside the U.S. Justice Department in making Illinois implement a motor voter law that helped people get registered at DMVs.

He did, but that wasn't his only involvement. He also worked closely with ACORN's Chicago office when he ran a Project Vote registration drive after law school, and Obama did some leadership training for Chicago ACORN. The Woods Fund, where Obama served as a board member, gave grants to ACORN's Chicago branch; both organizations are concerned with disadvantaged populations in that city. And during the primaries of this election, Obama's campaign paid upwards of $800,000 to the ACORN-affiliated Campaign Services Inc. for get-out-the-vote efforts (not voter registration). Those services were initially misrepresented on the campaign's Federal Election Commission reports, an error that some find suspicious and others say is par for the course. ACORN's Chicago office and CSI have not been under investigation.

For more on investigations of ACORN and registration fraud, and Obama's involvement with the group, keep an eye on our home page. A longer article on ACORN is in the works.

Joe the Plumber

Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher got a lot of airtime.

McCain first mentioned Joe by saying:

McCain: Joe wants to buy the business that he has been in for all of these years, worked 10, 12 hours a day. And he wanted to buy the business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes.

Joe’s newfound fame stems from an impromptu encounter Oct. 12, during which Wurzelbacher questioned Obama’s tax plans. Joe has since become a conservative folk hero after telling both Fox News and the conservative Web site Family Security Matters that he thought Obama’s plans sounded “socialist.”

At their encounter, Wurzelbacher told Obama that “I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes 250 to 280 thousand dollars a year,” before asking whether or not Obama would raise his taxes.

If the company is actually that profitable, and depending on how the business is organized legally, Obama’s plan would indeed raise his federal income taxes, and Obama conceded as much during the exchange. As we’ve written before, small businesses commonly are organized in such a way that their owners file business taxes as individuals. So if Joe’s plumbing business earns more than $200,000 per year (or $250,000 if Joe is married and files tax returns jointly) then his taxes would indeed be higher under Obama's plan than under McCain's.

It’s worth noting that while Wurzelbacher told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto that he lives “in a simple, middle class home” and portrayed himself as an ordinary working guy, Wurzelbacher’s $250,000 to $280,000 is a bit higher than "ordinary." In 2007, the last year for which the Census Bureau has figures, the median income for a family in Toledo, Ohio, was $43,553.

But Joe the Plumber wasn’t through yet. He made an encore appearance when McCain recycled a bogus claim that Obama would "fine" small business owners who fail to provide health care coverage for their workers:

McCain: Now, my old buddy, Joe, Joe the plumber, is out there. Now, Joe, Sen. Obama's plan, if you're a small business and . . . you've got employees, and you've got kids, if you don't get – adopt the health care plan that Sen. Obama mandates, he's going to fine you . . . I don't think that Joe right now wants to pay a fine when he is seeing such difficult times in America's economy.

McCain raised a similar charge at the last debate. It's still false. Obama’s plan, which is posted on his Web site, specifically says, “Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement.”

Obama hasn't defined exactly what he means by "small" but he seems to think Joe would qualify; he repeatedly referred to Joe’s “small business” during their exchange.

Obama's health plan does mandate that children have health coverage. If Joe doesn't provide insurance for his kids, he would face some unspecified penalty.

Health Care Hype

Obama and McCain traded boasts and accusations on each other’s health care plan. They ran afoul of the facts a few times.

Obama: And we estimate we can cut the average family's premium by about $2,500 per year.

The Obama camp does estimate that. But experts we talked to found that optimistic figure hard to believe.

Then, McCain said:

McCain: Sen. Obama wants to set up health care bureaucracies, take over the health care of America through — as he said, his object is a single payer system. If you like that, you'll love Canada and England.

Obama’s plan is not a single-payer system, which would be one in which everyone has health care provided and paid for by the government. Under Obama’s health care plan, Americans can keep the insurance they have, choose from federally-approved private plans or buy into a new public plan similar to the health care federal employees and members of Congress have.

McCain was referring to comments Obama made at a town hall meeting in Albuquerque in August. But Obama did not say that "his object is a single payer system." He said it would "probably" be his first choice "if" he were starting with a clean slate, which he isn't. He said his object is to "build up the system we got." According to the Wall Street Journal, Obama said:

Obama (as quoted by the Wall Street Journal, Aug. 19): If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system. ... [M]y attitude is let’s build up the system we got, let’s make it more efficient, we may be over time — as we make the system more efficient and everybody’s covered — decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively.

Back in 2003, Obama was much more explicit. At an AFL-CIO forum, he said he was “a proponent of a single-payer health care program,” adding, “that’s what I’d like to see. And as all of you know, we may not get there immediately.”

That was five years ago, however, and recently, Obama has said he’d favor single-payer only if “starting from scratch.” He told The New Yorker in May 2007: “If you're starting from scratch, then a single-payer system ... would probably make sense. But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition ... would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that's not so disruptive.”

Obama exaggerated a weakness in McCain's health care plan:

Obama: Now, under Sen. McCain's plan there is a strong risk that people would lose their employer-based health care.

Experts see a risk that some would lose their employer-based care, but Obama’s reference to "people" makes it sound as though nearly everyone would. Two independent studies both found that McCain’s plan would lead to a net decline in the number of people with health care through their jobs. (They said Obama’s would result in a net increase.) Both reports show, however, that there’s not a “strong risk” for all, or even a majority, of workers to lose their health care.

Currently, 159 million Americans have health care through their jobs, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. A study by the Lewin Group shows a net decline in the number with job-provided benefits of 9.4 million people in 2010 for McCain's plan. The Tax Policy Center projected that the net decrease would be 7.7 million in 2010 and 20.3 million people by 2018.

McCain and Obama both said much more that may have confused viewers. For a spin-free look at both of the candidates’ health care plans, see our recent article on this issue.

100% Negative?

Obama falsely claimed all of McCain's ads had been "negative."

Obama: And 100 percent, John, of your ads – 100 percent of them have been negative.

McCain: It's not true.

Obama: It absolutely is true.

It was almost true, for one recent week. Obama was referring to a report by the Wisconsin Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin that concluded that “nearly 100 percent of the McCain campaign’s advertisements were negative” during the week of Sept. 28 through Oct. 4. During the same week, 34 percent of the Obama campaign’s ads were negative. The Obama campaign was found to have outspent the McCain campaign in nearly all of the competitive states, in some cases by a margin of more than 3-to-1.

McCain’s ads, however, have not been deemed 100 percent negative in other weeks. In fact, in the week after the Republican National Convention, 77 percent of Obama’s ads were negative, according to the advertising project, while 56 percent of McCain’s were negative.

Wrong on Exports to Colombia

McCain was way off when he said that Colombia is "our largest agricultural importer of our products." To be sure, Colombia is an important trade partner. According to statistics from the Department of Agriculture, Colombia imported slightly more than $1.4 million worth of U.S. agricultural products in 2007. But that's not even close to the nearly $1.9 billion worth of agricultural products exported to Canada. And there are dozens of other countries that import more U.S. farm products than Colombia does.

Obama No Maverick

Obama exaggerated his willingness to defy his own party. When McCain asked for an example, Obama offered this:

Obama: First of all, in terms of standing up to the leaders of my party, the first major bill that I voted on in the Senate was in support of tort reform, which wasn't very popular with trial lawyers, a major constituency in the Democratic Party.

That 2005 bill was S.5, which dealt with class-action lawsuits. Obama was one of 18 Democrats voting for it, while 26 opposed. It's a stretch for Obama to claim that he bolted his party when nearly 41 percent of Democrats voted in favor of the bill.

And as we pointed out before, Obama has a pretty consistent record of voting in stride with his party. According to Congressional Quarterly, in Obama's three years in the Senate, he has voted with his party almost 97 percent of the time.

Budget Ballyhoo

Both candidates got ahead of themselves when it came to balancing the budget and eliminating the deficit. Obama said every one of his spending increases was paid for.

Obama: Now, what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut. ... Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches.

McCain said he could balance the budget within one term.

Schieffer: Do either of you think you can balance the budget in four years? You have said previously you thought you could, Sen. McCain.
McCain: Sure I do. And let me tell you...
Schieffer: You can still do that?
McCain: Yes.

These are pie-in-the-sky predictions. We've looked at McCain's balanced-budget promise before – it's out of reach unless he cuts spending to an unrealistic degree. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that by 2013, at the end of his first term, McCain's tax plan would have him facing a $662 billion deficit. That could come to more than half of that year's discretionary spending, which the Office of Management and Budget projects to be $1.1 trillion. And we've previously disputed Obama's claim that "every dime" of his proposed spending is covered. The Tax Policy Center estimated that Obama’s plan – and McCain's, too – "would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years" unless the candidates come up with "substantial cuts in government spending" that they haven't yet specified. More recently, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget also estimated that in 2013, Obama’s major budget proposals – including spending cuts – would increase the deficit for that year by $281 billion.

The $42,000, Again.

McCain was on the wrong side of this exchange:

McCain: Sen. Obama talks about voting for budgets. He voted twice for a budget resolution that increases the taxes on individuals making $42,000 a year. . . .

Obama: [T]he notion that I voted for a tax increase for people making $42,000 a year has been disputed by everybody who has looked at this claim.

McCain was wrong to say Obama's March 2008 vote for a budget resolution "increases" anything. Budget resolutions set targets for taxes and spending; actually raising or lowering them requires separate legislation.

The $42,000 figure also would only apply to single taxpayers, not to couples or families. As we’ve reported, a single taxpayer making more than $41,500 would have seen a tax increase, but a couple filing jointly would have seen no increase unless they made at least $83,000, and for a couple with two children the cut-off would have been $90,000. Regardless, the increase that Obama once supported as part of a Democratic budget bill is not part of his own current tax plan. And Obama was right when he said "even FOX News disputes" McCain's $42,000 claim. Chris Wallace of Fox News agreed that it was misleading.

Wrong Justice

McCain said that Obama voted against the confirmations of Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and John Roberts:

McCain: Senator Obama voted against Justice Breyer and Justice Roberts on the grounds that they didn't meet his ideological standards.

McCain probably meant to say that Obama voted against the confirmations of Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, the most recent additions to the court. Obama did vote against the confirmation of Roberts, but he wasn’t in the Senate when Breyer was nominated to join the Court. Breyer was nominated to the Supreme Court by former President Bill Clinton and confirmed by the Senate in 1994. Obama didn’t become a senator until January 2005.

Charter School Slip-Up

Obama overstated his work on charter schools in Illinois:

Obama: Charter schools, I doubled the number of charter schools in Illinois despite some reservations from teachers unions.

Actually, the bill Obama cosponsored doubled the number of charter schools in Chicago, not in the entire state of Illinois. (And an extra slap on the wrist to Obama for using the personal pronoun in saying that "I doubled the number of charter schools" – as we've pointed out before, it takes a lot more than one politician to get a bill passed.)

Tried But Untrue

And we noted that both candidates continued to recycle bunk that we've heard before:

McCain said once again, "We have to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much." As we've noted several times in the past, $700 billion would have been the cost of all annual U.S. oil imports when the price was $140 per barrel. But it's down to about half that now.

Obama said oil companies have "68 million acres that they currently have leased that they're not drilling." We've previously criticized him for similar statements, and it's still not true. As we've pointed out, there is exploratory drilling being done on much of these lands, which are not yet producing oil. In 2007 there were more than 15,000 holes that were being proposed, started or finished that do not count as "productive" holes.
Listing some of his running mate's achievements, McCain credited Gov. Sarah Palin with “a $40 billion pipeline of natural gas that's going to relieve the energy needs" of the lower 48 states. We'll just note, again, that the pipeline is still in pre-development and is actually projected to cost $26.5 billion.

Sea Story

Finally, the ears of nautical buffs may have perked up when McCain said, “we've sailed Navy ships around the world for 60 years with nuclear power plants on them.” His naval history is off by a few years. The first nuclear-powered vessel, the submarine USS Nautilus, was actually launched Jan. 21, 1954.

–by Jessica Henig, Joe Miller, Lori Robertson, Justin Bank, D'Angelo Gore, Emi Kolawole and Brooks Jackson

Sources

Congressional Research Service. Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies: Current Status and Analysis. Washington: GPO, 2007.

Burman, Leonard E., et.al. "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans: Updated September 12, 2008." Tax Policy Center, 12 Sept. 2008.

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "Promises, Promises: A Fiscal Voter Guide to the 2008 Election." U.S. Budget Watch. 15 Sep. 2008.

Satterberg, Dan. "Statement of Interim King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg." 26 Jul. 2007.

U.S. Census Bureau. "Toledo City, Ohio Factsheet." U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey, 2006, accessed 16 Oct. 2008.

ACORN Responds to Senator McCain’s Desperate Attack. 15 Oct. 2008

Griffin, Drew and Kathleen Johnston . “Thousands of voter registration forms faked, officials say.” 10 Oct. 2008

Robinson, Mike. Obama got start in civil rights practice. Associated Press, 20 Feb. 2007

Tapper, Jake. Spread the Wealth. ABC New Political Punch Blog. 14 Oct. 2008

Brown, David M. “Obama to amend report on $800,000 in spending.” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 22 Aug. 2008

CQ member Profiles: Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill). Congressional Quarterly, 12 June 2008.

Rabinowitz, Steve. “Pres. TV advertising spending continues to grow;
Over $28 million spent from September 28-October 4.” Wisconsin Ad Project. 8 Oct. 2008

Kurtz, Howard. “Recent Obama Ads More Negative Than Rival's, Study Says: Democrat Said to Be Facing Pressure to 'Show Some Spine.'” Washington Post, 18 Sept. 2008

OECD Tax Database. Centre for Tax Policy and Administration.

Hodge, Scott. U.S. States Lead the World in High Corporate Taxes. Tax Foundation, 18 March 2008

Pre-Debate Faith and Politics Post

2008-10-15T10:31:00.000-04:00

I haven't posted much lately. I'm still thinking about why and I'll probably post about it soon. Preacherman asked me if I was going to post about tonight's debate, and so I will.

I'm starting to realize that I follow politics like most people follow sports. I certainly have strong opinions regarding politics and the current presidential election, but I don't identify with any political party and I don't publicly endorse any candidate, as I feel that such an endorsement would be inappropriate and unethical for someone in my profession. However, I have and will continue to call for honesty and ethical behavior in politics, particularly when it comes to Christian involvement in the political arena. I have and will continue to resist efforts by either political party to co-opt Christians for political gain. I have and will continue to assert that neither political party has a purely Kingdom of God agenda, and I refuse to choose between behavioral morality and social justice.

I believe that it is a legitimate position for a Christian to say that their allegiance to the Kingdom of God prevents them from participating in national politics. I respect that. I also belive that it is a legitimate position for a Christian to participate in the political arena while pledging their "first allegiance" to the Kingdom of God, and thereby vote from the convictions of their faith and the Gospel. This is the position I find myself in during this election cycle. However, I must make one other point: If a Christian, who has committed themselves to the Way of Jesus takes this position they must a) conduct themselves in ways that do not violate that Way for some "righteous purpose" and they must not reward or propegate such behavior in the campaign of any candidate, and b) they must actively seek to be informed on the issues utilizing non-partisan sources rather than attaching themselves to the firehoses of propaganda eminating from obviously partisan sources.

I will post debate video and factcheck info when it becomes available later this week. Here are some of the sources I use to stay informed:

www.factcheck.org - this is a great, non-partisan site that examines the claims of both candidates and their running mates. Also features a weekly vidcast summing up each weeks information. This site will post a full report and analysis the morning after each debate, and their analysis for all previous debates (including the VP debate) is still available.
http://wire.factcheck.org - this is a companion site to factcheck.org, which is updated more often with "breaking news". I reccomend subscribing to the rss feed.
www.politifact.com - similar to factcheck, this site also examines the claims of both candidates. It includes a fun feature called the "truth meter" that rates the truthfulness of criticisms that are leveled against each candidate. I highly recommend subscribing to politifact on twitter, especially during the debate tonight. They do a great job of live factchecking during the debate.

We'll get back to talking theology soon.
Blessings,
AE

Video: The debate...in case you missed it (Plus Factcheck info)

2008-09-27T16:04:00.000-04:00

Below is the info and analysis from www.factcheck.org

FactChecking Debate No. 1

September 27, 2008

Facts muddled in Mississippi McCain-Obama meeting.

Summary

McCain and Obama contradicted each other repeatedly during their first debate, and each volunteered some factual misstatements as well. Here’s how we sort them out:

Obama said McCain adviser Henry Kissinger backs talks with Iran “without preconditions,” but McCain disputed that. In fact, Kissinger did recently call for “high level” talks with Iran starting at the secretary of state level and said, “I do not believe that we can make conditions.” After the debate the McCain campaign issued a statement quoting Kissinger as saying he didn’t favor presidential talks with Iran.

Obama denied voting for a bill that called for increased taxes on “people” making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers. A married couple would have had to make $83,000 to be affected by the vote, and anyway no such increase is in Obama’s tax plan.

McCain and Obama contradicted each other on what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said about troop withdrawals. Mullen said a time line for withdrawal could be “very dangerous” but was not talking specifically about “Obama’s plan,” as McCain maintained.

McCain tripped up on one of his signature issues – special appropriation “earmarks.” He said they had “tripled in the last five years,” when in fact they have decreased sharply.

Obama claimed Iraq “has” a $79 billion surplus. It once was projected to be as high as that. It’s now down to less than $60 billion.

McCain repeated his overstated claim that the U.S. pays $700 billion a year for oil to hostile nations. Imports are running at about $536 billion this year, and a third of it comes from Canada, Mexico and the U.K.

Obama said 95 percent of “the American people” would see a tax cut under his proposal. The actual figure is 81 percent of households.

Obama mischaracterized an aspect of McCain’s health care plan, saying “employers” would be taxed on the value of health benefits provided to workers. Employers wouldn’t, but the workers would. McCain also would grant workers up to a $5,000 tax credit per family to cover health insurance.
McCain misrepresented Obama's plan by claiming he'd be "handing the health care system over to the federal government." Obama would expand some government programs but would allow people to keep their current plans or chose from private ones, as well.

McCain claimed Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower had drafted a letter of resignation from the Army to be sent in case the 1944 D-Day landing at Normandy turned out to be a failure. Ike prepared a letter taking responsibility, but he didn’t mention resigning.

For full details, as well as other dubious claims and statements, please read our full Analysis section.

Analysis

The first of three scheduled debates between Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama took place Sept. 26 on the campus of the University of Mississippi at Oxford. It was sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. It was carried live on national television networks and was moderated by Jim Lehrer, executive editor and anchor of the PBS "NewsHour" program.

We noted these factual misstatements:

Did Kissinger Back Obama?

McCain attacked Obama for his declaration that he would meet with leaders of Iran and other hostile nations "without preconditions." To do so with Iran, McCain said, "isn't just naive; it's dangerous." Obama countered by saying former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger – a McCain adviser – agreed with him:

Obama: Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran – guess what – without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.

McCain rejected Obama's claim:

McCain: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years.
Obama: We will take a look.
McCain: And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level.
Obama: Nobody's talking about that.

So who's right? Kissinger did in fact say a few days earlier at a forum of former secretaries of state that he favors very high-level talks with Iran – without conditions:

Kissinger Sept. 20: Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic...

CNN's Frank Sesno: Put at a very high level right out of the box?

Kissinger: Initially, yes.But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.

Later, McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, was asked about this by CBS News anchor Katie Couric, and Palin said, "I’ve never heard Henry Kissinger say, ‘Yeah, I’ll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.'" Afterward Couric said, "We confirmed Henry Kissinger’s position following our interview."

After the McCain-Obama debate, however, Kissinger issued a statement saying he doesn't favor a presidential meeting:

Kissinger: Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain.

$42,000 per year?

McCain said – and Obama denied – that Obama had voted to increase taxes on "people who make as low as $42,000 a year." McCain was correct – with qualification.

McCain: But, again, Senator Obama has shifted on a number of occasions. He has voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year.
Obama: That's not true, John. That's not true.
McCain: And that's just a fact. Again, you can look it up.
Obama: Look, it's just not true.

Yes, as we’ve said before, Obama did in fact vote for a budget resolution that called for higher federal income tax rates on a single, non-homeowner who earned as little as $42,000 per year. A couple filing jointly, however, would have had to earn at least $83,000 per year to be affected. A family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected.

The resolution actually would not have altered taxes without additional legislation. It called generally for allowing most of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire. McCain is referring to the provision that would have allowed the 25 percent tax bracket to return to 28 percent. The tax plan Obama now proposes, however, would not raise the rate on that tax bracket.

Timetable Tiff

Obama contradicted McCain about what Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen's said regarding "Obama's plan" for troop withdrawals.

McCain: Admiral Mullen suggests that Senator Obama's plan is dangerous for America.
Obama: That's not the case.
McCain: That's what ...
Obama: What he said was a precipitous...
McCain: That's what Admiral Mullen said.
Obama: ... withdrawal would be dangerous. He did not say that. That's not true.

Admiral Mullen did say in a Fox News interview that having a time line for withdrawal would be dangerous.

Mullen (July 20): I think the consequences could be very dangerous in that regard. I'm convinced at this point in time that coming – making reductions based on conditions on the ground are very important.

However, interviewer Chris Wallace had just told Mullen to take Obama out of the equation.

Wallace (July 20): But I'm asking you in the absence – forget about Obama. Forget about the politics. If I were to say to you, "Let's set a time line of getting all of our combat troops out within two years," what do you think would be the consequences of setting that kind of a time line?

So strictly speaking Mullen was not talking specifically about "Obama's plan." He did say a rigid timetable could have dangerous consequences.

Earmarks Down, Not Up

McCain was way off the mark when he said that earmarks in federal appropriations bills had tripled in the last five years.

McCain: But the point is that – you see, I hear this all the time. "It's only $18
billion." Do you know that it's tripled in the last five years?

In fact, earmarks have actually gone down. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, there was $22.5 billion worth of earmark spending in 2003. By 2008, that figure had come down to $17.2 billion. That's a decrease of 24 percent.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, another watchdog group, said in 2008 that "Congress has cut earmarks by 23 percent from the record 2005 levels," according to its analysis.

$3 million to study the DNA of bears?

And while we're on the subject of earmarks, McCain repeated a misleading line we've heard before.

McCain: You know, we spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a criminal issue or a paternal issue, but the fact is that it was $3 million of our taxpayers' money. And it has got to be brought under control.

McCain's been playing this for laughs since 2003. The study in question was done by the U.S. Geological Survey, and it relied in part on federal appropriations. Readers (and politicians) may disagree on whether a noninvasive study of grizzly bear population and habitat is a waste of money. McCain clearly thinks it is – but on the other hand, he never moved to get rid of the earmark. In fact, he voted for the bill that made appropriations for the study. He did propose some changes to the bill, but none that nixed the bear funding.

Iraqi Surplus Exaggerated

Obama was out of date in saying the Iraqi government has "79 billion dollars," when he argued that the U.S. should stop spending money on the war in Iraq.

Obama: We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq when they have a $79 billion surplus.

As we've said before, there was a time when the country could have had as much as $79 billion, but that time has passed. What the Iraqis actually “have” is $29.4 billion in the bank. The Government Accountability Office projected in August that Iraq’s 2008 budget surplus could range anywhere from $38.2 billion to $50.3 billion, depending on oil revenue, price and volume. Then, in early August, the Iraqi legislature passed a $21 billion supplemental spending bill, which was omitted from the GAO’s surplus tally since it was still under consideration. The supplemental will be completely funded by this year’s surplus. So the range of what the Iraqi’s could have at year’s end is actually $47 billion to $59 billion. The $79 billion figure is outdated and incorrect.

$700 billion for oil?

McCain repeated an exaggerated claim that the U.S. is sending $700 billion per year to hostile countries.

McCain: Look, we are sending $700 billion a year overseas to countries that don't like us very much. Some of that money ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations.

That's not accurate. McCain also made this claim in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. He's referring to the amount of money the U.S. spends in importing oil. But the number is inflated. In fact, we actually pay more like $536 billion for the oil we need. And one-third of those payments go to Canada, Mexico and the U.K.

(Note: A few of our readers messaged us, after we first noted McCain's mistake, with the thought that he was referring to foreign aid and not to oil. If so he's even farther off than we supposed: The entire budget for the State Department and International Programs works out to just $51.3 million.)

Tax Cut Recipients

Obama overstated how many people would save on taxes under his plan:

Obama: My definition – here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut. And if you make less than $250,000, less than a quarter-million dollars a year, then you will not see one dime's worth of tax increase.

That should be 95 percent of families, not 95 percent of "American people." An analysis by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that Obama's plan would decrease taxes for 95.5 percent of families with children. Overall, 81.3 percent of households would get a tax cut under his proposal.

Health Care Hyperbole

Obama and McCain traded incorrect statements on each other's health care plan.

Obama: So you may end up getting a $5,000 tax credit. Here's the only problem: Your employer now has to pay taxes on the health care that you're getting from your employer.

As we said before, McCain’s plan doesn’t call for taxing employers on health care benefits; it would instead tax employees. As the law stands now, employees don’t pay taxes on the dollar value of their health insurance benefits. Under McCain’s plan, they would.

McCain also misrepresented Obama's plan when he said that his opponent favored "handing the health care system over to the federal government."

McCain: Well, I want to make sure we're not handing the health care system over to the federal government which is basically what would ultimately happen with Senator Obama's health care plan. I want the families to make decisions between themselves and their doctors. Not the federal government.

McCain made a similar claim in his acceptance speech, when he said that
Obama's plans would "force families into a government run health care
system." We called it false then and we stand by that. Obama's plan mandates coverage for children, but not for adults, and it does not require anyone to be covered by a nationalized system. Obama's plan expands the insurance coverage offered by the government, but allows people to keep their own plans or choose from private plans as well.

Ike Was No Quitter

McCain mangled his military history:

McCain: President Eisenhower, on the night before the Normandy invasion, went into his room, and he wrote out two letters.

One of them was a letter congratulating the great members of the military and allies that had conducted and succeeded in the greatest invasion in history, still to this day, and forever.

And he wrote out another letter, and that was a letter of resignation from the United States Army for the failure of the landings at Normandy.

The story is widely circulated in military circles but not entirely true. Eisenhower (then a general, not yet a president) did in fact write a letter taking responsibility should the D-Day invasion fail. But Eisenhower's letter does not mention resigning. Here's the full text:

Eisenhower (June 5, 1944): Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.

No mention of quitting the Army, or his command.

A Longer Timetable

Obama stretched out his schedule for withdrawing troops from Iraq. During the debate, Obama said we could "reduce" the number of combat troops in 16 months:

Obama: Now, what I've said is we should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, put – provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.

But in Oct. 2007, Obama supported removing all combat troops from Iraq
within 16 months:

Obama (Oct. 2007): I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war.

The quote appears in "Barack Obama and Joe Biden on Defense Issues" – a
position paper that was still available on the campaign's Web site as Obama spoke.

Still Soft on Iran?

McCain repeated the false insinuation that Obama opposed naming Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

McCain: There is the Republican Guard in Iran, which Senator Kyl had an amendment in order to declare them a sponsor of terror. Senator Obama said that would be provocative. ...

Obama: Well, let me just correct something very quickly. I believe the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization. I've consistently said so. What Senator McCain refers to is a measure in the Senate that would try to broaden the mandate inside of Iraq. To deal with Iran.

Obama has in fact said that the IRGC should be named a terrorist group. He was a cosponsor of the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which, among other things, named the IRGC a terrorist organization. What he voted against was the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which also called for the terrorist group distinction. But Obama said that he opposed the amendment on the grounds that it was "saber-rattling."

Obama press release (Sept. 26, 2007): Senator Obama clearly recognizes the serious threat posed by Iran. However, he does not agree with the president that the best way to counter that threat is to keep large numbers of troops in Iraq, and he does not think that now is the time for saber-rattling towards Iran. In fact, he thinks that our large troop presence in Iraq has served to strengthen Iran - not weaken it. He believes that diplomacy and economic pressure, such as the divestment bill that he has proposed, is the right way to pressure the Iranian regime. Accordingly, he would have opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment had he been able to vote today.

Who's Naive on Georgia?

McCain called Obama's initial statement on the conflict in Georgia "naive." It's worth noting Obama's words echoed those of the White House.

McCain: Well, I was interested in Senator Obama's reaction to the Russian aggression against Georgia. His first statement was, "Both sides ought to show restraint."

Again, a little bit of naivete there. He doesn't understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia.

It's true, as McCain said, that during the conflict between Georgia and Russia, Obama said, "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to
avoid an escalation to full scale war" in his first statement on the conflict. But so did the White House. Press secretary Dana Perino said on Aug. 8, “We urge restraint on all sides – that violence would be curtailed and that direct dialogue could ensue in order to help resolve their differences.” We pointed this out when New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani mischaracterized Obama's response to the crisis during the GOP convention.

Boeing Boasts

McCain was went too far when he said, "I saved the taxpayers $6.8 billion by fighting a contract that was negotiated between Boeing and DOD that was completely wrong. And we fixed it and we killed it."

McCain certainly did lead a fight to kill the contract, and the effort ended in prison sentences for defense contractors. But the contract isn't exactly "fixed" yet. In fact, questions have been raised about the role McCain has played in helping a Boeing rival secure the new contract.

After the original Boeing contract to supply refueling airliners was nixed in 2003, the bidding process was reopened. And in early 2007, Boeing rival EADS/Airbus won the bid the second time around. But Boeing filed a protest about the way the bids were processed, and the Government Accountability Office released a report that found in Boeing's favor. In the summary of GAO's investigation, the organization said there were "significant errors" with the bid process and that the directions given to Boeing were "misleading."

Further, the New York Times reported that "McCain’s top advisers, including a cochairman of his presidential campaign, were lobbyists for EADS. And Mr. McCain had written to the Defense Department, urging it to ignore a trade dispute between the United States and Europe over whether Airbus received improper subsidies." A liberal campaign finance group ran an ad hitting McCain on the connections back in July and our colleagues at PolitiFact found their attacks to be true, saying: "Center for Responsive Politics prepared a report for PolitiFact that backs [the charge] up. U.S. employees of EADS/Airbus have contributed $15,700 in this election cycle to McCain’s campaign."

Nuclear Charges

McCain said Obama was against storing nuclear waste. That's not exactly his position.

McCain: And Senator Obama says he's for nuclear, but he's against reprocessing and he's against storing.

Obama: I -- I just have to correct the record here. I have never said that I object to nuclear waste. What I've said is that we have to store it safely.

Obama's official position is that he does support safe storage of nuclear waste:

Obama fact sheet: Obama will also lead federal efforts to look for a safe, long-term disposal solution based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available. Barack Obama believes that Yucca Mountain is not an option. Our government has spent billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, and yet there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there.

But the McCain campaign has attacked Obama before on this issue, going as
far as to claim Obama did not support nuclear energy at all, which was false. Obama has said he supports nuclear as long as it is "clean and safe."

Against Alternative Energy

Obama said that McCain had voted 23 times against alternative energy:

Obama: Over 26 years, Senator McCain voted 23 times against alternative energy, like solar, and wind, and biodiesel.

Here's the Obama campaign's list of the 23 votes. We find they're overstating the case. In many instances, McCain voted not against alternative energy but against mandatory use of alternative energy, or he voted in favor of allowing exemptions from these mandates. Only 11 of the 23 votes cited by the Obama campaign involve reducing or eliminating incentives for renewable energy.

Meanwhile, McCain was indignant at the suggestion that he'd voted against alternative energy at all.

McCain: I have voted for alternate fuel all of my time. ... No one can be opposed to alternate energy.

But McCain's record says differently. As we say above, he has voted against funding for alternative energy on 11 occasions. He may be in favor of alternative energy in theory, but he has declined opportunities to support it.

In McCain's energy plan, he supports nuclear power and "clean" coal, which are alternative energies. But they don't qualify as renewable energy, such as hydro,
solar and wind power. McCain's plan makes a vague promise to "rationalize
the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial
feasibility." The experts we talked to weren't sure what exactly that meant.

Committee Oversight

Both candidates were right in talking about Obama’s NATO subcommittee.

McCain: Senator Obama is the chairperson of a committee that oversights NATO, that's in Afghanistan. To this day he's never had a hearing. …

Obama: Look, the -- I'm very proud of my vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, who's the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And as he explains and as John well knows, the issues of Afghanistan, the issues of Iraq, critical issues like that don't go through my subcommittee because they're done as a committee as a whole.

As we've already reported Obama's subcommittee on Afghanistan does have jurisdiction over NATO, which is supplying about half of the troops in Afghanistan. His subcommittee does not have jurisdiction over Afghanistan proper.

Getting the Dates Wrong

We also caught McCain getting his congressional history a little wrong.

McCain: Back in 1983, when I was a brand-new United States congressman,
the one -- the person I admired the most and still admire the most, Ronald
Reagan, wanted to send Marines into Lebanon. And I saw that, and I saw the
situation, and I stood up, and I voted against that because I was afraid
that they couldn't make peace in a place where 300 or 400 or several
hundred Marines would make a difference. Tragically, I was right: Nearly
300 Marines lost their lives in the bombing of the barracks.

This isn’t quite right. Marines were initially deployed to Lebanon in August 1982. McCain, however, was not elected to the U.S. House until November 1982, more than three months after Marines had already landed.

McCain is referring to a 1983 vote to invoke the War Powers Act. That bill, which Ronald Reagan signed into law on October 12, 1983, authorized an 18-month deployment for the Marines. On October 13, a suicide bomber destroyed the Marine barracks in Beirut. McCain did in fact break with most Republicans to vote against the bill.

–by Brooks Jackson, Lori Robertson, Justin Bank, Jess Henig, Emi Kolawole and Joe Miller.

Sources

"Statement Regarding the Bid Protest Decision Resolving the Aerial Refueling Tanker Protest by The Boeing Company" Government Accountability Office. 18 June 2008.

Isikoff, Michael, "McCain’s Boeing Battle Boomerangs," Newsweek. 30 June 2008.

Laurent, Lionel, "Boeing Boomerangs on McCain," Forbers Magazine. 4 March 2008.

Wayne, Leslie, "Audit Says Tanker Deal Is Flawed," New York Times. 19 June 2008.

Tax Policy Center. "Individual Income Tax Brackets, 1945 - 2008." 4 November 2007. Tax Policy Center, 7 July 2008.

"U.S. Imports by Country of Origin." U.S. Energy Information Administration, accessed 5 Sept. 2008.

"Spot Prices, Crude Oil in Dollars per Barrel." U.S. Energy Information Administration, accessed 5 Sept. 2008.

"S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007." 8 April 2008.
Thomas.gov. 2 June 2008.

"Sec. 1538 of H.R. 1585." National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Thomas.gov. 2 June 2008

U.S. Senate. "Roll Call Vote on Senate Amendment 3017." 26 Sept. 2007. U.S. Senate: Legislation and Records. 2 June 2008.

Grimmett, Richard F. "Congressional Use of Funding Cutoffs Since 1970 Involving U.S. Military Forces and Overseas Deployments." Congressional Research Service. 10 January 2001.

Daggett, Stephen. Costs of Major U.S. Wars. 24 Jul. 2008. Congressional Research Service.

Adair, Bill. Obama "suggested bombing Pakistan". Politifact.com.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden on Defense Issues. Obama for America.

Barack Obama's Plan to Make America A Global Energy Leader. Obama for America.

Factchecking the Debate

2008-09-26T17:04:00.000-04:00

My friend Matt Wilson and I have been joking for a few days about how we wish there was a VH1-style Pop-Up Video feature for the presidential debate. While it won't pop up on your tv screen, it looks like something close will be a reality tonight. According to an announcement on www.factcheck.org , they will be factchecking live at their site, "The FactCheck Wire" during the debate. Thank you factcheck.

Here's this weeks video update:

Faith and Politics...plus a factchecker video

2008-09-05T18:16:00.000-04:00

In terms of politics, I consider myself non-partisan. Because of my position as a preaching minister, I try to keep pretty quiet about which candidates I support, etc. as a matter of personal conviction. You will notice that my last few posts have been somewhat political in nature, and that several items in the rss feed in my sidebar are political in nature. I believe that it is a perfectly legitimate option to not participate in politics as a matter of Christian conviction (allegiance to the Kingdom of God rather than the Kingdoms of men). However, I also think it is a perfectly legitimate option for a Christian to involve themselves in politics, provided that they remember that their first allegiance is to the Kingdom of God. In this case, ones political convictions will be informed by their faith convictions...and these convictions will vary (and historically have varied) from believer to believer. In general, I think that this should be expected and provides a wonderful opportunity for believers to learn from each other. On the other hand, what I've noticed lately is that many seem to be letting their politics inform their faith (on both sides of the aisle)...and that their political positions are not even theirs, but rather some media personalities who produce what can only be rightly called propaganda. Hint: if your favorite personality is always sure to include Obama's middle name at every mention of him, OR if they question John McCain's service in the military and experience as a prisoner of war...it's propaganda. Sincerely, I implore you...if you are a Christian who chooses to involve yourself in the political process...PLEASE quit buying propaganda from either side wholesale. PLEASE check non-partisan sources. PLEASE make sure that you aren't being used by either political party in a power grab.

I twittered about www.factcheck.org earlier in the week. I also recommend www.politifact.com . These are non-partisan sources who check the claims from both sides against the facts. They are free and easily accessible resources. Below I'm posting a video from factcheck dealing with claims made at both conventions. I sincerely hope you find it helpful.
AE

Matthew Paul Turner's Blog Tour (Free book, anyone?)

2008-09-05T00:16:00.000-04:00

Posted for my friend, Matthew Paul Turner:

Do you have an established personal blog? If you do, you may be eligible to join the blog tour for Matthew Paul Turner's new book, "churched". As an approved blog reviewer, you'll receive a free, advance copy of the book and a giveaway copy! To submit your blog for consideration, emailejohnson@randomhouse.com by September 15, 2008. Include your name, street address, and a link to your blog. A limited number of books are available, so email now! The blog tour will take place the week of October 13-17.

Donald Miller's Prayer at the DNC

2008-08-26T01:15:00.000-04:00

Here is the transcript for Miller's prayer:

"Father God,

This week, as the world looks on, help the leaders in this room create a civil dialogue about our future.

We need you, God, as individuals and also as a nation.

We need you to protect us from our enemies, but also from ourselves, because we are easily tempted toward apathy.

Give us a passion to advance opportunities for the least of these, for widows and orphans, for single moms and children whose fathers have left.

Give us the eyes to see them, and the ears to hear them, and hands willing to serve them.

Help us serve people, not just causes. And stand up to specific injustices rather than vague notions.

Give those in this room who have power, along with those who will meet next week, the courage to work together to finally provide health care to those who don’t have any, and a living wage so families can thrive rather than struggle.

Hep us figure out how to pay teachers what they deserve and give children an equal opportunity to get a college education.

Help us figure out the balance between economic opportunity and corporate gluttony.

We have tried to solve these problems ourselves but they are still there. We need your help.

Father, will you restore our moral standing in the world.

A lot of people don’t like us but that’s because they don’t know the heart of the average American.

Will you give us favor and forgiveness, along with our allies around the world.

Help us be an example of humility and strength once again.

Lastly, father, unify us.

Even in our diversity help us see how much we have in common.

And unify us not just in our ideas and in our sentiments—but in our actions, as we look around and figure out something we can do to help create an America even greater than the one we have come to cherish.

God we know that you are good.

Thank you for blessing us in so many ways as Americans.

I make these requests in the name of your son, Jesus, who gave his own life against the forces of injustice.

Let Him be our example.

Amen."

Thoughts?

Video: Saddleback Civic Forum Featuring Obama and McCain

2008-08-18T10:52:00.000-04:00

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

Part 11

Thoughts?
AE

Narrative Gospel Conclusion and Reference List (Narrative Gospel Part 8)

2008-08-14T08:38:00.000-04:00

It is my contention that the Gospel narrative is transcendent and therefore relevant to all cultures. This does not mean that our methodologies for communicating it do not need to change. In fact, quite the opposite seems to be true. If the Gospel is a message for those who do not yet believe, then their perception of the message we are trying to communicate becomes critically important. If we are attempting to actually communicate the story of the Gospel to a culture that is constantly changing, we must understand the world of our intended hearers so that what they hear us saying is what we mean to be saying. They still have a choice in the matter, but wouldn’t it be a shame if the message they reject isn’t the one we meant to communicate. The story of the Gospel existed and was communicated before the advent of modernity and it will continue to be powerful and relevant long after modernity and what we now call “postmodernity” are distant memories; until “the Story we find ourselves in” reaches its resolution. We must not insist that someone must convert to a modern epistemology in order to be converted by the Gospel. We must not use a narrative of invitation to motivate by exclusion. We must inhabit and embody the story we profess to believe. We must not only believe and speak the Gospel, but our very lives must be “good news” to the world around us. We must allow those who don’t yet believe to join with us; to walk with us; to learn to believe by belonging. In a culture that is deeply suspicious of coercive meta-narratives and power games, we must profess, inhabit, embody, and invite them into a “true” narrative that refuses to be “meta.”

REFERENCES
1. Brueggemann, Walter. Theology Of The Old Testament.
2. Gibbs, Eddie. ChurchNext.
3. Grenz, Stanley J. A Primer on Postmodernism. Wm. B. EerdmansPublishing, 1996.
4. ---. Theology for the Community of God.
5. Honderich, Ted. The Oxford Guide to Philosophy, 2005.
6. Kierkegaard, Soren, D F Swenson, and W. Lowrie. Concluding Unscientific PostScript.
7. Lyotard, Jean François, and Frederic Jameson. The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge. U of Minnesota Press, 1984.
8. McKnight, Scot. Embracing Grace: A Gospel for All of Us. SPCK Publishing, 2007.
9. McLaren, Brian D. A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant. Zondervan, 2006.
10. ---. More Ready Than You Realize.
11. Middleton, J. Richard, and Brian J. Walsh. Truth is Stranger Than it Used to be: Biblical Faith in a Postmodern Age. InterVarsity Press, 1995.
12. Newbigin, Lesslie. Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.
13. Smith, James K. A. Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church. Baker Academic, 2006.
14. Sweet, Leonard I., Brian D. McLaren, and Jerry Haselmayer. A Is for Abductive: The Language of the Emerging Church. Zondervan, 2003.
15. Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God. Augsburg Fortress Publishers, 1992.
16. Wright, N. T., and Wright. The Millennium Myth: Hope for a Postmodern World. Westminster John KnoxPress, 1999.

Believing by Belonging? (Narrative Gospel Part 7)

2008-08-13T11:21:00.000-04:00

If then, we can access the truth of the Gospel only from “within” the narrative of the Gospel and in relationship with other believers, then how is it even possible for this narrative to engage those currently outside of it? For quite some time, the church’s strategy for engaging those “outsiders” has been (generally) what McLaren refers to as “motivation by exclusion”. The general idea was that as a community we have a set of beliefs and values, and once outsiders line up with those beliefs and values we will allow them “in” as members of our community. The church isn’t the only organization who has subscribed to this ideology, and it must be admitted that within the framework of the dominant systems of the world it makes a great deal of sense.

However, in a community that is seeking to line up with the narrative of the Gospel, it is simply antithetical to the story, and particularly to the main character: Jesus. When we read the canonical Gospels, we discover that Jesus was radically inclusive. He is constantly in trouble with the religious leaders because of his association with the very outcasts they were seeking to distance themselves from and condemn. He called on people whom he had never met, who were clearly not lined up with his beliefs and values to simply “Come follow me.” Clearly, this is not simply an acceptance or verification of all that these “outsiders” value and believe. Rather, it seems to be the means by which they come to value and believe the things that He does. Eddie Gibbs explains:

“…nonbelievers will be exposed to the gospel in a highly contextualized form. They will not be confronted with a generic, propositional message, but one in which the big story of salvation history as recorded in Scripture is worked out in the little stories of the lives of each individual and at the micro level of the local group of believers. What’s more, they will not be presented with an idealized version of the story that will later lead them to become disillusioned. Instead they will engage in open and honest dialogue with people they know well and consider credible witnesses.”

In the above quote, Gibbs also points out one other crucial aspect. As this “nonbeliever” develops relationships with those in the community of faith who see themselves as embedded in the narrative of the Gospel, the nonbeliever will also learn each of their stories. Each of these smaller stories functions as a sort of mini-gospel that does not serve as a substitute for the Gospel story, but rather serves to reinforce it.

This approach is not simply a “fix” to help the church adapt her methodology so that it is relevant to the postmodern condition. Rather, I believe that it is a matter of fidelity to the Gospel narrative and the Way of Jesus.

(To be concluded...)
AE

Knowing Together (Narrative Gospel Part 6)

2008-08-12T09:09:00.000-04:00

If individual objectivity is a myth, what happens when individuals in a community of believers are honest about their own subjectivity? What happens when they don’t deny their subjectivity, but rather own it in dialogue with each other in the context of communal relationships? Stanley Grenz suggests:

“Narrative thinkers remind us that we must view theology in terms of its relationship to the story of God’s action in history. This seminal assertion carries important implications. One ramification is that we can pursue the theological task only ‘from within’—only from the vantage point of the faith community in which we stand…Theology, then is the task of the faith community; it is a community act.”

Thus, as the community of faith attempts to interpret Scripture and speak of God we offer all of our perspectives to each other in honesty, humility and love. We learn to listen to each other and be shaped by each other’s perspectives. This allows each of us to “think outside ourselves”, not by claiming a position of objective neutrality, but by learning to hear other perspectives. Admittedly and intentionally we operate from a position of faith. We do not claim or seek objective neutrality. We have put our confidence and hope in this narrative. Kierkegaard (under a pseudonym) said “Subjectivity is truth” . Though what he meant by his enigmatic statement is somewhat debatable (which would seem to prove his point), I suspect that he was pointing to exactly the reality that we’ve been exploring.
(To be continued...)
AE

Community (Narrative Gospel 5)

2008-08-11T08:04:00.000-04:00

In Post-Enlightenment thought, human beings were to be understood first and foremost as individuals. Individual human rationality was virtually deified. While I will note that this development was in many ways a reaction to an epistemology of unthinking compliance with authority, it was also an overcorrecting swing of the pendulum. It would seem that human beings do not have the ability to be objective, and when such objectivity is claimed it serves as a coercive tool that functions to place the proposition at hand in a position that is beyond discussion, investigation, or scrutiny (ironically similar the authoritarian epistemology it was reacting to). In contrast, Walsh and Middleton explain that in Postmodern thought:

“…we simply have no access to something called ‘reality’ apart from the way we represent that reality in our concepts, language and discourse…We can never get outside our knowledge to check its accuracy against ‘objective’ reality. Our access is always mediated by our own linguistic and conceptual constructions.”

It seems that, despite modernity’s insistence on human beings becoming “objective knowers”, such objectivity has eluded us since the dawn of time and will likely continue to do so. Individual human beings appear to be inherently perspectival creatures, thoroughly unable to disembed ourselves from our own subjectivity. If this is our predicament, how can the Gospel, particularly as a narrative, in any way be seen as a means by which truth can be communicated?
The Gospel is contained in a collection of Scriptures that we Christians refer to as “The Bible. This collection of Scripture is fascinatingly communal and frankly defies our individualism and objectivity. Though we profess it to be “inspired” by God’s Holy Spirit, it is written, not by a single author, but by many authors; not in one time period, but over thousands of years; not to individuals primarily, but to communities of believers; not to offer a single, unified perspective, but multiple perspectives on one true God, sometimes offering both “testimony and counter-testimony” . This narrative not only invites us to participation and experience, but also to community; to a place of belonging where we can “know together” .
(To be continued...)

Coercion or Invitation? (Narrative Gospel Part 4)

2008-08-06T14:52:00.000-04:00

Coercion or Invitation?

But, one may ask, doesn’t the narrative I proposed earlier function in the same way as the myth of progress? Doesn’t the Christian (meta)narrative demand compliance? In truth, I don’t believe it does. In describing his “Critical Realist” approach to epistemology, Wright explains,

“This…theory of knowledge and verification, then, acknowledges the essentially ‘storied’ nature of human knowing, thinking and living, within the larger model of worldviews and their component parts. It acknowledges that all knowledge of realities external to oneself takes place within the framework of a worldview, of which stories form an essential part. And it sets up as hypotheses various stories about the world in general bits of it in particular and tests them by seeing what sort of ‘fit’ they have with the stories already in place.”

If knowledge and “the way we know things” is actually ‘storied’ in nature, then the Christian narrative offers itself as a hypothesis to be tested. It invites us into itself to participate as characters; to experience the world in the flow of its narrative; to view and interpret the world through its lens. Consequently, Smith’s point from the introduction about the nature of meta-narratives becomes relevant again. Smith argues that the postmodern mantra of “incredulity towards meta-narratives” should be affirmed by Christians because it encourages us to recover both “the narrative character of Christian faith, rather than understanding it as a collection of ideas” and “the confessional nature of our narrative and the way in which we find ourselves in a world of competing narratives.” Is it possible that the Christian narrative is not a meta-narrative at all? I’m not implying that it is not true, nor am I implying that it is simply one of many narratives that have equal rights to validity. However, I am suggesting that it does not function like a meta-narrative. As previously mentioned, I doubt that this difference in function is immediately obvious to the general public, but that’s part of the point. The Gospel narrative refuses to dominate. Is passes over every opportunity to coerce. The various meta-narratives that have been subscribed to by different people groups and cultures demand assent and compliance. In contrast, the Gospel invites. This “non-meta’, but “true” narrative bids us to “Come and see.” It also must be noted that the narrative of the Gospel offers us a choice. It allows for its own rejection. Though the God proclaimed by the Gospel weeps at its rejection, Scripture makes it clear that His love endures for even those who reject Him. Further, the Gospel as embodied by those who have accepted it, still serves to benefit those who have rejected it rather than demonizing or abandoning them. With characteristic eloquence, Brian McLaren explains:

“Many people think…that religions offer benefits to adherents and catastrophic threats for nonadherents. This offer/threat combination motivates people, they assume, to become adherents out of fear of catastrophe and desire for benefits. I think the missional way is better: the gospel brings blessings to all, adherents and nonadherents alike. For example, if Jesus sends people into the world to love and serve their neighbors, their neighbors benefit, and so do the people sent by Jesus, since it is better for them to give than to receive.”

In short, the Gospel narrative refuses its qualifier (meta) and its truth refuses the qualifier “absolute”. Bringing to mind, Jesus’ admonition to simply let our “yes be yes” and our “no be no”, rather than depending on qualifying oaths or promises, it offers itself up, to stand or fall, in the experience of the hearer. It claims no inherent superior intellectual, moral or spiritual status for its adherents. Rather, any benefit that adherents have is that which is granted freely to those who accept the invitation and/or the way they are formed by inhabiting and embodying the narrative. This Gospel refuses to dominate and resists any misguided efforts from its adherents to dominate nonadherents, even in the realm of intellectual certainty. Leslie Newbigin explains:

“…if the Biblical story is true, the kind of certainty proper to all human beings will be one that rests on the fidelity of God, not upon the competence of the human knower. It will be a kind of certainty that is inseparable from gratitude and trust.”

(To Be Continued)
AE

Epistemology (Narrative Gospel 3)

2008-08-04T10:19:00.000-04:00

Following up on the "1000 Word Gospel" post and the "Identifying Our Context" post...

EPISTEMOLOGY

Epistemology has to do with the general theory of knowledge (and how we acquire knowledge.) Under modernity, it was assumed that “knowledge was certain and that the criterion for that certainty rests with our human rational capabilities.” Thus, it was thought that in order to ascertain certain knowledge of “absolute truth”, one must detach oneself and approach the subject as an objective observer. After obtaining this position of detached neutrality, one must reduce the subject to rational propositions that, taken together are logically irrefutable. The attraction of such a system is obvious. If human beings can strip off our subjectivity and simply gain knowledge of objective and absolute truth, then it seems only reasonable that this enlightenment would naturally lead human beings to peace and harmony. This is the great story, the meta-narrative (if you will) into which modernity placed its faith: Progress. Human beings are freeing themselves from all of that superstitious nonsense and subjectivity, and are finally becoming “enlightened”. As they do, the world will just get better and better. After all, knowledge is inherently good, right? As it turns out, these assumptions, reasonable and logical though they may be, are not necessarily true. N.T. Wright explains:

“The myth of progress and enlightenment created the context not only for Charles Darwin, but for that which followed in his wake, namely a “Social Darwinism” that made talk of eugenics, of racial purity, of selective breeding, and ultimately of ‘final solutions’ acceptable, even apparently desirable, not just in Germany, but in Britain and America as well.”

For all of its “propositional truth”, modernity still oriented itself around a narrative of progress. This narrative was forceful, dominating and coercive, virtually demanding that everyone get on board or get out of the way. Anyone who didn’t see the obvious truth of the narrative was deemed either stupid, naive or crazy.

(To be continued)
AE

Family: Emma's Memory Verse, Chloe's hug, and Jan's Baby

2008-07-29T09:22:00.000-04:00

Wow! Things are really crazy right now between family stuff, ministry stuff with the new church, and grad school (I've got a paper due this week). Still, there are a couple of things I wanted to share with you:

1. Emma showing off her scripture memorizing and hula hoop skills:

2. Chloe's Hug: (Picture by my lovely and talented wife Dana)

I came home from work yesterday, like I always do, and went around to give all of my girls hugs and kisses. Chloe (coming up on 11 months old) was playing in the playroom and so I just kind of squatted down to watch her. When she turned around and saw me, her face lit up into a huge (really cute) smile and she broke into a full (baby) sprint towards me. She held her arms out wide and then, very deliberately, very intentionally hugged my neck (which was within her reach since I was squatting down). It's the first time she's done that with anyone so deliberately. I'll tell you...in that moment, everything was right in the world.

3. For those of you who may not know it, my sister Jan is probably having a baby today. I say "probably" because she went to the hospital last night and is being induced (they've already given her the medicine and they've already broken her water). I had the honor of performing the wedding ceremony for Jan and her husband Clint a couple of years ago, and now we couldn't be happier about welcoming their daughter (and my new niece) into the world! (Picture also by Dana)

Blessings,
AE

Word Cloud Of My Blog From Wordle

2008-07-21T20:45:00.000-04:00

Lots of Link Love

2008-07-17T20:22:00.000-04:00

Swamped with grad school, so I haven't been able to post much lately. There are several very interesting links I wanted to share with you though.

CLICK HERE to buy the audio version of "The Shack" by William Young on itunes for $5.95.
Need to catch up on your favorite shows or maybe even watch a few free movies? I recommend HULU and FANCAST.
Want some legal free music to download? (Derek Webb, Sandra McCracken, Sixpence None The Richer, etc.) Several artists have made there music available at NOISETRADE.
Do you need quality free backgrounds for powerpoint or mediashout? CLICK HERE for a great free resource.

Enjoy!
AE

Identifying Our Context (Narrative Gospel 2)

2008-07-08T11:17:00.000-04:00

As a follow-up to the 1000 word gospel piece, I wrote the following piece in an attempt to identify the current context in which we are attempting to communicate the Gospel. I will probably develop this into a much larger paper for the class where I will wrestle with the questions it raises.

As we attempt to engage with how we can effectively translate the message of the Gospel to out culture in our time, it quickly becomes apparent that a few “new” challenges have arisen (though it can be argued that these challenges aren’t particularly “new”, but maybe just forgotten). The task is complicated somewhat by the fact that our prior engagement with modernity led us to certain conclusions and methodologies (such as reductionism and “propositional truth”) that no longer communicate what they once did (they may in fact communicate quite the opposite). Meanwhile, many in the church are unaware or have become confused about what is Scriptural or “historically Christian” and what stems from engagement or even syncretism with modernity.

Even as we must embrace the fact that neither a modern methodology or a modern epistemology are required by the Gospel, we must also recognize that our emerging postmodern context brings both new opportunities and new challenges for the Gospel. Though postmodern philosophy cannot and should not be swallowed wholesale in an undiscerning manner, it can be useful in our task of disentangling our faith and the Gospel from post-enlightenment thought. While postmodern thought is in many ways still in its embryonic stages, one clearly identifiable trend is “incredulity toward metanarratives” . The basic interpretive lens utilized by most people in contemporary western culture is characterized by a deep suspicion. In my opinion, this suspicion cuts two ways: First of all, it is deeply suspect of anything that claims to be totalizing. Grand, sweeping narratives that claim to be the one, true narrative and/or sets of propositions that demand assent are simply seen as power games or a means of coercion. Secondly, through world events as diverse as Auschwitz, the Challenger explosion, and 9-11, the myth of progress has been exposed. Progress is the “new clothes” that the emperor believed he was wearing, when he was actually as naked as the day he was born. One doesn’t need to be a particularly religious person in order to see the idol that modernity made of individual, human reason. What once seemed “enlightened” is now seen as an arrogant sham. There is indeed a deep suspicion of any ideology, concept, or system that claims to be THE answer, THE way, or (certainly) the TRUTH. Quite frankly, in many cases this stems from being disappointed again and again by such claims. Nothing arouses suspicion, mistrust, and doubt so much as certainty. In the postmodern ethos, any claim of certainty from finite and perspectival beings (as we all are) smacks of the worst kind of arrogance and naiveté.

Innovative thinkers Walsh and Middleton point out that this suspicion toward metanarratives is problematic for our proclamation of what is essentially a narrative Gospel. The late Stanley Grenz articulates the same difficulty in his informative “Primer on Postmodernism”. Their point is well taken. If our Gospel is essentially a narrative, and if we would presume to say that it is in any sense “true” in a way that competing narratives are not, then we seem to have a problem. James Smith raises an interesting point, which he means more as a clarification than a disagreement with the previously mentioned authors.. He argues that a narrative is not a metanarrative simply because it is a big, sweeping, all-encompassing story, but rather due to the way it functions. According to Smith, it is only a metanarrative when it is used in a coercive way or as a means of domination. I suspect that Smith is technically correct, but I also suspect that the inherent suspicion that exists on the popular level is not so discerning (at least not on the surface). Therefore, the question that I believe we need to wrestle with is: “How do we proclaim an essentially narrative Gospel in and to a culture that is deeply suspicious of metanarratives, propositional truth, and claims of certainty?”

Resources Consulted

Grenz, Stanley J. A Primer on Postmodernism. Wm. B. EerdmansPublishing, 1996.
Lyotard, Jean François, and Frederic Jameson. The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge. U of Minnesota Press, 1984.
Middleton, J. Richard, and Brian J. Walsh. Truth is Stranger Than it Used to be: Biblical Faith in a Postmodern Age. InterVarsity Press, 1995.
Smith, James K. A. Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church. Baker Academic, 2006.

1000 Word Gospel (Narrative Gospel Part 1)

2008-06-30T09:21:00.000-04:00

I'm taking a "Christ and Culture" for my grad school program at Lipscomb. Last week's assignment was to write out my understanding of "the Gospel" in 1000 words or less (if we went over 1000 words, the paper was to be returned to us ungraded). We are allowed to go back and revise it later if we need to, but I wanted to share what I wrote:

This Is My Gospel

I want to tell you a story. Telling you this story is a risky endeavor. For starters, I believe that the Gospel contained in this story must be embodied before it can be spoken. If I tell it too early, it can come off as a meaningless fairytale that seems to fit the bill of Marx’s “opiate of the masses”. On the other hand, if I fail to tell it at all, I may rob you of the choice to embrace or reject a hope and a destiny that you may never know of otherwise. All of this is further complicated by the fact that I am massively condensing an enormous amount of material. Think of the story I’m telling you as the movie version of a really great, really long book. Without question, the book is much better than my version of it. Doubtless I will blow certain aspects of it. Unquestionably, I take too much artistic license in places and gloss over parts that are extremely important. Admittedly, some parts of it are more than a little hard to believe. Even so, I believe it. I don’t mean to imply that it has been empirically proven to me. Rather, it is a story that I have confidence in, or rather, that I have “faith” in. It is a story that both requires and is characterized by… hope.

Normally, you begin with the beginning of a story. However, we are going to begin before the beginning. Before the beginning there was God. But this God is somehow a community of three; a Father, a Son, and a Spirit. This community is so unified that the only way to truly capture it is to say “God is One”, or maybe “God is love”.

This God decides to create everything that exists, and He loves everything He creates. In the middle of His creation, God creates human beings “in his image”. They are given a special commission to bear and reflect the image of God to the rest of creation. These human beings live in a state of perfect harmony: harmony with God (he actually is said to “walk” with them), harmony with each other (indeed, it is only in community that they can bear the image of this communal God), and harmony with the rest of God’s creation. Eventually, though, the human beings are persuaded to make an incredibly selfish choice that breaks this perfect harmony, and sends all of creation on a trajectory towards death, decay, and isolation.

But God doesn’t give up on his dream. He begins to enact a plan to restore the broken harmony and make all things new. Time passes and God makes contact with a man named Abram (who’s name is eventually changed to Abraham). Though Abram is old and childless, God makes a covenant with him, in which he promises to create a great nation out of his descendants. They will be God’s people and God will bless them. However, this blessing is explicitly intended to serve an equipping function for a broader mission. These people are to be a light to the world. They are blessed in order to be a blessing to the rest of the world. Abram puts his faith and confidence in this God and begins stumbling down a path toward a God who insists that this faithful stumbler is, in fact, righteous. God is true to his word, delivers on his promises, and a nation is born.

However, as time passes it becomes clear that Abram’s descendants are vulnerable to the same selfishness and self-centeredness that the rest of us are. They are very interested in being blessed, but not so interested in being a blessing. They are very good at pointing out the darkness in others, but not so good at being light. Undeterred from His dream, God takes another step that is as radical as it is unexpected.

God becomes a human being. Not only that, but virtually everything he does in this regard seems counterintuitive from our perspective. God becomes an embryo. He is born as one of us, not in a palace, but in a stable. The heavens open and announce the event first, not to people of great importance…but to shepherds, who are arguably on the lowest rung of the societal ladder of the day. He apparently doesn’t do much that’s worth recording until he’s around 30 years old, and then everything he does goes against our notions of what a respectable God should be like. He pays special attention to the outcasts; to the poor and oppressed; to those who are drowning in their shame. He proclaims something he calls “the Kingdom of God”, which is less like political upheaval, and more God’s dream of harmony that is breaking through into our dissonant reality. Eventually, “the powers that be” make an example of him with a public execution that is as humiliating as it is excruciating. It does not have the desired effect. This man-who-is-God doesn’t stay dead. Three days after they kill him, he is alive again, but he is also changed. He is somehow both physical and eternal. He commissions his followers as a community to be to the world what he was and is to the world, and that is exactly what we are stumbling towards. It is true that we are inadequate for the task, but here’s the thing: After Jesus returned to God’s reality in his new form, He sent his Spirit to live in us, changing and forming us into who we are becoming. We believe that there is a future reality where Jesus returns to us, everything is restored to God’s intention, and all things are made “new”. Our God beckons us from this future to become what we already are from his perspective, and to partner with him in his in-breaking dream for the world. He offers freedom from death, decay and shame. In short, He offers hope.

--AE

Video: N.T. Wright on The Colbert Report

2008-06-20T22:33:00.000-04:00

This video clip represents one of the biggest fan-boy geek-out moments I've ever had. For me, the only thing that would have made it cooler is if Batman and Iron Man walked out at the end.
AE

(relatively) Hallowed Ground: My visit to Alexander Campbell's Home

2008-06-10T15:02:00.000-04:00

One thing that I really wanted to do before I moved from West Virginia was to visit Bethany. For those who don't know, Bethany is this historic homestead of Alexander Campbell , who is, in some sense, the/a founder of the American Restoration Movement (Churches of Christ, Independent Christian Churches, and Disciples of Christ). This post may not have relevance to you if you do not share my particular religious heritage, but I wanted to share my experience.

Bethany is about 2 1/2 hours from where I lived in West Virginia, and I thought it would be sort of a shame if I didn't at least visit the place...after all, I've grown up in this tradition, and actually have done a bit of historical research on our movement. About a week before we moved, my friend Matt Wilson came to visit, and my friend and (now former) co-worker Joe Spivy (who had been to Bethany several times before) agreed to go with us and act as a sort of guide. I don't think that Matt or I were prepared for how the experience would affect us. I'll let Matt tell you his perspective on our pilgrimage(?), but as for me, it was a profound moment in my life. Campbell's house and study are still standing, and its quite amazing how much has actually survived. As we walked through the house and as I stood in Campbell's study, this profound sense of being a part of a story came over me. I kept thinking "This is real," which is silly on one level, because I already new that. I guess it's more that it became real, or maybe tangible to me. We went to a church that Campbell actually regularly preached at, and the archives containing historical documents at Bethany college, where I saw Thomas Campbell's personal copy of the "Declaration and Address," with his handwritten notes in the margins. It was an experience that I'll treasure for the rest of my life. Alexander Campbell, and his father Thomas Campbell were attempting to be Jesus to their world in their time. Deeply embedded in both modernity and early American culture, they effectively engaged their culture with the Gospel. They spoke prophetically where they felt that Scripture called them to do so. Being fallible human beings, they made mistakes, but their lives and legacy are inspiring, none the less. I felt a renewed sense of a calling to be faithful to that legacy. As we enter into a post-modern age (whatever that may wind up meaning), I want to be faithful to the legacy of these men who effectively engaged their culture with the message of Jesus. To simply emulate their forms, constructs, etc. would be unfaithful to this legacy. To unquestioningly accept the status quo would be a betrayal of it. To constantly go back to Scripture and wrestle with faithfully translating the faith and practice found theirin for our time, is the path that they cleared for us. May I follow them as they follow Christ.
AE
Here are some pics I took with a camera phone:

This is a bust of Alexander Campbell

This is Alexander Campbell's personal study/library

This is the Inscription on Alexander Campbell's tombstone

This is a floorboard from the Brush Run Church Meeting House

This is Alexander Campbell's personal writing desk

This is Alexander Campbell's...ummmm....toilet chair ;)

Back to the Blog...

2008-06-02T10:58:00.000-04:00

We are settling into our new home, and after an extended absence, I have returned to inject my random thoughts and opinions into the blogosphere. Additionally I plan on launching a new podcast of my sermons and stuff in the next couple of weeks.

As for us, we are settling into our new house and it is starting to look more like a home and less like a warehouse full of unopened boxes. Dana is amazing in her ability to turn our house into a home (among many, many other things). Emma and Chloe have been enjoying visits from various grandparents, who are excited that we are close enough to visit more frequently. The church has been amazing in making us feel welcome and in making us feel like we are already a part of their family. A large crew of them was there (with coolers full of cold water) to help us unload the moving truck, which they accomplished in no time. Yesterday was my first official Sunday as the "preaching minister", and it felt really "right".

This summer I am taking a web-based class for Grad School on "Christ and Culture". It should be really interesting.
AE

Quoting Theology: Caputo on Hope

2008-05-15T11:45:00.000-04:00

"If at the end of our lives we find that all our hopes have been sensible and moderate and measured by the horizon of the future present, if we have never been astir with the impossible, then we shall also find that on the whole life has passed us by. If safe is what you want, forget religion and find yourself a conservative investment counselor. The religious sense of life has to do with exposing oneself to the radical uncertainty and the open-endedness of life...which is meaning-giving, salt-giving, risk-taking...Religion on my telling is a pact or 'covenant' with the impossible. To have a religious sense of life is to long with a restless heart for a reality beyond reality, to tremble with the possibility of the impossible."

--John D. Caputo, On Religion (Thinking in Action)