Living in the Kingdom

Radically New and Less Familiar

2012-01-31T14:31:00.000-08:00

About six months ago I received news that my MDiv. program at San Francisco Theological Seminary in Pasadena was being eliminated. My first thought upon receiving this news was casual. I thought I'd simply transfer to a different school, a smaller more local school, knowing well enough that it may not be a perfect fit for my particular needs and personality. If you've been reading this blog for long, you'll know that Bethel is not a perfect fit and Fuller is good but not perfect either (not to mention, they're pretty tuition dependent which means that scholarships are more difficult to come by). But my casual reaction was overwhelmed by a nagging sense that God had something else in mind. I had searched hard to find the somewhat obscure SFTS program in Southern California. I had determined that a change of context would be extremely valuable since I had already received a healthy dosage of theological content in my education at Azusa Pacific University (a school whose theology program is good at over-preparing students for seminary content ((that's a compliment))). SFTS had provided that change of context and now it was being taken away. It was more than coincidence that my first year in a 25-year-old program would be the year of its closing. That, accompanied by a series of other influences and circumstances, compelled my wife and me to consider a radically new and less familiar direction.

When I was at APU, I had a few professors who greatly influenced my theological development, not least of whom was Dr. Dennis Okholm who received two degrees from Princeton in New Jersey. Since then, the idea of going to Princeton had been an appealing concept and became more-so as the idea marinated in my brain over time. A dream of sorts, maybe, but one that remained outside the realm of reality... indeed I am no shoe-in at a place like that and it's a million miles across the country from family, friends, and the students at my church with whom I've grown and loved over these years and to whom I have been so committed. But when the abrupt disruption of SFTS's Southern California closure occurred I could not ignore the possibility that God wanted to use just such a disruption to invite me to consider the inconsiderable. One of my professors at SFTS, when talking with me about my options in light of SFTS's closure, not knowing that I had ever thought about Princeton, said, "I don't know what you and your wife really have in mind, but perhaps you might consider somewhere further away... like Princeton." I could not ignore that. I decided to take the season of Lent to focus on praying and discerning the future.

In October, through much prayer and discernment, I decided to swing for the fences and I applied at Princeton Theological Seminary. This past month, as somewhat of a surprise, we received a letter of acceptance. Through even more prayer and discernment, we decided to accept the invitation to begin studying at Princeton in the Fall of this year. While certainty is nowhere to be found in decisions such as these, we are confident in our sense that God is calling us, inviting us to take this unexpected new direction. We will be leaving Ramona and First Congregational Church in August of this year. And though we are excited to follow God's call, it is truly hard to imagine leaving this church family we have known and loved for so long.

As I told the students the news, their parents were receiving an email at home... and if they didn't get that, I sent students home with a letter to deliver to parents explaining the decision. Making the announcement to the students at Youth Group on Sunday was perhaps the most difficult thing I have had to do in ministry so far. These students have been our priority and we wanted them to hear it from us before they heard it anywhere else. We love these students more than we are able to express and we love this wonderful church nearly as much. It broke my heart (and perhaps that expression is too trite to express the truth) to tell the students that we would be leaving them in August. I felt that I was telling them that I would be abandoning them and I have never felt so helpless in helping them grieve... since, of course, I'm the one causing the grief. We had a good conversation about how we could spend the next six months walking through this transition together and how important it is to simply trust God and to trust that God is good in this question-mark, in this threshold of life.

Though this is exciting news, it's cause for a grieving process. It is hard to imagine such a drastic change in direction. It is difficult to imagine leaving my students. It is difficult to imagine leaving my family, even for three years. But I do trust, with eyes of faith, that God--the God who has set these things in motion and has made such an opportunity available to me and my family--is love.

What's God Like?

2012-01-24T16:37:00.000-08:00

The authors of the Bible don't seem too interested in proving God's existence. Indeed, the existence of God or a god or a plethora of gods has been assumed in most cultures and societies throughout history. Not all presupposed gods are the same and this is where the Bible comes in...

The authors of the Bible were more or less preoccupied not with proving God's existence but with describing and demonstrating what God is like and how this particular God engages in reality. Whereas, generally speaking, the gods of ancient-worldly conception were manipulable based on how well the subject responded to the god's demands, this God was unconditionally loving and did not play favorites according to merit. Whereas the gods of the ancient world were angry by default, this God was "slow to anger." Whereas other gods were demanding, this God was merciful. Whereas some gods sought after their own ends and met the needs of people only if the people gave something in return, this God was just. Whereas some gods left people without hope, this God was relentlessly faithful to the promise of salvation and renewal. This God was an alternative--an utterly refreshing and deeply loving alternative. One author, years later, would go as far as to say, "God is love."

This alternative sort of God was not the kind of God who observed from the comfort of the heavenly realm. This God, having made the world, loved the world and came to demonstrate the definition of this love though the act of incarnation. This is a God who comes near. And this is a God that sustains and embraces solidarity with the people in most need of salvation (as if we could ascribe a degree to the human need for salvation). This God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit--a God not defined by functional terms but by relational ones--a God who loves us, identifies with us, and suffers with us, guiding us into alignment with justice, love, and goodness. This God frees slaves and forgives murderers, offering life rather than demanding it. This God creates out of love and sacrifices to be with its object.

This is the God who made the world and everything in it... a God who constantly surprises us with a fresh alternative to the conceptions we come up with. A God who meets us where we are and loves us as we are and calls us still to something better. Figuring out what God is like, I believe, is a much greater endeavor than figuring out whether God exists. The former is much more challenging than the latter and much more pressing as well. Who cares if God exists until we've encountered what God is like?

God is merciful, God is good, God is powerful, God is just, God is life-giving, God is creative, God is gracious, God is generous, God is forgiving, God is slow to anger, God is welcoming, God listens, God is restorative, God is peaceful, God is joyful, God is faithful, God is kind, God is gentle, God is patient, God is holy, God is beautiful, GOD IS LOVE!

Not The Bible I'd Have Chosen

2012-01-24T12:40:00.000-08:00

Recently, I have had a couple of great conversations about the Bible... not necessarily about the stories, poems, doctrines, etc. inside the Bible but about the Bible itself.

I was having dinner with a friend who happens to have significant doubts about the legitimacy of the Christian faith. My friend expressed a deep concern for the subjectivity of the Bible. "Why wouldn't God give something a bit more objective to us as his infallible Word?" Indeed, if God is this authoritative teacher, then why would the scriptures be as infected with the subjectivity of human experience as it is? It's not the bible I'd have chosen...

Again, another friend--one much more comfortable identifying as a Christian--asked the same basic question. "My problem with the Bible," she said," is that it's so human!" Why can't we have something more clear, something on which everyone can agree?! Wouldn't that be better? Or would it?

Here's my question... what sort of God do we expect God to be?

What I have discovered about God is quite different than it is in the theology books. We use words like omnipresent, omniscient, immutable, etc. to describe God and yet, where do those descriptions come from? Surely from the musings of the philosophers who scrape for a definition, who scrape to describe the indescribable. The truth is, reality--ideed God-- is not so static as the words with which we choose to describe God. God is utterly relational, intensely experiential, and deeply incarnational. If Jesus Christ reveals nothing else, he reveals a God who is not just some ethereal conceptualization or the product of objective rationalization. God is much more messy. To speak of authority and sovereignty in any biblical fashion is to speak of those things not as abstract concepts (although those can serve as helpful training wheels for the mind) or in universalized static language but, rather, to speak of them as they are worked out in reality, in human experience, in the beautiful mess of life. Universality, objectivity... these are mere myths. For the God who created the world is a God who engages life from the smallest and most subjective place... a God who starts with a person and is involved in the expansion of reality, a God who saves the world from the darkness of a single tomb.

So the question I'd ask is, could the God who is real in every sense of the word offer any objective, authoritative, universal, or conceptually static revelation of Godself with any degree of authenticity? Would such a revelation be an accurate reflection of God, this wild and creative God, no matter what the content? I believe that the sort of revelation, the sort of Word we have received in the Bible, with all its gritty humanity and ancient complexity, is the only appropriate medium for the communication of this God--a God who brings harmony out of chaos through the brooding of the Spirit.

Christianity for Dummies

2012-01-19T08:15:00.000-08:00

Last night at our church we started a new 5 week series for "adult bible study" called "Christianity for Dummies: foundations of a Christian faith." It's taught by my step-dad, Hal, and myself. I'm used to teaching High School and Jr. High students and so this is a nice change of scenery (although I'm sure I'll be happy to go back to focusing on youth when I'm done).

Our goal is to keep things very basic without dumbing things down too much. So our structure is going to be very basic. Last night we talked about the bible itself... How did we get the books we've got? Why are there so many translations? Where do we start? And how do we avoid feeling totally overwhelmed? It turned out to be a great conversation! Next week we will be talking about God, a subject that can't be ignored in such a study. After that, we will get into human identity, salvation, and eschatology. It has been a fun and challenging study for which to prepare and it has also been quite helpful for me personally. No matter how "far along" you are, no matter how long you've been going to church, it is always helpful to go back to the basics and to be reminded of what's foundational, what's truly at the heart of what we are up to here. For our church in particular this is quite timely and we have been hungry for this kind of study. So we will gather and turn the gem and see what God might have to say to us.

My Beef With Tebow

2012-01-14T17:43:00.001-08:00

The disclaimer here is that I've got no intimate knowledge of Tim Tebow as an individual. But as an avid fan of the sport of football and as a Christian, I've heard a great deal of the hype about him and the conversations concerning his faith in Christ. Writing a serious post about Tebow feels a bit like trying to analyze the theological and philosophical depth of "Friday" by Rebecca Black (look it up on YouTube), but since it's so publicized, it's worth offering some thoughtful feedback.

Most people don't seem to understand why I don't like Tebowmania and why I'm so sick of hearing about him. It probably has something to do with the fact that he's not an exceptionally good quarterback and yet every time I turn on Espn, I've got to hear about Tebow... there are a few other quarterbacks in the league and some of them are actually playing pretty good football. It probably also has something to do with the fact that I'm a Charger fan and he plays for the Broncos... But more significantly, I'm frustrated with the way his faith is talked about. As a Christian I find it patronizing that his "Tebowing" antics have become a joke when, in fact, guys all around the NFL have prayed before games since the league's origins. And there's some substance to prayer beyond the sport of football.

I think his popularity as a Christian plays into the status quo, the popular perspective on Christianity, namely that it's essentially without substance and involves being "unashamed" and being a nice person and little else.... Oh, and voting republican. The truest testament to the Christian faith is not in stories of successful athletes or rock stars. The truest testament of the Christian faith is and always will be in the stories of those who take up the cross and follow Jesus among and on behalf of the least of these. The truest witness should not be people who talk about Jesus a lot, it should be the people who bear his image with their flesh, their hands and their feet.

If I'm being honest, my beef is not with Tim himself. It would be quite hypocritical of me to pass judgment on him as an individual. My real beef is with what has become the accepted cultural evidence of a person's faith. His example, to me, represents the status quo... a superficial sort of Christianity (not that Tim is necessarily superficial in his own faith). What if Tebow's work in helping orphans was the real testament of his faith in Christ?

It troubles me that a football player can more easily become the spokesperson for the Christian faith in America, and I am afraid that Tim Tebow has become that for many people, than a person who shares identity with the "least of these" and prophetically challenges the status quo through embodiment and proclamation of the Gospel. Maybe Tim doesn't need to change a thing... especially in the work he's doing off the field. But we should recognize the tragic irony of the Tebow narrative in the popular media...

and he should consider playing Tight End... Really.

are love and justice in competition?

2012-01-13T15:31:00.000-08:00

Right after Rob Bell's most recent book Love Wins was released, there was a poop-storm (that's a technical term I like to use in place of "frenzied buzz of conversation"). Unless you've been living under a rock, there's a good chance that you already know that. While all of this conversation was going on, however, I was more interested in how the conversation would plateau and settle. Conversations usually do reach a point of consensus, though things worth talking about will rarely reach total resolution. For example, however people might bring up peripheral reactionary arguments, there is a plateau, a general consensus, in the conversation concerning The Civil Rights Movement. Looking back on what was, at the time, an extremely convoluted, emotional, and complex political, sociological, and philosophical conversation, we have simplified the conversation down to the consensus that segregation laws are bad and people should be treated equally (word of disclaimer: I know that for many, The Civil Rights Movement is still moving and I am aware that even given the popularity of the consensus view of this historical phenomenon, racism is alive and well and we, each in our own contexts, still have a long way to go and must strive toward a society that does not operate on racial and class assumptions).

The Civil Rights Movement is perhaps an extreme example, but the conversations concerning ideas and books and Rob Bell's book in particular come to consensuses as well... though their particular importance may be much shorter-lived and even less important. Since it came out, I have wondered just how we'd simplify the popular conversation on heaven and hell. And I have to say, I'm somewhat disappointed with how this conversation has plateaued in evangelical circles.

It seems that the consensus among many of the people in my circles has been that Rob Bell said some good things (and not all are even willing to concede to that) but overemphasized love and under-emphasized justice. "Yes, God is loving," they'll say, "but he's also just"... as if that's supposed to make room for Hell in all it's traditional glory. They seem to think that God's love might want to save everyone but God's justice just won't allow it... like they're in contrast with one another.

The reason I'm disappointed is that we are solidifying a consensus around a false dichotomy. What do I mean? We are assuming that love and justice are opposites, that justice picks up where love leaves off. As though justice can justify what's otherwise opposed to love. As though love must forfeit its dreams to justice. God's love wants you to be saved but God's justice wants you to burn in Hell forever. Good news, huh!?

If this is the case, I must say, I am rooting for love to win.

But I don't think that God's justice is antithetical to or in competition with God's love.

Our judicial philosophies in American culture are dominated by the idea that we must "settle the score," that justice is making sure that people get what they deserve for the wrongs they've done. If someone murders someone else, we figure they deserve to get murdered and our justice system helps us get those results. If someone does something wrong, we figure that they should be punished. Thus, our concept of justice is just about synonymous with punishment. It's "an eye for an eye"... but I think Jesus had something to say about that...

The truth is, justice is quite different in the Biblical narrative. Justice is not primarily about tit-for-tat. It's not primarily about making sure people get what they deserve... otherwise, there's nothing just about forgiveness at all. In the bible, justice is synonymous with righteousness (צֶדֶק) and righteousness can be thought of as a relational term for right-ness... when there are right relationships. Justice is not essentially about punishment or settling the score. Essentially, it's about making things right. Justice and forgiveness go hand in hand since forgiveness is about mending broken relationships. You could say that justice is about clearing a path for forgiveness. So where does love come in? The beginning and the end.

Love is not the antithesis of justice. They are not opposite sides of a coin, and they are not equals! Love transcends justice. Justice is defined by love. Love is the presupposition and the object of justice!

If justice is about making the world right, bringing it in alignment with what God intended for things, then justice and love share the same imagination for the world. For God created the world out of love. It is for love that things exist. Love is the stamp on the world as it should be. Love is what things would look like if they were set right. Love is the goal of true justice, not it's opposite!

The good news is, justice has been done through the work of Jesus Christ. Jesus let injustice do it's worst to him and came out victorious. The world has been set right and forgiveness has been laid out. Justice is the total and utter salvation of the world through Jesus Christ and justice is now being implemented!

If anyone suffers in Hell for all eternity... justice has nothing to do with it!

The Mystery of Blessing

2012-01-12T13:01:00.000-08:00

When the narrative of your life actually lines up with your dream in life, there's no appropriate response other than gratitude. The next question, however, is whether or not you've been dreaming well. In light of the grand narrative of God's restoration and the healing of the world, perhaps any dream we could accomplish would be too small. The best work is God's. But when our dream is in participation with God's dream, when our imagination is as hopeful and life-giving as God's, then we're definitely on to something. And when we begin to see our dreams become realized, it can be seen as nothing if it cannot be seen as a gift.

However, we Christians are not experts at receiving gifts. Either we are unaware of the magnitude of the gift in the light of the world in which we live and thus we squander the gift in the embrace of luxury and excess, never allowing our gratitude to reflect on our conduct. Or we are too aware of the suffering of this world and are thus incapable of accepting the gift. We think it unfair that we receive anything more than what we deserve while others' basic needs, let alone their dreams, are kept from realization. And thus we are unable to entertain the presumption of gratitude.

The truth is, there is a balance... one we've rarely discovered. There is a way, paradoxical as it may be, to be fully aware of the suffering of others and, simultaneously, fully thankful for and able to celebrate the blessings given us. The beginning of the mystery of this balance, I believe, is in the Eucharist (which, after all, means thankfulness)--the remembrance of God's solidarity with oppressed, crucified, and suffering people AND the celebration of the love and victory and grace and freedom and salvation given us as God offers body and blood for us through Christ. The Eucharist itself is a paradox of grief and celebration and thus cannot be taken in truth without the company of a life lived in reflection of the radical love of God displayed in the death and victory of Jesus. In remembering Christ we also look toward God's eschatological dream for the world and hope to be consumed by it.

So when we receive the mystery of blessing in the midst of a broken world, we can only look into the eyes of Christ on the cross. There we see our value. There we see our blessing... even while we see the evidence of tears wept. When we see our dreams becoming realized, we begin by saying "thank you"... and we say it in hope.

Reflections on the Cross

2012-01-10T16:46:00.000-08:00

"What makes the temptation of power so seemingly irresistible? Maybe it is that power offers an easy substitute for the hard task of love. It seems easier to be God than to love God, easier to control people than to love people, easier to own life than to love life." -Henri Nouwen

Paul wrote, in one of his letters to the Corinthians, "The cross is just stupid to those who are being destroyed. But to those who are being healed and rescued, the cross is the power of God." Perhaps the irony and utter backwardness of this passages is lost on us. Sure we've heard it preached, perhaps too many times, as a argument against our critics when they've pushed us into a corner. But what's Paul really saying? He saying that the cross is the power of God... the cross? really? What is the cross if it isn't others exerting power over God? It's powerlessness if it's anything! How can we look at a poor man dying and say, there's victory or there's power? But I think that's the point...

The cross is foolishness... it is so completely backwards from what we've come to embrace as the meaning of power. But I think we're hungry for a little foolishness. In this world of coercion and oppression, where power is defined in our ability to get our way, to step over others, and to control our situation, I think we're hungry to look at the suffering in this world and see a little victory, a little power, a little hope. If we take the cross seriously as a display of power, if we take it seriously as a way to carry ourselves in the world, then it can do nothing if it cannot change everything! As C.S. Lewis said, "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." If we really can see the face of God in that man on the cross and if we really can see such work as a means for salvation, then it's just got to change us, inside and out. It's going to change how we do business. It's going to change how we handle problems, It's going to give us courage to love people we never thought we could love. It's going to be trasformational!

But the tragedy of the church is that, too often, rather than taking up the cross for what it is, rather than let the cross be an ironic and paradoxical symbol of power displayed in powerlessness... in the offering of life instead of the taking of it... we replace the cross for something else altogether. We take Jesus off of it, we dare not see our savior be so vulnerable. We pretty it up and decorate it with glamour and opulence. In the name of relevance, we change the cross itself and forget the death of Jesus. We follow the way of Constantine and we try to conquer and coerce under the banner of the cross and we call it Christianity. It seems easier to control people than to love people and so we count the cross as foolishness.

What if we really let the cross speak for itself? What if we allowed it to be as powerless and vulnerable as it really is? What if we trusted God enough to simply take up the cross and offer ourselves to others, give ourselves in love, even to our enemies? To do this may sound foolish, it may seem counter intuitive, but if we trust, then it may indeed be the power of God and we may indeed find victory, healing, and salvation.

Accountable

2012-01-09T15:21:00.001-08:00

No matter what we say or do to rationalize or explain the existence or non-existence of God, we are and will always be accountable to the fact that Jesus was a man, that he and his followers died and continue to die for his dream, that in contexts of oppression and subjugation people wrote his story, gathered in his name, and engaged in community with him as the object of their hope. We will always be accountable to the fact that by the blood of martyrs, the story of this man Jesus has been passed on to us... and in this story we see beauty, tragedy, reconciliation, and hope. Ultimately, we have a man offering himself in love as a means for the salvation of his oppressors, his torturers, his murderers. We are faced with the reality of a man and his followers who refused to kill their enemies but instead decided to love them, to die for them, to forgive them into submission.

However we may justify all the other options with which we choose to handle the problems we face, the challenges before us, and the struggle we find ourselves in, we are always accountable to the fact that this option of love is on the table... no matter how diligently we try to avoid it, we are still stuck with the reality of the transcendent victory of Jesus and his invitation that is still extended to us.

The Gospel (in so many words)

2012-01-05T15:29:00.001-08:00

I've often tried to narrow down the gospel in just a few words... many have done so. The truth is, the gospel is not something you can fit into a pithy saying or eloquent grouping of words, not because it's so complex but because it's so alive. The gospel is organic, it's contextual, in a way it's even mystical... it cannot be said, only shown... But that doesn't mean we can't poke at it with some words...
Here's a video I made today...

Shane's 12 Hopes for 2012... and Mine

2012-01-04T08:35:00.000-08:00

I want to share something I found on Facebook today. Shane Claiborne, one of my favorite people and definitely one of my role models, posted his "resolutions" for 2012 and I think that his "hopes" are quite inspiring...

12 Hopes for 2012

by Shane Claiborne on Wednesday, 4 January 2012 at 06:54

12. Do something really nice – that no one knows about.

11. Spend more money on other people than I spend on my self. Love my neighbor as I love myself. And love myself as I love my neighbor.

10. Laugh often… especially at advertisements that try to convince me that I must buy more stuff in order to be happy.

9. Learn a new life skill – like carpentry, pottery, or canning vegetables. Teach someone else I life skill I know how to do.

8. Love a few people well, remembering that what is important is not how much we do but how much love we put into doing it.

7. Write a letter to someone I need to say thank you to. Write another letter to someone I need to ask to forgive me.

6. Track down a critic or someone I disagree with and take them to lunch. Listen to them.

5. Compliment someone I have a hard time complimenting… and mean it.

4. Choose life. Do something regularly to interrupt the patterns of death – do something to end violence, bullying, war, capital punishment and other mean and ugly things.

3. Pause before every potential crisis and ask “will this matter in 5 years?”

2. Get outside often and marvel at things like fireflies and shooting stars. And regularly get my hands into the garden… so when I type on the computer I can see dirt under my fingernails.

1. Believe in miracles. And live in a way that might necessitate one.

I found Shane list to be so inspiring, I couldn't help but come up with my own list some things will be quite similar to Shane's but I doubt he'd want us to copy him altogether... I know he's a fan of creativity:

12. Do something I would rather not do, just to lighten someone else's load.

11. Make a habit of listening rather than simply waiting for my turn to speak.

10. Regularly enjoy long meals at home without the assistance of the television.

9. Write poetry... the kind that gets beyond the brain...

8. Pray for other people and live a life that might position me to become the answer to those prayers.

7. laugh often... especially about the things I'd normally take more seriously than I should... like my political disagreements with friends.

6. Choose life. Do something regularly to interrupt the patterns of death – do something to end violence, bullying, war, capital punishment and other mean and ugly things.

5. Give generously. Live simply.

4. Take walks. Enjoy the world. Celebrate creation.

3. Diet for justice... think of others even while ordering off the dinner menu.

2. Pray for people with whom I disagree. Desperately seek the face of God in the most unlikely of people.

1. Imagine. Dream. Don't settle for anything less that what God imagines. Love relentlessly even in the face of cynicism.

And, to add another "hope," I hope to have the discipline to look at this list from time to time and see how I'm doing.

Looking at Hell... From the Future

2012-01-03T14:35:00.000-08:00

Following Gandhi's famous quote, "be the change you want to see in the world," and understanding it in the light of the gospel--perhaps reading it as, "be the change which Christ will implement in the world"--with the full expectation of that which has been revealed in Christ, namely; the vindication and salvation of a crucified world, I can only look upon this world with my feet grounded in the future. Faith, preceded by hope (Hebrews 11:1), expects more of the world than what is apparent. We all wish for something more and we may scrape for the element of expectation but more often than not we give in to cynicism. Even those of us who proclaim that we have faith are often without it, we just cannot keep up with what we say, we struggle to expect anything more than the hand we've been dealt or our expectations simply fall short of the total and unadulterated salvation promised to the world in Christ--through incarnation, death, and resurrection. And that's got to be ok... I mean, if we could apprehend our faith, it just wouldn't be big enough.

Christianity makes some particular claims about the future, while never presuming to have specific and determined clarity on the subject. In remembrance of the work of Christ, the future which we anticipate is impossible to exaggerate. We're talking total redemption, total healing, complete salvation, radical renewal, utter salvation from all that does not reflect the love of God. From this vantage point, we can survey the world and see what does not belong and with confidence say, "this too shall be made right." Suffering, violence, hunger, disease, oppression, depression, loneliness, cruelty, and dehumanization... all this will be made right... Is that not the project of the gospel?

From this vantage point we can speak clearly and sharply against that which does not belong. We can call people to repentance. We can invite reality to embrace its future in the here and now...

So now here's the big question... "what the hell?"

Or in other words...

Where does Hell, as postmortem and eternal retribution, fit into the equation?

It is one thing to talk about hell in light of the world as we know it. It's impossible to expect that all people will come to embrace Christ (and I want to be clear here... I have never meant to imply that anyone other than Christ is doing the saving), right? And so it makes sense for us to assume, from where we are standing, that retribution is required and that some simply do not belong in a healed world. But looking from the future, assuming that God loves all individuals with the same degree or relentlessness, how can we say that all things have been made new when objects of God's love are still burning?

I am sure that some simply don't believe that God's love is all that relentless. They don't buy the suggestion that God never quits on God's creation. They are fine with the idea that God loves some people and doesn't love others or that God will eventually stop loving some so that God can be satisfied with their eternal damnation... for the greater good. However, Jesus had some things to say to such as these. Jesus told parables of lost sheep and good Samaritans.It does not seem that we should limit God's love so much as to say that it has an end... even for the ones who walk away from it.

So if God's love never ends and God's love never fails, then should our expectations not include God's satisfaction? If God loves the way the Bible seems to say God loves, then would God really be satisfied if Hell were an eternal reality for those God loves? Couldn't our expectations include the redemption of Hell itself? Whatever the case, I don't like the other options...

I don't like the idea that there are some God doesn't love...
With Paul, I must assume that I am the "chief of sinners" since I can make no greater judgement upon another. So I would have to be first in line for damnation. God has no better reason to love me than for anyone else.

I don't like the idea that God is ok with the eternal damnation of someone God loves....
How could God say, "it is finished" or "I have made all things new" if there are still some who have not been saved? A world still fraught with division and suffering is quite an underwhelming expectation and, in light of Christ, it's hardly something we should expect.

And I don't like the idea that God does not eventually restore all things...
I don't like the concept of a God who is eternally dissatisfied, a God whose love fails to sway the hearts of some.

Now, I am fully aware of the Bible passages that I am apparently ignoring here... That's why I'm certainly not certain about any of this. But whatever the case, whatever some individual passages might say, I have a lot of trouble harmonizing Hell with the hope I've found in the Biblical narrative.

saying the un-sayable

2012-01-02T21:26:00.001-08:00

We can only say "God is good" if we bear the fundamental realization that what we are saying is actually un-sayable but only accessible through experience. You can only say that which you've been shown if you say it with your guts, if you can bear the weight of its reality somewhere in your memory. Perhaps that's why the Eucharist is an act of remembrance. Not so that we can look merely upon the past, but so that we can make claim upon the present and the future with the banner hope. In remembrance of Christ, we can say "there is no male or female, slave or free, Jew or Gentile, citizen or immigrant, for we are one in Christ," with the weight of that reality resting behind our lips.

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.2

Resolution: dieting for justice

2012-01-01T09:28:00.001-08:00

Last week a friend gave me the complement of saying, "if the world were filled with guys like you, it would be a better place." I immediacy responded, "oh no, there would'nt be enough resources to feed all of us."

Now although I am only kidding, there's a degree of truth to that statement. I'm often reminded of Gandhi's famous quote, "be the change you want to see in the world" which can be taken to mean, model a life that reflects the world you want to see. Now if we are really going to take that seriously, in light of the realities of scarcity and environmental abuse, we have to talk about sustainability as a justice issue. I'm not just talking about environmental sustainability but also economic sustainability. And I'm not just talking about money but also about food and even property. To model the kind of world we'd like to see, we have to be serious about these issues which means that it has to go beyond simply being nice to each other. It has to be about living a life that, if it were lived by the whole world, would be somewhere in the realm of possibility. The kind of excess which many of us enjoy is simply not sustainable. If everyone lived like we do, we'd need a few more planet earths--well turns out we've just got the one.

Today I stepped on the scale for the first time in a while (always a red flag) and though I was not surprised at the numbers, I was disappointed. The scale read close to 350lbs. Now if you know me, you know I'm a big guy (glad to say I carry it well... People don't usually guess over 300lbs) but that's getting out of hand. I realized the sheer hypocrisy reflected in those numbers. Do you know how much one must consume in order to reach that degree of mass?! It's simply not sustainable. And though I preach fair trade and talk about making decisions on behalf of and loving the "least of these," I have not allowed my ideology to affect my lunch order.

So, although I'm not in to "resolutions" for the sake of resolutions... I am resolving from this day to live a life that reflects my hope. I am going to lose some weight this year... Not because it'll make me a more attractive person and not because I'm worried about my health (although those are quite important, especially if you ask my wife) but because it is just and good for those on the under-side of the economic system. It is a reflection of another world, the Olam Haba, the world to come.

On Knowing

2011-12-31T11:28:00.001-08:00

"But how do we know?
We've lost much of the richness of that word. Nowadays, to know means to know with intellect. But it is a much deeper word than that. Adam knew Eve. To know deeply is far more than to know consciously. In the realm of faith I know far more than I can believe with my finite mind. I know that a loving God will not abandon what he creates. I know that the human calling is cocreation with this power of love. I know that 'neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.'
But in this limited world we tend to lose this kind of knowing, and this loss has permeated our fiction as well as our prayer." -Madeliene L'Engle

I am not anti-intellectual. In fact, my patience is often tested by arguments or suppositions which seem to refuse to take seriously the depth of human intellect. On the flip-side, however, I am equally tested by intellectuals who refuse to approach a subject with the degree of humility that is required to truly take seriously the depth of human experience and faith as a body of knowledge. We have so elevated objectivity and certainty through observation that we have neglected richness of subjectivity, story, hope, and faith. We scoff as these concepts unless we find them in art or poetry and yet we miss altogether the fact that art and poetry are often more true to reality than any math equation or scientific explanation. How shallow our life would be if we were required only to believe that which is substantiated on the basis of static observation. Indeed, how hopeless would we be if we were required to believe only that which is possible, for nothing is truly possible until it happens. Ludwig Wittgenstein once said, "It is an hypothesis that the sun will rise tomorrow: and this means that we do not know whether it will rise." And yet this does not negate the real importance of the matter. Hope calls the impossible future into the present and thus takes seriously the fullness of time in the conversation of finite reality. Are we not naive to ignore spiritual realities when we are, after all, spiritual beings--animated flesh and bone capable of reasoned arguments... does it get much more spiritual?!

Christ invites us to know God. If we take this knowing to be purely intellectual and built upon objective certainty, surely we will miss the invitation. The realities that call us into the present with full vigor are those which can only be known in mystery and wonder. To quote Wittgenstein again, "Man has to awaken to wonder... Science is a way of sending him to sleep again." The reality we can grasp is always a reflection of the reality we have not yet realized.

Back To Reality

2011-12-30T10:18:00.000-08:00

Sometimes we Christians take for granted the absurdity of some of the things we say so casually. We get so accustomed to talking to other Christians that we forget just how strangely some of the things we say might hit the ears of someone outside our circle, someone who doesn't ascribe to the same understanding of reality.

Two nights ago, one of my friends from way-back-when was back in town and invited me to meet with him and a couple of other folks we knew in High School. They were meeting to talk about religion and theism and I guess he thought that it'd be nice to have a Christian in the group, since all the others were essentially secular humanists and atheists. Although I was hesitant to set myself up for an intellectual gang raping--being the only one of about five people who believes in God, let alone the particular and peculiar God revealed in Christ--I agreed to hang out with them. Well, it didn't turn out to be much of a debate at all. With alcohol as the social lubricant, we managed to have a very cordial and civil dialogue...whenever we weren't talking about something else. It was a casual conversation, to say the least. Whenever I find myself in such a setting, I just try to be open and understanding... I try to be very distinct from those who impose their doctrines on others and act shocked and horrified at those who don't agree with them. It seemed that we really were just trying to understand each other. I was trying to understand their presuppositions and they were trying to understand mine.

We talked subjectivity & objectivity, we talked perspective, we talked epistemology, we talked biblical interpretation and theology. Interestingly enough, I felt more "at home" talking about these things with atheists than I normally do with folks who are presumably more like me. Many of my Christian friends seem to have hand-cuffs on when they talk about such things and they seem to want to put the hand-cuffs on me as well. As I talked with these guys, I realized just how much of what I say requires an explanation. For example, when I talk about God creating people in God's image, this sounds utterly strange and presumptuous to folks on the outside of the conversation. An explanation of what this God is like, the nature of that creation, and the ways in which image bearing plays out in reality is required. When we stake our whole reputation and base our whole lives on things that we apparently only believe out of necessity, because we are afraid of the slippery-slope or the subsequent results if we did not believe it, it sounds ludicrous, anti-intellectual, and idiotic to those on the outside. I think we all need these conversations every once in a while... just to bring us "back to reality."

By the end of the night I didn't feel that I had said very much at all and my friends did not walk away in any degree of agreement with me. But we did walk away with a bit more mutual understanding. We did walk away with a bit of hope. Each of them affirmed that my perspective was actually a good one, even if they couldn't agree with it. What was it that they saw as good? I didn't make profoundly convincing arguments. I didn't say anything that left their jaw open. If we'd had an argument, I'm sure I would have lost... but they still saw something good in what I was saying and I saw good in what they were saying. This speaks to the profundity of posture. The way we carry ourselves in conversation is as important as our ability to articulate our perspective. Love is what changes hearts, not well-reasoned articulations.

Delayed gratification! If your heart's desire is for others to come to the same conclusions that you have, that's fine. In fact, that's good. If your conclusions weren't worth sharing they wouldn't be worth having. But don't try to convert people. Don't try to change people. Just love them. and gratification will come, understanding will be found, not through coercion but through friendship.

On the way out the door one of my friends asked me one more question. Admitting that he'd had too much to drink to actually hash it out right there, he asked about the whole "love your enemies" thing. Perhaps that is where conversations on moralism and theism end and a conversation on Jesus Christ actually begins...

Flesh and Blood: a poem on the reality of Christ

2011-12-28T14:57:00.000-08:00

The reality of Christ is an historical reality, not only out of mere necessity or as an arbitrary conclusion in the "search for meaning" but out of an encounter with the Spirit of God in flesh and blood. The reality of resurrection, though arguable in historical terms, can only ever be confirmed in the hands and feet of those willing to follow Christ to Calvary. We are the answer to the questions. And so, try as we might to steer our arguments into the realm of objectivity, we must understand our claims to be necessarily subjective. The subjectivity of the gospel, however, is not antithetical to reason and rationale. Far from it! It is reason in fullest form; taking human experience seriously as a source for reflection and taking faith seriously as a body of knowledge. The spiritual realities refuse to remain static and separate from our corporeal experience. Rather, they are thoroughly encompassing, claiming even thought and the general animation of otherwise lifeless dust as deeply Spiritual. This is close to the heart of communion or Eucharist. It is bread and wine and human relationships realized as synonymous with the life of God in the world.

This is the theological foundation for conversation and evangelism: not that we should convert others to reasoned arguments or dogmatic proposals but that in us it is made apparent that the life of human kind is fuller, more compelling, and undeniably authentic when it is lived in participation with the God whose love brings life from death.

God Incarnate 2011

2011-12-25T08:23:00.001-08:00

This morning as I write this post, thousands upon thousands of children are rushing to wake their parents from their sleep, to gather around a pine tree in a living room (which is a good thing since it may be the only time of the year when something other than the TV might draw some attention in there), to see what Santa brought over when he broke into the house while everyone was sleeping. The excitement in their eyes, I'm sure, offers confirmation to their parents that all the shopping and all the decorating was worthwhile. For many of us, this scene is nostalgic. But as we are filled with such excitement, I can't help but wonder how much of this actually reflects the thing we are celebrating. What does this all have to do with the incarnation?

Christmas day, the event we celebrate on December 25th (at least most of us), is about the love of God taking on flesh and blood and taking up residence in this place we sinners call home. It is not one of those secret millionaire or undercover CEO reality TV shows. It's the God of the universe shacking up with us, affirming our experience, validating our suffering, and redeeming our situation. This day serves uniquely as a confirmation that God is not distant, God is not a monster, and God is utterly and fundamentally good. If God's goodness is hard to believe any other day of the year (and trust me, I struggle with that question with great frequency), today in Christ we receive a demonstration: God in a baby, born of poor and humble parents, wrapped and placed in a feeding troft. This is our sign of good news as the angels announced. God is not an arbitrary judge or a self absorbed tyrant. God is one of us. When we suffer, God suffers. Our fate is shared by our creator and the same body that is born this day will ascend the summit of human suffering only to overcome it, offering means for our salvation.

If that were only as real to us as presents under a tree perhaps the excitement and the jubilation would be redirected to the God from whom all blessings flow. The fact is, it is more real. The salvation that comes to us through the unadulterated presence of God's transformational love is now the truest thing about us, about this world. So may it be real to you today! May you share in the real presence of Christ's body and blood as you share this day with family and friends and may you share it in you own corporeal existence. Merry Christmas!

Theology as a Spiritual Discipline

2011-12-21T10:45:00.000-08:00

The term "Practical Theology" has always erked me a little. Though I am thankful for the emphasis on praxis and the focus having shifted from dogmatic theory to where the rubber of our thoughts actually hit the road of real life, the implication of the term "Practical theology" is that boring old regular theology is just impractical. I I think this implication is actually the biggest reason I changed majors in college. If you don't know, when I started at Azusa Pacific University I was a Youth Ministry major. I knew from the time I was a Freshman in high school that I wanted to be a Youth pastor someday. But when I got into the program, I became bored and frustrated. I was bored because it seemed that my classes were only interested in application and I was frustrated because I wanted to spend more time unpacking the ideas upon which we were basing our application. It seemed that everyone was in such a hurry to get to the practical that the delayed gratification of real robust theological reflection was just too inefficient for my professors and peers. Now, this is meant to be more a commentary on my own personality than a criticism of APU's Youth Ministry program. Now, with the likes of Doug Fields and Jim Burns involved, I am sure that it's the best Youth Ministry program in any undergraduate program in the country. A good youth ministry program should emphasize practicality! But good practical theology must take deep theological reflection seriously, even if it may not seem immediately applicable to creating a youth event.

The truth is, for better or worse, all theology is practical... every bit of it... every punctuation mark. whether we like it or not and whether we are aware of it or not, what we believe and how we theologize is an act of Spiritual formation and thus affects the way we act, the way we speak, and the way we live.

A friend gave me a great analogy for this. He said, "many of us behave the way we 'see' our Father behave." As someone who works with teenagers, this idea resonates. We usually think of teenagers as free thinkers, but the truth is they're incredible adept at reflecting their influences. So who has the greatest influence? Their parents, of course. think about it... a teacher might have 5-7 hours with a given teenager per week during the school year. A coach might have more. A Youth Pastor, assuming the students is active in their Youth Ministry, might have about 40-50 hours per year... maybe 80 for those who come twice a week... maybe 100 for those who go to camp. Hell, let's exaggerate and say that a Youth Pastor gets 200 hours a year to influence a given student... Well parents get more. According to research by Reggie Joiner of ThinkOrange, Parents get 3,000 hours per year to influence their kids. Whether or not they actually take advantage of that time in a positive way, they have influence. From my observation, students are good at absorbing that influence. Rebellious or not, daughters usually act and talk a lot like their mothers. Sons are typically similar to their dads. generally, kids are incredible at being like their parents, if for no other reason, because they're with them more often than they are with any other adult. If your a parent, you can bet that your kids will turn out something like you (though probably in unexpected ways).... guess you'd better shape-up.

Apply that principal to our ideas. How much time do we spend with our thoughts? Well, not much less than 8,765 hours. That's a lot more time than kids spend with their parents. We never really get away with our ideas. The things we have actually internalized are even in our dreams. I had a dream the other day that I was trying to talk a friend into buying fair-trade cantaloupe... apparently I've internalized the concept of fair-trade marketing. My mom told me about a dream she had where she had dinner with Hilary Clinton and was asking her about U.S. relations with North Korea in light of their recent regime change... (that's SO my mom). See, I never get away from my beliefs. Nobody really does. Our ideas influence who we are. They change our reactions. They shape us into the people we are becoming.

I think A.W. Tozer hit the nail on the head when he said, "What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us." Whether or not you are immersed in the Biblical narrative, whether or not your God is the God revealed in Christ, we all appeal to some authority or narrative as a lens for interpreting our experience. What you believe to be the essence of reality, what you believe in your bones to be the truest thing about the world will transform who you are and what you do. If we have thousands of hours a year with our thoughts, we'd might as well be intentional about them.

Spiritual disciplines are about becoming the kinds of people that God created us to be. We pray so that we can become people who are in tune with the heart of God. We read the Bible so that we can become people who are immersed in God's version of the story. We engage in silence so that we can become the kinds of people who stop and listen. We do all of these things out of a desire to be formed a certain way, understanding that what we do shapes us whether we like it or not. Theological reflection, being the foundation for all such practices, is the most important spiritual discipline we can take up. What isn't immediately applicable will still shape us. Therefore we must be patient for delayed gratification. We may never see how subtle differences in atonement theory or eschatology can affect the way we run a program or plan an outing. We may never see how the heady academic discussions on 1 Corinthians 15 are actually "practical" for planning a sermon series. We may think that reading Barth or Rahner is boring (God forbid). But if we are intentional even in the little things, the fruit of our reflection will grow beyond our imagination.

As I have said since my undergrad, everyone's a theologian... not everyone's a good one.

Scrutinizing the Faith of Our President

2011-12-14T11:05:00.000-08:00

I have a confession to make:

Sometimes I like to post quotes from President

Barack Obama on Facebook, without crediting him, so that my really conservative friends can unknowingly "like" something the President said.

This was the most recent one: ‎

"This is the season to celebrate the story of how, more than two thousand years ago, a child was born to two faithful travelers who could find rest only in a stable, among cattle and sheep. He was no ordinary child. He was the manifestation of God’s love. And every year we celebrate His birth because the story of Jesus Christ changed the world... It moves us to love one another; to help and serve those less fortunate; to forgive; to draw close to our families; to be grateful for all that has been given to us; to keep faith; and to hold on to an enduring hope in humanity." (from Sojourners)

I posted something similar last Easter. I don't usually quote presidents, especially not on spiritual matters, but I am fascinated with the spirituality of President Obama. More specifically, I am fascinated with the popular criticism of his spirituality. Quotes like the one above are all over the place. He has never been apologetic about his Christian identity. And while you could nit-pick inconsistencies and points of disagreement, as you could with anyone else, if it were anyone else--indeed if it were a Republican President--I am confident that criticism would be far less popular. I don't remember, at any point of his presidency, George W. Bush having to be so articulate about his faith in Christ. It seemed that for him it was enough just to claim it... no explanation was necessary. And With President Obama, the opposite seems to be the case. He has claimed it and explained it and it is still very popular for the media and for bloggers to question his commitment to the Christian faith.

Now don't get me wrong. I am skeptical about the sincerity of any politician... especially the President (anyone who's been so successful in such a corrupt system should be under scrutiny)... and especially when it comes to Christian faith. I am of the persuasion that the Christian faith is, by and large, a faith for the disenfranchised, the poor, those on the under-side of society... indeed it's about solidarity with a crucified man, making the claim that such a person is not only the true king but is indeed the God of all creation. Christianity's roots are in the bodies of ex-slaves who illegally emigrated from Egypt. It's theological heritage includes the convictions of an ex-murderer and some poor fishermen. It's clearest expressions were performed by prostitutes and tax collectors. The Christian faith, as it seems, is inherently in opposition to coercion and power, as such. Of course, however, everyone is invited to join God in God's preferential love for the needy. But any person who claims Christ and carries a position which thrives on power and even exploitation should be regarded either as a contradiction in terms or as a paradox. I firmly believe that God loves a good paradox, so there's no real problem in my mind with a President being a Christian, as long as the substance of their faith compels them to wield their power in love on behalf of the "least of these."

But of course I'm gonna scrutinize the president's theology and sincerity, not because I want to judge him but because I'm invested in healthy theological dialogue and the construction of shared ecclesiological values. But why the skepticism from the media? Why from so many who wouldn't otherwise question someone's faith if they're open to claim it? If anyone on the street gave equally robust explanations of the content of their convictions, few would hesitate to accept them as a Christian. So why?

We should spend less time judging and scrutinizing whether or not the President actually believes what he says and spend a lot more time embodying the sort of change we'd like to see.

"Progress comes when we look into the eyes of another and see the face of God." -President Barack Obama

In the end, does it matter if the President of the United States is a Christian? Would it not be equally "American" for us to have a Mormon, Jewish, or even a Muslim President? Some, I'm sure, would site references to argue that America is a "Christian nation" or that it should be. But I'm not sure those terms can go together in any real or functional way as long as the Kingdom of God includes every nation. And I'm not sure it's very "American" to presuppose that the President should be a Christian. Ironically, the debate concerning the faith of the President seems to preclude anyone of any other faith from being the President of a nation that wants to celebrate "freedom" with such enthusiasm. Perhaps it's mutually disadvantageous for us to demand the President to claim Christ. But for now, I am confident that the man who holds office today is as much a Christian as I am. Indeed, there are no degrees to such a distinction.

On Global Warming

2011-12-10T18:00:00.001-08:00

I found this a couple of days ago in the November 29 issue of Christian Century Magazine (which, by the way, is one of the only magazines worth a subscription).

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.1

The Muppets and Class Warfare

2011-12-08T12:07:00.000-08:00

"God always places himself unconditionally and passionately on the side of the poorest and only on that side: against the proud, always in favor of the humble, against those who possess and defend their rights, and on the side of those to whom those rights are denied" -Karl Barth (Dogmatics 2.1-2. See Daniel Groody, The Option For The Poor in Christian Theology, Page 24.)

"'He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?' declares the LORD." Jeremiah 22:16

Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty." James 5:1-4

Ever since she first saw the preview, probably in August, my wife was excited about the Muppet Movie. She was so excited, in fact, that I heard about it every time we went to the movies as I was forced to take her picture with Muppet posters and displays advertising its premier. She couldn't wait to see it. Well, turns out, my friend Ryan was just as geeky about the film. They made plans to drag me along as soon as it came out. Well, when it finally came out, we all went and saw it... the day after Thanksgiving.

I settled in with my popcorn between my two best friends and prepared myself for the worst. Needless to say, I had low expectations. But about 15 minutes into the movie I realized that I was watching a masterpiece. No kidding! It was a great film with a ton of great cameo appearances. I'd mention some names, but I don't wanna give anything away. You've just got to see it.

Just when I thought that there was finally a movie with some innocence, Fox News alerted us all to the hidden, even subliminal, sinister message of the film. Leave it to Fox News to scrutinize the Muppets for being too liberal. I know that for some of you the following video is "sooo 72 hours ago," since everyone seems to be Facebooking and Blogging about it. But nevertheless, I can't help but make at least a few comments of my own.

Now, the general consensus among the sane is that Fox News is just being silly here. They've become so sensitive to class warfare, as perhaps we should, but their direction is definitely in favor of the rich... in defense of poor defenseless corporate America. Really?! Tex Richman is the American Dream? Taking advantage of people, acting upon impulses of greed and opportunism is the American dream? I mean, did they even watch the movie? Somehow the Fox commentators found a way to make Caroline Heldman, who spoke from sheer common sense and contextual awareness, sound like she was speaking non-sense. That is, after all, the magic of the media.

Now, I don't want to harp on this too much. If you agree with Fox News on this one, there's probably no changing your mind... I certainly can't relate to you. But I do want to point out something here... however Fox News and its constituents might try, they can't blame liberals in Hollywood for the voices which speak out against corporate consumption, unfair distribution of wealth, greed in the market, and opportunism of the wealthy over the poor--what they've broad-stroked as "class warfare." It's much much older than that. Indeed it goes back centuries before the United States was ever a thought in the minds of disillusioned Englishmen. It also comes from all corners of the globe, not just from a city in Southern California. For example, you can't blame Hollywood for "A Christmas Carol."

Of course Hollywood makes movies based on the story, seems like every year, but that one's on the shoulders of Chuck Dickens, the 19th century English novelist. Have you read that one lately? The villain, like Tex Richman, is a corporate glutton whose own business ventures weigh more heavily in his priorities than the plight of his fellow human beings... or Muppets. In reference to the poor, or "idle people" as he calls them, Ebenezer Scrooge, Dickens' Christmas villain, is quoted for saying, "If they would rather die... they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population!" I think that surpasses even The Muppets' lack of subtlety in their character development. This villain only becomes a hero when he sets aside his selfishness and joins the side of the ones of who he used to take advantage.

How about the story of Robin Hood? Or Aladdin? What about Moses vs. Pharaoh in the Exodus narrative? Hell, how about the majority of the Old Testament? And who could forget the New Testament? Maybe Jesus' mother was trying to brainwash our kids with socialism when she said, "He (God) has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty" (Luke 1:52, 53). Maybe Jesus was teaching class warfare when he mentioned how difficult it would be for the rich to enter the Kingdom. The truth is, in the Bible, God does choose sides. As Karl Barth said, "God always places himself unconditionally and passionately on the side of the poorest and only on that side..." God is on the side of the poor. This is not just a pithy statement but an economic and political reality. The beauty is, God shows no favoritism! God invites everyone, from every gender, race, social status, ethnic identity, etc. to join on the side of the poor. Whether it is 99% or 1%, God sides and shares identity with the "least of these" (read all of Matthew 25... another hefty dose of liberal propaganda from the mouth of Jesus).

By selling a narrative in which speaking out against the wealthy is unacceptable, even if the wealthy gained their status through greed and coercion, the staunchly conservative are protecting the status-quo because, obviously, they're benefiting from it. It's a distraction from reality. Isn't generosity, compassion, and community as opposed to personal power a responsible message for us to be teaching our kids? There's a reason that every villain in just about every decent narrative is a greedy, self-seeking, wealthy, and powerful person. It's because when we step out of our idealism and convoluted political perspectives, the exploitation of power over others is obviously wrong. This is common sense if there is is such a thing.

Tony Campolo said, "there's nothing wrong with making a lot of money, there's something wrong with keeping it." It's not that the rich are bad. The problem isn't that people get wealthy, it's that too often they do so through exploitation and manipulation. It's not wealth in general but the process of getting wealthy that should be scrutinized. You can be lovingly and compassionately on the side of the poor and still be wealthy. It's just going to look different than it does for Tex Richman and Ebenezer Scrooge.

So I think that Fox News, by their overly sensitive reaction to such an innocent and very common children's film, has exposed their own ideological distractedness from reality. Reality is that the poor are more important than our personal comfort. We are called to love, to live a life of love. This will, without exception, lead us to love those on the under-side of society, something we cannot do if we do not speak out against those and that which crushes them and perpetuates their suffering. Along the same lines, we are called to love one another. We cannot do this if we do not engage in community--seeking to bless one another, to come together, and to help one another. The truth is, the Muppets were on the right track... less can be said for Fox News.

Take Christ Out Of Your Christmas

2011-12-06T21:15:00.001-08:00

Every year in December I hear the same complaints and sarcastic remarks associated with Christmas and public socialization, specifically the kind that happens between check-out clerks and their customers. I'm talking about the "Merry Christmas" vs. "Happy Holidays" argument. In an attempt to be more inclusive and neutral in the public sphere, most stores and businesses has adopted the phrase "Happy Holidays" in place of "Merry Christmas." Well, despite their good intentions, I think they've done more to piss off conservative evangelicals and just plain old conservatives than they have to make others feel included in a Christmas-dominated season in society.

Every year the complaints resound right alongside the jingle bells, "why don't they just say Merry Christmas?" "They're taking the Christ out of Christmas!"
Maybe you don't hear these complaints as often as I do, after all, I do live in Ramona... The Texas of Southern California. But take a step back... do we really want Walmart and Target to acknowledge Christmas? Do we really want Christmas to be associated with these sorts of places... or with so-called public places anyway?

To sort this out, I think we need to get particular about what Christmas is all about. Christmas is about the birth of Christ. Too cliche? Well, to put a bit more freshly, it's about the incarnation, about God's radical act of coming near to us in a poor man from Nazareth. It's the indwelling of the presence of the particular God of Israel into reality... a presence which does nothing if it does not transform reality as we know it. More yet, it is about good news! Good news especially to the poor. This is the implication of the angel declaring to poor shepherds, "I bring you good news..." (Luke 2:10). And, after all, these are among Jesus first words concerning himself, "God has anointed me to bring good news to the poor" (Luke 4:18). As far as Mary is concerned Christmas is about that which Fox News would refer to as "class warfare." In her own words, "He (God) has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty" (Luke 1:52, 53 TNIV).

Quick rant: class warfare is real and neutrality is not an option. The poor are being trampled upon, even as you read this post, and whether you are rich or poor, you'd better choose the side of the poor... that is the side which God has chosen in Christ! ...and God's gonna win.

Now back to Christmas.

If we can agree that Christmas is about good news to the poor and about engaging in the presence of God and it's profound transformational affect on everything, then we'd better distinguish a difference between the Christmas of Christ and the American Christmas. There is a drastic contrast.

Americans spend approximately $450,000,000,000 (that's $450 billion... I like putting all the zeros for dramatic effect) on Christmas presents, lights, wrapping paper, etc. making Christmas time very very good news... for the rich. The corporations and big businesses thrive on consumerism because of their unique ability to drive a harder bargain than small businesses and fair trade organizations. Yes, Christmas is a very merry time for Walmart. But if they were to say "merry Christmas," we'd have to recognize definitively that their Christmas is different from that of Christ. After all, how well do you think they understand or engage in the concept of the incarnation of God? If Marry knew what she was talking about at all, Christmas should actually be bad news to Walmart and, likes of them, and to the American machine in general.

The American Christmas stands in stark contrast to the Christmas of Christ. As such, it would be nonsensical or even offensive for Christmas to be given lip service from some industrial giant or retail megastore. In a way, the public phrase, "merry Christmas" should be more offensive to Christians than to anyone else. Do we really want our holiday to be associated with the opulence we see in shopping malls?

So I say, thank you for saying "happy holidays." Thank you for taking a tiny step away from associating Christmas with whatever "holidays" you're celebrating. And go ahead and take the Christ out of your Christmas... liberate the radical, counter-cultural, good-news-to-the-poor incarnation of Christ from the ravages of the American Christmas.

A Quick Plug For My Friend Aaron

2011-12-05T08:42:00.000-08:00

A couple years ago we took our Jr. High Youth Group to summer camp at Creekside at Forest Home for the first time. What an amazing staff they have there! Well one of them, a friend of mine named Aaron, has been accepted at Azusa Pacific University (pretty much the best school on the planet earth) despite some major challenges in his life. It was so exciting to hear that he got accepted but now comes the problem of money. He's created a Facebook page to try to raise support for his cause. He's asking his friends to help him out. I think this guys is especially worthy of support. Check out the Facebook Page: TeamAaronToAPU and be sure to click the "like"button! I made the following video to show my support and posted it on the page.

Advent Conspiracy

2011-12-04T14:54:00.000-08:00

[AC] Promo 2011 - International Justice Mission from Advent Conspiracy on Vimeo.

Advent Conspiracy is a site I love to visit this time of year and I love their promo videos. It's actually pretty tragic that their idea--to spend less on "gifts" and more on relationships for Christmas--is so "revolutionary." It's really noting new. Shouldn't it be a no-brainer? Nevertheless, we all need the reminder every year, in the midst of the ironic chaos and consumerism, that Christmas is really about something much bigger.

Check out the AC website, copy the video, and pass along the idea.

Thinking Theologically About Boundaries

2011-12-03T23:48:00.001-08:00

Healthy boundaries have become a hot bottom topic in many of the ministry conversations I've had in the last few years. If the term "boundaries" aren't part of your vocabulary when you start working in ministry, especially church ministry, chances are it will be before long. A person's boundaries in ministry is a common enough barometer for judging their personal and familial health. But for some of us, the word alone carries a negative connotation, especially from an ideological or theological perspective.

Boundaries can imply social distinctions or a rugged individualism that are counter to the values of the kingdom of God. It brings images of walls and curtains and barriers and, at their worst, that's exactly what boundaries can create. At their worst, boundaries are simply a justification for keeping a distance and a refusal to be wholly, transparently, and communally involved and invested in the lives of others. If koinonia--the community that reflects the God revealed in Jesus Christ--is about sharing, embracing, suffering, affirming and loving, then boundaries can become the anti-koinonia.

But I think that there's a better and more appropriate perspective if we allow ourselves to really think theologically about boundaries. The truth is, we have boundaries all over the place in our lives. They're not only socially accepted but socially expected. If I don't want to be raped and I expect people to respect that desire, then I have boundaries in relationships. We all have them, we might as well be intentional about them. And as followers of Christ, we may as well think theologically about them. Perhaps that's what's missing in the conversation.

At their best, boundaries are a practice in escatological vision, springing from a robust and thouroughly biblical theological anthropology. They are less about creating walls and more about creating space, open and life-giving space. They are about creating freedom by way of embracing difference.

What we are really talking about here are relationships, so why not start with the Trinity? Perhaps it's not the first place you'd think to look in a conversation about boundaries in relationships, but it is a proper starting point since the ways in which people are created to interact are a reflection of the image of the God who created them. The Trinity, as such, is merely a training-wheel for us to conceptualize the ways in which God exists in reality (reality referring not only to what we experience but also to the backdrop of our experience). The heart of trinitarian theology is not the modes of God's interaction with people. It's not just about learning how to identify the Father in in distinction from the Son and the Spirit. Trinitarian theology points to the nature of God's existence and, perhaps more significantly, to what God is like. God is not an isolated static idea or floating orb of transcendence. The Trinitarian God, the God of the Scriptures, is a God in community--totally intimate and totally faithful in and of Godself. The Father, Son, and Spirit are wholly invested in community with one another. Their very identity is shared among them and love is the adhesive which weaves this community together, deeming the phrase, "God is love," an accurate statement.

But Trinitarian theology is also about embracing difference. In our culture of inclusivity and pluralism, I'm afraid we are losing our grip on the particularity and distinctiveness that is inherent in humanity. Although it is a positive and necessary cultural shift toward peace and understanding, our need to find common ground and to celebrate commonality has stripped us of our ability to recognize our differences. Understanding does not come from ignorance of disagreement or universality of perspective. True understanding recognizes that we are in fact distinct from one another and that we are in fact making exclusive and particular claims concerning reality. Community, therefore, is not primarily a unity of thought but an ability to share identity in the midst of the reality of our difference. This is, at least in principal, the nature of the Trinity, exclusively distinct yet wholly unified in identity and love. God does not forfeit freedom in this community, rather, God's freedom springs from God's particularity. In this, God is free to love and free to forgive. God is free to reveal Godself particularly in God's work of liberation and in God's incarnation in Jesus Christ.

Theological anthropology is the articulation and conceptualization of true humanity in light of the creativity and reality of God. In other words, it seeks to describe who we really are. The essential and foundational claim of biblical theological anthropology is that humankind has been made in the image of God. In Genesis 1, we are told that God created humans in God's own image--"male and female God created them." The implication here is that it is not just that people look like God and it's not just that individuals are created in God's image but people, in how they interact with one another, are a reflection of who God is. This makes sure sense in light of the communal triune nature of God. While we are to share identity with one another, love one another, and engage honestly with one another, we are also distinct from one another. Just as God does not forfeit freedom in this community and embrace of difference, so it is with us. When we are free in distinction, we are free in community--free to be fully ourselves so that we may fully offer ourselves in community. Healthy boundaries in relationships create space for this distinction. By making clear decisions about how we can relate with one another responsibly, we reflect the image of God.

The examination of theological anthropology is the foundation for eschatological vision. It's for good reason that the author of Revelation uses images of Eden as the primary image for the restored world, the object of eschatological hope. Eschatology examines the end of which God's work of salvation and renewal are the means. That's actually a rather crass description of an otherwise transcendent and illuminating theological discipline (even the term "discipline," I'm afraid, doesn't cut it). When we look toward the hope that is the wellspring of our faith, it makes some sense to look to the beginning. The world to come, while in all ways profoundly unique from the world as it is, is not to be understood essentially as a different world. The world to come is this world made new, restored, healed. When God's work of salvation is fully and climatically implemented, it will be in profound continuity with the world we call home. Eschatological vision looks to a resurrected reality, a true revelation of the world as it should be, made true among us. So if our true humanity is a reflection of a community of difference, our ability to live in community here and now is a signpost of a healed world. If my humanity is imposed on by another or if I impose on that of another, we reflect only the curse that infects the world as we know it. Our actions now should be a clear image of the community for which we hope.

Boundaries should be seen primarily as a spiritual discipline, creating fresh space for the creativity of God. When we engage properly in spiritual disciplines, we are living into the identity given to us in Christ. When we open ourselves to the Spirit of God through prayer, solitude, silence, or devotional time, we open ourselves to God's hand to form us into the truth of who we are in Christ. It is a practical way of conditioning ourselves to be like Christ and thus to be more fully ourselves. Desire alone doesn't get us very far. I'm sure many desire to be physically fit, but only those who act on that desire actually become fit people. Spiritual disciplines are the art of becoming. They flow out of a clear vision of God's dream for you and for the world (eschatology) and out of an examination of who we are created to be (anthropology). Boundaries are about acting on an understanding what community should look like in light of God's communal nature and a vision of a healed community. It is understanding the breadth of our deprevity--that healing does not come naturally but by grace alone. We take real and practical steps toward reflecting, in our difference, the community we are made to embody. A community of trust and love has clear and fair expectations and shares authority in such a way that freedom can be expressed. Structure gives way to freedom, boundaries give way to community.

When we understand that we are created in the image of God, commissioned to bear that image, and invited to embody the healed world in our relationships, only then can we engage in a community that is not haphazard but thoroughly intentional. Boundaries are an action of the desire to be a community that reflects these theological realities. When the social realities of sexuality, family, politics, race, gender and church enter the conversation, the disciplines are necessarily contextually constructed.

Thoughts on the Nature of Opinions

2011-12-01T16:25:00.001-08:00

I didn't just decide to think the way I do. I didn't just get up and say, sure I'll have a strong opinion here and I'll disagree with everybody there. It's not as easy as choosing one option over another. I think that we have less control than we realize over what we find convincing and what we don't. We may be able to control our starting point. We may have some control over the trajectory we take when we start out. We can control who we listen to, we can control what we read, we can control the breadth of the scope of what influences us, but controlling whether or not we are compelled or convinced is much less simple. I can read David Jeremiah for hours, but its not gonna make me agree with him.

We do begin with a certain trajectory, a direction toward a particular version of ourselves. If we internalize and emphasize a desire to be compassionate over against a desire to be successful, for example, our decisions and disciplines regarding that direction are bound to shape how we respond to the information to which we are exposed. But beyond that, there's little we can do to control our opinions. After all, if I thought my opinions were wrong, I'd just just get new ones.

In light of the reality of human depravity concerning our our control of personal perspective, we should engage with one another in great humility, realizing that people don't just choose to disagree... they just do. This does not mean that we can't embrace difference, this does not mean we should correct and engage in civil dialogue with one another. We can merely invite one another to see things our way, engage the same sources we do, and consider our perspective. We can be clear and creative in our arguments and advocacy for the health of our culture, for the healing of the world, and for the depth of relationship. But we cannot control whether or not people agree with us.

I suppose I'm writing this somewhat out of frustration. I'm trying to conceptualize my existence in a context in which I often doubt my own sanity. While on the one hand, I want to be understood and I am tired of feeling so different, on the other hand I am constantly asking myself the question, "how on earth can these people think like this?!" I am at fault in this as well.

Advent Prayer

2011-12-01T11:47:00.000-08:00

Soak us in hope, oh God, so that we may be so dissatisfied with the world as it is that we cannot help but be thoroughly present now. Let our hope dwell within our present so that with Mary we can say, "the Mighty One has done great things for me--holy is his name." Let our hope for the future be our source for true and active presence in the here and now. This is our prayer this Advent season as we anticipate the invasion of your real yet transformational presence among us. It is in the name of your ever present and ever hopeful Son, Christ the Lord, we pray. Amen.

Sharing Your Faith

2011-11-28T09:23:00.001-08:00

Last night in our high school Youth Group gathering, we enjoyed a rare between-series night. After playing a couple of games just to enjoy each other's company, we spent a short time reflecting on the passage in Matthew 28:16-20, commonly known as " The Great Commission." Starting next week we'll be doing a series on "sharing your faith," a topic with which I have personally struggled--not so much in practice as in theological reflection. This will be the first series I have ever taught directly on the subject (don't judge me...), especially without spending the majority of the time harping on all the things we shouldn't be doing. I guess at some point I've got to get over my own baggage. Just because "Contagious Christian" and Ray Comfort ruined me on the subject does not mean I should neglect sharing the incredible news of Christ with people and it doesn't mean that my students shouldn't learn the importance of such an opportunity.

Paul, Peter, and the first Christians didn't seem to have the baggage that many of us have. They didn't witness the exploitation and even the injustices that we have witnessed in the name of evangelism. Of course they had their own experiences with people just doing it wrong and giving them a bad name, but they weren't so jaded that they couldn't be open, honest, and even bold about their encounter with the risen Christ. They shared their stories, they were clear about the content of their faith, and they did it in word and in deed. Their life was their ministry.

Following the model of these first Christians, we're spending three weeks on sharing your story, explaining your faith, and counting conversations. I'm using video interviews with folks from our church sharing their own experience with these three topics to start each evening. I'm pretty excited, actually!

We are doing this all with our current "theme"--Tikkun Olam (healing the world)--running at least in the back of our minds. We actually believe that sharing our faith, indeed sharing ourselves, with others is part of God's healing work. We are not converting people as a means to get them off of this sinking ship before the "rapture" happens. Rather, we are inviting them to live with us in God's present and future reign, here and now. Thanks to Revelation (the study we just finished), we look to Eden for hints of what a healed world looks like. In the healed world, God walks with God's people, intimately in relationship with them. Thus, inviting people to join us in following Jesus and experiencing God, we are taking part in healing the world. Evangelism, at it's best, goes hand in hand with works of mercy and justice and even of constructive inter-faith dialogue.

Sharing our faith should never be separated from the unique and peculiar content of our faith, namely, that a crucified man has been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Such a proclamation could only lead to exploitation and injustice if it is removed from our understanding and completely distorted. Such a proclamation should be nothing but good news... especially to crucified people--those on the under-side of society. It is of a crucified messiah that we are called and commissioned to make disciples. If we have truly encountered the risen Christ, it should only seem natural.

Shop Small

2011-11-26T09:52:00.000-08:00

Though you should always keep a healthy suspicion whenever something is being backed by a major corporation, especially a major credit card company. But Small Business Saturday is a great idea!

Today is the second annual Small Business Saturday--a day dedicated to supporting local small businesses in your community. On what is now becoming more commonly known as Black Weekend (because of Black Friday), the biggest shopping weekend of the year in the most consumeristic country in the world, the big businesses--including those which thrive on the injustices of the free market (i.e. child labor, sweat shops, and the like)--burst at the seams with bargain hungry shoppers, whose only immediate value is to find the cheapest deal--a value to which these businesses have happily responded through methods of outsourcing and unfair labor. But small, local, and honest businesses--the ones who we should be supporting--can hardly afford to offer a competitive deal.

Well, as of last year, the Saturday following Black Friday, is Small Business Saturday. For shopping in a small business, American Express is offering a $25 credit to its members. But the real incentive for shopping small is that when you shop at a local small business, 68% of your money goes back into your community and 0% goes to lining the pockets of the big corporations or toward the perpetuation of global economic injustice. Shop small today!

It's not just about shopping, it's not just about a commercial for small businesses, it's about reprogramming the machines of our economy to respond not to the value of finding the cheapest deal but to the values of justice, fairness, and ultimately of love. It's one more step to reshaping our economic culture into a culture which reflects the love of God in the world.

Teaching The Impractical

2011-11-25T10:07:00.000-08:00

I've noticed, at least in some circles, a subtle trend in the church and in Youth Ministries in particular. Folks are placing heavier emphasis on the need for relationship and for "practical" education, and thank God for that, but subtly the emphasis has been taken off of serious theological and biblical education. When I share with someone what we are learning in Youth Group or Sunday School, I usually feel the need to follow up with a disclaimer, "but I always make sure that the students leave with some sort of practical application." And this is true... I do always make sure that there's an immediate challenge for my students in whatever we are learning together. But not everything I teach is immediately "practical." Some things are much more subtle than that. And sometimes I'll literally think in my head, "I'm gonna just let this one stay impractical for a moment."

Some of the most important things of the Christian faith are not immediately practical... In fact, if we tried to force them to be, we'd probably miss the point. For example, when Jesus invites his disciples to "take up their cross" and to follow him, in all practicality, what he's asking them to do is to die. So in our attempts to practicalize the command, we usually end up dumbing it down. Nobody really wants to send their students out to their deaths after Sunday School. Or sometimes we over-spiritualize the command. Jesus couldn't really have meant that, right? He must have been speaking in riddles to teach us about some deeper spiritual reality. But what if he really meant it. What if the way of Jesus really is about walking to your death? What if following Jesus means sharing in his death? Wouldn't we want our students to know that? Yet, if we over- spiritualize or dumb down the message for the sake of practicality, we might actually miss it. We might actually bypass something that's essentially particular to historic orthodox Christian theology.

So, following the same example, how should we teach such a concept? Well, perhaps we should just say what Jesus said. "Take up your cross"! Find a way to do exactly what Jesus did. Don't take the cross only as something for Jesus to do, but as his followers, take it as an example to follow. We have used substitutionary atonement as a way out of that one--Jesus took my place so that I can live in the suburbs. But however accurate or inaccurate the concept of substitutionary atonement may be as a theological tenet, Jesus still invited us to follow in the same path and Paul echoed this sentiment consistently, especially in Philippians 3:10, "I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death." So what if we just leave it at that?

It's the discipline of delayed gratification. We may not see how such concepts affect our life tomorrow or in the next hour, but if we really allow it to sink in, how might it shape us? Let's not get so obsessed with what things mean to us us that we miss what those things do to us, how they shape us. If I can internalize the "impractical" commission to die with Christ, then perhaps I'll become the kind of person who shares in the sufferings of others and stands in solidarity with the least of these. Why not? Death will have no power to deter me from the way of Christ, since I'm headed there anyway.

I believe that if we allow ourselves to teach the things that do not have immediate practical implications, ideas that are key to understanding Christ, ideas like the Trinity and the atonement, and the incarnation, and if we are patient in teaching these things, well discover them to be extremely practical after all. Indeed the "impractical" things are sometimes the most powerfully transformational!

Faith is Not a Statement

2011-11-22T08:31:00.000-08:00

Why do churches have such wordy faith statements? A friend of mine recently told me what church they were attending so, being the nosie friend that I am, I decided to check it out. I read through a couple of their staff bio's, looked at their ministry options, and then I checked out their faith statement. Quite quickly, I made the following two observations... it was long with so many "points" that I lost count and, even for being as theologically inquisitive as I am, I found it utterly boring. I searched to find something compelling, something captivating, but there was nothing for me. They lost me... and yet, this was their "faith statement"!? This was their "concise" description of the Christian faith!? Bullet points with Roman numerals... the first of which claiming the Bible to be the primary authority for Christian faith... and yet, where's that in the Bible!? Why on earth would anyone go to Church after reading a "faith statement" like this? I am sure not interested in such a faith.

I think we evangelical theologians have gotten in the habit seeing the Bible as code to be cracked, to be decoded in systematic theological terms. We have done this so much that it has become our primary means for explaining our faith... it has even made its way onto church websites. Systematic theology, as such, seems to have a practically unhealthy theology of the Bible. Now, I have a healthy appreciation for the need for systematic theology as a tool for more complex theological questions. It's a great lens through which to conduct theological discourse. But should it really serve as a means for explaining our faith?

The Bible and the Christian faith in general are not just calculated positions on issues debated through church history. It's not just a list of intellectual doctrines to which one must ascribe. We should take a hint from the Bible which we claim to be our primary source for theological reflection. The authors of the Bible didn't lay out pointed arguments. No. They told stories. They shared personal experiences. they preached from their gut on specific contextual issues. They wrote poetry. They used humor. They exaggerated and even embellished when it helped them get at the deeper reality of their situation. They used words to paint a picture--one that was compelling and inspiring. In this way, our "faith statements" are nothing like our Bible. Instead of painting a picture, we make calculated lists to be sure that everybody's on the same page and that nobody slips in without being corrected in their thinking. Instead of telling a compelling story about our God, we are so preoccupied with the possibility that some sort of heresy might slip in that we altogether forget that our faith is good news and that it's gloriously compelling! Our faith statements, in this way, though they might be "accurate" to some degree, are in no way a reflection of the Christian faith that I've been reading about in the scriptures and in the stories of the church's heritage. In this way, though our faith statements are good as such, as mere statements, they are far from historically orthodox. It is unorthodox, if you ask me, for the Christian faith to be boring and exclusive!

Our primary means for explaining our faith should be the art of storytelling and prophesying. The first line of any good faith statement should be that our faith is not a statement at all...

What do we believe? Well, come taste and see... then you tell me...

Love Over Exegesis

2011-11-21T14:23:00.000-08:00

I am quite aware, painfully so, of the many accessible and (some) strong biblical arguments against the legitimacy of same-sex relationships... But I am also, however, aware of the strong biblical arguments for the legitimacy of such relationships (let me direct you to the writings of Victor Paul Furnish in his chapter on the subject in The Moral Teachings of Paul as a starting point). Both sides of the argument share strengnths in common as well as weaknesses. You can find careful and responsible readings which come to opposing conclusions depending heavily on the theological framework from which they start. Both sides often share the weakness that they are limited to speaking of subjective and individual human experiences in general and often monolithic terms. But what is most common between both sides is that the argument demands a robust and careful exegetical and biblical justification--appealing to our experience, our tradition (historic orthodox Christian faith), and our reason.

In my experience, however, when you find such a theological and exegetical stalemate as that of the homosexuality debate, you've got to go elsewhere for your arguments. When we cannot find agreement on a particular passage of scripture, we've got to subject ourselves to what I call "narrative accountability"--what is the big picture? What larger or more accessible message in the scriptures might help inform our discussion on the subject?

It seems to me that when you come to terms with the strength on both sides of the argument between those who object to the legitimacy of homosexual relationships and those who advocate for it--if you concede that the match is even--and begin to locate the argument in the framework of the larger narrative and the things we hold in common, one side emerges with the upper hand.

When you set aside the purely exegetical and focus on the stories of the people in the middle, when you embrace the larger message of the scriptures as the primary location for theological reflection, then the mandate to love emerges as the priority and the conversation changes. The question becomes less about who is right and who is wrong, who is sinful and who is not, and more about what it looks like to love people and to affirm their dignity and humanity.

When I reflect on love, I cannot avoid the conviction that the church has failed at loving gay people. Condemnation for something that people cannot change has no biblical justification. When I reflect on love, it becomes more and more apparent that my responsibility to embrace people and accept them as they are supersedes my temptation to be their moral judge.

If you've made it this far and you are still like, "what's he talking about?!" let me recommend another blog post. Dan Pearce at Single Dad Laughing has recently written a post called "I'm Christian, Unless You're Gay" in which he makes an articulate and personal appeal for people to set aside the ideologies and presuppositions that hider them from simply loving and accepting "others" especially gay people. It's worth a read and it's not nearly as confusing as the above paragraphs you may or may not have read or understood.

The Holiday of Consumption

2011-11-20T15:18:00.000-08:00

"As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them." -John F. Kennedy

Every Thanksgiving I am struck by the suspicion that we have lost our sense of what gratitude, thanksgiving, really means. Our celebration of the holiday is hardly a reflection of the concept from which it was named. It has become, by and large, a holiday of consumption. We gather together (which is, perhaps, the baby in the bath water), we watch football, we eat excessive portions of food... enough to sustain a small village for a week, and then we go shopping in the morning. And this, at least by name, has become the American expression of gratitude.

Does such a celebration reflect thanksgiving?

Thanksgiving, by my understanding, is an expression of gratitude for the realization of a gift. For those of us who have encountered the living God and who have realized the depravity of the human situation apart for the creativity and grace of this God, everything demands the interpretation of gift. In other words, in light of God's sovereign grace, everything we have is a gift--everything from breath and sustenance to the warmth of friendship and companionship. If we are breathing, if we bear the capacity to perceive beauty, if we are moving through time with life and breath, it is only ever because of the generosity and love of God, our maker.

Would the best response to such gifting be to indulge in them and to consume more? Would it be appropriate to say, as in the sarcastic words of one of my students while discussing this very topic, "we got gifts! LET'S GET SOME MORE!" Of course not.

The only conceivably legitimate response to such gifting is the act of emulation. In other words, if we realized how blessed we were, we would not be able to help ourselves from pursuing the blessing of others. In our gratitude, we would not be able but to live by our appreciation. We are blessed so that we might bless others!

Thanksgiving, I'm afraid, is a holiday which has been hijacked by consumerism, as has been the fate of so many other American holidays (not least the American version of Christmas). So we have no choice but to respond creatively. How can we creatively take back Thanksgiving so that it may somehow be a true reflection of genuine gratitude? How can we make a holiday of consumption into a holiday of compassion? How can we live by our words?

My Confessions

2011-11-17T20:43:00.000-08:00

Following in the pattern of Megan at Sortacrunchy and my wife at Simple and Free, I thought I'd make a list of my own confessions.

1. I habitually downplay the influence that Rob Bell has had on me over the years... And people still think I'm obsessed. The truth is, though he is not a "scholar," I trust Rob Bell's opinion over pretty much anyone else's and on pretty much an topic.

2. I say that I'm not really an "emergent church" guy... But I couldn't really tell you why I'm not... in reality, I probably am. But you try keeping the respect of your evangelical colleagues while toting the "emergent" label!

3. The only other foreign country I've been to, other than Mexico, is Israel... I tell people England sometimes, but I never left the airport. Since Israel's the only place I've got, I like to talk about it any time the subject of foreign travel comes up.

4. (once again,mfollowing the pattern of Megan and Amanda) I LOVE LOST! And I too get offended when people bad-mouth it. Thank you J.J. Abrams!

5. I think of chilli as a beverage, someting you sip from a spoon along side some other entre... Like a hotdog. If people serve it as a meal, I always wonder where the entre is.

6. I read the Communist Manifesto.

7. I enjoyed reading the Communist Manifesto.

8. I need reassurance just to function. My general assumption is that whatever I am saying or doing at any given moment is inadequate unless someone says something positive about it... (you should compliment me on this post).

9. I think Batman should stop wasting his money on gadgets to fight bad guys. Instead, he should invest in some kind of community program to offer a positive alternative for his enemies. You never know, maybe even the Joker would eventually realize that it's just better to love people.

10. If I'm alone and the movie Titanic is on... I'll watch it.

Occupy

2011-11-17T16:12:00.000-08:00

I've been careful not to speak up too much about the occupy movement because I've been trying to maintain a posture of listening. Well, I've listened at least enough to say that it definitely gives me hope. Whatever mistakes are being made by some of the protesters, as a follower of the crucified Nazarene, Jesus, I am encouraged by the stand against injustice and greed. The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer and the system as we know it has been extremely effective at protecting this income gap and even marketing it, making it look attractive, to those who benefit nothing from its unjust distributive methods. I've been amazed to hear some of the negative feedback concerning the occupy movement, some even calling for its end due to the mistakes and irresponsibility of a small minority of protesters. But what else has been so effective at placing blame where it belongs, on wall street rather than Washington? Now of course Washington has issues, tons of them. And our government definitely shares a bed with our economic system. But when it comes the the economic struggles of our current context, the corporations and the greed of the economic powerhouses of this country have skated by under remarkably little scrutiny.

It's not that the rich are evil, it's not that it's bad to make a lot of money. But the system should cater less to the few who have the most, and more to the few who have the least. God shares identity and stands with those on the underside of society, so should God's church. And the church should prophetically challenge the powers that be toward a system that reflects the reign of God while simultaneously embodying just such an alternative. Should the church be participating in the occupy movement? Well, that may be a different question, but we should learn from it and support it.

"There's nothing wrong with making a lot of money, there's something wrong with keeping it." -Tony Campolo

Myth of a Christian Nation: a very quick review

2011-11-16T16:26:00.000-08:00

I am afraid that reading the last chapter of Greg Boyd's book, Myth of a Christian Nation, has gotten me back into a "nonviolence" kick.

I started reading Boyd's book yesterday and I finished it today. I think that's perhaps the quickest I have ever managed to finish a book of such substance. Each chapter had its own strengths and weaknesses but overall, I think Boyd's work is a very important one for the church in America. As I said in my last post, he clearly and articulately exposes the inerrant dichotomy between what he calls, "the kingdom-of-the-world" and the kingdom of God. More specifically, he identifies distinctions between American nationalistic identity and Christian ecclesiological identity.

Throughout the book the concept of nonviolence as an inherent distinction of Christian identity is offered, almost as a given, in contrast to the "tit-for-tat" retributionalism of "the kingdom-of-the-world." Where the natural, or at least cultural, response to violence is more violence, where the conventional reaction to attacks on the ideals of the State is to power over the threat, control the issue at hand, and demonize and dehumanize the enemy, the Christian response is unconventionally nonviolent. Following the example of Christ, the church must respond graciously, compassionately, and relentlessly lovingly. Boyd fleshes out the concept more fully in the final chapter.

The distinction between the kingdom of God and the empire among us has been lost, even to the point where such language is offensive to some who confess Christ. Boyd's explanation of the particularity of the Christian identity is both compelling and convincing.

I think Boyd nails it when he writes,

"this is what we are called to be: a community characterized by radical, revolutionary, Calvary-quality love; a community that manifests the love of the triune God (John 17:21-26); a community that strives for justice not by conquering but by being willing to suffer; a community that God uses to transform the world by providing it with an alternative to its own self-centered, violent way of existing. How socially an politically revolutionary it would be if his disciples lived up to their calling!"

This is a great book. Definitely worth a read.

"The World" Language and The Dominion of God

2011-11-15T07:20:00.000-08:00

This morning I started reading The Myth of a Christian Nation by Greg Boyd on my new iPad. This book would have been hugely transformational for me, had I read it a couple years ago. But for now, though it's a bit old-hat, it is really interesting. Some of his language about "demonic" element of the "kingdom of the world" is somewhat outside my preferred theological framework, but overall I can tell that it's going to be a really good read.

In his introduction, borrowing from the traditional language of "this world" dicotomism, he sets the tone of his book early when he writes,

"...evangelicals fuse the Kingdom of God with a preferred version of the kingdom of the world (whether it's our national interests, a particular form of government, a particular political program, or so on). Rather than focusing our understanding of God's kingdom on the person of Jesus--who, incidentally, never allowed himself to get pulled into the political disputes of his day--I believe many of us American evangelicals have allowed our understanding of the kingdom of God to be polluted with political ideas, agendas, and issues."

Boyd goes on to flesh out a clear dichotomy between national identity, particularly an american one, and Christian identity. But I wrestle with his language. Realizing that I'm only in the second chapter, I tread lightly, but early on, his dichotomy is clearly between " the kingdom of God" and "the kingdom of the world."

I've often wrestled with the question of how far we should take dichotomies of kingdom of "the world" and kingdom of God. Are they not in fact both realities of this world? I don't like to speak of "the world," which is, as I understand it, the space we currently occupy, as an antithesis of God's reign, however Pauline it may be to do so. The foundational tenet of Christ's message in the gospels is that the kingdom (or dominion) of God is here and now, in this world, "at hand." So it can be very misleading to speak of "this world" as an antonym for God's kingdom. This language fits right in with the theological framework of the disembodied gospel (where heaven is some ethereal post-mortem experience, totally separate from and for the most part irrelevant to the work of God here and now, the work in which we are invited to participate). This is why it's important for us tget away from this language. This is why I have gravitated toward the language of "God and empire"--in essence, the same dichotomy that Boyd fleshes out in his book, minus the misleading. The kingdom of God, after all, must occupy the world, at least eschatologically. That's what we see in revelation 21, as opposed to a disembodied gospel.

The challenge then, if we are to affirm this world as God does, is having the clarity and discernment to identify "empire" wherever it rears its ugly head. The author of Revelation uses beasts to describe this hidden but present reality. It is systemic, spiritual, individual, and everywhere in between. Indeed, it is the very dichotomy of heaven and hell.

I don't think that we evangelicals have done well in identifying the empire among us. This is what boyd is getting at. Perhaps the greatest evidence for this lies in our sheer paralysis when it comes to discerning systemic injustices. When one church calls out an injustice, another church fights them on it. Our nationalistic identiy has become part of the fabric of our religiosity. If a sermon even dabbles in discernment of empire in our own government, perhaps the first place we should look, it is deemed "anti-American" and the congregants will flock to a more "patriotic" church. If we were to separate our identities and forsake all other than our allegiance to Christ, I think we'd be a bit more at liberty to speak out against the powers that be. That's why Boyd's work is so important.

New iPad

2011-11-13T11:38:00.000-08:00

So last night Amanda and I went to Buca Di Beppo with her family and a bunch of my friends for my birthday dinner. Already that morning my lovely wife had given me the new Coldplay CD (Mylo Xyloto), which is a masterpiece by the way, so I was perfectly content and did not expect anything more for my birthday. It was awesome just to be with friends and family, hanging out and eating great food. I was already overwhelmed by how loved I felt. But just about the point that I thought my birthday was complete, Amanda pulled out a wrapped box of significant size. Surprised as could be, I unwrapped and opened a brand new iPad2... Even more surprised, I came to discover that everyone at the table and even some more of my close friends and family had all pitched in to get me that gift.

So, thanks to all my friends, I am currently blogging from my new iPad tablet. It feels good to be loved. And it's not just that they got me an awesome gift, gifts are great and stuff can be fun, but the fact that they all contributed and all showed up for my birthday was just overwhelming. Thanks friends!

An Interpretation of Revelation 20:1-10

2011-11-10T14:17:00.000-08:00

The following is a section from the notes I've been putting together for our Book of Revelation study in our Youth Ministry. I have been very thorough in my notes. I guess it's because this book is so enigmatic and I don't wanna mess anything up. I always have WAY more notes than we actually cover in youth group. Since there is little chance I'll actually get to use this part, since I doubt we'll be talking about millenialism, I thought I should share it... after all, I did the work.

Revelation 20:1-10:

Historically, this has been one of the more confusing passages in scripture. There have been three major theories about how we should understand this millennium. Postmillenialism, premillenialism, and Amillenialism.

Postmillenialits—“anticipate that the eschatological return of Christ will occur after an earthly golden age,” (i.e. the millennium).[1]

Premillenialists—“expect the return of the Lord prior to the thousand-year period. Thus Christ’s coming is ‘premillenial.’ Jesus will be physically present on earth to exercise world dominion during his thousand-year reign.”[2]

Amillenialism—“The word ‘amillenialism’ means ‘no millennium.’ …amillenialists anticipate that the second coming of Christ will mark the beginning of eternity without an intervening interregnum.”[3] Adherents to this view regard the thousand years as a symbolic number to be interpreted as “a very long time, extending from the first coming of Christ to his Second coming.”[4]

Each of these interpretations faces its own challenges in the text. Whatever the case, this brief section of the text is hard to interpret. I will suggest an interpretation.

This is part of the flash-back we saw in 19:17-21 (We see what was really going on behind the scenes of what looked like failure). The author is providing a “revelation” of what happened when Christ died and rose from the grave. Satan, the dragon, was thrown into the abyss when Christ rose from the dead and defeated him. Christ gained authority over death and thus overthrew its master, the dragon. Verses 4-6 describe the earthly and heavenly reign of Christnow initiated, being implemented, in the Church. The Kingdom of God is truly “at hand” (Mark 1:15). The first resurrection is spiritual and serves as a description of what happens between death and the final physical resurrection.

By this interpretation, we are living in the reign of Christ right now. It is the truth of the world even though, by observation, it seems that the “kings of the earth” are still in charge. Death has been defeated, but the reign of God is still being implemented. As Paul puts it, “he [Christ] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.”[5] Christ is reigning even now, until his enemies are defeated. The finality of this implementation will be climactic. This climax, when the defeat of Satan becomes apparent on earth, is described symbolically in the release & final defeat of Satan in (19:7-10).

Deciding when the description travels from past to future is not completely arbitrary (otherwise, that would be the weak point of the interpretation). Keeping in mind that the two passages are not otherwise directly related, it travels along with 1 Corinthians 15:25-26. “He seized the Dragon… to keep him from deceiving” (Rev. 20: 1-3) & “He must reign…” (1 Corinthians 15:25), that is now. The binding of the Dragon & the subsequent reign of Christ are the result of the death and resurrection of Christ. “The Devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur” (Rev. 20:10) and “the last enemy to be destroyed is death,” that’s future.

Satan and death have already been defeated through Jesus' death and resurrection but we still need a climax. Our salvation must still come from outside this world. Christ is reigning now, until death is finally defeated. This is the “millennium.”

[1] Stanley J. Grenz, Theology For The Community of God (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), page 614.

[2] Ibid., page 615.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Bruce Metzger, Breaking the Code (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1993), page 94-95.

[5] 1 Corinthians 15:25-26

Wrestling with Insecurity

2011-11-10T10:29:00.000-08:00

I have insecurity problems. The good thing is, I'm in good company--or so I'm told. I am told that a great many people who are in ministry also have some issues with insecurity. Perhaps the biggest reason for this is because what we are doing is so very important and we are surrounded by so many people who have been specifically gifted and called for such a vocation. We have trouble seeing in ourselves the great things we see in our peers. I sit in network meetings and attend events and gatherings with others who share my vocation, and I can't help but feel out of place. Surely these folks are good at what they do and they do so much more than I can do. They enjoy doing things that I have to force myself to do. It is easy for me to see why they belong in Youth Ministry, I have no problem seeing the gifts of others. it's my own gifting that's difficult to see. Once I feel "gifted" at something, it's just a matter of time before I experience some failure in just that area and I'm back to the drawing board. I question, "am I really called to this...?"

This is and has been one of my greatest struggles in life and ministry. I constantly question my calling and my gifting and yet I can seldom imagine doing anything else. Of course there are elements of ministry that flat-out suck, but I love it... I just don't always feel good at it. I suppose that's the beauty of "calling." It implies sheer passivity on my part right up to the point of response. The calling is not my choice, only whether or not I accept it. I have often expressed hesitation about the word "calling." I realize that it can be abused and exploited as objective justification for subjective decisions. I realize that it is a strong word, but in regards to its' implications regarding my capacity to choose, I think it's appropriate and, at it's best, quite liberating. If I'm called to this, then I've got no business second guessing my gifting. It is just not my job to worry about how good I am at it, it's only my job to do the best with what I've got.

As soon as we begin comparing ourselves to others, we've missed the point. It's not about you. It's not about me. It is and always has been only about Jesus Christ and God's work in the world. The river of God's love is flowing with or without us, we need only to ride the current with courage and passion. As soon as we say, "what about them?" Christ, in love and boldness, responds to us, "what is that to you? Just follow me" (John 21:22).

Feel better? No, me neither. But it's a start.

Am I a Preterist?

2011-11-08T10:24:00.000-08:00

Am I a Preterist?

This question has been rolling around in my head ever since last week. Somehow the term came up, somewhat casually, in a conversation I was having with a few other youth pastors. Another, who apparently didn't understand the term, asked us what it meant. The quick answer from one was, "it's someone who thinks that everything from Matthew 24 already happened in 70AD."

Most who were there sort of chuckled at the concept as though it was far beyond the realm of exegetical orthodoxy. But, being that I'm teaching the book of Revelation right now in our ministry, I kept thinking about it. It has been a while since I've brushed up on my terminology--premillenial dispensationalism, progressive dispensationalism, preterism, amillienialsm, postmillenialism, etc.--but I am at least aware that preterism goes beyond Matthew 24 and includes at least the book of Revelation. A preterist, as I understand it, connects all New Testament apocalyptic and eschatological imagery to events and circumstances of the first century AD. In other words, a preterist is marked by their conviction that it all already happened. The Beasts in Revelation, happened; the whore of Babylon, happened; the seven seals and trumpets, happened; the destruction of the Jewish Temple, happened... obviously. And so, for the Preterist, the majority of the eschatological weight of the Biblical narrative lies in the past and leaves the future open for speculation, to be lived faithfully according to the narrative of what God has done in Christ.

And so I look inward... How have I been teaching this book? How have I been talking about Revelation? Well, truth is, terms like preterism and dispensationalism have been miles away from my work in Revelation. Until this morning, I hadn't thought much about how to classify my approach. In some ways, it's never fair to categorize something... it always makes it harder for us to actually hear. If I am asked about my approach, I describe it simply as "apocalyptic." I try to read Revelation as an Apocalyptic text, sensitive to its actual genre. Now, I realize that such a response is presumptuous and might imply that others are reading the book outside its' genre and/or context... and maybe I am implying that. What I try to communicate is that I don't try to frame the book as some eschatological code book to unlock the secrets of the "end times." Indeed, as an apocalyptic book, it's as much or more about the present than it is about the future. It's not about the "end" as much as it is about revealing a new and different way for the original audience to interpret their current situation--with a clear picture of what's happening behind the scenes.

So, am I a preterist? Oh yeah, I still haven't answered that one. The answer is yes and no.

Yes. If you're asking if the images, narratives, and symbols of the book have already taken place, then I am definitely a Preterist. If the author was not thinking of the Roman Empire and of the persecution of the church in at least some of the descriptions therein, then he was more dense than I thought. If Caesar is not a beast, if the propaganda of the Pax Romana and the military muscle that implemented it were not a beast, and if the economic system of Imperial Rome was not a whore (sleeping with the rich at the expense of the poor) then I don't know what is. Those descriptions work perfectly for the context of first century Christianity. Indeed if you are not on the lookout for contextual continuity as a guide for interpretation then you're just not doing good exegesis. So of course I am a preterist.

But, simultaneously, no. If a Preterist is one who attributes the imagery of apocalyptic literature only to past events, then that's not me either. There's a reason that the author didn't just come out and say, "Beast 1=Rome, Beast 2=Pax Romana & Roman military, and Whore of Babylon=corrupt Imperial economic system." Surely, if that's all that those images are supposed to portray (or something like them), then it would have been easier for the author to just say so. But that's the point of apocalyptic imagery as I understand it. While it indeed points to something specific within the authors current context, it is written in such a way that we, as well as preceding and successive generations, can apply the same symbolic framework to anything that fits the description. The point is that we can say, "sure, Rome was a beast... but so is America... and so is the bully on the junior high school campus." The point is that in the book of Revelation we have a narrative which provides us with footing for our own confrontation with the powers of sin and death. We have a lens through which we have eschatological vision of what lies behind the scenes of our own systemic and domestic injustices. Indeed, we are even given a narrative by which we can find ourselves in solidarity with the oppressed in our own current crisis. Oh no. Revelation is not about past events, it is about right now!

Oh... and sure... it's about the future too...

Spiritual Conversations

2011-11-03T12:44:00.000-07:00

“Evangelism” has become a dirty word to many of us. It conjures images of Bible-thumping extremists telling everyone how horrible they are and how they’ll go to hell when they die unless they think and believe just like them.

When the gospel gets limited to a get-out-of-hell-free card or a ticket to heaven, then evangelism and Christianity as a whole become completely distorted.

But, on the other hand, it is extremely important for us to share our faith with others, and to do it with our words. Saint Francis of Assisi once said, “preach the gospel and, if at all necessary, use words.” I love that quote but sometimes it can be a cop-out. The truth is, sometimes it is necessary to use words. We need to be able to articulate the particularity of our faith in Christ and help others see how radical this gospel really is. We need to be able to call out the evil we see in the world and offer an alternative way of seeing things. We need to speak hope into a hopeless world.

Evangelism has been hijacked by folks who arrogantly force their perspective onto others. But it doesn’t have to be like this. We can share our faith with a posture of listening—truly hearing from others and learning from their experience. We don’t have to threaten or harass, we can simply love.

I tell students, “I don’t want you to share Jesus, I want you to share your life… but Jesus should be your life.” If you truly love something, you’re excited to share it with others. If Jesus is not important or exciting to you, then don’t bother sharing. But if Christ is truly the center of your life, then conversations about him shouldn’t be nearly as awkward or forced as we have allowed them to become. Make Christ the center of your life… start there… then share it with the world.

thoughts on church as we know it

2011-10-26T10:07:00.001-07:00

I spent the last two days at the Sticky Teams 2.0 conference at North Coast Church in Vista, California. I gleaned some helpful nuggets of information and got to spend some time with some awesome people. I always find it interesting to be in a room filled with pastors. There were around 750 pastors there, I'm told, and that means a whole lot of influence if you think about the churches they represent. Every time I am in a place like that it gets me thinking about the church as a whole. I get to wondering if this is really what church should look like--a bunch of comfortable, white, male pastors (generally speaking) taking notes on how to make their churches grow and listening to guys with huge churches. It makes me wonder...

Well, I wasn't the only one who experienced some internal conflict. On the way home, my good friend who was with me at the conference brought up some questions about the church. I think he was inspired by the same conflict. We nerded out for a good half-hour (thanks to traffic), going back and forth on what's wrong and right about the church as we know it. I found myself making some very strong statements--some with the implication that we should stop with the gatherings and worship services if we're not doing it among the poor, we should quit buying property and building buildings because as soon as we "get practical" about the church we've lost our sight of it... after all, the early church didn't think about those things until they realized that Jesus wasn't gonna be right back. What are the indicators of the church as it should be? Well, selling all your possessions and giving it to the poor. Living in community where sufferings and celebrations are truly shared in the fullest sense. Being counter-cultural, counter-consumeristic, counter-nationalistic, etc.

I don't think I really mean all that... after all, I'm not doing any of it.

I don't really think that white suburban churches and mainstream evangelical church models are anti-ecclesiological, even if I'm tempted to say so. But that doesn't mean that there's not something wrong. Perhaps it's not that we should quit with the church as we know it, it's not that the mainstream and the large-scale are counterfeit. We can be just as fake in our liturgy (our action as the church) in the small scale and the "underground" as we are in the big and glamorous. Indeed, we can even be authentic in those spaces. It's not so much that we need to purge something (although we probably do), it's that something is missing.

I thoroughly believe that the church should look like Jesus. Not because I've experienced it but because I hope that it can be. This is the eschatological hope of the church, it is the image of God in the world and the Body of Christ. We might say that it's impossible to be like Jesus in every way, but that would be an eschatological miscalculation. As Francis Chan says, just look at Jesus and do what he does.

So what's missing from the church? Perhaps most profoundly, our solidarity with the poor. Christ shared not only his food, not only his friendship, but his very identity with the "least of these." We've failed at welcoming, let alone sharing identity with the poor. Our churches, especially ones like the one I was hanging out at for the past two days, are extremely marketed to upper-middle class America. They look like shopping malls and museums. Our churches won't even vote to get health care for the poor, let alone consider genuine solidarity. We've got a long way to go before we look anything like Jesus in this regard. Our implicit message has overshadowed our explicit one. We don't even hear the words from scripture about possessions and consumption... they've been drowned out by the flashy speakers and big-screen venues with fountains in the courtyards (I guess we might need to purge a few things after all). We've becomes too preoccupied with "changing lives" to stop and look at what we're changing them into...

...Food for thought...

Sticky Teams 2.0, Mark Driscoll

2011-10-25T06:26:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I attended the first Day of Sticky Teams 2.0 at North Coast Church in Vista. The highlight of the day, for better or worse, was hearing from Pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Washington (not to be confused for Rob Bell's church in Grand Rapids). He was just as flippant and matter-of-fact as I had expected and yet, as also to be expected, I had significant disagreements with what he had to say.

The main substance of his message was that there are three different kinds of leaders; Prophets, Priests, and Kings (no surprises at the gender exclusivity here). Prophets are those who "protect the gates" and are concerned about the message of the Church, specifically its' theology and doctrine (a word that Driscoll uses all too casually). These are the theology nerds among us--the thinkers for the church, those who love books and discussion and, apparently, shooting anyone who disagrees with them. I wanted to put myself in the prophets camp. After all, I love theology and I love theological discussion and I pride myself in being relatively well read therein... for what it's worth, I even have a degree in the subject... but by Driscoll's calculation, I don't like the right theology to be considered a priest. He had a very narrow view on the books and traditions from which we should draw and, frankly, I don't care for Wayne Grudem. And I don't feel the need to attack the people with whom I disagree with. So, I guess I should have picked a different major.

Priests, are the loving types, the ones who care about God's people and the ones who are community and relationship driven. Kings are the administrators of the church, the ones who find effective and practical ways of making the reality of the church--it's work and it's message--effected within the world. Apparently, kings have to love charts and graphs and they're really into building projects.

His message was that we need to know who we are and we need to balance our leadership according to these criteria. We cannot allow one form of leadership to dominate another.

What Driscoll was really getting at were the krygmatic, koinonia, and the liturgical/sacramental elements of the church. Nothing new, of course, except for his explanations of them which I found to be short of the mark, inadequate, and extremely narrow (leaving out Progressive, "emergent" and mainline leaders... which is pretty much most of the Church). But those three elements of the church should be balanced, perhaps especially among the staff of the local church. So there was definitely some posetive takeaway.

It was interesting to finally be in the same room as Mark Driscoll. He certainly lived up to expectation.

Jon Stewart: Scorn in the U.S.A.

2011-10-19T11:38:00.000-07:00

I love Jon Stewart, always have loved the Daily Show, but I especially love this video:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Scorn in the U.S.A.

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

I try not to get too political too often, but I think Jon Stewart nailed at least one aspect of what has been frustrating me lately in the U.S. political conversation.

The Untapped Resource of the Absentee Youth Worker

2011-10-18T11:46:00.000-07:00

Finding good volunteers seems to be a struggle in many, if not most churches. It has definitely been the focus of most of my recent visioning for the future of our Youth Ministry. We've made some progress getting people to help out and gaining consistency from them but we're still some distance from where we want to be. The whle goal is to get adults in the lives of students so they can speak good news into their lives. In all of my reading, thinking, and working on this issue, I've made an observation--well, one among a few--that is more like an hypothesis: the people who are needed most in ministry are the people who aren't doing it.

Of course this is true on one level; their absence from the ministry is congruent with the church's need for them in ministry. But the people I'm talking about are specifically the people who understand Youth Ministry... you thought I was gonna say parents, didn't you? It's true we need parents in Youth Ministry (more importantly, we need to leverage their influence and empower them to do ministry at home) but the people who really understand the key ingredients of Youth Ministry, even if they don't know it, are young adults (I'm thinking 20-27 year olds). The Young Adult generation is keenly sensitive to authenticity and relationality--two of the most important ingredients in any good Youth Ministry. The Youth Ministry pendulum is swinging away from program-driven ministries to ministries built around authentic relationships. Youth Pastors know this, but Youth Pastors aren't actually the ones who do most of the Youth Ministry--the whole church does Youth Ministry and the DNA of the ministry is made up of all the people who invest their time and their presence to the lives of the students (which is why Youth Pastors are right to be selective about who they enlist as youth workers). Therefore, if ministries are going to be authentically relational, then we need authentically relational volunteers... in general, I think this comes naturally to 20-27 year olds.

These are rough thoughts, I know. I am sure you can leave this blog and quickly find another article arguing that we need more mature leaders in Youth Ministry. Perhaps there's a good argument that we've got enough young adults on the scene. Of course all people are relational and of course anyone who invests their presence in the lives of students is vitally important. But I've just noticed that along with the absence of Young Adults from church in general is their absence from Youth Ministry. The majority of youth workers I know who are under the age of 30 are vocational ministers, they're getting paid for it. But when I think about other people my age, other young adults and friends from college, many of those who really understand youth ministry and would make awesome youth workers aren't even going to church on a regular basis and of the few who are involved in their churches, even fewer are involved in their Youth Ministries. Many who are fit to make good theological and practical observations based on their experience are essentially just sitting on the sidelines. I think of people from other churches who I'd pay (if I could) to help me in my ministry but aren't even volunteering in their own churches. There are so many skilled individuals who are essentially sitting the sidelines.

If it hasn't already become apparent to you, this observation is still developing. Perhaps we shouldn't single out any demographic... perhaps the plight of the church is not the absence of young adult youth workers but of youth workers in general. Whatever the case, we need to get more youth workers in the game. Whatever the demographic, we need to tap-in to the untapped resources of the absentee youth worker.

"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few." -Matthew 9:37

The Implicit Message

2011-10-11T10:35:00.001-07:00

I've had a powerful concept rolling around in my brain ever since the National Youth Workers Convention. Mike King, founder of the organization Youthfront, sparked it in a seminar he gave at the conference. It's the concept of the "implicit" message. Essentially, we as people and we as the Church have not only a spoken message--an explicit message--but an "implicit" message as well. We have both the confession of our lips (read, "explicit") and the expression of our behavior (read "implicit").

Now, this is not an original thought by any stretch of the imagination. If the prophet Isaiah didn't get at it with, "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me," and if Jesus didn't imply this concept when he said, "You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence," and if James didn't say it when he wrote, "If one of you says to them, 'Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead," then maybe Saint Francis of Assisi had it in mind when he said, "preach the gospel and, if at all necessary, use words." Perhaps this is another reason why the Shema is so profoundly important. If the Lord our God, Yahweh, is ONE... if God's not preaching two different messages and if God's not undermining God's confession with God's behavior... then we can only reflect God's image by being single-minded, by living and loving with the harmony of our heart, mind, soul, and strength--with our behavior and our confession, with implicit and explicit messages.

This holds huge implications for not only what we choose to say but what we choose to do. What sort of patterns and cultures have we cultivated in our churches? Do our behaviors undermine or solidify the confessions that come from our pulpits? Do we speak one way and act another? If we dare to suggest that the gospel is "good news to the poor," as Jesus suggested, then do our budgets and board meetings reflect a belief in that suggestion? Belief, after all, is far more than a cognitive exercise. Belief is about environment and behavior.

This morning I was reading a friend's blog. In his most recent post, "Is that a bad thing?," Wes (yes, another one) shares his gut reactions to seeing a picture of a huge and glamorous church building in a magazine... "This was a huge, brand new, sterile, yet charming place of worship. It looked more like a hunting lodge to me than a church... Is this wasteful? Is this really important? ...The more I started to ask those questions, the more upset I was getting..." I share his sentiments and I share his openness to hearing out whatever justification there may be to the costly extravagance of so many of the church facilities we have in the U.S.--standing alongside (if only figuratively) other churches whose Pastor's have to work two jobs just to make their ministry possible, not to mention the millions among us struggling in poverty and the billions more around the globe who'd benefit from a share in the value of those buildings. Wes' post made me realize just how huge this implicit message can be.

The environments we create, including but not limited to the spaces in which we gather, are part of that implicit message. Don't bother talking about the incarnation if you don't cultivate environments of community. Don't think about suggesting "good news to the poor" if your building screams out, "I don't care about you!" If our message to the world is, "follow Jesus and get cool stuff" (and that's exactly what some have apparently gotten out of their faith experience), then extravagance is an accurate reflection of our value system. But if your explicit message involves sharing in the sufferings of Christ, loving and bringing good news to the poor, experiencing "abundant life" through the irony of sacrifice, or participating with God in the healing of the world, then you should know that glamour and bells & whistles will undermine and render void our explicit confession. It's hard to identify with the poor when you're driving a Bentley.

Yes, you might reach more people with a bigger, prettier, and more expensive building. You might attract different people with lights, screens, and awesome bands... but to what will you be attracting them? You may convert more people but to what will they be converted? How will their souls be shaped after they've been formed in the context you've created? What are you implying in the environment you've created? What message is going without saying?

Theological reflection on this issue is a necessary discipline for Pastors and architects alike (perhaps neither are doing enough of that). If you know your message, if you know what your God is like, the you'll know what your life should look like--the space in which you gather, the content of your conduct, the liturgy of your daily routines.

Let not the implicit message of your life render void the explicit message of your mouth. Let that bring new meaning to the saying "preach the gospel and if at all necessary, use words."

...food for thought...

Rollins' Latest

2011-10-11T09:03:00.000-07:00

Peter Rollins, one of my favorite thinkers, recently published his new book, Insurrection. I haven't even read it yet, but I wanna recommend it. Pete is just that good! Here's a sort of introductory video for the book:

Insurrection is immediately going on my need-to-read list! Check out Peter's website at http://peterrollins.net/

Substitute: Thoughts on Worship, Community, and Identity

2011-10-08T17:10:00.001-07:00

We have taught ourselves to be emotionally connected to the aesthetics of a glamorous worship service. I think Jesus would be more emotionally connected to the worshipers.

Perhaps there was a time when the church needed to be flashy. Perhaps we, at one point, were right to create an emotionally stimulating environment out of our worship services. Indeed, it has been in such a context that I have encountered God time and again. But how often does our ecclesiological identity and energy in this area undercut that for which our culture is obviously hungry and that which should most obviously distinguish us?

Jesus said that the church would be known for its love. Not for its love for hip and contemporary music. Not its love for lights and eloquent sermons. Not its love for services... Jesus said, "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." In other words, our identity as the Church is found in our unique community. Is not our culture hungry for community? We seek it everywhere! We seek it in romance, we seek it in anonymity (ironically) through social networking, we seek it in clubs, we even seek it in churches... sadly, we aren't finding it.

There is all this talk about why 20-somethings aren't going go church. I'm amazed at how often this conversation revolves around problems in "youth culture." We act as though it's their fault. But perhaps the fault belongs to the Church itself. The truth is, for all their faults, young adults are very sensitive to authenticity. They know when something feels fake. They don't always know what "real" looks like, but they're very impatient with the substitute. The reason they don't go to church is because they know when they're being duped. They go to church and instead of finding authentic community they find services.

The church has poured its energy and, even more tragically, its identity into church services and the stuff that happens in the sanctuary on Sunday mornings. We've put great bands and speakers on stage, but community doesn't happen from a stage. Talk all you want about the incarnation, but as long as your behavior communicates disconnectedness, it is just white noise. Those of us who've stayed in the church, for whatever reason, have connected so much with the worship that we have lost our passion for the worshippers.

I dream of the day when the word "church" prompts not thoughts of buildings or services but of authentic community--a people united in Christ, whose love for one another is simply and undeniably compelling. What if our worship came out of such a context? What if out of love for Christ, our worship was a reflection of our love for Christ's people? The Church, after all, is the very body of Christ.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

Audrey Assad

2011-10-05T08:23:00.000-07:00

Among all the highlights of the NYWC this past weekend, one that stood out to me was Audrey Assad who lead us in worship a couple of times. I don't think the recorded stuff does justice to how genuine her music really was. Everybody needs to hear this woman sing!

Good stuff, huh?

Rob Bell: The New Face of Televangelism?

2011-10-04T09:57:00.000-07:00

It seems that the rumors are true. Rob Bell--the public theologian, pastor, and author of Velvet Elvis and Love Wins--is relocating from Grand Rapids to Los Angeles to produce a new television show called "Stronger" with Carlton Cuse, executive producer and screenwriter of "Lost." The show is a story about a young musician who ends up becoming something of a "spiritual guide." If it's got any Rob Bell to it at all, it will surely be a drama which raises deep spiritual questions and offers profoundly good news amidst the pain and struggles of its characters. Perhaps the authenticity and creativity of Rob Bell is just what the genre of "spiritual drama" needed.

But more than this, I think that this show may be just what we needed.

Recently, for some strange reason, I found myself up late at night flipping channels, watching "Christian" television networks. I flipped from one older white Pastor standing on a stage in a suite telling me something about how God "himself" wrote the Bible, to another older white Pastor standing on a stage in a suite telling me that if I am not called to tell people about their "sin" then I'm not called or chosen by God at all. Then I changed the channel and listened to a man with a lazy eye telling me about the horrors of Jesus' return--the immanence of World War III, the "evils" of the eventual peace treaty to be signed by Palestinians and Israelis, the terror of tolerance among various religions--it all sounded so utterly hopeless. Then I thought back to shows like "Seventh Heaven" and "Touched by an Angel" and I thought to myself, "Christianity is just stupid. People who believe this crap and live those fake lives are supposed to be Christians?!" Whenever Christianity finds its' way to the big screen or the living room, it gives us all a bad name.

We're all familiar with Televangelism. It has become the typology for hypocrisy, often even among people who don't call themselves Christians. It's a big dupe-session; a guy talks about love and justice and healing and then happily steals your money. It's a very bad story! But someone has got to tell a good story, an honest story. The Church should be the pioneers of creativity and authenticity and we've for far too long told a fake story that's utterly disconnected. What we need is a good story.

What's the best way to share your faith? On accident!

Faith is shared when it's shared honestly, when it's a transparent story that internalizes the realities of pain and need while celebrating the hope for something more. Evangelism--sharing good news, sharing faith--is about sharing yourself, it's about being so transformed by the gospel of Jesus that you cannot help but share it... it just happens... it happens on accident. For so long, then, televangelism has been an oxymoron. We get up, tell a fake story from a fake platform and call it sharing good news when all we should be sharing is the honesty and creativity of our lives.

Rob Bell, if he's nothing else, is a good story teller. And he's authentically creative. I think, if nothing else, we have lots of room to hope that Rob Bell will tell a good story. We have room to hope that his faith will be shared and that the story, though fictional, will be utterly real. It will, if all goes well, become the new face of "Televangelism"--faith shared as authentically as possible through the medium of television--though we'd be mistaken ever to call it that. I think that it'll just happen on accident.

The Social Construction of Adolescence

2011-10-04T08:02:00.000-07:00

This weekend I was at the National Youth Workers Convention. I absolutely love these types of gatherings. Yes, because I learn a lot; yes, because there are great resources for youth ministry; but mostly because I get to be around a bunch of people who don't think I'm crazy, we can be crazy together. A few takeaways from the conference? Andy Root is the Rob Bell of Youth Ministry (in a good way), Kenda Creasy Dean is not just brilliant but funny too, the way churches behave is more important than what they say, and Francis Chan is still a fundamentalist...

But another discussion that I am sure will continue post-conference is the one that was sparked by the musings of Dr. Robert Epstein. His essential argument from the stage of the "Big Room" was that adolescence is not a biological reality but merely a social construction that does not reflect the true level of these young people's competency. We restrict their rights. As Epstein argued, if you're a teenager and you want to gain some rights, commit a crime and go to prison. Your rights will about double. Dr. Epstein said that there's no science behind any of our legal restrictions nor our systemic condescension toward anyone under the age of about 25. In other words, as far as he's concerned, there's no such thing as adolescence--at least not outside the realm of the systems we've created. We talk about them as "kids" which he says is a lie. "They're not kids, they're young adults." We underestimate their ability to process, to question, to think, and to perform when they're just as competent, if not more competent than the rest of us. I think that Dr. Eptein wants to see something of a cultural revolution like the civil rights movement. He wants to see the systems--those we have put in place that isolate and oppress those whom we call adolescents and which hold up a low bar of expectation--brought down. He wants to see their rights and the respect we have for them reflect their true adulthood and competency.

Now, I actually enjoyed what Dr. Epstein had to say. There were certainly issues with it. Just because someone is an adult in their brain does not mean they're ready to take on every adult responsibility and just because they're capable of processing rigorous concepts doesn't mean that they can equally contribute to a conversation about historical soteriology, for example. Indeed, people need training in these things. Just because an adult brain can handle it doesn't mean you're ready to handle it. So, even though I stand in agreement that we should be seeing teenagers, especially in our churches, as equal members of society, I also believe that there is a necessary apprenticeship required for all people. We should see teenagers in our churches not as lower class citizens, but as people who can contribute, at what ever level they're on, to the identity of the church. They should not be isolated but included as adults--even as apprentice adults. Adolescence is a social construction, but that doesn't make it bad. It's how we approach it that makes it good or bad. Yes, we've abused our apprentices for too long. But if we provide a structure of respect, of empowerment, then we give them a chance to learn and grow. That may begin with our language.

In working with teenagers, I believe that they're hungry to contribute as adults, they're ready to be treated as adults. But they're also hungry to be taught, to be "discipled," just like the rest of us. They're still students. That being said, they need good teachers and not all adults are ready to be adults either.

A Post-script on language:

If so-called "adolescents" are indeed to be seen as adults-in-training, then what should we call them? Isn't "offspring" a bit strange? Isn't AIT (Adult In Training) somewhat odd? Should we stop calling them students? Should we stop calling them "kids"? As Kenda Creasy Dean said, "kids is a relational term... it means they belong to someone (i.e. they're loved)... Offspring?! What's that?!" So "kids" and even "children" are acceptable terms but what matters more than our language is how we embody it. If we say "kids" but do not behave as though they belong, then despite our intentions, we become condescending--perpetuating an unjust social construction of adolescence.

See You At The Pole 2011

2011-09-28T09:19:00.001-07:00

This morning I got up at 5:00am to meet some students at Jack In The Box before the See You At The Pole events at the various schools in our community. See You At The Pole is a national event where students from all over the country gather at their flag poles for prayer. I've been involved with this event ever since I was in Junior High and I've always had mixed feelings about it.

At best, the event is an awesome opportunity for students to take leadership on their campus and to gather in solidarity around their love for Christ and their hope for their schools and communities. It's completely student lead and focuses on what's common among all the churches in their community, namely, devotion to Christ. Onlookers are welcomed and even drawn to the event because of the authenticity of those gathered, opening the possibility of good conversation throughout the day.

At its' worst, it's a political rally where students, influenced by their Pastors and Youth Pastors, push a social agenda through the medium of public prayer. Students who look on are intimidated and alienated from those gathered and the Christian subculture, the Church as an alienating "holy huddle," is perpetuated making authentic ministry an improbability.

I've heard of both extremes... In our network we strive to empower students to become the former.

This morning, we youth pastors were mere spectators as students took leadership at the local schools. I went to Olive Peirce Middle School and prayed with students there who shared passages from scripture and talked practically about how they were going to love the people around them through the day. I was surprised and encouraged by their maturity. A few questions always go through my mind; are the students taking leadership? Are they focused on prayer? What would an outsider think about this?

I can safely say that this morning, at least at the school where I was, See You At The Pole went well. I'll be praying throughout the day for those students, for their schools, their town, their country, and the world... That the Kingdom will come!

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

Delayed Reactions to Bin Laden's Death

2011-09-27T09:44:00.000-07:00

Perhaps it has taken me about this long to process what happened back on May 1, 2011 or maybe it's just a delayed reaction, but recently I have been reflecting heavily on the death of Osama Bin Laden.

I heard about it from one of my students. We were at Youth Group, getting ready to begin our study, and one of my students raised up his cell phone and announced, "my dad just texted me... we killed Osama Bin Laden." I remember just sitting in my chair in the front of the room, unsure how to react, feeling an unexpected sense of grief, and just listening as students reacted to the news. The overall consensus was that this was positive news, there was an air of celebration. But I just could not share the sentiment. I was much too conflicted for that. I don't remember exactly what I said to my students but I do remember taking the rest of that night to talk about what Jesus meant when he said "love your enemies." I didn't shoot down anyone's reaction, but I did challenge the students to allow themselves to be conflicted. The news of someone's death, if we love them, should not invoke celebration but grief. But on the other hand, how could they help but feel a sense of pride and relief. This man, Bin Laden, had been the face of evil for them for their entire lives.

When I went home, I watched the news and read through my Twitter, just to see how people reacted. Many celebrated, few mourned. I wasn't sure why, but I was overwhelmed with sadness. I was sad to see so many Americans so quickly dismiss the humanity of another person. And I didn't know why else I was sad until much more recently. I realized that for my entire adult life, ever since I began to pray for those who persecute, as Jesus taught me, I had been praying for this Osama Bin Laden. I didn't know him, I didn't know any more about him than what I was exposed to through the media, but I had been praying for him. The Arab world and the West, especially the U.S., are in such need of reconciliation and healing. Bin Laden became--ever since I was 16 years old--the face of that conflict and thus, quite often, the face I pictured when I prayed for reconciliation, when I prayed for my enemies. I was not praying that U.S. special forces would end his life. I was not praying that he'd be quickly buried at the bottom of the sea. I was praying for a miracle. I was praying for peace, restoration, and understanding.

I was sad that night because the man for whom I'd be praying, the man in whom I'd desperately sought to affirm humanity, had been killed and thus my prayers were wasted. I mourned because the future I'd hoped for, the future for which Jesus had taught me to pray, was no longer a possibility. The humanity which I'd tried so hard to see in this man--despite whatever atrocities for which he was responsible--had been snuffed out. The failure of my prayers had become the object of celebration for an entire nation. That is what I was feeling in my soul.

Did he deserve what he got? Perhaps. Did his death prevent the death and suffering of many others? It's possible, though we can only speculate. But the bigger question is, did God love him? If God loved him, then should we have loved him? If we should have loved him, did we? Does love celebrate the demise of its' object?

I had hoped for so much more. I had hoped for healing. I mourned because in the "victory" of the United States, it seemed that love had failed... My faith and my hope were abruptly called into question.

Things would have been more simple if I had not been praying for my enemies and trying to love the unlovable. I may have been able to simply celebrate the death of an evil man. But Jesus messes things up for me on a regular basis.

Shane Hipps

2011-09-19T11:18:00.000-07:00

Shane Hipps, who is now a Pastor at Mars Hill Bible Church in Michigan and the author of Flickering Pixels, might be one of the most interesting people in the world. I've found his thoughts on community, technology, and faith to be extremely helpful and remarkably insightful. Recently, Shane's website was launched (www.shanehipps.com). There you can buy his books and videos, watch a few interviews, and even read his blog. Through the website, I came across this interview:

Check out his website, read his blog, buy his books!

Love Loses: A Review of "Erasing Hell" by Francis Chan

2011-09-14T07:55:00.000-07:00

So I just finished reading Erasing Hell by Francis Chan, his not-so-subtle response to Rob Bell's controversial book Love Wins. The book deserves a more thorough review than I will give it, and I must preface this post with something of a disclaimer. I am not objective and I am biased. I gave the book my most fair read but not an objective one. This topic of sin and Hell has become an all but personal issue. The book affected me, perhaps more than any book I've read recently. I actually found myself emotionally distressed if not depressed by what Chan was suggesting and arguing. I guess it opened up an old scar for me. It is from this ground--my biased and subjective perspective--that I will give a humble review. The truth is, we're all biased anyway, so I hope you'll still find my critiques to be noteworthy.

Chan operates from several presuppositions (as we all do). He implies in his introduction that Hell and judgement are so close to the heart of the gospel that if we were to teach that it did not exist, we'd actually be sending people there. He writes, "Think about it. If I say there is no hell, and it turns out that there is a hell, I may lead people into the very place I convinced them did not exist!" (page 14) This, however, is a drastic leap in logic. I was not aware that I needed to accept Hell into my heart in order to be saved. You do not need to preach Hell--at least not as a place of eternal torment--in order to preach the good news of God's saving love unless the only thing from which we need saving exists beyond the grave. Indeed, even Chan admits that there's more at stake than just our eternal destination and even Chan admits that the nature of Hell is less important than the point for which it has been taught (see chapter 5).

Chan's Christianity is one that's utterly obsessed with postmortem destination. In other words, the biggest question that Chan's Chistianity answers is "what happens when you die?" It is what I call an Ahistorical soteriology (salvation outside of history). This, however, was not at the forefront of thought for the first Christians and it's certainly not the biggest question of our culture (at least not anymore). This presupposition--that where you go when you die is the most important thing about you--drives Chan's exegetical work.

Chan takes ample time and does a thorough job in his exegesis of some key passages. He does well to argue that Hell is a reality in scripture but not without assuming it primarily to be a postmortem and eternal reality. No Christian universalist has come to their conclusions without having to answer to the passages that Chan brings up. And Chan does well to deal with the New Testament passages that some have used to argue for universal salvation. But herein lies a major misrepresentation. Chan barely dealt (if at all) with the Old Testament, particularly the prophets. See, universalists just don't read the scriptures like Chan does. They don't examine one passage at a time. Wrong or right, from my experience, universalists have a much more narrative and holistic foundation for their arguments. They appeal much more to the Old Testament than Chan represented. Indeed, Hell is almost solely a New Testament concept. Of course you wouldn't look there for supportive passages. They'd look to the narrative. What sort of God does Jesus reveal? Where is history headed? And Chan refused to approach those questions--questions about the flow of the Biblical narrative and the role of God's creative and savific work in the whole of creation. He didn't provide any insight on the eschatological implications of his perspective (although he made many!). He stuck to dealing with one passage at a time, for the most part keeping them well within their historical and literary context (very conservative approach), and went no further than to layer them one upon the other.

It seems that Chan is conflicted. He does so much intellectual work to create the argument that our intellect simply gets in the way. He leans heavily upon what I can only say is a cop-out. Whenever the question of God's love or goodness is raised, he quickly squelches it by saying, in essence, that God's ways are "higher" than our ways--a distortion of an otherwise Biblically endorsed perspective. If all this judgement stuff sounds like bad news instead of good news, well chalk that up as a human error... God's ways are "higher." If the thought of God's love being the kind of love that is satisfied by the suffering of its' object sounds horrible to you... well God's ways are "higher" and God defines love. If this God sounds like a monster to you... well too bad, you've got no choice but to accept that God is "good"... otherwise, you might go to Hell. It's a completely anti-intellectual perspective and it assumes that the definitions of love and goodness which he is undermining are nothing more than the calculated fabrications of our human sensibilities. The fact is that for many universalists, Christ has defined love and goodness--the Christ who loves the unlovable, saves the sinner, and tells stories of a Kingdom where the "least of these" share God's identity and where even the lonely lost sheep is sought after at all costs. The same Jesus whose sense of justice brought him to a cross to die for the very people who had him killed, has become the image of true justice (bringing the world to right), love, mercy, and even power (ironically).The God of whom Chan paints a picture seems to undermine not only human sensibilities but the revelation of love and justice we've received in Christ. Chan asks not whether we want to believe these things but "could you believe these things?" The answer is yes... and that's what made me so depressed in reading this. I used to believe in that God and then I discovered Jesus. I used to believe in a God who sent people to Hell out of a sense of justice but Jesus seems to have taught otherwise. Jesus seems to stand against any God who gives prosperity to some and issues suffering to others based on what they "deserve" (this is in fact how the Roman Empire operated, and Jesus wasn't a big fan of that structure). If God is the sort who sends people to Hell, Jesus is the sort who travels there at their side. Jesus does allude to the existence of Hell, and quite explicitly, but it seems that he desires so much that none should go there that He gave his life to defeat the powers that send them there (for Chan, Jesus is apparently defeating God, since God sends people there. It's the Penal substitutionary theory of the atonement: Jesus' death appeases God's wrath).

For Rob Bell, if I can venture to mention him, God desires for all to be saved and goes to every length to see that they are. For Chan, God could save everyone but simply won't. Chan makes it clear that God can do whatever God wants, but certain individual passages of scripture, gone unchecked by the narrative as a whole, have kept him from embracing such an idea. For Bell, Hell exists but there's room for hope. For Chan, Hell exists and to hope against it would be theological treason. Apparently Love--the kind of love which calls out every individual and ascribes value to them, making them dearly loved and worthy to be saved, even worthy of God's desire--eventually loses.

Questions About Hell for the Love of God

2011-09-07T22:32:00.001-07:00

"God is utterly committed to set the world right in the end... And that setting right must necessarily involve the elimination of all that distorts God's good and lovely creation and in particular of all that defaces God's image-bearing human creatures" -N.T. Wright

Hmm... What a thought provoking quote!

Wright is not a Universalist (or an inclusivist, as I like to put it) but in reflecting on what he says in this quote, you can't help but raise questions about the concept of divine, eternal, post-mortem retribution. If this is truly God's commitment, and I'm sure that any robust examination of the biblical narrative would lead one to just that conclusion, then would not the act of condemnation be an act of throwing the baby out with the bath water? You can't exactly condemn a building if your whole mission is to restore it. Sure, you'd have to tear out a few walls but ultimately, you couldn't be satisfied if it were completely and utterly burnt to the ground... or worse yet, allowed to remain in a run down and miserable state for all eternity.

But to justify the matter could we not say that the building itself is the human race and creation as a whole and that some of those walls to be torn down are individuals who are beyond repair? This is, from my observation, how most exclusivist evangelical thinkers operate. And they're not without a slew of biblical passages that can be used to support such an idea (think of biblical pruning metaphors). But simultaneously, we are taught that God loves individuals... God's counted the hairs on our heads. God's passion is for all individuals, not just people. We sing this... "Jesus, your love has no bounds" and "You thought of me above all..." If in God's ethic the individual, even the "least of these," has immeasurable value to God, then how could God be satisfied with the condemnation of one of these? Are not each one of us the objects of God's love and salvific endeavors? Are not individuals the building God wants to restore? If not, then what was all that "least of these" talk? Does not God love everyone? What sort of love would be satisfied with the eternal suffering of it's object?

Something's got to change it would seem... We've either got to stop going around saying that God loves everybody and clarify that God actually only loves a particular people group, namely the ones who follow Jesus, or we've got to stop using Hell (a conscious and eternal state of retributive suffering) as a threat to draw people to Christ. Could we not be just as convincing by simply pointing out and embodying the ridiculous love and justice of our God? Is not the beauty of Christ more captivating than the fear of Hell? Is not a faith of love more genuine than a faith of fear?

I don't think that N.T. Wright intentionally meant to raise these particular questions and I don't wish to argue that Hell is not a biblical concept. Perhaps it is. For now I'm just asking questions. But I will say this, Hell is not and never has been the heart of the gospel.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

Returned from Briefing 2011

2011-09-07T12:10:00.000-07:00

We just returned on Monday from our Young Adult Retreat at Forest Home. It was an amazing weekend thanks to Mike Erre, Urban Rescue, and the Forest Home staff. Check out this highlight video:

Contemplation Concerning Church Planting

2011-09-06T22:04:00.001-07:00

I've always been thoroughly attracted to the concept of planting a new church. I remember my freshman year of college at APU. It seemed like every time I made a new friend I analyzed the prospect of starting a church with them, weighing the potential... Yeah, I was perhaps too intense with the concept. And even though I've "moved on" from any real pursuit of the idea, it has not ceased to be a compelling thought.

As our church recasts our vision together, I can't help but think that the whole thing--focusing our vision, implementing a cohesive process--would be so much easier if we could just start from scratch. It would be so much easier in so many ways to start a vibrant church than to become a vibrant church. However, that being said, minimization of resistance would not make for a healthy motive on its own. One would need to be compelled not only be a vision of an "ideal" church (whatever that may be) but by a true sense of mission, a desire to be for the world as Christ is and has been for the world--a desire to "reach" people as the living, breathing foretaste of God's dream for the world. One would have to clearly understand why they're doing what they're doing. In other words, one would have to avoid nacissism in such a process.

So once you've come to terms with the "why" of the matter, you've got to get a handle on how. This brings me to a nagging question... would it work for a youth pastor to spearhead a church plant? Could a founder and key visionary for the congregation be such from the position of youth pastor? How on earth would that work. They would have to share the visioning responsibility, as would anyone, I expect. But perhaps moreso than in most situations, a youth pastor would have to at the very least share their role as leader. The reason this question is a nagging one is because I feel called to youth ministry, not to senior pastoral ministry. And yet I am still so compelled by the thought of planting a church, the thought periodically returns to my mind. So how? How would this work if it is to work?

Once "why" and "how" have been established, I assume that the "what" of the matter would come with relative ease... but it wouldn't come without its own complexities. The actual implementation of the church's vision would take strategic communication and an alignment among the leadership of the church.

These thoughts are no more than simple contemplation. I have no real plans to start a new church. But, nevertheless, the idea is compelling.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

Briefing at Forest Home 2011

2011-09-02T09:48:00.000-07:00

Today our Young Adult group is going to Young Adult Briefing at Forest Home. I am pretty excited. I look for any excuse to get back up to forest home. The theme is "More" which is just broad enough for me. I like open ended themes from which you can spring thought in a plurality of directions. The speaker is Mike Erre which makes the whole thing just a little bit better. Mike was at Rock Harbor when I was in college and we used to make the commute from APU to Costa Mesa just to hear Mike and to be blessed by that church. It has been years since I've heard him in person and I'm sure he's going to bring an awesome flavor to the whole weekend. I'm looking forward to the opportunity to relax a bit, to worship, and to learn this weekend.

Some Thoughts on Vision and Process

2011-09-01T14:34:00.001-07:00

I had an eventful day yesterday. In the morning I met with a couple of friends for coffee and talked about everything from Sunday School curriculum to Youth Ministry salary figures. In the afternoon I wrote out some thoughts on things that have bugged me for a while, followed by a good conversation with my Senior Pastor. And in the evening our church council met for another visioning meeting. We have been meeting monthly for the past few months to read on and discuss the topic of simplicity and process in order to recast our vision and mission as a congregation. Among other things, we read mostly from the book Simple Church by Thom S. Rainer and Eric Geiger. This has pretty much been the first order of business for our new Pastor who took a listening posture for the first several months of his time with us (pretty smart guy!). In order to function as one body, it's important for any church to simplify, to focus on what's most important and on what they do best in order to excel at few things rather than being mediocre at a whole bunch of things, thus burning out staff and congregation in the process. Along with simplicity and focus comes alignment--getting everyone on the same page, focused on the same process as opposed to working and even competing in silos. Then everyone doing the calendaring and everyone in the congregation understands what's going on and why it's happening without feeling overwhelmed.

These conversations have been liberating for me personally and has given me hope in the direction that God is moving our church. Last night we took the first crack at dealing with a mission statement and a process. The proposed mission statement was a catalyst for some healthy debate, giving everyone an opportunity to operate with the concepts we've been internalizing from Simple Church and other sources. Our homework is to come up with a simple mission statement after reflecting on the great command--to love God and to love others. I've constructed something of a process... but a pithy mission statement might be difficult for me...

The elements of the process must be at least somewhat linear in order for it to be something other than a list of ministry components. Each element must be in conversation with the others, even providing a framework for definition. For example if an element of the process is simply "missions" then it provides no real guidance for how to do missions. But if it something like... "loving the world" we're getting somewhere... especially if something in the other elements provides a contextual framework for defining what that means. If "empowering members," for example, is an element of the process, then we know that loving the world must be done from within the framework of empowerment. The elements of the ministry process are actually in conversation with one another.

So I've got a few ideas which I plan to propose if the opportunity presents itself and if there isn't another better proposition on the table. The most compelling of which is this "...belong, believe, become." Not only is it simple and easy to remember (which is more important than you might think. How else will a whole congregation be able to internalize it?), it's also alliterate. It's fluid enough for people to enter it through different doors but linear enough to provide a contextual framework. Belonging is perhaps the "first" element... not to get too linear. We gather as a community, no matter who you are or where you are on your journey, you are welcome to engage in this community, to be welcomed and to taste and see that the Lord is good through the Body of Christ. And from the context of community, we grow together, we believe. We wrestle with questions, we worship, we pray, we seek understanding, we embrace God's version of our stories, we discover God together ("discover" may have been a better word if it started with the letter "b"), everything is "we" because belonging is part of our process. Then we become. We begin to embody the things we've discovered in the Body of Christ. We serve, we invite, we engage our culture as bearers of the image of God, becoming more like God and becoming more the people we were created to be and were saved to be through Christ. Belong, Believe, Become. The essence of such a process is love. Without love, none of these elements are possible.

So what sort of mission statement would work to make such a process even more accessible?Perhaps... nothing... perhaps such a process is a mission statement in itself. I'm still thinking... perhaps "to embody the reign of God" is too weird...

Youth Unite 8.28.11

2011-08-28T08:25:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite things about living and working in the community of Ramona is that the churches (at least the evangelical ones), specifically the Youth Ministries, have such a healthy network. We've built real trust in one another and even though our differences are very real, even though we do things very differently in many areas, and even though we have different perspectives on following Christ, how to read the bible, where history is headed, etc., we still believe in one another enough to set those differences aside. And we don't do this in a superficial way--we don't do it in condescension--we actually do stuff together!

Tonight at The Way Church in Ramona, we're having our fourth ever Youth Unite--a night of worship for all the youth and youth groups in the area. It's a beautiful and unique event! Check out the trailer that my brother-in-law, Jonathan Bidwell, made for the event...

The Whole Song

2011-08-22T13:35:00.000-07:00

Today Amanda and I were driving back to work from our lunch break (it's so nice working at the same place right now) and on the radio we heard the song S&M by Rihanna. It turns out the song is about exactly what its title suggests with no apparent symbolism. Any sampling of the lyrics would get the point across but the chorus probably represents it sufficiently:

"Cause I may be bad
But I'm perfectly good at it
Sex in the air
I don't care
I love the smell of it
Sticks and stones
May break my bones
But chains and whips
Excite me"

Now although the song is extremely catchy and that vocals are impressive for its' genre, I think most people would say the song is inappropriate for children. If we're going to censure anything, wouldn't you expect a song about sadomasochism to be on the naughty list. Perhaps I've officially become an old man, but it troubles me that the teenagers I work with are listening to this song. Sure, there aren't any "explicit lyrics" in terms of profanity. In fact, some may see it as a remarkably clean song. No "F" words or anything like that. Of course, I'm not surprised that the song is still on the radio and of course we still finished listening to it.

What was surprising, or at least ironic, was what we heard next. The song was "Pumped up Kicks" by a band called Foster the People. It was a good transition because it was a song we both like, in fact I'm really into this song right now. it's more of a folk-rock sound, I guess... definitely different from Rihanna! The song isn't particularly negative, although on the surface it seems to be about a disturbed kid going on a killing spree (and that's actually what it's about), it may even have some subtle social commentary. The lyrics go like this:

"All the other kids with the pumped up kicks
You'd better run, better run, outrun my gun
All the other kids with the pumped up kicks
You'd better run, better run, faster than my bullet."

It's smarter in just about every way than Rihanna's stuff and I think it may even have the effect of making you think... and not about Rihanna dressed in leather. But incredibly, "Pumped up Kicks" was censured. Whereas there were no edits or omitted lyrics from a song about sadomasochism, Foster the People had some words that the radio thought needed to be covered up. It wasn't the "F" word or even the "B" word. The two words that someone out there didn't want children to hear were... get ready for this... "gun" and "bullet." Really?! Yes, indeed. I couldn't get over how ironic it was having just listened to an entire song about chains and whips. Apparently violence is ok if it's in the context of sexual pleasure but we wouldn't want children to think it's ok anywhere else. Do you see the inconsistency here and the strangeness of it all.

Of course, to me this has little to do with radio censuring. I think parents should do better than to leave the rearing of the children to the discretion of the music industry. But this ironic transition reflects something bigger about our culture. We're ok with dealing with things in isolated incidents, but we have trouble with the big picture, with the systemic perpetuation of a given problem. we watch carefully for individual words but we play dumb when it comes to the whole song. We see this in economics, in government, in the Church, in the education system, and in almost every sector of dominant culture. It has been a tradition in the church to get frustrated with specifics but to remain ignorant about things that are less visible but even more important.

I'll never forget a story I heard about Tony Campolo (I may have even witnessed this story once or twice). He was speaking at a conference to a room full of pastors and seminarians about how the Church alienates those who need Christ the most (if such a sliding scale is even fair to imply). He was talking about a prostitute who was invited to go to church and her response was, "why would I go to church? So I can hear how bad and worthless I am? I think I get that enough out here." Tony proceeded to comment on how terrible it was that she'd perceived church as such a toxic and judgmental organism. Campolo said, "that's just wrong... that's shit!"After an awkward pause he said, "what's worse is that more of you in the room are concerned about the fact that i just said "shit" than are concerned about the state of the church. (The story went something like that, anyway). If something is clear to us and has a simple solution we are quick to the trigger. But when issues get bigger and more systemic we become sheepish and paralyzed from delving into the complexities and, often enough, the painful difficulties of working through an issue. yet, this is precisely what Jesus was all about. He took his body to the very heart of the biggest systemic issue of all and painfully and lovingly embodied its' solution.

Jesus didn't get mad at the woman who was caught in adultery. He confronted the whole system in which this woman was found. He dismantled the authority that sought to condemn her when her sin was obviously the more visible and easy-to-solve issue. And Jesus did more than condemn the woman of sin, he actually freed her from it.

It's much more discomforting to replace a whole song than it is to omit a word or two. But the reality is that God wants to change the whole song. God wants to see the whole system replaced. That's what the Kingdom of God is all about. It's a song that God is singing over all of creation. it simply won't harmonize with any lesser song and so those of us who've found this kingdom can settle for nothing less. that is why we must take up a cross in order to enter such a kingdom. Because it's only on a cross that the complexities and sufferings of life can be caught up in and overtaken by the love of God. It can't just be about how you spend a dollar. It has to be about dismantling the whole system in which the rich devalue and dehumanize the poor. it can't just be about getting someone out of office and getting someone else in. It has to be about deconstructing the false values of a spoiled and deceitful nation with a bad case of amnesia. It can't only be about managing our sin. It has to be about being made new in the Spirit of God.

There is a better song being played, a bigger song. Can you hear it?

A Classic From Shane

2011-08-17T09:15:00.000-07:00

I just re-read an amazing article, maybe more of a letter, by Shane Claiborne on Tony Campolo's blog. It was originally written at least a couple of years ago but it's too good not to read more than once. It's an attempt to redeem the beauty of the Christian faith for those on whom the beauty has been lost, for those who've been burnt to badly by Christians to really take interest in their Christ. Shane, as you may know, is a favorite author of mine and just an incredible person. I encourage you to take the time to read the whole article: What if Jesus Meant All That Stuff?

Here's a sample from the letter:

The Bible that I read says that God did not send Jesus to condemn the world but to save it… it was because “God so loved the world.” That is the God I know, and I long for others to know. I did not choose to devote my life to Jesus because I was scared to death of hell or because I wanted crowns in heaven… but because he is good. For those of you who are on a sincere spiritual journey, I hope that you do not reject Christ because of Christians. We have always been a messed-up bunch, and somehow God has survived the embarrassing things we do in His name. At the core of our “Gospel” is the message that Jesus came “not [for] the healthy… but the sick.” And if you choose Jesus, may it not be simply because of a fear of hell or hope for mansions in heaven.

Read the article: http://www.redletterchristians.org/what-if-jesus-meant-all-that-stuff/

A Pixelated Week at Forest Home

2011-08-15T13:13:00.001-07:00

On Friday last week we returned from Forest Home, our high school summer camp, where we spent an amazing and exhausting week learning with and loving on our students. It's always good to be at Forest Home and the staff there always does an incredible job. They're such an amazing ministry team. What's perhaps the most incredible thing about the environment they've created up there is the openness and diversity, the atmosphere of welcome and community even amongst very different churches with very different leadership. I have seen some camps and conference fail at this on both ends. Some camps or conferences simply don't show sensitivity to any theological spectrum or diversity of thought. They assume that their understanding of "gospel" is THE understanding or they just don't care if anyone disagrees with them. On the other end, there are organizations which try so hard to celebrate diversity and inclusivity that they somehow fail at drawing anyone who thinks outside their agenda, they fail at drawing anyone more conservative than they are. But at Forest Home they've drawn all sorts of different churches and have represented a wide theological spectrum seemingly without effort. They simply focus on Christ and on setting up churches to have good conversations with their students and they've done so with such sensitivity that they've welcomed all without losing the sharpness of their message.

The theme this year was all around the life of David from the book of Samuel. At the high school camp their theme was "A Pixelated life," which was at least partly inspired by Shane Hipps' book Flickering Pixels (a personal favorite of mine). Of all the different directions this theme could have and did go, the theme dealt with what amounted to a narrative approach to understanding God's relationship with us. As with any narrative approach to biblical exegesis or theology, every individual "pixel" is to be understood as a part of a larger unit. Each passage is part of a larger story and each doctrine is part of a larger theological framework. In this case, each story of David--the good, the bad, and the ugly--is just a pixel in a larger picture. The same goes for us. When God sees us, God does not only see dark pixels. We are not defined by the dark parts of us, the extensions of ourselves we'd rather not discuss. We are not defined only in terms of the bright pixels, that which we can achieve and accomplish. The Lord looks at the heart. God sees the whole picture of who we are and we are invited into the freedom of that knowledge.

This is by no means an attempt to sum up the camp theme... I think you sorta have to have been there. The theme took us to all sorts of different places (appropriate to the theme, if you ask me). We were challenged to think about the ways we are affected by technology and the fronts we put on through social media. We were challenged to see ourselves as a pixel in a larger picture being created by God. I was even reminded of an illustration that I first heard from N.T. Wright.

Wright talks of when all God's work will come to fruition. It will be like a giant cathedral, says Wright, that God will pick up and put together at just the last minute. And when we see it, it will be gloriously unfamiliar to us. But just then we will notice a familiar stone in one of it's walls. "Why, that's the stone I was carving throughout my life. There it is with all its flaws and all its beautiful craftsmanship." God work will be God's alone but it will be made up of all the work of all God's people. The story our life tells, the work to which we dedicate ourselves is and will be a pixel in the big picture of God's restored world.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

Welcome to Our Church

2011-08-04T10:37:00.000-07:00

"The task of prophetic ministry is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us." -Walter Brueggemann (The Prophetic Imagination, page 13)

A few weeks ago, our church posted some new signs. Welcome banners? Not at all. "Private Property--violators will be prosecuted" and "NO TRESPASSING" are now the first words you'll read when approaching our sanctuary doors. Turns out, a month or two ago some skateboarders (you know, the troubled youth of society) dirtied our front steps with grinding wax. I thought nothing of it. We have skateboarders hanging around our church all the time. But when some others in our congregation saw it they were shocked and irritated. the words "how dare they?!" seemed to reflect the general reaction of at least a vocal percentage of our congregation. So the next week, in swift response, the signs were posted.

Now I do not wish to use this platform to directly criticize the actions of our church body and I don't even wish to criticize their conclusion. Sure, if the majority of the church feels threatened or violated in some way from having people hanging out on our front porch during the day, then it's their prerogative to do what's necessary to keep such hooligans away. But I see this as an interesting case study for processing our call to an alternative consciousness.

Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.” Paul wrote, "Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind." And those are just popular examples from the New Testament, not to mention the entire prophetic tradition and the vast number of narrative examples from the Old Testament of the alternative consciousness of God's Kingdom. As those who have been awakened to a fresh, new, and hidden reality, we cannot live in the world as though things are in reality as they are in the world. The Church is an alternative society--in the world but not of the world. How sad that such a phrase as "not of this world" has been domesticated so as to be displayed on bumper stickers adhering to the windows of a minivans and SUVs. Indeed, its meaning is powerful and transformative. It should challenge our knee-jerk reactions and programmed reflex responses to situations in relationships, political life, property ownership, etc.

In the world we have a tendency to respond according to procedure but we're slow to question the implied value systems of said procedure. This is where the signs at our church become and interesting case in point. Of course the standard procedure for dealing with "trespassers" is to, first of all, apply the label. When we can legally and justifiably refer to them as "violators" or "trespassers" as opposed to people or guests and when "them" constitutes a particular demographic such as anyone we do not know, we have made the first step toward a standard response. When our property becomes "private" to us, we've made another step. Then all we've got to do is hang a sign and we've done our part. Now we have something to point to if we ever gain the courage to confront our violators.

Now, whether or not we should hang signs and protect the property of our church is not the best question. The best question is what standards govern our thinking--the standards of God's alternative consciousness or the standards of the standard consciousness? I wonder if questions of alternative consciousness even crossed our minds when we saw wax on the church steps--questions of hospitality and even compassion. Or did we simply do what anyone else would do if posed with such a problem?

When these questions are raised by "NO TRESPASSING" signs, the issue might seem somewhat superficial (I would suggest it's quite a bit more significant when you consider the undermining consciousness or subconsciousness that is created by such signs for an otherwise welcoming church) but what of more substantial circumstances? Do we allow for a prophetic imagination, for the politics of justice and compassion, in questions of U.S. foreign policy or border security? How about in budget disputes? If we are to be in the world but not of it, then we cannot be anything other than a reflection of the transformation that God is implementing into the world. We must dismantle, if only in our own minds, the standard procedures of pivate possession and human segregation and erect in its place an imagination of grace and hope. When God's imagination infiltrates our consciousness and begins to renew our minds, I believe that if our conclusions sometimes stay the same, the questions we ask and the procedures we follow will be hardly recognizable to the patterns of the world.

Julie Clawson's Commentary on Cowboys & Aliens

2011-08-01T09:13:00.001-07:00

I have to admit that I've been enthusiastically looking forward to the opening of Cowboys and Aliens, the new film starring Harrison Ford and Daniel Craig. Bridging the science fiction and western genres is a brilliant concept. I've always thought that the two should go together. Well, today I read a brilliant article by Julie Clawson on Sojourners (www.sojo.net) in which she gave a thoughtful review and social commentary.

Click Here to read the article.

Teenagers These Days...

2011-07-29T10:49:00.001-07:00

The problem with teenagers these days... is adults.

Now, as a disclaimer I must say that the following observations are not "expert" or psychological analysis. They are simply the surface-level musings of a young youth pastor. As a Youth Pastor I get to talk to lots of adults about teenagers. I often get asked, "how do you deal with them?" followed shortly by a comment or story expressing how immoral, disrespectful, or just flat-out strange they are. And most of the time the comments and stories reflect much more about the cultural disconnectedness of the adult than the degeneration of the adolescent. I think that most of the problems we can identity within youth culture are connected to problems with the ways in which adults treat or deal with adolescents in their own lives.

I have noticed that many adults feel like they just can't handle teenagers. Some parents feel overwhelmed by their teenage children. Many adults have some story about a teenager "disrespecting" them or they feel like they just can't understand them (which is true but not necessarily reason to give up on it). So they draw the line somewhere. The problem with drawing the line is that we often draw lines based on a misinterpretation or simple ignorance of the cultural differences between teenagers and adults. The arrogance of adults peering condescendingly into the lives of adolescents has created many of the barriers and negative distinctions we identify. For example, we as adults, by giving up on a teenager after they "disrespect" us, create the sense of abandonment which gives way for the necessity for teenagers to defend themselves against adults (hence the "disrespect"). These defense mechanisms are some of the very things that keep us from accepting them and speaking a loving word into their lives.

What adolescents need is for adults to engage them lovingly and with great humility--as though visiting a foreign country. Adolescents need adults who withhold judgement long enough to get past the rough exterior of youth culture. Adolescents need adults who are willing to put them before themselves as a servant.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

...more to come

2011-07-26T16:47:00.001-07:00

Summer is about the busiest season on the year for me. I know it's a relaxing season for many but between mission trips, beach trips, camps, and everything else, it quickly becomes chaotic. My inconsistency in blogging is just one product of such a busy season. I haven't even been in my office in over a week and, since I have no internet at home and blogging from my phone is difficult and possibly arthritis producing, I haven't really done much writing. I haven't done much thinking either, I'm afraid.

But for me blogging is somethig of a spiritual discipline. It's how I process, how I express, and its how I keep my thoughts in check. I'm not sure what the effects would be if I didn't share my thoughts every once in a while. All this is to say, there's more to come. There's certainly no shortage of topics and concepts to process and discern--not least the shooting in Norway and the US budget crisis.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

Back From Los Angeles

2011-07-24T10:00:00.001-07:00

Yesterday our Mission Trip Team returned home to Ramona from our week in Los Angeles. It is good to be home but I can't help but miss that city. I think we all have places where we feel connected to God and connected to God's heart for the world and L.A. is just one of those places for me. Wherever I go, the people of those streets are never far from my heart. In some ways, that made this trip a bit more difficult than I excepted. The students who went on our trip had never been exposed to that side of L.A. before so, as is to be expected, they did not automatically share my passion and my heart for it. But it was a joy to share my heart with them and to show them the reality and the humanity of the city. To watch our students learn and grow more in love with the city and with the God who lives there was an incredible privilege. We took an amazing group of students! Now, I am miles away from being an urban missionary and I'm miles away from even being able to claim real experience, so it was a blessing to learn and hear from those in the city who really have a heart for the people there. We learned from their compassion and kindness. It turned out to be an incredible trip. I recommend CSM (http://www.CSM.org).

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

CSM mission trip to Los Angeles

2011-07-21T23:18:00.001-07:00

If you're wondering why I haven't posted anything over the last week, it is because I am currently in L.A. with some of my high schoolers on a mission trip through Center for Student Missions (www.CSM.org). It has been awesome to be here and to share my heart for the people of the city with my students. It has been so helpful in putting a human face to some of the issues we've become accustomed to discussing. It has been a helpful refreshment for me; a reminder of where Christ lives, sleeps, and eats. It has been helpful in putting things back into perspective. If you're interested in more detailed updates from the trip, check the news tab on www.youthfcc.com.

Published with Blogger-droid v1.7.4

Conservative Universalism

2011-07-13T09:46:00.001-07:00

Yesterday I was hanging out at my mom's store and she introduced me to one of her customers. His name was Dan.

Dan explained to me that he was once an atheist. He didn't and "couldn't" buy-in to what the church was teaching but eventually he came to Christ (I wish I would've asked him to tell me that story...). But even as a new Christian, he said, he couldn't swallow what he was being taught so he did some research of his own. Apparently, a great point of contention for Dan was the concept of Hell and eternal judgment. I'm sure that, like many of us, Dan noticed the inconsistencies in popular theology--how can we talk about an all-loving, all-forgiving, all-powerful God who, by the way, either sends people to an eternal torment with fire and pitchforks, and all that stuff? So rather than rejecting the whole thing, he read some books... a good model for learning and one I think we're losing in our society. He showed me some books and commentaries that he'd found from way back in church history, all dealing not only responsibly but biblically with the concept of eternal torment. Dan and I talked, probably for about an hour, about folks like C.S. Lewis, N.T. Wright and, not to mention, Rob Bell. Dan and I both expressed the fact that we don't want to wear the label of "universalism" but we we both wanted to leave room for hope. Indeed, there are so many different angles, so many different passages of scripture, so many different definitions to navigate... the conversation is much more complex than a simple "yes" or "no" to universalism (or Christocentric inclusivism, as I like to call it). After all, no matter what you think of an eternal or eschatological hell, you can't deny the hell that we create here and now.

One of the most interesting things, indeed one of the most resonating things that Dan pointed out was this: people associate universalism with liberalism. But, in fact, historically there have been many universalists who could just as easily be referred to as conservatives. You don't have to be a Unitarian or a pluralist to believe that God can save everyone and everything. This resonates for me because it is in my most conservative, Trinitarian, and even Calvinist moments that I find myself closest to the concept of total and universal salvation.

It is out of my belief that Christ was God that I find room to believe that if God can redeem the cross by dying on it, then God can certainly redeem hell (does not the apostles Creed itself say that Christ descended into hell?) Wherever God goes cannot be separated from God... so if Jesus is on the cross (and it doesn't get much more hellish than that) then God is there too.

It is my conviction that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God that forces me to wrestle with verses like 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:3-4. If I didn't believe that the Bible was authoritative then I might believe in a God who's a lot like me... quite vindictive and ready to watch his enemies burn. But the Bible shows us a God who's willing to die for God's enemies. The Bible's God is nothing like me. Indeed, I am also quite exclusive in this. No other God could save the world. No God but the one revealed in the Scriptures and in the life of Christ can save. Indeed, I am conservative enough to say that there is no other way to eternal life than through Christ and his sacrifice & resurrection. If I believed that there was another way, then I certainly wouldn't have to be a universalist. If God didn't have the market cornered on salvation, then God wouldn't have it cornered on judgment either.

The most persuasive argument for universalism has to be Calvinism--is there a theological system that's much more conservative than that? Follow me through the TULIP.

Total Depravity= We're all flawed. We're all on even ground. We're all totally depraved. No one can be less "total" in their "depravity" than another. So if God can save me, then God can save even the worst kind of person since, after all, they're no worse than me anyway. So my only hope for salvation is that there's also hope for them. So the question is, if we're all totally depraved on what basis does God save. If God's gonna save some, what's stopping God from saving them all... it's no harder to save one than another. This point leaves tons of room for universal salvation.

Unconditional Election= In other words, we don't have any say in our own salvation. It has nothing to do with us but is completely dependent on who God is. Well, the God I read about died on a cross. The God I read about said that "God so loved the world..." The God I read about said "behold I am making all things new." So, at least from an eschatological perspective, if we've got nothing to do with our own salvation, then I am inclined to believe that God will choose to save the ones God loves. Is there anybody God doesn't love? If you can say "yes" to that question, then you're beyond conservative. You're ignoring your own Bible... "God is love." If God wants to save everyone, then God can since it has nothing to do with them anyway. They have no choice in the matter.

Limited Atonement= This is the point that lets most Calvinists off the hook. Well, the atonement was limited to the elect only--for some but not all. But this point doesn't stop us, especially if we affirm the authority of scripture. If the first points are true then God's criteria for choosing "the elect" has nothing to do with them. So, like the "U" point, it comes back to who God is. If God's election is completely up to God, then what would stop God from electing everyone? On the basis of God's freedom and God's sovereignty, then, we cannot limit God so much as to say that God's election must be limited. So if God's atonement is limited to the elect, that's fine. But nobody can limit God enough to say that election is limited... that's not one of the points of Calvinism. So, once again, we've got room for hope--hope that all might be elect. Did not Christ die for all?

Irresistible Grace= This just means that God's grace can't be denied. In other words God can give grace to whoever God wants, and God always gets God's way in this regard. So, again, it comes back around to God's sovereignty. Who can limit God enough to say that grace can't be given to all? And if grace is given to all, then nobody can resist it. If God wants everyone to be saved, eventually that's where things are going.

Perseverance of the Saints= And this point simply means that if God chooses you, you can't be unchosen. You're in it til the end, like it or not (let's face it, you'll like it eventually... remember the "I" point?).

I'm also still a conversionist (I beleive that people must make a decision to give their lives to Christ...even if it's a process in itself). Converting to Christ, offering you're life to Christ isn't just about going to heaven or avoiding hell when you die and it's not "liberal" to say that. Following Jesus and deciding to do so with your whole life is a spiritual necessity here and now. Indeed if you believe that history is headed toward total salvation then you might have better reason to give your life to Christ. Of course you won't be doing so because you'll go to hell if you don't, you'll give yourself to Christ because that's where history is going anyway. Following Jesus isn't about going somewhere else, it's about tuning your life into God's hope for the world. It's about being the change that God wants to see in the world. If you don't give you're life to Christ now, it's not a future hell you need to worry about, it's the one you're creating all around you when you live against the flow of God's vision for the world. Imagine the damage we do to our souls when we constantly point them and position them against what's natural for them. Remember, God will get what God wants.

When I study scripture, I can't say that there's not tension in some passages, but I can't help but see a God who, if given freedom of choice, would save everything and everyone. The only way that hell can exist in this regard is if God doesn't always get God's way. Yes, I do have a problem with that statement on one level, but be honest, does God always get God's way here and now? What is sin if it's not something that's against what God wants? So, on another level, I lean toward universalism not because I take sin lightly but precisely because I take it very seriously. We ARE capable of living outside of God's will. But if God defeated sin on the cross, then God defeated everything that goes against God's will, which means that eventually, God's got to get God's way. It's called sovereignty. Hell, throughout scripture, is a product of sin. If sin is defeated, what does that say about hell?

If, however, hell is God's creation, God's choice, and God sends people there, then what does that say about God? Well, the wrath of God in the Bible is never arbitrary. It is always about restoration. So, the freedom of God to save all is maintained on this side as well... God's wrath is a means to an end... which means that it's got to end. Restoration eventually wins out.

So, you see, universalism can be a product of conservative theological reflection. You can still believe in the authority of the Bible, the sovereignty of God, the seriousness of sin, the exclusivity of Christ and his divinity, the need for conversion etc. Indeed, each of these cornerstones of conservativism can actually produce a universally eschatological soteriology.

Perhaps this is why people like Dan and I don't fit in anywhere. The liberals think we're too conservative because we won't let go of the exclusivity of God's sovereignty in Jesus Christ and the conservatives think we're liberal because we think that there's at least room to hope that history is headed toward total salvation.

Youth Ministry Starts at Home

2011-07-12T13:22:00.000-07:00

In my experience I've come across a common assumption among many parents of teenagers in the church. The assumption is that it's the Youth Pastor's job to teach teenagers about the Bible, to model Christian discipleship, and to be the spiritual influence on their kids. It's a fair assumption, I must say, since each of those components should be present in the life and ministry of the youth worker. But the problem with it is that Youth Pastors are extremely ineffective at reaching these objectives. Youth Pastors can teach kids a lot about the Bible but they're not the best or only source for such teaching. Youth Pastors can model Christian discipleship but their modeling will likely be void if they're the only model, and they can be a spiritual influence but they cannot do it alone. The most profound teaching, the most effective modeling, and the most powerful spiritual influence in the lives of teenagers is not the Youth Pastor but the parents. The best youth ministry is the kind that happens at home.

The best way for parents to utilize the influence of a Youth Pastor in the lives of their kids is to model commitment to Christ in daily family life rather than simply handing their kids off for Youth Pastors to carry the burden of influence. The Youth Pastor's influence works best when students are already given a foundation: a model for life and discipleship as well as biblical instruction at home. When a kid has been taught about following Jesus, when their parents have already challenged them to wrestle with and devote themselves to Scripture, and when kids know these things from their parents, then a Youth Pastor can come in as a challenging teacher, a deep spiritual support, and a loving mentor. Those kids, the ones with foundation, are just as in need of a Youth Pastor as anyone. Kids with that kind of foundation still experience depression, confusion, a sense of abandonment, and all sorts of other things for which they need support from someone other than their parents. That's where Youth Pastors come in.

It's not that Youth Pastors can't expect to influence kids whose parents are not a good influence. It's just that parents should understand that those are exceptions to the rule. In just about every case, kids will turn out like their parents. What matters to their parents will probably matter to them... that's at least a good rule to follow. Therefore if parents don't care enough to sit down and read their Bible (not necessarily even with their kids but just on their own), then neither will their kids, no matter how dynamic a teacher their Youth Pastor may be. If parents don't take seriously their own relationship with God, even in the context of other relationships, then neither will their kids, even if the Youth Pastor is a perfect model for Christian discipleship. If parents don't speak spiritual discipline and reinforcement of their kid's value into the lives of their kids, then teens' lives will not reflect the image of God no matter how many times a Youth Pastor tells them that they were created in it.

It all starts at home.

So here's a tip for youth workers... minister to parents or find a church whose family ministries will give life to your ministry. Ask three questions: 1. who, if anyone, is ministering to the lives of parents? 2. Will their vision for ministry give life and momentum to your vision for ministry? And 3. Is it part of the church's culture to foster Biblical teaching, modeling of discipleship, and spiritual influence in the lives of families?

These questions may help provide significant insight into how and why your ministry functions the way it does. It may even help you discern if you're in the right context at all. Family ministry is the heart of Youth Ministry. Indeed it is the heart of the mission of the Church. Families are the agents of global change... more-so than churches... it's time we invested in them.

Seek First...

2011-07-01T14:06:00.000-07:00

It has been a while since I've written anything of substance. This usually means that my life is out of control and I'm overwhelmed to the point that writing has become a chore. Well, these last couple of weeks have been no exception. With Vacation Bible School (of which my wife was in charge, thus sharing her stress with me), my recent sermon for the congregation (to which I am still not accustomed), the process of moving into our new little house, and the beginning of the summer season on top of my usually busy schedule, it has been difficult to find space away from distraction to actually develop or process some thoughts. The best I can do here is simply to say that I am learning.

I am learning... or relearning... that in the complexity of life and in the overwhelming layers of questions and circumstances there is really a great simplicity in life. I often get overwhelmed when I think about all the things I wish I could teach my Jr. High and High School students. I get light-headed when I think about all that they have to deal with and all that I wish I could help them understand or overcome, but the liberating fact of it all is this: "Seek the Kingdom of God above all else, and live righteously, and he will give you everything you need" (Matthew 6:33 NLT)

We could spend all our time sifting through every layer of the complexity of life, desperately reaching to grasp it all or we could simply devote ourselves to one thing, one commitment, one allegiance and everything else will come together. We could rack ourselves in noisy lives or we could, as the author of 1 Thessalonians put it, make it our ambition to "lead a quiet life" (1 Thess 4:11).

Rome and America: Narratives in Perspective

2011-06-15T07:45:00.000-07:00

Perspective is everything when it comes to story telling. A story which has a happy ending for one might be a tragedy for another. The hero of one story might be the antagonist of the same story from a different point of reference. Subtle presuppositions and minor omissions can transform and even hijack an entire narrative. Look to the Wizard of Oz, for example. For decades the story has been told from one perspective. We all knew who the good guys were and who the bad guys were and we cheered when the wicked witch met her demise. Then along came Gregory Maguire, an author with a different perspective. I wish I was more familiar with the book than I am with the Broadway musical, but in his story Wicked, Maguire exposes the presuppositions and subtle omissions of the Wizard of Oz. He helps us see that the "Wicked Witch of the West" actually has a name and, from a different perspective, the story is not so simple as "good guys" against "bad guys."

While the Oz narratives might be fiction, the same principal applies to every narrative, even historical ones. Told from the perspective of those on the top, those who won the battle, those who spent the money, or those who have the power, any narrative will reflect that perspective and celebrate the victory. But told from the perspective of the ones who see the subtle omissions, those who have to suffer under the power of the victor, those who see the blood of the ones on the under-side of the system, the story will be much more sobering and complex.

I recently read an article which argued against the popular connective comparisons between the Roman Empire of Jesus' day and the American Empire of today. They wished to show contrast through comparison. Among many statement about which I could comment, one was this:

"Rome sent its armies out to conquer; America sends its soldiers out to liberate. Rome demanded tribute from other nations; America sends aid and emergency relief around the world. Rome enslaved nations; America rebuilds nations."

Now, I could argue with this statement on just about every level but let's just think about it from the narrative approach. The Roman Empire, while "brutal" from our historical perspective, was not always seen as such. It was only from the perspective of those it dominated that Rome was seen in such a negative light. The rhetoric of those on the top, of those who benefited from Rome's dominance, was laced with words like, "freedom," "prosperity," and "peace." It was by these words that Rome conquered and required "tribute." The Roman narrative, like all others, was two sided. It was either a nation of peace or a nation of oppression depending on whose side you were on. Of course, Jesus was on the under side of the Roman Empire. His struggle was not from a position of power and therefore he did not directly confront Rome's power structure (and he may have if he had been operating from a more privileged position). He did so, however, through stories and even riddles. He confronted Rome through the lives of twelve Jewish peasants who, in following Christ, were invited to abandon all other allegiances.Everything about Jesus' life was alternative to Rome's imagination. When Jesus used the word peace, he meant something radically different. But if you were under the impression that Rome was a force of reason, liberation, and freedom, you'd seldom understand Jesus' critiques.

Turn now to the American narrative. Ours is either a glorious history or an embarrassing one depending on your perspective. The patriotic hymns and war songs of American holidays highlight the "liberty and justice for all" part of our history. This history is true of the United States. It is a place of freedom, it is a place where justice is sought, it is a place where human dignity is valued. But we seldom highlight the other side of the story. We subtly omit the long history of slavery and segregation in this country. We see our excess and miss the stories of nations whose loss is our gain. We don't see the half of the story which tells of those who've died and those families who've suffered due to our "liberating" militarism. We ignore our history of rejecting whole people groups and religious groups in the name of God even while we boast in a "separation of church and state." When we do finally admit to our mistakes, we often assume that we've recovered from them. The truth is that both sides of the story are true and we'll hardly understand Jesus' critiques if we continue to operate under the presupposition of American patriotic optimism. Whether or not we're as brutal as Rome was, we're far too brutal to be confused with God's imagination for the world.

The problem with a phrase like, "Rome sent its armies out to conquer; America sends its soldiers out to liberate..." etc., etc., is that it holds one side of the Roman narrative up against the opposite side of the American narrative. Truth is much more complex than that. There is much more tension in comparisons. America and Rome are, in fact, more and less similar than we imagine. America conquers and Rome liberated just as America liberates and Rome conquered.

There is one undeniable similarity between Rome and America: neither of them are the Kingdom of God. Rather than trying to figure out how Jesus would critique America by figuring out how he did critique Rome, why don't we simply seek first the Kingdom of God and God's righteousness? It will, no doubt, look quite different from any nation we've seen under the sun. If we can imagine doing so, why don't we abandon America's ideals and embrace those of our savior--recognizing that there's a difference. It will without a doubt inform our perspectives on national budgets, foreign policy, border protection, and even economic recovery. But, more importantly, it will free us to confront our nation in the same way Jesus confronted his... by living an alternative.

FCC Youth Highlights 2010-2011

2011-06-14T16:11:00.000-07:00

I guess I'm sharing a lot of videos lately but I wanted to share the FCC Youth Highlight Video I made.

Chan on Hell

2011-06-09T20:31:00.000-07:00

... Speaking of Francis Chan... my wife showed me this video yesterday morning.

I'm excited to see that there's gonna be more discussion about hell--and then again, maybe I'm not--but Francis Chan's perspective on Scripture makes me particularly nervous. I'm afraid that his background does not position him very well to discuss hell in a healthy way. Implicit in most of what I've read from Francis Chan is what I call "biblical docetism"--where there's no room for the humanness of the text and where individual passages are often used to speak on behalf of the whole Biblical narrative. It is profoundly important that the whole narrative, in all it's historical context and hermeneutical subjectivity, be taken into account in the discussion of hell and/or postmortem retribution--that individual passages are held subject to the whole creative and eschatological work of God in the scriptures.

But just because according to my opinion his background dispositions him, it does not mean that he won't break some ground with some great thoughts. This hesitation of mine, by the way, is coming someone who loved Love Wins by Rob Bell and I don't think Chan would feel the need to write this book if he did not have at least a few points of tension with Rob's recent work on the subject. I don't wish to speculate any more than I have already about what an unwritten book might say. But I will be in prayer for Francis and for this new book he's writing. I have no doubt that he'll write it with faith and humility and I hope that he leaves as space for people to wrestle with the complexity of the subject as he sets out to leave.

Needless to say, I'll be reading the book as soon as I can get my hands on it.

Surprised by Jr. High Depth: In Response to "Follow Jesus"

2011-06-09T20:14:00.000-07:00

Tonight at Jr. High Youth Group I showed a video from Francis Chan's "Basic" series called "Follow Jesus."

My students have grown accustomed to watching videos, mostly NOOMAs ('cause I love them), but I'd never used anything from Francis Chan before. Francis has some pretty good stuff out there but I've never used it for youth ministry because... well... he's never totally resonated with me. Even in college at APU when Francis Chan would speak at chapel and all my roommates would be pretty excited about it, I was always hesitant.

Francis Chan is actually an amazing person. We could all learn from his humility and from his genuine and honest passion for Jesus, but just because his heart is incredible and his process is sound does not mean that his perspective is healthy all the time. I have great points of tension with his message. But tonight I decided that I'd let my Jr. Highers wrestle with him. I figured that they'd never pick up on the subtle things with which I have problems. I figured that they only pick up on the overall message of the video (with which I agree)--that following Jesus is about being like him and reflecting his life into the world. I figured that they'd miss the part where Chan says that he chose to follow Jesus out of fear of judgment or the part where he misses the irony of the phrase "wrath of the lamb."

My students surprised me.

The first comment from a student after seeing the video was, "did he just say that he follows Jesus because he's afraid of going to hell?!" They picked up quickly on the subtle differences between what I've been teaching and what Chan was suggesting and, the best part, they didn't miss out on the truth and challenge of the video. I was so proud of my students for the way they processed and wrestled with things. Whether or not I'm a heretic for what I'm teaching my students, they're actually learning it.

By the way, I recommend Francis Chan's Basic series. I don't agree with it all but it's great for raising questions.

Hawaii Vacation 2011

2011-06-06T15:37:00.000-07:00

I wanted to share some highlights from our vacation... montage time!

Thoughts for Parents on Sex and Relationships

2011-06-01T09:21:00.000-07:00

Here's an excerpt from the Parent Newsletter I sent out this month for the parents in our Youth Ministry:

...I am usually quite optimistic about culture. I think there are some very positive things happening in the world today and there are some good trends in the way people are thinking these days. But there is at least one area in our culture about which I am less optimistic—dating and relationships. Our culture is almost completely void of any model of healthy, Christ-centered relationships. The voice of the Church encouraging people to save their most intimate relationship for their most committed relationship—to wait until marriage for sex—has become a marginalized voice in our world. To some, abstinence has become a laughable suggestion—“who really does that?”

But people, especially parents, should know that it’s not an unreasonable suggestion and it is, in fact, the best and most healthy suggestion. And it’s not just about saving it for marriage, it’s about intimacy and commitment, it’s about taking relationships seriously enough to be responsible with them. Relationships are hard enough as it is, why should we complicate them further by treating them haphazardly?

The fact is that sex is the pinnacle of intimacy and Marriage is the pinnacle of commitment. Intimacy and commitment are like a chemical formula, if you mix them without the right proportions, something’s gonna explode. If you’re not committed to one another in the deepest way possible—committing everything, even family and friends (i.e. marriage)—in the relationship, then you’re just not ready to be intimate in the deepest way possible. The two go hand-in-hand because intimacy is about exclusivity—being exclusively for one’s spouse.

...As complicated as relationships can be, they can be quite simple too. If you seek Christ first, if your relationship with God is the most important relationship in your life, then all other relationships will flow from that primary relationship.

Toward a Prophetic Youth Ministry

2011-05-24T05:00:00.000-07:00

Last week at our "Equip" event, I picked up a couple free books which Kevin Boer had brought as give-away items for the volunteers in attendance. There were more than enough books to go around so I grabbed some for my shelf. A few days ago, I picked up one of them; Toward a Prophetic Youth Ministry by Frenando Arzola, Jr.

I was hesitant as to whether or not it would have any practical implications for my own ministry context, being that it is written for an "urban context" and I am in a more rural context. It became apparent in the early pages of the book that it was not just another youth ministry book. It turned out to have tons of cross-over and points of entry for any ministry context. The book provides a paradigm shift away from "traditional youth ministry," away from "liberal youth ministry," away from "activist" youth ministry, and toward prophetic youth ministry. it's a call away from the extremes and toward a holistic ministry which starts from the ministry of Christ rather than from any narrow agenda, expanding into the personal, social, and spiritual growth of adolescents.

Taking advantage of the likes of Martin Buber, Gustavo Gutierrez, Virgilio Elizondo, and Kenda Creasy Dean, this book is an awesome resource taking both the theory and the praxis of youth ministry very seriously. Useful for the academic mind and accessible for the lay reader, this book has huge implications for any ministry context.

I was also pleased to see that one of my old professors from APU, Amy Jacober, endorsed the book alongside Bart Campolo. You should really check this book out!

The Starting Point of Ministry Networking

2011-05-22T06:00:00.000-07:00

The starting point of youth ministry networking is subtle but important. Exclusively Evangelical partnerships usually don't run into many problems in this regard--their problems arise more in praxis than foundation. Evangelical youth ministry almost always starts with "reaching" teenagers and so that makes sense as a starting point for meeting as a network. The goal is to be more effective at reaching _____. As an evangelical, I've had no problem navigating from this point but as a mainline youth worker (yes, I'm an evangelical mainliner. Who knew?) I have become keenly aware of the implicit issues within this presupposition.

Even for networks which don't seek to exclude mainline youth workers, the goal of collaborative evangelical ministry (i.e. reaching teenagers) is the assumed starting point. The problem is that it is an exclusive starting point. The desire to network must go beyond the objective to “reach teenagers…” A mainline youth worker—just as in need of support and just as connected to teenagers as an evangelical—might have trouble seeing how networking with evangelicals will be effective in their context.

My own desire to network (which has developed into an outright passion) did not start with the question “how can I 'reach' students?” it started with a need for support, not in broader community outreach but in ministry to the lives and families of the students in my church family… my evangelical mission came second. So perhaps a better starting point for a more ecumenical networking vision might simply be to support one another in our local church/ministry settings toward the prospect (but not the starting point) of collaborative ministry. In other words, what if built in to our gathering was not the eventual expectation of synchronized work but the simple invitation to come and find space for dialogue, prayer, support, and even help. Start with the question, what can we do together? Rather than, what can we do together? Also, start with, what can we do together? rather than, what can't we do together? We can pray, build relationships, and share with one another. Perhaps we can’t “reach” teenagers together in the same way but we can do something because we are “better together" when we simply are together.

Networking takes a healthy level of pastoral attentiveness to the spectrum of ecclesiological expression. The best networks will be open networks. The networks which display the Body of Christ most profoundly and thereby set the best example for students will be networks where progressive mainline youth workers, Roman Catholics, and conservative evangelicals are praying with and building relationship around the common ground of love for God and hope in Jesus Christ. Our starting point will determine whether or not this will be a possibility. Where we begin, the direction with which we begin, will send us toward or away from this endeavor.

Save Us From the "Normality of Killing"

2011-05-20T10:47:00.000-07:00

"Graceful LORD, we find ourselves living in the most powerful country in the world. The pride and self-righteousness such power breeds are beyond compare. No power exists that can humble us. We are tyrants of all we survey. We decide to bomb these people, send rockets against those people, kill those we call terrorists--all because we can. We are the most powerful people in the world. It is hard not to be caught up in such power. It is intoxicating.

Save us from it.

Sober us with the knowledge that you will judge this nation, you will humble this nation, you will destroy this nation for our pride. Send us a reminder that you are God, that you alone have the right to vengeance, and if it be your will, make those who bomb instruments of your judgment. At the very least, save us from the 'normality of killing.'"

That prayer was prayed by Stanley Hauerwas after one of the numerous times in America's history that the U.S. sent missiles into Iraq. Sadly, we are still in need of such a prayer for we have all but been liberated from the "normality of killing." Indeed, killing is still the common method for preserving power and it is the dominant paradigm for responding to crisis.

Off To Maui

2011-05-18T08:27:00.000-07:00

Today Amanda and I are leaving for Maui, Hawaii for a much needed vacation. No, we're not rich... my parents are paying for the room and board, we just had to pay air fare. We're going with my brother Joel, his wife Becky, and our two nephews as well as my parents. We've both been feeling so exhausted from work and life and everything in between. This will be a much needed rest. I plan on reading quite a bit and among the books I'm taking with me is Marva Dawn's Keeping the Sabbath Wholly. Hawaii will be a great backdrop for rethinking the importance of Sabbath in my life.

Aloha!

Farewell to SFTS

2011-05-17T10:48:00.000-07:00

Last night was my final class session for my final class at San Francisco Theological Seminary.

For those of you who don't already know, I have been working on my MDiv degree at SFTS's Southern California campus in Pasadena. About once a week, I drive to class and experience what I can only describe as a breath of fresh air. I chose SFTS not primarily because of its' academic rigor or its prestige but because of the community there. I went for a campus visit expecting just another commuter campus atmosphere but what I discovered was a faith community rooted in love and a commitment to learn and to grow from and with one another in humility and pastoral attentiveness. I might have thought such a community to be an impossibility under such circumstances, but it was there at SFTS and I wanted in on it. For two semesters I've been part of this community, learning and growing in a context and with colleagues quite unlike my own. The depth of blessing I received from my classmates and professors was profound and penetrating.

But a few months ago, the Northern campus elites made the executive decision to save some money by eliminating the Southern California program and closing down the campus--effective June 2011. There was no real plan for the students, no plan for the faculty, just a closing date. It was inevitable that this community would suffer an untimely death.

Well last night, as we gathered together for our last class, we went on the way we always had. We prayed together, shared with one another, challenged each other and explored together the complexity of ministry and context. Some of us are confused, most of us are uncertain about where we'll go from here but all of us are blessed to have been there--we will always have been there and that will always be a part of us.

Creative and creating God,
You hold in your hands every outcome and every expectation--ever blessing and every curse. You hold our stories and you cradle us in our fears. Finish the work you've started in us. Open us to new and creative possibilities even as we grieve and remember. Let us take with us that which you have given us through this life-giving community. May we not cling to the expectation we had but may we move and be used to reflect you for the world in need.
Surprise us again with fresh grace and with the leading and guiding of your Holy Spirit. Amen.

"May your blessings be many but not what you hoped they'd be
And when you look upon the broken
May mercy show you what you could not see" -Kendall Payne "Pray"

Thoughts On Ministry Burnout 1.5: From Her Perspective

2011-05-13T15:25:00.000-07:00

I've got some more thoughts from the midst of Ministry Burnout... Ironically, I've been too busy to share them (I just finished my final paper on contextual hermeneutics and Biblical authority for my Ministry and Context class at SFTS If you wanna read it, I'll be glad to email it to you). In the meantime, my wonderful and intelligent wife Amanda recently posted some thoughts on ministry Burnout from her perspective (I guess we're in this together). I enthusiastically invite you to read the post...

Being A Youth Pastor's Wife (On Burn Out)

Thoughts on Ministry Burnout 1

2011-05-09T10:44:00.000-07:00

Ever since before I went into ministry I received warnings about "ministry burnout." I am aware of it's causes it's symptoms and I even have some clues as to how to avoid it, but I never really prepared myself to actually experience it and recover from it. When you're in the midst of something, everything is easier said than done. I tell myself to slow down, to take better advantage of the few leaders that I do have, to get more volunteer support, to take one step at a time, but all that's tough when your too burnt out to work on getting leadership or feeling too under appreciated to slow down. So how do you recover from burn out?

If you're in ministry and you're not feeling burnt out yet, lemme tell you that the best way to recover from burn out is to stop it before it starts. There are at least three components to think about. One is boundaries and priorities, the second is simplicity and process in the programming, and the third is building support. I can speak on all three of these components out of experience in failure.

If you don't have solid boundaries between your family life, your social life, and your ministry, then all three are bound to suffer for it. And the priorities should pretty much fall in that order--family, friends, ministry. Putting family first may seem like a no brained but it involves some sacrifice and it involves some major discipline, especially in a small church setting. In small churches, everyone expects your family to do ministry with you. Folks in the congregation are rarely as sensitive as they should be to the importance of spouses having space away from their husband or wife's ministry. There needs to be distinction in their identity. Even if your wife loves doing ministry with you, you've got to take the burden of of them. This requires recruitment. If you make the habit of using your spouse as your leadership team, you'll create the pattern of dependence, you begin relying on them, placing the burden of responsibility on them, and you simply won't put the kind of energy into recruiting and relying on volunteers that you should. In so doing, you create a culture in your church where volunteer leadership just isn't expected in youth ministry because the Youth Pastor just uses their spouse for all that. Once you've created that culture, it's difficult un-create it. Also, your spouse will end up feeling like they are more of a workhorse than a wife or husband. If you feel like you're beginning to head in this direction, STOP. Turn around. Get some volunteers and make your spouse stay home from youth group. It may seem even less natural to put your social life first but if you don't have real, intentional relationships, not only will you likely lose your sanity, you'll also find yourself without real accountability and without real support. You'll actually be a bad example to your students. How can you talk to them about being intentional in relationships when you can't do it yourself?

I will have more to say on programming and building volunteer support in future posts. I offer these suggestions because I don't wish the feeling of burnout on anyone or any ministry. It is tough. It makes it nearly impossible to celebrate the good things in your ministry. And I must say I am open to suggestions about how to recover.

Assumptions About Palestinians

2011-05-04T14:07:00.000-07:00

I've always been very interested in what's happening in Israel and Palestine. There was a time when I had no problem assuming that Israel was the "good guy" in the situation, that they were the ones who had the rights to the land in that region, and that the Palestinians were a violently barbarous tribe of terrorists. I thought that Israel was an innocent nation trying to simply mind its' own business while attacks came from every direction. After reading a bit of history on the situation, spending some time in the region back in 2008, and after meeting some kind and articulate Palestinians (some of whom were Christians) who really just wanted peace, it became less simple. After hearing heart wrenching stories of innocent children being shot and killed by Israeli soldiers, front teeth being beaten from the mouth of a Palestinian shop-owner by the butt of an Israeli riffle, and herds of goats being shot down by Israeli bullets, eliminating a Palestinian family's source of income, I could no longer accept my previous assumptions. Now, I never did forget the equally heart breaking stories of Palestinian violence inflicted upon Israelis, but my sense of who's "good" and "bad" began to get a bit fuzzier. Each side of the conflict is successfully making the other side miserable. Even in a cease-fire there is a whole people group being racially discriminated against and reduced to second-class citizenship. There is fear and hatred on both sides and there is forgiveness and hope on both sides. This makes the whole situation very complex.

If you're wondering why--if it's really all that complex--the dominant perspective held by Americans and a significant number if not a majority of American Christians is that Palestinians want blood and are mostly just a terrorist group, I have often wondered the same. If you're wondering why we don't hear the stories of Israeli violence and oppression upon Palestinians or why we don't hear of Palestinians working toward non-violent resistance, I wondered the same thing right up until one night when I was innocently flipping channels on TV and came across "The 700 Club" with Pat Robertson, an apparently "Christian" television news show. For some reason I left the TV on that channel. They were discussing the controversy in Israel and they were criticizing the international pressure on Israel to make peace with the Palestinians. Pat Robertson's tone in the broadcast suggested that it was strange that anyone would even think of such a thing and he overtly proposed that the Palestinians "may not want peace." The show then proceeded to interview right-wing Israeli representatives and not once did they interview a Palestinian. No. Instead they let the Israelis and the extremist propaganda videos speak on their behalf. There were no stories of the pain of innocent Palestinians, only a scoff at the thought of making peace with such a violent people.

In summary of the story, Pat Roberson said,

“We need to have more people who speak Arabic… we need to get translations of those Arabic broadcasts. They speak in English and we listen to it and then they speak in Arabic an entirely different message and as long as they phone that hate, there’s not going to be any peace. Don’t think about it and if our leaders begin to say, ‘well, the Israeli’s have got to make a peace treaty,’ well, with whom and about what?” “We need to have more people who speak Arabic… we need to get translations of those Arabic broadcasts. They speak in English and we listen to it and then they speak in Arabic an entirely different message and as long as they phone that hate, there’s not going to be any peace. Don’t think about it and if our leaders begin to say, ‘well, the Israeli’s have got to make a peace treaty,’ well, with whom and about what?” (this was the April 21, 2011 broadcast)

A Christian broadcast telling us not to even think of peace with Palestinians? Robertson would have us assume that any rumor of peace is simply a lie and that Palestinians can't be trusted. And, implicitly, they'd have us assume that Israel doesn't hold the same kind of hatred toward Palestinians and that every prospect for Israel to change should be contingent upon the Palestinians change rather than any level of reciprocity. Perhaps we'd have a better sense of why the Palestinians hold negative feelings toward Israel if we understood their pain.

So, I can only attribute such false assumptions to an American media with an agenda, in this case a religious one. I can't take a guy like Robertson seriously... but tragically, many people do and so the false and malicious assumptions are perpetuated.

To counter that, on Monday I finished watching a documentary called Encounter Point. This video chronicles the stories of Palestinians and Israeli's who have suffered the violence of the other and have realized that reconciliation cannot come through violence. Through these stories, the assumptions of both sides are challenged. Indeed, all my previous assumptions are challenged. The mythical caricatures which both sides have painted of each other are dispelled and the pain of both sides is acknowledged.

I cannot recommend this documentary more highly.

The path to peace begins with listening. The perpetuation of false assumptions undercuts the real work of peacemakers throughout the world. When we engage in the suffering of one another, when we stop and see one another, we pave the road to peace. But when we analyze, when we over-simplify, when we suspect and assume our own innocence & objectivity we create more suffering. Love achieves more. Love casts out fear. love covers a multitude of sin. Love never fails.

Non-violence and peaceful reconciliation are treated by so many as impractical and unattainable, if not mythological ideals. Why? Why is this? It is happening and it is even working--no more slowly than the efforts of violence and coercion--right in front of us. Do we not see it? Are we looking for it? If peace is what we want... and it should be what we want... why do we apparently find it so much more reasonable to believe that someday our violence will end their violence? Why can't our love do that? Why can't our compassion and understanding do that? These, after all, are the images of that for which we strive. Does not love more deeply resemble peace than violence?

Dash your assumptions! There ARE Israeli's working for peace. There ARE Palestinians working for peace. There are Palestinians and Israelis working and mourning together! Do not undercut their work with your assumption!

The Myth of the Innovation Time-Line

2011-04-28T14:28:00.001-07:00

"To do anything new in church or pastoral ministry, you've got to start a new church."

I've heard this said more than once, especially from young pastors or youth pastors who are frustrated with the obstacles of visioning or blazing trails within an established and tradition-laden structure. You'll hear it too from those who are in tune with the cultural conversation about where the church is headed and what it has to offer to the world but are also aware and sensitive to the power-struggles and complexities of churches that have roots.

I myself have said something like this on more than one occasion but I'd like to take a moment to be critical of this position. Church after church has been started and planted because of this basic observation and yet, you might also argue, that church after church has been killed by this perspective. Pastors give up on old structures to start something new and thus the true roots get lost and the wisdom of the ancient is thrown into a barrel to be sifted through selectively by some young seminary graduate who likes "the liturgy." The narrative of the Christian story gets hijacked by the innovation time-line. Rather than identifying with our story, the story of where we came from, we identify with some new idea about what the Church should have, do, say, or look like. "This is what the church is, what it's doing, and if you're not doing it, then you're falling behind" has become the dominant paradigm for church visioning.

But who does this time-line really belong to? Is it really for the whole church? Would it be healthy if every church embraced an identity of the "cutting edge"? For some churches this time-line and this identity are nothing more than a myth and they should stay that way.

It's ok for churches to do new things. Thank God that new churches are getting started and that contexts are being created where the best critiques of the church can be implemented quickly and harmoniously. But it's also ok for old churches to do old things. It's ok for a new idea for one church to be the old idea of another.

At our church, for example, we're introducing the idea, slowly but surely, of doing "small groups" (revolutionary, I know). And while on the innovation time-line we might be "behind," while by the time we get this idea going it'll be old news to everyone else, the timing will probably be just right for us.

We need to be innovative,yes, and with the right motivation. But we also need to stop pastors from embracing a time-line and an identity which isn't really theirs. While it might be an old idea by the time it gets implemented at some churches, it doesn't mean that it's behind... it might be right on time for that church. Pastors must re-embrace the freedom of having their hand on the pulse of their own congregation rather than on the pressure gauge for catching up with the culture. In Christ, we have the freedom to become nothing more than that which our congregation needs which is nothing more than exactly who we are.

Equip

2011-04-27T12:03:00.000-07:00

One of the selfish reasons I love blogging is that it's a great way to document and follow how God is moving & working in my life. Today, as I was putting some things together for a training event that a few other Youth Pastors and I are putting together, I looked back on a post that I'd written in October after the Youth Specialties Conference in San Diego. After reflecting on some things that Mark Matlock had said in his General Session message, I wrote an open letter to him. In it, after being sure to credit Mark with the wonderful influence he's had on me, I wrote some questions...

"Are churches really prepared for more leaders? I know we need more people, but would we know what to do with them? Most churches have youth pastors who've only been in the game for a couple of years or so. Are they really equipped to prepare leaders to engage for the long haul? We all know how good churches are at burning people out. How much easier is it to burn out people who are fairly uneducated about youth ministry?
As you said, we are the most educated and well-resourced generation of youth workers in history. But in actuality, it's really only the paid youth workers who are receiving those resources. It's only those who feel called to vocational ministry who are getting degrees in youth ministry. It's only those who can dole out $300 that are going to the Youth Specialties Conference. So don't we need better training for those who are willing but not equipped?
What if veteran youth workers all over the country... you know, the guys who are writing books and leading huge leadership teams... what if folks like that began training volunteers? What if people were to donate their time (or do it for very cheap) all over the country to offer classes and courses to which an average local church could afford to send their leadership team, where they could learn the foundations of youth ministry?
We need more people but we also need to be serious about equipping them for the long haul if we expect to keep getting new people."

Now, that was in October and apparently those questions lingered and those thoughts matured. God was, as they say, laying something on my heart. And apparently God was laying the same thing on a couple other guys' hearts as well. A few months later, a couple of us youth workers in the North County area got together and brought up the idea of creating a collaborative training event for volunteers in small to mid-sized churches (which represent a majority of the churches in America). On May 7th, all this is coming to fruition through an event called "Equip"... The name was not my idea (ironically, considering how much I used the word "equipping" in that letter to Mark).

I think more areas around the country should begin asking the question, "What if veteran youth workers all over the country... you know, the guys who are writing books and leading huge leadership teams... what if folks like that began training volunteers?"

Now, we haven't held the event yet, and who knows if it's gonna work (I think it will, it's a pretty well planned event considering it's our first time doing it), but this is one of those things at which it is worth risking failure. We are the most educated and well-resourced generation of youth workers in history... let's share the wealth!

Easter 2011: The Cross, The Tomb, The Garden

2011-04-24T08:04:00.000-07:00

As on Friday we gazed upon a tortured savior on a wooden cross, where mysteriously our sorrow and our suffering were met by the healing love of a transcendent and compassionate God, and as on Saturday we peered into the darkness of a tomb, waiting in painful hope that the story would not be over and that the failure of Christ would not speak the final word, today we wake to a new day. Sunday, the first day of a new week, we gaze upon unexpected victory as we find absence on the cross and daylight in the tomb. Where we look to see death, the resounding voice speaks to us, "HE IS NOT HERE!"

A new day has dawned, a new word has been spoken, a new reality has been proclaimed, and new creation has infiltrated the gates of hell. Christ was dead and is now alive and thus holds in his nail scarred hands the keys to sin and death. The one who loves us, who opened himself to us, who shares his very identity with us has been vindicated over the curse and now walks so that we may walk. Life has filled the empty space upon the cross and it has not been forgotten, light has pierced the darkness of the tomb and it is never to be resealed. The one who made it all, gave it all and has redeemed it all!

The Lord lives, the crucified lives, the marginalized lives, the unwanted lives, the illegal lives, the unrepresented lives, the rejected lives, the condemned lives, the forgotten lives, the abused lives, the poor lives, the thirsty lives, the broken lives, forgiveness lives. The tomb of death has been opened to a garden of life and today, even on this day and on this ground, we are invited to plant in it the trees of life and the flowers of new creation.

Christ the Lord is risen today. Hallelujah!

The Women Preached it First

2011-04-21T14:40:00.000-07:00

I've engaged in more than one argument about women in ministry, the ordination of women, and about gender roles in general. I usually like to think of myself as a feminist or at least as an advocate for women in a chauvinist society. In those arguments I like to point out, if only as an anecdote, that it was the women who first proclaimed the good news of Christ's resurrection. Well, the United Church of Christ (which happens to be the denomination of which I a currently a part) has recently released a pretty cool video pointing out this very fact.... I thought it was at least worth sharing.

"He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”
So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. (Matthew 28 6-8)

I Love Free Books

2011-04-20T10:02:00.000-07:00

Usually when I see a sign that says "Free Books," I have two simultaneous reactions. One the one hand, I get excited because I love books and I don't have much money, on the other hand, I know that they're usually free for a reason so I don't get my hopes up. Well, a few months ago at SFTS's Southern California campus, when I was there for my class on Formation for Ministry, I found a gem. There was a table full of free books so, naturally, I browsed through them. I found a couple of gems, actually, including Jesus-God and Man by Wolfhart Pannenberg. Who knows when I'll actually get around to reading it, but it's sure to be a valuable resource.

There was another one called This Cup by Dr. Addison Leitch, which I had thought would be interesting but had thought little more of. Today I pulled it off of my shelf as I was looking for a good read for Holy Week (I read Christians at the Cross by N.T. Wright last year and I couldn't recommend it more highly). After reading the first couple of pages, I knew it was gonna be a good one. I googled the author's name and discovered that Leitch had a PhD. from Cambridge University and taught at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary among other schools. Interestingly enough, he was married to Elisabeth Howard Elliot after her first husband Jim Elliot, the famous missionary martyr who was killed while attempting to evangelize the Waodani people in Ecuador, had died.

But even more interesting was this... when I opened the front cover I found a name jotted inside. It said "Jack B. Rogers, Spring '73". Jack B. Rogers happens to be the founder of the Southern California Campus of San Francisco Theological Seminary and author of about 48 published works including Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality (perhaps his most controversial and important work). I don't know if he was a student in 1973 or if he was teaching by then, but either way, I've got his book.

Some of you are thinking, "only Wes would get excited about something like this" but, whatever the case, I'm excited for my Holy Week reading this year. I hope you don't want your book back, Dr. Rogers.

Thoughts on Networking: Biblical Mandate, Spiritual Necessity, Practical Discipline

2011-04-19T11:30:00.000-07:00

I have been involved in networking with other youth pastors and youth ministries for as long as I have been involved in professional Youth Ministry. I've been a network coordinator for the past two years or so for the National Network of Youth Ministries which has been a huge support and blessing for us in San Diego region (you should join or donate!) and networking has quickly emerged as one of my major passions in ministry. I love to see churches come together, youth pastors support one another, ministries helping other ministries, and people sharing common ground to serve a common purpose--reaching students with the fresh word of God's love. I've been blessed to be a part of a pretty healthy network in Ramona and another very healthy one (under the coordinatorship of Wes Trevor) in Escondido/San Marcos. It's not something you see all the time or in every community. From what I hear, it's actually quite rare to have a strong sense of commonality shared among youth ministries in a single community. If this sort of thing is really such a rare thing, it's just too bad. There are actually several good reasons behind having a strong network in a community.

The Biblical

In Luke chapter 9, Jesus and John have a short, two-line conversation. John says to Jesus, "we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us." Perhaps John thought he and his ministry team should be the only ones serving Christ. Jesus said, "do not stop him... for whoever is not against you is for you.” Jesus' response gives us a hint toward his theology of the Church. He didn't assume that his group was the only group doing things right.

Jesus told a bunch of stories. One of those stories, found in Luke 14:15-23, is about a banquet to which all sorts of people get invited--people literally right off the streets. He was passionate about creating and finding common ground and inviting all sorts of people to the table. Throughout Jesus' ministry, he drew people together. He drew people who wouldn't normally work together, he drew people that nobody else wanted to hang out with let alone do ministry with, he didn't have an ounce of elitism about him. Jesus was all about bringing people together as long as they were willing to follow him, even if they didn't have all the answers and even if they didn't agree on every theological matter. Sure, there were times when he did things with just a few people, perhaps things he knew that he couldn't do with every one of his followers, but Jesus acted out a vision of collaboration, a vision of people serving and helping one another, churches helping churches. Jesus was a servant and he expected his followers to be servants as well. A servant puts their own need to be righter, bigger, or better aside in order to put others first.

One of Jesus' final prayers before his death and resurrection was that all his followers, not just the ones he knew but the ones which would come after them, including us, would be united. In John 17:20-21 Jesus prays,

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me."

Jesus had a vision that the Church would be united in him in the same way that he and the Father are united. Just as Christ was a reflection of his Father, or as Paul puts it, "the image of the invisible God" (Colossians 1:15), Jesus prayed that the Church would be a reflection of him to the world.

In the book of Genesis we find a series of etiological narratives--stories which offer explanation for how things got to their current state, how things became "normal" to us. For example, if you've ever wondered why a serpent crawls on its belly, the author of Genesis 3:14 offers an explanation. There are less superficial explanations there as well; explanations which offer to us a wonderful starting point for theological and ethical reflection. There are explanations of how sin, struggle, and chaos became the "normal" state of things. It explains truest identity of men and women--that they were created in the image of God and that together in community, they'd reflect God's image, God's character, and God's love into the world. There is an explanation for why people are divided by cultural and language barriers as well. The author of Genesis offers a narrative explanation at the heart of human divisions: the Tower of Babel. In the story of the Tower of Babel, the people of the world, having been distorted and distracted by the curse of sin and death, decided to build a tower which would reach the heavens. They built this tower in their pride, and in their foolish self interest they tried to reach God through their own achievement. The consequence of this misguided group project was failure and they suffered division. They began speaking other languages, they began separating from one another because of their inability to understand their neighbors. The world was divided and we have come to know this division as the standard, the norm, and the Church has accepted such division within itself--divisions based on misunderstanding, divisions based on cultural and stylistic differences, even divisions based on a mi guided sense of our own ability to achieve without the help of other churches. The author of the book of Acts, however, observed God doing something radically different. We don't often connect the story found in Acts chapter 2 with the story of the Tower of Babel but it may have been the first direct connection in the mind of the author and his original readers. In the midst of the division in the world, the church was gathered, "they were all together in one place," they were all filled with God's Spirit and began speaking in "other languages." But these languages, unlike the ones from the Babel story, didn't create division. On the contrary it says, "a crowd came together in bewilderment because each one heard their own language being spoken." This vision is of a church which undoes the division in the world and begins to speak the same language... even in different languages. This mysterious story offers a vision of a united Church (united by the Holy Spirit), a Church which transcends the barriers serving Christ together, putting their differences aside for the sake of God's kingdom. How often are our theological differences simply a matter of language differences? Certainly not all the time, but sometimes it's not so much the theology that divides us, but the language we use. We might be saying the same thing but still we just can't understand each other. Acts offers us the suggestion that the Holy Spirit can set those differences aside and unite us. Even if our language is so different, even if we're saying very different things, the dialogue has begun and the division is being undone.

Paul uses this really interesting phrase, "The Body of Christ," to describe the Church. He does it in several passages, the most notable of which is 1 Corinthians 12:27 where he says, "Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it." So Paul says this to a church in Corinth, a particular church in a particular community. But Paul also spoke this way about other churches. It wasn't just the church in Corinth that made up the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ was the church in Ephesus and in Colossae--every church made up the body of Christ together. This was Paul's dominant theology of the Church even in books and passages which do not explicitly describe it. The Church is to be of the same mind, of the same body, sharing together in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, whether slave or free, male or female, Jew or Gentile. Paul saw many churches, wrote to many churches, but believed in one Church. There is one Church with many congregations. The Church is one body when all its parts decide to come together.

For the author of Acts, though there were many languages, there was shared understanding. For Paul, though there were many churches there was one Church. For Jesus, though the flock would be scattered, the prayer was that they'd be united in his service even if they wouldn't normally even hang out. Today, though there are many congregations, there is still one church, one Body of Christ unified in all its diversity of thought and expression.

Now these two principals--the oneness of the Church which is the Body of Christ and creating common ground as servants of Christ--are deeply rooted in the scriptures and they are foundational for constructing any theology concerning the things we do and the reasons we gather. If we plan on teaching any theology of the church to our students, if we're not going to omit that concept from our teaching and discipling teenagers, if we believe that the Body of Christ is still alive and well and if we believe that "whoever is not against you is for you," then we simply must put it into action. You can talk to students all you want about service and about being the Body of Christ, but if youth workers aren't practicing it and if students never get a chance to experience it, then those words will fall dead on their ears. Networking with other churches is a theological task, a biblical task. It is the task of setting aside the differences and uniting in service to Christ and support for one another, even if our language about him is different and even if we're just sure that we could do it on our own.

The Spiritual

Koinonia is a Greek term used in the New Testament to describe communities of mutual sharing, communities of shared identity, of understanding, of support, and of solidarity. It is perhaps the best one word description of that for which Paul uses the term "Body of Christ." Koinonia overcomes social distinctions and opens space in which people are understood, heard, connected, and loved. It is a community of interdependence, not independence.

We weren't made to do things on our own and yet the concept of independence has hijacked our imagination for doing ministry.We were not created to be independent from God or from one another, rather we need deep spiritual connection if we are to become who we were created to be and saved to be through Christ. The vast majority of churches have realized, at one level or another, that they need the support of other churches, indeed, they need a shared identity with other churches in order to function and to program in a way that opens space for spiritual nourishment and an atmosphere for authentic worship. Many of these churches welcome the concept of networking, even if only in the context of denominational affiliation. But still other churches run just fine on their own. They are quite independent. Some churches have their own bus or buses. Some churches have more than one room that their youth ministry can use on a given night. Some churches have a full pastoral staff who support one another and are expert programmers and designers for ministry. Some churches really don't think that they need networks. And the truth may be that they don't. They may not need the network but that doesn't mean that the network doesn't need them. Some churches have to work and actually humble themselves in order to embrace the true interdependence of koinonia. It's easy for our world to become the world, when we're in self-sufficient and independent churches. The small churches, however, sometimes suffer from the same sense of spiritual independence. Sometimes this is precisely the reason that they remain a small church. Churches of all sizes are needed by each other and churches of all sizes have a spiritual need, the need for koinonia, to reach out to one another, share with one another and listen to one another. The affect of the church body without this sort of connection with other churches is that they become an island. The affect on the youth worker in these churches is often even more detrimental.

The need to be understood is not a superficial or an artificial need. It doesn't take very long working with adolescents to see this need in their lives and most would agree that in order to show love to students, it's important to listen to them, hear their stories, meet them where they are and understand them. Many youth workers have reflected on this but few have reflected on their own need to be understood. Perhaps one of the reasons that the average youth worker only lasts a year or less in their vocation is because they've suppressed this need and have burst at the seams.We all need to be understood, we all need to be heard and we need it in specific ways.

Hopefully, there is not one youth worker who feels completely and utterly misunderstood and unheard in their own congregation (I am aware, however, that this is the reality for far too many youth workers). But even in congregations where we are otherwise welcomed, understood, and heard in most aspects of our lives, it is rare (especially in smaller churches) for youth workers to have a sufficient community of people in their congregation who are equally passionate about youth ministry and who truly understand and hear the voice of the youth worker. Even Senior Pastors who think that they have to capacity to support their youth workers are most often greatly mistaken. It is rare for us to experience much koinonia in the area of youth ministry unless we are in community with other youth workers, with others who are going and have gone through that which we are going through.

Now this is not about how well the ministry functions and it's not even about the youth worker's ability. It's about the spiritual need of the youth worker. This need is too often ignored in congregations and too often ignored by Pastors. Solid networking can help fulfill this spiritual need. Though some Pastors might worry about the risk of sharing their youth pastor/youth workers with anyone, youth workers need to be in community with one another where they can table the theological disagreements for the sake of spiritual nourishment. Youth workers need to share their stories with one another, they need to share their hope and the fear with one another. Networks, in this way, can actually save, and have saved, youth workers from leaving their ministries and concluding that they just couldn't do it anymore. I've heard more than one story of youth workers who said that their networks kept them in the game. When this happens it is a victory for churches, a victory for the Church, and the spiritual victory of koinonia.

The Practical

A couple of years ago, a church in San Diego County, with a tradition of having strong youth ministries and solid youth workers, suffered the loss of their High School Youth Pastor who had been there for more than eight years (long enough for the students to get attached). He had received the call to serve in another church in central California and so the church decided to let him go quite abruptly and leave his intern in charge until they could fill the position. The intern youth worker now had a sizable youth ministry to handle while it grieved the loss of their beloved Youth Pastor. The intern was good at what she did, the students loved her and she was very familiar with the dynamics of the church but she still felt in over her head. She knew she needed help so she turned to her local network. During the interim period, youth pastors from other churches--everything from Congregational churches to Calvary Chapels--stepped in to help out. The network supported her, helped her teach, and even helped program the ministry. When the new Youth Pastor was hired, he came into a healthy and vibrant youth ministry which was ready to embrace his direction and the network stepped away. That Youth Pastor then became a big part of his local network too.

In the Ramona community, every four months or so, youth ministries from all over town come together for a night of worship called Youth Unite. Churches from different traditions, backgrounds, and perspectives, from various places on the theological spectrum, put their differences aside and focus on what they do have in common, what they can do together. Students and youth workers from a variety of churches get involved for a night where we simply worship God together and challenge one another to be the Body of Christ for the world. It has become evident that, as this is becoming regular practice in Ramona, students are becoming more aware of the Church and its purpose. Students are connecting their faith and their worship with action and the youth ministries have grown more vibrant in the process.

There are endless stories of churches sharing transportation with one another, lodging together at events, serving together in service projects, worshiping together, supporting each other spiritually and even financially, and collaborating for the kingdom of God as one Body of Christ. This kind of support makes a difference. Networking makes these sorts of stories possible. Networks are making the Church visible in the world.

Getting Started

Now, the truth is, networking isn't always easy and as churches prayerfully discern, beginning with what we can do together in our differences, they'll discover that there are things we can do with some churches that we can't do with others. Having a baptism party, for example, probably isn't a good place for Baptists and Lutherans to start networking together. A study in Revelation, for example, might be an unhealthy starting point for a Calvary Chapel and a United Methodist ministry. Some churches may not ever want to collaborate with some other churches. Not everyone will always love the idea of supporting and praying for one another. But if we start with the things we can't do together its likely that we'll never get to the things we can do together.

It begins with an open heart and a willing spirit. The next step is making a phone call, meeting for coffee, or just putting out the invitation to begin together; praying together and sharing stories together. Collaborative ministry and depth of sharing begin with trust and connection and a conviction that there are many congregations but there is, in fact, one church.

Planet Wisdom 2011

2011-04-15T11:29:00.000-07:00

I remember the firs time I felt that I was being called to Youth Ministry. Now, I don't take that word, "called," lightly. I rarely use or even like the language of calling, but after years of trying and testing that sense that God might have wired you for something in particular, it might be safe to use it.

When I was in Jr. High, probably 7th or 8th grade, I went to this student conference called Planet Wisdom with my small Southern Baptist youth group. We actually went a few years in a row and it became one of my favorite events of the years throughout high school, but I remember that first year in particular. A no-name band out of Texas called Mercyme was the worship band and this young, up-and-coming communicator named Mark Matlock was the main speaker. To this day, when I think of moments where I have felt what I can only identify as the presence of God and when I've felt immersed in worship to God, I have to think of the Planet Wisdom conference. At the end of this incredible weekend, Mark made an invitation. It wasn't a turn-or-burn kind of alter-call. If you know me, you know I'm not a fan of alter-calls but Mark created an atmosphere of simplicity, it was a simple invitation to acknowledge if God might be speaking to you. Now, I was and had been a Christian. Indeed, I was a committed one. I didn't feel the "tugging of the Spirit" or any kind of pressure to stand. But I was feeling something. At that moment, like a flash, I realized that I wanted to do this stuff for other people, I wanted to give other students what I had been given. At age 12 or 13, I realized that I was wired for Youth Ministry. Then Mark said the magic words, "if you feel like God might be calling you into full-time ministry someday..." I had to respond...

That night, at the Planet Wisdom Student Conference, marks the first night in a continuing journey for me. I still think back to that night. I thought back to it when I left for college. I though back to it when I graduated college. I still think back to it when I feel discouraged, frustrated, and inadequate to do ministry.

Well today I get to take my students to the Planet Wisdom conference. It's one of the best, most well balanced, and engaging youth events I've ever shared with students, and I can't wait to see how God might speak this year.

Epic. Awesome. Life-changing. PlanetWisdom from YouthWorks on Vimeo.

Calling or Temptation

2011-04-14T10:56:00.000-07:00

I have a hard time discerning between temptation and "calling" in my life... especially when it comes to dreaming about the future.

I'm kind of a big dreamer. When I was in elementary school I was sure I'd be the next Babe Ruth. When I was in Jr. High, I just knew that I'd someday be compared to Jerome Bettis. In high school I thought I'd be some kind of pro athlete and mega-church pastor/youth pastor/world changer. In college, my dreams became a bit more realistic but still they always involved something big. The mega church stuff and the sports ambitions evolved into small church ministry, writing books, and getting a PhD in theology from some place like Yale or Princeton or Union. My dreams still involved being of influence, even if not in the same way or on the same scale. And they still involved something where people would respect me and be impressed by me.

Now, I don't think that my dreams of getting an education of the highest quality and contributing in the conversation of God's Kingdom are anything like my dreams of being a pro football player. I think the evolution in my ambitions was a mature and realistic change. But, I wonder if the difference is more subtle than I realize. I wonder sometimes if all of that is just another way for me to "prove" myself. I wonder if it's all just a symptom of my insecurity--if I go to Princeton or Union, people will listen to me and think I'm smart.

Well obviously, come graduation, I took a different route. I am still perusing higher education I'm still planning on writing someday. I've been a Youth Pastor at a great church for the last 3 years (the fulfillment of a dream I've had since 9th grade). And through all of this, I've had no doubt that this is what God has invited me to do and be. But a hiccup in my plans has got me back to thinking.... I wrote a post a few weeks ago about the closing of my MDiv program at SFTS. As I wrote there, this is a big deal. The whole campus has been abruptly eliminated by the powers-that-be in San Anselmo, Ca.

This whole thing has gotten me reconsidering the dreams of the past. In conversations I've had with classmates, colleagues, professors, and old acquaintances; it has been suggested to me that God is calling me to something more. The so-called coincidences surrounding the closing of my school, the transitions of my family life, the "haze" I've been feeling about my current connectedness; all of this has been too much to ignore, too much for me to take lightly and make a rushed decision to stay comfortable. Indeed, perhaps God wants to use this to radically change my context, direction, etc.

But what is this? Is it God's calling? or is it just a temptation toward something more "glamorous" than my current vocation and position in life? I can say in honesty, I am afraid to make a decision in either direction...

Whatever happens, it won't be immediate. Even if I decide to leave Ramona for some school back east, I'll be around for a year or two for the healthiest transition...

God, what are you up to here?
What's all this about?