Did Thomas Get it Right?

We all remember the story of Doubting Thomas. He was, of course, the one apostle who refused to believe in Jesus' resurrection until he saw it for himself. As it says in John 20:24-25 "But Thomas (who was called the Twin), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, ‘We have seen the Lord.’ But he said to them, ‘Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe." While it's not the only instance of doubting God that occurs in the Bible, it's probably the best known. It's also one I can certainly relate to. I mean, how often do you hear about someone you know dying and coming back to life? Thomas' raised eyebrow at the news that a man he'd seen die on a cross a few days earlier was up and walking around is understandable. Even in the light of everything he'd seen up to that point, all the miracles, (including the resurrection of Lazarus), I can still see where he was coming from. I mean, the man was dead! You can bring yourself back from the dead, can you? In Thomas' defense, he never said it was impossible, just that he wouldn't believe it until he saw it. And, to his credit, when he did see it, his response was "My Lord and my God!". Jesus answered "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe." Which is the definition of faith, stripped down to the bone.

So, doubt and faith: diametrically opposed? Or, is doubt a normal, healthy part of our faith? I'll let the author of one my favorite blogs answer. John Frye, from Jesus, The Radical Pastor said "Doubters have their place in announcing and practicing the unexpectedly loving reign of God. Old, stale thinking pitted doubt against faith (as Scot McKnight points out). More discerning thinking sees doubt as an ally to faith.
A skewed triumphalist Christianity erased doubt as a legitimate aspect of the Christian journey. In its heated sense of victory, it boiled doubt away as some sort of sin. As a matter of fact, a serious sin: unbelief. This only caused doubters to go underground and live with the agony in their souls. Who wants to be branded a pagan unbeliever in the tight-assed evangelical community? Those who live constipated Christian lives don’t want any uncertainty to be voiced at all…ever. They don’t really trust in the Christ of the cross and resurrection; they trust a system of belief that keeps their tidy little self-centered worlds together.
This is the time for doubters to arise. Take your place in the Great Commission task of the church. Voice your doubts. Ask your questions. Carry your honest inquiries into the communities where you live.
For God’s sake, doubters, upset the apple cart!"
So, yeah, I think Thomas got it right. What about you?

Who's it all about?

If you haven't picked up on it yet, I'm a big Rob Bell fan. I like the way he approaches things and I rarely read or listen to him without being challenged to look at something in a new way. The latest was the result of one of the NOOMA videos, entitled "Luggage". This particular video is about forgiveness and what it can mean to us. One the eye-openers for me was the idea that revenge is about distrusting God. That in seeking revenge, we're not willing to trust God to handle the situation. In fact, it's a control issue. We want to be the one who determines what retribution happens to the person who wronged us. That in pursuing revenge, we're telling God we think we can do His job better than he can. We showed this video in both the college student's Sunday school class and Sunday night at MYF. On the second viewing, and again in the discussion, one of the things that jumped out at me was the words used in talking about revenge. I'll get you, you'll find out not to mess with me; or in talking about why we pursued it and how it made us feel: It makes me feel good, I got even and other statements. Notice the common denominator? Revenge is all about ME. And, one of the main tenets of Christianity is that it's not about me. As the Apostle Paul said "And he died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and was raised for them."(2 Corinthians 5:15)

One of the other interesting things came from a question Sean (the Director of Youth and Young Adult ministries, also my friend and reluctant mentor) asked both groups: How do you feel when you get revenge? The adults, Sean and myself, said that it left us unsatisfied and unfulfilled. The younger folks, however, were just the opposite. They wholeheartedly supported the idea of revenge, saying that it made them feel good afterward. This was not a view that made me particularly happy. Especially when my own daughter said it. But, later, as she considered the subject, she said that the early euphoria didn't last and was usually replaced by feelings of guilt or even shame. You know, I don't want her to feel bad, but as a parent, it is nice to know your offspring feels remorse after a less-than-good deed. I'm not sure about why this difference exists though. Maybe it's the fact that teens and early twenty-somethings still believe that it's all about them. At first, I thought we viewed it differently because we're older, more mature, etc. Then, it dawned on me what the real difference between us is. Sean and I are both parents. Nothing shows that life is not about you quicker than having a child. But, if that what it takes for these kids to change their idea about revenge, I'll live with the current conception a while longer. But there is one thing that is about us.


If you've ever looked at my facebook page, you know that I post a different quote each day. Sometimes, it's inspirational, sometimes funny. Yesterday's was "“To forgive is to set a prisoner free and discover that the prisoner was you" from Lewis B. Smedes. Regardless of what my young charges think, grudges, revenge and other such things are damaging. Another Smedes quote says it much better than I can: "Vengeance is having a videotape planted in your soul that cannot be turned off. It plays the painful scene over and over again inside your mind... And each time it plays you feel the clap of pain again... Forgiving turns off the videotape of pained memory. Forgiving sets you free.” The way these things consume us is not good. If we're obsessing about a wrong, where does that leave us with God? Certainly not trying to be closer to Him. Very little is further from the life of Christ than withholding forgiveness. When asked how often to forgive, Jesus said "Seventy times seven" (or "Seventy-seven" depending on which translation you read). He didn't mean a literal 77 times or even 490 times. No, He's telling us to always forgive those who do us wrong. Why? I'll close with one of His parables to explain that.

"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt. The servant fell on his knees before him. "Be patient with me," he begged, "and I will pay back everything." The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. "Pay back what you owe me!" he demanded. His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, "Be patient with me, and I will pay you back." But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt.
When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened. Then the master called the servant in. "You wicked servant," he said, "I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?" In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."

What is a Christian?

Why am I writing this? Because so many people who profess to be a Christian don't act like one. Or, at least how I think one should act. I figured the best place to start would be with an official definition of the word "Christian". Now, according to Merriam-Webster, a Christian is "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus". While true, it doesn't really tell us anything. So, I did a little more digging and came up with this: "Different people have defined a "Christian" as a person who has:
1.Heard the Gospel in a certain way, and accepted its message, or
2.Become "saved" -- i.e. they have trusted Jesus as Lord and Savior), or
3.Been baptized as an infant, or
4.Gone to church regularly, or
5.Recited and agreed with a specific church creed or creeds, or
6.Believe that they understand and follow Jesus' teachings, or
7.Led a decent life." (religioustolerance.org)


As you can see, instead of narrowing the scope, this just widened it. So, next, I tried a historical approach. The Roman Emperor Constantine is credited with advancing the cause of Christianity throughout the world, but it wasn't until 380 CE that Emperor Theodosius I issued the Edict of Thessalonica and declared Christianity the state religion. At that point, it can argued, that all citizens of the Empire became Christians. Again, not helping. At this point, I went to the Bible (I know, should have been my first resource). The word "Christian doesn't occur very much and when it does, it's not saying what it means to be one. Of course, it wouldn't that easy; it never is. At that point, I realized why the definitions are so diverse: there's not any one set definition. I was going to have to do what everyone else had done: read, study and put it together myself.



In the Great Commission (Matt. 28:16-20), Jesus told his followers to "make disciples of all nations". So, we're supposed to disciples. Okay, that's something to work with. But, what is a disciple? This time, I went to the Bible first. Unfortunately, it's not a dictionary and didn't lay out a nice pat answer like I wanted. I realized other definitions I found wouldn't really work because they're from our time and culture. And, to understand this, I needed to see from a 1st century Hebrew point of view. Now, in 1st century Galilee (and Galileans were the most religious of all Jews at the time), a young man started his religious education at the age of 5 and spent the next 5 years or so learning the Torah, memorizing it. That's right, all 5 books memorized. If he excelled at that, around the age of 10, he spent the next 5 years learning and memorizing the rest of the Hebrew Bible. After that, say at 15, if he was really good, he could become the disciple of a rabbi. But, he had to prove his worth to the rabbi and show that he was capable of following in the rabbi's footsteps. Because, in those times, that's what a disciple did. He followed his rabbi around everywhere he went, listening to what the rabbi said, observing what the rabbi did, learning what the rabbi knew in an effort to be just like his rabbi. There was a blessing of the time that roughly translated "May you be covered in the dust of your rabbi". In the blog "Standing Out in the Cold", the author tells us "This was meant to say that you followed your rabbi so closely that you were covered in the dust his sandals kicked up. Basically, you learned what it meant to be a rabbi and a true follower of God by learning to be exactly like your rabbi in every way. You emulated him completely. You literally learned by following his example." Not exactly how we view discipleship today, is it?



What does this say about being a Christian? Well, Jesus called us to follow him and be his disciples. In the preceding paragraph, we see what being a disciple meant to him. In a nutshell, being a Christian means living the life of Christ. Or least trying to live the life of Christ. It's definitely not something you get right on the first try. The original disciples didn't. They didn't really get what He was about until He was gone. Fortunately, we don't have to have all figured out to follow him. We just have to try. And, we have to believe in our rabbi. Otherwise, what's the point?

Absolutely?

"The passion for truth is silenced by answers which have the weight of undisputed authority"
Paul Tillich

A lot of Emerging and Post-Modern Christians are accused of having no hard moral limits. That their entire sense of right and wrong is driven by the culture they exist in. The fundamentalists throw around the term "moral relativism" for anyone that doesn't agree with their particular hard line. The thing is, everyone's idea of right and wrong is colored by culture. It would be impossible to not to be influenced. I wouldn't point that out unless you're looking for a fight, however.

I started to talk about how culture influences our morals, but, really, I covered most of that ground in the previous post. Suffice it to say that there are a lot of things the Bible tells us to do that we don't do anymore. And, one of the reasons we don't do them is because a) we've learned things since they were written that tell us they're discriminatory, b) they're no longer required for our relationship with God or c) they require more drastic consequences than we believe fits with a Christian life style (i.e. stoning). We don't do these things anymore and that's all right, but all of society is threatened if a same sex couple wants the same legal rights as a straight one. This doesn't make sense. Why slavishly hold to one aspect of Mosaic Law as an absolute truth and throw out the rest. Sounds more arbitrary than absolute to me.


I don't presume to speak for anyone else, but I have read some other writers and leaders ideas on this subject and I believe I have some insight on what the issue is. It's so much that we don't have hard moral limits, because almost everyone does. Those that don't have a name: sociopath. It's just that our limits are different from some others that appear more mainstream because they're very vocal about their morals. I have limits: if it doesn't show and spread God's love then, to me, it's not moral. Personally, I believe a committed, monogamous homosexual couple has infinitely greater morals than a church member who shows up at a funeral and marches around chanting, holding a sign that says "God Hates Fags".


I believe the attitude of some of my more fundamental brothers and sisters springs from their belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. This is the belief that the Bible, in it's original form, is free from any error or contradiction; "referring to the complete accuracy of Scripture, including the historical and scientific parts"(Geisler & Nix (1986). A General Introduction to the Bible). This is the cause of a lot of controversy in (and out of) theological circles. And, much of the intolerance comes from it too. With this basis for belief, it's easy to see why some folks can see things in such black and white starkness. Unfortunately, the world we live in is colored in shades of gray and such starkness can lead to a rigid application of Biblical principles that, whatever the person applying may intend, are devoid of the love that Jesus was all about.

So, can a truth be absolute? Read the quote at the beginning of this post and you'll see what I think.

Gay and Christian?

I'm probably going to regret this, but I'm tackling this subject anyway. First things first: no, I'm not gay. I say this because the issue is divisive enough without extra distractions. I'm writing this due to another blog I read. It's called "Jesus, The Radical Pastor", by John Frye. There's some interesting stuff on there. One is an entry titled "Jesus Goes Postal", in which Frye contends it was never Jesus' intent to clear the vendors out of the temple when he went off, he was sending a message that the exclusion inherent in Judaism and displayed in the the Temple was over. Frye makes his point best:
"Exclusion in the Name of faith. The Temple in Jesus’ day maintained a rigid hierarchy of who was closest and farthest from God. God-seeking Gentiles? Hey, let’s build a flea market in their spot. Never mind there are all kinds of markets already available on the Mount of Olives. Competition is good. Who cares that the traditional laws forbid carrying your wallet into the Temple area? This is AD 33! Get with the times. Your wallet: don’t leave home without it. But, keep the women out. Keep the cripples out. Keep the Gentiles out. Keep the am ha’aretz out! We are Jewish, well-bodied, well-educated, righteous men. We’re in! By his unexpected drama, Jesus declared that the days of exclusion were over. Are Christian gays welcomed into our ’sacred space’?"



It was that last sentence that caught me. Not too long ago, the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina amended their Articles of Incorporation to say that a church was not in "friendly cooperation" with the Convention if they "knowingly act, approve, endorse, support or bless homosexual behavior" That's verbatim from their website, by the way. What happens to churches not in friendly behavior? Ask Broadway Baptist Church in Texas. The Texas convention terminated a 127 year relationship with that congregation because they were too lenient with homosexual members. The Oklahoma convention passed a resolution that asked businesses, organizations and government to restrict their grants to two types of families: those with a headed by one man and one woman and those with single parents. Doesn't sound all that welcoming, does it?



Why all the hubbub about homosexuality? According to those opposed to it, it's based on scripture. Not that there's a lot of scripture on the subject. In fact, Jesus himself never mentioned much about sex in general outside of adultery. Most of the condemnation comes from the Old Testament. Mosaic Law seems pretty harsh about the subject. But, it's also pretty harsh about other things . Like stoning adulterous women (but, not men), forbidding divorce, that if a man dies childless, his widow is to sleep with his each of his brothers in turn until she becomes pregnant so that the dead man's line continues and others even more outlandish by our standards. We don't any of these things anymore. Why? Culturally, we have progressed from such draconian ideals. Yet, if you apply the same measures to homosexuality, you're accused of "moral relativism". Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice (from moral-relativism.com). Morally relative or not, the current view on homosexuality marginalizes a large group of people and that's contrary to the Gospel.

Think about this: Who did Jesus spend most of his time with? The elite, chosen Pharisees and devout Jews or the dregs of society, including prostitutes, tax collectors and lepers. You know the answer without even looking it up. And, when confronted about who he was with by the Pharisees, Jesus responded that these were the people he came for. The poor, the disenfranchised, the outcast. In His words, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick". If he was here today, who would he be hanging around with?

Finally, I come to the question posed in the title of this entry: Gay and Christian? That is, can you be a practicing homosexual and be a Christian also? Some would argue not. That continuing the sin of homosexuality somehow supersedes belief. I notice, however, that any sins these folks might be complicit in aren't mentioned. Funny how that works, huh? For myself, it's not my place to say who's in and who's out. That's God's job and he's welcome to it.

Rethinking Church

The United Methodist Church (of which I am a member) has started a new ad campaign aimed primarily at people aged 18 to 34. In it, they pick up on many of the tenets of the emerging Christianity (hereafter referred to as E. C.) conversation and present them in a Methodist setting. I've looked at the websites involved, watched the promo video and I have to say I'm impressed. Well, let me hedge that a bit. I'll be impressed if this is embraced by the congregations as a whole and it becomes more than an ad campaign.

The question is how do we do that? Make it more than a series of commercials, that is. I think our focus has to be on making this a better world and bringing the Kingdom of Heaven to fruition right here on earth, right now in our time. As soon it becomes about filling pews or "saving souls", it will become a dismal failure. The people we're reaching out to with this are smart folks and can smell a fake a mile away. We have to present ourselves as people with a better way to live. Not the only way, just a better way. That attitude could well be what drove them away or kept them from getting involved in the church. You'll notice I said "getting involved" instead "attending church". That's one of those things we have to rethink for this to work. Get involved in the church on a personal level and live out our faith on a daily basis. In whatever form that takes for you. Find your gifts (we all have them, you know) and use them. That's what they're for.

Some people in this movement that's not really a movement (E. C.) think that advertising is wrong. Or, at least the wrong way to go about things. Rob Bell said that when they started Mars Hill Bible Church people wanted to put up a sign. He said no, that they wanted people that took the time to seek them out. I understand where he's coming from on this. I even agree..., to a point. I, myself, don't particularly like the idea of a sign out front. Especially those with the pithy little sayings on them. Partly, because I heartily disagree with the theology behind the statements. But, also because I think it cheapens things a bit. It's church and it's wonderful and mysterious and fulfilling and I could go on and on about it. Advertisement, to me, wipes all that out and brings to down to the level of selling used cars. On the other hand, how are people going to find us if we don't put our message out there? The fundamentalists haven't shied away from that and make sure everyone knows where they stand. I think they're so wrong it's not funny, but at least I know where they're about. We Methodists haven't done so well in that respect. How many times have you told someone you were a Methodist and were asked "What's that?" or "What do you guys believe?" I'm hoping that we'll rectify that oversight with "Rethink Church". I also hope we truly do "Rethink Church".

Evangelism vs Evangelicalism

Evangelism has gotten a bad rap lately. In fact, in some circles it's almost a dirty word. I can understand this, some of the "evangelism" that I've seen over the years bordered on coercion. A lot of it could also be considered offensive. Ann Coulter's comment that Christians want Jews to be "perfected" is an example. I think part of what's going on here is that people are confusing "evangelism" with "evangelicalism". Evangelism is merely spreading the good news of Christ throughout the world. Evangelicalism, to me, is a horse of a different color. Micheal Spenser, of the InternetMonk blog qualifies Evangelicalism as the following:

1. Protestant, even strongly anti-Catholic

2. Baptistic, even in its non-Baptist form

3. Shaped by the influence of Billy Graham and his dominance as an symbol and leader

4. Shaped by the influence of Southern Baptist dominance in the conception of evangelism

5. Influenced by revivalism and the ethos of the Second Great Awakening

6. Open to the use of technology

7. Oriented around individualistic pietism and a vision of individualistic Christianity

8. Committed to church growth as the primary evidence of evangelism

9. Committed to missions as a concept and a calling, but less as a methodology

10. Asserting Sola scriptura, but largely unaware of the influence of its own traditions

11. Largely anti-intellectual and populist in its view of education

12. Traditionally conservative on social, political and cultural issues

13. Anti- Creedal, reluctantly confessional

14. Revisionist toward Christian history in order to establish its own historical legitimacy

15. Attempting, and largely failing, to establish a non-fundamentalist identity

16. A low view of the sacraments and sacramental theology

17. A dispensational eschatology, revolving around the rapture and apocalyptic views of immanent last days



While not perfect, this is a pretty good list and hits most, if not all, of the high points. Evangelicalism tends to run most strongly in fundamentalist circles, most especially (from what I can see) Calvinist ones. I'm not trying to point fingers..., well, yeah, I am. I have a real problem with this kind of stuff. First of all, I don't understand the idea behind Calvinist thought. I mean, why would God choose for some of his children to accept him and not others? Especially, when not accepting him means being forever separated from God. That said, these folks, well-meaning though they may be, are the ones doing the very things I mentioned earlier and more. There is an undercurrent of arrogance and superiority running through the Evangelical line of thought. They never say it and would vociferously deny it if you asked them, but it certainly sounds like they believe that, as Christians, they're above everyone else. And, much of what they do crosses the line and moves from evangelism into proselytizing. Many evangelical defend their stance with an almost fanatical devotion. Unfortunately, as James Jordan said " Those who want to bang the drum for a 450-year old tradition are dooming themselves to irrelevance."



Many emerging Christians would call themselves "post-evangelical" if asked. Now, I'm sure you're asking "What's post-evangelical?" Good question, let's see if I can answer it. Post-evangelicalism involves people who have stepped away from evangelicalism, but not the Christian faith. Some of their complaints with Evangelicalism include:

1) a focus on individualism instead community

2) anti-intellectualism

3) narrow or partisan political views

4) lack or engagement (almost a rejection) of art and society

5) insensitive of homosexuals

6) rigid reliance on doctrine, especially Scriptural Inerrancy

There are more, I'm sure, but I think you get the idea. There is a growing group of young folks out there that are looking for God and a place to learn and worship. And, they're not satisfied with the status quo. They want a church based on community, one that uses it's missions to make the world a better place and not to proselytize. A church that respects other religions and beliefs. A church that practices evangelism in the everyday lives of it's members and not by putting up a sign or street-corner witnessing. Whether we can live up to that standard remains to be seen.

Progressive Christianity

I've taken the conservative side of the Christian faith to task several times here. Not without good cause, I believe. The other side of that equation is Progressive (or Liberal) Christianity. Before I go any further, I should voice a disclaimer. It's going to be retroactive too, and cover those things I've already said. On all sides of this discussion are good people, trying their best to live like Christ. I just disagree with the ways that some of them do it. Now, onto today's subject. First of all, Progressive or Liberal Christianity are actually two different things. Liberal Christianity grew out of the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century. This was a time of great cultural change, helped along by the successful rebellion in the United States against the British Empire. This affected everything and religion was no different. Some the tenets of Liberal Christianity include: a) rejection of the inerrancy doctrine of the Bible; b) non-traditional views of heaven and hell; c) wider scope of views about salvation (including universal salvation) ; personal view of God. There are more, but I think you get the picture. Progressive Christianity is a bit more like the accepted view of the word "liberal". One of it's most identifying aspects is social justice. I've got nothing against social justice, in fact, I try to support it whenever possible. In fact, Wesley was almost a fanatic on the subject. The problem is that it can be the first step onto the proverbial slippery slope. All to often, Liberal or Progressive morphs into the Social Gospel. The Social Gospel takes Christian ethics to social problems. Nothing wrong with that, in on of itself. Unfortunately, it can on a life of itself and you stop attending church and end up going to social activism meeting. I've seen that happen in the youth group I work with. We did a lot of things for the homeless, the hungry and those in need and very little religious education.

Worship tends to get a little stale with this model, especially with young people. Add in the reluctance of some adults to listen and reach out to those younger than themselves and you'll see young people either leaving the church or sitting around bored because someone else made them come. Not good. Combine this with the fundamentalism of the conservatives and it can really get ugly. It was only matter of time before someone stood up and said "This ain't workin, we need to find a new way". That's what this is about, finding a new way. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to change everything, that would be stupid. There are so many good things we're already doing on both sides. However, the current model has it's flaws. I see it in my own church. We've just moved to a new building and are experiencing a growth like I've never seen before. But, that growth is all families in their 30's and 40's, mostly with young children. Now, this is normal. Folks that haven't been to church in a while start a family and gravitate back toward the church because they want their children to be brought up the way they were. While that's good, why don't we try and reach them before they get to this point? That's going to require changes of us, the old farts; something we're not that good at. But, I think the result will be well worth it. Who knows, we might even find we like it.

Yesterday

Saturday, I took part in a church service project. A family in the area suffered a house fire and the insurance company, in all it's wisdom, wasn't allowing the woman anywhere near enough to make the necessary repairs. Now, the actual fire and heat damage was confined to the living room and kitchen and normally, those would be the only rooms that would have to gutted and rebuilt. Areas that were just sooty from the smoke could be cleaned and repainted, carpet replaced, that sort of thing. Unfortunately, this isn't a normal case. The woman's teenage daughter has a respiratory ailment, so the entire house has to gutted and rebuilt. To help stretch her money, the lady turned to Wake County Health and Human Services who, in turn, called our church to see if we could help. Help we did. At around 10 am yesterday morning, 18 people descended on the house and began cleaning it out. By noon, when I had to leave, the entire 1st floor was all but done. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if those who stayed on didn't finish the job.

Now, I don't relate this story to blow my horn or that of my particular church. Or Christians in general, frankly. No, I brought this up to highlight another tenet of Christian life: missional living. I'm talking living the missionary lifestyle in order to bring the gospel message to others.
There are lots of ways to do this. Service projects like the one above only scratch the surface and, truthfully, are the easy way out. I mean, really, you can go out and spend a Saturday doing home repairs, serving food at a homeless shelter, visiting shut-ins, etc. Then, the rest of the week, you go back to a "me first and screw everyone else" attitude. If you spend all week calling yourself a Christian, but acting like a selfish ass, you might as well stay home on Saturday. Maybe you can spend the time getting a clue, because it sounds like you don't have one. The whole point of doing this stuff is to spread the love that God has for us and let others in on the deal. If you're pissing off everyone you come into contact with because your attitude sucks..., well that kinda defeats the whole purpose, doesn't it? Another thing about the idea of missional living is that it's not just for Missionaries (I use the caps to denote the professionals), all of us are Christ's missionaries everywhere we go. People that know us and know we profess to be Christian are watching to see what we do and how we do it. There are a lot people out there who've never been inside a church and many others who haven't been in a long time. We can be the deciding factor as to whether they ever step foot inside a church for the rest of their lives. As a my brother's pastor once said "You're the only Bible some folks will ever read".

Religion and Politics

I'm know I'm supposed to steer clear of these topics but since this blog is about one of them already, I guess that ship has sailed. First of all, let me say I don't politicize my faith, I think that's a big mistake. One need only look at the Religious Right to see where that can lead. I'd like to say that I don't inject my faith into my politics, but that's naive. Something as important as your faith worms itself into every facet of your life whether you want it to or not. And, that's not such a bad thing. This insinuation has made me a better father, a better a leader at work and, if I was married, I'm sure it would improve my husbandly skills. But, it's also caused a headache or two. Mostly, because while my religious beliefs are extremely liberal, my political beliefs are of a more conservative bent. This manifests in some interesting ways.

My dad put me onto a very interesting book a few years ago, called "The Hidden Jesus" by Donald Spoto. In it, the author puts forth some new ideas about Christianity. But, there was one in particular that I've struggled with since I read it. Spoto said that you can't be a Christian and be pro-death penalty. Because, as Christians, we are called to forgive and there should be no limit on this forgiveness. Once you execute someone, that pretty much puts an end to the forgiveness thing. That whole 70 times 7 thing wasn't a concrete number, you know. Now, I'm a southern boy, born and bred. And, in the south, we believe there are some folks that just need killing. In some places that's even a valid defense. We staunchly believe in the "eye for an eye" bit. Now, contrast that with what I read in Spoto's book and I think you'll see my dilemma. I also have a hard time with the idea of government assistance. Partly because I think if you're able-bodied, you have an obligation to produce, not just consume. And, there's the what government does to it's recipients self-esteem. There's not-so-subtle message in these programs that if you're on it, you're not able to take care of yourself and someone else has to do it for you. But, my faith tells me I should support anything that helps those in need. So, I support it. But, I also support the idea that it needs a major overhaul.

Sorting this out is part of the journey I spoke about in my first post. I knew some parts of this trip would be fun and revealing and interesting and some parts... wouldn't. I think this will fall in the less-than-fun column.

Questions?

Recently, I've been talking to a young friend of mine who's struggling with his faith. Basically, he's transitioning from the belief of his childhood to a more adult faith. Like many people his age, the current model isn't really doing it for him. He's reading things in the Bible that don't jibe with what he's learned in school. He doesn't care for the hypocrisy he sees some Christians displaying and the hard line some groups take toward other religions leaves him cold. Worship doesn't engage him. He's told me he even questions his commitment to his faith if some of what I've just mentioned has to be a part of it. Which is pretty much standard for someone in their late teens and early twenties. It's all so black and white at that age. They haven't been an adult long enough to see the shades of gray, nor have they started down that slippery slope of compromise. Things should be a certain way and if they're not, why aren't we doing something about it? People ask me why I continue to work with youth and young adults. This is part of it. This energy and drive energizes me and keeps me young.

Every so often though, this energy and drive butts up against conventional wisdom. Usually in the person of an older adult, like a parent or some other authority figure. Now, if it's handled right, the wisdom and experience of the older person leavens the raw energy of the younger and something really special results. If not, then a huge rift can occur. One that takes years to repair. The second happens all to often in life and the church is no different (even though it should be). A good example is the way my friend and his father react to each other when asks a question about faith. His dad, a good, hard-working fellow, hears his son asks a question, and because the young fellow hasn't learned how to ask a challenging question without it sounding like an attack, all he hears is an assault on everything he believes. Of course, he fires back and an argument ensues, which is totally counterproductive. I'll the dad credit, though. He never gives up on his son and is always there for the next question.

As the title lets on, this long ramble is really about questions. Easy ones and hard ones. Ones that challenge everything we believe. Ones that make us uncomfortable. There are a lot of ways to deal with them. Some folks just slam the door and say that everything that needs to be said has been said and we should accept it. I have a couple of problems with this. First, questions are central to the Gospel. Jesus and the disciples asked questions of each other constantly. Because they knew that was how you learn. Which brings me to the second problem: if no one can ask questions, if everything has truly been said, aren't we practicing a dead faith? I don't think so.

So, how do we deal with questions? I can only talk about how I do it. First of all, encourage questions. Don't just be open to them, ask for them. Second, if you're asked a question you can't answer, don't BS, just admit you don't know. No one says you have to know it all. You can't, so don't even try. But, never ever, try to BS the questioner. They'll know it and you'll look like an ass. Just say you don't know and look for the answer together. Third, don't accept shrugs, nods or one syllable answers. Make 'em work at it. Now, understand, this works for me but there's no guarantee it'll work for you. Finally, the next time you here a question that gets your hackles up, stop and think. It could open up something new and special for you too.

Emerging Christianity

I thought this would be a good topic to write about, since someone close to me heard me mention it and wondered what it is. So, this is for you, shug. Emerging Christianity, or the Emerging Church, emerging church or whatever else you might call it is..., well, I'm not really sure what it is. It's not really a movement, because that implies a community or organization. And, this thing doesn't really meet that standard. In my first post, I said the people involved refer to it as a conversation. I suppose that works, because, from what I've seen so far, it's about discussing what the church is currently about and how it can be improved. I think it's obvious we need to make some changes. Things like the narrow-minded "my way or the highway" attitude, the smug superiority some "Christians" seem to feel about anyone who doesn't believe the way they do, the homophobia(I hate that word, but it seems to fit). And, (if it's not on the block it should be) the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. In fact, maybe we should rethink the entire idea of doctrine because a lot of what I've just mentioned is more doctrine than anything else.

One of the reasons this thing came about because the generation coming to adulthood is questioning how we do church. Since I work with youth at my church, I'm beginning to see some of this. And, to be honest, it's not that different than the questions most of asked as we transitioned from the faith of our childhood to a more adult version. It's just that these young folks (and, some older ones too) aren't willing to accept the answers that a lot of us did when we grew up. Problem is, some folks aren't too cool with folks asking uncomfortable questions. There's some backlash because of this. Emerging leaders, like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, and others are called heretics and their commitment to Christ is questioned. I've even heard them referred to as "false teachers" http//www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/2-peter/passage.aspx?q=2%20Peter+2:1-2. Most of these people seem to be of a more fundamentalist bent, good Baptists and the like. Many of them seem to have a strong Calvinist streak http//www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Calvinist
, and most of the emerging folks seem to be more Arminian http//www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Arminianism. But, what I think is happening here is they're threatened. I mean, you've got bunch of people talking about taking their treasured beliefs, ones they spent years developing and building lives on, and turning them upside down. And, that's scary for them. I understand that, but I can't condone their attacks, out-of-context quotes and deliberate misunderstanding of these new ideas. It's kind of sad, really.

For my part, I like a lot of the ideas. One of the coolest parts of this deal is that you don't have buy into it lock, stock and barrel. You don't want to go as far as McLaren when he talks about homosexuality, that's cool. Or someone makes you uncomfortable saying that we need to change the whole framework of Christianity? Fine, don't go there. But, I think we have an unique opportunity to shape how future generations look at Christianity and that's pretty exciting.

God's Plan

Tell me if this scenario is familiar: Someone has suffered a really hard loss, say the loss of a child or a spouse, and in attempting to comfort them, some well-meaning friend says "Well, it's all part of God's plan." I wonder if these people have ever thought about what they're saying. Basically, they're telling this poor, grieving soul that the one thing they thought they could turn to, God, to get through this is responsible for it in the first place. I can't think of a more callous thing to say. It takes away what little hope they might have had and replaces with..., what? The knowledge that our Creator is a hard, capricious overseer who singles people out for suffering and hardship in the furtherance of some unknown plan for the universe? I hope that's not the case. I prefer to believe in a God who's a loving father, one that would never cause his children pain. One whose plan is to show us his love and have a relationship with us. Whose will is that we love each other. Wholly and unconditionally. The fact is, human suffering has been around as long as people have been on the Earth. Unfortunately, it's probably going to around for a while yet. Some of our hardships come about because of our own actions and we can accept that as a consequence of free will. But, when we (or someone we love) suffers through no fault of our own, that's a different story. How many times has someone asked "Why does God let bad things happen to good people"? Probably about as long as people have been suffering. And, almost as long, people much smarter than me have been trying to answer it. Without much success, I might add. I doubt there will ever be a satisfactory answer to that question. Because we're human, and the only way we have of expressing ideas, thoughts or feelings is through words. And, at times like these, words fail. Language is a wretched medium for communicating things of God. They can't broken down and quantified like a math equation. Poetry probably comes closest and even that ultimately fails. I kind of hope it's us and our brokenness that causes this. Because, then I can hope that it won't always be this way. As for what you should say to someone who's suffering? I don't know that there's anything to say besides "I'm here and I'm going through this with you". This is definitely a time when actions speak louder than words.

In the Beginning

I suppose that would be a good place to start. There's a large bone of contention between the creationists and the scientific crowd and it has to do with a certain story in the book of Genesis. Now, the creationists believe that the earth was created in 6 days, that Adam named all the animals and everything else in the story is historical fact. Some even go so far as to say the world is only 6000 to 10,000 years old. This causes some problems, like the explanation of fossils, carbon dating of artifacts and the like. These folks believe in Biblical inerrancy and a literal interpretation of the Bible. On the other hand, you have the scientific crowd who discounts anything with even a slight religious overtone. These are the folks who believe solely in things proven through the scientific method. In this case, that would be the Big Bang and Evolution. Both of these groups don't brook any deviations among their peers, marginalizing anyone who doesn't adhere to the party line. In the middle, you have..., no distinct group. There is the intelligent design crowd, those who kinda believe in Evolution but think God had a hand in it. I'm okay with that, until they want it taught in science class. Then, you have the people who don't think about it all that much. This is probably the majority of people. It's important, but just can't compete with their life and family right now. Finally, you have people like me, who see the creation story as allegory. Unlike the extremists, my point of view allows me to believe both the Bible and science. How is that you ask? They are two equally valid views, but they mean different things. In fact, contrasting the two is the whole apples and oranges thing. Science is how we got here, the Bible is why we're here and why we're so messed up.
The science part is pretty straightfoward and, we're not here to talk about that anyway. It's the Bible story I'm going on about. We'll break it down a bit. First, notice what the author says after everything God creates: "and it was good". And, then, you have that whole 7 days thing. I've learned that there are certain numbers in the Bible that aren't just numbers, specifically the number 7. 7 is actually a combination of two other significant numbers, 3 and 4. 3 signifies Divine perfection, 4 represents the Trinity and it's manifestation in creation. Combine those you get 7, which denotes spiritual perfection. The point being here that God brought his Creation into being and it was perfect in every way. Which leads us to the Fall. In this little tidbit, Eve is tempted by the serpent and eats fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which she and Adam were expressly forbidden. Not satisfied going down on her own, she talks Adam into eating it too. One of many lessons here is that women have always been able to do stuff we didn't want to do. But, I digress. God had given them all kinds of wonderful things to eat and a great place to live and they rejected it. So, they were cast out. Up to that point, they had spoken directly to God and even been in his presence. Not any more, though. Things that were perfect were now broken. They were seperated from God. Which is the very essence of sin. Our task is to get back to God. Oh, that's easy, you say. Just repent and go and sin no more. Right, go and sin no more. When I figure out how to do that, I'll let you know.

First of what I hope is many

As this is my first blog post, I want to lay out what I hope to accomplish here. I'm good Methodist boy (have been for a while) and I spend a good bit of time checking new and different theological ideas. Recently, through a friend, I was exposed to the NOOMA videos from Flannel.org. According to their website "We are a group of people committed to giving everyone a fresh look at the teachings of Jesus". Interesting, I thought, and began to dig a little more. The fellow doing the videos is Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church. I started looking into Brother Bell, finding that he was considered a part of the Emergent Church movement. Or, conversation as people involved prefer to call it. Whatever. I'd heard of this bunch, but never thought that much about it. But, in my research, I found that there was more than a bit of controversy about this stuff. Mostly from those of a more fundamentalist bent. Not a being of fan of this viewpoint, I automatically began to like Rob and the NOOMA vids that much more. I also began to look at the emerging church idea more. The more I look, the more I like. Someone once said that a person's intelligence varied directly with how they agreed with you. If that's the case, these emerging folks must geniuses, because they hit all the right points with me.

So, I've decided to take a theological journey. I have no idea where it'll end up, outside of following Jesus' footsteps and trying to live more like Him. Since I think better when I write it down, I'll be posting my ideas, thoughts questions here. Besides, I'm just vain enough to believe someone else might care what I think.