Never an Original Thought

Q&A: Would you be comfortable?

2011-06-14T05:30:00.000-07:00

It's time once again for my opportunity to answer the questions that no one has asked me. As I watch the news, I often wonder what I would have said under similar circumstances. I'm lucky because I have weeks to think about my answer.

Herman Cain, the former CEO of Godfather's Pizza, is currently making a stir in the race for the GOP presidential nomination. Personally, I find Cain a compelling figure. I like his biography and his experience. I've never been a CEO, but I've run a pizza restaurant. I have no problem with a president who once asked, "thin or deep dish?"

The question that Cain received was, "Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim to your cabinet or as a federal judge?" What we receive here is only an excerpt. Both the questioner and Cain suggest a prior conversation about the role of Islam in American society. I can't help to think that something is missing something from the conversation. Cain certainly looks annoyed with the questioner. Giving Cain the benefit of the doubt, I was still perplexed with his answer.

Herman Cain emphatically states that he would not appoint a Muslim. He then states that he is concerned about the imposition of Sharia law on American society. I certainly wouldn't want that either. As a Christian, I am very quick to point out that I reject the main tenets of the Islamic faith. Nonetheless, religious bodies in the United States use their own law to regulate the life of the community. However, there are limits to the freedom of religion. For example, recently an appeals court in New Jersey overturned a state judge who accepted Sharia law as an excuse for marital rape. I would suspect that the judge probably knew as little as I do about Sharia.

A president should only appoint those who he or she believes will be faithful to the U.S. Constitution and the law. Also, I would hope that a president would inquire into how the Constitution should be interpreted. The question is really about living and working within a pluralistic society.

Here's my response to the question:

Q: Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim to your cabinet or as a federal judge?

A: A president never appoints generic categories to positions of authority. Each person has a name, a character, a background, particular beliefs, and talents. These individuals will be thoroughly vetted, and I will only make the appointment if I am comfortable that they will uphold the constitution of the United States.

Q&A: "What is your take on jihad?"

2010-11-09T05:40:00.000-08:00

When I watch debates, interviews and press conferences, I often think how I would have answered the question differently. That doesn't mean I would do a better job. I have the benefit of sitting at home away from the television cameras and the pressure. I don't have to worry about an election or world opinion. Still, it's fun to play the game.

Today, President Obama is getting flack about an answer he gave to a Catholic schoolgirl in Indonesia. The question was, "What is your take on jihad?" The president is speaking before a Christian audience in an Islamic country while fighting a war in another Islamic country. He is walking a tightrope. I certainly don't envy the guy. Still, I find it bizarre that the president would want to get into a debate about the finer points of Islamic doctrine. I suggest keeping things simple.

Here's my response to the question:

Q: What is your take on jihad?

A: I am not a Muslim, nor am I a religious scholar. As a result, it would be presumptuous of me to explain the tenets of another faith. Nonetheless, I know peace-loving people of many faiths, and I am willing to work with them to make this world a better place.

Likewise, I am familiar with people who hate and use violence against innocents. It doesn't matter if they justify their actions by a religion or a particular ideology. We should stand against them on the side of justice.

Peace through Irony

2010-11-01T14:14:00.000-07:00

I applaud Jon Stewart and his “Rally to Restore Sanity” that took place in Washington D.C. last weekend. I frankly didn’t watch much. Instead, I saw bits and pieces afterwards on the internet. As always, I’m impressed when thousands of people can peacefully gather together without incident.

I enjoy smart humor, and over the years, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have delivered. However, I am just not that interested any more. In the past, I thought Colbert had the better wit, but he is becoming more and more self-parody. Stewart still has his moments, but the smugness is wearing thin.

The shtick seems to be that we take ourselves way too seriously. Don’t hold opinions or beliefs too tightly. Otherwise, you’re divisive. In fact, you might be mentally unstable. The best example of this argument that occurred at the fake rally hosted by the fake newsmen was when they asked a fake priest to offer a fake prayer. Fr. Guido Sarducci, a character by comedian Don Novello, asked God for a sign of which religion is correct. When God didn’t answer, Sarducci was left in an awkward position of thanking God for dogs and good works by other people.

The agenda is peace through irony. If no one had deeply held convictions, we could sure get more accomplished around here. Our divisions are suggested to be simply matters of taste like the person who prefers Mexican food to Italian food. If so, it does little good to yell at one another about it. We should just get over our preferences. John Lennon’s Imagine is probably the best anthem for this attitude.

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I’m a dreamer, but I am very sympathetic to the cause. I decry the meanness found in our public life. I think that many of our differences and disputes at their source are meaningless. I long for debate that is thoughtful and reasoned. Do we really think the Daily Show is the solution? Laughing at silly divisions doesn’t necessarily create unity. In fact, it often leads to self-satisfaction and self-righteousness.

Someone from the rally “tweeted” a picture of a sign. It had a simple, clever message, “ + > ÷ ”. The person commented, “The best thing about this sign is that the Tea Party won’t understand it” (my paraphrase). Talk about irony.

Moreover, some divisions are important. Some differences are meaningful and should not be dismissed. Depending on the cause, dying for something or someone can be noble. Strongly held and defended beliefs can promote a better society. How do we make the case to our neighbors? The question is not one of sanity but civility.

In a way, Jon Stewart’s final statemen t was the best moment of the entire rally. He finally was talking about how we get along in a society. The example of cars on the freeway entering a tunnel was smart.

Every one of the cars that you see is filled with individuals of strong belief and principles they hold dear—often principles and beliefs in direct opposition to their fellow travelers.

The drivers will get to their destinations because each person makes, in Stewart’s words, “little reasonable compromises”—a concession here, a concession there. Stewart is absolutely right, but the question is why? No one on the stage was answering, "Why does civil society work?" If we can answer that question, we will go a long way to solve our problems. For example, I would suggest that honking your horn is a preferable way to deal with a problem than shooting the driver next to you. I prefer shouting on cable news shows than fighting in the streets.

Drawing upon our traditions, history and heritage, what are our non-negotiables? Irony is not enough. Eventually we need to stand for something.

Terrorism as a Disqualifier

2010-10-12T06:28:00.000-07:00

After the destructive acts of September 11th, 2001, the United States responded with a "War on Terror." Critics of all political stripes have suggested that the name doesn't fit. Even President Bush, who coined the name in June of 2002, was not keen on the name in 2004 when he stated,

"We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be: 'the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world.'"

Some take issue with the designation of "war". I think this was the rationale behind President Obama dropping the name. He has opted for a bureaucratic and innocuous sounding name, "Overseas Contingency Operation." With large numbers of troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan where bullets and bombs continue to kill, it seems a bit disingenuous to call those conflicts anything other than wars.

Others take issue with the term "terror." Pastor Rick Warren actually made this point in a recent "tweet".

Terrorism is a TACTIC. You dont fight a war against a method (like blitzkrieg) It's a battle of ideas, a war of worldviews

I actually tend to agree with this argument. The battle is with a particular terrorist entity and perhaps the failed nation-states who harbor them. I found Peter Breinart helpful as he describes the conflict with Al Qaeda as a long-term ideological struggle. Just like the "Cold War", this struggle will be fought with military and law enforcement, but also with education, diplomacy, and economic aid.

That being said, I do find something useful in the designation, "War on Terror." In its imperfect and clunky way, the title suggests that terrorism is out-of-bounds. If we are entering a period of history marked by the clash of civilizations and ideologies, then we should establish some ground rules. However legitimate our concerns, we cannot further our political ends by terrorism. The person or group who commits terrorist acts has given up the right to be heard.

For example, the abolitionist cause in the United States before the Civil War was just. However, John Brown's armed insurrection disqualified him personally from taking part in the debate. Likewise, I found Chris Kennedy's position on refusing William Ayers emeritis status at the University of Illinois at Chicago correct:

“There is nothing more antithetical to the hopes for a university that is lively and yet civil, or to the hopes of our founding fathers for their great experiment of a self-governing people, than to permanently seal off debate with one’s opponents by killing them.”

My only regret is that William Ayers was given a teaching position in the first place. Can someone renounce violence and return to the debate? Yes, I certainly would welcome that possibility. Nonetheless, our methods are as important as our ends. Frankly, I may be naive, but I have confidence that truth will ultimately succeed if civility rules the debate.

Avoid Speeches on the Constitution?

2010-09-20T04:30:00.000-07:00

I recently read the article "Republicans and the Tea Party - Enlist but Avoid Speeches on the Constitution" by Kate Zernike. Unfortunately, I can't tell if this is Ms. Zernike's advice for the Republicans or the mood within the Republican party. The only authority that she cites is Stuart Rothenburg who is a non-partisan political analyst.

“You see these rallies and the signs are all about the Constitution,” said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of a nonpartisan political report. “They want it to be about these big ideological ideas, when I don’t think most voters think that way. It’s very clear that what’s best for the election is to make it about Obama, Pelosi, health care, the deficit.”

From wherever the advice is coming, I disagree. It seems that the American people could benefit from a large-scale debate about the Constitution and the proper role of government. Some guy in a tricorn hat railing on the 17th Amendment and the direct election of senators might be a non-starter, but American rhetoric needs more than "who's hot" and "who's not". In the last presidential election, I was sadly disappointed that neither candidate seemed willing or able to articulate a governing philosophy. There are hard questions facing the republic, and many voters want to know how a leader thinks. What can government do and not do? What are the limits to freedom? How will a leader establish priorities and resolve conflicts of interest?

All these folks dressed as Revolutionary reenactors have a point. History and our founding documents matter. The excesses of the Tea Party movement should be met with principled argument, not ridicule. Whether the issue is health care or war in the Middle East or the role of religion in society, "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" require some explanation. Americans are generally conservative, and they want to know that the rules aren't changing in the middle of the game. At the very least, they want to know that change is consistent with their heritage and principles. The conservatism of which I speak is not ideological. It's an outlook. In a few years, I bet we will hear again that the Republicans have overreached precisely because they forgot this advice.

In the meantime, showing disdain for the Constitution is not the way to get elected.

September 11th

2010-09-11T16:16:00.000-07:00

Nine years ago, we were reminded that evil is real, that heroes exist, and that hope never dies. Despite her sins, America remains a beautiful, wonderful land whose greatest resource is her people. Let us not forget those who died, those who mourn, and the children whose parents are never coming home.

"Oh, that my words were recorded, that they were written on a scroll, that they were inscribed with an iron tool on lead, or engraved in rock forever! I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth" (Job 19:23-25).

Community Organizers

2010-09-09T14:43:00.000-07:00

I currently receive e-mail from Sojourners. Even if I disagree with an article, there is always food for thought. The cover story for this month is about congregation-based "community organizers". In another time in my life, I worked as a teacher in a poorer community in Arkansas. I appreciate the work of those who bring communities together, empowering individuals and strengthening families. Those folks are doing the Lord's work. From the conclusion of the article...

That is what hundreds of thousands of Christians and others have found in congregation-based community organizing, a practical way to live the values of the kingdom of God, or “the world as it should be,” amid the messy realities of “the world as it is.” As Nolan said, “Organizing is a really great marriage of the pragmatic and the prophetic.”

Unfortunately, there are some organizers who only see the community as "haves" and "have-nots". They reject the possibility of personal transformation, ignore the gifts already present in the community and treat the powerful as the enemy. Rather than seek reconciliation, they perpetuate the divisions in society pitting one group against the other. Others have a myopic view of the problems that communities face. Clearly, encouraging political involvement is important, but politics is not a panacea. Even Barack Obama, the former community organizer, has acknowledged, "...we know the government can't solve every problem."

Saul Alinsky is credited as the father of "community organizing" which I personally think is unfortunate. Alinsky's writing gravitates toward the worst tendencies of community organizing. However, the Sojourners' article suggests that things are changing...

When organizing moved into churches, it also started to lose some of the rough edges that were hallmarks of the Alinsky style. For instance, Alinsky’s method called for “personalizing” the issue, making one individual the face of the enemy. Today organizers are more likely to talk in terms of building relationships, even with public officials or business leaders who might be the current adversary.

Thank God that we are moving away from "personalizing" the issue...

...Never mind.

The Benefits of Being Wrong

2010-09-08T11:06:00.000-07:00

According to the Declaration of Independence, governments exist in order to secure the rights that we have naturally.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

When John Locke speaks of rights, he has a different triumvirate--life, liberty and property. "The pursuit of Happiness" although not original with Thomas Jefferson is the American innovation.

Happiness is not about emotional well-being. It is about teleology. What is the proper end of society? What are our highest aspirations? History gives us multiple examples of the ends of social life. Honor, virtue, salvation and wealth are but a few. The Declaration was purposely vague on the meaning of happiness. This was not an endorsement of a moral relativism where truth did not exist. Instead, the Founders believed that truth would be revealed in the free exchange of ideas.

Kathryn Schulz in a recent post on the Freakonomics blog doesn't write explicitly about the pursuit of happiness, but her insight is helpful here. She speaks about the tolerance of dissent and disagreement.

...We are a young country built on a mature idea: that all of us must be at liberty to make mistakes. We are free to say things our fellow citizens think are untrue, worship gods our neighbors regard as idols, hold fast to convictions that contradict those of our leaders.

We think of these liberties as embodying the American tolerance for dissent. But our nation’s founders were not simply some kind of 18th century ACLU, fighting to protect everyone’s right to express even the fringiest beliefs. Instead, they protected minority opinions for a pragmatic reason: they recognized that, over time, the fringe rather than the mainstream might prove right. What they inscribed in the Constitution was an awareness of the perpetual possibility that we are mistaken.

The proper role of government is not to interfere with our freedom to discover and pursue our own happiness. Our laws provide proper channels for the resolution of disagreements when our pursuits conflict. Whether from a minority or the majority, all opinions are tested. Even if someone is mistaken, there is a benefit to society. It serves as a teachable moment. We revisit the arguments and discover the truth once again.

I recall recently that some of our politicians thought an election ended the conversation. One party won, and the other lost. Therefore, the losers should just sit down and be quiet. Thankfully in the United States, it is never enough to win an election. We must continually put our arguments before the people. Our leaders always have the responsibility to teach.

Improbabilities Don't Prove a Creator

2010-09-06T08:20:00.000-07:00

According to Stephen Hawking, God did not create the universe. Apparently this is the revelation found in his recent book, Grand Design which has gotten all the press. Sadly, there are probably much more fascinating comments in the book, but in the interest of internet clicks, God vs. the atheists is always good seller.

In a Wall Street Journal article, Stephen Hawking explains the fire behind the smoke. If I understand him correctly, Hawking suggests that we shouldn't be fooled by the amazing improbabilities that life even exists. What improbabilities? The scientist gives us a litany.

The distance from the earth to the sun is just right. Too close water would boil. Too far water would freeze.
If forces were not conducive to the formation of stars, heavier elements would never have formed including carbon and oxygen which is necessary for us to exist.
If the dynamics of stars did not include that some would explode, then those heavier elements would not be distributed throughout the universe.
Change 0.5% or the strong nuclear force or 4% in the electric force and all carbon and oxygen would be destroyed in stars.
The orbit of our planet needed stability for a few hundred million years in order for life to develop. This is an amazing feat considering all the gravitational influences from other bodies in the solar system.

I find such facts quite incredible, and at the very least suggest a posture of humility. Laying coincidence upon coincidence, for many the probabilities seem too improbable. As a result, they postulate a Creator. Hawking suggests we make those conclusions too quickly.

I see his point. Moving backwards from a swarm of improbabilities to a certitude of a Creator is a leap. God doesn't play dice with the universe, at least according to Einstein, but we certainly do. What is the probability that someone would throw a "6" on a regular die? Around 17%. The odds are against it. After the die is thrown and the player actually gets a "6". What are the odds now? 100%. To put it another way, The odds that a particular person would win a lottery are millions to one. Let's say Homer Noodleman of Houston, Texas actually wins. Is it fair to argue backwards? It was so improbable that Mr. Noodleman would win that he must have cheated or the gods of luck favored him or something. However, the improbabilities prove no such thing.

For the person of faith, of which I am one, the improbabilities are not a proof but a hymn of praise. I thank God for the incredibly complex and fragile universe that he created. The atheist who has read this far will suddenly take issue. So be it. However, I am intrigued by Stephen Hawking's assertion, "Everything in the Universe follows laws, without exception." That there is a discernible logic to the universe may not prove God's existence, but it certainly moves us away from a meaningless and random universe. It even opens us to the possibility of natural laws relating to justice or ethics. During the Enlightenment, many thinkers who spoke of God or Providence were thinking precisely of those natural laws.

It's interesting. I believe in the God of the Old and New Testaments. However, I have much in common with a person like Thomas Jefferson or even Christopher Hitchens who despite religious differences, believe that the universe is reasonable. We are in fact living with many of the same epistemological assumptions, most growing out of the fertile soil of religious belief. Stephen Hawking hasn't ended the God debate. He still is indebted to his opponents.

A Defense of Theological Debate

2010-09-04T18:16:00.000-07:00

Rick Warren the pastor of Saddleback Church in California and author of the Purpose Driven Life offered this afternoon a "tweet".

"Rick Warren (@RickWarren) 9/4/10 1:44 PM
We like to defend our preferred worship styles in theological terms but it's really more about your background than beliefs"

Whether hot or cold, the worship wars in our congregations continue to be fought. In an important sense, Warren is correct. Our preferred worship style says much about our background. What is comfortable for us? What are our cherished memories?

However, I disagree with Warren here. I rarely hear people defend their preferred worship styles in theological terms. Frankly, I would see a theological defense as an improvement. As a pastor, I am constantly trying to move the conversation to the theological.

There is no pathway out of the quagmire of opinion, taste or feelings. If a particular style assaults my comfort level, there is nothing I can do. You have your pleasure, and I have mine. In theological conversations, by contrast, there are authorities such as the Bible and tradition. There are expectations of civility and love for those with whom you disagree. Often there is a hierarchy of purpose. I honestly thought that was the whole point of the Purpose Driven Church/Life/etc. We sacrifice for the sake of the greater purpose.

Finally, I don't like the implication of Warren's statement. If I raise theological objections or concerns to a particular worship style, then my motives are suspect. No one has to answer my concerns because I am the one being silly. I am just being moved by my own background and prejudices. I know that often our inner psychological struggles and family issues influence how we see the world, but as Sigmund Freud supposedly said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Beyond a Christianity That's Cool

2010-08-28T09:05:00.000-07:00

Brett McCracken has written a new book entitled Hipster Christianity. The book has apparently just been released, and I haven't read it yet. However, McCracken used material from the book to write a recent article in the Wall Street Journal.

Part of the thesis seems to be that Christianity is trying to re-brand itself once again. McCracken suggests that the change is a reaction to numbers. The latest generation isn't attending church, and leaders are working hard to find the magic formula to bring in waves of young evangelical Protestants.

Increasingly, the "plan" has taken the form of a total image overhaul, where efforts are made to rebrand Christianity as hip, countercultural, relevant. As a result, in the early 2000s, we got something called "the emerging church"—a sort of postmodern stab at an evangelical reform movement. Perhaps because it was too "let's rethink everything" radical, it fizzled quickly. But the impulse behind it—to rehabilitate Christianity's image and make it "cool"—remains.

There are plenty of "emergent" church folk who would take issue with McCracken's judgment that the movement fizzled. Despite that small quibble, McCracken is correct. The church desperately wants to be cool.

However, this is nothing new. Style and attitude have always accompanied the journey of faith. Fads come and go even among Christians. Probably, 21st Century Americans understand this better than anyone. We live in a culture in which style trumps substance every day. We covet celebrity, and those futures are more volatile than any financial market. Today, among Christians or "Christ followers" there is a certain style in ascendancy.

I have spoken about this video before, but it illustrates the point well. For all the desire to be inclusive, we are merely replacing one style with another. Clearly, the "Christian" in the video above is a caricature. In a way, McCracken is suggesting a caricature of the "Christ follower". The "cool" or "hip" of one generation are just as self-righteous or judgmental as another. We have merely changed what we value.

Every generation is so self-regarded that it often cannot see the contributions of another. For example, I have heard edgy preachers condemn those wealthy churches who worship Mammon, but then rely on those same churches for contributions for their "alternative communities." In addition, consider the churches that actually promote themselves as "This is not your parent's church". As much as proponents will not admit it, this is a soft condemnation of our parents' church. Something was missing which we have figured out.

The danger is when style and attitude become unmoored from something more substantive. In the past, the church was identified by a set of moral behavior or by its theological doctrines. Both were limiting in their own ways. After all, we are empowered by the Holy Spirit. We worship God, not our good works or intellectual constructs. Nonetheless, living in an age of biblical illiteracy and moral license makes one pine for stale orthodoxy.

I am a product of this generation. I don't want to return to a golden age that never was. Likewise, I don't want to enter into a golden age devised at some late night seminary bull session. I am part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. A respect for others, whether "cool" or not, shows my unity with the greater church. Who knows? Maybe I'll learn something from those who came before me, or at least I'll discover that I've never had an original thought.

Worship Attendance Overrated?

2010-08-11T08:58:00.000-07:00

Bill Easum has been a leader in the "church growth" movement for years and years. In a recent blog post, Easum grapples with the reality of competition between worship and youth sports. In the past several decades, the culture has grown less and less accommodating to Christianity, and families must often now choose between extra-curricular activities for their children and worship attendance. Easum's solution is to let the youth participate, but then encourage them to be missionaries on the ball field. Worship attendance, according to Easum, is overrated.

I think we place too high a premium on church attendance. Most of our people spend too much time a church and not enough time sharing their faith with their neighbor. We have led our people to believe that attending church is the mark of a Christian. But it’s not. The mark of a Christian is what we do in our everyday lives.

Although I love the idea of young people showing the love of Jesus to their teammates, Easum shows a regrettable disregard for worship. I'm afraid that he is not alone. For many Christianity is simply doing. Modern evangelicals might add a vague personal relationship with Jesus, but we Protestants have primarily focused on doing good works and changing social structures. What we are missing is an ecclesiology and a theology of worship.

Consider the church's current infatuation with the word, "missional". If the purpose of the Christian life is mission or ministry, the church simply becomes a society for good works, and worship becomes a pep rally for mission workers. A biblical focus on God's mission to the world need not exclude the church or worship, but sadly too often it does.

In contrast, I would argue that the purpose of human life is in fact worship. As the Westminster Catechism describes it, "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever." As the Apostle Paul states,

"God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:9-11).

When the Scriptures criticize worship, it criticizes worship that is hypocritical. For example, Paul condemns gluttons and drunkards who deny others food and drink at the Lord's table (1 Corinthians 11). The problem is not the Lord's Supper, it is the Christians who fail to "discern the body". Mission, ministry or the life of discipleship should be an extension of worship. The Bible again and again uses the language of worship to speak of our good works. The acceptable sacrifice is a "broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart" (Psalm 51). The fast that God chooses is "to loose the bonds of injustice" (Isaiah 58). As we gather in worship, we catch a glimpse of the kingdom of God, and we are called to carry that vision into the world.

Our salvation is not dependent on our Sunday morning attendance, but why would we want to give up that vision? Why would we begrudge our youngest missionaries the reason we go into the world?

UPDATE: Bill Easum responds on his blog.

James, you took my comment out of context. I didnt say worship wasn’t as important as doing good. No way. I said we put too much emphasis on going to church as if that were the measure of a Christian. I was talking about being a representative of Christ in the community as one of the most important thing a Christian does. Sure worship attendance is important, but it is not the final measure of a person or churches worth. The final measure is whether or not the community would miss the church if it were no longer there.

Social Justice and the Temptation of a Personal Faith

2010-07-12T19:14:00.000-07:00

A few months ago, Glenn Beck took on Jim Wallis at Sojourners. He lambasted the concept of social justice, and Jim Wallis has gotten a bunch of mileage out of the controversy. First, I must offer my props. Glenn Beck has loudly turned the attention of his audiences to history and the American founding. If people watching his show actually read Federalist Paper #10, the republic would be in a much better position. Likewise, Jim Wallis has always couched his political agenda in the language of faith. As a result, he has forced me again and again to go to the Scriptures to examine my own positions. Both Beck and Wallis play an important role within our media culture. I tip my hat to both.

That being said, I have my concerns. Both men offer simplistic soundbites and surface understandings. I have written before about Jim Wallis. Those familiar with my blog know my criticisms. Glenn Beck however is a newcomer to my comments. My wife got me to listen to him years ago, and he can be entertaining and thoughtful. However, I frankly don't trust Glenn Beck on matters of religion. Hurried show-prep read through the lens of Mormonism is a bit suspect.

Beck has equated "social justice" with Communism and Nazism. He claims that "social justice" and "economic justice" are codewords for "the redistribution of wealth." However, Beck ignores a long tradition of Christian teachings on social issues. The term "social justice" has been adopted by the overwhelming majority of Christians including the Roman Catholic Church. To be fair and to give Beck some credit, there are folks who lurk in the shadows of "social justice" who believe with all sincerity in "the redistribution of wealth." In fact, there are some within the church who seem more influenced by the Communist Manifesto than the Sermon on the Mount. Rather than telling parishioners to run, as Beck reportedly has, church members need to get facts and ask questions. Particular political positions need to be examined in the light of Scripture, church tradition, and common sense.
.
Recently, Beck brought on a gathering of religious folk on his show. In that conversation, I think he revealed a very basic and culturally, a very American attitude toward faith. He states,

...The reason why I want to talk to some preachers is George Whitfield.

We learned about George Whitfield on the show about a month ago. This guy came before the American Revolution. He had to bring people and open their eyes and say, wait a minute. God is personal. He works through me, and it's an individual thing. And it's not collective salvation. It's up to me to do these things.

There needs to be another Whitfield. And so we're talking tonight about the role of faith...

Lay aside whether or not this is an accurate understanding of George Whitfield. Beck understands faith as a personal issue, an individual thing. My religion is between God and me. As a result, there is no "social justice". There is no sense of God redeeming the community or the political order.

Again, my tradition is very different from Glenn Beck, but I also am thankful that salvation is not collective. Jesus Christ redeems me--not my race, my tribe or the blood coursing through my veins. I celebrate the fact that God loves this particular and individual person. Like John the Baptist said, "..and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham" (Luke 3:8). God touches us individually, and we respond as individuals.

However, the temptation contained in this theology is a rampant individualism. If my faith is all about me and Jesus having warm fuzzies, then nothing else matters. My religion may make me a better person, but my God has little to say about politics, work or family life. Church is no long about a community embodying Christ in this world. Instead, we are a group of individuals gathered for our own individual needs. Individual Christians are no longer a people with a message that "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ." We become either chaplains, endorsing the existing order, or we hide from the existing order in our own cultural ghetto.

Beck's argument against Jim Wallis and those who carry the flag of "social justice" seems to be: "Faith is personal. Talking about the collective concern of justice in society is thus out of bounds." However, Beck every night complains about the injustices in society. By Beck's own argument, the modern prophet who speaks for the just and against the unjust cannot stand on his or her faith.

Rather than a ad hominem condemnation of social justice, Beck would do better by arguing that his policies would benefit society including the poor, the orphan and the widow. He should make the argument that Wallis, however well-intentioned, would make society more unjust. If he can't make that argument, then perhaps he should rethink his position or at least be quiet.

Pacifism, the Bible and the American Founding

2010-07-10T09:13:00.000-07:00

Kurt Willems, a Mennonite pastor and seminary student from Fresno Pacific University has caused an uproar concerning an article he wrote for the Sojourners' blog. His claim is that Christianity and July 4th are Incompatible. Mark Tooley over at the Institute on Religion and Democracy has responded. (Unfortunately, I noted at least one error in his article. Stanley Hauerwas is not an Anabaptist. He is United Methodist. He is highly influenced by Mennonite writers, like John Yoder, but he's a Methodist.)

Clearly a pacifist would have a problem with any political system founded upon an act of violence. Tooley has a point in suggesting that the one who condemns American Independence on the grounds of pacifism should rightfully be condemning Bastille Day or the Bolshevik Revolution. For that matter, that same person should also condemn the blood spilled to liberate slaves in America or concentration camps in Europe. Even further, one might even question the use of deadly force by a police officer in the line of duty. I personally am not a pacifist, and I do not believe that rulers bear the sword in vain. Nonetheless, I am respectful of the pacifist tradition in Christianity. Hauerwas and Yoder are respected dialogue partners of mine.

The critique that I find more interesting comes from Mark Noll, a leading evangelical among academics. Willems' own comments spring from an article that Noll wrote for Christianity Today. I disagree with Noll when he suggests that America probably would have received independence freely as Canada and Australia later did. Such conjecture is not possible because independence for other colonies only occurred after the Americans took their freedom by force. Nonetheless, Noll's critique of the rhetoric at the time of the founding is helpful. Many used and misused the Bible to further political ends. He writes,

"An evil precedent was also established in America for later times of national crisis by employing the Bible eccentrically (instead of theologically) and by worrying about classical Christian justifications for warfare hardly at all."

Just because someone finds a slew of Biblical references and allusions does not make a country Christian. For example, I find Newt Gingrich's "Walking Tour of God in Washington D.C." of only limited use. Sure, you can find biblical quotes or references to Moses on public buildings, but does that baptize our system of government? I personally find John Murray's book, We Hold These Truths, to be a more sober reflection on Christian tradition and the American founding than what we usually find on the left or right.

The United States of America is a nation is under God, which does not mean that everything we do is compatible with faith. Instead, it means that we are always subject to God's judgment. This country is not perfect, and I pray that God would mend her every flaw. Our first allegiance must only be to God and only secondarily is our allegiance to nation. That being said, our political freedoms and our understanding of limited government are wonderful gifts to the world. Unlike Willems, I do think that celebrating America's founding is compatible with the Christian faith.

Happy Anniversary

2010-07-06T05:49:00.000-07:00

Fourteen years of wedded bliss. Happy Anniversary, Sara.

Pondering Self-Government

2010-05-31T18:45:00.000-07:00

Over the years, Sojourners and Rev. Jim Wallis have tried to be a corrective to the politics of the Religious Right. They are the natural heirs of the social gospel movement from late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries. They have bathed (or perhaps baptized) their policy proposals in the language of faith. Although he comes from a very different perspective, the rhetoric that Wallis uses is almost as judgmental and condemnatory as a Fallwell or Robertson. Despite my own criticisms, I like reading Jim Wallis. Arguing about politics with the Scriptures in hand is a wonderful discipline.

Most recently, Rev. Wallis has turned his sights on the Tea Party Movement. Frankly, I find the Tea Party Movement so amorphous that I don't know exactly what it believes. There are no party platforms, and leaders are typically self-appointed. Anger at the status quo and politicians in general seems to be the unifying theme. I do also hear the rhetoric of limited government and devotion to the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. Beyond these vague notions, I don't find much else. I'm sure there are racists in the movement, but that isn't the defining characteristic. People are simply frustrated and scared, and they have a right to assemble, speak, and vote. That seems a preferable way to deal with dissent.

Where I haven't found a governing philosophy, Jim Wallis has found "libertarianism", and he states that in "several major aspects of biblical ethics, Libertarianism falls short." Wallis is quick to build straw men, and warns us against libertarians who wish to sell liquor to our children and segregate lunch counters.

Wallis tells us that these libertarians "seem to believe in the sinless market and that the self-interest of business owners or corporations will serve the interests of society." I don't know if they were libertarians, but I have met a few people who suggested as much. Where it exists, I agree with Jim Wallis that the idolatry of the market should be unmasked.

However, Wallis seems to replace the sinless market with almost sinless government.

Revelation 13 depicts the state as a totalitarian beast -- a metaphor for Rome, which was persecuting the Christians. This passage serves as a clear warning about the abuse of governmental power. But a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice.

The word "aberration" suggests that power-hungry governments are against the norm. I would argue that governments that voluntarily limit their power are actually more the aberration. That doesn't mean that government isn't necessary or that it doesn't have an important role protecting citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice. Nonetheless, history, including biblical history, has shown us that tyranny is always a temptation for those in power. As a simple example, consider David and the unfortunate incident with Uriah.

I do not understand how we must mistrust the self-interest of business owners and corporate shareholders and not mistrust the self-interest of politicians and the voters. Devotion to the rule of law, the checks and balances of our political institutions, limited government and local rule help curb vice and encourage virtue. Other institutions outside of government such as families, businesses, and a free press also limit abuse. Finally, churches have a huge role to play in society. Along with social services and a prophetic voice, the church remains salt and light in the world.

Will a society of freedom, limited government, and competing institutions create some utopia? Of course not. However, a naive reliance on the government as a panacea for all our problems is even more utopian. A better question for Jim Wallis (and for that matter, the Tea Parties) might be: How best can a society of sinners provide justice for all, including the least and the vulnerable?

The Wisdom of Crowds

2010-01-27T07:48:00.000-08:00

Contrarian to the core, I always take pause when I see something become a trend.

I appreciate self-organizing, adaptive systems. There is power in unleashing the creative talents of people. We see it market economies, freedom of the press, or even wikipedia. That's why I pay close attention to the collective wisdom of tradition, I disdain top-down organizations, and I prefer freedom to constraint. I am willing to accept messiness for the sake of empowerment.

Over the past few weeks, I have noticed several offering similar praise. Recently, a newsletter of the Lewis Center for Church Leadership began with the following...

I was struck recently by an article that begins with a statement about ants by Stanford biologist Deborah Gordon. "Ants aren't smart," she wrote in a National Geographic article; "ant colonies are." Today more and more people are recognizing the "wisdom of crowds" in which collective thought and action by groups are superior to the individual ability of even their most gifted members.

If the church is noticing something, that usually means that it's really old, old news. That's when I had to rethink my position.

I'm not being critical of the newsletter article. It encourages leadership training and teamwork. Congregations definitely would benefit from such talk.

However, I am a little squeamish about the "wisdom of crowds." I refuse to back away from my praise of adaptive systems. However, crowds make a lot of dumb decisions on the way to better ones. There is no wisdom in a lynch mob. There is nothing inherently superior to a crowd mentality. Wisdom comes from the interaction of ideas, and over a long period of time, the right decision usually emerges. In the meantime, let us not forget the suffering and hurt which can occur over the short term.

Uncivil Society

2010-01-18T10:28:00.000-08:00

According to Stephen Kotkin, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Bloc was not the result of the forces of civil society. Instead it was the failure of "uncivil society"--"the bureaucrats, ideologues, political police, managers and other members of the Communist elite who ran the states of the Soviet bloc in partnership with the Kremlin."

If this analysis is true, then we should seriously rethink the idea that "God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom." Removing the barriers of a tyrannical government will never be enough. The desire for comfort and security often competes with freedom. Hence, Russia is toying with authoritarian rule.

Civil society needs to be cultivated. Freedom is never easy.

The End of a Free Government

2010-01-18T09:49:00.000-08:00

James Madison's contribution to the science of government has primarily been attributed to his development of institutions and structures. His work in the development of the U.S. Constitution and the its ability to mitigate of competing interests is the stuff of high school government classes. The question remains has been to what end were these structures put in place.

A few have suggested that government was "to dull the edge of a fully participatory and democratic politics." At best, this was to curb the abuses of the rabble. At worst, a few scholars, such as Charles Beard, suggest that the institutions were to protect the rich elite.

Colleen Sheehan has suggested another possibility. Madison believed, according to Sheehan, that public opinion held the republic together. The institutions that Madison developed were meant to protect public opinion. Competing interests and balance of power found in the U.S. Constitution created space for "ongoing teaching, cultivating, arguing, and distilling of opinions."

The U.S. Constitution does not simply take the competing interests and pour them into a meat grinder where majority rules and minorities are protected. The end result is not the decisions of government. Instead, the end result should be a free citzenry.

Internet and Privacy

2010-01-18T08:53:00.000-08:00

Michael Gerson questions whether the internet has led us to become a nation of exhibitionists. Demands for greater privacy and revealing everything online are basically two sides of the same coin. Gerson states, "Transparency has become disconnected from intimacy." The internet is not going away any time soon, and we probably need to discover the balance for ourselves individually if not as a society.

Meanwhile, Ross Douthat suggests that the internet is ideologically neutral. The advantage that Democrats had in internet organizing last year is being matched by some Republicans in 2010. Unfortunately, the politicians have not learned that the internet produces support more fickle than usual. Making it easier to write your congressman or contribute to a campaign does not suggest a depth of engagement.

In a way, the rule of law and the institutions that we have provide us a balance against the vagaries of public opinion. The balance I suggest is not in terms of scale. Instead, the balance I mean is like a clock. The weights of a clock keep the clock running, but not too fast or too slow. It's like waiting till the next day to send that awful e-mail to your boss. Perhaps, you might think better of it in the morning.

Douthat also talks about the inevitable problem of buyers remorse. Sending a few sheckels to a candidate on a whim means that you may not realize his or her positions on a variety of issues. Douthat writes, "The internet breeds utopian hopes...this utopianism needs to be tempered by a realism that only hard experience can teach. Better if both right and left learn their lesson quickly — that technology changes, but politics remains the same."

That being said, the ability to collect support and money quickly is very helpful. Douthat reminds us that support for Haiti relief has benefited greatly from the internet's ability to organize.

Haiti Relief

2010-01-18T08:15:00.000-08:00

The most important information to share with you this week is relief efforts for the recent earthquake in Haiti. Please take the time to support relief efforts. I am encouraging folks to give to Presbyterian Disaster Assistance. If you would like to support another worthy cause, please do so, but always be careful about where your money is going. Also, check out The Haiti Connection, a clearinghouse for information about a variety of charities there. Be sure also to support Haiti long after it moves out of the headlines.

Friday Funnies: Pants on the Ground

2010-01-15T18:58:00.001-08:00

For some bizarre reason, I like this song. I also enjoy the many remixes and the covers. Take a special look at Jimmy Fallon's cover in the style of Neil Young. To General Larry Platt, I salute you.

Snake Oil and Hubris

2010-01-14T05:37:00.000-08:00

Both columnists Peggy Noonan and David Brooks have recently written about the failure of our institutions. Both articles seem to be in response to the terrorist act which occurred on Christmas Day, 2009 on a plane bound for Detroit. Although both are helpful reading, in a way, Brooks' article intrigues me more.

Brooks argues that in the past "there was a realistic sense that human institutions are necessarily flawed." In the good ol' days, according to Brooks, we accepted the mistakes of human institutions, and then we moved on. "Now we seem to expect perfection from government and throw tantrums when it is not achieved."

I don't know if that's exactly true. Rarely, do I hear of a government official losing his or her job for even failures of epic proportion ("Heckova job, Brownie.") George W. Bush was re-elected with an unpopular war in Iraq precisely because many gave him the benefit of the doubt. The election of 2004 was essentially a referendum on the mantra, "stay the course." Some of the tantrums we are experiencing may be the legitimate frustration that our institutions are not moving to meet challenges. Also, many feel that their trust has been betrayed, and our leaders have done little to rebuild it.

Laying aside the legitimate concern for reform, Brooks does have a bigger idea. The underlying problem is hubris. We believe that all problems are solvable. We just need another product, another government program, or another technological gizmo. Unfortunately, the worst offenders of hubris have been our leaders & politicians. They have encouraged us to be dependent on them. They tickle our ears with promises of easy wealth and safety without sacrifice. Elections are won by promising that all our wildest dreams will come true. I don't doubt the sincerity of our snake oil salesmen. They believe their own rhetoric, and they are shocked when we want our money back.

The title of Brooks article is apt, "The God who Fails." We have come to our human institutions expecting too much. We trust in the government, the media, business, the academy, and even religious institutions more than we trust in God. Perhaps, Noonan is correct. She suggests that our institutions have lost sight of their mission. Clearly, a sober reflection on the proper purpose and limits of these institutions would be greatly helpful. However, that isn't enough.

Instead, each one of us needs to ask the question of the psalmist, "...from where does my help come? My help comes from the Lord, the maker of heaven and earth" (Psalm 121:1-2).

Most Useless Machine Ever

2010-01-13T17:26:00.001-08:00

The Most Useless Machine Ever. This machine probably is a metaphor for so many things. I need to use the blueprints just to build my own. I could take it to all sorts of meetings.

Mission or Identity

2010-01-13T09:46:00.000-08:00

Peggy Noonan tells us that the crisis of the last decade has been the failure of institutions. Government, business, and even the church have received their lumps in the past ten years. The problem started long before that, but Noonan notes that we have now entered a crisis. She believes the problem is that our leadership have forgotten the mission.

I would say that we are in the midst of an identity crisis. We don't know what we believe or who we are.

Traditions in U.S. Foreign Policy

2010-01-13T09:45:00.000-08:00

In Foreign Policy, Walter Russell Mead discusses the direction of America foreign policy in terms of four great traditions represented by Alexander Hamilton, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson.

Bono's Cultural Solution

2010-01-13T09:42:00.000-08:00

Who knew that Bono was a guest columnist for the New York Times?

In a recent article, he suggested an annual arts festival to bring together followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. He argues that music helped bridge gaps in Ireland during the "Troubles", and he places hope in the arts for the current problems in the Middle East.

Color me skeptical. Still, I agree with the unspoken premise under his proposal. A huge part of the problem is cultural. Until the culture changes, the political process will inevitably fail.

TFA Alumni and Civic Engagement

2010-01-13T09:40:00.000-08:00

There has been a recent study of the post-corps experience of Teach For America teachers. They discovered that TFA teachers are not significantly more involved in voting, charitable giving or civic engagement. The poll takers credit the disappointing results to burnout and disillusionment. Thankfully, a former TFA teacher has shown some problems with the poll's numbers.

Since I can't find the poll on-line, I also wonder if it was measuring the wrong things. Among TFA alumni that I know, I notice a difference in their attitudes toward community change. Their young idealism has often given way to a tested and mature realism. They are still committed to solving inequality and injustice, but they have learned how to work within existing institutions. They are imaginative, but they are also pragmatic. Most importantly, many have also learned patience. The fight for justice is a marathon, not a sprint.

Getting the Name Right

2010-01-13T09:39:00.000-08:00

Where the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are truly wars, Peter Breinart suggests that the so-called "War on Terror" is misnamed. As a result, we don't have a real plan to fight it. Looking at the example of the similarly misnamed "Cold War", Breinart suggests an effort at containment and ideological struggle.

Lessons from Toyota?

2010-01-13T09:37:00.000-08:00

After failure of preventing the underwear bomber, we are reminded again that our intelligence agencies are a Byzantine collection of agencies. I found this article on organization with lessons from Toyota interesting.

Two mitigating thoughts:

(1) Spy agencies are different than car companies.

(2) Any efficiencies gained should not be at the cost of the rule of law.

Pastors, Protect Your Marriage

2010-01-13T09:36:00.000-08:00

* I'm not always a huge fan of Rick Warren, but he is right on target when he warns pastors to protect their marriages. Pastors deal with emotions and vulnerabilities all the time. They need to work hard to keep lines of communication open with their spouses.

* Speaking about Rick Warren, apparently Saddleback Church had a $900,000 shortfall in 2009. About 10% of their parishioners are out of work. Clearly the economy stinks right now, and giving is down everywhere. I don't know if the shortfall was a surprise, but I wonder if it could be handled different.

Friday Funnies: The Parrot Sketch

2010-01-08T16:40:00.000-08:00

It's not pinin,' it's passed on! This parrot is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late parrot! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed him to the perch he would be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolical processes are of interest only to historians! It's hopped the twig! It's shuffled off this mortal coil! It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This.... is an EX-PARROT!

Sermon Background Noise: Acts 8

2010-01-07T17:01:00.000-08:00

This week's sermon is from Acts 8:14-17. The story is about Simon Magus, the magician who was baptized, and then offered money to have the power to give the Holy Spirit.

* This week's soundtrack includes U2's "Grace." The Holy Spirit is not something you can earn or buy. Although Simon should be commended for desiring the power to give the Holy Spirit, it was not Peter's to grant or sell. It was gift. As leaders in the church, we should rely on God's grace rather than our abilities or the latest gimmicks.

* The Catholic Encyclopedia provides wonderful reference material from a Roman Catholic perspective dated from 1913. Although scholarship and Vatican II has happened in the meantime, it still provides a good look on the tradition. Here is an article on Simon Magus from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

* John Calvin's commentaries on the story can be found here, here and here.

Ministry Among the Cultured Despisers

2010-01-04T07:45:00.000-08:00

The Philadelphia Inquirer had a front page article about the challenges facing Orthodox Churches in the neighborhood of Northern Liberties. It's the classic story of changing communities. The congregations no longer reflect the culture surrounding them, and the numbers are dwindling.

Typically, I’ve heard this story about churches born in white blue-collar communities that are now in the midst of poverty and ethnic diversity. The prescription always is to change. The congregation needs to reach out to the new population with culturally attuned music, programs to alleviate poverty, and more hospitality. Some churches are successful in the change. Others are not able to make the transition.

What intrigues me about the challenges facing these Orthodox Churches is that the culture has changed from an immigrant ethnic population to an affluent educated white population. Northern Liberties has become a trendy, avant-garde community. Clearly the Orthodox Church will not be making sweeping accommodations in their liturgy to the new culture, but a larger question remains: How does the church do ministry among the Bohemian Bourgeois?
I found the comments of the community’s residents concerning their attitudes toward religion most interesting.

“It's not that I don't have a spiritual dimension in my life…organized religion isn't doing it for me."

"Not that I don't believe in God…[but ] church is kind of out of fashion in its structure. People in our generation tend to make our own paths rather than follow someone else's."

"It just manifests itself in different ways than attending church…I try to be a good person. I try to treat others as I'd like to be treated."

Clearly the author picked the quotes, but each person seems a bit defensive. There is an acknowledgement that the spiritual life has value, but there is resistance to structure and commitment.

I know that my observations are worth very little, but I have learned a few things about this population.

Do not compete directly with the culture. You will lose. We can’t do music, theater, and the like better than New York or Hollywood. We shouldn’t try. We should do what we do to the best of our ability with integrity and faithfulness. There lies the difference.
Syncretism is not the answer. Interestingly, the culture encourages a cafeteria-style religion, but it also appreciates authenticity. A muddled intellectual and theological mush isn’t very authentic. The curious who come will be syncretistic. That’s just the reality, but the church shouldn’t be.
The church should be hospitable. That being said, the church must be willing to engage respectfully with all viewpoints. We should acknowledge the good wherever we see it, and we should be open to be corrected.
The church needs to become apologists. We aren’t talking about making apologies for past sins (although repentance should be always the church’s agenda). Too often, apologetics has been reduced simply to logical arguments. “If A=B, the Jesus is Lord. Quad Erat Demonstrandum.” We need to explain why we do what do with reason, but also with poetry and emotion.
The church needs to focus on building community. Our society is incredibly lonely. When we build our own identity and life is individually tailored to our choices, we stand alone. People are longing for community, and the church should reach out in fellowship and love. We need to build relationships with each other.
The church needs to focus on good works. Worship still remains the heart of who we are, but living the faith by actively doing good works is essential. Selfless love is an important entry point into the life of faith, and churches need to develop a sacramental understanding of service. Service points to God.
Finally, I am more convinced today than ever that the church should talk about the stewardship of the environment. This is not a capitulation to the culture. “Being green” has become the lifestyle of many. If the church chooses to ignore that, we are not loving those ever increasing number of “tree huggers.” The church has the biblical and theological resources to talk about the environment. Let’s use them.

Found Content

2010-01-04T05:30:00.000-08:00

We're back with more Found Content (articles, video, etc) that caught our attention in recent days. Each one deserves more thought and comments, but I am writing less to write more.

Obituaries for 2009. Every year we have to say goodbye to people who have made a difference. Among those who made big headlines: Hans Beck who created Playmobil toys, Norman Bourlag who led the Green Revolution, and the artist Andrew Wyeth.
Worst. Decade. Ever. At least that is Reason TV's take on the political scene from 2000-2010.
How religious is your state? The Pew Forum has the results of a survey comparing each state in worship attendance, frequency of prayer, and belief in God.
Why is there such disparity between poor and rich countries? An Esquire article suggest that sound institutions--"the rule of law and security and a governing system which offers opportunities to achieve and innovate."
The pope's 2009 Christmas homily.
A Philadelphia Inquirer article about the Low Mass of the Dawn. For those looking for a quiet celebration of Christmas.
Jim Wallis of Sojourners discusses the spiritual implications of the current economic problems. He writes, "This could be a moment to reexamine the ways we measure success, do business and live our lives; a time to renew spiritual values and practices such as simplicity, patience, modesty, family, friendship, rest and Sabbath."

Sermon Background Noise, Matthew 2:1-12

2010-01-02T18:28:00.000-08:00

Along with praying through the Scripture lesson, reviewing the original language, and reading the commentaries, I will often find information online which forms the background noise for a sermon.

This week’s sermon is based on the story of the wise men from Matthew 2:1-12.

1 In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, 2 asking, "Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage." 3 When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; 4 and calling together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. 5 They told him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet: 6 "And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel.' " 7 Then Herod secretly called for the wise men and learned from them the exact time when the star had appeared. 8 Then he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, "Go and search diligently for the child; and when you have found him, bring me word so that I may also go and pay him homage." 9 When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was. 10 When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy. 11 On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage. Then, opening their treasure chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. 12 And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they left for their own country by another road.

This week's soundtrack includes J. S. Bach's Weihnachts Oratorium. You can find English texts here.

Several artists have painted the Adoration of the Magi. Although I hate to link Wikipedia, here is a description of Leonardo DaVinci's depiction.

John Calvin's commentaries on the text are here and here.
In "Off by Nine Miles", Walter Brueggemann writes in the Christian Century from December 2001 about the theological differences between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
Thoughts from Reformed Worship about the season of Epiphany.
Apparently, there is such a thing as an Epiphany cake. Hidden inside is almond paste or brioche dough. I prefer the chocolate in this recipe.

Friday Funnies: Twas 24 Hours Before Christmas

2010-01-01T13:13:00.000-08:00

Jack Bauer made the naughty list this Christmas.

Found Content 2009/12/28

2009-12-28T13:22:00.000-08:00

Here is a second installment of found content. Not all of the content is new. It's just a listing of discovered stuff that I found interesting. In a perfect world, I would blog each of them, but alas, this is not a perfect world.

Apparently the so-called "War on Christmas" has a longer history than many imagined. In the Philadelphia Inquirer, there was an article about how Jewish families wrestled with Christmas celebrations in the public schools at the beginning of the 20th Century. How do we best honor the religious freedoms of the majority and the minority?
Here is an article on how Hitler tried to use Christmas and the symbols of the season to serve the Nazi regime. Christ is completely removed from Christmas. Here is what a real "War on Christmas" looks like.
Look for radio ratings to change. Arbitron is moving away from pencil and paper logs. Apparently, people don't tell the truth about their listening habits. That means rating will no longer reflect our aspirations but our realities. I'm frightened of the results.
Reason magazine looks at the world of convenience and idling engines in its celebration of the Drive-through.
Looking for some shovel-ready projects for the 21st Century? Andy Kessler suggests that if the government is going to spend money on infrastructure, it should look to the future. What this country needs is a really good 5 cent wi-fi connection.
Admiral Mike Mullen is the chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He has worked hard to make to keep the military apolitical moving from Bush to Obama. I liked what he said about his leadership style. Mullen patterns it after General George C. Marshall: "Lead quietly, lead listening."
Ann Kornblut has advice for women in public office taken from the experiences of Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton.
Finally, have you ever wanted to tour the West Wing. Here is a tour circa the George W. Bush administration.

Friday Funnies: Christmases Yet To Come

2009-12-25T13:39:00.000-08:00

Someone shared a great link from the Onion. The Ghost of Christmas Future now taunts kids with the hottest game system from 2016, the Play Station V.

Merry Christmas 2009

2009-12-25T13:09:00.000-08:00

Sermon Background Noise

2009-12-24T10:10:00.000-08:00

Good sermons are based upon a scriptural text, and a preacher should do the hard work of research and preparation. We should consult the original languages. We read a multitude of commentaries. I also find artwork and music associated with the text very helpful.

The internet is not always the best place to find information for a sermon, but occasionally I find stuff that forms the background noise for my sermons. Questions might be raised. Alternate viewpoints may be expressed. Then, you listen to the text and pray for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The following are links that formed some of the background noise for my Christmas Eve sermon. The focal point for the Christmas Eve sermon was Luke 2:10-11.

10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold , I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

Some of these links were found at the lectionary-based internet site, textweek.com. Others, I happened upon on my own. I don't endorse every idea contained, but they begin a conversation.

It's always helpful perspective to see how the Reformers handled the Scriptural texts. Both Luther and Calvin are great sparring partners.

o Martin Luther's Christmas Day Sermon.

o John Calvin's Commentary on Luke 2:8-14.

"Christmas and Luke's Theology of Hope” by Vernard Eller. A Christian Century article from 1972 which considers the theology of Moltmann in light of the Christmas story.

I came to focus on the angel’s announcement to “fear not”. From the news, here are some perspectives on fear in 2009.

o “Thousands Fear Mayon Volcano’s Eruption”

o “Family in Fear After Drive-By Shooting”

An Arizona Daily Star editorial suggests hope is still relevant in 2008 and 2009. The editorial takes much from the 1897 New York Sun article, “Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Claus.” The basic message is that Christmas reminds us there is “more to life than worry and fear.” Unfortunately, I wonder if Christmas without Christ can sustain the hope that the world so desperately needs. Can Santa alone really save Christmas?

An article from Tampa Bay Online quotes a number of local pastors on practical ways to “spread Christmas joy”. Some encourage service. Others encourage the devotional life of prayer and Scripture reading. A few suggest that Christmas is the time to reconcile with others. Forgive as Christ has forgiven us.

Finally, Handel’s Messiah was my soundtrack as I wrote my sermon.

Encouraging the Poor to Steal?

2009-12-21T16:48:00.000-08:00

In a sermon on Sunday morning, a minister in York told his parishioners, "My advice as a Christian priest, is to shoplift." Father Tim Jones is worried about the poor, and he feels that shoplifting is better than violent forms of crime. Also,the minister would encourage folks to steal from nameless, faceless corporations rather than "small family businesses." He states that "God's love for the poor and despised outweighs the property rights of the rich."

I understand the pastor's sentiment. He is probably aware of people in his community who are suffering with poverty. There are hungry and hurting people in this world. I am concerned about them as well. However, the solution he suggests is more than naive. Encouraging the poor to steal is downright foolish.

Once when Jesus was teaching the crowds, it was getting late. The people were hungry, and the disciples urged Jesus to send the people away. Jesus told them, "You give them something to eat" (Mark 6:37). The disciples wanted to remove any moral obligation that they themselves might have to help the poor. "That would take eight months of a man's wages ! Are we to go and spend that much on bread and give it to them to eat?" Likewise, this pastor in England is passing the buck. His implied message: "The church has nothing to offer you. Just go out and steal."

How sad for the clergy to express the sentiment of Ebeneezer Scrooge this Christmas season:

“At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”

I have met those who criticize charity because it does little for the long-term assistance of the poor. I can agree. Putting a half-penny in the old man's hat does little to help a displaced worker get a new job, the mentally ill get needed help, or the homeless find permanent housing. The church should move beyond emergency assistance to develop sustainable ministries to help the poor rise above their situation. Telling the poor to steal is incredibly cynical. We condemn them to a permanent underclass while we pat ourselves on the back for being "caring".

I am also shocked at how short-sighted the suggestion is from an economic standpoint. Shoplifting is not a very efficient way to allocate resources. Rather than giving to those who are truly suffering, it rewards those with the skills of a successful shoplifter--the liar and the cheat. The more resources devoted to replacing stolen merchandise, adding more security, and punishing violators will not be used for charity or creating jobs.

I worked once for one of those nameless, faceless corporations. I managed a fast food restaurant. Anything stolen would affect my bottom line. When profit margins are slim, a small percentage could make the difference between a restaurant remaining open or closing its doors. Encouraging the loss of jobs in poorer communities does not seem the best use of the pulpit.

Instead, we should preach boldly that we have an obligation to help the poor. Justice demands care for the widow, the orphan, and the stranger. I much rather turn the energies, talents and resources of the rich to help alleviate poverty than to damn the poor.

Found Content

2009-12-20T18:22:00.000-08:00

The following is a list of found content (video, articles, etc) which has attracted my attention in the past week. Not all of the content is new. It's just a listing of discovered stuff that I found interesting. In a perfect world, I would blog each of them, but alas, this is not a perfect world.

Whole Food Republicans -- Michael Petrilli writes in the Wall Street Journal about "voters who embrace a progressive lifestyle but not progressive politics." Basically, the idea is that red politicians should reach out to blue states. I guess the opposite is also true: Blue politicians should reach out to red states. The trick is making it work. The "Whole Food Republican" sounds vaguely like Rod Dreher's "Crunchy Con". However, Dreher's work is less about elections and more about culture.
John Mackey's Conscious Capitalism -- Speaking of Whole Foods, Reason magazine does an interview with the founder of the grocery, John Mackey. Rather than a Republican, Mackey sounds more like a Libertarian. I appreciated his take on people who enter the business world. Instead of assuming a grasping attitude toward money and profit, we should realize that most are not motivated by mammon. Most entrepeneurs are simply excited about providing a better service or good.
Upper Mismanagement -- The New Republic suggests that the real problem with business is business schools. The article argues that business schools have a preference for business leaders who have little interest in production or customers and more interest in management numbers.
Obama's Christian Realism -- David Brooks really likes Obama. He especially likes that Obama has said kind things about Reinhold Niebuhr. In the article, Brooks tries to find Niebuhr in Obama's Nobel Prize Speech.
Obama's Nobel Peace Prize Speech -- Honestly, I didn't enjoy the speech. The president gets kudos for taking on some really big issues, but it wasn't coherent. How exactly do we reconcile Martin Luther King, Jr, Ghandhi and George Marshall? The president declares, "But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected." What does that mean? What is the perfect human condition?
How to Have an Acts Church (Part One and Part Two) -- Rick Warren looks at the church in Acts and discovers seven characteristics which includes developing small groups and equipping all members for ministry.
From Liberalism to Social Democracy -- Geoffery Kurtz reviews a book of intellectual history tracing the development of social democracy to the thoughts of Enlightenment liberalism. Are liberalism and social democracy in the same intellectual family, or are they actually two separate things? The article also raises an interesting point. What is the relationship between intellectual movements and concrete events. For example, how is the development of social democracy rooted in the reality of the industrial revolution at the end of the 19th Century?
Ethnic Media's Four-step Model for the News Industry's Future -- As media outlets continue to struggle in the face of new information technology, Sandra Ordonez finds lessons from the ethnic media. Specialized niche publications are growing while traditional newspapers are shrinking. One interesting idea is that media should not merely report news items. News outlets should also encourage and facilitate the conversation surrounding news items. They should realize that they exist to create communities.

Friday Funnies: Happy Hanukkah

2009-12-18T13:18:00.000-08:00

I didn't know that both Kirk and Spock were Jewish. Cool.

Watching the Watchmen

2009-08-30T13:02:00.000-07:00

A friend and I recently have read The Watchmen, and here are my recent thoughts. Oh by the way, here is your SPOILER ALERT warning.

The superhero genre was created when Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster imagined a bullet-proof crime fighter from another planet. The genre took another step when Stan Lee wondered how a teenager with the proportionate strength of a spider would deal with the challenges of adolescence. With The Watchmen, Alan Moore pushes the genre even further. What happens when superheroes wrestle with a morally ambiguous world? Deal with mental illness and depression? Grow old? How does the world react to a hero who is seemingly omnipotent? What are the social, political and cultural ramifications of heroes in tights?

Following these issues to their ultimate end is what makes The Watchmen classic. The multiple plots and the endless allusions make for dense reading, but they are done well. The authors understand the conventions of the medium, and they stretch them. They create a world that is rich and textured.

That being said, the graphic novel is very dated. I can understand why the movie didn’t do well at the box office. The market in 2009 for movies about an alternative 1985 in which Richard Nixon is still president must be pretty small. In the book, the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war dominate ever page. The ever present threat of death and destruction pushes society to the point of neurosis. The Watchmen outlines the transition from the moral clarity of the early superheroes to nihilistic confusion.

This descent is probably what bothers me most. The underlying assumption of the book is that there is no purpose or meaning in life. All of the major characters accept this worldview without question. Each responds to the nihilism in his or her own way.

THE COMEDIAN

The Comedian sees justice as a sick joke masking a reality of violence and power. He embodies the joke as an American hero while at the same time he kills, rapes and destroys without thought. Winning, it has been said, is a great disinfectant, and the Comedian wants to be on the winning side.

RORSCHACH

Rorschach suggests that our world is like the random inkblots of his namesake. The only meaning is what we impose upon life. For example, when Nite Owl II expresses remorse at the death of a friend, Rorschach concocts a theory of who killed him. Rorschach hopes that Nite Owl II can take comfort from his theory and the revenge to which it inevitably leads. He himself sees conspiracies everywhere, and he embraces the meaning that he has created without any doubt. His cruelty comes from his own manufactured certitude.

DR. MANHATTAN

Dr. Manhattan is the closest thing to a supreme being in the book. Although his knowledge and power has no limits, he can’t understand humanity. For him, the world is relative without meaning. The future is pre-determined. Even his emotional responses are part of a script that he has been handed. His ability and power is merely a tool in the hands of others. He does not have the moral freedom to act on his own. For example, he cannot stop the JFK assignation, or the Comedian’s murder in Vietnam of someone in cold blood.

OZYMANDIUS

Ozymandius is the existentialist. He wishes to create meaning and shape reality to fit his new world. Like other political messiahs, the nobility of his aims excuses a million crimes. He is willing to slaughter others to usher in a new age of peace and prosperity. Although the book seems to embrace his final solution to the crisis of nuclear holocaust, doubts remain. Even his name, Ozymandius, reminds one of Percy Bysshe Shelley’s poem which suggests that ultimately the mighty do fall.

NITE OWL II AND SILK SPECTRE II

Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II are harder to classify. On the one hand, they have the closest connection to the superheroes of the past. After all, their names and history have been handed to them. On the other hand, they are products of this nihilistic world. Hence, there is a quick acceptance of the horrific compromise that they are handed at the end of the book. Both attempt to hold the chaos of the world at bay.

Like the snow globe she discovers as a girl, Silk Spectre II seeks a safe place where time moves slower. She finds solace in relationships. She seeks friendship, family ties, and lovers. As the world comes crashing around her, she needs others.

In contrast, Nite Owl II tries to strike a balance between the mechanistic and the meaningful. At the end of chapter seven, Nite Owl II’s secret identity writes eloquently about holding onto the poetry of birds while remaining committed to the scientific and the material. He is a romantic.

Nonetheless, no one in the novel stands for an objective reality. As the Comedian demonstrates, fighting for truth, justice and the American way is laughable. God is dead, yet the novel does not celebrate. There is something sorrowful and regrettable that moral clarity has no foundation or basis. In one of the last scenes of the book, a group of New Yorkers try to do the right thing by intervening when an argument gets out of control. All are slaughtered in a monstrous act of random violence. We lament their deaths and their pointless desire to help their neighbor.

While The Watchmen is persuasive and effective, I can’t accept this view of reality. When accepting the Nobel Prize for Literature, William Faulkner said,

“I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet's, the writer's, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past. The poet's voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail.”

Faulkner’s words seem to damn the entire world of The Watchmen.

Friday Funnies: Lonely in a Crowd

2009-07-31T12:26:00.001-07:00

The Marx Brothers in a scene from "A Night At the Opera".

Where the Treasure Is

2009-07-31T07:37:00.000-07:00

In the past few weeks, I have been hit over the head multiple times with a lesson of the obvious.

One source was a Havard Business School Podca st discussing the book, Discovery-Driven Growth. Rita McGrath, a co-author of the book, was discussing business agendas. She suggested that if growth (or anything else) was the priority for a business, it should be one of the first items on the agenda.

The other source was a discussion with a pastor. He said, “Throw away a church’s mission statement. The real way to know what the church believes is looking at its budget.” Where does the church put their financial resources? In a building? In a program?

Jesus said, “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Luke 12:34). For the institutional church, our treasure is money, time, and talent. Where do we set our priorities in these areas? Our agendas, budgets, and staffing are practical ways in which we establish where our heart will be. As the church plans for the upcoming year, this is certainly some good guidance.

John Calvin and the Excesses of American Patriotism

2009-07-27T05:25:00.000-07:00

Did John Calvin have an influence on the excesses of American patriotism? Damon Linker says, "yes," in a blog posting at the New Republic. Considering the Puritan background of many of the first settlers, I'm not terribly surprised that Calvinism has had an impact. Nonetheless, the line that Linker draws between Calvin and the American situation seems tenuous at best.

There were indeed Puritans who claimed that America had a special place in God's providence. Some even described America as the "new Israel" led from slavery into the promised land. There is a natural temptation for such attitudes to devolve into the suggestion of divine approval for a country's actions right or wrong. Linker suggests that we should blame Calvin for this “theological self-confidence” among Americans that borders on “over-confidence.” Sadly, I don't find anything in Calvin's teaching that suggests that he would approve of associating an earthly realm with the Kingdom of God.

Calvin, who described the heart as an idol factory, would understand someone who turns a nation or an ideology into a god. Moreover, he would call it a sin.

Friday Funnies: Classic Lucille Ball

2009-07-24T17:28:00.001-07:00

Here is the famous scene from I Love Lucy where Lucy and Ethel take a job in a candy factory. Could this be a metaphor for pastoral ministry?

Meeting the Lord in the Air

2009-07-20T07:46:00.000-07:00

According to a Voice of America report, Buzz Aldrin took communion on the moon. On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon. Soon after they landed, Aldrin took a piece of bread and a cup of wine that had been consecrated for communion. The first food eaten and the first cup poured on the moon were communion elements.

Aldrin, a Presbyterian elder, wanted to give thanks to God on behalf of all people. The meal was to be a meal of thanksgiving or Eucharist (from the Greek, “eucharistos”). Aldrin wanted to offer a response to God for God's faithfulness. I am deeply moved that Aldrin would want to respond to God in that way.

The VOA report did not delve deeply into the theology, but I was interested in how Rev. Dean Woodruff prepared for the communion service. The article took pains to suggest that this was a “personal” or “private” act. However, it wasn't. In the Presbyterian Church, Communion is a communal act. The Lord's Supper is a sign and seal of our communion with God and with each other.

Several weeks prior to the launch of the Apollo 11, the Webster Presbyterian Church in Texas celebrated communion. After the worship service, a group of elders gathered with Buzz Aldrin. (Aldrin was restricted from contact with too many people.) During that time, Aldrin was given the bread and wine for communion. A benediction was not offered so that the Lord's Supper on the moon was in fact an extension of the worship service in Webster, Texas.

Aldrin on the moon gathered with those Presbyterians in Webster, Texas and with the saints of all time and places. Over 350,000 miles away, Buzz Aldrin remained in the presence of the Lord and the bosom of the Church.

For more information...

A VOA interview with Rev. Woodruff in mp3.
A description of the communion by Aldrin from the Webster Presbyterian Church's website.
Hat tip to Presbyweb.

The Role of Numbers in the Church

2009-07-19T18:37:00.000-07:00

Every year, our church sends reports to denominational officials. We send a host of numbers. There are budgets, membership statistics, worship attendance and a host of other facts and figures. Sadly, we do next to nothing with the numbers. They just sit on a shelf gathering dust.

I wonder what would happen if we used the numbers. I know many would balk at the thought. The church they argue is not a business. We can't quantify faithfulness. Attendance or the number of baptisms do not demonstrate the vitality of a congregation. I would agree.

If nothing else my degree in mathematics has shown me that numbers have hidden dangers. As an abstraction, they are useful to make comparisons or calculations, but valuable information disappears when we reduce people or objects to mere number. In The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupery, the narrator mentions the subtleties lost when adults are consumed by numbers.

"When you tell [adults] that you have made a new friend, they never ask you any questions about essential matters. They never say to you, 'What does his voice sound like? What games does he love best? Does he collect butterflies?' Instead, they demand: 'How old is he? How many brothers has he? How much does he weigh? How much money does his father make?' Only from these figures do they think they have learned anything about him."

Another problem resulting from abstraction means that numbers can be manipulated for ill. Scientists have been caught using only data which confirmed their presuppositions and prejudices. Politicians and advertisers have manipulated public opinion with skewed or selective reporting. As Mark Twain once said, "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

The Scriptures also suggest a danger of numbers which might surprise some. Numbers can lead to the sin of pride. In the ancient world, taking a census was a sign of control and power. Kings used numbers to coerce populations through taxation and conscription into the army. In the Old Testament, God gave Moses specific instructions relating to a census to curb this temptation. Each person involved in the census had to pay a "ransom" as an offering to God (Exodus 30:11-16). An offering was a costly reminder to the leader that God was really the one in charge. The consequences for failing to follow these rules were severe. For example, King David later took an illegal census, and God punished the kingdom with a plague (2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21). I could just imagine a church pastor busting with pride as he recites the number of new members added this year. Heck, I have been that pastor.

HOW THEN SHALL WE MEASURE?
Nonetheless, we shouldn't ignore numbers. We must be on guard against abstraction, manipulation and pride, but church leaders shouldn't be blind to the results of their ministry.

Perhaps, we are just looking at the wrong numbers. The percentage of members who come to worship might be a more useful statistic than simply attendance. The number of youth who are still active in church after college is much more helpful than numbering the crowd who gathers weekly. I would assume that there are even more creative ways to measure a congregation's impact on the community.

Friday Funnies: Don't Buy Stuff

2009-07-17T13:41:00.000-07:00

From Saturday Night Live in 2006. Wonderful advice for the new economy.

Hat tip to Cigars & Theology.

Queen of the Sciences

2009-07-11T15:13:00.001-07:00

A long time ago, theology was called the “queen of the sciences”. All the other sciences took their cue from the findings of theology. Those days are gone forever. In the few universities where theology is still studied, no one seems interested in the insights of the theologians. I don’t completely decry the development. Angels dancing on pinheads probably shouldn’t bother physicists, and the weight of a soul shouldn’t consume the debates of biologists. Sadly, many of the modern theological debates seem just as esoteric as their medieval counterparts. No wonder, no one seems interested.

That being said, the pursuit of knowledge could benefit from some basic theological reflection. The sciences can pursue the hows, but only theology (or perhaps her handmaiden, philosophy) can explore the whys. Modern psychology might benefit from a serious reflection on the nature of sin. Business and biology programs should take into account ethical considerations. Our epistemology, paralyzed by subjectivity, could use a little Christian humility. Our schools do not need classes on “Intelligent Design” masquerading as natural science. Instead, we need citizens willing to wrestle with the limits of knowledge and our place in the moral order. The traditional resources and insights of Christian theology are just begging to be used.

You would think that theological reflection would at least be welcome in the church. Alas, even the church is looking for insight elsewhere. Many in the church’s leadership seem more comfortable discussing psychology and business management techniques. Meanwhile the traditional resources of the church--the Scriptures, the liturgy, and the Sacraments--are under-utilized. Theology remains an orphan.

Should the church ignore the insights of the world? I cannot sit in judgment. I read family-systems theory. I am a student of Peter Drucker. I like Thomas Jefferson. Still, I should be uncomfortable. I should allow the gospel to challenge my assumptions. Perhaps the queen shouldn’t lord over the sciences. Theology after all is not God. Instead, maybe the queen at best is prophet. She calls idols by name and counsels repentance. She calls us to follow Christ.

The queen is dead. Long live the queen.

Friday Funnies: Charlie The Unicorn

2009-07-10T05:21:00.001-07:00

Shun the nonbeliever. Shun.

This is the original video of Charlie The Unicorn, and it remains the best.

To Boldly Go

2009-07-07T16:26:00.000-07:00

[Spoilers ahead. I know most who care about Star Trek have seen the movie, but just in case, here is your warning.]

GROWING UP TREK

Growing up in the 1970s, Star Wars was supposed to be the cultural icon of my generation of geeks. I did have the Star Wars action figures, and I can quote from the climatic scenes. “Luke, you switched off your targeting computer. Is everything all right?” Still, my heart has always been with Star Trek. I grew up on the reruns, and the show has shaped my outlook and temperament. I identify with the optimism and democracy that the series championed. I would guess that my sense of politics is still greatly influenced by this show born in the light of John F. Kennedy's New Frontier.

Let's just accept the fact that Star Trek is not high art. Plot holes and inconsistencies abound despite the best efforts of the wiki-nerds working by the internet glow deep within the mines of Janus VI. In fact, it is primarily a clunky morality play with phasers and giant Styrofoam rocks. Behind most of the shows and movies, there were messages about hard choices, human fallibility, and realpolitik. Think Reinhold Niebuhr with warp drive.

Even the bad episodes or movies had an intriguing idea behind it. Remember the fifth film, The Final Frontier? It was hailed as one of the worst of the franchise. We got T.J. Hooker-style action sequences and Uhura fan-dancing. More importantly, the crew also searches for God, and the god that they find isn't what they want or expect. Great idea. Poor execution.

Kirk and Spock are the central figures in the show. The interplay between these two characters was the heart of the original series, and a recent blog post by Mark Finn made me think about my own connection. Finn writes, “Captain Kirk, without a doubt, went into the alchemy of what I thought constituted Being A Man.” Interestingly enough, Kirk was not my model of masculinity. Spock was. Friends in high school said I was a Vulcan, and I took it as a badge of honor. For me Spock represented rationality, duty, discipline, and devotion to a higher ideal. Nonetheless, Spock is not complete without Kirk. The two need each other. As Spock wrestled with the duality, I did too.

Although the theme is present in many of the episodes and movies, a few examples might clarify. In Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Spock refuses to complete the kohlinar, the purging of all emotion leaving only pure logic. In the same movie, V'ger serves as Spock's counterpart. The probe is programmed with a simple mission “to know that all is knowable.” Without the human component of imagination, intuition, etc, V'ger cannot complete its mission. Likewise Spock needs the human Kirk with his irrational passion.

Kirk also needs Spock. In Wrath of Khan, much is made about Kirk cheating the Kobayashi Maru test, the “no-win” scenario. The test is an affront to everything that Kirk believes. Like Odysseus or the biblical Jacob, Kirk is not beneath employing trickery and deception to achieve his goals. He cannot accept his limitations, and thus he is susceptible to hubris. At the end of the movie, Spock lays down his life for the crew of the Enterprise. He tells Kirk, “I never took the Kobayashi Maru test until now. What do you think of my solution?” By allowing the needs of the many to outweigh the needs of the few, Spock redeems the lives of the crew with his own. Kirk faces his own finitude through the death of his friend.

STAR TREK REIMAGINED

All this is background for my thoughts on the new Star Trek movie by J.J. Abrams. Weeks after the release of the film, a friend greatly encouraged me to go see the film. So I finally took a look. The casting is superb. There are enough nods to the original series that even the most hardened fans will smile. There are plot holes, but no more than usual. Many have complained that J.J. Abrams took major liberties with the canon of the Star Trek universe. He did, but for some reason, it doesn't bother me.

Nonetheless, I still have concerns. If we accept a Freudian analysis, J.J. Abrams' prefers Kirk's id to Spock's super-ego. Several times, Spock learns that his logic is insufficient. Due to circumstances involving his home world, the young Vulcan grows up quickly. By the end of the movie, Spock rejects logical action in favor of pure revenge. In itself, that's not necessarily a terrible thing, but Kirk, on the other hand, gets rewarded again and again for acting like a space-age James Dean. Kirk never pays for his hubris. That bothered me. Perhaps, I am too sympathetic to Spock. Perhaps, Abrams just doesn't understand the irony at the heart of Star Trek. I assume that there will be more films. I just hope that in future movies Kirk finally gets his comeuppance.

"...'Cause when they met, it was murder!"

2009-07-06T04:45:00.000-07:00

Thirteen years of adventure, high society, and international intrigue. Happy Anniversary.

Happy Independence Day

2009-07-04T08:49:00.000-07:00

Peter Shramm is a professor of political science at Ashland University in Ohio. I heard of Shramm through my wife who is a former student at the university. Shramm was born in Hungary, and his family made the decision to leave after the Hungarian Revolution in 1956. Shramm describes a wonderful exchange with his father about the decision to leave for America.

"But where are we going?" I asked.
"We are going to America," my father said.
"Why America?" I prodded.
"Because, son. We were born Americans, but in the wrong place," he replied.
My father said that as naturally as if I had asked him what was the color of the sky. It was so obvious to him why we should head for America. There was really no other option in his mind. What was obvious to him, unfortunately, took me nearly 20 years to learn. But then, I had to "un-learn" a lot of things along the way. How is it that this simple man who had none of the benefits or luxuries of freedom and so-called "education" understood this truth so deeply and so purely and expressed it so beautifully? It has something to do with the self-evidence, as Jefferson put it, of America’s principles. Of course, he hadn’t studied Jefferson or America’s Declaration of Independence, but he had come to know deep in his heart the meaning of tyranny. And he hungered for its opposite. The embodiment of those self-evident truths and of justice in America was an undeniable fact to souls suffering under oppression.

From the headlines we learn that tyranny and oppression are the norm still in many places. We have much to celebrate this Independence Day. Let's continue to work toward a nation that lives up to her ideals.

This July 4th read the Declaration of Independence.
Check out the National Archives exhibit on the Declaration.

Google Revisited

2009-07-04T04:48:00.000-07:00

Jeff Jarvis, the author of What Would Google Do, maintains a blog over at BuzzMachine. A few posts ago, I mentioned his book and asked what the church could learn from it. Apparently, I am not the only one. Jarvis quotes me and two other pastors about the church in the Google Age.

A big thanks to Jarvis, and a shout-out to my fellow pastors, Ron Smith and Chuck Warnock.

Friday Funnies: Who's On First?

2009-07-03T08:28:00.001-07:00

This year was the first time my son played Little League. Inspired by his excitement, I am becoming quite a baseball fan. This famous Abbot and Costello routine is one of son's favorites.

Shrinking Churches

2009-07-03T08:01:00.000-07:00

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” (Matthew 7:13-14)

These aren't usually the verses that one quotes when one is at a church growth conference. In fact there is a dichotomy between the growth of the early church (“..about three thousand were added to their number that day.” [Acts 2:41]) and the hard teachings of Jesus (“From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.” [John 6:66]).

Pastors often feel pressured to lead their churches into higher and higher numbers. The pressure comes from a variety of sources. Sometimes the pressure comes from parishioners or financial needs. Sometimes it comes from a culture that screams bigger is better.

Attracting a crowd is never enough. Faith and repentance are hard work. Jacques Ellul suggests that the Church will always be small. In his estimation, once the faith becomes a mass movement it devolves into an ideology. Sadly, I do see evidence of this in the wider Christian subculture. We peddle cheap grace while preaching against a few select sins.

Mark Galli, a senior managing editor for Christianity Today, surveys the current megachurch movement and finds similar concerns. He states, “Evangelicals have become the unmatched experts in church growth, but often end up with a truncated gospel.” Galli says that he isn't kidding when suggesting that we need church shrink conferences. As a pastor, I will not be suggesting any time soon that we shrink our congregation. However, church leadership must grapple with the questions he raises.

“Many pastors and lay leaders recognize that they are in a superficially successful church, and that it's time to introduce the harder edges of the gospel. But how? How do we get comfortable people to listen to a gospel that includes a lot of discomfort? How do you deepen discipleship without introducing despair? How do you insist firmly on faithfulness without becoming legalistic?

Most important, how do you manage the loss in membership? That will happen.”

Last night, I saw the movie, Romero, about Archbishop Oscar Romero of El Salvador. I've read only a little about the Archbishop, but I have been impressed by his faithfulness in difficult circumstances. The entire country of El Salvador was his parish, and he resisted the temptation to side with one or another. Instead, he stood firmly with Christ. Without compromise, he was pastor to the military, the ruling elite, and the Marxists.

We gather a crowd and then we disciple. Some will be drawn closer. Others will stay on the periphery. Perhaps, we should imagine that the mission field is our parish, and the parish is our mission field.

Quote of the Day

2009-07-02T21:01:00.000-07:00

From The Long Loneliness by Dorothy Day...

"Do you have ecstasies and visions?"

"Visions of unpaid bills."

Grace, Brain Chemistry, and Bono

2009-07-02T07:50:00.000-07:00

Grace is hard.

I was reminded about the difficulty of grace while reading an article on NewScientist.com about evolutionary psychology.

Human beings are willing to suffer loss if it means punishing someone who has acted unfairly. As the article states...

"Our sense of fairness and our willingness to inflict damage on one another combine to encourage contributions to the common good and deter people from cheating. Researchers call this altruistic punishment."

Moreover, there is a physiological response. The striatum, a region of our brains which respond to "rewarding behavior", "lights up" when we engage in altruistic punishment. Apparently our sense of justice is deep. That is a good thing. As the Scriptures teach in Leviticus 19:15, "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly."

The only problem is that our sense of justice is limited. Someone who casually watches the evening news and condemns a man for a perceived injustice may reach a different conclusion while on a jury in a courtroom. Our understanding of justice is also perverted by sin. We often take pleasure in the fall of the mighty. Schadenfreude apparently stimulates the same part of the brain as altruistic punishment. Moreover, we often have a poor estimation of our own sinfulness. We see ourselves much better than we really are, or more rarely, much worse.

We believe firmly that everyone should be rewarded for good, punished for bad. The lead singer of U2, Bono, has a helpful way of describing this desire for fairness. In the book, Bono in Conversation by Michka Assayas, he describes the cycle of reward and punishment as "Karma."

"At the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, what you put out comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics-in physical laws-every action is met by an equal or an opposite one,"

"Karma", as Bono describes it, is rooted not only in religion and according to the New Scientist article, also nature. Grace works outside of "Karma." Grace suggests that we get better than we deserve.

Bono explains,

"And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that. . . . Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I've done a lot of stupid stuff."

Grace is good news, but we resist the good news because it goes against what we believe to be true. Grace is unearned. We rarely extend it to others, and we cheapen our own response to it.

Friday Funnies: Calvin and Hobbes on the Economy

2009-03-20T09:02:00.001-07:00

Except for Peanuts by Charles Schultz, Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson must be my favorite comic strip. Somewhere, I came across this link which seemed more helpful than all the current coverage on CNBC.

Theodicy, Again

2009-03-20T08:46:00.000-07:00

In the midst of Lent, it is probably helpful to think again about the problem of pain. The question has surfaced again because of circumstances. I have watched people I care about suffer with disease, death and economic uncertainty. As a pastor, I have also received questions which deserve answers. My response here is not new, but you did not come here for originality.

It is clear that some people in life seem to have more than their share of garbage. Personally, I don't understand why this happens. I know the reasons that are given. The one that I carry with me is that the life itself is tragic. God's good creation is corrupted or flawed. Even the story of Adam and Eve speaks more to fact that evil and sin are present in the world rather than a coherent explanation of how or why.

That being said, I can stand strongly on the fact that evil is not part of God's original plan. Evil, suffering and sorrow are not God's intention for the world. God's demand for justice is real, and ultimately evil will fail. Being chosen or favored by God doesn't mean that we are exempt from suffering. We cannot escape the corruption of this world. In fact, those who faithfully follow God might experience more intense suffering since we know that this world is really messed up. Our eyes are open to the actuality of evil. Our hope remains because we know that in the end God will triumph. The glimpses of that victory here and now help sustain us in the meantime.

This is one of the themes of the Old Testament. The people of Israel with whom God made covenant were to be witnesses of what God intended. In spite of suffering (and even through it) the people of Israel remain a light to the nations to demonstrate that the cynics are wrong.

Beyond this point, my understanding is firmly rooted in my Christian faith. For me, I just can't escape it. We believe that Jesus' own suffering brings redemption. Jesus plays the tragic game of the world, and he gets killed for it. His resurrection from the dead is a victory over the game, and he demonstrates the absurdity of the game. God reveals in Jesus Christ that we have been playing by the wrong set of rules. Instead of a tragedy, life is really a comedy. We are defined not by death and destruction. Instead, our identity is rooted in the depth of God's love and grace. As followers of Christ, we share in the joy of deliverance.

However, deliverance from evil is not an escape. Our faith is not an opiate to deaden the pain. Like the chosen of Israel, we continue to witness to God's love. In the midst of suffering, it is our calling to stand with those who are hurting most. We offer love, forgiveness, and hospitality to those affected by evil. By caring for others, we serve in a cosmic resistance movement. We respond directly to the lies of the world.

I realize that this analysis doesn't answer the question why, but it might suggest where do we go from here.

What Would Google Do?

2009-03-16T19:37:00.000-07:00

Jeff Jarvis takes great satisfaction that the title of his new book on Google mocks the “What Would Jesus Do?” merchandising of a decade ago. Although the joke is rather old for someone who desires to be on the cutting edge of the internet age, Jarvis has some fascinating observations of the new paradigm that Google has created. He then applies his observations to a variety of businesses, industries, and organizations. Here Jarvis asks, “What Would Google Do?”, in what is surely the most interesting part of the book. Considering that Jarvis reveals himself be a liberal Presbyterian on his blog, I was a little surprised he gave almost no analysis to applying Google's principles to faith communities. One paragraph apparently was enough.

Thinking out loud, I wondered what a more thorough application would look like. This is dangerous territory. “The Church's one foundation is Jesus Christ, her Lord” and not “Ten Things Google Has Found to be True.” The canon of Scripture is not “open source”, and the gospel is not a commodity. Nonetheless, there may be some value in the thought experiment.

So what would the First Presbyterian Church of Google look like?

DECIDE WHAT BUSINESS YOU'RE IN

I'm not addressing all of Jarvis' observations, and I am not even taking them in order. I start with this one because it seems to be valuable beginning point. As Jarvis says, “It's time for your identity crisis.”

For many congregations, they are already in the midst of an identity crisis. Who is the church? What is our purpose? What is God calling us to be? These are the essential questions. Churches who get this wrong will probably not last long. The answer will vary from congregation to congregation, but Scripture offers some clear guidance.

The Church is the people of God in Jesus Christ. The Church is not a building or a vendor of spiritual goods. Instead, she exists to declare the praises of God. As the Apostle Peter writes:

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God's people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. (1 Peter 2:9-10)

Worship sets us apart, but worship is fulfilled in mission. Acts of compassion and mercy help us live out our role as a royal priesthood. Our love of neighbor demonstrates to the world the love of God.

What is our business? The church exists to worship and serve, but we also need training. Our business then is to make disciples, equipping them for worship and service.

BE A PLATFORM

Google, Facebook, Flickr and others in the new economy do not make money through products. Instead, they create a platform encouraging others to use information to create content and make connections with others. By comparison, Jarvis describes “Home Depot as a platform for contractors.” There are exciting possibilities in thinking of the church as a platform for disciples.

Rather than simply producing content for religious consumers, the church leadership should be encouraging an environment where disciples can practice and explore their faith. We should view classes, committee work, and projects as opportunities for interaction with the saints. Although facts about the faith are vitally important, we should also cultivate practices of the faith such as prayer, Scripture study, and accountability. We begin to realize that everyone has a ministry. The church should be doing everything to help others realize and fulfill that ministry.

FREE IS A BUSINESS MODEL

Google makes its money from advertisers. Its main service, the search engine, is free to everyone. A church is not supposed to make a profit, and we certainly are not interested in advertisers. Still, many churches have a mentality in which they hoard the blessings which they have received. For example, a church building that remains empty most of the week is a waste of resources. Sermons, curriculum, writings and even music (within copyright restrictions) should be made available to the widest audience. If the congregation is doing something right, it should be shared with everyone to further the Kingdom of God. Mission trips and service opportunities should be made available to the general public. With the proper guidance, these actually can become entry points into the life of faith.

LIFE IS BETA

This speaks more to culture rather than policies and procedures, but a Church who expects mistakes fosters a spirit of forgiveness and humility. There is willingness to try new things, to ask tough questions, and to realize that we never achieve perfection. Conflicts within the church can become creative especially if the congregation is allowed to find solutions. The Church leadership has an opportunity to evaluate everything that the church does based upon God's calling. Everyone realizes that all the ministries, because of their imperfections, are not ends in themselves.

YOUR WORST CUSTOMER IS YOUR BEST FRIEND

The Church should be willing to listen and respond to the misfits and the critics. Questions asked in faith deserve a fair hearing. Even when people may disagree with a decision of the leadership, communication should be so open and honest that no one can question the fairness of the decision. I often find that the person on the outside has much to teach me. Rather than giving up on the person on the margins, we sometimes gain him or her as a great ally.

Then sometimes we don't. Unfortunately, you won't convince everyone. Still, there remains a benefit. Defending your principles often leads to focusing, once again, on what is most important.

25 Random Things

2009-02-09T20:38:00.000-08:00

I was challenged to write 25 random thrngs, facts, habits or goals about me. Here is my attempt.

1. I used to be an infrequent coffee drinker, but in the past two months, I crave the stuff.
2. My only regret about managing a McDonalds restaurant is that I never attended Hamburger University.
3. My all-time favorite television show is "The Twilight Zone."
4. I'm a slow but deliberate reader.
5. I never liked reading fiction until I read the "Chronicles of Narnia" at the age of 11.
6. Making up for lost time, I now love reading children's literature.
7. The greatest influences on my writing style have been C.S. Lewis, David Brooks, and E.B. White.
8. In high school, I would buy sociology and anthropology textbooks from book sales and read them.
9. I attended the prom as a junior, but stayed home my senior year.
10. One summer in high school I worked as a radio announcer.
11. I have lost over 100 lbs in less than a year.
12. I have moved seventeen times in my life.
13. Every place that I have lived has its own charm. You just have to be open to it.
14. In life, I am definitely more the tortoise than the hare.
15. Cats like my lap.
16. My favorite record growing up was an off-broadway recording of "You're a Good Man Charlie Brown".
17. I wish I could have attended the 1964 World's Fair.
18. I have always loved to travel.
19. Some day, I'd like to visit Alaska.
20. My favorite topping on pizza is the cheese.
21. Our greatest strengths are also our greatest temptations.
22. I once considered becoming an officer in the Salvation Army.
23. I am thankful for the music of Rich Mullins.
24. I can't multitask very well.
25. As a kid, there was a simple solution for any food that I didn't like--ketchup.

Newsletter: Christmas Decorations

2008-12-01T23:26:00.000-08:00

Now is the time to put out the Christmas decorations. You probably won’t have to drag all of them out of the attic or storage shed. If your family is like many families, you have a few decorations already on display. In fact, those strays have been up all year. You might have an orphan Rudolf on that shelf, Frosty the Snowman on a dresser, or a tree ornament that resembles the star of Bethlehem hanging on a string. In that initial sweep of the house in January, perhaps something was left behind. When you finally discover it, that little Santa figurine has celebrated Valentines Day, St. Patrick’s Day and Easter. Why deprive it of the fireworks on the fourth of July? Perhaps, some of the decorations remain because we choose to leave them. They were given by a dear friend, or they inspire such wonderful memories.

It’s not a bad idea to keep reminders of Christmas around. On that day we celebrate God’s love that was revealed in Jesus Christ. God came to dwell among us and redeem us from sin and death. Nonetheless, life becomes unbearable if we relegate hope to a corner of the calendar. When we encounter hurt or loneliness, we shouldn’t have to wait till Christmas to hear again the words of the prophet: “Comfort, comfort, my people…”

The people of Israel were oppressed, dominated by powers greater than their own. They cherished the reminders of the coming of the Messiah, and we celebrate with the shepherds the joy of his advent.

The Lord has come, yet we eagerly await his second advent. In these days, our experiences of loss and sorrow are overwhelming. We know all too well that the victory that was won is not finished.

This Christmas surround yourselves with reminders of God’s love. Listen again to the words of Scripture. Hear the praises of God’s people. Eat the bread, and drink the cup. Act in compassion and mercy.

Merry Christmas.

Newsletter: Fear God, Honor the Emperor

2008-11-01T23:22:00.000-07:00

“…fear God, honor the emperor” (1 Peter 2:17)

The headlines are screaming. We watch the devaluing of retirement funds. We hear about our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. We read about Russians marching in Georgia, Iran seeking nuclear weapons, and terrorism still threatening.

As of this writing, I don’t know who will be the next president of the United States. The job is a thankless one, and true leaders are rare. While wrestling with the tempest, even good intentions can lead to unintended consequences. The person who will serve in the Oval Office needs wisdom and humility. The next president needs our prayers. Regardless of party, pray for our political leaders. Be charitable.

Nonetheless, in these difficult times, we need to remember that our hope and faith does not lie in political leaders, military might, or stock markets. Uncertainty should not lead us to despair. We have a Savior who has defeated all the powers of this world including death. Some think our faith is merely “whistling in the dark,” but the faith which has sustained the Church is not a naïve opiate which dulls the pain. As the problems of this world swirl around us, we can face the next day because we know that Christ’s victory is assured.

At the end of November we will celebrate Thanksgiving. In darkest days of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln himself declared a “day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens.” With casualties mounting and property destroyed, Lincoln’s declaration seems ironic or even sick. Nonetheless, our hope in God, not our current circumstances, leads us to live lives of gratitude.

Our faith in Christ is a clarion call to action. As Jesus Christ declared, “Store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal” (Matthew 6:20). We carry the good news of God into the world. We live it out in our relationships, teach it to our children, and share it with the hurting. We work for justice and peace precisely because the world is too important to leave to the politicians. Instead of shrugging at the weight of the world, let us joyfully serve--loving both God and our neighbor.

Newsletter: Go and Repair My House

2008-10-01T23:17:00.000-07:00

Francesco Bernadone was the son of a wealthy merchant, and he was comfortable among the rich. In fact, he was a bit spoiled. In the Middle Ages, children of privilege were often trained in courtesy and the manners of the court, and Francesco was no exception. He enjoyed luxury, music, and dance. The young man had an attractive personality and often became the life of the party.

As a follower of the ideals of chivalry, the young man also tried his hands at soldiering. In a minor skirmish, Francesco was captured. For one year, he was held in prison. There, his health deteriorated. After his father finally paid a ransom, he returned home and rebuilt his strength. A second time he went out to seek glory as a war hero, but something stopped him short. In a dream, God told Francesco to return home. God took the ideals of the court that Francesco embraced, and God redirected them to service in the name of Jesus Christ.

One day, Francesco sat in prayer before a crucifix in a small chapel near Assisi. God spoke to him, “Francis, go and repair my house which, as you see, is falling into ruins.” St. Francis of Assisi didn’t carry a diploma from a prestigious seminary. He was a layman. Francis simply tried to embody the way of Jesus Christ. He practiced forgiveness and love. He preached the good news. He suffered. He even prayed with arms outstretched like Christ on the cross. Legend suggests that Francis followed Christ so closely that he received the wounds of our Savior in his own flesh. This man rejected riches, honor, and comfort—anything which distracted him from his calling to repair the Church.

We remember St. Francis for his kindness toward animals and the environment, but that love was rooted in a sense of our being created by God. Hence, he declared “All creatures of our God and King,/Lift up your voice and with us sing, /Alleluia.” Our spiritual obligation cannot be separated from our physical existence. The life of discipleship is practiced in a world of people and things.

God’s church faces multiple challenges in our own day. She faces division and disunity. She often lacks a sense of purpose. She is burdened with error and distraction. She fails to love. The calling of Francis is our calling: “Go and repair my house.” The man from Assisi even shows us the way. Live out your faith in the world. Hold to the truth. Be peacemakers. Love radically. Follow Jesus.

Newsletter: Inheritance

2008-09-01T23:14:00.000-07:00

The various committees of the church are thinking about the future. As we do every year, we are planning ahead. We are writing down goals and objectives, developing calendars, and haggling about who will do what. Sometimes the task is exciting as we anticipate all the possibilities. Sometimes the preparation seems a bit more tedious. Either way, the work we do is necessary. We are merely exercising good stewardship over the inheritance we have received from God.

Our inheritance is large. We have a wonderful building and facilities which are now enhanced by the remodeling of the sanctuary and the new organ. We have some financial resources entrusted to the church by friends past and present. We have the talents of members and staff. We have the hard work of individuals seeking to give their best to God.

Our inheritance is even larger than we realize. We have a good name. Granted, denominations are not as important as they once were, but historically, being Presbyterian meant something. A Presbyterian knew the Scriptures and supported the programs which promoted that knowledge. Whether through Sunday Schools, colleges, or seminaries, Presbyterians have always supported educational opportunities for children and adults. Presbyterians have been compassionate as well. Our parents in the faith built hospitals and orphanages, and they cared for the sick, the poor, and the lonely. Presbyterians have also been on the forefront of reaching the world for Jesus Christ. Thanks to missionaries and indigenous congregations, the Presbyterian church is most vibrant and alive in those areas which were once mission fields.

Even beyond these things, we have a greater inheritance. We have the gospel. God has entrusted the good news of Jesus Christ to us. We have the Scriptures. and the Sacraments. We have the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Many of us remember the story of Esau who sold his inheritance for a bit of lentil stew. That story should remain as a warning to us all. Encourage the elders of our church to be good stewards of our inheritance, but don’t wait for them. Each member of our congregation has a share in this inheritance. We all pray for the church. We offer our talents and gifts to the mission of the church. We are present in the life of the congregation.

What will do with the inheritance? Let’s put our blessings to work.

Batman and Christ

2008-08-05T14:21:00.000-07:00

Again and again, I have noticed how popular culture gives us the messiah we want. The latest Batman movie, the Dark Knight, shows us another glimpse at that messiah. Batman fights the demons that threaten civilized society. In this case, Batman must challenge the Joker who represents nihilism and the dark nature which lies just beneath the surface of civilization.

Batman simply understood is a messiah figure. He is a savior who mercilessly destroys the forces of evil through intelligence, brawn and superior firepower. Where the police, National Guard, and average citizens cannot defeat the bad guys, a figure from above saves the day with an arsenal from Wayne Industries.

Note that this messiah is not a Christ figure. In fact, Batman is the messiah that we have always wanted. Unlike the Jesus who died at the hands of the occupying Roman forces, the messiah that we desire would kick those Roman bastards out of the Holy Land.

What is exciting about this new movie is that the Joker forces Batman to explore the darker side of his nature. What is the difference between Batman and the Joker? Both utilize violence effectively. Both have faces which are hidden. Both stand outside of societal norms. One is a defender, and the other a destroyer. Again and again, the Joker attempts to provoke Batman to reveal that the difference is ever so slight.

Batman sees the danger himself. That’s why he “believes in Harvey Dent.” Batman wants to empower Harvey, the District Attorney, to be the hero who plays by the rules. Likewise, near the end of the movie, there is a moral dilemma of using incredible power to locate the Joker. Batman puts the power in the hands of another to protect himself from temptation. Even Batman realizes that he must be careful less he becomes what he fights. That’s the problem with our worldly messiahs. The defender again and again becomes the destroyer.

Jesus Christ suggests another way. When facing the principalities and powers, he refuses to fight by their rules. In fact, he dies as a criminal on a cross charged with blasphemy and sedition. What he did makes no sense to us. It certainly is not the stuff of a summer blockbuster hit. As Paul writes, “But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:23). Somehow through that very act of sacrifice and suffering, Christ becomes triumphant. As Paul also states,

[Jesus Christ], being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:6-11)

Jesus accepts the burden of our sins to succeed over them. He pays the price because only he can. Jesus triumphs over the principalities and powers precisely because he is not seduced by them. Joker’s temptation is to play the game. Once you play, you have already lost.

Dark Knight and Joker

2008-08-04T13:14:00.000-07:00

I saw the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight. It was incredible. It actually transcended the genre of superhero movie. Clearly, Heath Ledger’s Joker is the star of the movie and is the movie’s most intriguing character. Jack Nicholson’s 1989 portrayal of the Joker was funny and macabre. This new Joker is twisted, dark and nihilistic.

The movie plays on the tension between civilization and barbarism. It basically accepts a psychology in which human beings are inherently sinful. Society establishes structures and procedures which keep our sinful nature in check. Without the veneer of civilization, our lives, in the words of Thomas Hobbes, are “nasty, brutish, and short.” One of the ironies of civilized life is that controlled violence (in the form of police, the military, or a superhero) keeps the barbaric forces at bay.

The Joker sees the inherent contradiction and concludes that civilization is simply a sick joke. We wear a painted face with a smile that hides the dark truth about our nature. He spends the rest of the movie chipping away at the façade. He goads the District Attorney, the police, and Batman to show their true colors. Standing in front of a burning pile of money, the Joker states, “This town deserves a better class of criminals, and I’m going to give it to ‘em.” Even the criminal who is motivated by greed is inferior to the one who realizes that civil society is farce. After all, the money desired by the petty criminal is in fact a product of civilization. As Bruce Wayne’s butler, Alfred, observes, “Some men aren’t looking for anything logical. He can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.”

The Dark Knight explores the same issues that many war movies, police dramas, and even some westerns take up. How can the civilizing forces of violence fight the bad guys without becoming the bad guys themselves?

Friday Funnies: Garfield Minus Garfield

2008-08-01T21:45:00.000-07:00

Check out Garfield Minus Garfield. Someone had the bright idea of removing Garfield from every Garfield comic. The result is a disturbing look at the pitiful soul of Jon Arbuckle.

Okay, I guess it shows my warped sense of humor.

Newsletter: Time Travel

2008-08-01T08:02:00.000-07:00

If you could travel through time, where and when would you go?

This is one of those questions families might ponder on a multi-state car trip after the i-pod batteries die. The question has been the source of some great stories by authors as diverse as H.G. Wells, Mark Twain, and even Charles Dickens. The idea of zipping away in a time machine presents exciting possibilities. For some, time travel might mean going back to interact with figures from the past like Abraham Lincoln or your great-grandmother. Others want a chance to fix past mistakes. A few even want to escape into some utopian future.

In a sense, however, the premise is wrong. All of us are time travelers. We are traveling forward in time one second, one hour, and one day at a time. Time is a precious commodity, and sometimes we try to hoard it. Nevertheless, no matter what we try, we cannot stop its relentless march. Instead of saving time, we must learn to invest it. We invest it in families, friends, and the community of faith. We invest time in the people God calls us to love--the children, the poor, and the infirm. The time we have should be met with courage. As Mordecai told his cousin Esther, "Who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?" (Esther 4:14)

Since you are traveling through time, where and when will you go?

Friday Funnies: Font Conference

2008-07-25T20:20:00.000-07:00

I realize now that it's time to dust off this blog. We certainly are living in interesting times, and I guess that I should make some comments. I realize that I am coming late to the conversation, but I never said that I would be original.

Starting today, I intend to offer some humor on Fridays. I promise you that it won't be mine. I wouldn't subject you to that. This first funnies was suggested to me by my wife. What if all the fonts got together for a conference?

Newsletter: Summer Recreation

2008-06-01T08:14:00.000-07:00

Summer is here. It is true that official beginning, the summer solstice, doesn’t occur until June 21st, and school remains in session for one more week. Nonetheless, one can sense that the season is already in the air. People are planning vacations, trips to the lake, and visits with family. Children are looking forward to time at the swimming pool, summer camps, and a few more video games in air-conditioned comfort. We are thinking about summer foods—a glass of sun tea, lemonade, or an ice cream cone that melts faster that we can lick.

We associate summer with recreation, and many use the hotter months to rest and to play. We work hard, and ironically, we are very serious about our recreation. We invest our money to make our time off more relaxing and more fun. We use our precious minutes searching the internet for the best prices on flights, hotel rooms, and cruises. Something in our souls begs for time-off or just a little break. The word recreation itself literally means “re”-creation. We are rejuvenated, refreshed and renewed by our down-time.

The Scriptures teach us that we keep Sabbath because God rested after creating the world. They also teach us that creation was corrupted, and “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation: the old has gone, the new has come” (2 Cor 5:17 ). We are “re”-created by God, and we find rest finally in him. This summer, as you are frantically looking for times of recreation, don’t forget the opportunity to be re-created. We’ll see you on the Lord’s Day in worship.

(photo via freefoto.com)

Love, Forgiveness, and Wasting Your Time

2008-05-02T11:33:00.001-07:00

As a teenager, I was invited by some of my elementary school teachers to be a clown at a school carnival. I’m not sure why I was asked. Perhaps, my teachers assumed that I would be just the person to wear heavy make-up and bright colorful clothing. No matter the reason, I showed up at the carnival painted for the occasion.

I knew almost nothing of clowning. My skills fell quite short. My balloon animals were primarily snakes, and my magic tricks always failed. Still, I came armed with one piece of knowledge: There are some children who are deathly afraid of clowns. I quickly learned who were the most horrified. Their eyes would grow larger, and their lips quivered. If I did not back away, the wailing and screaming would begin. I was usually far away by then. I am not conflict-averse. I just have no desire to force my rubber nose into a situation where I am not wanted. Amazingly, parents praised my behavior. They thanked me for my gentleness and consideration.

Recently, I thought about this situation while reading some of the blogs on the Harvard Business Review’s website. Marshall Goldsmith writes the “Ask the Coach” blog, and he recently received the question, “Your job is to help people achieve positive, lasting change in behavior. How do you deal with people who have no desire to change?” His answer: “I don’t.”

He states further…

“If they do not care, do not waste your time.

Research on coaching is clear and consistent. Coaching is most successful when applied to people with potential who want to improve -- not when applied to people who have no interest in changing. This is true whether you are acting as a professional coach, a manager, a family member, or a friend.

Your time is very limited. The time you waste coaching people who do not care is time stolen from people who want to change.”

I’m a pastor, and I have thought long and hard about this piece of advice. As pastors, often we are teaching, coaching and serving some stiff-necked people. Is it a waste of time? I remember the story of the prophet Hosea who takes a wife of ill repute. The prophet’s marriage was a living parable of God’s continual love to his people in the midst of infidelity. God was not willing to give up. I remember Peter’s question to Jesus:

“Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” (Matthew 18:21)

I also remember Jesus’ answer:

“I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.” (Matthew 18:22)

I am certainly glad that God never gave up on me.

Still, prophets are killed. Pastors receive hostility. Some shun the gift of Christian fellowship. At those times, you want to simply dust off your sandals and quote Jesus’ other words:

“Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.” (Matthew 7:6)

Nonetheless, we have moved far from the original question. “How do we help people make positive changes when they are unwilling to change?” Surprisingly, I believe that the answer remains, “We don’t.” We do not control what other people say or do. We do not own the outcomes. We should not force our love and teaching on people unwilling to listen. We must simply work hard to remain faithful in our witness.

Teaching, coaching and serving take great discernment. Pastors should examine themselves. We need to search our own motives. There are several things that may motivate a coach, but a pastor should be motivated by love—love for God and love for neighbor. Are we helping others out of a sense of self-righteousness? Are we ourselves living with hypocrisy? Humility and repentance can break down barriers between pastors and parishioners. As the exchange between Jesus and Peter suggests, we are to love and forgive those we are trying to help. That does not mean condone everything that they do, but that does mean that we should continue to walk alongside them. In a climate of hostility, we are not to return evil for evil. Our integrity must be worth more than that. A pastor who is being abused needs to get help. We should continue to love and forgive, but abuse should not be tolerated.

There is a question of stewardship. Do we continue to offer time and talents on those unwilling to respond? I tend to agree with the Harvard Business coach that we should focus our efforts on those who desire to grow. However, the danger for a pastor is that we spend all our time with people that we like or like us. Sometimes God calls us to engage in what we might believe is “wasted time.” I know many examples of curmudgeons whose faith deepened as a result of a pastor unwilling to walk away. A pastor shouldn’t abandon a pastorate for light and transient reasons. Nonetheless, there are times to move on: when a ministry has been completed, when skills no longer match the needs, etc. These decisions should be based upon God’s timing and calling. In fact, a ministry can sometimes be damaged by sticking around. There are many clowns who overstay their welcome.

Newsletter: Reminder

2008-05-01T08:26:00.000-07:00

Several months ago, I became aware of a Presbyterian church. It’s in a small town, and it’s not the largest church in town. But interestingly, they are unwilling to define themselves by size. Instead, they define themselves by the fact they wish to make disciples.

They believe that the Christian life is meant to be lived. So, they prepare people to live it. They are very intentional. They don’t just assume people will understand. From the little ones to the seasoned citizens, they work hard to teach and prepare people to live out their ministry.

Although they believe the faith, they are unwilling to leave the issue there. They are constantly asking questions. To paraphrase Socrates, they believe that the unexamined faith is not worth living. They are not afraid. They have serious conversations about parenting, relationships, work, money and politics. They want to know how their faith impacts these areas. They want their faith in God to be deeper and richer. I find that refreshing.

They aren’t perfect. They do have conflicts. They disagree. On occasion, the vehemently disagree. Still they continue to look at the person across the table as a brother or sister in Christ. Everyone in room is seeking what is best for the church. I find that refreshing as well.

They work hard to love God and to love their neighbor. And they realize that the whole deal is resting on the grace found in Jesus Christ. We don’t deserve it but God still loves us. Even when we want to hate ourselves or hate others, God continues to love us.

That church is not that far away, but you won’t find it on a map. Instead, it is the church that we said that God wanted us to be.

Calling and Commitment of
First Presbyterian ChurcH

Our Calling:
We are equipping the Church for the life of faith.

Our Commitment:
Relying on the grace found in Jesus Christ,
we glorify and enjoy God in all things.

Holding closely to the truth of God’s Word,
we ask with courage difficult questions of our faith and life.

Loved by God,
we show compassion respecting each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Guided by Christ’s commands,
we strive to love God, to love our neighbor, and to make disciples.

Newsletter: April Fool

2008-04-01T08:55:00.000-07:00

The time for jokes and jesting is almost upon us. April Fools’ Day is just around the corner. No one knows for sure the origins of the special day. Some have suggested that changing from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar in the 1500s created some confusion concerning the beginning of the new year. Others believe that some ancient king or emperor decided that political humor was born out of ignorance. As a result, the ruler made some jester king-for-a-day to teach the weight of the office. A few even believe that the fickle weather this time of year “fools” us thinking that winter or spring is here.

No matter the origin, I agree with Mark Twain on the purpose of April Fools’ Day. “This is the day upon which we are reminded of what we are on the other three hundred and sixty-four.” In life, we are constantly given opportunities to look foolish, and we rarely avoid them. Being a fool for an outdated fashion sense is one thing, but being a fool for prejudice or pride is another. In the Scriptures, Paul gives us another reason to be the fool.

Do not deceive yourselves. If you think that you are wise in this age, you should become fools so that you may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their craftiness," and again, "The Lord knows the thoughtsof the wise, that they are futile." (1 Corinthians 3:18-20)

The follower of Jesus Christ who holds to the truth, loves and forgives will look foolish to the rest of the world. Those thinking themselves to be wise act out of arrogance. Ironically, greater wisdom is found among those who know that they are fools. The poignant question remains for me: If I am a fool, for what reason am I foolish? For Christ or for the world?

Newsletter: Waiting for Easter

2008-03-01T09:06:00.000-08:00

In 2008, Easter falls on March 23^rd. The holiday is coming earlier this year causing candy retailers much consternation. The National Confectioners Association expects a 6% drop in Easter sales due to the early date. Apparently folks will still be enjoying Valentines candy instead of marshmallow peeps this year. Thankfully for those Willy Wonkas, early Easters don’t happen too often. The next time Easter will fall on March 23^rd will be in 2160.

The dates for Easter vary from year to year. This variety causes some consternation, but it’s better than in the early days of the Church. Back then different congregations would celebrate Easter at different times. In fact, some congregations even celebrated Easter on a weekday. To promote Christian unity, the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 standardized the date to the first Sunday following the first full moon after the spring equinox. Despite the attempt to have one date, the Eastern Orthodox Church calculates the date for Easter a bit differently. They will have plenty of time to buy candy since they will be celebrating on April 27.

If you are like me, all this talk of calendars and dates is a bit confusing. To celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ doesn’t require waiting for an annual date on the calendar. In fact, Christians celebrate Jesus’ victory over death every week. Very early, Christians replaced the Jewish Sabbath, Saturday, with the Lord’s Day, Sunday. Rather than waiting for a holy day, Christ redeemed all of time. Instead of waiting for the right moment, God will love us now. Chocolate bunnies cannot compare to the sweetness of God’s grace.

Pride, Humilty and Accountability

2008-02-01T15:57:00.000-08:00

In 1976, then candidate Jimmy Carter gave a famous interview with Playboy magazine. In the interview, the soon-to-be president admitted, “I've looked on a lot of women with lust.” Over the subsequent years, many have giggled at Carter’s confession, but I was impressed with his refreshing humility. I had never read the interview, and frankly, I didn’t particularly care. Nonetheless, James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal’s opinion website (here and here) referenced the interview twice this week. The first was a poor attempt at humor. The second was an attempt to criticize Carter’s views on foreign policy.

For the first time, I read the quote in context. Carter’s words are less about lust and more about the sin of pride.

"Because I'm just human and I'm tempted and Christ set some almost impossible standards for us. The Bible says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Christ said, I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery. I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times.... This is something that God recognizes, that I will do and have done, and God forgives me for it. But that doesn't mean that I condemn someone who not only looks on a woman with lust but who leaves his wife and shacks up with somebody out of wedlock. Christ says, don't consider yourself better than someone else because one guy screws a whole bunch of women while the other guy is loyal to his wife. The guy who's loyal to his wife ought not to be condescending or proud because of the relative degree of sinfulness."

Carter is a devout Christian. He clearly loves his wife, his church and his Lord. I am not criticizing the man nor his faith. Instead, his words in 1976 got me thinking about the sin of pride.

Carter mentions Jesus’ words on adultery from Matthew 5:27-30. The man who looks at a woman in lust has already committed adultery in his heart. Jesus has already used a similar analogy on murder. “You have heard it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment…” (Matthew 5:21ff). Jesus declares that the law of Moses does not merely apply to outward action alone, but it also applies to our motivation and intent. Jesus’ words should drive us to humility. Any honest self-examination will lead us to echo the Apostle Paul: “There is no one righteous, not even one” (Romans 3:1).

Carter says more than a healthy appraisal of our sinfulness makes us humble. He gives the example of two men who act upon their lust. The first man leaves his wife and lives with his mistress. The second man has a series of sexual relationships. In both cases, enacted sin has greater repercussions than a sin of the heart—a broken marriage and family, women objectified and then thrown away. Moreover, Carter seeks forgiveness for his sins of the heart. These two men with their willful disobedience do not. Nonetheless, Carter says that he cannot look upon those two men in judgment. According to Carter, the faithful husband cannot rebuke the actions of the unfaithful husband. By this understanding, the community of faith must tolerate all sin in the name of humility.

Although Carter does not quote the Scripture, he probably would apply it here--“Judge not, that you be not judged” (Matthew 7:1). In discussing this passage, John Calvin writes,

“These words of Christ do not contain an absolute prohibition from judging, but are intended to cure a disease, which appears to be natural to us all. We see how all flatter themselves, and every man passes a severe censure on others. This vice is attended by some strange enjoyment: for there is hardly any person who is not tickled with the desire of inquiring into other people’s faults. All acknowledge, indeed, that it is an intolerable evil, that those who overlook their own vices are so inveterate against their brethren…

“This depraved eagerness for biting, censuring, and slandering, is restrained by Christ, when he says, Judge not. It is not necessary that believers should become blind, and perceive nothing, but only that they should refrain from an undue eagerness to judge: for otherwise the proper bounds of rigor will be exceeded by every man who desires to pass sentence on his brethren.”

Holding brothers and sisters accountable is not antithetical to the gospel. Instead, Christ gives us guidance as to how we hold each other accountable. He states,

“For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, Let me take the speck out of your eye, when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:2-5)

This is not a witch-hunt. Instead, we examine our own lives first and come to our brother in humility. Our humility leads us to treat others as we would want to be treated—with sensitivity and respect. We seek reconciliation rather than condemnation. We come not in hate but in love.

Galileo, The Inquisition and Us

2008-01-31T16:44:00.000-08:00

Our good friend, Pope Benedict XVI, is in trouble again. Recently, he canceled a trip to La Sapienza University after protests by faculty and students. The protestors declared that the pontiff was backward and anti-science. The controversy centered on a speech given in 1990 by then Cardinal Ratzinger. In the speech entitled, “The Crisis of Faith in Science”, critics claim that Ratzinger justified the Inquisition’s condemnation of Galileo in 1633. In fact, Ratzinger was quoting the philosopher of science, Paul Feyerabend:

“The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s doctrine. Its verdict against Gaileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism.”

Benedict’s habit of quoting people in scholarly lectures seems to cause all sorts of problems. Last year some Muslims took offense when Benedict quoted a 14^th Century Byzantine emperor who claimed that Islam was violent. Some then went and showed their offense by being violent themselves. This time around the defenders of free inquiry wanted Benedict to be silenced. Irony is a funny thing.

Anyway, I have looked everywhere for Ratzinger’s 1990 speech. Sadly, I can only find excerpts. Still, I don’t think that Ratzinger is contradicting the current position of the Roman Catholic Church. After a thirteen year investigation, Pope John Paul II in 1992 actually declared that Galileo was wrongly accused (a little late). According to the pontiff, those who condemned Galileo did not make a distinction between the Scriptures and their interpretations. Pope John Paul stated, “This led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith, a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation.”

What was Benedict trying to say back in 1990? Although more of the speech would be helpful, I believe that he was speaking to our post-modern skepticism of reason and science. The Enlightenment worked hard to displace the authority of faith and tradition with the authority of reason. During the Enlightenment, Galileo’s condemnation became the quintessential narrative about the evils of superstition against the goodness of science.

According to Benedict, “Today things have changed.” The world is not as confident in reason as we once were. Nuclear annihilation, genetic manipulation, and environmental degradation indicate that there may be a downside to technological advancement. Our faith in science is not what it was. Benedict basically suggests that when the skeptic and agnostic Feyerabend defends the Inquisition, something strange is going on, and we should take note.

Frankly, we should not reject science, but we should be willing to be critical of it. Science is a tool which could be used for good or ill. Our moral decisions sit outside of science and offer direction. Our faith and our traditions can help us here. They can guide us. Benedict is looking for a restoration of both faith and reason. The two must work in concert. For Benedict, this is the crisis of Western Civilization.

Conan Meets Jesus

2008-01-30T10:56:00.000-08:00

In the past year, I have gained a greater appreciation of the pulp writer, Robert E. Howard. It’s clear that this appreciation is based solely on my friendship with a Howard aficionado who has written a biography of the author. In fact, this whole post is based on some correspondence with him. To the uninformed, Robert Howard was an author of fantasy, horror, western and detective literature in the 1920s and 1930s. He is also the creator of Conan the Barbarian.

I must admit that I haven’t read anything by Howard. (That will soon change when Amazon delivers a collection of short stories.) Still, every time that I see his name, I read a bit further. A few months ago, John J. Miller had an interview with Rusty Burk who has edited some Howard anthologies. I certainly have no way of judging whether he portrays Howard or his books accurately. Still, I was intrigued.

Howard also saw that violence was the inevitable result of breakdowns in “civilized” societies. In his view, humans are really just apes who learned how to build things: when our societies begin to break down, we revert to our innate savagery. I’ve just been re-reading Leo Grin’s essay “The Reign of Blood” and I think he’s right that Howard sees man’s primal emotion as hate, and so when confronted with forces we see as hostile we see them as “something not only to be battled but to be hated.” I think anyone who has looked at what happens on the frontiers between societies in conflict would have to agree that Howard’s views were pretty dead-on. Even when the initial contacts are not hostile, man’s tendency to turn hatred on perceived threats frequently serves to escalate into conflict and ultimately violence. At the end of the Turlogh O’Brien story “The Dark Man,” a priest asks “Almighty God, when will the reign of blood cease?” “Turlogh shook his head. ‘Not so long as the race lasts.’” It seems a bleak and pessimistic view, but on the basis of our history to date, it also seems a realistic one.

Now this is where it gets weird. As a pastor, lots of folks tell me that they find concept of “blood atonement” horrific and barbaric--Jesus pouring out his blood on the cross for my sins. Frankly it offends my modern sensibilities as well. However, this insight into human nature, whether Howard’s or not, might provide some guidance.

Human beings at their core are savages. Humanity’s primal emotion is hatred. The kingdom of this world is built on death and the spilling of blood. Ultimately, this kingdom is fleeting. We are just waiting to be overthrown by another set of barbarians. Jesus Christ, representing the kingdom of God, enters the world challenges it, and threatens it. Rather than hatred, Jesus teaches that love of God and love of neighbor is a better foundation. The kingdom of man, threatened, attempts to destroy Christ, to kill him, and to spill his blood. This is only natural since the world has only one playbook. Ironically, God uses the spilling of blood to defeat hate. The innocence of Christ reveals the ultimate failure of hatred. Christ pours out his own blood in love to destroy a world based on blood spilled in hatred. Jesus plays by the world’s rules and wins. By winning he changes the game forever. The resurrection shows the ultimate triumph of God’s Kingdom over this human world.

Clearly this is not well thought-out. I still wonder if Howard’s world-view (if it is accurately depicted) might help us understand the fallen world absent Jesus Christ.

Fully Human

2008-01-29T13:37:00.001-08:00

In seminary, a professor and some students were chatting about the miracles of Jesus. Someone was babbling on about a Buddhist monk who could do incredible feats of human endurance. The professor wondered out loud if some of Jesus’ miracles could be attributed to his human nature, rather than his divine one. Although I had grown up watching “In Search Of” hosted by Leonard Nimoy, skepticism had long ago dismissed ESP and bigfoot. At the time, the conversation held no particular interest for me.

Nonetheless, there was something intriguing in the professor’s response. We Christians affirm that Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Often, in our discussions, the humanity of Christ gets short attention. Jesus is treated like a cosmic Clark Kent whose suffering is feigned or faked. I remember someone once being offended by a question posed to Jesus in the lyrics of a Rich Mullins song, “Did You try not to cry when You scraped your knee?” The claim was that Jesus wouldn’t have fallen and hurt himself in the first place.

Even when we speak about the humanity of Christ, the attention is limited to a discussion of weakness, suffering and temptation. This tendency is understandable. However, if Christ is fully human that means not only does he have our weakness but also he has our strength. Jesus was the best that humanity could offer. And humanity in a move that can only be understood as masochistic or suicidal nailed Jesus to a cross. Alexander Schmemann writes, “But while [the world] can be improved, it can never become the place God intended it to be. Christianity does not condemn the world. The world has condemned itself when on Calvary it condemned the One who was its true self.”

The best as well as the worst of humanity is need of redemption.

Party Politics and Theology

2007-11-13T04:25:00.000-08:00

According to a recent article, Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic Party, recently told a gathering of Jewish leaders, "This country is not a theocracy."

Although some may disagree, I believe that Dean is stating a non-controversial truth. I wouldn't begin to criticize that statement. However, he continued on...

"There are fundamental differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party believes that everybody in this room ought to be comfortable being an American Jew, not just an American; that there are no bars to heaven for anybody; that we are not a one-religion nation; and that no child or member of a football team ought to be able to cringe at the last line of a prayer before going onto the field."

I realize that Howard Dean is not a theologian, but I find the statement curious. In one breath, he proclaims that we are not a theocracy, and then in the next he states that the Democratic Party has a view on who can get into heaven. Religious doctrine and party politics rarely mix well.

Many people believe many different things about God in the United States. We are "not a one-religion nation" in Howard Dean's words. The United States government does not endorse one particular Christian denomination or even one particular religion.

At the American founding, there was a belief that fervent religious faith could be supported and even encouraged when the state took no official position on matters of religious dogma. Government, the argument went, was limited. Religious doctrine was outside of its purview. Over the years, detractors have suggested that no official religion meant an official endorsement of agnosticism or perhaps universalism. Is religious liberty antithetical to a faithful life? I would argue no, but Howard Dean sure likes giving ammunition to the opposition.

I do not begrudge Howard Dean his own personal faith. In fact, I would hope that it influences the political positions he takes. Moreover, I am not even bothered by politicians lecturing me about faith. They have that right. Still, I would argue that the two-party system is not the best place to pick up your theology.

Newsletter: Salt on the Street

2007-10-30T21:09:00.000-07:00

Michael Palin, the Monty Python alum, has been traveling the world lately. Since 1998, he has been making documentaries of his wanderings. The travelogues are very human, highlighting the many characters that Michael meets on his trips. Recently, someone told me about a time when the host was in Japan.

Mr. Watanabe is the proprietor of a restaurant in Tokyo. Every morning, the man places three piles of salt in the street in front of his restaurant. Apparently, the practice dates back over a hundred years. When farmers would bring their cows to town, the cows would stop to lick the salt. The farmer, having extra time on his hands, would notice the restaurant. Thus, sales were increased. One hundred years ago, it was a clever marketing tool.

Today, in hyper-urban Tokyo, it is merely habit or a tradition. Call me crazy, but I think such traditions are a good thing. Traditions help us maintain connections to people and places long gone. They suggest that life is more than our moment in time. Most Americans don’t think much about tradition. We are wired to focus on the “new and improved.” Still, for one time a year, our minds turn to habits and patterns long established. During Christmas and Thanksgiving, we don’t mind sharing our lives with the past.

One tradition prevalent at this time of the year is attending worship. We hear ancient stories and sing old songs. For once, we are proud that our worship services look the same as the ones we attended when we were children. I would never trade the tradition of the holidays, but I wonder if we are missing something. Is it possible that we have fallen in love with the things of God, rather than God himself? In the poetry of Luke’s gospel, in the familiarity of Silent Night, and in the pageantry of the candlelight service, we sometimes forget the real purpose. God entered history, and nothing, not even death, could stop him. Our worship does not venerate the dead who remain safely dead. In fact, we worship a living God who claims our very lives. Discipleship is more than putting salt on the streets.

Newsletter: God's Vision

2007-10-30T21:00:00.000-07:00

“Where there is no vision, the people perish…” (Proverbs 29:18, KJV)

Over the years, I have listened to politicians, business leaders, and church people talk about the “vision-thing.” I hear the gurus speak about concepts like “vision casting” and “vision alignment.” I must admit that the jargon and babble often wears me down. After a while, I find myself adrift in my own thoughts.

That’s a shame since the “vision-folk” are essentially correct. People are people. We want to know who we are. We want to belong. We want to know what we can contribute. We want to know what is possible. Communities that can articulate a shared vision often reach their goals simply because they know what those goals are.

Vision is important, yet something remains. What should that shared vision be? The difference between a demagogue and a statesman often rests on that very question. Sadly, Christian leaders will quote the partial verse above to justify whatever direction they wish to go. I have even caught myself doing this. Nonetheless, having a vision is not enough. We must have the right one.

Proverbs 29:18 is not about programs and possibilities. Instead it is about following God. The entire verse states, “Where there is no vision, the people perish but he that keepeth the law, happy is he” (KJV). The context suggests that those who do not keep the law will pay consequences. In fact, many translations use “prophecy” or “revelation” instead of “vision.” In other words, we are to follow God’s vision, not our own.

The work of ministry is important. We make decisions that we hope will further God’s kingdom. We organize and plan. Still, all our efforts must remain within the context of God’s greater vision for us. We are part of the new covenant in Jesus Christ. We are God’s children. We are to love both God and neighbor. Through the grace found in Christ we can be transformed. It is a glorious vision. Everything else is a poor substitute.

Nominees For Next Year

2007-10-14T18:37:00.000-07:00

Despite all the complaining, Al Gore is having a pretty good decade. He won the popular vote in the presidential election of 2000. More recently, he has won an Oscar, an Emmy, and now the Nobel Prize.

I do not wish to rain on Mr. Gore's parade, but I was moved by an editorial today on the OpinionJourna l website. It makes suggestions for next year's Nobel Peace Prize.

Please read the article. These are truly profiles in courage.

With Liberty and Justice For All

2007-09-28T13:57:00.000-07:00

I know someone who became an American citizen today. She took the oath in Oklahoma City amid a room full of folks from over 30 different countries. It was emotional, and she is ecstatic.

I also read today that the Irish rocker, Bono, received the Liberty Medal for his humanitarian work in Africa. His comments seemed poignant in light of this new friend's citizenship.

Calling America "my country," Bono said he's a fan of the United States despite its problems because of the country's contributions to the world.

"Your America is where Neil Armstrong takes a walk on the moon," Bono said. "Your America gave Europe the Marshall Plan. Your America gave the world the Peace Corps."

"America is not just a country, it's an idea, isn't it? It's a great and powerful idea," he said. "The idea that all men are created equal, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Bono exhorted Americans to pledge to continue to help the world.

"America has so many great answers to offer," he said. "We can't fix all the world's problems, but the ones we can we must.

America is not a nation based on blood or soil. We are a nation based on an idea that justice is possible only when men and women are free.

Congratulations and God bless, Maha.

Stumbling Past and Present

2007-09-24T14:05:00.000-07:00

I’ve read a report on the Southern Baptist Convention. Apparently, baptisms are down. The downward trend seems to echo the dismal performance of mainline churches in new professions of faith. Sadly, some mainliners will welcome the news in what would be the very definition of shadenfreude. Instead, Christians of all flavors should not take satisfaction in the difficulties of our Southern Baptist brothers and sisters.

For about a generation now, the numerical success of Southern Baptist churches has been held up as a model to ailing mainline denominations. Many have imitated those Southern Baptist churches to varying degrees of success. Why are they now faltering? There are several possibilities--none are very satisfying. The Southern Baptist church is the new mainline. Like the mainline Presbyterians, Methodists and Lutherans before them, perhaps their success is causing them to stumble. As an organization grows bureaucracy develop. At the same time populations are shifting. An established organization will find it more difficult to change to meet new realities. Also, in very crude terms, the market becomes saturated. If every community already has a Baptist Church, then there is very little need to start new congregations. Finally, as a Christian group becomes more mainstream, there is always the temptation to accommodate to the greater culture. Meanwhile, the culture is becoming less and less welcoming to a Christian worldview.

I find it interesting that among Southern Baptists the only age level in which baptisms are increasing is pre-schoolers. One member of the North American Mission board stated, “…it’s hard to see the march toward infant baptisms as good news.” Laying aside my theological position as a Presbyterian that infant baptism is scripturally sound, the development suggests something about the Southern Baptists. The denomination is moving from perpetuating itself by conversion to perpetuating itself by procreation. Preschoolers don’t usually profess faith in Jesus Christ unless they are growing up in Christian homes. We mainliners have been dependent on procreation for a couple of generations. It hasn’t worked well.

I will not attempt to give advice to the Baptists. My own denomination keeps me busy enough. Nonetheless, there seems to be a simple solution to faltering denominations or congregations: a clear sense of our identity in Jesus Christ, an active witness in the community, and discipleship.

The solution is simple, but living it out is hard.

Hypocrisy

2007-08-31T15:05:00.000-07:00

Senator Larry Craig from Idaho was arrested in June 2007 in a men’s restroom at the Minneapolis Airport. He plead guilty to disorderly conduct. Apparently, it was a place frequented by men seeking gay sex. Of course, the press is having a field day, and Craig isn’t helping matters by denying that a guilty plea suggests his guilt.

Interestingly, the big word of the day is “hypocrisy.” Several commentators are expressing their moral outrage that Craig is a conservative Republican who speaks strongly in favor of “family values.” That he would say one thing and do another has caused the pundits to be shocked and dismayed.

I am bothered by the tidal wave of “hypocrite” charges. Is Craig a hypocrite? The evidence suggests yes. Nonetheless, there are bigger problems here than hypocrisy. As one pundit noted, “Adultery, for starters, is worse then hypocrisy.”

Oscar Wilde, no paragon of a prim and proper puritan, once quipped, “that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.” Back in those days, vice and virtue were considered objective. The hypocrite, despite his moral failing, at least knew the right thing to do. These days, our current culture teaches that morality is based entirely on personal preferences. The highest good is “to be true to self.” Where virtue is defined by the individual, hypocrisy becomes the only vice.

Paul’s confession of sin rings a little different in the modern ear:

“We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.” (Romans 7:14-15)

Paul is a self-acknowledged hypocrite. He doesn’t particularly need redemption. He needs merely to change his convictions to fit his morality. In our world, the libertine will never be a hypocrite.

“Hypocrisy”, at least in its current manifestation, has become a useless word.

Newsletter: Spiritual Self-Contradiction

2007-08-29T18:46:00.000-07:00

“I am told God loves me--and yet the reality of darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.”

These are the words of Mother Teresa in a prayer to Jesus as reported recently by Time magazine. The excerpt comes from a larger collection of letters and papers entitled, Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light. The press coverage of the new book has suggested a scandal.

The talking heads on the cable news shows cluck that Mother Teresa was a hypocrite. Here is a woman who dedicated her life to God. Nonetheless, she often wandered in a spiritual desert. She had days, rather years, in which God seemed silent. The author of the Time article suggests that Teresa’s life presents “a startling portrait in self-contradiction.”

I only know Mother Teresa through her public persona. She was born in Macedonia and began her ministry in India at the age of 19. There she ministered to the poor and dying of Calcutta in the name of Christ. I cannot speak to her inner spiritual life. I am in no position to judge. However, is it possible to follow God and not feel God’s presence?

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?” (Psalm 22:1)

The psalmist believes that the answer is yes. In fact, Jesus himself speaks the psalmist’s words from the cross. Faithfulness does not mean happiness all the time. Discipleship can be accompanied by sorrow, silence, and suffering.

Human beings are emotional creatures. Our emotions can bring a passion and intensity to all of life. We should not neglect our feelings. Nonetheless, the love of God does not change when we cannot perceive it. We are saved by God’s grace in Jesus Christ, not our feelings. We must rely on the promises of the Scriptures and the collective faith of the church to sustain us when our own individual faith seems insufficient.

If you have never experienced the “self-contradiction” of spiritual dryness count yourself blessed. If you are like the rest of us, do not despair. Bring your fear, anger and doubt to God. Raise your concerns, and ask your questions. Wrestle with God, and even ask for a blessing. In the end, know that we belong to our faithful Savior, Jesus Christ, even if we cannot feel it.

Newsletter: Beyond the Answers

2007-08-03T20:37:00.000-07:00

The answer is 42. You know, the answer to life, the universe, and everything. It’s 42. At least that is the claim of Douglas Adams in his science fiction farce, The Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy. The problem, according to the book, is not the answer. Instead, we don’t know the right question. Here, Adams pokes a little irreverent fun at the elusive nature of existential questions. Who are we? Why are we here? Knowing the answer and understanding its meaning are two separate things.

We stand with Christians throughout history proclaiming that Jesus is Lord. God has a claim on our life, and as a result, we live differently. The question remains, how shall we then live? Faithful living means asking that question. More importantly, it means having the courage to live with the answers. Guided by the Holy Spirit, we worship God, study the Bible, and pray. In humility, we then step out in faith.

In the past two years, our congregation has been in a season of discernment. After much worship, study and prayer, we acknowledge that God is calling us to equip the Church for the life of faith. Paul writes in the letter to the Ephesians…

It was [Christ] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11-13)

We want for our congregation what God wants for us--that we become mature in the faith. We would like our church to be a vibrant, dynamic community, alive in Christ.

Knowing our calling and living it out are two separate things. On August 24-26, the First Presbyterian Church will be hosting a conference on “Equipping the Church: Responding to our Call.” I encourage you join us for a weekend of teaching, fellowship, music and reflection.

The Love of God Displayed

2007-07-16T15:18:00.001-07:00

While in Houston last week, our family stopped for gas. Some graffiti evangelist had scrawled onto the gas pump, "HE IS very REAL! JESUS Heals the Broken Hearted."

I can think of no better witness to the love of God in Jesus Christ than to deface someone else's property.

Newsletter: Praise the Lord With Music

2007-07-05T21:18:00.000-07:00

Praise ye the LORD.
Praise God in his sanctuary:
praise him in the firmament of his power.
Praise him for his mighty acts:
praise him according to his excellent greatness.
Praise him with the sound of the trumpet:
praise him with the psaltery and harp.
Praise him with the timbrel and dance:
praise him with stringed instruments and organs.
Praise him upon the loud cymbals:
praise him upon the high sounding cymbals.
Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD.
Praise ye the LORD.
Psalm 150 (KJV)

During our recent vacation to Washington D.C., our family attended a worship service at National Cathedral. Although we arrived a little late and sat in the back of the sanctuary, we could not avoid the music of the pipe organ. We really didn’t listen to the organ. Thanks to the acoustics, we were surrounded, enveloped by the music. Our praises to God flowed with the sound of the pipes. It was a magnificent experience.

The organ has been playing church music for a long time. Around the late fourth century, St. Jerome describes an organ in Jerusalem that could be heard more than a mile away at the Mount of Olives. Still, not everyone in the Church has been a fan. As the Puritans stripped away ornamentation from worship, they dubbed the instrument, “the devil’s bagpipe.” Despite the criticism, the organ remained the preferred instrument for church music until the late twentieth century.

First Presbyterian Church has had its organ since our building was built in the late 1960s. For the time, it was one of the best electronic organs around. Over the years, we have been blessed with some wonderful organists whose music encouraged our own praise to God. Unfortunately, the electronic components of the organ have deteriorated over those same years. Soon, we will be forced to decide whether organ music will remain part of our music ministry.

Currently, the movement in church music is away from the organ. Many churches have replaced their pipes with keyboards and guitars. Over the next several years, more and more good church music will be available for these instruments. Our own congregation must learn how to better utilize guitar, keyboard and other instruments in worship. God deserves praise using the broadest musical palette.

Although organ music pushes against the trend, should it retain a prominent place in our worship? Certainly, the organ's voice is very different from other instruments. Without it, we do limit our options. Moreover, the historical repertoire of the organ has incredible depth and range. When we use these great pieces of music in worship, we touch the living faith of generations past. We acknowledge that the church is more than about us. The timeless and eternal often trump the “new and improved.”

The challenge we really face is not about the organ. It is about our music ministry. How do we develop the musical talents of our community to the glory of God? How do we encourage an appreciation of the musical heritage of the whole Church? How best do we minister with music in the name of Jesus Christ?

Darfur and Climate Change

2007-06-18T18:44:00.001-07:00

According to the headlines, the current United Nations General Secretary, Ban Ki-Moon, has suggested that the killing in Darfur was caused by global warming. Apparently, sub-Saharan Africa has been drying for the past two decades, and Ban attributes the drying to “man-made global warming.”

Is there something to global warming? Probably. Pouring tons of carbon into the atmosphere very likely has caused some unintended consequences. Nonetheless, even the celebrated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made predictions and pronouncements more modest than Al Gore’s hyperbolic hysteria.

Even if drought conditions in sub-Saharan African could be directly attributed to carbon emissions (which is impossibly complex), the problem in Darfur is not drought. It is genocide. The Sudanese government and allies who are racially Arab have been systematically slaughtering black Africans. Unlike the conflict in other parts of the Sudan, both sides are Muslim. The killing in Darfur is based almost solely on ethnicity. Over 300,000 are dead, and the number is climbing. The United States Holocaust Museum has a helpful summary.

The problem in Darfur is sin. Evil had darkened the human heart. Rape, murder, genocide are not caused by climate change. Although droughts can make life horribly difficult, they do not force people to exterminate their neighbors.

Why then would an intelligent man like the U.N. General Secretary blame global warming? I honestly don’t know. Perhaps, it is easier. Perhaps, it is easier to sign treaties to cut carbon emissions than to change hearts and minds. We all want to do something, but who wants to do the hard work of changing hatred to love?

Beautiful Television

2007-06-14T16:18:00.001-07:00

I watched Special Report with Brit Hume on Fox News this evening. At the end of each program, Brit usually offers a short comedy bit via David Letterman or Jimmy Kimmel. Tonight was a little different. Brit offered video via YouTube from Got Talent, the British program that inspired American Idol.

In the clip, Paul Potts, a mobile phone salesman from South Wales, sings opera. On first glace, Potts does not strike an inspiring pose. He looks just like everyone else. Then, he sings. He brings you to tears. Shows like American Idol usually bring people down to bring ratings up. What a beautiful moment on television.

It reminded me of that scene in Shawshank Redemption where Tim Robbin’s character, Andy, plays an record of opera over the loudspeaker of the prison. Morgan Freeman’s character, Red, another prisoner, comments…

"I have no idea to this day what those two Italian ladies were singing about. Truth is, I don't want to know. Some things are best left unsaid. I'd like to think they were singing about something so beautiful, it can't be expressed in words, and makes your heart ache because of it. I tell you, those voices soared higher and farther than anybody in a gray place dares to dream. It was like some beautiful bird flapped into our drab little cage and made those walls dissolve away, and for the briefest of moments, every last man in Shawshank felt free."

For just a brief moment, the ironic, sarcastic, and crass world in which we live dissolved away.

UPDATE: Paul Potts sings "Con te partirò" in the Semi-Final.

FINAL UPDATE: Paul Potts wins!

Socially Redeeming

2007-06-10T19:22:00.001-07:00

I had the opportunity last week to hear an interesting exchange between Dennis Prager and Christopher Hitchens. Dennis Prager is a conservative radio commentator who has taught and written on Judaism, Russia and law. Christopher Hitchens is an author, journalist and literary critic. He is also an avowed atheist having recently published, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

During this exchange, Prager is trying to get Hitchens to avoid a blanket condemnation of everything religious.

PRAGER: If you were in an American city that you were not familiar with, alone, late at night, and you couldn’t find your car in a bad neighborhood. You saw ten men walking toward you would or would you not be relieved to know that they just attended a Bible class?

HITCHENS: Not relieved. Not alarmed either necessarily, but not relieved. It’s irrelevant to me in other words. If they had just come from studying Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man, then I would feel positively cheered up. Or if they were members of the local Thomas Jefferson Society.

I have heard Prager’s question before, and until now, I thought that it was clever. Hitchens impresses me here. He handles the question deftly. Although I, unlike Hitchens, would be relieved to find out the men had attended a Bible study, I also would be relieved if they were members of the Thomas Jefferson Society. Frankly, I would even be relieved to find out that they had just attended a concert of Bach concertos, or a class on oil painting, or a lecture on thermodynamics.

Prager’s point is a modest one. Let’s allow for the tolerance of religion because it has socially redeeming value. He succeeds in making his point. However, this defense of religion on the basis of social value is ultimately a weak one. Hitchens and I can provide a multitude of other socially redeeming activities. Moreover, we can find religious activity that is not socially redeeming. What if the Bible study in question was sponsored by the Aryan Nation?

I have listened to many of the church gurus who preach that the church must meet the needs of people. We want well-adjusted, self-actualized folks who stay in school and don’t do drugs. That’s okay. The church should strive to be socially redeeming. However, we exist for deeper reasons. We confess that Jesus Christ is “the way, the truth, and the life.” If we forget that, we may have a hard time justifying our existence.

A Few Thoughts At Arlington National Cemetery

2007-06-08T18:59:00.001-07:00

This last week, our family was on vacation in Washington D.C. On our last day, we visited Arlington National Cemetery. I’ve been to the nation’s capitol twice. Surprisingly, this was my first extended visit of the cemetery. The place was beautiful, somber and serious. My family watched the changing of the guard at the Tomb of the Unknown. The ceremony was rehearsed. Every motion was planned. There was nothing spontaneous here. Nonetheless, every moment suggested respect and honor. Echoing Abraham Lincoln‘s words about another military cemetery, the dead laid here have consecrated this ground, “far above our poor power to add or detract.”

In the recent issue of First Things, Joseph Bottum has a fascinating article entitled, “Death & Politics.” It deserves reading and rereading. The topics range widely and subtly. Bottum is trying to grasp at something deep and mysterious. He concludes…

These are dangerous waters to stir to life, but without them we lack thickness, seriousness, and purpose in our political endeavors. We create true communities only when we have shared dead. Everything else is artificial, and adventitious, and temporary, and incomplete. This is a frightening truth, for the dead we share may be those we kill instead of those for whom we grieve. But dangerous or not, it remains the human condition.

Death may hold clues to our search for meaning. Unfortunately, we don’t see it. Our modern world tries to avoid death by cheating it or hiding it away. We idolize youth and youth culture, and we are unsure how to deal with the elderly. There is even now a movement in Europe called “anonymous death” where the dead are buried in unmarked graves without ceremony. In a world where madmen try to create meaning by spilling blood, we ignore the metaphysical role of death at our peril.

It’s interesting. I accept the notion of “substitutionary atonement.” Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins, taking my punishment. Our congregation will even sing, “There is a Fountain Filled with Blood.” Still, I can understand those who are uncomfortable with the imagery. The whole thing sounds a bit gory. Nonetheless, if death and fear of death lie at the root of the human condition, the spilled blood of Christ makes even more sense. Jesus Christ experiences what is quintessentially human (at least in its fallen state), death. His sacrifice consecrates his life. By dying on the cross and rising again, Jesus destroys death’s grip on who we are.

Newsletter: Calling and Commitment

2007-06-05T21:47:00.000-07:00

CALLING AND COMMITMENT
OF
FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

Our Calling:
We are equipping the Church for the life of faith.

Our Commitment:
Relying on the grace found in Jesus Christ,
we glorify and enjoy God in all things.

Holding closely to the truth of God’s Word,
we ask with courage difficult questions of our faith and life.

Loved by God,
we show compassion respecting each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Guided by Christ’s commands,
we strive to love God, to love our neighbor, and to make disciples.

Approved by the session, March 2007.