Nick's Musings

Pitiful Blogging in 2009

2010-01-01T08:45:00.002-06:00

So after a record blog year at nicksmusings.com in 2008 with 105 posts, 2009 has been pathetic with only 9 posts. Perhaps it is clear that my life has become much more busy in the last year. I started grad school and changed jobs. We bought a house, and the necessities of home ownership have invaded my time as well. These are not excuses, just the way it is.

I think by and large these shifts have been positive. As fun as blogging is, there are certainly other areas of life that demand attention. I'm not shutting it down at this point, but know that I'm not super confident that the future will increase the frequency. I also assume that I have lost all of my readership I gained in 08.

So, Happy New Year!

Enjoying Precipice

2009-11-28T12:15:00.002-06:00

It's always fun to find a new blog, e-magazine, website, whatever that really speaks your language and emphasizes what you emphasize. That has been my experience at Precipice Magazine.

It's thrust it toward a postmodern, Emergent view of faith and scripture. Some of the more interesting features of Precipice are as follows:

1. Inform: This is essentially a page of quotes that (they feel) encapsulate postmodern Christianity. I happen to love thoughtful quotes and enjoyed reading through these.

2. Perspectives: The writers at Precipice have developed a "Postmodern Canon," which they admit is a bit pretentious. Nonetheless, they have done their best to list the 40 books that they feel are central to understanding the movement. It works as a great reading list for interested learners.

3. The Current: This is essentially the blog portion of the site, where the authors interact with stuff from around the blogosphere and comment.

There are other features to check out, but those are my favorites. Check it out and let us know what you think.

Brian McLaren on Postmodernity and Truth

2009-11-20T16:49:00.003-06:00

Great Q&A here where Brian responds to a question about postmodernity. There is a perception around many conservative evangelical circles that suggests postmodernity is synonymous with denying truth (or absolute truth, or moral absolutes, all essentially saying the same thing). Of course that is untrue. Brian gives a great response.

...I won't try to speak for "postmodernism," but let me speak for myself.

Of course I believe that some things are morally good and others are morally evil. Of course!

But I do not believe that Christian fundamentalism (or Islamic fundamentalism, or secular fundamentalism, etc., etc.) has a superior record of identifying what is moral and what isn't moral in contested situations. For example, in my lifetime Christian fundamentalists have been among the last to release racism, sexism, a careless attitude toward the environment, a careless attitude toward the rights of Palestinians, a fear of science, and a fusion between the gospel and American nationalism.
Go back farther in history, and there were a majority of Bible-believing Christians in the South who were pro-slavery - and held that as an "absolute truth" or "absolute moral principle" that they could quote chapter and verse to defend. (I'll explore this in some detail in my upcoming book.)

Go back still farther, and our Christian ancestors refused to believe Copernicus and Galileo - again, based on their conception of moral absolutes based on their readings of the Bible. The same was true regarding the age of the earth, Darwin, etc.
So here's my concern: If a person or group pushes the "we've got moral absolutes absolutely figured out" button too fast or too often, they run an increased risk of behaving in immoral ways, and they are the last to know it because of their excessive self-confidence. If conservative Christians would acknowledge this pattern at work in their own history more openly, and if they would show how they have taken corrective action to avoid similar patterns of misjudgment in the future, a lot of us would feel more confident in their moral judgment.

He sums it uo thusly:

So - perhaps we can put this question to rest for good: the issue isn't morality - with some "fer it" and others "agin it." We're all for morality, as we understand it. The issue is two-fold. Postmodern-leaning folks are concerned whether this or that preacher's claims to have "absolute certainty" about this or that moral viewpoint of his are "absolutely justified," and whether his confidence will increase the chances of behaving immorally. Modern-leaning folks are concerned whether leaving the door open to the possibility that "we" have been or are wrong will lead to moral collapse. If you let an absolutist system go, there will be nothing left, they fear.

I'd say there are dangers on both sides - the danger of excessive moral confidence on the one side and the danger of insufficient moral confidence on the other. I'm seeking a proper confidence ... one that is aware of both dangers on both sides.
In my view, only God has absolute moral knowledge. Human beings have shown a remarkable propensity to misinterpret God, all the while claiming to speak for God on morality, which (sadly) often degenerates into speaking as if they were God... (emphasis mine)

Beautiful point.

I consider myself a postmodern person. I also feel like no ideology, worldview, belief system, whatever, should be swallowed wholly or uncritically. Modernity has some great elements and some ugly elements. Postmodernity has some great elements and some ugly elements. The same is true for Buddhism, Communism, Calvinism, the Emergent Church, Catholicism, whatever. Categorizing is helpful for some things, but often it divides and excludes. May we keep this in mind wherever we encounter ideas: look for the truth, that we might embrace it, and leave the rest.

PS I had knee surgery today and will be out of work for about 10 days. Since I won't be able to move much, I may actually blog quite a bit in these next weeks. Stay tuned! It would be fun to converse.

Piper and Boyd on the Tornado

2009-08-21T23:23:00.003-05:00

You may already be aware that a number of tornados struck the Twin Cities area earlier this week. You may also be aware that John Piper attempted to explain the tornados as God's providence warning the ELCA (who was meeting about the issue of homosexuality) not to tolerate sin. It even made it on the evening news.

There is a lot I could say about this, and if you've read this blog with any regularity you know how much I think Piper's article is in poor taste. A resonate with Greg Boyd's sentiment when he says, "I feel I need to offer a public response, if only to remind non-Christians that not all Christians think like this."

Read his full response here.

UPDATE: Tony Jones and Scot McKnight (briefly) both comment on this as well.

Boyd on Dr. Gates

2009-07-26T08:25:00.001-05:00

I'll keep this short, but Greg Boyd has posted a short but interesting article about Dr. Gates of Harvard University getting arrested in his own home, which Greg follows with some interesting questions. Check it out.

Francis Collins on Evolution

2009-07-19T08:17:00.002-05:00

Scot Mcknight had an interesting link to an interview with Francis Collins, a Christian who is an evolutionist. Funny, isn't it, how that statement isn't as out of place as it would have been ten years ago?

Anyway, the interviewer, Karl Gilbertson, does a great job in asking the right questions, the hard questions that many creationists would ask. He takes Collins to task with the questions like "Isn't evolution just a scientific conspiracy to mask the truth?" and others that you hear fundamentalists asking, but you never really hear dialogue about. Collins responds beautifully, in my opinion.

If you've read this blog at all in the past, you probably know that I am extremely interested in this discussion. And the word discussion is key, though I may want to call it dialogue instead. Until the last few years there was not much dialogue between creationists and evolutionists. They would just throw stones at each other which would ignite the fray, and sadly, but perhaps not surprisingly the Christians were often the ones who were the most immature in this battle. That is why this interview is such a breath of fresh air to me.

By the way, the number of scientists like Francis Collins who are Christians and evolutionists is growing. There are a number of books available that talk of the Bible and evolution going hand in hand (including the interviewer Gilbertson's book Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution). The ideas are no longer mutually exclusive. That is refreshing to me.

Here or some high points from the interview, but note: it is really best if you read the whole thing for yourself. Thanks for stopping by!

(Gilbertson is in bold, Collins in regular font).

Heliocentricity is so well-established that educated people simply can't oppose it any longer, of course. What about common ancestry and evolution in general? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more so almost by the day, especially because we can now use DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin's theory has played out over the course of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory—he didn't know about DNA. Evolution is now profoundly well-documented from multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that makes it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics.

Evolution is this gigantic, complicated tapestry of interwoven bits of explanatory power. But this big tapestry of evolution is filled with holes. It still hangs together, of course, but it does have holes. For example, evolution requires the invocation of common ancestors that we don't have any fossil record for; we don't really know anything about them, other than indirect dna inferences. A layperson is understandably skeptical when they are told that there's this tree of life going back to a common ancestor and all these life-forms are on the tree but we have no direct evidence for most of them and we have to infer them hypothetically. Doesn't it bother you that there are so many missing pieces in the puzzle?

Should people doubt the existence of electrons because they've never seen one? A lot of what we know to be true about physics is also inferred. I know it bothers people who are not really convinced yet about the consistency of evolutionary theory, but the much-emphasized gaps do not represent any real threat to the overall framework. And is the absence of a fossil representation of a specific organism all that troubling when you realize that fossilization is extremely unlikely to have happened?

Based on the DNA sequences of many mammals, we can now predict the genome sequence of the common mammalian ancestor. And it's breathtaking that you can actually look now at the dna sequence, which is a fossil record of its own, of an organism that is long since gone, but that we and all other mammals are descended from.

Evolution may seem from the outside to have a lot of complexities, and certainly there are lots of details we haven't worked out—and for anybody to say there are no arguments would be a total mistake. But nearly all scientists agree upon descent from a common ancestor, gradual change over a long period of time, and natural selection operating to produce the diversity of living species. There is no question that those are correct. Evolution is not a theory that is going to be discarded next week or next year or a hundred thousand years from now. It is true.

There is a remarkable claim being made today by anti-evolutionists that runs exactly counter to this. This is the claim that evolution is based on a big deception, that there isn't any solid basis at all for the theory, and that scientists are gradually abandoning evolution. Are there evolutionists jumping ship?

I haven't met any of these people. And I think I would hear about it, if it were true, as I have identified myself as a believer interested in studying biological evolution. No, I think those claims are completely without evidence.

Stating this is a convenient way to float the idea that evolution is a conspiracy that is about to be exposed. That's the idea behind the movie Expelled, which tries to make that same case—that there is a conspiracy to squash the truth. That viewpoint totally misunderstands the nature of science. Anybody who has lived within the scientific community would immediately—regardless of their worldview—rebel against the idea that science would be able to sustain such a conspiracy. Scientists are all about upsetting and overturning things. And if you're the one who's discovered how to overturn evolution, you're going to win the Nobel Prize!

The position that people on the outside of science—like the creationists and the people in the id camp—have adopted, that such a conspiracy could actually exist for more than thirty seconds, completely flies in the face of the realities of the sociology of the field of science. It's an insult.

We are all part of social groups, and people we trust tell us things. I believe in evolution because people like you that I trust have told me it's true. I've never done a genome sequence; I've never done a fossil dig. So what do I—Karl Giberson—really know about evolution? All I know is that people I trust say it's true and people that I have less confidence in say it is not. But how are people outside the scientific community supposed to navigate this complex web of social authority, to try and figure out which voices they should listen to, and which voices they shouldn't?

Consider credentials. On paper the credentials of the better creationists and id people are like yours and mine. Take you and Michael Behe. You both have PhDs. You have both done research and published articles. So if somebody wants to put Behe up against Collins and say, "Well, here's a guy and I like what he says. And here's another guy and I don't like what he says. And you're asking me to follow Collins over Behe? Well, why should I do that?"
Well, that is a fundamental problem we're facing in our culture, especially in the United States. It's why we have such a mismatch between what the scientific data would suggest and what many people believe about things like the age of the Earth and about whether evolution is true or not.

If you ask about data-driven questions, about what is true and what is the evidence to support it—you would want to go to the people who are the professionals who spend their lives trying to answer those questions and ask, "Is there a consensus view?" So you ask, "What is the age of the Earth?" Well, who does that work? It is the geologist and the cosmologists and the people who do radiocarbon dating. It is the fossil record people and so on. So you ask, "Is this an unanswered question?" And the answer you would get is that the issue is settled. The age of the earth is 4.55 billion years.

How have people in fundamentalist churches responded to you, when you have spoken there?

I've had people get up and walk out! And I've had people come to the microphone clearly very upset, and imply that I am under the influence of the devil. I also get some fairly unpleasant emails from the atheistic scientific community, but the nastiest ones come from believers who are infuriated that someone who claims to be a believer could say these things about the truth of the evolutionary process. To them, I am clearly a wolf in sheep's clothing, and I'm allied with the devil. I've even been excommunicated a couple of times, though I'm not Catholic!

Movie Update

2009-05-24T07:31:00.002-05:00

So I'm rocking the longest time between posts that I ever have. Blogging has definitely been on the back burner. Let me do a movie update though.

1. The King of Kong: A documentary about a ring of nerdy guys who play classic video games (pac-man, Galaga, Defender, Donkey Kong). It really zooms in on the guy who set the record in Donkey Kong like 20 years ago and who is like the king of classic video games, and a teacher/coach who buys an arcade version and sets out to beat the record. It is very interesting, sad, revealing, and many other things in a sociological way. I would recommend it.

2. Man on Wire: Another documentary about a man, Phelippe Petit, who learns when he is very young to walk on the tightrope, and then takes that passion to new levels, including spanning the towers of the Notre Dame (while mass is going on!) and culminating with walking across a rope between the World Trade Center towers. What is interesting is that as you can imagine, he can;t just stroll up to the top and toss a wire across. There is a ton of planning that has to be done. It is kind of like they are planning a bank robbery, but the goal is tightrope walking rather than stealing money. It is interesting, and the thing that captures you is the vision and determination of Philippe. He is dedicated to accomplish his mission or die trying, which is inspirational. Check it out. (Both this and King of Kong are available with the "Play Now" option on Netflix).

3. Primer: I can't believe I haven't blogged about this already. I saw this a few months ago...probably February. It is low budget with a lot of editing mistakes and all that, because Shane Carruth starred in, shot, cast, edited and everything else himself. I don;t want to exaggerate, because it seems like one of those movies that you either love or you hate, but everything about it is amazing in my humble opinion. From the music, to the character development, to the slow twisting of the plot and everything in between. It rocked my world. It is one of those movies where it is better to not know anything going in. It is also one where if you like it you will want to watch it over and over to pick up on small things you missed before. this is in my top 5 of all time.

4. Once: This is an interesting movie about a down and out musician who is struggling to survive in England. He meets an immigrant and they connect on a musical level and have a great week together, making music and sharing life. It is simple, but charming and well done. The details make the point hit home in this film.

So there it is! I welcome your comments on these as well as your own suggestions.

Earth Day

2009-04-22T07:39:00.001-05:00

I'm Late into the game regarding Earth Day, but I thought this video was cool. I was it first at Brian's website.

Evolution Graph

2009-03-01T13:44:00.002-06:00

After the post earlier linking to Ken's post about Darwin, I came across this graph reporting on those who accept evolution divided by religious affiliation. For some reason it doesn't surprise me that the three lowest groups are Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and Evangelical Christians.

The other thing that interested me is that no group went over 81%. I'm wondering what that tells us.

Nonetheless, I thought this was a very interesting graph. What are your thoughts?

Ken Wilson on Darwin

2009-03-01T09:00:00.002-06:00

Why not break the blog drought, eh? I is no secret how busy I've been in the last 6 months with a new job requiring more time and mental energy and going grad school full time. However, I'm going to try to get back into "reference posts", a term I just made up 5 seconds ago for the kind of post where I simply link to another story I find interesting and give it some pub. Is there an actual name for that?

Nonetheless, this is a very interesting article looking at the life of Charles Darwin on his 200th birthday. Perhaps there is no other figure in history who has been more slandered and scoffed at for merely discovering and doing his job. Evangelicals have certainly been hard on CD. Ken Wilson defends him, and even points to a number of evangelicals in his day who were open to Darwin's ideas.

Darwin’s friend and colleague Asa Gray, a Harvard botanist and devout evangelical, saw no inherent conflict either between natural selection and a creating God. In fact, Asa Gray did more to promote Darwin’s writings in the United States than any other scientist. He was one of Darwin’s closest friends. An evangelical.

But these evangelicals took the time to understand Darwin’s idea and consider the evidence for it. They sought to understand the man before calling him dangerous or his ideas heretical. They could understand if the man was too busy with his beetles and barnacles to integrate these new scientific insights with Christian faith. That was a task for people more steeped in theology than he.

Give the article a full read, as it is worth it. It seems in the church today that a good number of people are lessening their opposition to Darwin's ideas. Have you noticed this too, and in your mind is it a good shift or a bad shift?

Donald Miller and Some Random Reflections

2008-12-23T21:12:00.005-06:00

Donald Miller's writing is always entertaining. His most recent blog article is a collection of thoughts about his new puppy, how simple her life is, and how we could all learn something from the blissful simplicity of her example.

I’ve been watching Lucy (the aforementioned dog) and wondered why God made her. A pet. Just a dog (chocolate lab puppy) that runs and jumps and chews things and, even though we’ve only known each other for a couple weeks, wants nothing more than to please me. She puts on no airs, which is one of the things I think we find so comforting about pets and children. There is no false motive, only the desire to eat, reproduce and play.

I think of that scripture that tells us to not think more of ourselves than we should, and not less of ourselves either. I think if Lucy could understand a hearing of that passage, she’d probably tilt her head and say “what is an I?”….all she knows is her red ball and her weasel chew toy and the fact she can dig her nose into snow to make a tunnel.

And later

I wonder what it was like for humans before the fall of man, to not think too much or too little of themselves, to enjoy play, to enjoy work, to enjoy God. I think the difference between them and us would be startling. If they could come here today and have a conversation with us, my guess is they would sniff out all our motives and wonder why it is we care about so many things that don’t matter at all.

Interesting thoughts.

An Advent Meditation by Rowan Williams

2008-12-14T07:51:00.002-06:00

This video, which I found posted by Tony Jones, is an interesting reflection on the season of Advent.

As I continue in my faith, sacramental, liturgical presentations like this one that used to bore me, become rich and enjoyable. What are your thoughts?

Scott McKnight's Third Way

2008-12-08T16:13:00.002-06:00

Scott McKnight is starting a series of posts regarding a Third Way:

There is a Third Way, and this post officially kicks off a series of occasional reflections about the Third Way. The Third Way approach to the orthodox Christian faith is one that gets

beyond the fighting and
between the fighters in order
to carve out a middle way.

The Third Way captures and sustains the good in both the conservative and the liberal. It is the Jesus Creed at work in the church's theology and praxis. It affirms the great traditions of the Church and seeks to embody those traditions in a new way for a new day. It is not afraid of change but has a deep desire to remain faithful.

He says later:

At the heart of our Third Way project is fashioning the gospel as robust enough to be both a "kingdom" gospel and a "salvation" gospel, a salvation that is both spiritual/personal and social. A salvation that means complete liberation. We're tired of the old-fashioned, thin gospels of both the conservatives and the liberals. It is hard to hold both sides of this debate together, but we will attempt to do so ... and I think many of you want to as well.

I'm looking forward to this series. I'm interested in a third way. What do you think?

Boyd on the Unreconciled Church

2008-12-07T08:50:00.002-06:00

Greg Boyd has some interesting points about some of the "white evangelical" response the day after Obama won.

Several people responded to my most recent blog by contrasting what I wrote with the “hostility” and “venom” they were reading on some white conservative Christian blogs the day following the election. While most other Americans — even most opponents of Obama’s politics — were celebrating what Obama’s election means for race relations in this country, these white Christians, I was told, were enraged.

And later, regarding a study he ran into at a conference:

One of the sad but unavoidable conclusions Emerson drew from this combination of studies was that participating in a homogenous church — as the vast majority of white evangelicals do — actually makes people more prone toward racism. Folks who are strongly bound to homogenous religous groups tend to embrace racial stereotypes and be more wary of people whose ethnicity and culture is different from their own than those who don’t. As a result, participating in homogenous religious groups tends to make people less interested in, and less adept at, making progress at bridging the racial divide.

In this light, it’s not surprising that some white evangelicals were enraged over Obama’s victory while so much of the rest of the country was celebrating it. Arguably, no group in America is at one and the same time more invested in political opinions that oppose Obama and less able to appreciate the significance of his racial achievement than this group.

He concludes by saying:

This would amount to nothing more than a curious sociological observation except for one thing: white evangelicals are among those who are supposed to be demonstrating to the world the beauty of racial reconciliation! One of the reasons Jesus gave his life was to form “one new humanity” in which all racial, cultural and class walls have been torn down (Eph. 2:14-15; Gal. 3:26-29). Racial reconciliation isn’t some sort of “politically correct” addendum to the Gospel: it’s part of its very essence! If Jesus died to create “one new humanity,” then manifesting a community in which people of different ethnicities are learning to love, understand and do life with one another is as mandatory for the church as is preaching the forgiveness of sins, which Jesus also died for.

An interesting commentary, I thought. What do you think?

Interesting Election Facts from Barna

2008-11-15T16:26:00.002-06:00

Here is the link to The Barna Report (as referenced on The Jesus Creed)

As was true in the past two presidential elections, two-thirds of all evangelicals who were registered to vote (65%) were aligned with the Republican Party. One out of five (21%) was Democrats and just one out of ten (10%) was registered independent of a party. That puts evangelicals at odds with the national voter profile, which shows a plurality of Democrats (42%), one-third Republican (34%) and two out of ten (20%) independent of a party affiliation.

Most remarkably, however, was the overwhelming support registered among evangelicals for Republican candidate John McCain. In total, 88% voted for Sen. McCain, compared to just 11% for Sen. Obama. The 88% is statistically identical to the 85% of evangelicals who backed George W. Bush in 2004. Surveys conducted by Barna throughout the campaign season showed that evangelicals were not enthusiastic about either candidate, but on Election Day evangelicals came through in a big way for the most conservative major candidate on the ballot.

Church Marketing Strategies for Starbucks

2008-11-10T07:47:00.002-06:00

This is a weird but funny video about how the church must look to visitors sometimes (found on ThinkChristian).

Thoughts?

Congratulations...

2008-11-04T23:50:00.007-06:00

Let me be among the first to congratulate Barack Obama for becoming our new president elect.

Quite a story, isn't it? The first major party minority candidate wins the election. Think about what has happened in the arena of race in the last 100 years?

Quite an historic day. Quite a day indeed.

Donald Miller's Political History

2008-11-03T08:45:00.002-06:00

Donald Miller has posted a long but interesting political history of his life. He shares some experiences with working with the Obama campaign this year.

While in Denver I met people from the Obama Campaign. I met Joshua Dubois and Paul Monteiro, Obama’s faith-policy advisors. Paul, like me, had been a Republican until recently. He is a staunch pro-life conservative who got tired of Republicans not making enough strides on the issue and was won over by the dramatic effect economic policy has on unwanted pregnancy and the bottom-up effects of economic stimulation as opposed to the conservative, supply-side policy. And Joshua spoke to me about Senator Obama’s personal faith, his commitment to close his events in prayer, his daily morning devotions and his twenty-year history of talking openly about Jesus. I didn’t need to be won over. I’d started a mentoring foundation in Portland two years before and was attracted to Obama’s message on responsible fatherhood (along with his backing of The Responsible Fatherhood Act.)

Elsewhere he says,

Last year I vowed I wouldn’t make decisions out of fear. And because of that I’ve had one of the greatest years of my life.

If you have a few minutes, give it a read. Donald is a great writer and always makes you think.

A Question...

2008-11-02T22:01:00.003-06:00

How much does God care about the election happening in two days?

Does he care enough to spend billions of dollars on advertising?

Does he care enough to spend millions of man (and woman) hours organizing and strategizing?

Does he care enough to see perhaps the fiercest division in four years that Americans experience between one another?

I'm not suggesting God doesn't care (though I could be wrong), but I'm willing to go out on a limb and suggest that we care more that He does.

I'm not suggesting you should not vote (though I'm open to certain situations where people feel that is the right move), but I am suggesting that if you decide to vote, that it is the least amount of involvement possible to be a participating citizen. We treat voting as if it is such a big deal, whereas it seems to me that we vote every day by what we value, what we spend money on, what we give money too, what we say to and about our neighbors. Maybe instead of just voting for the pro-environment candidate, I could challenge you that after you cast your vote on Tuesday, you could spend that evening learning to go green, recycle and pollute less? Maybe instead of just voting for the anti-abortion, I could challenge you after you cast your vote on Tuesday to find a crisis pregnancy center to which you could donate $25 or $50 a month and 5 hours a week of your time.

It seems to me that if everyone who voted (which is typically in the upper 40's of percent) spent significant time and energy living out the values they vote for, we would have a revolution on our hands. Imagine if on Tuesday, half the nation left their respective polling places and vowed to live differently. What might that mean?

It seems to me that God is much more concerned with how we live and who we are becoming than he is with how we vote.

Lord, start with me.

Boyd and Kimball on "Religulous"

2008-10-17T09:34:00.003-05:00

As you may have heard, Bill Maher has made a movie bashing religion that is now out. I have not seen the movie myself (not yet anyway), but several good thinkers and church leaders have. I thought I'd share some of their thoughts and posts.

Dan Kimball wrote the first response I read about it here. Dan says:

The film was really well done, and it went by very fast. Bill Maher is trying to show how "religion" in general is messed up and even very damaging (which it can be). He tries to make his point in a very, very humorous way. But it also was very predictable in what it covered. I have either listened to or read most of the arguments he made in the film, so what was in the film itself wasn't really new information.

But Bill raised good and legitimate questions but he didn't get good answers from the people he interviewed (again, at least how they edited the film). People in the theater laughed (including me) at how the responses generally came across from Christians to his questions.

He does have some criticisms about the film, however.

Although it was a humorous film, and although it raised great questions which need to be asked - it only showed a very one-sided perspective. Thus, to me it was a poor film journalistically as it misrepresented Christianity by only showing the extremes of it.

Greg Boyd also wrote a review of the film here.

I also have to say that I found myself in agreement with much of Maher’s commentary. While many Christians seem to feel the need to defend religion – at least the Christian religion – from the sort of criticism Maher raises, I think its imperative for followers of Jesus to side with these sorts of criticisms. For the undeniable truth is that religion – including the Christian religion — is often irrational and extremely dangerous.

Fortunately, the kingdom Jesus inaugurated has got nothing to do with religion. Indeed, Jesus’ main opposition came from the guardians of religion, and religion continues to be a main obstacle to the advancement of his kingdom. (For more on this, see my Repenting of Religion). If Maher’s documentary does anything to help people get free of religion, it’s done humanity and the kingdom a great service, in my opinion.

In critique, Greg says:

First, Religulous is utterly devoid of nuances and objectivity. Maher lumps all religion in the same silly and dangerous bucket while never bothering to tell his audience what he means by the term “religion.” One gets the impression that humanity can be divided up into two well defined groups: on the one side you have rational humane people who have no religious beliefs and who simply want to make the world a better place; on the other side you have irrational misanthropic people who have “religious” beliefs and who inhibit progress and threaten the world.

and later...

This brings me to my second, more specific, criticism. Maher provides absolutely no evidence to support his remarkable claim that the Jesus story is a variation of the Horus myth. To his credit, Maher did interview Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome project, about the Gospels (the only educated “religious” person included in the documentary by the way). But Francis Collins is unfortunately an expert in biology, not biblical history. It’s hardly fair to call on him to give a robust defense of the historicity of the Gospels or refutation of the Horus-Jesus theory. (Yet, for all we know, he provided one that was edited out).

The truth is that there are many compelling reasons to conclude that the Gospels are substantially rooted in history, not legend or myth. Paul Eddy and I provide these reasons and argue against all the major Jesus-legend or Jesus-myth theories in The Jesus Legend (Baker, 2007) and (in a much more popular format) in Lord or Legend? (Baker, 2007). Had Maher seriously interacted with this material his documentary would have been much more informative. But it also would have undermined the objective of the film, which was to entertain audiences by making all religion (including faith in Jesus) look silly and dangerous.

What do you think? Have any of you seen the movie? Other than these two blog reviews (on blogs I read regularly) I haven't heard much about it. Has there been a surge against it by the religious right?

Abortion Facts

2008-10-09T00:30:00.002-05:00

As it is nearly election time, the hot topic of abortion is in the air (which only seems to be a big deal in election years, interesting). I thought I'd share some interesting facts a ran across about abortion in the US. I'll leave the analysis to you. (Read the original post here).

Abortion Facts

Half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended.

Almost half of unintended pregnancies end in abortion.

The most frequent reasons given by women seeking an abortion are that a child would limit ability to meet current responsibilities and that they cannot afford a child at this point in their lives.

Unintended pregnancy has increased by 29% among poor women while decreasing 20% among higher-income women.

Women below the federal poverty level have abortion rates almost four times those of higher-income women.

Between 1996 and 2000, while abortion rates for all other groups fell, abortion rates among poor and low-income women increased.

The majority of women having abortions are in their 20s or younger.

Overturning Roe Vs. Wade Will Not End Abortion in America

Overturning Roe Vs. Wade, a long time goal of the pro-life movement, would not end abortion in the United States, it would simply send the decision to the states.

If states with more than 45% "pro-life" sentiment chose to outlaw abortion, this would only impact 16 states accounting for 10% of abortions nationwide, or less than 100,000 abortions a year.

Women in these 16 states would still be able to travel to seek an abortion in another state, or seek an illegal abortion, making the impact likely less than a 10% reduction in abortions nation-wide.

States with the highest abortion rates in the country, like California and New York, would be unlikely to outlaw abortion in their states.

Studies Show that Economic Support for Women and Families Reduces Abortion

In a recent study released by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good finds that social and economic supports such as benefits for pregnant women and mothers and economic assistance to low-income families have contributed significantly to reducing the number of abortions in the United States over the past twenty years.

Economic assistance to low income families is correlated with a 20% lower abortion rate. Across the entire United States, this translates into 200,000 fewer abortions.

In the 1990s, states with more generous grants to women, infants and children under the age of five as provided by the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program had a 37% lower abortion rate.

Higher male employment in the 1990s was associated with a 29% lower abortion rate.

The abortion rate has declined most rapidly from 1990-1996 when there was an economic boom under President Clinton. While rates have continued to decrease, they have declined less rapidly in recent years when poverty rates have been climbing.

Legal Status of Abortion Does Not Necessarily Impact Abortion Rates

Nearly half of all abortions in the world are performed in countries that have made abortion illegal.

The lowest abortion rates in the world - less than 10 per 1,000 women of reproductive age - are in Europe, where abortion is legal and available.

By contrast, in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean, where abortion law is most restrictive, the regional rates are 29 and 31 per 1,000 women, respectively.

These countries are also much poorer than the U.S. and provide fewer social services; and a larger proportion of their population lives in poverty.

In Western European countries, in contrast, where more social services are provided and fewer women live in poverty, the abortion rates are consistently the lowest rates in the world.

Source: Joseph Wright and Michael Bailey, "Reducing Abortion in America : The Effect of Economic and Social Supports" (Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good) and The Guttmacher Institute "An Overview of Abortion in The United States"

A Letter to the Church in the United States

2008-09-26T08:39:00.002-05:00

Here is a letter, apparently written by a group of leaders from the southern part of the world to9 American church. What do you think? (HT Brian McLaren)

August, 2008

TO THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES

As the Church of the Lord in what is known as the "Southern" part of the world, moved by the Holy Spirit to fight for the abundant life that Jesus Christ offers, we address our Christian family in the United States, a Church of the same covenant, faith and love. Grace and Peace to all of our brothers and sisters.

We know your works of love; these works have allowed millions of human beings for many generations in our countries in the South to receive the gospel, the Grace of Jesus Christ and the power of His Salvation. The U.S. church's untiring missionary effort planted in our lands Hope in Him who came to reconcile EVERYTHING.

Nevertheless, the political, social and economic situation in the places where this hope has been announced is increasingly distressing. Millions of people in the global South are dying of hunger, violence and injustice. These situations of poverty and pain are not simply the product of the internal functions of our countries; rather they are the results of the international policies of the governments that wield global power.

Therefore, we have this against you, brothers and sisters, that along with this powerful announcing of the Gospel, the Church from the United States has not also raised its voice in protest against the injustices that powerful governments and institutions are inflicting on the global South - injustices that afflict the lives and ecosystems of millions of people who, centuries after the proclamation of the Gospel, still have not seen the sweat of their brow turned into bread.

The worsening inequality and poverty in the South is alarming. Seven years since the United States and 191 other nations publicly promised to cut extreme global poverty in half by the year 2015 through the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), your country has made only a little progress towards fulfilling its commitments.

The MDGs should stir us to action because they echo the calls of the biblical prophets for justice and equity. Further, they are achievable and measurable markers on the roadmap to end extreme global poverty.

And so we ask you as sisters and brothers, citizens of the wealthiest most powerful nation on earth, to publicly challenge your candidates and political leaders - now and after the elections are over - to lead the world in the struggle to cut global poverty in half by 2015. If you who know the Truth will not speak for us who will?

The Church in the United States has the opportunity today to be faithful to the Hope that it preaches. We urge you to remember that the Hope to which you were called as a messenger demands that you seek first the Kingdom of God and God's justice.

Out of love for us, the global Church, in holiness, use your citizenship responsibly for the benefit of the entire world; it is for this very reason that the Lord poured out His life on the Cross.

All who have ears, let them hear what the Lord says to His Church.

Doug Pagitt on "Emerging Church" vs "Emergence"

2008-09-20T23:50:00.002-05:00

Doug Pagitt has posted this interesting commentary video on the buzz that has been being made about the terms "Emergent Church" and others like it.

Brian McLaren on Being Missional, Parts 3 and 4

2008-09-19T09:39:00.000-05:00

Part 3

Part 4

Brian McLaren on Being Missional, Part 2

2008-09-18T13:26:00.002-05:00

This is my favorite segment of this presentation.

Brian McLaren on Being Missional

2008-09-17T11:16:00.002-05:00

Here is an interesting video of Brian McLaren teaching on what it means to be missional. More of this to come.

Donald Miller on "The Culture War"

2008-09-17T00:31:00.002-05:00

Donald Miller has posted some interesting musings on his blog about media and tension and spin. There was one part I found fascinating.

Watching Hurricane Ike come in (the storm went over my home and family in Houston) you would have thought it was the end of the world. The city of Galveston sent out an alert saying all those who did not evacuate the island faced certain death. More than twenty-thousand people stayed, and nobody died. There were six deaths in Texas related to the storm, which was a decrease from how many people would have died that night were there to have been no storm. All those cars off the streets proved safer than a storm serge and one-hundred-mile-per-hour winds. (This is not to invalidate the devastation caused by the storm, which was severe and tragic) But the media ran with the story because, perhaps, tension keeps us watching. And now that the country can be called to help out in Galveston, the media has moved on to other areas in which it can create tension and sell more advertising.

Thoughts?

Brian McLaren on September 11th

2008-09-11T10:19:00.003-05:00

Since 7 years ago today was when the terroristic events happened against the World Trade Center and other buildings, I thought this video was a good way to remember and to re-calibrate our minds as to how we treat our Muslim neighbors as we move forward. This video was first posted at Emergent Village.

Thoughts?

One Issue Voting and Abortion vs Slavery, Part 2

2008-09-09T09:53:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I tried to draw a clear distinction between the issue of slavery 150 years ago and abortion today, and point out the flaw of right wing fundamentalists equating the two issues as equally clear. Today I want to make some general comments about the abortion issue in politics.

1. Nobody is Pro-Abortion

Let's be clear on that. Certain candidates may be for protecting women's right in this area, but abortion is always seen as less than ideal, for liberals and conservatives alike. Even if you take a stance that abortion hold no moral significance at all, the fact remains that a procedure is necessary that is unnatural and includes some health risks (though about the same or less than going full term). That is why everyone is for reducing abortions. Right wingers would due well to realize this, and attempt to work together.

2. There is some very interesting information about reducing abortions

For example, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good commissioned a study about the factors that contribute to abortion rates rising and falling.

This study is an attempt to estimate how socioeconomic factors and state abortion laws affect the abortion rate. We have found the following measures to be associated with sharp reductions in the abortion rate: WIC beneﬁts, increased male employment, and economic assistance to low-income families. For example, states that spent $1,350 more per person living in poverty showed a 20% decrease in abortion. To put this dollar ﬁgure in context, $1,350 per person in poverty is about $47 billion dollars,22 which is equivalent to the amount tax payers spent on only 18 weeks of funding for the Iraq war in 2007.23 The data show that women respond to robust economic supports by being more likely to carry pregnancies to term. Furthermore, this study ﬁnds that a family cap for families receiving government assistance increases the number of abortions. This study also examines the effect of state abortion laws on the abortion rate. While this study ﬁnds that state laws such as informed and parental consent have not had a signiﬁcant effect on abortion rates, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good continues to support such measures as part of a comprehensive plan to reduce the rate of abortion in the United States.

Here we have a pro-life organization commissioning a study that says laws do very little to deter abortions, but social factors, like government benefits, play a significant role.

It has also been estimated by the Guttmacher Institute shows that if Medicaid coverage was to include contraception for low income women, 200,000 abortions of unwanted pregnancies could be prevented.

But, unfortunately we don't see right wingers working as ferociously to change our country into a place where abortions don't need to happen as they do on getting Roe v. Wade overturned.

3. There are non Roe v. Wade attempts to reduce abortion

For example, consider the 95-10 Initiative.

A comprehensive plan that will reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years by promoting abstinence, personal responsibility, adoptions and support for women and families who are facing unplanned pregnancy.

The 95-10 Initiative seeks to reduce the number of abortions in America through Federal, state and local efforts as well as support and encouragement to volunteers and dedicated people on the front lines helping pregnant women. Much attention has been given to ending abortion or keeping it legal. We believe that we must do more to reduce the abortion rate by helping and supporting pregnant women.

Will there be a day when the left and the right can work together to make abortions minimal? That is what I am hoping for.

May we see beyond the false dichotomy that is created by comparing abortion to slavery. May we stand up for the life of the unborn, but not at the expense of the many other issues that involve protecting life (war, poverty, the death penalty). And may we continue to love and seek the kingdom of God in the way of Jesus as we prepare for the election coming up, remembering that the important question is not "how should we vote," but "how should we live."

Shalom,
-N

One Issue Voting and Abortion vs Slavery

2008-09-08T11:17:00.003-05:00

As is normal in an election year, many fundamentalist and evangelicals are spreading very strong talk about how you have to vote for McCain if you really believe the Bible/are a true Christian/care about what God cares about/have a brain and on and on. I had really hoped that we were beginning to move past all this, but apparently we are not. I think voting is good and that voters should have good, well thought out reasons for voting the way they vote. I have no problem with blogs talking about the issues and discussing reasons (Biblical or otherwise) for taking a certain stance on a certain issue. The problem comes when people crusade against anyone who disagrees with them.

But I'm getting a bit off track. There are pretty much two major critiques that come from the right wing conservative evangelical/fundamentalist camp at those supporting Obama/Biden (or any Democrat for that matter). These issues are abortion and gay unions (though it is often reduced to just abortion). Obama is for upholding Roe v. Wade and for civil unions. McCain is for overturning Roe v. Wade and, though he had been for civil unions in the past, he says on his website that he will protect marriage between one man and one woman, but does not weigh in on civil unions. He may be wording it in the way he is as to not upset his conservative base. But maybe not.

Again, getting a bit off track. Usually the Christians on the right critique the Christians on the left by saying "how could you vote for a candidate that does not want to make abortion illegal?" The response by the Christian could be a number of things (after 6 years of Bush and Republican house and senate nothing has been done, outlawing it is not going to solve the problem, protecting a woman's right to choose etc.). The most common critique from the left back to the right is to say "I'm not a one issue voter." The right sometimes responds by saying that a 150 years ago one issue voters ended slavery because that issue was so obvious. They reason that the modern day situation is the same, that we simply need to stand once and for all and get Roe v. Wade overturned, just like Lincoln and the north did with slavery.

But I think it is important to draw a clear distinction between slavery 150 years ago and abortion today. I can think of at least two pretty important reasons.

1. There is no ambiguity when it comes to slavery.

When we talk about slavery, there are some pretty clear cut realities. There is a slave owner, owning and mistreating another human being as property. There was of course talk in the day that people of a different color were not as valuable as white people (and horrifyingly, some Christian denominations even used scriptural support to defend this idea). But, pretty soon it became clear to the majority that a human being owning and torturing another was wrong.

Compare that with today. In the mind of a fundamentalist/evangelical on the right, there is no ambiguity in abortion. A mother is torturing and murdering her own child. But to a non biased person who is taking an honest look at the issue, it is not so clear. It was Augustine who first said that the soul is created at conception. But, in the case with twins, the zygote separates after conception. In this case, do the twins share a soul? Or does one twin have a soul and the other not? At what point does the fetus become a full person? Is the morning after pill as bad as partial birth abortions? If abortion became illegal, should women who have abortions be punished as severely as people who murder children or adults? If a lab caught on fire, and you had the choice to save an infant or a petri dish with five fertilized embryos, which should you save? To what extent should the government make these decisions as opposed to letting each woman decide for herself?

Whereas slavery is very clear, the abortion issue raises a whole host of questions that may not have clear cut, obvious answers. It doesn't seem right, then, to equate the two.

2. Unlike abortion, slavery does not effect the health and body of the mother/owner

This is the lesser of the two points, but the fact remains: the domain of the issue we are discussing is inside a woman's body. That is not true for slavery. There are some very real questions that we need to ask about what rights a woman has over what to do with her body and what goes on inside her body. Regardless of how we decide this plays into the abortion issue, the fact remains that this clearly distinguishes this issue from slavery.

I will post more about this tomorrow, but until then, may we continue to think deeply on these issues and be fair and loving to those who disagree with us.

Doug Pagitt on ACWB, Videos 6 and 7

2008-09-07T00:15:00.000-05:00

It has been a while since I posted one of these, but here are the next two in this series of videos that Doug is using to promote his book. Doug listed these as videos 7 and 8, but I'm pretty sure they are numbers 6 and 7. The topics are "Jesus" and "Heaven".

Video 6

Video 7

A Historical Perspective on the Economy

2008-09-06T09:33:00.002-05:00

Sorry that the posts have been so political lately. But, when in Rome, right?

Scott McKnight linked to a very interesting article that looks historically (since WW2) at how the economy has done under Republicans vs Democrats. What would you guess the results are?

The article rates the parties on two categories: 1) average annual gross national product (i.e. what percentage more does the average person make after a year) and the second is 2) a look at the effect on income inequality (i.e. the rich get richer and the poor get poorer).

The stark contrast between the whiz-bang Clinton years and the dreary Bush years is familiar because it is so recent. But while it is extreme, it is not atypical. Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.

That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut.

Pretty significant.

It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980.

Thus, it seems from the evidence that the economy sees greater health and fruit when a Democrat is in office than when a Republican is.

Here is where I want to go with this: I have a friend who anytime we talk about the thriving economy under Clinton and the struggling economy under Bush, he attributes Clinton's success to Regan's work and Bush's failure to Clinton. He, of course, is extremely Republican. This study seems to refute that thinking, doesn't it? I mean a patters on "misattribution" could not continue for 70 years, could it?

Thoughts?

Doug Pagitt on Sarah Palin's Speech

2008-09-06T00:39:00.002-05:00

Here is an interesting and funny perspective on Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican National Convention by Doug Pagitt. You can find more stuff like this at Doug's blog.

Thoughts?

Voting for the President

2008-09-05T10:21:00.002-05:00

A reader on Scot McKnight's Jesus Creed blog sent in a letter asking about the upcoming election. He admitted he was torn on who to vote for. Among other things, he says:

Does placing “no confidence in redemption by way of politics” justify a least-of-two-evils vote in November? Does voting for a candidate who I know will support immoral policies not implicate me with those policies? Would it be better to conscientiously abstain from voting? Or is that simply a moralistic cop-out? Should I perhaps consider voting for one of the “protest candidates” like Ron Paul, who I know won’t win but still allows me to do my “duty” to vote?

Scot responded saying a number of things. Here is a taste.

On November 4 I will vote; in the evening Kris and I will watch the TV as it enters into the lather of not only reporting news but making the news.

More importantly, on November 5 I will get up and go about my business no matter who gets elected. There will be people who need to hear about Jesus; there will be people who are suffering from systemic injustices; there will be people abusing power; there will be good reasons to drink coffee and eat lunch with colleagues and prepare dinner and go for a walk with Kris before supper. Changing Presidents will not end those needs and those problems and those parts of my life. So, my task as a Christian is to follow Jesus by loving God and loving others as well as I can. Changing Presidents won’t change that one bit. I don’t see that either candidate has the intent of depriving us of these things.

He goes on to say:

Now one more way of saying this: my eschatology, or my hope, is not in who will be the next President. I hope in the power of the gospel that flows from God’s good graces toward us humans. I hope in the God who designs that gospel; I hope in the Christ who embodies that gospel; and I hope in the Spirit who empowers that gospel. And I hope also in the Church whose task it is daily to live out the gospel and draw all into its saving graces. I don’t hope in the next President. I think that is idolatrous. In fact, hoping in the next President is the first step toward idolizing empire.

So my friend, I approach this election as a Christian who finds it important, significant, and incredibly fascinating, but who also finds it not as important as the task Jesus has given to us as his followers.

I think he makes some good points. I think voting is good, and I plan too. But may we remember that our hope does not lie in whomever gets elected on November 4th. The reason this is important is because many in our nation pretend that the future of our civilization depends on this election (as they do for all elections). May we strike a good balance of seeing voting as a good right, but not as our hope for the future.

Thoughts On Politics

2008-09-02T09:51:00.003-05:00

Well, both candidates have selected their running mates. With the Democratic National Convention over and the Republican National Convention going on this week, we are about to move into the final few months of this race. Everything is becoming more charged up politically. I usually stay a bit removed from politics here at Nick's Musings, other than a video here or there to make you think. But I thought I would take this opportunity to share some general thoughts about this election. Here we go:

1. Neither Candidate is a Savior. We are starting to hear this from both sides. "Obama is the hope for America" or "McCain is a true American Hero." Both are loaded marketing ploys. Neither are true. We see this marketing strategy happen every election though: convince the voters that there is something to be lost if your candidate is not elected. Create fear. The truth is, neither candidate is going to save us or our nation. I don't want to downplay change too much, because I believe whoever gets elected can make change, but our salvation or the future of our nation does not depend on it. Which leads me to my second point.

2. Neither Candidate is the Anti-Christ. The mud slinging is about to reach a fever pitch. I honestly think the candidates in this election respect one another, so we are seeing less from them disrespecting each other. They seem to be attacking each others voting records and connections than their character, which is a positive. But even thought these candidates are treating each other with more respect (and perhaps because), there is a ton of mud slinging going on by others. The small mindedness of the things I hear drives me crazy. Both of these guys are great men who love their country. Neither is the spawn of Satan. Neither is a communist or a Muslim. So, if you have a candidate that you like, please don't resort to childish name-calling. Don't resort to the vilification and demonization that is so common in politics today.

3. You are starting to see Christianity at its absolute worst. I don't know why, but Evangelical Christians wait until election time to rear their true ugliness. I understand believing in a cause, and believing strongly, but since when did it become Jesus-like to hurl insults at anyone who disagrees, question their salvation, and act in a spirit of hate? That is not the Jesus I read about. What happened to loving your enemies? So what happens is this group of activists works themselves up into a huff, demonizes the candidate they don't like and anybody who considers what that candidate has to say, all the while it becomes clear to all those outside that Christianity (at least the version we have some to see in 21st century Cmerica) is not about love. In the mean time, the homeless do not get homes, the starving do not get food, and why? Because we have an election to win, right?

If you do feel it necessary to make this election a significant part of your life this year, please do those three things: Don't think one candidate is the savior, or that another is the Anti-Christ, and (if you're a Christian) don't become an embarrassment to Jesus in the way that you carry yourself in these next couple months. Lastly, and most importantly, remember the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is not the conservatives or the liberals, America or another country, black or white, male or female. The Kingdom of God is about loving God and loving people. May we keep that in our minds and hearts as we continue forward to see what these next few months bring us.

Donald Miller, the politician

2008-08-29T09:19:00.001-05:00

This is a video interview done with Donald Miller by Christianity Today a few minutes before he gave the benediction at the Democratic National Convention. He is offering his opinions on the current state of politics, the Democratic party, abortion, and other issues as well.

I largely agree with what he has to say. Your thoughts and responses?

PS: If you want to keep going, here is another interview he did with Christianity today. He covers some of the same ground, but new ground as well.

Donald Miller, Again

2008-08-28T10:46:00.002-05:00

You may know that Donald Miller offered the closing prayer at the Democratic National Convention last night. Here is a video of the prayer, followed by the transcript.

"Father God,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lastly, father, unify us.

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

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

God we know that you are good.

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

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

Let Him be our example.

Amen."

Donald Miller's Blog

2008-08-28T10:27:00.002-05:00

Donald Miller officially has a blog site now. He had had a website, where you could order his books and he would leave notes and stuff. But this new blog is more interactive, where readers are able to leave comments. His first entry is sharing a series of emails he exchanged with Barrack Obama which is some crazy funny stuff. Check it out.

How did you get my e-mail address? I signed up on a clip board a cute hippie handed me, did you get my address from her? Do you know her? Can you ask her to call me? Anyway, no biggie, just cool that you wrote.

I wanted to talk to you after the rally but the guy with the curly earphones said you were busy. As for your e-mail, I don’t remember saying “the time has come to get beyond the same old tactics that divide and distract us,” but that’s exactly how I feel. I say a lot of things I don’t remember. My roommate Jordan said I said he could eat my leftover calzone from Pizzicatta but I don’t remember saying that and I know I was planning on having it for breakfast the next day.

There is a lot more, and all of Don's responses are in the classic Donald Miller smart aleck form. Quite a way to talk to a presidential candidate.

Podcast #2: Scripture As Art

2008-08-26T12:56:00.003-05:00

Well friends, the podcast a friend and I started recording recently is up and can be accessed here. Don't forget to check out the first one as well.

In this episode, Josh and I discuss worship gatherings, the role of art (namely images) in worship gatherings, the nature of scripture, the Ten Commandments and more. Check it out and join the conversation by posting a comment.

The Blue Parakeet: A Much Needed Lesson on Reading the Bible

2008-08-24T14:48:00.005-05:00

Scot McKnight has written a new book due out in November called The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible. I read an advance copy this week, and let me say this: I can't say it is Scot's best book, but it is definitely the best one that I've read.

The title of the book is a metaphor based on an actual experience that Scot had while bird-watching in his back yard. A "Blue Parakeet" is, in my own words, something that is outside one's bandwidth, outside his or her paradigm or worldview. To be specific, Scot says that there are certain biblical passages that many of us miss because they don't fit within our theological systems. Most of us either ignore them completely ("I never knew THAT was in the Bible") or we dismiss them for another reason ("that verse REALLY means..."). Scot argues that in order to be good students of scripture and faithful readers of the text, we need to examine and deal with the "Blue Parakeet" passages. This is the metaphor that drives the book.

This is such a needed indictment! How many of us claim to purely and objectively read the Bible (yeah right!), when in reality there are entire streams of faith that are clearly addressed in scripture that we do not pay attention to because they are outside of our theological spectrum? On one occasion several years ago, a colleague of mine was asked how a bigger church in our area could do so well while ignoring a certain practice that "our church" stressed. His response was "I guess they just think they can ignore that part of the Bible." It hit me like a ton of bricks. I wanted to shout "We all do that! We all ignore parts! We are just as guilty as they are!" And that is the point, isn't it? We all have blind spots in our theology. Scot's book does a great job of making us see this.

The book starts off by Scot explaining his faith background and spiritual upbringing, followed by the story behind the title (chapters 1 and 2, which serve as introductions). Both are great. He says, "I began to see that Christians read the Bible differently and I began to see that no one group seemed to get it all right." (pg 18). Next, Scot begins to unpack how Christians read the Bible, starting with the wrong ways (inkblot method, puzzle method etc.). He then moves to explaining what the Bible is (a wiki-story). This section, where he is explaining what the Bible is and is not, in my opinion, is the best part of the book. Scot is drawing on his experience of working with college students and diagnosing the inappropriate reading habits of those who read the Bible. As he says, "We need twenty-first-century Christians living out the biblical gospel in twenty-first-century ways" (pg 28).

From here, he moves on to sections titled "Listening: What Do I Do With the Bible?" and "Discerning: How Do I Benefit From the Bible?". Here Scot lays out his method for reading, interpreting, and relating to both God and the Bible. "The biblical way is the ongoing adoption of the past and adaptation to new conditions and to do this in a way that is consistent with and faithful to the Bible" (pg 29), he says. That would be, in its simplest form, Scot method: adopt and adapt. He continues later, saying, "We dare not ignore what God has said to the church through the ages...nor dare we fossilize past interpretations into traditionalism" (pg 34). The highlight for me in these sections was chapter 10 titled "Finding the Pattern of Discernment," and, specifically pages 131-144 where Scot gives a number of examples of putting the interpretation into practice, including circumcision, tongues, and divorce.

Scot finishes the book with five chapters of practical application, using the example of women in ministry as way to demonstrate how to appropriately interpret scripture. It is helpful to have this practical example at the end, with significant space alloted to it, even if you have already dealt with and come to terms with the issue he is addressing.

The Blue Parakeet is definitely one to put on your must read list. Whether you know it or not, you have blind spots, and we could all use a friendly diagnosis from Dr. Scot. But as you read, remember that all of our reading and studying is worthless if it does not lead us closer to God and help us live more like Jesus. As Scot says, "Any reading and any interpretation that does not lead to good works, both as the practical application and as the behavioral result, aborts what the Bible is designed to produce" (pg 111).

Brian McLaren and Richard Land in Conversation

2008-08-20T10:53:00.003-05:00

This is a great conversation between Brian McLaren, progressive, emergent thinker and writer, and Richard Land, conservative, author, and Southern Baptist leader. I have been a fan of McLaren for a long time. He is one of my favorite authors and thinkers within the Emergent movement. I appreciate the grace he has for those who disagree with him. I have to confess, I was expecting not to like Richard Land. I guess a little prejudice against Southern Baptists was exposed in my heart. But as it turned out, I loved Richard Land. Like McLaren he had the same grace and the same disgust with the system that has pitted liberals and conservatives against each other. So, give it a list, and feel free to comment.

May we continue to dialogue with those who are different than us.

NOOMA Video "She" Available Online for 48 hours

2008-08-18T12:18:00.002-05:00

Rob Bell's newest NOOMA video is out. It is titled "She" and is available for preview online for 48 hours (ending Wednesday, 8-20 at noon). The focus of this video is the balance between the male and female images of God in the Bible, as well as the role of women. It really is an amazing episode.

If you have never seen a NOOMA video, do yourself a favor and watch this one. In fact, go to the website and order a few. You won't be sorry. "Rain", "Bullhorn", "Rich", and "Open" are a few of my favorites.

So...

What do you think of "She"?

What are your favorite NOOMA videos?

I am Currently Reading...

2008-08-16T10:42:00.000-05:00

...several books that you may be interested in hearing about.

1. The Fire That Consumes is a historic work written in the 1970's dealing with the doctrine of final punishment. I have posted previously about conditionalism and have even communicated with the author, Edward W. Fudge, a bit. This is the mammoth work on conditionalism (the idea that immortality is conditional, the righteous go onto everlasting life, whereas the wicked parish and are no more). This work deal with every passage, Old Testament, New Testament, Apocrypha, Pseudopigrapha, Early Church and more that talks about final punishment. I'm about 200 pages through the 500 page work and loving it.

2. Preaching Re-Imagined is another of Doug Pagitt's books. In it he shares a new vision for what the "word" or simply the communication element in communities of faith. He distinguishes between "speeching", which is one voice doing all the talking, and preaching, which he thinks should involve many voices. I'm not too far into it, but so far it is classic Doug Pagitt: insightful and controversial.

3. A is for Abductive is written as an "A-to-Z" manual on the terms used in postmodern, emerging culture. Really though, it is a book about the transition between modernity and postmodernity, which is perhaps my favorite topic to read about right now. If I was writing a dissertation, that would be central to the topic. i'm about halfway through and already it seems brilliant. It offers great commentary on postmodern terms like abductive (i.e. the form of preaching that is story and narrative based), deconstruction, and others.

4. The Blue Parakeet is the book that put the other three on hold. This is a book that Scot McKnight and Zondervan gave me an advance copy to review for you here on Nick's Musings. When something like that happens, you give it priority. I'm only through the introduction, but so far I'm impressed. You can expect a full review in the next week or so.

So, what are you reading?

A Commission to Students

2008-08-16T10:10:00.002-05:00

Tyler Priest of the Priesthood and Emergent Village have posted A Blessing and Commission for Students. I always liked August and September in student ministry. Though the students were always dreading school starting back up and the summer coming to an end, there was great energy that came with the fall. We were always able to launch fun new series'. Our programming was high. Our attendance was high. It was a fun time! It is perhaps unfortunate the the lives of adults can't have more scheduled ups and downs. Anyway, without further ado, for all of the students out there, or any of us adults who have a soft spot in our hearts for students, here is a commission.

as you start this new year of school, we send you out with our blessings. we want you to know that along with God, we are walking with you. you are not alone. you belong to God, and we belong to each other.

when you walk down the halls, remember that we are on mission together with Jesus. in the midst of friendships, classes, games, performances, and events, may you remember that we are sent to bring heaven to earth, to be salt that heals and light that pierces darkness.

so go out, befriend the lonely and hurting, give hope to the hopeless, rise above the popularity contests that have trapped so many. give your best effort in the classroom, always seek the truth, ask hard questions, and never settle for easy answers. take every though captive and make it obedient to the way of Christ.

go and have fun. live lightly and enjoy this year. don’t spend too much time looking forward to next semester or next year or even next week. live in the now. do not worry. because of Christ, you are free to be your true self, the self you were created to be.

when you’re tempted, remember that there is always a way out. don’t crumble to peer pressure. instead, may you find that nothing will satisfy you—absolutely nothing will satisfy you—unless it is a gift from God. so may you have the wisdom to discern that which is from God and that which is not. and may you have the courage to live out that wisdom.

we send you out with the prayer that as you move about campus, you will carry deep in your heart the undying fire for our King and his kingdom. in this school year, may it be the kingdom that you seek first, that you hope for, and work for, above everything else. amen.

Podcast #1: Discussion

2008-08-11T21:03:00.006-05:00

Well, it's up! Josh and I recorded and posted our first podcast episode. If you enjoy what you see on this site, I invite you to tune in and check us out. The title of our podcast is Peidalion (pronounced PAY-DOLL-EE-ON) and it is the greek word for rudder, like the rudder of a ship, one of the comparisons used in the book of James for the tongue. But, we explain all of that in the first podcast. We welcome any and all feedback and invite you to join the discussion!

Click here to go to the podcast.

We hope to be in the iTunes store soon, so I will let you know.

-N

UPDATE: We are now officially up on the iTunes store. You can fine us by searching for Peidalion in the iTunes store and subscribe there. Our next podcast should be out in the next week. Shalom!

The Dog Days of Summer Mean Few Posts

2008-08-09T10:20:00.003-05:00

Blogging has been slow around Nicks Musings as of late. Will you allow me this opportunity to apologize for applying merely a thin coat of the topics that have become regular? Should I offer as a defense the business of the summer months, or a bit of a drop in inspiration as my reading decreases in the summer, or that it appears most blogs, at least the ones I frequent have all seemed to follow the same trend of sporadic posting recently? Of course this does not apply to Scot McKnight, who even in the summer posts 3X a day. But then again, Scot is the Michael Jordan of biblioblogging.

But, regardless of whether you accept my lame excuses, let me give you an update of some of the new things in my life.

1. Community: In June of this year, Angela and I had a friend move into our apartment with us. He is a friend we both went to college with and have remained close friends for years. We started talking about the idea of living in community a few years ago, and then kind of dropped it, but picked it up again earlier this year. So, you must be thinking "Why would a married couple want to have another person live with them?" Good question. We feel that hospitality is a blessing to all (both the guest and the host) and that life in community is a beautiful thing. We enjoy sharing experiences in community. If that does not make sense to you, it's okay. We have certainly gotten a collection of weird looks as we explain this to people. Some seem to treat us as if we are joining a cult or something. But, when we do something that is countercultural and even anti-American (contrary to the American pattern of independence and isolation), we should expect to get some weird looks, yes?

2. Podcast: Josh (the friend living with us) happens to be a student of theology like me, and since we have such great and challenging conversations, the idea came to me a few weeks ago to start doing a podcast. We are in the process of producing a regular podcast that will deal with similar issues as this blog, and are currently wrestling with hosting issues and how much it will cost us. so, if you know much about this or can point me to any good sites with affordable hosting, I'd appreciate it. More on the podcast to come.

3. House Hunt: With the real estate market being in the dumps as it is, it has meant hardship for millions of American families facing foreclosure. As sad as that is, if you wanted to see a silver lining, and there are probably several, one is that it is a great time to buy.. Angela and I started looking at houses seriously a few months ago. We put in an offer a few weeks ago that got shot down, and anther on a different property on which we are waiting to hear back. So, literally any day we could hear that we have had an offer accepted on a house. These are exciting-though sometimes frustrating-times. We will keep you posted.

4. Grad School: I am now only about 6 weeks away from the start of the Masters of Divinity program at Bethel Seminary. It seems it was so long ago that I applied and was accepted, and now it is getting close! It will mean all the joys (and pains) of reading textbooks, writing papers, discussing in class (my favey!), and better managing time. I can't wait!

5. Lost: Josh has gotten me into the show Lost. I had only seen one episode ever, so recently I started from the beginning and am now about a third of the way into season three. I have to say, it is an amazing show. The brilliance comes from the number and depth of the characters. Any other Lost fans out there? If so, feel free to comment, but don't post spoilers!!!

6. Ink: I got another tattoo a few weeks ago. You may remember my first about a year ago. If so, you may know that I am into tattoos having great meaning, rather than just being trendy. This latest one is Numbers 6:26 "May Yahweh lift his face towards you and give you peace" in Hebrew on my left arm. It turned out great!!!

That will do for now. Thanks for tuning in. I hope the posting will get more frequent soon enough.

Shalom.

-N

A Philosophical Review of The Dark Knight

2008-07-25T13:41:00.004-05:00

If you have not seen the new Batman movie The Dark Knight, you really should. It is definitely worth seeing in the theater. Heath Ledger plays an outstanding Joker and steals the show from nearly the first scene.

Many have already seen and loved this movie. Among those is Greg Boyd, who offer a philosophical review of the movie. Check it out here (WARNING: Spoiler Alert!!!). You can also check out Greg's new website here. Greg's thoughts on the movie are profound.

Here's a taste.

The Dark Knight brilliantly explores the nature of order and chaos. The Joker is a Nietzscheian ubermensch (superman) who lives in a mindless, immoral, chaotic world. He believes order (e.g. societal rules, ethics) amounts to nothing more than artificial constraints cowardly people impose on reality. He exists to expose the joke of our pseudo-orderly world.

And Later.

Along the same lines, The Dark Knight ingeniously explores how easy it is to become the evil that we fight. The Chief Commissioner (Harvey) initially is an uncompromising selfless hero who wants to rid Gotham City of its criminals. But as he suffers personal losses at the hands of evil he is slowly transformed into evil. Instead of overcoming evil with good — which Batman sort of does — he is overcome by evil. He comes to agree with the Joker that anarchy is the most fundamental reality. Hence he believes all order is ultimately futile.

Give it a read and share your thoughts.

America with a God-Directed History?

2008-07-13T14:53:00.003-05:00

Andy over at Think Christian has a great post asking some questions about the history of America.

An article at Touchstone is raising these questions by looking back at The Light and the Glory, “one of the most widely read nonfiction Christian books of all time.” I’ve not read it, but apparently it retells the history of the United States from a “Christian view”—that is, it interprets US history as the story of God actively intervening to shape and preserve a particular nation and way of life. Christopher Columbus stumbled across North America not by luck, but at the urging of the invisible hand of providence. American victories in the Revolutionary War weren’t just the result of human cleverness or luck; they were instances of God nudging history in the right direction.

And later:

Now I really want to track down a copy of this book. Not because I think I’d agree with it—on the contrary, it honestly sounds a little alarming. It’s one thing to believe (as most Christians do) that God oversees and controls events throughout history, but there’s a certain presumptuousness in claiming to be able to recognize not just patterns, but specific points at which God stepped into human affairs and pushed things in the right direction. And then there’s the subtle implication that God’s sovereignty plays out not through a divine authority over all of human history, but through a series of brief interventions interspersed with long periods of presumed inactivity.

He hits the nail on the head at the end:

I’m interested in reading more, but I think The Light and the Glory’s approach should at the very least set off warning bells in our minds. It’s especially suspicious when your vision of providential history coincidentally casts your own country and society as the God-ordained protagonist.

Thoughts?

Doug Pagitt on ACWB, Video 5

2008-06-29T14:42:00.002-05:00

Greg Boyd and the Mennonites

2008-06-29T13:54:00.001-05:00

Greg Boyd has written an interesting piece on the Mennonite Community, seen here.

There is a beautiful and powerful grassroots Kingdom movement arising all over the globe that Mennonites in particular need to notice. Millions of people are abandoning the Christendom paradigm of the traditional Christian faith in order to become more authentic followers of Jesus. From the Emergent Church movement to the Urban Monastic Movement to a thousand other independent groups and movements, people are waking up to the truth that the Kingdom of God looks like Jesus and that the heart of Christianity is simply imitating him. Millions are waking up to the truth that followers of Jesus are called to love the unlovable, serve the oppressed, live in solidarity with the poor, proclaim Good News to the lost and be willing to lay down our life for our enemies. Multitudes are waking up to the truth that the distinctive mark of the Kingdom is the complete rejection of all hatred and violence and the complete reliance on love and service of others, including our worst enemies. Masses of people are waking up to the truth that followers of Jesus aren't called to try to win the world by acquiring power over others but by exercising power under others -- the power of self-sacrificial love.

I'm considering checking out some Mennonite churches in the area. I deeply respect their values of peace, love, and acceptance. Have any of you had experience with Mennonite churches?

Donald Miller: Biking for Justice

2008-06-28T10:52:00.003-05:00

This is a video where Donald Miller explains a project he is doing this summer to raise money for Blood:Water Mission called the Ride:Well Bike Tour.

I have been a fan and financial supporter of Blood:Water mission for a few years, a group who focuses on providing clean water for African villages by digging wells. I encourage you to check out the ministry and the bike tour.

ACWB, Video 4

2008-06-11T11:15:00.002-05:00

Here is the 4th video that Doug Pagitt is posting to promote his new book A Christianity Worth Believing (which you can find my review of here).

We will be having an interview with Doug about the book here on Nicksmusings.com in the next couple weeks. So, stay tuned, and buy the book.

Doug Pagitt on ACWB, Video 3

2008-06-02T12:11:00.003-05:00

Doug Pagitt has posted the third video promoting his new book A Christianity Worth Believing (which you can find my review of here). This video points to my favorite part of the book, chapter 2 titled "Passion Play", which tells the story of Doug's conversion. If you haven't ordered this book yet, you should definitely do so soon. The third video is below, or you can watch a High Definition version here.

Thoughts?

Beware, by Don Heatley

2008-06-01T11:19:00.003-05:00

Here is a fascinating article posted on the Emergent Village Blog about traditional churches reacting against Emergent churches in their area and warning others to stay away. Very funny and thought provoking, I thought.

[Our Church] has never used any conjugation of the verb “emerge” in any of our ads. My theory is that this fear of Vision all began in someone’s inbox. Sandwiched between warnings of hypodermic needles hidden in the coin return slots of pay phones and claims that Barack Obama is a Muslim, this person read an email claiming that different Christianity equals Emergent, and Emergent equals dangerous. Informed only by anti-emergent websites, they went looking for an “Exhibit A” and found it in my church. How ironic that Emergent, which is often criticized for not defining itself, can be so easily defined by its critics. I propose a new tag line for “this thing of ours” (to use a New Jersey term). Rather than “Emergent: A Generative Friendship,” I propose “Emergent: We’re like pornography. You know it when you see it.”

Let me know what you think.

Doug Pagitt on ACWB, Video 2

2008-05-29T14:07:00.004-05:00

This is the second promo video for A Christianity Worth Believing by Doug Pagitt. Please consider reading the book. This promo raises the question that becomes one of the main points in the book: Is God "up and out" or "down and in"?

These videos are so well made. I love the music setting the mood. Thoughts?

On Peace and War

2008-05-26T09:38:00.004-05:00

As it is Memorial day, I thought it might be good to do some thinking about peace and war.

I first heard this message from Brian McLaren a few months ago, and was deeply move at the thought put into it as well as the attitude of grace for all involved. It is basically Brians's attempt to write a letter/sermon to President Bush shortly before the war in Iraq broke out. Here are some quotes:

Jesus also said, though, that in our serpentine cleverness, we must remain as guileless as a dove, pure in heart as peacemakers, because the God who is real is a God of peace. Whatever clever tactics we must use to seek to prevent war, however we must bare our teeth and expose our claws to dissuade our attackers, we must reverence the harmless dove (God’s Spirit) who flies among us, within us. I have been asking myself what it means to be a true Christian in a time like this, facing war yet loving and seeking peace, wise as a serpent, yet innocent as a dove.

Whenever we talk of war, and if we must go to war, we must do so with sadness for all concerned. Jesus said we are to love our enemies, and if we love people, to see beloved enemies as the targets of bullets and bombs is a tragic thing.

In this war, Mr. President, if war must happen, I wonder if you would make history by being the first president to share the death toll of our enemy, not as a score of victory, but as another tragic cost of war? I wonder if you could teach the American people to mourn the death of Iraqi mothers’ sons along with our own? I wonder if you could, in this way, deepen our dread and hatred of war, so that if this war happens, it will bring us one war closer to the end of the nightmare, and the beginning of God’s dream for us?

And third, Mr. President, if I were the one being attacked, I would wish that my enemies would spend at least two dollars to repair whatever damage each dollar of weaponry caused. Jesus talked about walking the second mile, and perhaps today he would talk about paying the second dollar. If this means raising taxes, Mr. President, I for one will pay twice the taxes to have the chance to do right to the Iraqi people after the war – if we must go to war.
This would, I realize, triple the cost of war for us. But that would not be a bad thing at all. I think you’ll agree: war should be costly, too costly. A cheap, convenient, easy war could make it easy for us to become barbarians, abusing the power and wealth which we have been given, and for which we will be held accountable as stewards. When we add the high cost of postwar rebuilding to the high cost of war to begin with, we will be more likely to seek creative alternatives to war. We may realize that it would be a bargain to be more generous, to use our money to make friends through wise generosity and humanitarian development rather than using it to make enemies through foreign war.

The full text is here.

The mp3 audio with introduction and Q&A is here. You really should listen to it, as McLaren's heart comes across better in audio than on paper.

Enjoy. All honor and peace to our veterans today, and the precious memories are with us of those who have given their lives for causes.

Doug Pagitt on ACWB

2008-05-26T09:25:00.002-05:00

This is a great video where Doug Pagitt gives an introduction to his new book A Christianity Worth Believing. I previously reviewed the book here. You should definitely read it.

So, what do you think?

There should be more to follow.

New Address

2008-05-25T16:32:00.002-05:00

Alright everyone, update your bookmarks. I have purchased the domain www.nicksmusings.com and have attached it to this blog. It is much cleaner and more professional that having the tacky "blogspot" name in the address. Everything else should remain the same.

Thanks to everyone who takes a moment to read what I write.

Shalom,
NF

Emergent/Reformed Conversation

2008-05-24T11:02:00.002-05:00

There are two groups of young Christ followers that are getting some pub currently. One is a group with whom I identify, Emergent, that is seeking to communicate the message of Jesus and seek to follow after him in a pluralistic, postmodern world. The other is a group who belong to the Reformed tradition. For those who may not know, Reformed basically refers to a movement that teaches and believes in Calvinism (i.e. TULIP, predestination etc.). Where Emergents identify with Tony Jones, Brian McLaren, and Doug Pagitt, the Reformed crowd identifies with John Piper and Mark Driscoll.

A conversation too place recently between people in these two camps that was very respectful and very interesting. Each, Tony Jones and Colin Hansen, have written a book in their respective movement recently. It is in three parts, and there may be more coming. Enjoy.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Our Changing World

2008-05-24T10:56:00.004-05:00

This is a very interesting video (HT:VC) about changes that are taking place in our world. If it is to be trusted (and it seems to be trustworthy), it provides some very interesting thoughts about our future and our children's future.

Thoughts? Any educators out there who want to weigh in?

Brian McLaren on Justice and Power

2008-05-07T11:54:00.000-05:00

Here is another of the insightful videos filled with thoughtful wisdom from Brian McLaren.

Thoughts?

Brian McLaren on the Kingdom of God

2008-05-02T13:52:00.000-05:00

Here is another great video of Brian McLaren offering a different perspective on the faith.

Thoughts?

Overused Terms Used Wrongly

2008-05-01T10:41:00.000-05:00

Here are a pair of terms that I hear used wrongly all the time, particularly in the context of the Church. This has been bugging me for awhile, so I have to get it off my chest.

Literally...

People use this term incorrectly all the time. The choices in literature or verbal communication are figurative, that is you don't mean exactly what you are saying, you are using comparisons, analogies etc. to make your point, or literal, meaning you mean exactly what you are saying.

Example. On Sunday my pastor was talking about being on the fence, obviously referring to a place of non-commitment, caution etc. At one point he made the statement, "Some of you are still on the fence, literally...". Since we were all sitting in chairs, it is pretty obvious that none of us were literally sitting on a fence! This is one of hundreds of examples I hear of this being misused. A couple others are "I was literally rolling on the floor laughing...". This actually could be true, but it very seldom is. Another: "I'm literally starving." No, you're not, and all of the children of Africa who are literally starving resent that remark.

Exponential...

Here is another one that is misused in the church all the time: exponential, when referring to growth or number comparisons etc. Perhaps I should be less hard on this one, because I suppose it could be exaggeration, but it just doesn't seem they mean to exaggerate when I hear people use it. In addition, some actually combine a use of "exponential" with the term "literally"!

Let me explain. If you have even a sixth grade education in math, you know how exponents work. 2 raised to the 2nd power means 2X2, which equals 4. 2 to the 3rd is 2X2X2 which is 8, and on and on. To be fair, there are fraction exponents that are less than 2 but higher than one, but, to keep it simple, we are assuming they are talking about exponents of 2 and higher. So, for a church of 100 people to add 25 people, even 100 people in a weekend is not exponential growth. Exponential growth by a church of 100 would be a minimum of 100X100, or 10,000 new people. See, so it a ridiculous exaggeration to describe growth in terms of exponential. One true example of exponential grown is the early church, where 11 disciples and a few women became the seed to a movement that added thousands every day. That is exponential growth. Doubling a small group is not.

Sorry for being cantankerous. Thanks for your grace.

Teacher Forced to Resign For Questioning

2008-04-30T12:41:00.004-05:00

Think Christian has reported on an interesting story about a High School Bible Teacher at NorthPoint Christian school, Kent Dobson, who hosted a show on the Discovery channel that questioned some elements of the Bible.

Dobson, the 31-year-old son of retired Calvary Church pastor Ed Dobson, resigned his post as Bible teacher at NorthPointe Christian High School last week after the school board questioned his role in the March 16 special, “Jesus: The Missing History.”
On the hourlong program, Dobson questioned biblical scholars on possible contradictions between the Gospels and the historical evidence of Jesus’ life. The questions included:

Was Bethlehem Jesus’ birthplace?
Was Jesus a carpenter or a stone mason?
Was Jesus’ eviction of money changers from the temple a political or religious move?
Is there any truth in the Gnostic gospels?
In the program, which is not scheduled for rebroadcast, Dobson does not definitively answer the questions or take a position. He interviews biblical scholars who present evidence that contradicts the Bible.

Here are some excerpts of the program:

The result was a flood of letters/emails from the parents of students at the school calling for action to be taken. The result was a board hearing, and pressure to resign. In the emails was included this little gem:

We understand that this was done with unbelievers and that parts of this were edited.

The part that actually concerns me that as a Christian the Bible was questioned. The Bible is never to be questioned!

Why as a Christian would one place himself in this type of situation where we would actually be questioning the Bible. (Boldness added, but the exclamation point was original)

Sure, we should never question the Bible. In fact, we should never question anything! We should just accept everything we hear as truth and never investigate anything!

Come on. I'm exaggerating to make a point. This really saddens me. Isn't the educational experience supposed to be less about indoctrination and more about competing ideas and viewpoints? Shouldn't we trust high schoolers to think and wrestle with evidence, ideas, and claims? Isn't all truth God's truth?

Suffice it to say, I completely disagree with this decision and think it runs contrary to education, in addition to making Christians look like indoctrinators rather than educators (which is largely true, unfortunately). When I was a Christian educator (as a youth pastor in a church), my goal was to get students thinking, wrestling, and questioning. I wanted students to think for themselves, rather than accept what I tell them and regurgitate it. The latter does not produce good citizens, thinkers, or disciples, but simply status quo, toe the line young people. and, I think as we see more people in their 20's leaving the church than ever before, it should be a sign to us that indoctrination is not working.

But, there are some other factors that come into play. Regardless of how right or wrong any of us think this decision is, it is a private Christian school making the call, funded on the dollars of the tuition paying parents. If the school wanted to require all teachers to shave their heads and grow beards to their waists, they could, right? So, they technically did nothing wrong from a legal standpoint.

In addition, Kent Dobson is apparently enough of a sought after Bible Scholar that it shouldn't be hard for him to get another job. But it is still sad. It means he has to leave all of his students and colleagues. It means he probably will have to move. It means he will have this black mark (if you can call it that) on his record for the rest of his life. I wish him the best. (And, incidentally, I think I've met this guy. He looks so familiar! I've been having a deja vu moment since I watched the clip.)

What is your take on this whole situation?

Thoughts On Worship

2008-04-29T10:27:00.000-05:00

Some very interesting thoughts, no?

Boyd, Claiborne, and Colson, Continued

2008-04-28T23:17:00.002-05:00

I had posted previously about a panel discussion that went on featuring Greg Boyd, Chuck Colson, and Shane Claiborne. Greg had done a review of it on his blog, which I linked to. Well, the actual presentation is now out, and very much worth the time to listen to/watch it. There are several option"

First, this is a video of the entire discussion. You get to see how the participants interact and react to each others' statements. This is about an hour and a half long, so be aware.

Second, this is the unedited audio of the conversation. This is a second best option, if you want to listen to it in the car or put it on your ipod. The only think you miss is the body language and reactions (which are important).

Third, you can find on this site a link to the "radio show" version, edited down and commentated by the facilitator. It is more sound byte material and has less of a flow, so I would definitely recommend one of the first two, as this only contains about half of the material. This is the link to the root site that has all of these links as well as info about the event.

Let me know what you think!

Postmodern Presentation By Brad Cecil

2008-04-15T13:18:00.000-05:00

| View | Upload your own

In Tony Jones' new book The New Christians, which I reviewed here, he gives a history of the inception of the emergent movement (before it was called that). One of the core elements to forming this core group and the core ideas was a powerpoint presentation done by Brad Cecil on Postmodernity. According to Tony in the book, the presentation "has attained legendary status among emergents."

The context of all of this coming up was the question of how can the church attract Gen Xers back to church in the same way Bill Hybels and Rick Warren attracted boomers and busters? Some were saying all the church needs to do is get hipper, grow go-tees and play cool music. Another group said that a deeper shift in philosophy was happening and that small, superficial changes were not enough. This second group became the starting core of the emergent movement, and this presentation became a sort of explanation of the shift they felt was taking place.

Above is said presentation. You should definitely read the book, and when you do, you can share in the presentation as well.

Let me know your thoughts.

"What is an Emergent Cohort?" Starring ME!

2008-04-12T11:01:00.002-05:00

This is a video that is being shown on Brian McLaren's "Everything Must Change Tour." It is a plug for the emergent cohorts around the nation: what they are, who goes, that king of thing. And what do you know, I make an appearance...all be it a small one.

Here is the story.

The first cohort meeting I went to they mentioned this to us, that they wanted to take some video. Now one of the ongoing jokes about emergent folks is that they have to attend cohort meetings or read emergent books in secret, without their bosses or home churches finding out or they'll get fired. It is mostly not true, but it makes for a kind-of-funny bit we do here.

At 2:36 in you will see Doug Pagitt do a short intro, saying he is going to try and sneak in and see who attends the Twin Cities emergent cohort. When he enters the room, you may not be able to tell, but we all held strips of paper over our eyes, to play up this idea that we want to remain anonymous. I am the guy in the center with a blue shirt on and a backpack sitting between my feet. There is light behind me, so it is hard to tell it's me, but it is me nonetheless.

I encourage you to go to the cohort finder and find an emergent cohort in the area, if free and open theological discussion excites you. I have been going for several months now and never want to miss. It is a fun time. Are any of you involved in emergent cohorts where you are?

Boyd on OT Violence, Continued.

2008-04-07T12:42:00.002-05:00

Greg Boyd is moving right along in his series on violence in the Old Testament. He is to the point where he is offering theories, and then critiquing them. Here is an overview of what he has done so far.

Introduction- Linked Previously

What's at Stake?

[L]et's do our best to explain the depictions of God as violent in the Old Testament and to thereby reconcile them with the revelation of God in Christ. But for God’s sake (literally), don’t leverage your faith in Christ on the outcome of this investigation!

The Violent Strand of the Old Testament and Our Picture of God

[W]hatever else is at stake in the issue of explaining the violent strand of the Old Testament, our picture of God should not be. Fix your spiritual eyes on Jesus (2 Cor. 3:17-4:6; Col 3:5; Heb 12:2), not on the warrior God of the Old Testament.

OT Violence and Christian Behavior

Jesus himself seems quite aware that the attitude towards enemies he commands his followers to embrace is very different from some aspects of the Old Testament. For example, in the Old Testament God twice reigned down fire from heaven in judgment on various individuals and groups. Yet, when John and James wanted to do this same thing in the New Testament, Jesus rebuked them (Lk 9:52-55). It violated the spirit of the Kingdom Jesus came to establish to want God to act the way he did in the Old Testament!...Clearly, the way of the Kingdom Jesus was establishing was very different from the way of Yahweh in the violent strands of the Old Testament.

Could Old Testament Warriors Have Been Mistaken?- View #1

This is how God handles all violence, according to Eller. All war is the result of human estrangement from God, and so in this sense all war is a punishment for rebellion against God. “God doesn’t approve of war,” he says, “but this isn’t to say war is completely outside his plan.” Rather, “war is the punishment brought upon themselves by those who foster and create the kind of situations that lead to war. " Moreover, Eller argues, "it is not that the losing nation is the punished one and the winner merely the punisher. War is always punishment both ways”(79). So, as a regrettable concession, God worked with Israel’s Nimrodian mindset, as he worked with the Nimrodian mindset of others, to accomplish his purposes, as much as possible, in the world. And part of this purpose was to punish the sinful violent-mindedness of both the Israelites and their pagan enemies.

And all the while Yahweh was laying the groundwork for a future revelation of who he really is, what his character is really like and what kind of warfare he has really called us to.

A Defense of Eller's Thesis- Support for View #1

The basic point is that the Bible does not give us the unmediated voice of God. It gives us God’s voice mediated through culturally conditioned human witnesses. In this light, it doesn't seem too outlandish to suppose that certain Old Testament warriors and authors were right when they heard God telling them to fight his battles, but reflected their cultural conditioning when they interpreted this to mean they were to slaughter men, women and children. They expressed a God-inspired truth when they affirmed that God wanted to fight for them and give them the victory. But the way they expressed and applied this truth was culturally conditioned.

A Critique of Eller's Thesis- A Critique of View #1

These episodes of God causing carnage seem no more consistent with the God revealed on Calvary – the God who chooses to be killed rather than to kill – than the episodes of slaughtering that involve human agents. Hence, while Eller's thesis nicely removes the inconsistency between the Old and New Testaments regarding how God wants his people to treat enemies, it doesn't at all help remove the inconsistency regarding their portraits of God.

What do you guys think of Eller's view (view #1)?

The Reading Rundown

2008-04-01T11:02:00.001-05:00

I've been reading a lot of Brian McLaren in the last month. I appreciate his mind and his outlook, not to mention his remarkable grace in writing and dealing with sensitive matters. Let me give you a quick blurb of my opinions about the books I've recently read of his.

A New Kind of Christian

I read this a few months ago, but I should really start with this to pave the way for the rest of what I'm going to talk about. This was a cutting edge book written right at the time the Emerging ChurchMovement was being born. The book is about the shift from modernity to postmodernity.

I should mention, each of the books in this series is written in narrative form. I've read other books like this too, where it is written in narrative but the point is the material the characters talk about rather than the story itself. This method can tend to be really dry and cheesy as far as the story goes, showing very obviously that the narrative needs to get out of the way for the "material" that the author wants to share. This trilogy is not like that at all. McLaren is very good at writing story and makes the story important. He pulls you into the characters and their lives, emotions, and feelings.

In A New kind of Christian, a pastor (Dan Poole) is fed up with the ministry and the fundamentalist, simplistic rut that his church is stuck in. He starts making plans to quit and get another job, when he meets a guy who goes by the nickname "Neo", who begins to help him see a shift that is starting to happen in the world and in the church. The book is the story of several months in Dan's life as he goes on this mental and philosophical journey with Neo. It is a great book. It is one of those I want to reread sometime soon.

The Story We Find Ourselves In

About a month ago, I jumped back into the series and read this, book two in the New Kind of Christian Trilogy. It involves telling the story of God in the Bible and how he works in our lives. It deals with evolution (how a person can be a Christian and embrace evolution) among other topics. It is my least favorite of the trilogy, but still worth reading.

The Last Word and the Word After That

The last in the series, but a very good book. The book is primarily about Hell, but dabbles a bit in talking about homosexuality as well. It involves the same characters (Dan, Neo, and others), and Dan's search to find out what he really believes about Hell, and whether Hell is the point. There is a great look at the history of the different beliefs about Hell predating Jesus, and what Jesus' audience would have had as a context when he talks about Hell. It is a very interesting study.

In addition, the narrative part of the series really hits a fever pitch in this volume. You go on a very hard, emotional ride with Dan in this book. I don't like this quite as much as A New Kind of Christian, but it is definitely a close second.

Generous Orthodoxy

In Generous Orthodoxy, you see Brian for who he is. After reading the trilogy above, it was nice to have him just come out and say it, if you know what I mean.

I love the idea of the book, that we should embrace all of these different streams of Christianity for the good that they bring to the table, rather than fight about the differences. The book is good, but the primary arch, this theme that he continues throughout, is the greatest contribution that the book makes. After establishing this point and telling a bit of his testimony, Brian begins going through a number of movements one by one, taking out what he admires about each one (streams like liberal/conservative, protestant/catholic, Calvinist, Emergent, unfinished, etc.).

It is a pretty good read, worth a purchase.

Next on my plate is They Like Jesus But Not the Church by Dan Kimball and Exclusion and Embrace by Miroslav Volf. In a few months I may go back to McLaren, and if so the next in line would be The Secret Message of Jesus followed by Everything Must Change. Anybody read any of these?

Right Brain/Left Brain

2008-03-28T23:50:00.002-05:00

I found this at Joel's Thoughts and traced it back to the Where-what-How-Why blog. It's one of those optical illusions that you can see two ways.

Supposedly if you see the girl spinning clockwise you are using the right side of your brain, and if you see her spinning counterclockwise, you are using the left side of your brain. The left side of your brain if supposed to be the creative side. Again, I'm no expert, but this is what the proverbial "they" say. If you can make it switch directions, you are apparently in the small sector (14%) of people who can see a situation from either side.

So which way did you see it?

(By the way, I'm pretty sure this is the first time there is a visible nipple outline on my blog.)

Update: Apparently the info is wrong. It has nothing to do with left brain/right brain. Thanks for Mark for pointing us to this blog that seems to clear things up.

This news article, like many others, ignores the true source of this optical illusion and instead claims it is a quick test to see if you use more of your right brain or left brain. This is utter nonsense, but the “right-brain/left brain” thing is in the public consciousness and won’t be going away anytime soon. Sure, we have two hemispheres that operate fine independently and have different abilities, but they are massively interconnected and work together as a seamless whole (providing you have never had surgery to cut your corpus callosum).

These kinds of optical illusions are always fun. What they reveal is how our brain processes visual information in order to create a visual model of the world. The visual system evolved to make certain assumptions that are almost always right (like, if something is smaller is it likely farther away). But these assumptions can be exploited to created a false visual construction, or an optical illusion.

Meeting Tony Campolo

2008-03-27T12:16:00.002-05:00

Dr. Tony Campolo was in town this week to speak at North Central University. I was able to attend and listen to Tony live for the first time, as well as meet him afterwards. He is the same in person as he is on his podcast and in his books. He loves to laugh and joke. He is passionate. He's pretty much quit caring what his harshest critics think about him on certain issues.

It was a great experience.

Other people on my people to meet list: Rob Bell, Brian McLaren

Celebrating Easter with the Historical Jesus

2008-03-27T10:51:00.003-05:00

In college I took a class called "Jesus in the Gospels," a seminar class with Dr. Bob Berg that was one of my favorite classes in my time at EU. One of the topics we talked quite a bit about in the class was the idea of "the historical Jesus," that is, the Jesus we know existed from history, removed from all of the faith claims of resurrection, God incarnate, and others (Note: searching for the historical Jesus is not denying the faith claims, it is just not concerning itself with answering the faith questions in the search.)

Anyway, one of the optional texts in the class was A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus by John P. Meier. I had asked for this three volume work on a Christmas list before, but apparently they came in the mail a few weeks after Christmas, so my mom just gave them to me for Easter. I was excited!

It is a three volume work (volumes 1 & 2 are here, 3 is on the way) of about 1500 pages, so needless to say I haven't finished them yet. It is actually more of a reference source than a cover to cover read. Nonetheless, it has some very interesting content, I am finding as I plow through it.

The approach Meier (a Catholic scholar, shown here holding volumes 1 & 2) uses is this:

Suppose that a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, and an agnostic--all honest historians cognizant of 1st-century religious movements--were locked up in the bowels of the Harvard Divinity School library, put on a spartan diet, and not allowed to emerge until they had hammered out consensus document on who Jesus of Nazareth was and what he intended in his own time and place. An essential requirement of this document would be that it be based on purely historical sources and arguments.

pg 1

An interesting quest, to say the least. That is what Meier is attempting for in this work. I'll let you know as I come across more interesting nuggets.

The New Christians

2008-03-25T14:06:00.004-05:00

Tony Jones, the national coordinator of Emergent Village has a new book out called The New Christians: Dispatches From the Emergent Frontier. I picked it up at Barnes and Noble 2 weeks ago and didn't expect to read it right away. I had other books ranking higher on the priority list. but then I made the mistake of starting it. I found that I couldn't put it down and few days later I was done.

The book is part history, part theology, part memoir. Tony starts by telling the story (at least, his take of the story) of how the emergent conversation began. The initial meetings, the conferences, the people involved, Tony gives you a broad look at the emergence of emergent 10 years ago. Chapters 3-5 look more at what the emergent churches are, their DNA, what makes them unique. Chapter 3 attempts to answer the question "Who are the Emergent Christians?" and includes 3 characteristics of emergents based on a number of interviews Tony conducted himself. Chapter 4 is about theology, and how emergents relate to theology. Chapter 5 is about truth, and how the EC relates to truth.

Chapter 6, the last chapter in the book, is an interesting look at 4 emergent churches, each different and unique, to give the reader some concrete examples of emergent churches. He also takes a closer look at some of the elements, including a look into "Wikichurch", which is so interesting that it is alone worth the price of the book.

I have said before that if one wants to be inteligible about the Emergent conversation, s/he must read and be familiar with the ideas presented in Scot McKnight's article on the topic. I must now amend that statement, and add that The New Christians also belongs on that list. All future writing on the Emergent conversation will have to take this book into account. It is a great read, regardless of what you think of the emergent movement, and will inspire you to think while setting the record strait regarding what you have heard about it.

NOTE: Scot McKnight has used the term "Emerging" to refer to the movement as a whole and "Emergent" to refer to those who identify with Emergent Village. I asked Tony which of these groups he was writing about, and he says that he rejects the difference in language and uses "Emergent" to refer to the whole movement. Thus, the book is about the movement as a whole, not only Emergent Village.

That being said, let me offer a scattering of quotes to wet your appetite.

"The soil of that growth is deep and complex, a melange that includes the advent of "new media" (blogs, email, social networking sites, podcasts, webcams, instant messaging, and so on) dissatisfaction with politics as usual, the postmodern turn in philosophy, and cracks in the foundations of mainline and evangelical Christianity. Emergents--and I consider myself one--think that this movement is but one manifestation of the coming dramatic shift in what it means to be Christian." pg XVIII

"We are not becoming less religious, as some people argue. We are becoming differently religious." pg 2

"The emergent church cannot be separated from the postmodern situation in which it was born." pg 38

"Emergents are unwilling to blindly accept the underlying assumptions of the stories they've been given." pg 40

"There is no ideological requirement to join, just a shared commitment to robust, theological dialogue about issues that matter." pg 82

"[E]mergents have pursued a faith that spurns easy answers." pg109

Happy Easter

2008-03-23T13:21:00.002-05:00

May the joy of the resurrected Lord, and his victory over death encourage and strengthen you today.

Emerging Church Responds to its Critics

2008-03-19T23:45:00.000-05:00

In 2005 some Emerging Church leaders wrote a response to criticism that they were getting. Certain people were starting to speak out and even write books that were very uninformed. As a response, Brian McLaren penned a letter that was edited by a handful of other Emergent Leaders. It should definitely be read by anyone who seeks to converse with or about this movement.

The letter is basically laying out the attitude that most in the EC have, and attitude of humility and wanting conversation. In addition, it responds to some of the criticisms as well, and in doing so contains one of the best paragraphs I have read (best in that it is funny and crams more info into one paragraph than I have perhaps ever seen). Here it is:

Sixth, we would like to clarify, contrary to statements and inferences made by some, that yes, we truly believe there is such a thing as truth and truth matters – if we did not believe this, we would have no good reason to write or speak; no, we are not moral or epistemological relativists any more than anyone or any community is who takes hermeneutical positions – we believe that radical relativism is absurd and dangerous, as is arrogant absolutism; yes, we af firm the historic Trinitarian Christian faith and the ancient creeds, and seek to learn from all of church history – and we honor the church’s great teachers and leaders from East and West, North and South; yes, we believe that Jesus is the crucified and risen Savior of the cosmos and no one comes to the Father except through Jesus; no, we do not pit reason against experience but seek to use all our God-given faculties to love and serve God and our neighbors; no, we do not endorse false dichotomies – and we regret any false dichotomies unintentionally made by or about us (even in this paragraph!); and yes, we affirm that we love, have confidence in, seek to obey, and strive accurately to teach the sacred Scriptures, because our greatest desire is to be followers and servants of the Word of God, Jesus Christ. We regret that we have either been unclear or misinterpreted in these and other areas.

It is perhaps best quoted with the paragraph after it as well:

But we also acknowledge that we each find great joy and promise in dialogue and conversation, even about the items noted in the previous paragraph. Throughout the history of the church, followers of Jesus have come to know what they believe and how they believe it by being open to the honest critique and varied perspectives of others. We are radically open to the possibility that our hermeneutic stance will be greatly enriched in conversation with others. In other words, we value dialogue very highly, and we are convinced that open and generous dialogue – rather than chilling criticism and censorship – offers the greatest hope for the future of the church in the world.

Donald Miller Interview Video

2008-03-18T23:47:00.004-05:00

About a year and a half ago I went with a good friend to interview Donald Miller. The church I attend was doing Blue Like Jazz for the mealgroup book and we talked with Don a bit about the book. I posted about this experience here, and here you were able to read a transcript of the video above. James finally uploaded the video to google, so I present it to you now. As you will be able to tell, it is edited and some things are cut out, including editing some of his answers, which got a bit long. James is the guy in the video asking the questions.

Let me know your thoughts!

PS And by the way, I'm the guy who threw the book. Didn't I nail it?

7 Most Important Qualities for a President

2008-03-17T11:03:00.004-05:00

I'm no political affeccionado, but I came across the Tim Russert Show the other night and he was speaking with the always interesting presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin about the most important qualities for a president to have. They tend to be based on history (i.e. the best presidents did these things, Lincoln, FDR etc.), and they are pretty generic (i.e. nonpartisan and not based on morals or anything like that). I thought It'd be interesting to share. Let me know what you think.

1. Withstand Adversity
2. Diverse Perspectives
3. Loyalty
4. Admit Mistakes
5. Emotion
6. Define Goals
7. Relax

When talking about diverse perspectives, Goodwin uses the example of Lincoln appointing his fiercest opponents to his cabinet. He apparently go ridiculed for it and basically said, "Hey, they are the best minds in the country. I need them on my side right now." A very interesting insight in light of our current political situation. She writes about this and other stories from Lincoln's presidency in her book that I want to read called Team of Rivals.

What do you think of this list? Which is the most important? Least? What would you add?

Boyd on Violence in the OT

2008-03-14T23:46:00.003-05:00

I love the way that Greg Boyd continually explores the difficult topics in the christian life, even when they are wildly unpopular. This is no different.

Greg has started a series of blog posts looking into the horrific violence that we read about in the Old Testament. Concerning the verse where the Psalmist talks about bashing his enemies' babies heads against rocks (Ps 137:8-9), Greg says:

Let's be honest. This passage is barbarically ugly, and we've got to wonder what on earth it's doing in the "inspired Word of God"! How are we to see this passage as "inspired" in light of the fact that Jesus taught us to love and bless our enemies, not hate and curse them? How could the same Lord who taught us to turn the other cheek, never retaliate and never use the sword inspire the Psalmist to gloat over the splattering of infants' heads? If harboring anger and speaking nasty words ("Raca") to another person puts us in danger of hell, as Jesus taught (Matt 5), what kind of danger must the Psalmist be in for harboring this utterly vindictive attitude toward the Babylonians?

He also asks the honest question, "doesn't this depiction of God look more like the God of Osama Bin Laden than the Father of Jesus Christ?"

We have to admit that these are some troubling verses. He has only offered an introduction so far, but in the mean time, I was wondering if you guys felt like offering some responses. What have you heard to explain the violence in the OT? Many bad answers, I'm sure (which I want you to share), but any good ones? Let's have a conversation about this.

Evolution Discussion Thread

2008-03-12T10:59:00.003-05:00

If anyone from this discussion or anywhere else wants to talk about Evolutionary Science (or creation), you may do that here. Please just remember (1) not to make any personal attacks or (2) link to really lengthy articles or websites you expect us to read. You may be interested in the previous blog conversations from the last few months that took place here.

Thanks!

Emerging Chart

2008-03-11T01:47:00.000-05:00

Hello friends.

So I have been wanting to post this for awhile, but have been limited due to my html deficiencies. I am reading An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, a great book by the way, which is a collection of essays from around the emergent world. One particular essay is written by Tim Conder called "The Existing Church/Emerging Church Matrix: Collision, Credibility, Missional Collaboration, and Generative Friendship." As the title suggests, Tim is talking about the ways in which the emerging church and the existing church can work together and communicate. In the chapter, Tim has created a fantastic chart to encapsulate the differences between these two organisms he is comparing. I have tried with little success to recreate that chart in html form for you here. The result is too big to fit on my page (and there are some other issues as well. I welcome html advice). Suffice it to say, I am left to articulate the chart in mere words, imprecisely placed (what's the point, right?). So, here goes (ho hum).

The chart has two columns, labeled Existing/Modern and Emergent/Postmodern, followed by rows representing a number of categories. Here it is, and hopefully it makes some shadow of sense.

Existing/Modern VS Emergent/Postmodern.
Ethics: abstract/absolute/transcendent vs corporate/contextual
Epistemology: abstract/absolute/transcendent vs corporate/contextual
Theology: systematic/propositional vs narrative/missional
Gospel: eternal salvation vs present reign of God in this world
Mission: defined by personal, spiritual needs vs defined by God's redemptive agenda
Biblical Interpretation: propositional/dependent on theological systems vs contextual/narrative
Leadership:positional/hierarchical vs relational egalitarian
Spiritual Formation: linear/cognitive/personal vs nonlinear/holistic/communal
Basis of Community Formation: boundaries formed by doctrine/confession vs boundaries shaped by ethical and missional commitments

I'm not sure about you, but I think better when I have a visual, an organized framework to help me mentally absorb info. Does it help you? What are your responses to the chart? Would you agree with Tim's assessment?

Here are my responses:

1. The first one, ethics, is bound to make fundamentalists squirm. To suggest that ethics are anything other than absolute and never changing is heresy to some. However, it is undeniable that at least some (most?) ethics are contextual or corporate. Jesus even hints at this when talking of the early church ("binding and loosing" is thought to mean allow or disallow, "when two or three gather in my name" is in the context of church discipline, and these suggest that the early Christians are contextually and communally deciding the ethics of their community). Now this can certainly get dangerous if taken to an extreme, but let us not make it say something it is not or jump to extreme conclusions.

2. Spiritual Formation as communal is also a breath of fresh air as I've noticed it in the emerging church. I spent my first years as a Christian in the largely individualistic evangelical "community." I am a fan of "sharing faith" with others in community, and I'm glad to see that becoming stressed more and more. By the way, I think the small groups movement in evangelicalism is, at least in part, a longing of Christians to be less individual and more communal. However, to truly transform, some major shifts in how evangelicals view spiritual formation need to happen.

3. I love the Basis of Community Formation. Emergents embrace the reality that we cannot agree on all of the minor (or even the major) points of theology. But, perhaps we can all agree in certain elements of practice (i.e. social justice, reducing poverty, communion, prayer, mission etc.).

Jesus For President

2008-03-09T23:10:00.001-05:00

Shane Claiborne is out with his 2nd book. You may have read his first called The Irresistible Revolution. If you haven't, you should. His new one is called Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals.

The book is divided into four parts, with a number of headings and subsections in each part. Let me give you a quick overview before I get into my thoughts.

Part 1 (called "Before there were kings and presidents") is a retelling of the story of the Israelites in the Hebrew Bible. From Genesis 1 through the prophets, Shane offers his telling of the story and traces the work of God throughout (with his commentary thrown in), and the original plan to not have a king, but God giving in and allowing it based on the continued grumbling of the people.

Part 2 (called "A new kind of commander-in-chief") is a deeply contextual look at Palestine in the time right before, during, and after Jesus. The politics. Rome. The oppression etc. One of the neatest things in this section is a look at many of the terms that Jesus used or were applied to him, like kingdom, gospel, savior etc. and compares them to what the terms meant from the perspective of the Roman Empire. The result is a really cool chart on pages 67-69.

Part 3 (called "when the empire got baptized") is where Shane hits his stride. If you were not offended by the first two parts, this one will probably get you (particularly if you have connections to the military or are rich). It is in part 3 where I think you see Shane in the role that fits him, calling out injustice, national sins and the like. I think Shane is most closely identified with the prophets in the Old Testament (though not in the prediction way). He is living a very radical, alternative life. He is a prophetic voice calling out to the followers of Jesus. That is his role. But, he does it in love. He is not into guilt, he is into truth. He doesn't play games or coerce, he tells stories and mimics Jesus and loves.

Part 4 (called "A peculiar party") is mostly a collection of stories from the community Shane is a part of, or from letters he gets from soldiers etc. A good chunk of these stories appeared in his first book.

Here are some overall thoughts.

1. Shane's second book is not nearly as good as his first.

That isn't really a slam on this one as much as it is a testament to the first. His first included a lot of his own personal story and testimony, which is one of a kind. That is hard to beat. Make sure you read The Irresistible Revolution before reading this one.

2. The book is an experience.

This is one of the most visually unique books I've ever read. It is filled with art, marginal notes, creatively written quotes, pictures, and other stuff you just have to see. It is a great feature. It makes the book come alive a bit more. you experience it, rather than just read it. If nothing else, next time you are at a book store, page through it briefly and you will see what I'm talking about.

3. The book pulls from a myriad of other sources in compiling the book.

I think this is a great feature. Shane has placed countless quotes, blockquotes, excerpts, etc. in the text. It goes a long way in showing that his ideas, though revolutionary, are not new. It also creates a great opportunity for readers to continue research on the subjects covered.

Is it worth reading? Definitely. It is the kind of book that each of us should read every so often to stir us up about things that stir God up. Will you agree with every word? No, but do you ever agree with every word in any book? (If so, you need to expand your reading horizons and stretch yourself).

Pick it up. You'll be glad you did.

Here are some quotes from JFP as I leave you:

"Jesus taught a third way. Here we see a Jesus who abhors both passivity and violence, who carves out a third way that is neither submission nor assault, neither fight nor flight." pg 94

"The young church lived within the messy collision of kingdoms. The more the early Christians reflected on the life and message of their rabbi-messiah, and the more they tried to live the way of the way of the gospel, the harder they collided with the state and its hopes and dreams, militaries and markets." pg 141

"The history of the church has been largely a history of "believers" refusing to believe in the way of the crucified Nazerine and instead giving in to the very temptations he resisted--power, relevancy, spectacle." pg 166

"The bloodstained pages of history are filled with people doing terrible wrong out of a deep sense of right." pg 203

"Perhaps there is no more dangerous place for a Christian to be than in safety and comfort, detached from the suffering of others." pg 292

The Myth of A Christian Nation, Q&A

2008-03-08T10:19:00.000-06:00

I told you once we finished to book that I was going to be emailing Greg with some questions that came up from my second reading of the text. I have done that and he has answered. Here is what he had to say:

1. You refer several time to the ways of the Kingdom of God being simple. Could you expound a bit on that? It seems that with they myriad of opinions on every topic under the sun, that it is anything but simple, or, at the very least, that man has made it not simple.

It's simple in that it always looks like Jesus and thus reflects a Calvary type of love.

2. Some (friendly) critics have said that Colossians 1 contradicts your thesis a bit:

"I sincerely believe that Christ seeks to redeem everything. I believe what is written in Colossians—"For by him (Christ)all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him…For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." (Col 1:16, 19-20)."

Most scholars grant that the Powers referred to here are not earthly powers and thrones, but spiritual entities. As such, I don't see how it affects my thesis.

3. We hear stories of heroic acts like the passengers on flight 93, who used violence/power over to subvert the terrorists and save lives. what would your comment be on a situation like this? I know it is a bit unfair to throw extreme exceptions into the fray, but I'm just curious.

AS with many acts of violence throughout history, the violence on flight 93 was good and heroic. But the Kingdom is not about being good or heroic. It's about imitating Jesus. Now, this mightnot rule out using a minimal ammount of force to restrain the high jackers, but it would mean, at the very least, refusing to kill them. Ideally, however, I think a Jesus follower would try to communicate God's love to them, non-stop, even if they killed them to get them to shut up.

4. Can you tell us a bit about the next book you have coming out?

It's called REvolting Beauty: A Theology and Practical Guide for Kingdom Revolutionaries. The central thesis is that followers of Jesus are called to manifest the beauty of God's reign and revolt against everything in the world -- and against the Powers -- that stand against it. This always looks like Jesus. So I explore Jesus' life and suggest ways his followers can manifest the beauty of God's reign by revolting against such things as * idolatry * judgment * religion *secularism *individualism *nationalism * racism * classicism * poverty * violence * sexual immorality * sickness * demonization and * earth abuse. (each of these has a separate chapter). It's due in 3 weeks and should be out late fall or next spiring.

This concludes our series. I hope it has caused us to think in this election year. Thanks for tuning in.

Love Your Enemies

2008-03-07T13:21:00.000-06:00

Thoughts?

Book List

2008-03-06T23:55:00.001-06:00

Some friends were asking me what I had read recently and as I was telling them the said, "If you put a book list together, Nick, I'd read through it." Being one who rarely backs down from such a challenge, I thought it would be good to make a list of "must reads." (If you are regular reader, you may have seen me drone on about these already. Pardon my redundancy.) To be on the list, they had to meet a few requirements:

1) It has to be a very good book. Perhaps this goes without saying, but it is the first requirement.

2) It has to be challenging and cutting edge. We don't want any biographies or walks in the park here. Only books that make you think, challenge your paradigms, and rock your world. Those are the best books.

3) It has to be somewhat mainline. No esoteric works here, please. It has to be written in such a way that it can benefit everyone.

With that being said, here is my short list of five must reads, with a few other optional ones thrown in.

Searching for God Knows What by Donald Miller

Perhaps my favorite book of all time. Miller wrestles with the issue of identity like no one else that I've ever seen. It is funny, artistic, profound, and brilliant.

The Irresistable Revolution by Shane Claiborne

Perhaps the most challenging book I've ever read. shane has an amazing story, and challenges "American Christianity"in a unique way. You won;t agree with everything he says (like in any book), but his heart and his radical movement will inspire and challenge you.

The Shack by William P. Young

A very good fiction work about a man who suffers the loss of his 5 year old daughter, which greatly effects his relationship with God. He ends up getting a letter in the mail from God asking to meet with him. What ensues will rock your world.

I have blogged about it here.

The Myth of A Christian Nation by Greg Boyd

A great "recalibrator" when it comes to politics. Boyd is non-partisan, and encourages us not to violate the purity of the Kingdom of God by mixing it with politics. I just finished a 14 part series on the book if you want to read more.

Adventures in Missing the Point by Tony Campolo and Brian McLaren

Two of my favorite thinkers team up in this work to cover a myriad of topics and the new ways Christians are thinking about them. Campolo's chapter on homosexuality is mind blowing, and McLaren chapter on scripture is good too. The cool thing about this book is that they critique and respond to one another, so it is more like a conversation that you get to observe than a normal book.

Others not in the top 5:

Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell

This is a great book about the way we think of church.

A New Kind of Christian by Brian McLaren

This is more for church leaders, but it is perhaps the key text for the emerging movement.

The Judgement by Chart Korpjitti

This is a Thai novel that you would probably have to borrow from me if you want to read it (though you can buy it online). It is a great story of religion and judgement in social settings.

Thanks for considering. If I inspire you to read any of these let me know. If you have read any of these, I welcome your comments. What other book would you add to the "must read list"?

I Love Wheat Thins

2008-03-05T01:06:00.002-06:00

That's it.

Tony Jones in Conversation

2008-03-04T13:21:00.004-06:00

Here is a great video of a conversation between Tony Jones, the leader os Emergent Village, and John Chisham, a pastor in southern Minnesota who has been very critical of Tony and the emerging stream. In what is typical of the Emerging (and Emergent) movement, Tony opted to sit down and have a conversation with John. The video is about 34 minutes long, and it is unedited, so you get some conversation about movies and stuff, as well as another camera person blocking the view at times. But, it is a very good example of how two people can disagree in a civil manner. It is a great look into the differences between someone who may be a good spokesperson for orthodox (fundamental?) evangelicalism and an emerging Christian. It is well worth the time.

I'm curious to hear you thoughts and responses.

UPDATE: The video I linked was removed, so instead I have replaced it in 3 parts from youtube. Same stuff, just in 3 parts.

Boyd, Claiborne, and Colson.

2008-02-29T00:29:00.002-06:00

Greg Boyd has a great post about a panel discussion he took part in recently with Shane Claiborne and Chuck Colson. I can't wait to hear it! Greg has some great insights about the conversation that you should definitely check out.

Ben Stein is Expelled

2008-02-28T00:02:00.003-06:00

Have you guys seen this? It's a trailer for Ben Stein's new documentary on Evolution. Considering how much the topic comes up on here, I thought it might be good to get your reactions.

What do you think?

A Christianity Worth Believing

2008-02-21T00:50:00.002-06:00

Doug Pagitt was nice enough to give me an advance copy of his forthcoming book called A Christianity Worth Believing (due out in May). I finished reading it and I thought I would offer some thoughts.

First, a disclaimer: DO NOT READ THIS BOOK IF YOU ARE NARROW. As is normal in emergent writing, Doug challenges some "sacred cows" that will really make fundamentalists mad. If that is you, if you can't handle controversy, if you can't handle wrestling with new ideas, ideas different than your own, if you think you have God figured out, do not read this book.

To Everyone else, I think it is a terrific book.

One of the main themes in the book is something that I had been thinking about for about a year. I heard a speaker talking about Islam say, "Islam is essentially 7th century Arabian culture put into the form of a religion." Now, I realize that is overly simplistic, but it makes a good point. It explains a lot of the details of the religion, the suppression of women, the outfits etc. Now, my thinking led me to this thought: We would be naive to think that culture has not been codified in the Bible. And, in fact, much culture is in the Bible, and at least some of what the Bible says we take as culture and no more. From the brutality of the Old Testament Law to Paul telling women not to wear jewelry, we all agree that there are elements of culture in scripture that we don't take as "absolute truth" or even as theology, but as the innerworkings of a culture that is thousands of years old and very different from ours. There is another ring of this reality where i would say most of us agree, but not all, namely the roles of women (i.e. Paul writing to Timothy). Many (perhaps most) of us take these statements to be cultural demands, not truth once and for all.

My questioning in the last year led me to think of just how much of our New Testament is culture, specifically tailored for the first century, and how much is true once and for all? One of Doug's main themes in the book deals with this very issue. More pointedly, Doug looks into the Greek influences, not so much in scripture, but in the first few centuries when our primary creeds, theologies, and beliefs about God were being formed.

For example, Doug eventually arrives at this question:

Is it necessary to convert to a particular worldview in order to hold the Christian faith? Or in this case, does a person have to be a fifth - century Augustinian in order to be a follower of Jesus? The answer, of course, is no...I believe that it is the tradition of our faith to constantly renew, rethink, and reformulate our ideas about what it means to follow God.

pg 49

And also, about those who worry about the faith being distorted over time,

Maybe they worry that the essentials will be lost over time and we will one day be left with a distorted, watered - down story that bears no resemblance to the one with which we started. But I think we have the opposite problem. The issue Christianity faces today is not that the stories are watered down; it's that they've been set in stone — often leading to the very distortion we fear.

pg 31

The first eight chapters or so are Doug sharing personal stories from his own conversion as well as a critique of modern Christianity (it is more than that, but I'm being general). The rest of the book presents new ways of looking at some age old thinking in the Christian movement. Doug challenges long held metaphors and offers some new ones on topics like sin, humanity, the Bible and others. Here are a few snapshots of what he says about different topics.

On church and state:

History has proved the idea of a state religion to be a rather troubling development in the Christian story — the institutionalization and coercion that come with empire are not really compatible with the gospel message.

pg 43

On the dangers of using the Bible as a weapon:

So much of what I've come to believe about God and humanity and Jesus and the way we are to live comes from the Bible. For me, it is a living thing. It is a member of my community and a vital source of wisdom and truth. But it's rarely used that way. Which is why I often cringe when I hear someone getting ready to use the Bible.

In my years of being a Christian, I have witnessed the most brutal fights over the Bible. I know families where some members no longer speak to one another because of disagreements over the Bible. I have heard stories of people losing their jobs because they disagree with someone about a biblical principle. Entire denominations have split over disagreements about the “proper” interpretation of the Bible. I have witnessed people saying and doing heinous things with the justification that the Bible made them do it.

pg 54

And on rethinking sin:

Sin isn't a legal problem with God; it's a relationship problem with us. In the garden, Adam and Eve were perfectly integrated with God. But when they ate from the tree, they acted outside their partnership with God and began to experience the disintegration of their relationship with God. And that's what sin is — disintegration. We were created for integration, partnering, connection with God. Sin irritates; it destabilizes. It causes us to come unraveled from the life we have with God.

pg 159

Even if you disagreed with every point he makes, it is at the very least a healthy walkthrough for rethinking some key elements of the Christian faith, which is always good. He is a great thinker and a great story teller. If you want Doug's take on rethinking some of the elements of Christianity and his vision for the Jesus story played out in today's world to challenge and inspire you, I doubt you will be disappointed.

6 Questions Emerging Christians are Asking

2008-02-19T12:36:00.001-06:00

Scot McKnight was a part of a panel at a conference recently talking about emerging Christians. Scot has come up with a list of the six most common questions (or types of questions) that Emerging Christians are Asking.

I have done my best to transcribe quotes from Scot's talk to make the point. There isn't much there, but he went over this pretty quickly. You can find the whole panel discussion on the Emergent Village podcast in 2 parts called the 2007 AARP Panel (it is about 38 minutes into part 1).

Also, one more note I should make. Scot told a lead in story where he used a "Blue Parakete" as a metaphor for emerging Christians, which in the story is basically saying that they are weird to the traditional (meaning both evangelical and mainline) church. When that term is used, that is what he is referring to. Scot is coming out with a book soon by the same name.

6 Questions Emerging Christians are Asking (that the traditional church doesn't want to hear)

1. What kind of truth can be found in scripture

"The authors of the Bible are real human beings with real human vocabularies and that they're not all American-speaking, NIV-writing type people. That they learn Paul had his opinions, and the writer of Hebrews."

"And so they're begining to ask questions about scripture that an older generation thought it had answered and knew that it had final answers an that everyone would conform to these answers, and those who didn't were blue paraketes and would just squak on there own somewhere else. I think they're asking fair questions about scripture."

2. If Evolution isn't true, I would like to ask God why he made a world that looks so much like evolution?

"This is a generation that isn't even attracted to questions proving that Genesis 1-11 is historical record. They don't care about creation science. They believe in evolution and that's just the way it is and they want to be Christians and believe in these things."

3. Questions about Christians, and the kind of behavior Christians show

"They grew up with the scandals of Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker and the priests."

"They just don't trust institutional leaders in Christian churches."

"If Paul says those who are in Christ are a new creation, why are there so many old creatures in the church? Why is this going on? And they are scandalized by some of the behaviors of Christians."

4. Questions about Hell

"Scot, my evangelical pastor tells me that people who haven't heard the gospel are going to hell. Is he really telling me that everybody in North Korea who never has a chance to hear the gospel is going to Hell? I just don't believe that's true."

"This question is not going away. This is not a questions that evangelicals and orthodox Christians can simply give a traditional answer and get by with it anymore."

5. Moral Questions

The shift is from asking historical questions about contradictions between Chronicles and Kings or were there three Isaiah's to asking why was Jephthah in the Bible and then why was he valorized in Hebrews 11? What about the rapes and sexual abuse in the Bible?

Scot says, "I find these questions far more penetrating than those old historical questions."

6. Social Location

"There is social location to everything we talk about, the language we talk about, the theology we shape, the way we talk about the gospel, the wqy we preach the gospel, the way we respond to the gospel. These things are socially located. And I find emerging Christians not only admitting that and humbling themselves, they develop a chastened epistemology because of it, but they delight in it."

"They are not seeking a universal theology, but they are willing to live with a theology for the midwest, or the east coast, or that sort of thing."

He concludes by saying:

"I think the church needs to [preach] that these people are okay. Church is a great place for questions, rather than a place that should kick people out who have really good, deconstructive, at times, questions."

Thoughts? Have you been asking questions like these or heard them asked? I think that is one foundational element of the Emerging Christians, that they have questions about all kinds of things the last generation of Christians thought they had settled and never questioned. In fact, that generation is often uncomfortable with questions like these.

Your reactions?

Who Should you Vote for?

2008-02-16T01:51:00.002-06:00

Have you guys seen this neat little tool? It is a 10 question survey about issues in the upcoming election, and it will tell you who you should vote for based on your responses and how the candidates agree with you. Interesting huh?

I tried it and confirmed I was supporting the right candidate based on my answers.

Did yours match up? What question would you add?

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 13

2008-02-15T00:29:00.000-06:00

Well, we have come to the end of our series on Myth... and I hope you have enjoyed it. I hope this series is not an end, but that I inspired you to read the book, listen to the sermon series, or, at the very least, to continue to think on these matters. I hope to do an interview with Greg about this to post at some point, so there may be more coming (if you have a question you'd like me to ask him, fire it my way!).

As we close this out, though, I want to make a few statements that I think are the primary contributions of this book.

1. It encourages us to act like Jesus

Greg continually points back to Jesus as the example. He is not encouraging us to act Republican, or Democrat, but to act like Jesus. Greg does a great job of majoring on the main thing.

2. It challenges some long standing myths about America and Christianity

Perhaps most obvious, and the reason the book sold so many copies, Greg takes on some "sacred cows" that American Evangelicals have. Unfortunately, we live in a world where even asking some of the questions he asks is cause for some to write him off as a liberal from the start. What a shame. He has some great things to say that challenge us all on and to commit the sin of lumping him into a group and judging him prematurely is unfortunate.

3. It challenges the moralistic judging that has become commonplace among evangelicals

More to the point, Greg challenges the moralization of the world that is so typical of Evangelical Christians. As I said in the review, I think that is one of the best points he makes.

4. It challenges the idea that "(insert political stance/candidate here) is the Christian stance/candidate."

Greg challenges the idea that a specific candidate or view is "the Christian" candidate or view. Or worse still, the idea that to not vote a certain way makes one not a Christian. So many people need to hear that.

5. It creates discussion

Lastly, and I think this is one of the main features of any good book, it make you think and creates discussion. If we can continue to have meaningful conversations on topics that matter, we go far in growing in maturity.

Thanks for staying tuned. I realize I stayed on this topic for a long time, but I only do that when I think a book is so good it needs it. This was such a book. Send me in some questions for Greg!

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 12

2008-02-12T00:12:00.000-06:00

The last chapter of Myth... is Greg simply responding to the 5 most common questions he gets in response to these ideas. Bob over at Vanguard Church has done such a great job of capsulizing Greg's answers by compiling quotes that I'm choosing to completely steal his work. The quoted sections below are completely Bob's (and Greg's) genius and not my own.

Before we do that, though, I should offer Greg's disclaimer. Greg ends the book by acknowledging there is always going to be ambiguity and disagreement in this life. "The goal of this book has not been to provide the 'right' answer to ambiguous ethical questions but to help kingdom people appreciate the urgency of preserving the unique kingdom-of-God perspective on all questions and on life as a whole...What follows is my own wrestling with five of the questions I have most frequently been asked whenever I've publicly presented the perspective articulated in this book." (pg 162)

As with anything, even if we can agree on the broad perspectives, the specifics are where the waters can get murky. So, take the following as Greg's perspective and with a grain of salt. Though it may not be clear from the wuotes below, the larger context of this chapter shows that Greg is still wrestling with these issues himself. For the record, I think that is great. I don't want to listen to someone who isn't still wrestling, who think he (or she) has it all figured out, who had God in their little box. Here we go.

1. What about self-defense?

(A Kingdom person) would have cultivated a kind of character and wisdom that wouldn’t automatically default to self-protective violence. Because he would genuinely love his enemy, he would have the desire to look for, and the wisdom to see, any nonviolent alternative to stopping his family’s attacker if one was available. He would want to do good to his attacker.

2. What about Christians in the military?

Do you know—can you know—the myriad of personal, social, political, and historical factors that have led to any particular conflict and that bear upon whether or not it (the war) is justified?...Out of their cultural conditioning, most blindly assume their authorities are trustworthy, that their cause is justified, and that each person they are told to kill is a justified killing…So, while I respect the sincerity and courage of Christians who may disagree and feel it their duty to defend their country with violence, I honestly see no way to condone a Christian’s decision to kill on behalf of any country—or for any other reason.

3. Haven’t some wars resulted in good things?

While military victories tend to be celebrated, nonviolent victories seem to pass without notice. Most knew about Gandhi and Martin Luther king Jr., but the nonviolent revolutions that ended various unjust dictatorships and brought increased freedom for more than three million people in the twentieth century are hardly ever discussed. Consequently, we are conditioned to think violence is the only viable approach to resolving conflict…(As kingdom people), we are called to show by our life that, while violence sometimes brings about positive results, violence is never inevitable—if only kingdom people will live out their unique kingdom call.

4. Don’t your ideas lead to passivity?

We now find ourselves in a version of Christianity where protecting ourselves is one of the main things we stand for—“in Jesus’ name”! In the name of the one who surrendered his rights and died for sinners, we fight against sinners for our rights!...Our call is to simply live in sacrificial love and trust the sovereign God will use our love to further his kingdom, as he did with the love of Jesus expressed to us and all people on Calvary.

5. Don’t we best serve the oppressed by overthrowing their oppressors?

The kingdom person is to remember that it’s still a ‘Good Friday’ world. We are to have faith that things will look different when Easter morning arrives. The ultimate hope of the world is not found in achieving victory now. The ultimate hope of the world is the resurrection, when all things shall be reconciled to God (Col. 1:20). Then we will see that no act of kingdom love has ever been wasted.

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 11

2008-02-09T12:50:00.000-06:00

Chapter 8 of Myth... is called "One Nation Under God?" and it talks about the fifth negative consequence of believing that America is a Christian nation, that "it inclines kingdom people to view America as a theocracy, like Old Testament Israel."

The chapter is devoted to debunking this idea, and I won't get into all of it here. But, I will offer a few quotes that allow Boyd to state his point.

Undoubtedly, part of the reason evangelicals accept this claim [that America is a theocracy] is the fact that fallen humans have always tended to fuse religious and nationalistic and tribal interests. We want to believe that God is on our side, supports our causes, protects our interests, and ensures our victories--which, in one form or another, is precisely what most of our nationalistic enemies also believe. So it has been for most people throughout history.

[T]here is no reason to believe America ever was a theocracy. Unlike Israel, we have no biblical or empirical reason to believe God ever intended to be king over America in any unique sense

God’s theocratic program in the Old Testament was temporary, conditional—and ultimately abandoned…While God is by no means through with Israel, he is no longer using them or any other nation to grow his kingdom on the earth. The kingdom is now growing through Jesus Christ who lives in and through his corporate body. In this sense, Jesus and the church constitute the new Israel…comprised of people from every tribe, every tongue, and every nation (Rev. 5:9; 7:9; 21:24-26)…Manifesting this divisionless ‘new humanity’ (Eph. 2:14) lies at the heart of the kingdom commission.

There is only one chapter left, in which Boyd responds to common questions and objections. We will look at that next time.

Barna on the 2008 Election

2008-02-09T01:33:00.000-06:00

Is the tide of votes among "born again" Christians in America turing toward liberal? George Barna and his "peeps" seem to think so.

In the most recent Barna Update, polls show that if the election was today, born again Christians would favor the Democratic nominee (whoever that would be) 40% to 29% with 28% undecided. This is a shift over previous Presidential Elections, fluctuating from 39% to 35% in favor of the GOP in 1992 to a lopsided 62% to 38% in favor of the GOP in 2004.

What is perhaps more surprising is that 20% support Hilary Clinton to Obama's 18 and Huckabee's 12%. Does that surprise anyone else? "Born agains" favor Hilary over Huckabee almost 2 to 1!

When the field is narrowed to "Evangelicals," the results tend to be more conservative, like you (by that I mean "I") would expect, but the results are still quite different from past years. 40% of Evangelicals say they would support the GOP candidate, while only 11% already plan to vote Republican. The interesting part is that 40% are still undecided. As a comparison, 85% of Evangelicals voted Republican in 2004.

To define the terms better, here is how Barna defines the labels "born again" and "evangelical."

"Born again Christians" are defined as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents are not asked to describe themselves as "born again."

"Evangelicals" meet the born again criteria (described above) plus seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not dependent upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church attended. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as "evangelical."

Assuming this information is valid (which it appears we have little reason to doubt it), here are a few of my observations/questions:

1. How much of this apparent shift is due to a change in substance, versus wanting "a change in scenery" from having a the same Republican in office for 8 years? For example, 2000 "felt" like a Republican year after 8 years of Clinton. 2008 "feels" like a Democratic year after 8 years of Bush. In short, is this trend long term or short term, a shift or a phase?

2. Are the steroetypes about Evangelicals being Republicans breaking down?

3. Why do "born agains" support Hilary over Obama?

4. How much of the apparent shift has to do with lack of "success" in Iraq? (i.e. if the war had gone differently, how might the numbers be different?)

5. In the future, will we look back at 2004 as the height of the political power of Evangelical Christians?

Your thoughts?

(Hat tip to www.jesuscreed.org)

Sexual Sin vs Injustice, Part 2

2008-02-08T11:09:00.000-06:00

The only kinds of sin we want to focus on as modern Christians are the isolated individual sins committed by isolated individual monads: lying, having an abortion, indulging in pornography, taking drugs, saying naughty words. Not to minimize those things in any way, but that is far short of a fully biblical understanding of sin, and it leads to dangerous truncations of justice and compassion.

Brian McLaren in A New Kind of Christian

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 10

2008-02-06T12:55:00.000-06:00

In chapter 7 of Myth..., Greg offers two hot topic examples of evangelical Christians in America being the "moral police" or "moral guardians" and some very interesting commentary on these issues as well.

1. Homosexual Marriage

To illustrate, more than a few have noticed the comic irony in the fact that the group most vocal about "the sanctity of marriage," namely evangelical Christians, happens to be the group with the highest number of divorces in the United States, which itself has the highest divorce rate in the world [cites 2 articles, in addition to Barna]. Numerous explanations have been offered by Christians to minimize this embarrassment, but none of them are convincing--or even relevant. Whatever our excuses, outsiders legitimately wonder, "If evangelicals want to enforce by law 'the sanctity of marriage,' why don't they try to outlaw divorce and remarriage? Better yet, why don't they stop worrying about laws to regulate others' behavior and spend their time and energy sanctifying their own marriages?

Do evangelicals fear gay marriage in particular because the Bible is much more clear about the wrongfulness of gay marriage than it is about the wrongfulness of divorce and remarriage? No, for the Bible actually says a good deal more against divorce and remarriage than it does against monogamous gay relationships. Do they go after this particular sin because the research shows that gay marriage is more damaging to society than divorce and remarriage? It seems not, for while one might grant that neither is ideal, there's no clear evidence that the former is socially more harmful than the latter--especially given the fact that divorce and remarriage is far more widespread than gay marriage. But in any case, this point is completely irrelevant since the present issue isn't over gay unions. The issue is only over whether these unions should be called "marriages." To the best of my knowledge, no one has shown that the social welfare of our nation is significantly harmed by what monogamous gay unions are called.

He continues, with biting sarcasm:

We evangelicals may be divorced and remarried several times; we may be as greedy and as unconcerned about the poor and as gluttonous as others in our culture; we may be as prone to gossip and slander and as blindly prejudiced as others in our culture; we may be more self-righteous and as rude as others in our culture--we may even lack love more than others in the culture. These sins are among the most frequently mentioned sins in the Bible. But at least we're not gay!

I want to continue to capture his words on this point, so here is his summary and analysis.

Tragically, the self-serving and hypocritical nature of this moral posturing is apparent to nearly everyone--except those who do the posturing. And just as tragically, it causes multitudes to want nothing to do with the good news we have to offer. While the church was supposed to be the central means by which people became convinced that Jesus is for real, activity like this has made the church into the central reason many are convinced he's not for real. If I had ten dollars for every time I've encountered someone who resisted submitting to Christ simply because they "can't stand Christians," I'd have a fairly robust bank account.

There's nothing beautiful or attractive about thus sort of self-serving, hypocritical behavior. The beauty of the cross and the magnetic quality of Calvary-quality love has been smothered in a blanket of self-righteous, self-serving, moralistic posturing

.

And again,

In our role as public representatives of the kingdom of God, Christians should stick to replicating Calvary toward gay people as toward all people), and trust that their loving service will do more to transform people than laws ever could.

2. Abortion

If there is an exception to Boyd's point, it would certainly be abortion, right? He tackles this issue head on, and starts off with a few points/questions to help us grasp this issue in America today:

1. There are many "difficult metaphysical and ethical questions to consider." (Like, when does it become human? When does the baby get a soul and take on the image of God? Is the morning after pill as bad as a late term abortion? How much should the government legislate vs letting the woman control her own body? etc.)

2. How will other political issues, like how to best help the poor, which has an undeniable link to abortions, affect how you vote?

3. "The polarized way the issue is framed in contemporary politics is largely a function of various groups trying to gain power over each other for what they believe to be the good of the whole."

The distinctly kingdom question is not, How should we vote? The distinctly kingdom question is, How should we live? How can we individually and collectively come under women struggling with unwanted pregnancies and come under unborn babies who are unwanted? How can we who are worse sinners than any woman with an unwanted pregnancy--and thus have no right to stand over them in judgment--sacrifice our time, energy, and resources to ascribe unsurpassable worth to them and their unborn children? How can we act in such a way that we communicate our agreement with Jesus that these women and their unborn children are worth dying for? How can we individually and collectively sacrifice for and serve women and their inwanted children so that it becomes feasible for the mother to go full term? How can we individually and collectively bleed for pregnant women and for unborn babies in a way that maximizes life and minimizes violence?

We answer these disticntly kingdom questions not with our votes but with our lives. And, note, we don't need to answer any of the world's difficult political and metaphysical questions to do it. The unique kingdom approach to abortion isn't dependant on convincing ourselves and others that we have "God's knowledge" about highly ambiguous questions. It's based on our call to love as Jesus loved. There's a sacred woman; there's a growing life inside her, which, however it got there and whatever speculations one holds about its metaphysical status, is a miraculous creation of God. And the only relevant question people need to answer is, Are we willing to bleed for both?

Thought on Boyd's treatment of either of these issues?

Next time we will look at chapter 8, "One Nation Under God?"

Sexual Sin vs Injustice

2008-02-04T15:57:00.001-06:00

I am troubled that Christians have been known more for being against people who are divorced than injustice in the world. And I think it's a problem when we're more angry about homosexuality than we are about starvation and AIDS in the world. There's something wrong with us when we have such little value for the life of a human being.

Erwin McManus speaking at Mosaic

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 9

2008-01-31T13:39:00.000-06:00

Chapter 7 in Myth... is called "When Chief Sinners Become Moral Guardians", and is one of my favorites in the book. So much so, that we need two separate posts on it.

As we have said in the last post, Boyd is in the process of listing 5 negative consequences of believing the myth that America is a Christian nation. Chapter 6 covers the first three. Chapter seven covers the fourth, which is that when this myth is believed, it leads Christians to think that they are the moral guardians of society, that they are the moral conscience of the nation. Greg believes that this is misguided, and can even be harmful to the kingdom message, for at least 5 reasons.

1. "[A]s people called to mimic Jesus in every area of our lives, we should find it significant that Jesus never assumed the position of moral guardian over any individual, let alone the culture at large...His purpose, apparently, was not to guard, promote, or fix public morality."

Greg points out that it is true that Jesus publically confronted the religious leaders of his day for the hypocrisy and the using of religion for their own monetary gain. Greg points out that this style of confrentation is in line with a long tradition of Jewish prophets who held the Jewish religious and political leaders accountable. It should be noted, though, that they don't see it as their job to hold the non-Jewish leaders accountable. Boyd uses the example of a Catholic Cardinal reprimanding a parish priest. That behavior is much different than Christians "trying to regulate the morality of their non-Christian culture.

2. "[W]hen we assume the role of moral guardians of the culture, we invariably position ourselves as judges over others." Greg points out that not only does Jesus not do this, he actually forbids it, telling his followers not to judge others. Paul and James say similar things elswhere in the New Testament. Boyd acknowledges, though, that this does not prelude discernment, but that we should "never separate ourselves from people by comparing and contrasting ourselves with them."

3. "[W]hen the church sets itself up as the moral police of the culture, we earn the reputation of being self-righteous judgers rather than loving, self-sacrificial servants...While tax collectors and prostitutes gravitated to Jesus because of his magnetic kingdom love, these sorts of sinners steer clear of the church, just as they did the Pharisees, and for the exact same reasons: they do not experience unconditional love and acceptance in our midst--they experience judgement." In fact, in a pole done by the Barna Group, when asked to rank people groups based on their respectability, " 'Evangelical Christians' were ranked one notch above the bottom, just above prostitutes." The hard truth is that Evangelical or born-again Christian in America are not known for being especially loving. And, the fact that we continue to claim that we are loving despite the fact that no one thinks that is even more catastrophic.

4. [W]hen people assume the position of moral guardians of the vulture, they invite--they earn!--the charge of hypocrisy. For all judgement, save the judgement of the omnicient and holy God involves hypocrisy...Instead of seeing our own sins as worse than others, we invariably set up a list of sins in which our sins are deemed minor while other people's sins are deemed major. We may have dust particles in our eyes, we reason, but at least we don't have tree trunks like "those people.'"

5. "The fifth fundamental problem with the church being the moral guardian of society is that, throughout history, the church has proven itself to be a very poor moral guardian...Issues related to sex getm massive amounts of attention while issues related to corporate greed, societal greed, homelessness, poverty, racism, the environment, racial injustice, genocide, war, and the treatment of animals...typically get little attention."

Does this mean that Evangelical Christians shouldn't speak out publically on moral issues? Absolutely not! We should speak out, but we should do so in a distinctly kingdom way. We should speak with self-sacrificial actions more than words. We should speak not as moral superiors but as self-confessing moral inferiors. We should call attention to issues by entering into solidarity with those who suffer injustice. We should seek to free people from sin by serving them, not by trying to lord it over them. And we should trust that God will use our Calvary-like service to others to advance his kingdom in the world.

Next time we will look in depth at the two examples that Boyd uses in this chapter, homosexuality and abortion. Stay tuned.