Catalyst #7: Homosexuality. They are convinced that sexuality is complicated, are committed to having relationships with all types of people, and live in a tension with the Bible about what to do about this issue.
Huzzah!
Hooray for a more thoughtful, nuanced, and well-informed engagement with this issue...and for genuine relationships that help us to push past caricatures to engaging with real people.
The Danger
A couple of years ago I had an epic conversation with a number of people over this issue. If you missed it, click here. Scroll down to the post starting on Oct. 5, 2006 and read through the comments and then some of the posts afterwards.
My bro also had a really good post (and a long string of dialogue) over on his blog a couple weeks ago.
The Verdict
I think that the homosexuality issue and the "do all religions lead to God" issue will be the two most fracturing questions in all of Christendom over the next fifty years.
The acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriage will move more and more front-and-center in our culture--it is already starting to eclipse the abortion issue as the boundary-line of conservative v. liberal politics. If we're going to hold to historically orthodox thinking on the purpose of sexuality, gender, image-bearing and marriage, we better have clear and solid thinking. And then we need clear and solid pastoral answers to the inevitable questions that will come.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Catalyst #6: Scripture and a Loving God
Catalyst #6: For some the Bible has portrayals of God that does not square with their understanding of God as loving. So often they will mythologize or allegorize some portrayals of God (often in the OT) and say that later pictures are the real thing--i.e. Jesus as the perfect picture of the God who is altogether gracious and loving.
Huzzah!
Hmmm...well, I agree with the "Jesus as the perfect picture of God" part...
The Danger
The danger here is that we are always tempted to make God into our own image. My systematic theology professor called it "going around the circle the wrong way."
Here's how this works: we start our engagement with God with us. We come with our own ideas of what a loving/just/perfect/righteous God "should" look like. We then encounter the God of the Bible and are shocked that somehow God doesn't look like *we* think he should. Who knew that my opinion would not be the perfect arbiter of what a perfect God is?
So we have a decision to make. We can reject this God. We can try to figure out a way around the description of this God. Or we can have our very definitions of what a loving, just, perfect, righteous God looks like re-defined by this God.
My professor exhorted us to think around the circle the other way. We do what we can to come to the God of the Scriptures ready to have that picture and that God inform our understanding of what a just/loving/perfect/merciful God is, rather than with our own agenda of what that God should look like.
This is Christianity, not Unitarianism. You don't get to get a ball of Play-Dough and decide what shape God is. God is mercy and love and justice, and his character and actions are what define what those words mean. There is no such thing as mercy and justice and love as disembodied, ethereal ideas. Love and justice and mercy are found alive and active and perfectly at work in God--yes, fully in Christ but it's the same God at work throughout the Scriptures.
Are we, then, the perfect evaluators of what true love, what true mercy, what true justice, what true judgment and righteousness and redemption are all about? Aren't all our definitions shaped by our own experiences, the cultures we live in, the whims of the times we happen to inhabit and how our digestive tract happens to be responding to the food we just ate a couple of hours ago?
The Verdict
Depending on the severity and the direction of this line of thinking, it's simply a re-mixed version of an old heresy: the Old Testament God is different from the New Testament God.
Post-modernity as a cultural movement is simply an over-reaction of the heart to the previous over-reaction of the head of modernity. In short, post-modernity tends to encourage us to think with our hearts. That's not always bad. But this is a good example of where it can go wrong.
Again, I'm not trying to say that there aren't hard things in the Scriptures that sometimes don't make sense. I'm not trying to flatten out a complex issue--there is some funky stuff in the OT especially that I sometimes just sit before and I say to God, "why?"
But I think that to iron out those tensions by simply writing them off conveniently as allegory or not "really" telling us what God is like at all is to miss the point. It gets us off the hook too easily. I think we're supposed to live in that tension, not erase it by pulling a Thomas Jefferson and whiting-out the passages we don't like.
Huzzah!
Hmmm...well, I agree with the "Jesus as the perfect picture of God" part...
The Danger
The danger here is that we are always tempted to make God into our own image. My systematic theology professor called it "going around the circle the wrong way."
Here's how this works: we start our engagement with God with us. We come with our own ideas of what a loving/just/perfect/righteous God "should" look like. We then encounter the God of the Bible and are shocked that somehow God doesn't look like *we* think he should. Who knew that my opinion would not be the perfect arbiter of what a perfect God is?
So we have a decision to make. We can reject this God. We can try to figure out a way around the description of this God. Or we can have our very definitions of what a loving, just, perfect, righteous God looks like re-defined by this God.
My professor exhorted us to think around the circle the other way. We do what we can to come to the God of the Scriptures ready to have that picture and that God inform our understanding of what a just/loving/perfect/merciful God is, rather than with our own agenda of what that God should look like.
This is Christianity, not Unitarianism. You don't get to get a ball of Play-Dough and decide what shape God is. God is mercy and love and justice, and his character and actions are what define what those words mean. There is no such thing as mercy and justice and love as disembodied, ethereal ideas. Love and justice and mercy are found alive and active and perfectly at work in God--yes, fully in Christ but it's the same God at work throughout the Scriptures.
Are we, then, the perfect evaluators of what true love, what true mercy, what true justice, what true judgment and righteousness and redemption are all about? Aren't all our definitions shaped by our own experiences, the cultures we live in, the whims of the times we happen to inhabit and how our digestive tract happens to be responding to the food we just ate a couple of hours ago?
The Verdict
Depending on the severity and the direction of this line of thinking, it's simply a re-mixed version of an old heresy: the Old Testament God is different from the New Testament God.
Post-modernity as a cultural movement is simply an over-reaction of the heart to the previous over-reaction of the head of modernity. In short, post-modernity tends to encourage us to think with our hearts. That's not always bad. But this is a good example of where it can go wrong.
Again, I'm not trying to say that there aren't hard things in the Scriptures that sometimes don't make sense. I'm not trying to flatten out a complex issue--there is some funky stuff in the OT especially that I sometimes just sit before and I say to God, "why?"
But I think that to iron out those tensions by simply writing them off conveniently as allegory or not "really" telling us what God is like at all is to miss the point. It gets us off the hook too easily. I think we're supposed to live in that tension, not erase it by pulling a Thomas Jefferson and whiting-out the passages we don't like.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Catalyst #5: Pluralism
Catalyst #5: The public schools message of multi-culturalism and pluralism conflicted with their church's teachings that those outside of Christ were doomed. "Possessing both a faith that is particular and an intimate knowledge of religious pluralism prodcued a tension that was nearly intolerable." This leads them to a religious pluralism or a much broader interpretation of what it means to be "a Christian."
Huzzah!
The need for Christians to engage with a genuinely pluralistic world with compassion and dialogue and winsomeness is well past.
The Dangers
Oi. This could take a couple of posts. Let me see if I can pitch my case against capitulating to a "all religions (or maybe just most religions) lead to God," even if that feels better.
#1. Most 21st century westerners smugly assume that we're living in the first pluralistic culture, or at least that the first century AD was a fairly and charmingly sweet and simple time. This is patently false. A quick glance through the book of Acts shows a veritable plethora of engagement with all kinds of religious practices: centuries-old religions alongside magic and sorcery alongside sophisticated philosophies.
In every case, in every cross-cultural and cross-religious engagement, the new Christians were adamant: what had happened in the death and resurrection of Christ was a new and final and decisive God-event that had ramifications for all peoples, everywhere.
The early disciples absolutely did not celebrate the religious diversity that they encountered. They were sickened and saddened by it. And they countered it at every turn with the news of the God who had come to live and die and conquer the grave for them.
It was this essential, urgent message that compelled the early Christians through the first centuries to death at the hands of lions and paranoid emperors and dungeons and swords and famines.
#2. If all roads lead to God, then the Christian story makes no sense. If Jesus comes and hijacks a perfectly fine Jewish religious system that leads people to God anyway, why bother? Why not just leave the Jewish people alone if Judaism will lead them to God anyway?
If any and every (or at least most) religions lead to God without all the blood and sweat of Gethsemane and the horror of the cross, what's the point? Is all that just a charade, a giant show, a sham? It would seem that it's not only a nice thing that God comes and dies for our sins. It would seem that if there's any other way, that cup might have passed...in fact, the entire incarnation might have passed.
Here's where the weak understanding of the cross that we discussed in an earlier post really hurts the Emergent movement.
#3. In fact, Jesus is perpetually correcting both Jews and Gentiles. He tells the woman at the well in John 4 that the Samaritans don't know who or what they worship. They're wrong. And a time is coming when they will finally get a chance to get it right. And it's come because of him. That's the point.
#4. Who decides which religions lead to God? The KKK thought of themselves as a religion, do they get to God? What about people flying planes into towers? Clearly most of us think that some religions or at least some religious people don't get there.
So given that almost everyone believes that not everyone seems to know a God who is good and loving, even if they're religious in some sense, we're back to what Christians throughout the centuries have argued throughout the centuries. Not every religion leads to God. In the final analysis, most of us are just discussing which religions lead to God. Christians just argue that what God did in Christ is unique.
Throughout the centuries most of the major religions have held that there are significant, eternal consequences to the decisions we make regarding God. Of course, this has led us to do many stupid things on all sides. We do not have to kill each other to believe deeply that there are eternal consequences to our decisions.
The Verdict
This is more or less all bad. And if this continues to be a central plank of the Emergent church, it'll probably go the way of the mainline churches, which are dying by the boatloads as baby-boomers start to die. Nothing is at stake, so there's no fresh re-engagement with culture as it shifts.
This issue is a huge stumbling block for many, many people. I'm not saying it's easy. I'm just saying that it takes a good bit of mental and theological gymnastics to adhere to historically orthodox Christianity and say that it doesn't really matter what you believe.
For a fantastic, thoughtful, not-angry but very thorough discussion of this stuff, check out The Gospel in a Pluralist Society by Lesslie Newbiggin. When I'm swimming in the fog of this question and asking the hard, heart questions of how this can possibly be good news, I re-read some Newbiggin and he helps me to re-find my bearings
Huzzah!
The need for Christians to engage with a genuinely pluralistic world with compassion and dialogue and winsomeness is well past.
The Dangers
Oi. This could take a couple of posts. Let me see if I can pitch my case against capitulating to a "all religions (or maybe just most religions) lead to God," even if that feels better.
#1. Most 21st century westerners smugly assume that we're living in the first pluralistic culture, or at least that the first century AD was a fairly and charmingly sweet and simple time. This is patently false. A quick glance through the book of Acts shows a veritable plethora of engagement with all kinds of religious practices: centuries-old religions alongside magic and sorcery alongside sophisticated philosophies.
In every case, in every cross-cultural and cross-religious engagement, the new Christians were adamant: what had happened in the death and resurrection of Christ was a new and final and decisive God-event that had ramifications for all peoples, everywhere.
The early disciples absolutely did not celebrate the religious diversity that they encountered. They were sickened and saddened by it. And they countered it at every turn with the news of the God who had come to live and die and conquer the grave for them.
It was this essential, urgent message that compelled the early Christians through the first centuries to death at the hands of lions and paranoid emperors and dungeons and swords and famines.
#2. If all roads lead to God, then the Christian story makes no sense. If Jesus comes and hijacks a perfectly fine Jewish religious system that leads people to God anyway, why bother? Why not just leave the Jewish people alone if Judaism will lead them to God anyway?
If any and every (or at least most) religions lead to God without all the blood and sweat of Gethsemane and the horror of the cross, what's the point? Is all that just a charade, a giant show, a sham? It would seem that it's not only a nice thing that God comes and dies for our sins. It would seem that if there's any other way, that cup might have passed...in fact, the entire incarnation might have passed.
Here's where the weak understanding of the cross that we discussed in an earlier post really hurts the Emergent movement.
#3. In fact, Jesus is perpetually correcting both Jews and Gentiles. He tells the woman at the well in John 4 that the Samaritans don't know who or what they worship. They're wrong. And a time is coming when they will finally get a chance to get it right. And it's come because of him. That's the point.
#4. Who decides which religions lead to God? The KKK thought of themselves as a religion, do they get to God? What about people flying planes into towers? Clearly most of us think that some religions or at least some religious people don't get there.
So given that almost everyone believes that not everyone seems to know a God who is good and loving, even if they're religious in some sense, we're back to what Christians throughout the centuries have argued throughout the centuries. Not every religion leads to God. In the final analysis, most of us are just discussing which religions lead to God. Christians just argue that what God did in Christ is unique.
Throughout the centuries most of the major religions have held that there are significant, eternal consequences to the decisions we make regarding God. Of course, this has led us to do many stupid things on all sides. We do not have to kill each other to believe deeply that there are eternal consequences to our decisions.
The Verdict
This is more or less all bad. And if this continues to be a central plank of the Emergent church, it'll probably go the way of the mainline churches, which are dying by the boatloads as baby-boomers start to die. Nothing is at stake, so there's no fresh re-engagement with culture as it shifts.
This issue is a huge stumbling block for many, many people. I'm not saying it's easy. I'm just saying that it takes a good bit of mental and theological gymnastics to adhere to historically orthodox Christianity and say that it doesn't really matter what you believe.
For a fantastic, thoughtful, not-angry but very thorough discussion of this stuff, check out The Gospel in a Pluralist Society by Lesslie Newbiggin. When I'm swimming in the fog of this question and asking the hard, heart questions of how this can possibly be good news, I re-read some Newbiggin and he helps me to re-find my bearings
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Catalyst #4: Church Failure
Catalyst #4: Emergents grew up in a time of serious public failings of evangelical leaders (Ted Swaggart and Jim Baker). This amplifies the feelings of cynicism towards the church as a viable institution...and creates the felt need to start over with greater authenticity.
Huzzah!
Yay for a commitment to greater authenticity and integrity within the church. This is clearly not only a problem for people who grew up in the church but also for people who look at the church from the outside.
The Danger
The dangers here are the same as with any new start-up that's attempting to break away or re-form something that they see as antiquated or no longer functioning: it becomes self-righteous (everyone else is doing it wrong and we've got it right) or more reactive (this is what we're NOT) rather than pro-active (this is who we are and what we're doing).
There's also the temptation/desire to make the break so badly that you chuck stuff that's good. This certainly happened to some extent in the Protestant Reformation. It's certainly happening some here in the Emergent church as well, at least in some parts of it.
I also find in my situation that bashing on the church (both to Christians and non-Christians) garners cheap trust. Hey, I'm cool, I think that the church by-and-large is a really screwed up institution that can't be trusted and is pretty much a disaster top to bottom. So we're all on the same side! Most all of my students are cynical towards the church.
So the danger here is that we feed into cynicism (which is a sin) rather than do faithful re-hab that genuinely acknowledges the brokenness of the church and also the beautiful and glorious stuff about the church throughout the centuries: schools built, drinking water purified, hospitals and orphanages and disaster teams. It's not all bad. In other words, we need to be honest about the church as it truly is--and still love it. Christ does.
The Verdict
I think that there's some good stuff here...just depends on how it all plays out in the individual church and in the individual lives.
Huzzah!
Yay for a commitment to greater authenticity and integrity within the church. This is clearly not only a problem for people who grew up in the church but also for people who look at the church from the outside.
The Danger
The dangers here are the same as with any new start-up that's attempting to break away or re-form something that they see as antiquated or no longer functioning: it becomes self-righteous (everyone else is doing it wrong and we've got it right) or more reactive (this is what we're NOT) rather than pro-active (this is who we are and what we're doing).
There's also the temptation/desire to make the break so badly that you chuck stuff that's good. This certainly happened to some extent in the Protestant Reformation. It's certainly happening some here in the Emergent church as well, at least in some parts of it.
I also find in my situation that bashing on the church (both to Christians and non-Christians) garners cheap trust. Hey, I'm cool, I think that the church by-and-large is a really screwed up institution that can't be trusted and is pretty much a disaster top to bottom. So we're all on the same side! Most all of my students are cynical towards the church.
So the danger here is that we feed into cynicism (which is a sin) rather than do faithful re-hab that genuinely acknowledges the brokenness of the church and also the beautiful and glorious stuff about the church throughout the centuries: schools built, drinking water purified, hospitals and orphanages and disaster teams. It's not all bad. In other words, we need to be honest about the church as it truly is--and still love it. Christ does.
The Verdict
I think that there's some good stuff here...just depends on how it all plays out in the individual church and in the individual lives.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Back to the Original Program
Catalyst #3: Their educational history and experiences have led emergents to disown the idea that when science and the Bible contradict that science must step aside. They refuse to give the Bible the "trump card." They remain committed to it, but with a different view as to what it actually is and how it works as a piece of literature to describe the workings of the cosmos. They are both left and right wing, committed to the Bible and open to new ideas.
Huzzah!
I believe that this is primarily aimed at the relatively small percentage of evangelicals who hold to a very strict reading of the creation account in the first few chapters of Genesis. Not being one of those myself, and in fact often feeling embarrassed on their behalf, I find this move good.
The Danger
Some of the dangers here are the same as in the earlier posts discussion about moving beyond "Scriptural inerrancy."
But a specific issue to consider in this case has to do with the relationship between science and faith. Forgive me for again going to C.S. Lewis, but he's good here..as he is with so many things!
Lewis argues that we should neither be too quick to proclaim victory when "the sciences" (everything from physics to biology to even archeology) seem to agree with a Biblical account or portrayal of the world. Nor should we be too intimidated when the sciences reach conclusions that appear dismissive of the Christian understanding of the world.
To borrow a phrase from a column I recently read, the general public squints at the world of "science" and considers it to be uniform mass of well-educated, white-coated people who with one voice reach firm conclusions about "the world of facts" and "how things are" that leaves no room for doubt or discussion.
In reality there is a very small slice of the body of scientific knowledge where this is true. The rest of it ebbs and flows like fall and spring fashions. Read journals from fifty years ago and you'll find any number of discoveries that appeared to be certain at the time that have since been disproved or nuanced or corrected or completely overhauled.
The Verdict
So if we're not going to give the Scriptures a literalists "trump card," let us also be slow to turn and give the world of the sciences that same card. And let us walk in humility and wisdom, winsomeness and thoughtfulness as we interact with the ancient wisdom of the Scriptures and twenty-first century understandings of how the world works.
Huzzah!
I believe that this is primarily aimed at the relatively small percentage of evangelicals who hold to a very strict reading of the creation account in the first few chapters of Genesis. Not being one of those myself, and in fact often feeling embarrassed on their behalf, I find this move good.
The Danger
Some of the dangers here are the same as in the earlier posts discussion about moving beyond "Scriptural inerrancy."
But a specific issue to consider in this case has to do with the relationship between science and faith. Forgive me for again going to C.S. Lewis, but he's good here..as he is with so many things!
Lewis argues that we should neither be too quick to proclaim victory when "the sciences" (everything from physics to biology to even archeology) seem to agree with a Biblical account or portrayal of the world. Nor should we be too intimidated when the sciences reach conclusions that appear dismissive of the Christian understanding of the world.
To borrow a phrase from a column I recently read, the general public squints at the world of "science" and considers it to be uniform mass of well-educated, white-coated people who with one voice reach firm conclusions about "the world of facts" and "how things are" that leaves no room for doubt or discussion.
In reality there is a very small slice of the body of scientific knowledge where this is true. The rest of it ebbs and flows like fall and spring fashions. Read journals from fifty years ago and you'll find any number of discoveries that appeared to be certain at the time that have since been disproved or nuanced or corrected or completely overhauled.
The Verdict
So if we're not going to give the Scriptures a literalists "trump card," let us also be slow to turn and give the world of the sciences that same card. And let us walk in humility and wisdom, winsomeness and thoughtfulness as we interact with the ancient wisdom of the Scriptures and twenty-first century understandings of how the world works.
Monday, September 22, 2008
First Day No Oma
Today is the first day of my life without Oma. She died last night.
Oma and Opa are classic U.S. immigrant stories. They came over from Holland after World War 2. They had kids (Steve, Elizabeth, and Wendy--Elizabeth is my mom), got decent jobs, got settled in the Charlotte area.
At age 40, once the kids were off to school, Oma got a job as a teller at a small branch bank. Over the next 30 years, she became one of the most influential international bankers in the bank-saturated Charlotte area as she served as the head of the International banking department for a number of banks.
She served on boards and committees, met heads of state (her favorite was Margaret Thatcher and there are several pictures of her and Thatcher around her house), and traveled the world. She ended up in places of tremendous influence and leadership through the force of her gracious and warm personality. In a business that is driven by number-geeks and cut-throat stock bolstering and greed, Oma thrived and built business through genuine friendships. Long after she retired and into her 70's, she was receiving job offers and invitations to sit on boards.
But to me, she was Oma. She doted on us with unabashed love and affection. She cooked tremendous meals, laughed at our jokes. She was our biggest cheerleader. As my brother and I grew up and we grew to love football, she decided to start watching football, too, so we'd have something to talk about. I was the first grandchild, "born in her house" as she always reminded me--not literally, but my mom did come back to their house to have me.
Oma and Opa's house on Paradise Circle was (and still is) a mythical place. To a military kid who moved every three years, this was stable, the place where we came back for Christmas's and Thanksgivings and summer vacations no matter where we lived.
Oma is gone after a long fight with a number of illnesses that were besetting her aging body. She would have been 85 or 86 this weekend--I'm not entirely sure as her actual birth date was a closely guarded secret. She is survived by Opa, the man who I'm named after, and all three of her kids.
Today is the first day of my life without Oma. I'm tremendously glad to have been blessed with such a tremendous grandparent, it's been a privilege to be in her life for all these years. But still, I can't help but feel like life's a little emptier without her.
Oma and Opa are classic U.S. immigrant stories. They came over from Holland after World War 2. They had kids (Steve, Elizabeth, and Wendy--Elizabeth is my mom), got decent jobs, got settled in the Charlotte area.
At age 40, once the kids were off to school, Oma got a job as a teller at a small branch bank. Over the next 30 years, she became one of the most influential international bankers in the bank-saturated Charlotte area as she served as the head of the International banking department for a number of banks.
She served on boards and committees, met heads of state (her favorite was Margaret Thatcher and there are several pictures of her and Thatcher around her house), and traveled the world. She ended up in places of tremendous influence and leadership through the force of her gracious and warm personality. In a business that is driven by number-geeks and cut-throat stock bolstering and greed, Oma thrived and built business through genuine friendships. Long after she retired and into her 70's, she was receiving job offers and invitations to sit on boards.
But to me, she was Oma. She doted on us with unabashed love and affection. She cooked tremendous meals, laughed at our jokes. She was our biggest cheerleader. As my brother and I grew up and we grew to love football, she decided to start watching football, too, so we'd have something to talk about. I was the first grandchild, "born in her house" as she always reminded me--not literally, but my mom did come back to their house to have me.
Oma and Opa's house on Paradise Circle was (and still is) a mythical place. To a military kid who moved every three years, this was stable, the place where we came back for Christmas's and Thanksgivings and summer vacations no matter where we lived.
Oma is gone after a long fight with a number of illnesses that were besetting her aging body. She would have been 85 or 86 this weekend--I'm not entirely sure as her actual birth date was a closely guarded secret. She is survived by Opa, the man who I'm named after, and all three of her kids.
Today is the first day of my life without Oma. I'm tremendously glad to have been blessed with such a tremendous grandparent, it's been a privilege to be in her life for all these years. But still, I can't help but feel like life's a little emptier without her.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Catalyst #2: What Jesus Taught
Catalyst #2: The gospel that emergents heard as children they believe is a caricature of Paul's teaching--Brian McLaren (often seen as the poster-child for the movement) calls it "Paulianity." The re-discovery of Jesus' teaching about the kingdom and the poor and life changing here and now (not just salvation when you die) creates a tension--if this is what Jesus talked about, why don't we talk about it, too? Why aren't we preaching Jesus' message? This message is often more political and social and global in its' scope.
Huzzah!
Taking Jesus' life and his teaching seriously is a very, very good thing.
This past week I read something from John Piper, a leader and pace-setter in many corners of evangelicalism--and someone who was very influential in my own life earlier in my ministry.
He was talking about his new sermon series starting this fall through the gospel of John. One of the reasons why he's excited? He's never preached through a gospel before. This is a man who's been preaching for several decades. He always preaches straight through books of Scripture. He's never once had his people sit in the life and teachings of Jesus. He's never once preached through a gospel.
It's just one story, but I think it's indicative of how many baby-boomer generation Christians approached the Scriptures...and it's exactly this type of thing that Emergents are pushing back against. Without looking at what Jesus preached, how can we be preaching the whole gospel?
The victory here is that the Emergents are calling the evangelical church to take seriously this world and issues that matter here and now, including systemic evils, poverty, racism, etc.
The Danger
But boo! to repeating an old mistake made last century! In the early 20th century, the liberal church liked Jesus' social gospel message and made that the whole of their preaching. The more conservative churches were wary of the social gospel and made their priority "winning souls."
We've already been down this weary road of a false bifurcation between Jesus and Paul. The Emergents are simply over-reacting to a previous over-reaction in evangelicalism.
And their Jesus, inasmuch as I can see, is a very truncated one. No one talks more about hell than Jesus does--issues of eternity matter to Jesus. Jesus never once says the word "grace" in all four gospels. Everything we know about grace comes from the rest of the New Testament that unpacks the work and life of Christ in extremely important ways that cannot be ignored--especially the meaning and purpose of Christ's death and resurrection.
And here, as Scot McKnight points out in his article, is a very weak spot in the thinking of Emergent thought. The cross and the resurrection have a very small role to play beyond a model or an example. Again, we've been down this road before.
As N.T. Wright points out, throughout the Scriptures God acts and then his people interpret his activity: the crossing of the Red Sea, crossing the Jordan River, the death and resurrection of Christ, all require Spirit-led people to interpret and apply meaning and purpose. This is the point of the rest of the New Testament--and why it matters that we read past the gospel of John into the rest of the Scriptures.
C.S. Lewis argued that all the hardest and most overwhelming things that are said in the Bible come from Jesus' mouth. Many of the most comforting and relieving things said come from his interpreters. It is a false, flat caricature of Jesus to make him warm-fuzzy, social-justice only guy.
The Verdict
I am glad for people in and around the evangelical movement calling us to take Jesus seriously. I am less excited about the negation of the rest of the New Testament in doing so. There is no need to choose between these two.
We can have both Jesus' teachings on "the kingdom" which shapes our understanding of what life under Christ's rule is to look like AND the writing of the rest of the New Testament that helps us to understand the purpose and meaning behind the death and resurrection of Christ.
In fact, author Dallas Willard is an evangelical giant who has spent much of the last twenty years doing just that. For folks who would like to see a more fully "whole" gospel worked out, I'd highly recommend his book Divine Conspiracy.
Huzzah!
Taking Jesus' life and his teaching seriously is a very, very good thing.
This past week I read something from John Piper, a leader and pace-setter in many corners of evangelicalism--and someone who was very influential in my own life earlier in my ministry.
He was talking about his new sermon series starting this fall through the gospel of John. One of the reasons why he's excited? He's never preached through a gospel before. This is a man who's been preaching for several decades. He always preaches straight through books of Scripture. He's never once had his people sit in the life and teachings of Jesus. He's never once preached through a gospel.
It's just one story, but I think it's indicative of how many baby-boomer generation Christians approached the Scriptures...and it's exactly this type of thing that Emergents are pushing back against. Without looking at what Jesus preached, how can we be preaching the whole gospel?
The victory here is that the Emergents are calling the evangelical church to take seriously this world and issues that matter here and now, including systemic evils, poverty, racism, etc.
The Danger
But boo! to repeating an old mistake made last century! In the early 20th century, the liberal church liked Jesus' social gospel message and made that the whole of their preaching. The more conservative churches were wary of the social gospel and made their priority "winning souls."
We've already been down this weary road of a false bifurcation between Jesus and Paul. The Emergents are simply over-reacting to a previous over-reaction in evangelicalism.
And their Jesus, inasmuch as I can see, is a very truncated one. No one talks more about hell than Jesus does--issues of eternity matter to Jesus. Jesus never once says the word "grace" in all four gospels. Everything we know about grace comes from the rest of the New Testament that unpacks the work and life of Christ in extremely important ways that cannot be ignored--especially the meaning and purpose of Christ's death and resurrection.
And here, as Scot McKnight points out in his article, is a very weak spot in the thinking of Emergent thought. The cross and the resurrection have a very small role to play beyond a model or an example. Again, we've been down this road before.
As N.T. Wright points out, throughout the Scriptures God acts and then his people interpret his activity: the crossing of the Red Sea, crossing the Jordan River, the death and resurrection of Christ, all require Spirit-led people to interpret and apply meaning and purpose. This is the point of the rest of the New Testament--and why it matters that we read past the gospel of John into the rest of the Scriptures.
C.S. Lewis argued that all the hardest and most overwhelming things that are said in the Bible come from Jesus' mouth. Many of the most comforting and relieving things said come from his interpreters. It is a false, flat caricature of Jesus to make him warm-fuzzy, social-justice only guy.
The Verdict
I am glad for people in and around the evangelical movement calling us to take Jesus seriously. I am less excited about the negation of the rest of the New Testament in doing so. There is no need to choose between these two.
We can have both Jesus' teachings on "the kingdom" which shapes our understanding of what life under Christ's rule is to look like AND the writing of the rest of the New Testament that helps us to understand the purpose and meaning behind the death and resurrection of Christ.
In fact, author Dallas Willard is an evangelical giant who has spent much of the last twenty years doing just that. For folks who would like to see a more fully "whole" gospel worked out, I'd highly recommend his book Divine Conspiracy.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Catalyst #1: Inerrancy
Catalyst #1: The word "inerrancy" as it pertains to the Bible is "the wrong word at the wrong time, though it might have been the right word for a previous generation."
Huzzah!
The word "inerrancy" is a twentieth century construct created as push-back against 19th and 20th century Biblical criticism attacks. It is a word foisted upon the Scriptures that the original authors in their context would not have considered useful or important.
To wit: Psalm 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible. It is almost exclusively a celebration of the wonders and power of God's word. The word "inerrancy" is no where to be found. It's not in the OT, not in the NT.
A number of years ago I was walking past a fellow campus minister who I personally liked a good deal. He was counseling a student through their questions about the Bible. I overheard him say, "The thing about the Bible is that it is either 100% right or 100% wrong."
This, my friends, is ridiculous. All you need to do is look in your NIV footnotes where it says, "some manuscripts omit the word it." It is exactly this foolish all-or-nothing reasoning that caused UNC professor Bart Ehrman to chuck his faith over a very minor historical detail in Mark and become the lead prophet for the new atheism movement of the past several years.
So what we end up doing is making up ridiculous definitions for what we mean by "inerrancy" that have so many loopholes and qualifiers that the word itself has no more meaning.
I really like how InterVarsity has navigated these waters. Our doctrinal statement says that Scripture is uniquely authoritative. Amen to that.
The Danger
Of course, the danger is that if you chuck "inerrancy" then people just chuck the Bible entirely. Or maybe the reader becomes the locus of power or authority to decide what's "really God's inspired word" and what's not. Fair enough, there are dangers there.
But on the whole, I will take an intentionally developed and cultivated "uniquely authoritative" approach to the Scriptures over a very post-modern, revisionist, made-up, bastardized version of the word "inerrancy" any day.
The Verdict
This is a good movement not just for the Emergent church, but a more faithful way for all of us to take the Bible seriously as it really is.
Huzzah!
The word "inerrancy" is a twentieth century construct created as push-back against 19th and 20th century Biblical criticism attacks. It is a word foisted upon the Scriptures that the original authors in their context would not have considered useful or important.
To wit: Psalm 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible. It is almost exclusively a celebration of the wonders and power of God's word. The word "inerrancy" is no where to be found. It's not in the OT, not in the NT.
A number of years ago I was walking past a fellow campus minister who I personally liked a good deal. He was counseling a student through their questions about the Bible. I overheard him say, "The thing about the Bible is that it is either 100% right or 100% wrong."
This, my friends, is ridiculous. All you need to do is look in your NIV footnotes where it says, "some manuscripts omit the word it." It is exactly this foolish all-or-nothing reasoning that caused UNC professor Bart Ehrman to chuck his faith over a very minor historical detail in Mark and become the lead prophet for the new atheism movement of the past several years.
So what we end up doing is making up ridiculous definitions for what we mean by "inerrancy" that have so many loopholes and qualifiers that the word itself has no more meaning.
I really like how InterVarsity has navigated these waters. Our doctrinal statement says that Scripture is uniquely authoritative. Amen to that.
The Danger
Of course, the danger is that if you chuck "inerrancy" then people just chuck the Bible entirely. Or maybe the reader becomes the locus of power or authority to decide what's "really God's inspired word" and what's not. Fair enough, there are dangers there.
But on the whole, I will take an intentionally developed and cultivated "uniquely authoritative" approach to the Scriptures over a very post-modern, revisionist, made-up, bastardized version of the word "inerrancy" any day.
The Verdict
This is a good movement not just for the Emergent church, but a more faithful way for all of us to take the Bible seriously as it really is.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
8 Catalysts
This month, author/theologian/blogger Scot McKnight has an excellent piece on the Emergent Church in Christianity Today. The article is talking about what has shaped what is often called the "post-evangelical" movement. These are Gen X-ers and Y-ers who have evangelical Christian roots but who have made decidedly different choices in how to live out the faith while still claiming an essential loyalty to following Jesus.
McKnight breaks down eight catalysts that have shaped this movement and the people who are leading it. These eight catalysts have pushed the emergent movement to re-think how they were brought up and how they were taught to think about Jesus.
I want to sum up McKnight's points here today and then briefly take on a couple of them over the next several days: the good, the bad, the ugly. I think the catalysts that McKnight briefly explains in the article are exactly the issues that my students face and the conversations that I have all the time.
For those of you who are students, I hope that this might help inform your journey. For those of you who aren't, my guess is that you'll find some of your own struggles/questions/faith challenges here as well. And I hope that this might help you prepare for my students who are coming your way.
McKnight talks about these eight catalysts as challenges that have forced many evangelicals to either radically re-think the faith that they received or abandon it altogether. This is, indeed, what I see going on around me.
Without futher ado, here are McKnight's Eight Catalysts for the "ironic" faith of the Emergent Church:
1. The word "inerrancy" as it pertains to the Bible is "the wrong word at the wrong time, though it might have been the right word for a previous generation.
2. The gospel that emergents heard as children they believe is a caricature of Paul's teaching--Brian McLaren (often seen as the poster-child for the movement) calls it "Paulianity." The re-discovery of Jesus' teaching about the kingdom and the poor and life changing here and now (not just salvation when you die) creates a tension--if this is what Jesus talked about, why don't we talk about it, too? Why aren't we preaching Jesus' message? This message is often more political and social and global in its' scope.
3. Their educational history and experiences have led emergents to disown the idea that when science and the Bible contradict that science must step aside. They refuse to give the Bible the "trump card." They remain committed to it, but with a different view as to what it actually is and how it works as a piece of literature to describe the workings of the cosmos. They are both left and right wing, committed to the Bible and open to new ideas.
4. Emergents grew up in a time of serious public failings of evangelical leaders (Ted Swaggart and Jim Baker). This amplifies the feelings of cynicism towards the church as a viable institution...and creates the felt need to start over with greater authenticity.
5. The public schools message of multi-culturalism and pluralism conflicted with their church's teachings that those outside of Christ were doomed. "Possessing both a faith that is particular and an intimate knowledge of religious pluralism prodcued a tension that was nearly intolerable." This leads them to a religious pluralism or a much broader interpretation of what it means to be "a Christian."
6. For some the Bible has portrayals of God that does not square with their understanding of God as loving. So often they will mythologize or allegorize some portrayals of God (often in the OT) and say that later pictures are the real thing--i.e. Jesus as the perfect picture of the God who is altogether gracious and loving.
7. Homosexuality. They are convinced that sexuality is complicated, are committed to having relationships with all types of people, and live in a tension with the Bible about what to do about this issue.
8. That all our theology is language-based, which is shaped by culture. Can any one language or culture tell the whole story of God? Emergents by and large plead for a multi-lingual approach to telling God's story, which fits with their earlier influences of pluralism and mulit-culturalism.
McKnight breaks down eight catalysts that have shaped this movement and the people who are leading it. These eight catalysts have pushed the emergent movement to re-think how they were brought up and how they were taught to think about Jesus.
I want to sum up McKnight's points here today and then briefly take on a couple of them over the next several days: the good, the bad, the ugly. I think the catalysts that McKnight briefly explains in the article are exactly the issues that my students face and the conversations that I have all the time.
For those of you who are students, I hope that this might help inform your journey. For those of you who aren't, my guess is that you'll find some of your own struggles/questions/faith challenges here as well. And I hope that this might help you prepare for my students who are coming your way.
McKnight talks about these eight catalysts as challenges that have forced many evangelicals to either radically re-think the faith that they received or abandon it altogether. This is, indeed, what I see going on around me.
Without futher ado, here are McKnight's Eight Catalysts for the "ironic" faith of the Emergent Church:
1. The word "inerrancy" as it pertains to the Bible is "the wrong word at the wrong time, though it might have been the right word for a previous generation.
2. The gospel that emergents heard as children they believe is a caricature of Paul's teaching--Brian McLaren (often seen as the poster-child for the movement) calls it "Paulianity." The re-discovery of Jesus' teaching about the kingdom and the poor and life changing here and now (not just salvation when you die) creates a tension--if this is what Jesus talked about, why don't we talk about it, too? Why aren't we preaching Jesus' message? This message is often more political and social and global in its' scope.
3. Their educational history and experiences have led emergents to disown the idea that when science and the Bible contradict that science must step aside. They refuse to give the Bible the "trump card." They remain committed to it, but with a different view as to what it actually is and how it works as a piece of literature to describe the workings of the cosmos. They are both left and right wing, committed to the Bible and open to new ideas.
4. Emergents grew up in a time of serious public failings of evangelical leaders (Ted Swaggart and Jim Baker). This amplifies the feelings of cynicism towards the church as a viable institution...and creates the felt need to start over with greater authenticity.
5. The public schools message of multi-culturalism and pluralism conflicted with their church's teachings that those outside of Christ were doomed. "Possessing both a faith that is particular and an intimate knowledge of religious pluralism prodcued a tension that was nearly intolerable." This leads them to a religious pluralism or a much broader interpretation of what it means to be "a Christian."
6. For some the Bible has portrayals of God that does not square with their understanding of God as loving. So often they will mythologize or allegorize some portrayals of God (often in the OT) and say that later pictures are the real thing--i.e. Jesus as the perfect picture of the God who is altogether gracious and loving.
7. Homosexuality. They are convinced that sexuality is complicated, are committed to having relationships with all types of people, and live in a tension with the Bible about what to do about this issue.
8. That all our theology is language-based, which is shaped by culture. Can any one language or culture tell the whole story of God? Emergents by and large plead for a multi-lingual approach to telling God's story, which fits with their earlier influences of pluralism and mulit-culturalism.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Working and Trusting
For reasons that are regularly re-curring in my twelve years and eight weeks in ministry, I was wrestling with the Lord last week about my work and his work. What role does doing things with excellence and thoroughness and thoughtfulness play in the work that he's given me to do bearing fruit? At what point does the pursuit of excellence become this never-ending, exhausting, foolish, pride-full and deeply sinful activity that forgets that God does the importnat stuff?
This tension plays out in me more or less constantly.
On the one hand, we need to do things well. In InterVarsity, we have students who lead small groups. We don't just tell those students to "let go and let God." We train them--darn well, in my humble opinion. There are skills involved that help to create holy space.
But I am aware that this can play out terribly. The temptation for Adam and Eve was that they would be like God. If excellence becomes an obsession, I can have ministry be place where I'm eating the forbidden fruit. I become the center of things rather than God. This is the cause of approximately 95% of the misery of the world. The rest is caused by country music.
In the midst of my wrestling freshly with this question last week, the Lord gave me a good passage to consider from the Psalm 4: "Offer right sacrifices and trust in the Lord."
So there's the work that we are commanded to do (offer right sacrifices) but our trust is not in those sacrifices to somehow secure our lives or successes or whatever. We have work to do, and that work matters. But our hope is in the Lord.
My trust is to be in him, even as I offer right sacrifices. And this means that there actually could be wrong sacrifices, which I need to ask the Lord for guidance about. I can do my work poorly, I need to continuously be a student, learning my craft and my trade.
But in the end, my trust is in the Lord. For all of it. Me, my staff team, my students. I work, but then I wait in trust. Today, I think I get that. Ask me again tomorrow.
This tension plays out in me more or less constantly.
On the one hand, we need to do things well. In InterVarsity, we have students who lead small groups. We don't just tell those students to "let go and let God." We train them--darn well, in my humble opinion. There are skills involved that help to create holy space.
But I am aware that this can play out terribly. The temptation for Adam and Eve was that they would be like God. If excellence becomes an obsession, I can have ministry be place where I'm eating the forbidden fruit. I become the center of things rather than God. This is the cause of approximately 95% of the misery of the world. The rest is caused by country music.
In the midst of my wrestling freshly with this question last week, the Lord gave me a good passage to consider from the Psalm 4: "Offer right sacrifices and trust in the Lord."
So there's the work that we are commanded to do (offer right sacrifices) but our trust is not in those sacrifices to somehow secure our lives or successes or whatever. We have work to do, and that work matters. But our hope is in the Lord.
My trust is to be in him, even as I offer right sacrifices. And this means that there actually could be wrong sacrifices, which I need to ask the Lord for guidance about. I can do my work poorly, I need to continuously be a student, learning my craft and my trade.
But in the end, my trust is in the Lord. For all of it. Me, my staff team, my students. I work, but then I wait in trust. Today, I think I get that. Ask me again tomorrow.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Praying as I Go
A couple of months ago my good friend Marshall Benbow linked on his blog to an Itunes download called "Pray-As-You-Go." I've started to download the daily prayer/Scripture reflections and this week it has been particularly beneficial for me.
One day last week the question was posed "what piece of Christ's teaching most astonishes you?" I thought for a second and then realized what it was: his questions.
So I went through the gospel of John and jotted down every question that Jesus asks. Here are a couple that have echoed in my head over the past couple of days:
What do you want?
Do you want to be made well?
How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God?
Why are you looking for an opportunity to kill me?
Why do you not understand who I am?
If I tell you the truth, why do you not believe in me?
Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?
Have I been with you this long...and still you do not know me?
Some good stuff to ponder over the weekend.
One day last week the question was posed "what piece of Christ's teaching most astonishes you?" I thought for a second and then realized what it was: his questions.
So I went through the gospel of John and jotted down every question that Jesus asks. Here are a couple that have echoed in my head over the past couple of days:
What do you want?
Do you want to be made well?
How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God?
Why are you looking for an opportunity to kill me?
Why do you not understand who I am?
If I tell you the truth, why do you not believe in me?
Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?
Have I been with you this long...and still you do not know me?
Some good stuff to ponder over the weekend.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Chilin' with D-Webb
This past weekend InterVarsity brought in singer/song-writer Derek Webb, formerly of the band Caedmon's Call, for a concert on campus. We marketed it only to students, thought it was going to be a great night. It was a disaster. We expected around 450-500 students. Only 150 showed up. Bad publicity on our part, I guess.
Afterwards, I got to get dinner with Derek. At 10:00 p.m. we were sitting down to Qdoba burritos along with my co-staff John Farmer, and we got to talk.
Derek's music was extremely formative for me when I was a college student and he was just getting started with Caedmon's. I knew the word "grace" but my time as a student was crucial for understanding what it really meant...and much of Derek's music paralleled and informed my journey. So I was geeked out to talk with him about his work and life.
At one point he bemoaned a couple of his older cd's. I told them that I had both of those albums and I loved them. He said that being a songwriter for as long as he has is kind of like having poetry you wrote in junior high circulating around. Some people like it, but you're kind of embarrassed that you ever had anything to do it.
As we talked, it became clear that we had some things in common. We both got started doing what we're doing about the same time. We both have young families in jobs that at times allow us to spend luxurious amounts of time with our kids and at other times severely strain our families.
Our conversation meandered to music that we loved growing up. We both loved the cd that most shaped my junior high experience, Lisence to Ill by the Beastie Boys. Eventually conversation turned to concerts: Van Halen, Guns 'n Roses, and Metallica cemented it. We were ready to be best friends forever.
I dropped him off at his hotel and apologized for about the sixth time for the anemic turnout at the concert. He said not to worry about it, that he'd love to come again sometime. We shook hands and I pulled off. A couple of guys in their thirties, juggling family and ministry and faith and doing the only thing that we've ever known to do.
Afterwards, I got to get dinner with Derek. At 10:00 p.m. we were sitting down to Qdoba burritos along with my co-staff John Farmer, and we got to talk.
Derek's music was extremely formative for me when I was a college student and he was just getting started with Caedmon's. I knew the word "grace" but my time as a student was crucial for understanding what it really meant...and much of Derek's music paralleled and informed my journey. So I was geeked out to talk with him about his work and life.
At one point he bemoaned a couple of his older cd's. I told them that I had both of those albums and I loved them. He said that being a songwriter for as long as he has is kind of like having poetry you wrote in junior high circulating around. Some people like it, but you're kind of embarrassed that you ever had anything to do it.
As we talked, it became clear that we had some things in common. We both got started doing what we're doing about the same time. We both have young families in jobs that at times allow us to spend luxurious amounts of time with our kids and at other times severely strain our families.
Our conversation meandered to music that we loved growing up. We both loved the cd that most shaped my junior high experience, Lisence to Ill by the Beastie Boys. Eventually conversation turned to concerts: Van Halen, Guns 'n Roses, and Metallica cemented it. We were ready to be best friends forever.
I dropped him off at his hotel and apologized for about the sixth time for the anemic turnout at the concert. He said not to worry about it, that he'd love to come again sometime. We shook hands and I pulled off. A couple of guys in their thirties, juggling family and ministry and faith and doing the only thing that we've ever known to do.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Speaking of Birt.hdays...
If you're interested at all in the Kirk family, check out Emma Kate's 1-year-old giggle fest on Kelly's mommy blog.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Help in the Middle
It's been a huge past seven days or so for the Kirk family. Lots of milestones and markers that we've celebrated:
*Davis had his first day of soccer practice last Thursday. He was pumped to get a new soccer ball, don the cleats, and wear the shin guards and play on the team with his buddy, Isaac.
Going to his first-ever soccer practice made me deeply nostalgic. I started playing soccer around four and kept at it through junior high school. As the kids used to say these days, soccer was my jam. It's fun to see him enjoying a sport that meant so much to me growing up.
*Sunday was Emma Kate's one-year-birthday! I have affectionately entitled the one-year-old birthday the "(s)he's still alive and we survived" birthday. We invited our friends over and their kids and Emma Kate dug into her first-ever cupcake. She was covered in red-ladybug icing by the end of it and we all had a blast.
Emma Kate has been a wonderful, hilarious, fun addition to our family, I'm so incredibly grateful to the Lord for her quick smile, her impish play, her sweet hugs and her good sleeping habits!
*And today was Davis' first day of Blue Dolphins, the 3-day a week pre-school that he'll be attending this fall. Last year he did a 2-day a week program and he loved it. This year he's in a class with a couple of his favorite buddies, and he's gonna' absolutely love it.
So all this celebration and hoopla over the past couple of days leaves one out: Zoe. Our little in-the-middle girl is a little too young for soccer or a pre-school class, but she's old enough to realize that she's being left out. And her birthday isn't until January. It's been a little hard to be in-the-middle Zoe the past week.
But this morning after dropping Davis off at pre-school, Kelly decided to see if there was a spot open for a Monday morning Little Gym class. Little Gym basically runs exercise and dance and flexibility and coordination classes for kids that are a whole lot of fun.
There was a spot, and she loved it. Kelly signed her up for the fall on the spot. "A class just for me, mom?" little Zoe squeaked excitedly.
Yes, Zoe, a little class, just for you.
*Davis had his first day of soccer practice last Thursday. He was pumped to get a new soccer ball, don the cleats, and wear the shin guards and play on the team with his buddy, Isaac.
Going to his first-ever soccer practice made me deeply nostalgic. I started playing soccer around four and kept at it through junior high school. As the kids used to say these days, soccer was my jam. It's fun to see him enjoying a sport that meant so much to me growing up.
*Sunday was Emma Kate's one-year-birthday! I have affectionately entitled the one-year-old birthday the "(s)he's still alive and we survived" birthday. We invited our friends over and their kids and Emma Kate dug into her first-ever cupcake. She was covered in red-ladybug icing by the end of it and we all had a blast.
Emma Kate has been a wonderful, hilarious, fun addition to our family, I'm so incredibly grateful to the Lord for her quick smile, her impish play, her sweet hugs and her good sleeping habits!
*And today was Davis' first day of Blue Dolphins, the 3-day a week pre-school that he'll be attending this fall. Last year he did a 2-day a week program and he loved it. This year he's in a class with a couple of his favorite buddies, and he's gonna' absolutely love it.
So all this celebration and hoopla over the past couple of days leaves one out: Zoe. Our little in-the-middle girl is a little too young for soccer or a pre-school class, but she's old enough to realize that she's being left out. And her birthday isn't until January. It's been a little hard to be in-the-middle Zoe the past week.
But this morning after dropping Davis off at pre-school, Kelly decided to see if there was a spot open for a Monday morning Little Gym class. Little Gym basically runs exercise and dance and flexibility and coordination classes for kids that are a whole lot of fun.
There was a spot, and she loved it. Kelly signed her up for the fall on the spot. "A class just for me, mom?" little Zoe squeaked excitedly.
Yes, Zoe, a little class, just for you.
Friday, September 05, 2008
running life
ever have a time in your life when you feel like life is running you rather than you running your life? yeah, that's me the past couple of weeks.
i'm giving a talk in a couple weeks called "why we rest." funny how the Lord does that to me.
i'm giving a talk in a couple weeks called "why we rest." funny how the Lord does that to me.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
John's Exodus
John 6 is, I believe, the single longest continually told narrative about Jesus in all the gospels. It's full of so many rich places to meditate, you could spend a month in it. But this time through, I noticed something about the big-picture that I thought was kind of cool.
John 6 starts with Jesus feeding the 5,000. It's one of the few stories that is in all four gospels. Act 1 is a bread miracle.
Then the disciples set out on a boat across the Sea of Galilee. Jesus follows later, walking on the water. He joins the disciples in the boat and immediately they're on the other side. Act 2 is a miracle of crossing over a body of water.
The next day, the crowd joins them and starts to hound Jesus with questions. They reference Moses and the manna their forefathers received. Jesus responds that it wasn't Moses but his Father who fed the people in the wilderness.
The conversation gets more shrill and more intense as Jesus presses them to deal with their heart issues of unbelief. Jesus says that he's the bread of life. John then writes that the Jews among them began to grumble.
This is the first time he's specifically mentioned "the Jews" in the story, even though they most likely make up most of the crowd from the previous day. And grumbling/complaining/murmuring are the most frequently used descriptors of the Jews in the Exodus as they grumble about no food, grumble about no water, grumble about Moses, grumble about God, grumble, grumble, grumble.
Finally Jesus says that they have to eat his flesh and drink his blood or they won't have any life in them. At this the Jews say among themselves: "This is hard teaching, who can accept it?" (v. 60) and then many of them turn back. Act 3 is a failure of faith, specifically among the Jews in the story.
The Jews in the Exodus story get to the edge of the Promised Land and they fail. The people who inhabit the land look like giants. They complain that they can't possibly defeat them militarily. So the people wander for 40 years in the desert until that generation dies off. Then Joshua leads them into the land they were promised. Israel fails to live up to her calling. It is a theme that will be re-enacted throughout the OT.
Here, we see again that a crowd of Jews do not live up to their calling. They fail at the same place that their ancestors did in the desert--right at the brink of the life they were promised.
Only this time, there are 12 who do not fail. Jesus specifically asks the 12 if they too want to leave. Peter speaks on behalf of the 12 that there is no where else for them to go. This small band of haggard disciples will be (to quote theologian NT Wright) True Israel. This tribe of 12 will succeed (except for Judas) where Israel failed time and time again.
From this remnant, Jesus will build his church and will launch the revolution to change the world. Act 4, the hanging-on-by-the-skin-of-their-teeth faithfulness of the 12.
The longest single story of Jesus' life. The Exodus story, re-cast, with bread, a miraculous water crossing, grumbling of the crowd, Jesus at the center and the twelve disciples passing the test that Israel did not. At least, I think that might be what's going on here.
John 6 starts with Jesus feeding the 5,000. It's one of the few stories that is in all four gospels. Act 1 is a bread miracle.
Then the disciples set out on a boat across the Sea of Galilee. Jesus follows later, walking on the water. He joins the disciples in the boat and immediately they're on the other side. Act 2 is a miracle of crossing over a body of water.
The next day, the crowd joins them and starts to hound Jesus with questions. They reference Moses and the manna their forefathers received. Jesus responds that it wasn't Moses but his Father who fed the people in the wilderness.
The conversation gets more shrill and more intense as Jesus presses them to deal with their heart issues of unbelief. Jesus says that he's the bread of life. John then writes that the Jews among them began to grumble.
This is the first time he's specifically mentioned "the Jews" in the story, even though they most likely make up most of the crowd from the previous day. And grumbling/complaining/murmuring are the most frequently used descriptors of the Jews in the Exodus as they grumble about no food, grumble about no water, grumble about Moses, grumble about God, grumble, grumble, grumble.
Finally Jesus says that they have to eat his flesh and drink his blood or they won't have any life in them. At this the Jews say among themselves: "This is hard teaching, who can accept it?" (v. 60) and then many of them turn back. Act 3 is a failure of faith, specifically among the Jews in the story.
The Jews in the Exodus story get to the edge of the Promised Land and they fail. The people who inhabit the land look like giants. They complain that they can't possibly defeat them militarily. So the people wander for 40 years in the desert until that generation dies off. Then Joshua leads them into the land they were promised. Israel fails to live up to her calling. It is a theme that will be re-enacted throughout the OT.
Here, we see again that a crowd of Jews do not live up to their calling. They fail at the same place that their ancestors did in the desert--right at the brink of the life they were promised.
Only this time, there are 12 who do not fail. Jesus specifically asks the 12 if they too want to leave. Peter speaks on behalf of the 12 that there is no where else for them to go. This small band of haggard disciples will be (to quote theologian NT Wright) True Israel. This tribe of 12 will succeed (except for Judas) where Israel failed time and time again.
From this remnant, Jesus will build his church and will launch the revolution to change the world. Act 4, the hanging-on-by-the-skin-of-their-teeth faithfulness of the 12.
The longest single story of Jesus' life. The Exodus story, re-cast, with bread, a miraculous water crossing, grumbling of the crowd, Jesus at the center and the twelve disciples passing the test that Israel did not. At least, I think that might be what's going on here.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Ain't Contemplatin' bein' Competitive
A few thoughts following the college football kick-off weekend.
1. I hate Eastern Carolina athletics.
ECU is like your perpetually drunk little kid brother who parties his way to a six-year undergraduate degree in psychology while grousing at family gatherings that he doesn't get the respect he deserves from your parents.
So it took me a little while to get behind them on Saturday as they took Virginia Tech down in a shocker in Charlotte. But as the game wore on and they kept it close, I found myself irresistibly drawn to the underdog factor. When they blocked the kick and ran it into the end zone with just a minute and a half left, I actually let out a little yelp of joy.
Way to go, ECU Pirates. Maybe the kid brother is starting to make something of himself after all.
2. The Virginia Tech loss was just one in a string of extremely embarrassing losses (and a couple of embarrassing wins) by the ACC. Ever since the ACC went corporate-raiding and stole a couple of teams from the Big East to create a super-conference, the quality of football has been atrocious.
Clemson was slaughtered on national t.v. in prime-time (zero rushing yards for the game!?!), Virigina Tech was upended, UNC barely got by McNeese State, NC State was embarrassed and nobody expected UVa to beat University of Southern California, but man was it ugly.
Back in the late 80's/early 90's in the NFL, the NFC experienced about a decade-long run of dominance in the Superbowl. One columnist I read took to calling the AFC the "ain't feeling competitive" conference.
I'm calling for it right now: ACC: Ain't Contemplating bein' Competitive conference. When's basketball season start?
1. I hate Eastern Carolina athletics.
ECU is like your perpetually drunk little kid brother who parties his way to a six-year undergraduate degree in psychology while grousing at family gatherings that he doesn't get the respect he deserves from your parents.
So it took me a little while to get behind them on Saturday as they took Virginia Tech down in a shocker in Charlotte. But as the game wore on and they kept it close, I found myself irresistibly drawn to the underdog factor. When they blocked the kick and ran it into the end zone with just a minute and a half left, I actually let out a little yelp of joy.
Way to go, ECU Pirates. Maybe the kid brother is starting to make something of himself after all.
2. The Virginia Tech loss was just one in a string of extremely embarrassing losses (and a couple of embarrassing wins) by the ACC. Ever since the ACC went corporate-raiding and stole a couple of teams from the Big East to create a super-conference, the quality of football has been atrocious.
Clemson was slaughtered on national t.v. in prime-time (zero rushing yards for the game!?!), Virigina Tech was upended, UNC barely got by McNeese State, NC State was embarrassed and nobody expected UVa to beat University of Southern California, but man was it ugly.
Back in the late 80's/early 90's in the NFL, the NFC experienced about a decade-long run of dominance in the Superbowl. One columnist I read took to calling the AFC the "ain't feeling competitive" conference.
I'm calling for it right now: ACC: Ain't Contemplating bein' Competitive conference. When's basketball season start?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)