Some kind of Christian

New Blog Address for everyone

2011-08-18T19:57:00.001-07:00

Hello Friends, and readers.

I recently moved this blog over to http://somekindofchristian.wordpress.com

Update you subscriptions. There's a new post that had a very nice comment on it already.

If you are reading this, we missed the Rapture

2011-05-21T08:22:00.001-07:00

If you are reading this, we all missed the rapture. Harold Camping and the true followers of Christ have ascended to heaven to meet the Lord in air, we are instead here mired in tribulation at missing their warnings. Woe to us, especially the Christians who attend Evangelical, Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic or any other Church! We are all apostates!!

Unless of course it didn't happen. Which, as I type this Friday night, am absolutely sure it did not.

Sigh...

Here is something that you may have heard already. First, let's talk about Harold Camping and his radio show. For one, this is not the first time that he has predicted the end of the world. He did it once in 1994. After a failure like that, one should probably repent, turn off the microphone, and do a little soul-searching before speaking in public again. Instead he revised his predictions. Now, he is on record now for declaring Christianity -those who belong to the church- as apostate and his show alone the voice of salvation in the world. Incidentally, he is also on record for explicitly denying the Trinity in favor of modalism. What's that? Well, according to Camping, Jesus is not co-eternal with the God-the-Father, but is simply another form of God-the-Father. This is like ice melting into water. That is not the Trinity, and Camping knows this.

In this blog, you are about to read something I have never posted. It is something that I do not like dishing out because it so inflammatory. Yet, it ought to be said here. Please understand, this not hyperbole. I mean exactly what it reads when I say Harold Camping is a damn heretic.

(bring out the comfy chair!!)

So what of his followers? I am sure that after quitting their jobs, abandoning responsibilities, and now looking like fools, they will probably be so mad that they'll not only abandon Family Radio, but also burn Harold Camping in effigy. Actually, that's probably not going to happen either, and here's a historical precedent why.

In the book Influence Robert Cialdini related the story of a few end-times cults in the American mid 19th century. Let's play "guess who": A prophet made a prediction of a date and time. The prophet gathered followers who sold their land and abandoned their livelihoods. The day passed and nothing happened. The prophet revised the date. The followers did not dissipate, but instead their numbers grew. This process happened at least one more time. You know this group today as the Seventh Day Adventists.

If you are like many people, you either scratching your head or screaming "what the fuck?!" right now. Yet from that book, we see that this is an example of psychological consistency and social proof. As soon as someone makes a verbal or written commitment to something, they are likely to stick with in even when that commitment is shown to be completely misguided. It is the same tendency that keeps women in abusive relationships. It was also used by Chinese captors to brainwash POWs of the Korean War. Social Proof augments this. As long the entire group keeps saying the same mantra -especially if they are led by a charismatic leader- everyone will believe that the continued behavior is right and nothing is going wrong. How powerful is social proof? Two words: Kool Aid.

So in the case of Camping and his ilk, they are almost certainly going to wash, revise, and repeat. They will likely (and this Christian will add thankfully) further distance themselves other Churches. Why will they do this? Because in order to do otherwise they would have to admit to themselves that they behaved really, really, stupidly.

Now to be clear, Camping is close to Dispensationalism so his views are similar to what many Evangelicals believe. However, Dispensationalism does not deserve to be lumped in with Camping's little cult. Camping used numerology to come to his conclusion. As far as I know, Dispensationalist do not do this.

Despite that, I am certainly not a Dispensationalist. As far as I am concerned, there is no coming Anti-Christ, Black Helicopters, parenthetical "Church Age", or world exiting rapture. Yes, Camping is the lunatic fringe of American religiousity. His approach to scripture is an embarrassment and a travesty. Yet, one dispensationalist told me they guess when it comes to interpreting the Bible. Is that any better than numerology?

Regardless, Camping and his ilk are likely marching on and it won't be long before we hear the prophetic revisions. I wonder if Camping is going to claim direct inspiration from God next time, assuming he hasn't already. While he does so, I'll be happy to attend a May 22nd Sunday service. There, with others, we will all contemplate the intrinsic goodness of God's creation and the saving work of Christ within it. May God's work continue in the World!

Thanks for reading, comment, and your reposts.

Star Crossed Christians?

2011-04-22T06:14:00.000-07:00

As I wandering through Sunae, in Korea, I was listening to another episode of the Boundless show. The hosts were having a round table discussion on who to date and who not date. There is, after all, a tendency of some people not to date anyone unless they know everything about the other person, from their denomination to their sexual history. Boundless thought, correctly, that this is unreasonable. It was their opinion that the criteria of who is eligible for an eligible date boils down to one thing: is that person a Christian?

This a good thought, but you can't help but wonder if it is that simple. Evangelical Christians and non-Evangelical Christians should be able to enter into a relationship. Yet simply adding religion to a relationship creates an entire spider web of issues that must be dealt with one way or another. Can Evangelical Christians and Non-Evangelical Christian date? (note, I'm asking about romantic involvement prior to marriage, not marriage.)

On facebook, my friends Andre and Nicole rightly mentioned that the terms need a bit more qualification. As a starting point for discussion here are three different pairs of potentially star-crossed lovers. Let's assume that all couples here are in their 20s and have never been married.

First, She's new to Seattle and joined Mars Hill Church! He's a nominal Methodist. They met at a friend's birthday. Star-crossed?

Second She came from a Catholic high school and he's a big fan of Rob Bell! They both attend UC San Diego! Star-crossed?

Third He's from the PCUSA and a conservative Calvinist. She's from Calvary Chapel. They've both been in marathon training. Star-crossed?

So the door is open for discussions. Ponder a bit before you respond. Also, don't feel like you have to share you own observations and experiences, though it would be nice to see some real life examples here.

For my part, there is one thing worth mentioning. One of favorite theologians once explained that Aristotelian Love is "like seeks after like." Christian love includes this, but it must go one step further. Christian love loves what is different, alien, and foreign.

In light of that I would like to believe that I am still open to dating an Evangelical despite shedding the Evangelical mantle years ago. Yet I am not naive. I know that evangelicalism has its own list of customs, expectations, and rules that I am not sure if I could fit into.

Yet there is hope. As I type this, I have one friend who is engaged to someone outside of his tradition. He is not the first either.

I look forward to everyone sharing their thoughts, especially those long explanations hinted at on facebook.

Heresy and Hell: An interactive Blog Experience!!

2011-04-02T01:05:00.000-07:00

It hasn't been that long since Love Wins was released. Yet the explosion of writing on it makes it feel much longer. The vanguard of reformed othrodoxy anathemesized Rob Bell. The two most notable leaders have been Piper who declared "Farewell Rob Bell" and Pastor DeYoung who cried heresy.

Heresy. That's not a weak charge. Could you tell me what you really think, Pastor DeYoung?

Do you remember what it was like to be a younger Christian? Maybe you can listen to a little story. When I was younger evangelical I knew -or at least thought I did- who was in and out when it came to the Christian faith. Evangelicals were in. Catholics were in, but not as in as Evangelicals. Mormons were completely out. Conservative protestants were in. Hippie new-age Christians were out. Orthodox/Near-Eastern Christians were maybe "in" but only with great suspicion. Of course, back then it was never clear to me why that list existed. Or which beliefs were essentials or why those beliefs but not others.

Why, for instance, could Christians disagree about the whole Calvinism/Arminianism thing, but not the Trinity? Why was is kissing icons considered pagan, but not keeping Christmas trees? Can you believe in baptizing infants and still be a full Christian?

If you have ever wondered about that -and you probably have- than you may be equally confused. However, this blog is not about what I think, but it will be about what you think. Yes, this blog is interactive today! Why read this? Why follow along? Because this issue of hell and heresy is something that all Christians are going to have to think about, so please grab a pen and paper and attach your thinking camp now. It is going to be fun!

Here are four ideas that Christians believe, in no particular order:

Christians look forward to a physical, bodily resurrection.

God is three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Those who reject Jesus will suffer unending, conscious, torment in hell.

Jesus Christ is both 100% God and 100% human, known as the incarnation

You have probably heard them all in sermons, books, and blogs. Think about what your pastor emphasizes in his sermons. Remember the feelings that you have about each one. How do these influence your life? Do they come to mind in times of prayer or worship? Are they in your church's statement of faith? Ponder this for a moment, then continue reading.

Now with that pen and paper -and please do use a pen and paper- write them all down in order of importance and number them 1 to 4. Yes, they may all be equally important. This is only a thought experiment. Still, your intuition will probably guide you. Take only a few minutes, and then continue reading.

Now look at number 4 -your least important belief- and cross it out.

Let's now pretend that we are figuring out the essentials of the Christian faith. Numbers one, two, and three are what matter most to Christians. To violate these is to be anathematized and decidedly "out." Number four could be very biblical, but it is not an essential. Christians can disagree about that one.

Why did number four sink to the bottom, for you? What took precedence over it and why? Do you think about number four the least often? Is number two or three mentioned more often in the praise and worship songs of your church? Is number one frequently mentioned in your pastor's sermons? Or is there another reason entirely?

Now you might be thinking, "hey, we don't need to limit the essentials to three things. We don't even have to put them order. All four could be equally important! You're a mean blogger!" If you do, you are absolutely right*. The list is only a thought experimentand there is no need to limit the essentials to only three beliefs. It is entirely possibly that all four are equally important.

That is, in fact, what Kevin DeYoung and those who likewise anathematize Rob Bell are committed to. At minimum, a belief in eternal torment is as important as the hope for a future bodily resurrection, the Trinity, and the incarnation. This is true whether they are explicit about it or not.

In your comments you can share your list and your thoughts on this matter. Go ahead and skip this next part, scroll down, post, and share with friends of facebook because every evangelical is going to confront this sooner or later.

For me such a thing feels just plain weird. I could never consider all four beliefs equally important and equally essential. Certainly, the Trinity, the Incarnation, and future resurrection are lifted from scripture. They are equally emphasized in the major creeds, which Christians often use as arbiter between who is "out" and "in." Those three beliefs have become incredibly important to me in Sunday worship, the songs I sing, and how I interact with others. The Trinity reminds me of the importance of community. The bodily resurrection reminds me of hope after death and hope in this world today.

Eternal torment in hell simply isn't in the same category. It is as if I have to believe in three things that are good, that inspire Christians to do good, and then add on the loudest fear-appeal in history! Remember sesame street? "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong..."

It is simply way too weird.

==================================
*except maybe the mean blogger part. I'm a nice guy! I swear! I think....

Book Review for Love Wins

2011-03-23T18:25:00.000-07:00

My initial plan with this review was to write first about all the nasty things that have been said about Rob Bell and his book Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. However, I think that writing an actual review of this book might be a bit more urgent at this point. I will still be writing a blog about the common criticisms of Rob Bell (some of which are good, and many of which are bad), but that will probably have to wait until the weekend. For now, I'll say that I don't believe that a belief in eternal torment in hell is an essential for the Christian faith, and I sometimes get a little frustrated with those who do.

Now to the review. Rob Bell is an incredibly lucid and talented writer. Many people accuse Rob Bell of "confusion" and insist that people need "clarity" instead of the emergent theology or such. Honestly though, if you read the book, you will probably find it pretty clear.

Maybe "confusion" is thoughtful questions to assumed doctrines. If that be the case, than I think a little bit of confusion is needed. In fact, Rob Bell's questions were my favorite part of the book. The first part of his questions could be summed up in the phrase "Hell: isn't it a little bit weird?" Secondly, he believes that there might not be a clear way to tell whether or not someone is "in" or "out" when it comes to heaven/hell. To support this claim, Rob Bell cites several Bible passages -about a dozen- that show that there is a great deal of ambiguity on this subject.

This is something that many Christians know already -espeically those who are emergent. The fact that evangelicalism wants this to be clear and exclusive might be part of the reason why evangelicalism can be culturally clueless. If you think that you and your exclusive club are the only one's who get in, than those are the only people you deeply associate with. If those are the only people you associate with, than you have a self-perpetuating social-proof of what makes someone "in." It becomes harder to understand those who are "out." It is a sub-culture that things it is relevant to the main culture, when it is in fact semi-autistic.

There is another charge that was tossed against Rob Bell. Rob Bell does "hermenutical gymnastics" to make his points. For sake of example, you can probably examine Rob Bell's assertion regarding the word "hell" in the Gospels. It comes from the word Gehenna when spoken by Jesus. This is really important point since many assert that Jesus spoke of eternal torment and hellfire, since he did -in fact- mention "hell." However, Rob Bell says that when Jesus was saying gehenna he was referencing Jerusalem's disgusting, burning, city dump. Here's why:

The etymology of word Gehenna

Relevant historical facts about Jersusalem in Jesus' time

The usage of the word Gehenna in Jesus' time.

How is that "hermenutical gymnastics"? Isn't that what you are supposed to do when you exegete a Bible passage?

I obviously haven't read every last internet critique of Love Wins, but I have not found anyone who actually addresses Rob Bell's point here: When Jesus says "hell," he is not referring to the nine layers of Dante's inferno. He is referring to garbage dump outside Jerusalem. This only one example of Rob Bell's exegesis, and cannot address all of them for you here.

Now many have criticized Rob Bell for not dealing with certain issues. It is true that Rob Bell did not address any of the predictable objections to his view. Yet, sometimes these critics demand to much. For instance, why did not Rob Bell discuss the two wills of God or limited atonement? I would venture to guess it is because Rob Bell is not a Calvinist (which should be obvious!) and is not writing to Calvinists. Why didn't Rob Bell expand on a particular issue, like penal substitution? I suppose because he is writing a popular book -which introduces and surveys a topic- rather than a article for an academic journal -which is very specific and narrow.

Despite all that, I still feel that the major weakness of Rob Bell's book was that he never answered any particular objections. Doing such, in my opinion, is one of the most important things you can do when you drop a bomb like this. Greg Boyd's God of the Possible was equally if not more controversial. In that book, Boyd devoted an entire chapter to answering objections in fair, direct, and polite manner. A simple addendum to Love Wins would have been equally desirable. It would have been nice if Rob Bell offered an alternative to penal substitution in this book too.

Ultimately though, I feel that all reviews of the book will fall short. Much of the internet does not deal with the substance of the Love Wins, but instead cry "liberal" or other anathemas. Like the Harry Potter series, many evangelicals have decided that it is wrong already and have not bothered to give it read.

The next blogs will mention a few of those other anathemas. Until then, thank you for reading, commenting, and reposting.

The Lenten fast, let us repent of "politics."

2011-03-11T21:27:00.001-08:00

"The hope for the world is not in Washington" -Erwin McManus during the 2008 elections

Today is the first week in the season of Lent. A time when Christians prepare ourselves to receive God's coming as the pilgrims in Jerusalem did on the first "Palm Sunday." This is a time when people often fast from one thing or another in order to examine conscience.

Here's an interesting thought, why not deepen one's spiritual life by giving up political news media? Forty days, isn't really that long.

It may seem like a strange recommendation, and what fast you choose is always what is best for you. It might be consistent with the Gospel, though. Chaplin Mike at Internet Monk wrote a great piece -that could be good sermon- on "repenting" of the political mindset. This does not mean repenting of being a republican, a democrat, or changing some stance. It means, it seems to me, repenting of the belief that the hope for the world is somehow 'in' our often hateful political system.

This is in fact, what a large part of Jesus' call to discipleship meant. During his time there were plenty of angry, oppressed, Jewish peasantry who had one way or another to get their vision of the world accomplished. Some wanted a violent overthrow of Rome. Others wanted a peaceful co-existence until God vindicated them. Many "sold-out" to Roman political power. A few decided to go off into the wilderness and ignore the "apostates." To all these people Jesus said, "drop your political agendas, and sign on for the Kingdom of God." If Jesus was here today, would he encourage us to stay-tuned to Glenn Beck, Rachael Maddow, or even the Daily Show? What if all such is building political towers of babel?

There is a second thing, and this is where it hits me the hardest. I used to enjoy talk radio and political blogs quite a bit. Then, as I grew older I began to realize something. Much of the political talk -and I don't mean just radio personalities- is ... rage porn.. Many pundits exist not to inform you, but to get you angry. Anger is actually addictive, and you'll probably tune in a bit more for the adrenaline rush. I think this is actually worse when it is on TV because most of your cognitive functions shut down when you're watching the zombie-glow of the plasma screen. I personally count anger as almost always a sin, and try avoid people who are making me so on purpose.

Most Americans, in my humble opinion, feel that there is something wrong with pundits, sensationalism, and rage-porn. As Christians, we might just have an added call on top of that: abandon your political projects, and sign up with the Kingdom of God.

What steps can Christians take do so this Lenten season?

"Check your premises" all about hell

2011-03-07T18:25:00.001-08:00

LOVE WINS. - Available March 15th from Rob Bell on Vimeo.

There's a new virus spreading on the internet. It's called "Rob Bell releases a new book."

People have already begun to accuse Rob Bell of universalism. I'll keep my opinion of Rob Bell quiet until I get a chance to read the book, which comes out later this month. Nevertheless, there is already a huge blog buzz about a prominent evangelical pastor making statements that sound like universalism. He would not be the first minister to be anathematized as such.

The purpose of this blog is not to take a position on exclusivism (only Christians go to heaven), inclusivism (Christians and some others go to heaven), universalism (everybody goes to heaven) or annihilationism (there is no hell), but rather to frame the debate. Specifically, I feel that detractors of Rob Bell (or anyone else who sounds universalist) might consider checking their premises.

What I mean is this: people who argue for the necessity of hell or God's wrath often assume that certain premises are true and undisputed. They are so deeply assumed that people often forget how to defend them. This is bad, because -mark my words- debates about universalism/inclusivism will lead to additional debates about the three premises I am about to mention. If other Christians want to persuade Rob Bell or others, they must be prepared to defend these major premises, and not make the mistake of assuming that they are self-evident and undisputed. Reformed Christians especially (forgive the generalization) seem to make this mistake.

Also, yes, this kind of thing is important for everyday Christian living. After all, another Pastor, Kevin DeYoung argues that we need hell to even forgive our enemies.

Let us begin:

Premise number 1: Justice is avenging evil-doers. This seems to make sense right? Justice, especially divine justice, is making sure that the evil-doer gets what's coming to them. Think of the death penalty. A famous Texas comedian once remarked "If you kill someone [in Texas], we will kill you back." A more academic example is Kant, who said that the death penalty was not just an option, but a moral requirement in the case of a murder. Even the Christian saint Thomas Aquinas said that "Justice was getting what is due to you."

However, this is not the only vision of justice. This idea of retribution has been criticized. An alternative is the idea of restorative justice. This type of justice is not concerned about smiting evil, but restoring what was lost to evil. Instead of "If you kill someone, we will kill you back" it says "If you kill someone, God will raise them back to life." It also implies that all are corrupted by evil, and restorative justice seeks to "restore" what evil did to the soul of the evil-doers themselves.

Premise Number 2: Penal Substitution is the best/only atonement theory. Penal Substitution is common idea. It is so popular that many do not know of any alternatives. I had to get a degree in theology before I heard of alternatives!

It works like this: Humanity has offended God with sin. Since God is infinitely good, so the debt of sin also infinite. Humanity is finite and cannot pay the infinite debt. God must somehow "pay" the infinite debt since no one else can. So God became human in Jesus in order to pay the infinite debt on the cross. This is very dry and technical, but I think it sounds familiar to everyone.

Now, please look for that description of atonement in the New Testament. Yes, please find something very specific. Make it as specific as Anselm's Cur Deus Homo ("why God became man"). A Lutheran minister once shared that penal substitution comes down to us from the middle ages -and he's right. Anselm wrote in the 12th century. That does not make his theory of atonement wrong, but it does put it up for debate doesn't it? When we think about penal substitution, we should not think "how does the Bible teach this?" but rather "did Anselm get it right?"

Premise Number 3: Things are made right/good because God says so. Of all the things mentioned here, I think this one is the quickest to come up. Someone might say that heaven doesn't seem good if there's a tiny torture chamber somewhere near it. Similarly, someone might mention that God's goodness does not allow room for eternal suffering. A common response is something like "God decides what is good" along with pious appeal to Romans 9:16-19.

The problem with this, is that it assumes a certain answer to the famous Euthyphro dilemma. The question is "Are things good because God loves them, or does God love them because they are good?" I think many Christians answer "good because God loves them" and may even endorse baby eating if God said so. I don't think, though, that the question is so easily settled by an appeal to Romans 9 or similar passages. That passages tells that we don't know the reasons for God's choices. God may not tell us his reasons for mercy, or those reasons might be beyond our keen, but neither one of those implies no reasons at all. Not all Christians are happy with "because God says so" type of answers. This blogger sure isn't

Now of course it is possible that someone might believe all three of these premises and be a full blown universalist. Alternately, they may disagree with all three and still be an exclusivist. No matter what though, these things are going to come up in the internet debates, magazine articles, and book reviews about Rob Bell's new book. If Rob Bell really is a universalist, and his detractors uses these premises to condemn him for it, they will need to articulate and defend them quite carefully.

Reposts, retweets make me happy. So also do your welcome comments.

There is probably something wrong with this quiz.

2011-03-04T02:34:00.000-08:00

I took the "Go to" political quiz just now. I think there is something wrong with it:

What is your political ideology? Your Result: Liberal This quiz has categorised you as a Liberal. You believe in the role of the government to fight poverty, both by means of welfare programs, and economic regulation. You are defined as a progressive in the US, but you are generally favouring of the retention of the current social paradigm.
Libertarian
Conservative
Social Democrat
Communist/Radical Left
Fascist/Radical Right
What is your political ideology? Quiz Created on GoToQuiz

I'm a moderate, with a conservative bias on most issues. I don't know how I got liberal over everything else.

The "Biblical" Man...

2011-02-25T19:06:00.000-08:00

"Where ya gonna live?...The best thing you can do is buy a home. From an investment standpoint, from a tax standpoint, from a security standpoint, particularly you single guys..." -Mark Driscoll 18 Oct 2008

And Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." -Luke 9:58 NASB

I have long hesitated to this blog. This is mostly because I try not be totally negative. It's also because the podcast that motivates this blogs annoyed me. There was so much fail in it that I didn't know where to start. Then again, I might just be being hissy. I digress a bit.

Anyway, it was very strange when Christianity Today included Mark Driscoll in their list of hipster, cutting edge, pastors. Every time I listen to the guy, he sounds like a stick-in-the-mud conservative. Nowhere was this more evident that his Biblical Man Sermon. This teaching starts with a few verses from proverbs, and then continues with practical advice for about an hour. This "Biblical" teaching is so deeply seated in cultural assumptions, self-help wisdom, and patron-saints of middle class that it raises the question: what does "Biblical" even mean?

When I ask that question, it is not for you to think it is a joke. This is serious. What do you think of when you attach the word "Biblical" to a term? What synonyms would you use? How do you define that adjective as you understand it? Maybe you would agree that it means something like "from the Bible" or maybe "in adherence to the Bible"? Whatever it means when said in the evangelical vernacular, I think we can all agree that it recognizes the Bible in some sense because of its very spelling.

In listening to this sermon, it is hard to understand how Driscoll can mean Biblical in that sense. Now, the sermon is not bad rhetorically. It is sprinkled with stimulating, engaging, questions. The problem is with the answers. The idea is that we need to set goals, and make plans to achieve those goals. We need to think about what lives we want in the future and "reverse engineer" it so that we will arrive. For instance, in planning our lives we must understand what is urgent and important. We must get the job and own the home. We must also make a list of appliances, furniture, and other such things that we will have in our home. In that home we must also be prepared to add equity and value to it so we can buy a bigger home, so as to make our wife and children happy. Sound good?

The problem with all of this is that it it is not "from the Bible." The first chunk of advice seems to come from an amalgamation of books like Rich Dad Poor Dad, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, and probably a dozen other books of the same genre. He even cited Stephan Covey at the end of the sermon, who by the way, is a Mormon! The other huge chunk are anecdotes of Driscoll's own success. It probably does not count as bragging, but Mark Driscoll did not write an Epistle. So do not think this is biblical.

Now, understandably, some might think that I'm endorsing laziness, sloth, or perpetuated adolescence. You might be thinking, "so you don't think setting goals is good? Do you believe that developing plans is bad? Setting yourself up to build wealth or provide for yourself and others is evil?" To all this I answer an emphatic, "no of course not." I think a books like 7 Habits or Getting Things Done, are great reads. Rich Dad/Poor Dad gave me a lot to think about. Of course all these things are good, but they are not biblical.

So why bother writing this blog? Well, because it is important -for Christians- to know where their values come from because God might challenge them. Some of the things we hold as Biblical might not be so Biblical after all. Take the whole home-ownership issue. Does owning a home, building equity in the home, and buying a better home make you a Biblical man? Is it a necessary goal for the Biblical man? Well, interestingly enough I know lots of men in the Bible who had no homes. Most of the patriarchs were nomads, and Jesus as cited above, warned those who sought to follow him that "the Son of Man has no place to lay his head." (Let's not forget that he was born in a stable.)

It seems that Jesus is not a Biblical man. Furthermore, he seems to caution would-be disciples that if the follow him, they may not have homes either! I can imagine that many missionary families understand what this means. So what about the denizens of Seattle?

But maybe I am being harsh? It wasn't as if Driscoll didn't use some distinctive Christian topics in his sermon. Driscoll did, after all, talk about God as a gracious God. He also encouraged men to "walk with God" in this sermon. Yes he did. God is so gracious, that he might get you into the home of dreams (complete with white picket fence!). "Walking with God" means prayerfully setting up your plans. If you think this is hyperbole, listen to the sermon yourself.

It seems so blindingly obvious that the pervading culture, not an exegesis of scripture, is what is authoritative here. It leads to the bizarre conclusion in which Jesus wouldn't live up to Driscoll's standards. I am not the first blogger to notice this either. If hipster Christianity is the liberal-arts student, who smokes clove cigarettes while reading "the Imitation of Christ" at an indie coffee shop, than Mark Driscoll is the transparent poser wearing his high-school letterman jacket over a Radiohead t-shirt. According to Christianity Today, the Christian hipsters want a faith that distinguishable from the values of suburbs. They probably need to look outside of Mars Hill.

So what does the word "Biblical [man]" mean? As far as I can tell, it is nothing more than a synonym for "upright middle class [man]" or "socially and fiscally, conservative [man]" or maybe just simply "right." It is nothing here than a staple phrase for the American Civic Religion. And you know what? Let's go for it. I am not against the nuclear family, setting goals, or steadily building financial success. There's nothing wrong with finding the right career and being nice to your neighbors. I wish that all guys reading this would pick up 7 Habits and all those other great books to enhance their relationships, careers, and share such guidance with others. We can all be on the suburban band wagon and our kids can play little league together.

But when we do, let's drop the pretense. Let's remember that the civic religion is nothing more than that. Let's discard the illusions that it is "from the Bible" and remember it has but a thin connection to the Christian faith.

Thanks for reading, and your comments are always welcome here.

My thoughts on the dating question.

2011-02-16T19:19:00.000-08:00

In my previous blog, I asked everyone for their opinion on a question that I heard on the The Boundless Podcast. The question came from one woman, asking another woman on a show hosted by a woman on whether or not it was "correct" to initiate contact with a man she was interested in on eHarmony.

Thank you again, espeically Nicole and Brandi, for your responses to the question.

Here's how I would answer it: The purpose of eHarmony is to make getting into relationships really easy. Why would you want to make it more difficult? The answer is 'women need to let the men lead.' Does letting the man lead mean doing nothing? This may seem like hyperbole, but I have to wonder this: if a woman is unwilling to make contact due to 'we need to let the men lead' will she be able to reciprocate interest later? Can she respond in a way that is conducive to relationship building once mutual attraction is out the open?

I know this may seem counter-intuitive to many Christian woman/girls, but if you don't show interest in a guy that guy will assume that you are not interested in him. Let me repeat that: if you don't show interest in a guy that guy will assume that you are not interested in him.

It seems so strange that FOF, Boundless, and other segments of Evangelicalism want to so harshly split gender roles. Men are supposed to 100% dominate, assertive, and pursuit-driven. Women are expected to be 100% submissive, passive, and receptive. Yet scientifically everybody knows that testosterone and estrogen are present in both genders. Philosophically, most schools of thought (especially eastern) will say that there is a "feminine" nature and a "masculine" nature and that all humans are mixture of both. Even the Bible ascribes both masculine and feminine traits to God. It seems so obvious that while we might expect behavioral tendencies for each gender, we shouldn't expect some black and white, either/or, divide.

More broadly, I simply don't understand the purpose of such moral quandaries when it comes to dating. Is it not missing the forest for the trees? If the goal of Christian dating is to get into a committed, healthy, relationship, than maybe we shouldn't be so fixated on little rules. What if the rules are in conflict with the stated goal? It is if we want two streams of water to flow down a hill and meet together. So we decide to add several dams, ditches, and other obstructions to make sure they do so the biblical way.

I hope that any evangelical woman on eHarmony would consider talking to ...guys... when they have questions about how to interact with men on eHarmony because that seems the better place to look. (This of course assumes that male/female friendships are not against the laws of evangelicalism.)

I will close with one final thought. My honorary sister commented that if women can lead the church, than they can click the eHarmony thingy. I would like to add that if women can host a podcast, endorsed by a large parachurch/webzine, which has influence over many, many, young evangelicals, than they can click the eHarmony thingy.

Dating Question: Guys, how would YOU answer it?

2011-02-03T20:10:00.000-08:00

If there's one thing I like about Korea, its that I have lots of time to listen to podcasts. I randomly downloaded a few from "Boundless" which is far as I can tell is Focus on the Family for twenty somethings. In Podcast 156 the host read an eMail from a listener. It was a question about how to approach men. The guest answered.

Here's the irony: It is a dating question about men. All three people involved were women.

So for a different perspective, I hope that all guys reading this post -married, single, dating whatever- take a chance to read this question from a concerned reader. Answer -in this blog- about how you would answer this question because your insights lasts longer here than on facebook.

"A couple of friends and I have been trying out eHarmony. In an effort to the let the men lead, I've been waiting for my matches to initiate contact before entering into a conversation with them. The trouble is that there are two or three who've intrigued me from their profile, but they have not contacted me. After two or three weeks, I wonder if I've just gotten lost in the list of matches that accumulate over time. Would it be helpful to them to just drop an ice breaker or initiate a conversation?

How do you answer it guys?

Secular Songs that Sound like Christian Rock

2011-02-01T04:11:00.001-08:00

It has been quite some time since I've blogged. I guess I'll never get rich by doing this, but oh well.

For today, I have something silly in mind. Actually, it has been on my mind for quite some time. This is a list of secular songs that -for some reason- sound like Christian Rock. YouTube clips will be aid you in this matter.

For the sake of brevity, I am excluded every song ever written by U2.

Here's the first: Sweet Child of Mine, by Guns and Roses:

It was my friend Jeff who first mentioned how much this sounds like Christian rock. It must be something about the glaring Les Paul guitar tone, the formulaic intro, and the fact that it is really easy to sing along too.

In fact, haven't some Christian Rockers changed the lyrics to "sweet God of mine"? Am I just imagining that?

Take a few minutes to let your ears recover from that guitar tone. We move onto something else next:

I like muse a lot. But seriously, this is just to fucking easy. It's all in the title. The only thing that screams "Christian Rock" more than "Guiding Light" is "Mighty Tower" or "strong deliverance." Its so glaringly loud I wonder if MUSE used the phrase intentionally.

Please don't do that again, MUSE.

Moving on then:

The majority of this song does not sound like Christian Rock, but listen to the piano chord progression at the end. I defy you to look me in the eye and tell me it doesn't make you think of Spirit filled revelers dancing in a four square church. Don't you expect to here chords like that just as the pastor is firing up the high the sermon? Hallelujah! Get Saved'ah!!

Now, it wouldn't be complete without electronica right?

BT is one of my favorite artists, so it hurts to compare this to Christian Rock. In fact, this sounds like a specific Christian Rock: Skillet.

A quick word about Skillet: I liked their second album. Their third was decent. They've had their suck-knobs cranked to 10 ever since.

So I will say this: BT's "Forget Me" sounds like an extremely good song from the second Skillet album, inwhich their most talented musician was still a band member, and before they started cycling musicians faster than Bruce Wilkinson books, and dressing stupidly.

BT, there is actually a chance I might meet you someday, so please take this comparison in the most glowing way possible.

A few Random Encounters in Korea

2010-12-25T19:31:00.000-08:00

Wherein, let me share a few funny random encounters in Korea.

Korean Italian Man. I made it out to International Lutheran Church in Seoul. This church is located in the district of Itaewan, which is basically the big foreigner ghetto of Seoul. This is a very nice LCMS church, and amazingly, no one is afraid to sing there.

I met there a Korean man who worked for an architecture firm in Italy and had lived there for many years. He even writes travel books for Korean. I mentioned that my surname is "Gonzaga" and he thought that was really cool. For those of you who don't know, the Gonzaga family was a noble family that competed with the Medicis until one ancestor over-spent himself.

The People's Republic of the Salvation Army Outside of my apartment building in Sunae there was a really nice guy ringing the bell of the Salvation Army. He's really cool, even though he looks like a commie.

There also has been lots of snow.

Old Korean Guy likes to talk I love riding the subway. I wish I spoke Korean so I could talk to more people. One day, though, a very enthusaistic old Korean guy started carrying on with me in English. He showed me pictures of himself running and all the work he used to do. He really happy to American. He was nicest, funniest, old man I've seen in a long time.

Birthday For my birthday, I went out to a foriegner bar near my apartment and drank with a bunch of friends. The liquor was actually pretty good and a lot cheaper than I expected. I managed to call my vodka and still only pay about six dollars USD for a White Russian. That was fun.

Now, I am off to get my first Korean Hair cut.

Why I'm glad to "do nothing" for Christmas

2010-12-21T05:46:00.000-08:00

This advent has been a great advent for me, and for one reason: no stinking presents.

Now before you start crying "scrooge" let me explain a bit. My family, this year, decided not to exchange gifts. This is has been a royal relief for me. Last year, there were many gifts exchanged and there was a lot of happiness, but honestly it the gift giving tradition is starting to be one that I can do without. This year, the big trip to the Phillipines counts as Christmas for everyone. No presents needed.

First, let's face it: it really is a secular tradition. There are plenty of secular traditions that are great. I don't object to them. However, Christmas has gotten so over-commercialized that you have to dig baby Jesus out from under all the frankincense and myrrh we're burying him in. Instead of spending some contemplating the incarnation and thinking about what it means for the prince of peace to come to earth, we're busy racking up our credit cards to prove that we love our family. No thanks.

Secondly, I am very much okay with not receiving gifts from my family this year. Last year, I was generously given a huge stack of books from my parents, but I haven't even read them all yet. In an entire year! I do not want my family to feel like they have to give me more things that I don't really need to stay connected to me. The thoughtfulness of things like phone calls and Christmas cards is enough.

Now, I know many people love giving gifts. I do too. What I don't like is the sense of obligation that Christmas brings to it. Shopping is a stressful chore. The constant marketing makes me ill.

Isn't there a better way to celebrate Advent and Christmas?

The First Blog From Korea

2010-12-06T18:29:00.000-08:00

It has been over a month since I have blogged. This was due to NaNoWriMo which is now complete, though I am still finishing up the final chapter of my Novella.

Before saying anything else, I would like to say that I miss everyone. Yes, I have made lots of friends here. I am settling into my school nicely, but I miss everyone. I am still a bit sad that I washed out of LA, but that's moot at this point.

I am in Korea now.

Last night, was my first traditional Korean BBQ. This is unusual since just about everyone else has already had Korean BBQ several times. I am just a late comer to it and I don't like spending money on slabs of red meat and Soju (this is the Korean version of Vodka), of course if the company wants to pay for it than I happy to accept.

I had lots of red meat and Soju last night. I skipped Karoke though.

The school itself is fairly nice and well run. This is quite a dramatic change from my last teaching gig that everyone already knows about. The Korean kids are all fairly well behaved and get their work done. Recently, I had some kids get up before class for a speaking project and one of them sang an impromptu song. It was nerdy and funny.

I am still not completely settled into my apartment, but it is a nice studio that is divided by sliding doors. I have to get a desk and a bed, but am waiting on them until I actually get my contract, which I don't have, but hope to have at the end of the week.

If I don't get my contract I go home.

And for those of you who are concerned, I am not getting blown up yet.

NanNoWriMo and the Hero's Journey

2010-10-25T17:29:00.000-07:00

Here is a quick little blog about for NaNoWriMo. Holy Crap, I can't believe I need to start next week. Again, this comes from Game Development Essentials: An Introduction.

There is an outline that I think helps augment the Hollywood three-act. It is technically known as the "monomyth" but more commonly referred to as "the Heroes Journey." Ever seen Star Wars? Read the Hobbit? Yeah, it's it. Think of those two books and then think of the following. what follows is a very short summary.

1. Exposition the story begins in ordinary, mundane settings. Bilbo Baggins is minding his own businesses at home. Luke Skywalker whines like a bitch about power converters.
2. The Call The hero gets a "call to adventure." The alternate world, or more magical world, is introduced to the character. The alternate world collides, or interrupts, the mundane world.
3. Refusal The hero first refuses the call. The hero does not want to leave the relative comfort of home. The hero also doubts himself.
4. Information The hero questions his refusal. Another character, such as a wise old man, gives the hero advice relevant to call to adventure.
5. Departure The hero makes a commitment to the call to adventure.
6. Testing The hero faces a series of challenges. This makes up the bulk of the story. Bilbo meets Gollum. Bilbo outwits Gollum
7. Rewards Bilbo gets the ring!
8. Ordeal The hero faces a huge challenge. This is usually when the villain shows his full hand. The deepest fears and the heroes vulnerability are shown here.
9. Resurrection The major enemy, usually a the arch villain, resurfaces briefly. I believe nearly every horror movie uses this. There can also be a trick ending. The battle of five armies at the end of the Hobbit is a "resurrection" in the Hobbit.
10. Return. The end of the story and the denouement. The hero returns to the safety of home. Though obviously, there is always room for a squeal.

Can you think of any movies, stories, videogames etc that follow this pattern?

On NaNoWriMo and Hollywood Three Acts

2010-10-22T16:12:00.000-07:00

Okay, so I am thinking about NaNoWriMo still, which is great because it forces me to organize my creativity. First, I would like to say that the book 'The Artist's Way' has been very helpful. It has given me a lot of inspiration and forced me to just bleed thoughts onto paper. This is an incredibly helpful exercise because the inspiration will come to you. You might consider checking that ought, even if you do not do NaNoWriMo this year.

What now, I am thinking about writing my story based on two probable outline scenarios that I read about in a book on game design. You probably know that many people avoid NaNoWriMo because they are afraid to suck, but also because outlining is a challenge. There are two that I have learned about recently.

The first, is the Hollywood Three Act. I quote here directly from Game Development Essentials:

1. Beginning (Act I): The most interesting stories begin by placing the audience into the action or drama of the story. The backstory and any background events leading up to this moment can be introduced later. The goal is to capture the audience's attention. Act I focuses on the character's problem. The story should introduce this problem immediately.
Middle (Act II): The middle of the story focuesses on the obstacles that stand in the way of the character's ability to solve the problem introduced in Act I. There are usually a series of obstacles in Act II that the character must overcome. this act comprises the bulk of the dramatic tension in the story.
End (Act III): The story ends when the problem introduced in Act I has been solved. The character often has to systematically face and remove each obstacle in Act II in order to reach this resolution.

This is the first of two outlines that I think are useful. Tomorrow, I will be concentrating on the hero's journey.

That one will require a bit more thought.

Thanks for reading.

On Creativity, Free-time, and Writing Crap

2010-10-16T14:50:00.000-07:00

A long time ago a friend told me that he was reluctant to take up a musical instrument because he didn't think he'd be good. On that night, I shared a recent epiphany with him: in order to become good at any talent (or "excellence" as the philosopher says), one my first have the courage to suck.

Yes, the courage to suck. Not the absense of fear, but the resistance to it. One must suck, and suck for a long time, and only then will one slowly get better at whatever it is you are pursuing.

So get ready to suck!

Last year, I desperately wanted to NaNoWriMo. I got all excited for my friends who were writing their 50,000 words of garbage. I wanted so badly to have time to produce that same amount of garbage that I was even quite a bit envious. Why couldn't I angst up, force manic-episodes, and type feriously at my laptop until I needed some wrist exercises?

Because I was in grad school, I resolved rather to do it this year than last year. I have since purchased a few books on writing. One such book was Creating Characters, which is short but packed with a lot of really simple advice in order to get characters going. I have learned, that I have been thinking way to hard about the characters I create. So with that in mind, my characters will be much better. Another book (which is mostly about comics) was Scott Mccloud's Making Comics. It was book that also highlighted, expanded, and downright paradigm shifted, my approach to making any comics in the future.

Most importantly, I going through the Making Comics. This is part daily devotional, part mental exercise. Ideally, I would've started this months ago, as the book is a guide a long a twelve week program. Still though, I feel that book is good. The very first chapter of the book encourages the reader to shut off their left brain -internal censor- that constantly criticizes and judges.

I think I can live with that.

You, who read this, probably have a creative bone in you. I really hope that everyone who is checking this blog consider NanWriMo. Remember, have the courage to suck.

I mean, just look at the webcomic I ran.

Questions on Christian Hipsterism: Part II

2010-10-08T12:34:00.000-07:00

Hello again, my fellow Christian Hipsters. Thanks everyone who responded to my previous post on this subject. You make me glad when you post comments. Today, I hope to continue this conversation on the important phenomena of Christian Hipsterism -whether you are at Mosaic, Mars Hill, or any other church.

I'm sure everyone already knows that this is not the first wave of "Christian Cool" or however you want to term it. Years ago, in the sixties and the seventies, there were people who also wanted to be hip, follow Jesus, and avoid the established Christian culture. They too, wanted a more authentic version of Christianity that did not simply mirror the culturally conservative, suburban, nuclear family, consumerist, American life-style.

They were called "Jesus People."

Now, they Jesus People have cut their hair. They traded their sandals for dress shoes. They have beat their VW vans into SUVs. They now puchase the veggie-tales videos for their kids. They help run Calvary Chapel. The patronize the Christian book stores. They vote republican. In other words, they became the Christian establishment.

So if the previous generation of edgy, Christian cool, eventually another nominally Christian establishment, what will stop the current trend from becoming the same thing? It does not have to be. The mistakes of the past do not need to be repeated.

There is another important question for a good discussion. I can't put it any words better than Brett McCraken himself. He wonders, have Christian hipsters simply traded one way of conforming to the world for another way of conforming to the world? This is a quote from the end of the Christainity Today Article:

Isn’t Christianity supposed to be distinguishable and set apart from the world? Christian hipsters are rebelling against a mainstream Christianity that they see as too indistinguishable from secular mainstream culture (i.e. consumerist, numbers-driven Fox News-watching, immigrant-hating, SUV-driving), but their corrective may not turn out much better. Some hipster Christianity is as indistinguishable from its secular hipster counterpart as yesterday’s megachurch Christianity was indistinguishable from secular soccer-mom suburbia.

Finally, he puts down an important challenge

The challenge for hipster Christians is to figure out what it means, in their cultural context, to put on a new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness (Eph 4:24). We are new creations, and the old has passed away (2 Cor 5:17). How does that mesh with the Pabst-guzzling, Parliament smoking nonchalant image that seems important to many hipsters?

So here are two questions everyone can answer in the comments:
1) How might the current trend in millennial Christian hipsterism, avoid the mistakes of the baby boomer Christian hipster-ism of the 60s and 70s? Specifically, how do we not simply turn into the next generation of SUV-driving suberbanites?
2) How can we be certain that we are really fulfilling Eph 4:24 and 2 Cor 5:17? How can be certain we are not simply conforming to the sub-cultural values of wider "hipsterisms"?

Thanks for reading... and for commenting!!

Questions of Christian Hipsterism Part I

2010-09-29T12:53:00.000-07:00

Initially I wanted to write a blog about my reactions to the world of Christian Hipsterism. Of course, I have already gone down that bit of self-indulgence in a previous blog. While a blog is always at least a little bit self-indulgent, I’d rather spare my readers more boring stuff about me.

Instead, it would be better if I asked all of you for your thoughts on Christian Hipsterism. Part of being a Christian Hipster means that you were a “Cradle Evangelical,” which I never really was. For those of you who enjoy reading you can check out the Brett McCraken’s article at Christianity Today because it is pretty cool.

The article opens up with a fair description of what a Christian Hipster is. A Christian hipster is someone who was raised Evangelical from youth, desires to continue being a Christian, but wants to disassociate from the culture of Evangelicalism (including “Churchianity” if I may use the Internet Monk’s term). So if you were raised in this culture you are familiar with flannel graph Sunday school lessons, the obsession with left behindist end-times, republican-party Christianity, and people like Falwell, Pat Robertson, and the other crazy uncles of the Billy Graham generation. You were taught well “do not smoke drink or chew, or go with girls/guys who do.”

The Christian hipster either remembers these things as something happily outgrown or denounces them with strong anathemas. Chrisitan Hipsterism can then be defined negatively. By what it is not.

Positively defined, Christian Hipsterism is probably someone meeting at Mosiac West LA –a church I happily sojourned at for two years. A church like this embraces all the good things about the arts and entertainment. It assumes –even expects- that part of Christianity is an interest in creativity. It seeks to encourage Christians and even non Christians to deeply explore their talents and potential in music, dance, writing, visual arts and so on. This is not a crass form of evangelism. The arts are not meant to be advertisements for Jesus, but are rather a natural part of the Christian life.

Another token of Christian Hipsterism is a casual willingness to discuss the sex from the pulpit. Driscoll, (“the angry one”), delivered a podcast on the Song of Solomon. McCracken cited this sermon as token Christian hipsterism. The sermon, “the Dance of Mahanaim,” paints a picture of good sex, in which both the man and the women fulfill certain roles based on their partner’s psychological disposition and biology. I listened to this sermon myself. Even here Driscoll still had to apologize to his audience that the Bible contained sex. Nonetheless, it was an upfront discussion of a normally taboo subject.

A third pillar of Christian Hipsterism is an emphasis on concept of Social Justice. This is quite a nebulous concept, but it reflects a strong theological trend that wants to broaden the notion of the Gospel. The Gospel is not “go to heaven when you die when you accept Jesus.” The Gospel is not are mere acceptance of “salvation by grace alone.” The Gospel contains all these and so much more. The Gospel, as championed by Shane Clairborne, frees slaves, liberates the oppressed, and living a life of simplicity in face of consumerism. If the Kingdom of God is at hand, then the people of God will live according to new kind of life that resists and overturns systematic injustice in the world. Interestingly enough, this has a eschatological component, but that will be addressed another time.

There is also an interest, among the Christian hipsters, of recovering liturgy. This will also be another blog.

So, with no loss of irony, are you a Christian hipster? Are you not quite a Christian hipster? Are you to cool to be called a Christian hipster?

You might want to comment on the blog and re-post it.

Thoughts on Burn a Koran Day

2010-09-09T09:19:00.000-07:00

It has been awhile since someone has come along and embarrassed Christianity. I think the last time it was probably Pat Robertson. This week it is Terry Jones.

Whenever I hear about guy like this, I have to wonder about his background. I have a theory that I constantly looking for: when ministers do things like this they are most likely to be in leaders in independent churches and uneducated. I attempted to test this theory against Terry Jones, but I have been unable access dove world outreach's site. I looked up articles instead. Most of the articles I have read on Terry Jones mention his previous church in Germany and his hotel management experience. No mention of Colleges or seminaries. I already know his church is independent. While I could be wrong, I suspect that Terry Jones is a quack of a minister.

His church in Germany distanted themselves from him. Their falling out with him can be summed up in one sentence:

The fallout had much to do with Jones's dictatorial stance towards the church's beliefs and his desire for fame, according to current members.

Very telling isn't it? I don't suppose that a radical, authoritarian, and fringe minister could be doing all this for some attention and notoriety? Nah... that couldn't be it.

I am a little disappointed that the media describes him as Evangelical. I do not think Terry Jones and his church are part of Evangelicalism. This is because evangelicalism has denounced what his doing. No Evangelical institution I know would even consider doing what he is so stubborn in doing. It is probably not even appropriate to describe Terry Jones as the "fringe of Evangelicalism." He is off the spectrum completely. I do not speak for evangelicals, but I think many of them feel like I do: this church does not represent my religion. A thousand anathemas on him and his congregation.

Some might say that he is within his rights to do so. The American constitution guarantees his right of religious liberty. This is technically correct. Jones is within the letter of the law, yet he misses the point. The purpose of religious liberty in western democracies in general -and in the United States in particular- is to prevent religious conflict. In our political epoch -which Jones thinks he understands- neither the government nor a private citizen has threat of force or law in support of his religion. All religious groups are free to pursue their own notions of human good. The implied condition is that they do so without antagonizing other religions or sects. The spirit of religious liberty is peaceful coexistence, and this does not seem important to Terry Jones.

I hope, that after the 11th, everything that happens will be quickly forgotten. I hope the church disappears back into obscurity. I hope that serious, loud, letters of condemnation come from major evangelical organizations.

With that, I will close this blog.

A myspace salvage: "Are you Irresponsible?"

2010-09-04T09:54:00.001-07:00

I orginally posted this on my myspace account years ago. It still has humor value, so I reposted it here. I have finally deleted my myspace account.

Hello everyone! I've been reading "To Own a Dragon
" by Donald Miller. It is all about growing up when you are in your late twenties.

I have been giving so much thought to adolescence lately. A former roommate shared the causes of prolonged adolescence with me. I work at a charter school where I baby sit teenage boys for $120/day. I have many friends who are all over the map in age and maturity. It has been something on my mind for quite some time.

I thought it would be nice to talk about if responsibility and making decisions because Donald Miller's advice keeps people out of prison. The hard part is identifying whether or not you are one of those 20 something guys and are irresponsible. I've decided, after some reflection, to put together a simple list. After this, I'll provide a list of signs that tell if you should go to college or to work.

If you were a kid at Bethel's youth ministry while I was there, this list is for you!

Your diet consists of fast food, microwave burritos, and pepsi.

You won't take a commission only job, because you don't wanna work that hard.

You live in the basement of a more successful relative.

You missed a job interview because of the the last World of Warcraft expansion.

Somehow, you managed to fail PE class at a Junior College

It has never occurred to you that now might be a good time to kick that Marijuana habit.

You dream about being a rock star, professional skateboarder/surfer, comic book artist, or video game competitor while you are unable to wake up on time for anything.

You still don't understand why your friend got so mad when you hit on his sister.

If you don't open bills, they don't apply to you.

You've ever been really concerned about the legal definitions of statutory rape and workman's comp fraud.

You live off the trust fund your rich grandfather/uncle/parent set up for you.

You maxed-out your credit card on electronics or car parts.

You deserve more than $7.75/hour just because!

You describe MAXIM and FH magazines as "Life coaching publications."
Even though your rent is over $400/month, you still manage to buy junk at Spencer's.

You don't like doing dishes, so you buy disposable paper plates.

…and you don't like taking out the trash, so they still pile up.

You have one or more restraining orders from ex girlfriends.

Your life was the inspiration for the Chez Geek games.

Your idea of saving money is buying your soda and beer by the case, not the six pack.

It's not your fault anyway. It is all because of your estranged parent(s), the government, your boss, the mean kids in high school… blah blah ad nausem.

Now, I don't want to leave everyone hanging. There are ways that older boys in their twenties can become responsible. One common proposition, usually from the mind of their girlfriends, is "get Married." If the above list applies to you, I'd like you to read the next sentence out loud. Getting married in order to become responsible is a very bad idea. People wonder why the divorce rate is so high. I think this proposition is a cause thereof. Most guys have no problem not listening to their girlfriends on this one. Still, if this ever comes up, ye have been warned.

I propose two ways in which might help a person be responsible. I say might because there must be some degree of responsibility before you can do either of these. The prescription is one of these: go to college, or get a grown-up job.

You should go to College if…

You did well in high school, but never applied to Colleges because you partied to hard during senior year.
You read on a regular basis.
You've ever sat around work and been annoyed with the stupid banter from your co-workers.
You became the token introvert in high school because people got offended when you said things like, "No. World War I ended in 1918. You're thinking of the Civil War."
You won't go to college because your afraid to lose contact with all your friends who are still playing HALO, doing crank, and getting their girlfriends pregnant.
You ask, "if I to College, how will I have time to become a professional skateboarder, video-game competitor, or rock star?"

You should get a Grown-up Job if…

You hear a statistic like, "The average American watches over 1140 hours of TV a year" and it sounds low to you.

You want to move up in supermarket businesses.

You're annoyed with that Mr-smarty-pants co-worker you keeps correcting you about history 'n shit.

You are willing to work for commission and you look good in a suit.

You became an extrovert in high school when you started selling the smart-kid's answers to the tests.

You are delighted by the saying "PhD's work for the C students."

Well there it is!

In all seriousness, you might want to check out that book by Donald Miller because it is a very emotional and inspiring book.

The Unforgivable Sin?

2010-08-28T15:27:00.000-07:00

Today, I really don't have a statement or an idea to offer. It is more I have some incomplete thoughts brought on by feelings of disappointment and some frustration. This is more of a question that and issue that needs answering. Most people reading this probably have felt some of the things I have felt about the subject. So, I think I can risk sounding whiny.

Christians are usually willing to look past people's sins, or at least we know that we are supposed to. We know that we supposed to give love, even if someone is not morally upright. We will extend the right amount of love to the lost, in order that they may be redeemed. Why does this stop short in some issues?

Two stories might help. An acquaintance of mine is dating a someone. His family is very Christian and close knit. It has been an issue of great tension that he is dating a divorcee. This tension is so bad that she is not welcome at family gatherings. While I do not know how serious the relationship is, I know that this acquaintance is a very difficult position. He will have to choose when he should not have to.

There is another all familiar story. A young couple knows they must not have sex before marriage. Like any romantic couple, they want have sex. Following the recommendations of evangelicalism, they get married so as to not live in sin. However, it later becomes apparent that neither partner was ready for marriage, and they divorce. The young divorcee is now welcomed in church as a second-class Christian. This is a familiar story to many, and you reading this can probably put in a few names.

Now, in fairness, not all churches will do this. One of the things I liked about Mosaic was that I never felt like the few divorcees (or otherwise single people) were not fully welcome.

There is still a strong streak of metaphorical stone throwing in many churches. Divorce earns someone a permanent scarlet letter. I have great trouble understanding this kind of shaming in light of grace.

Iconic Images of Individualism

2010-08-12T09:09:00.000-07:00

Internetmonk.com has a had a few blogs on individualism lately. There are particurlarly angry words against individualistic autonomy which is rightly contrasted with extremely communal living of some Christian traditions.

As Americans, individualism is the water that we swim in. We might not actually know what it is. If we do know what it is, we are used to praising it. I myself, am a incurable individualist at times. I do not think that individualism is bad per se, but it certainly affects Christianity in the United States. Pictures, however, are worth a thousand words. Here are some images I dug up when googling "Worship."

Notice a pattern? The images are always of the lone person communing with the God up on high. That individual worships God all by himself, with no one around. Such an emphasis on the individualistic Christian worship is so strong that it was lampooned at Saddleback church

I didn't stop there. If you have ever been through a Bible bookstore you have also seen images of individualism. Like these:

Like the images of worship, these book covers privilege a spirituality that is "me and God." It is a belief in sola ego with sola scriptura. The Osteen book even has it in the title: ...a better you. Again, individualism shows itself better through images than words can express.

There is also another way to notice individualism in our churches and worship. Listen closely to words used in worship songs. Do they emphasis the singular pronouns (I/me) or the plural pronouns (We/us)? The former emphasizes individualism. For sake of contrast here are the lyrics from two songs. First an old hymn:

A mighty fortress is our God.
A bulwark never failing.
Our helper he a mid the flood,
of mortal ills prevailing.
-A Mighty Fortress

here is a more contemporary song:

And I will rise when He calls my name
No more sorrow, no more pain
I will rise on eagles' wings
Before my God fall on my knees
And rise
I will rise
-I will Rise by Chris Tomlin

Notice the pronouns I highlighted. The contemporary song uses individualistic language ("I will rise"), while the older hymn uses communal language ("our God"). Also, try reading both of the lyrics as if they were sentences in your second grade English class. If your teacher said "please underline the subject of this sentence," what would you underline in each of those songs?

Now again, I am not saying that individualism is bad per se, but it does affect American Christianity. This is something we need to be aware of, and evaluate our practices accordingly.

So what do "you" think? ;-)

Anne Rice: I feel free

2010-08-10T11:19:00.000-07:00

After a few days of following the recent "scandal" of Anne Rice's departure from the RCC, I feel like I can comment.

Her interview at CNN revealed a few things beyond what was on her facebook page. A nice article from Crosswalk gave some solid admonishments to react to her as something other than a turncoat.

Anne Rice, as is known to most people by now is frustrated by the anti-gay/feminist/democrat tendencies in Christianity. I think this is pretty common among a lot of Christians. The loudest voices in churches tend to be part of that group, but for every speaker that is vilifying homosexuals, feminists, and liberals that are a likely a dozen Christians who fall into at least one of those three categories. If not, I know that there are many more who are equally annoyed with our approach.

Christians who are thoroughly annoyed with the conservative Christian platform, usually find churches that do not endorse the conservative Christian platform.

Anne Rice sounded rather protestant when she was mentioning that she could not find in scripture a basis for the church's political platform. Now in fairness to her opposition, I do not think they ever claimed that it ever was. The RCC position on that matter uses scripture and is also guided by reasonable philosophy and tradition. Rice's detractors, as irritable as they might be, are right to criticize her on this point.

The impression I get from her interview is that Anne Rice is frustated/exhausted, and I can actually sympathize. She's angry because she is a celebrity Christian and probably getting more chaff than she ever wanted. I suspect that a huge motivating factor is a desire to be left alone and not feel the pressure anymore. I do not think she wants anyone getting in her face(book) when ever she posts an article that advocates for things that are close to her heart. Fame, I think, is a bit of killer when it comes to dissenting with Christian authorities.

As POD once angrily sang:

I can't do anything right!
You don't know me. Stay out of my life!
Kick me while I'm down, I don't want you to.
I can't be like you.
I don't want to be like you.

But do watch the video if you care. What is your reaction to Anne Rice?

Part V The Charity of The Listener

2010-07-30T20:16:00.000-07:00

The LORD said to me, "Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adulteress. Love her as the LORD loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes." -Hosea 3:1

Authenticity is a good. The practice of confessing leads us to this and other goals. I think that most Christians would be willing to be a bit more authentic. So what stops this from happening? I suspect this does not happen because there are few who are willing to listen, not because there are few who are willing to speak.

I entitled this blog the “Charity of the Listener (aka the Confessor).” By charity, I do not mean that the listener gives away money or something. I mean it terms of Christian Charity, which is Love that surpasses our conventional thinking of love. Christian Love goes beyond loving what is similar and good in order to love what is alien and ugly. It loves that which normally unloveable. A Biblical example is the symbolic marriage of Hosea to a prostitute. God loves Israel like Hosea loves his wife. God loves that which is alien and ugly, so Christians must be willing to do the same. We have to love sinful people -most of all sinful Christians.

Hearing, and really listening, to someone accuse themselves of sin is an act of Christian charity. It means not responding with judgment and not with quick fixes. However, this act of charity begins long before a friend comes to you and says, “I have sinned.” We need the reputation as the loving listener long before because who would think to come to us otherwise? I have decided that I want to be the kind of Christian who listens. I want to have a reputation of patience and charity. This is reputation that will be hard earned. The first step to do so is to avoid harsh “tough-love” rhetoric. Judging is easy, but graciousness is hard.

Before you think of commenting on what I have said so far, please do this thought experiment with me. Before you start, try to be in a private environment and take a few moments of introspection. If you’re ready, please try this with me: think of one of your worst sins. Think back to a time when you did something or thought something that made you feel ashamed, guilty, and filled with regret. This might be a moment of envy of someone else good blessing. It might also be failure to look out for the needy. Maybe you lost your temper and became hateful. I am not asking you to tell me or anyone else what it is, but think about. Then think about how it made you feel after you realized it was sin.

With that in your heart, imagine meeting a pastor or another Christian who had this to say in a sermon:

Some of you guys are a total joke. I have no respect for you at all. You can’t get a job, keep a job, you can’t keep your hands off a girl, you can’t stop downloading porn… (source)

Or barring that, how about a message like this?

Have you ever thought that there are people who go to hell today that never thought they’d go there? You indulge in your favorite sin…You don’t want to be like God. You just want people to back off when they reprove the thing that you are in love with! (source)

Now do these approaches make you feel like being more open about your sin, or hide it more? If you are anything like most people, these are likely to make you defensive, frustrated, and possibly even a little bitter. If it makes you feel more open, what motivates you to serve God? Fear of reprisal? Guilt? Need for an authority’s approval? How long will such appeals remain effective?

What kind of approach would make you feel comfortable in being open about your sin?

I admit, There was a point in my Christian life were such rhetoric and language really made sense to me. Think though, of how it made you feel. I know I no longer have a positive reaction to this kind of stuff. If I did not have a good reaction to this than likely most other people did not either. I realized that I could not stomach this kind of thing much longer, and decided that I would repent -yes repent- of such behavior and make a conscious effort to do the opposite. I would rather be the kind of person who reminds people of God’s forgiveness, than the one who accuses them of sin.

Christian Charity means a few things. We must put our love and compassion for a sinner above a zealous tendency to renounce sin. We have to replace open contempt with patience. We must drop petty justifications for harboring resentment towards (other) sinners. We must learn to be like God who loves things that are ugly. As God listens the prayers of sinful people, so might he make us able to be listen to them too.

Now it is time for your comments...

...or the start of the series.

Part IV What it Gives us

2010-07-24T09:06:00.000-07:00

Now, at long last, we can finally get around to things mentioned in the first blog. That is, our quest for authenticity, community, and humility. Those of you have been patient enough to follow this series from its beginning very likely see where this is going. Hopefully, everything I say in this blog will be mere re-affirmation of you are already thinking and feeling.

Authenticity is surely very obvious here. Authentic Christians are Christians who do not put of a front, do not wear a mask, and do not attempt to hide their sins and their struggles. The practice of confession takes it a step further. It encourages Christians to expose their sins to one another, in order that they may be healed. Interestingly enough, authenticity does not mean a violation of privacy. Those who hear eachother’s sins are assumed never to gossip about them. I myself have a group of a few friends who I confess to and vice versa. I have heard some of their dark secrets and they have heard some of mine. There is no doubt that we keep all this all between us.

Little else will encourage humility more than telling another Christian that you have done something that you are ashamed of. If one is doing the act of confession, you are not in a position to excuse your behavior or otherwise lie to yourself about the mistakes you have done. Interestingly enough, the person hearing the confession also practices humility -by biting his tongue. He must admit to himself that he cannot understand someone’s actions as well as the person who did them. He must be slow to speak and quick to understand. This is not easy for many people to do, especially if they are the person who is used to being heard.

Finally Community both precedes before and comes after the practice of confession. Think of the people who you trust most to tell them the things that you are ashamed of. You are no doubt confident that these people love you deeply. If this is the case, then you are very likely already in a good Christian community. This community is deepened as we become closer to each other, when we choose to love each other as Christ loves us.

There will be one last blog, which points to Christian Love.

Part III Things Luther Said

2010-07-19T16:07:00.000-07:00

Be a sinner and sin strongly, but more strongly have faith and rejoice in Christ. -Martin Luther

Now that the Catholic blog is out of the way, it is time to discuss the story of Protestant’s golden boy, Martin Luther. Yes, Martin Luther had problems with the confessional, but it was not the confessional itself that was the problem. His personal struggles, and his reading of the Bible both lead him to a particular understanding of Grace and the priesthood that encourages us to play the role of either penitent (he who confesses) or the confessor (he who listens) for each other.

You may already know about Luther’s personal struggles. Luther once confessed that he could not love God, because he hated him. This was because Luther’s perception of God was that of a painful taskmaster. Luther knew he could be forgiven, but was constantly stressed –to the point of obsessive anxiety- over his sins. Luther could walk out of mass, in which all sins are forgiven, but then he would worry about sins he forgot to confess! Luther was on perpetual treadmill of personal holiness, and he knew he could never measure up.

Luther’s understanding of Grace, based on a reading of Romans and (what I think) a personal spiritual experience lead him to an enlivened understanding of grace. The idea is that a Christian is forgiven. This does not mean that a Christian is forgiven if that Christians pays alms, does the right penance, shows the fruits of the spirit, walks morally upright etc. A Christian is forgiven. There is no kind of “if” clause. There is no qualification. God cancels the debt of all sins, and there is nothing more to be said.

The Christian, will of course, continue to sin. They will always succumb to temptation. So a Christian, based on their behavior, will in many ways look like their same old unregenerate self. Nonetheless, God sees this person as spotless and clean. The Christian wears Christ’s righteousness, which is freely given to him. In Latin, the phrase Simul Justus and Peccator -at the same time justified and sinner- sums it up. Another famous metaphor is that we are sacks of garbage, but that God smells roses. This of course does not mean that a Christian should avoid seeking good and doing good, only that the failure to do so does not affect one’s standing with God and neither will more good deeds earn someone brownie points in the hereafter.

That is the grace of God that is extended to us. How might we extend this same Grace to our neighbors, especially other Christians?

There is another aspect of Luther’s works that is emphasized less: the Universal Priesthood of All Believers. Part of the reason why we forget this is not knowing what sacredotalism is. Sacredotalism is the belief that there is a special group of individuals (priests) who have a special kind of access to God that the ordinary Christian does not. In Catholicism, the priest, and only the priest (with some exception) may perform certain sacraments such as the Lord’s Supper, Baptism, and of course Reconciliation of Sins. The priest plays a mediator type role between individuals and God. Protestantism does not endorse sacredotalism and is said to have abolished it. I reiterate that this partially correct.

Evangelicals may consider it an offense that anyone can intercede between a Christian and God. Luther, however, did not find this as so offensive. He believed, as many Protestants still do today, that God placed us in church for a reason. That reason is that the work of the Holy Spirit is frequently done through other Christians. That Christians represent Christ to each other. How does this differ from sacerdotal teaching? Luther’s believed that there need not be a special group of consecrated individuals. Instead, he said that any believer is potentially a priest for any other. Thus, the priesthood was not abolished in Protestantism, but was expanded to include all.

This means that protestants need not go to a priest or even their pastor. All Christians are potentially priests for eachother. We are able to find people we trust and confess privately to them. Likewise, we have the chance to earn the trust of other people in hopes that they will fill free to confess to us.

Two very good things follow from this. If Christians are really “the same time justified and sinner,” then it encourages all Christians to look at each other in this light. Hearing someone’s confession encourages us to develop this kind of attitude. We can develop churches and communities in which the worst of us can feel accepted. If God really wants to work through us then it puts a huge responsibility on our part to do so. Christians know how our behavior affects our reputation with the world, and we protect our reputation with eachother. Would not people want to join our communities more if we developed a reputation for treating each other better than any other community?

At the beginning of this series, I pledged to connect Confession of Sins to authenticity, humility, and community. Already, you can see where all this might be leading. The specifics though, will be the subject of other blogs.

Thanks for keeping reading.

Part II What Happens in Confession

2010-07-16T09:01:00.000-07:00

The First Point is to give thanks to God our Lord for the benefits I have received. The second is to ask grace to know my sins and rid myself of them. -The Excercises of St Ignatius 43

Because of my own upbringing, I really cannot help but think of confession and reconciliation within a Catholic framework. Most people reading this are probably well past the reactionary, fundamentalist, or otherwise fearful dogmatism and misinformation that sadly infects a lot of American Protestantism. Still, I think that there might be a little resistance to what I am about to write. I promise that that this can be put safely aside.

I will say three things to the apprehensiveness to anything “Catholic.” First, think of following important Christians beliefs: The Trinity, the Incarnation, deference to the poor, and need to evangelize the world. All of these are important to evangelicals and not to be missed. Yet, these are also important in Catholicism. Which one of these beliefs should be rejected because Catholics believe it as well? Obviously, I think the answer is none of them. Wouldn’t it make sense to be open to an idea, regardless of what group says it?

Secondly, someone might say to this that Protestants already know everything they need to know, about confessing sins and such. Now, this could very well be the case. Someone reading this may already frequently confess their sins to other Christians and have the kind of grace and Christian love that people feel comfortable confessing their sins to them, than there is nothing to be said. However, if you cannot honestly say that you have perfected this biblical practice (James 5:15-16), then is there not something that might be learned?

Finally, confession –whether public or private- is not merely a Catholic thing anyway. The Book of Common Prayer –which holds spiritual value for many protestants- contains liturgies centered around public confession. Lutheran church services also have a tradition of the confession of sin. More will be said on Luther’s –and his understanding of Grace- later on.

With these three things in mind, let’s move on.

The practice of confession and reconciliation is fairly simple. It begins with two people in a very private environment. The penitent is the one who has sinned (whether by commission or omission), and the priest plays the role of the confessor –the one who hears the confession. (Terminology is confusing, as “confessor” can mean the person hearing the confession or speaking the confession!) I will keep these definitions consistent, as one might describe two roles in a play.

The penitent knows that he has sinned. He knows that he has failed in some significant way. He knows that he willfully and consciously chose evil instead of good. This isn’t something like an accident. It is not something that can be excused by diminished capacity. The penitent is not confessing that he stubbed his toe and blurted out “God dammit” out of reflexive response. He is more likely confessing a sin he was more conscious of, such deliberate gossip, downloading pornography, or refusing to think well of one’s neighbor. It may not even be an action, but simply feelings of inordinate anger, envy or even despair. Any Christian probably knows what this feels like.

The priest (or any confessor) will play the role of Christ’s representative. He will work very hard (as I am sure they do) to love the sinner as Christ loves the sinner. In this way, he plays the role as the one who absolves sin, rather than reminds. When the priest prescribes penance, it is for the purpose of further healing, not punishment. He will also suggest to the penitent ways in which he can overcome this sin and replace it with right-thinking, feeling, and doing. It is for this reason that the sacrament of confession is usually referred to as the Sacrament of Reconciliation in the Catholic Church.

It is very important to note that the priest never plays the role of the accuser. (This is, after all, Satan’s namesake) The penitent accuses himself of sin. He is, after all, the only one who can know well enough that he has done something wrong with full culpability. The act of confession begins with “I have sinned” not “you have sinned.” How different this is from what many of us are used to! It so obviously follows the advice of Jesus to see to plank in our own eyes. It is also similar to the fourth step of recovery ministries in which the addict takes a serious, personal, moral accounting –while the rest of the group is silent!

This point is so important I want to emphasize right here: the penitent and the penitent alone will accuse himself of sin. The confessor, who hears him, responds with patience, love, compassion, and never accuses the penitent of sin.

For those of us, Catholics or Protestants, who have experienced this, we can all remember the feeling of relief that comes confessing sin to another. The feeling of absolution is something that is not always found in confessing only in private prayer. Those who are close to us and those who love us can give us another set of eyes and suggest what we might do to be healed. Further, we also open ourselves up to accountability. Simply put, there is something profoundly different about speaking one’s sin to another, and then having that other not judge you, but remind you of Christ’s forgiveness.

There are doubtless a few objections that other protestants are thinking of right now. For instance, there seems to be little emphasis on church discipline or holiness here. The sinner is to easily “let off the hook” in this scenario. Some may think that since the priesthood was abolished by Protestantism, that this practice cannot possibly be facilitated in anything but Catholicism. These two objections, though sensible, can be discussed and overcome. First, holiness is of course important but that depends on what kind of holiness we are seeking. Secondly, we need not worry about the role of a priest because it is not totally accurate to say that Protestantism “abolished” the priesthood.

You’ll read a few more protestant things in the next blog.

The Value of Confession: Part I (What we want)

2010-07-13T08:36:00.000-07:00

"Therefore, confess your sins to one another, pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much." - James 4:16

Over the last couple of weeks I have given some thought to the idea of confession of sins in between believers. I am not only referring to a sin towards someone and then apologizing for that sin. I am talking about struggling with sin in general, and confessing that to another Christian. This is a practice that is facilitated well in Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and could happen in evangelicalism. With the exception of Anne Jackson’s project, I do not know of any evangelical organization that focuses on such. Yet, I see a need for it in evangelicalism because it can point us to three things we hope for in our communities. Here they are.

Authenticity, for instance, is a mantra among Christians. This is especially strong among twenty something post-evangelicals like myself. No one likes pretense. No one likes duplicity. You, reading this, probably can think of times in which people felt the pressure to act good, appear holy and holier, and otherwise put on a smile when they are not feeling it. Now, I am by no means suggesting that everyone should hang their dirty laundry out the window. I am only saying that Christians really do want to be able to admit that they are, in fact, really sinful people. We all want to be understood as such. Christians who struggle with depression, addictions or anything similar probably know this.

Humility is also often in short supply. Now, humility is not self deprecation. It is a frank assessment of oneself and the limits of one’s abilities. It is the willingness to be slow to speak and quick to understand. It is the quest to consider others greater than yourself, but without falling into envy or despair. It is the willingness to recognize that we cause our own problems and to recognize where we must improve. All of this must be consistently practiced. It is a task that is never ending.

We also desire an in-depth Christian community. It is true that our implicit individualism keeps many from even wanting this, but I feel that many Christians have realized that “Just me and my Bible” or “Just me and the Holy Spirit” is not the kind of faith we were really meant to have. Rather, we all believe that God puts us in church for good reason. The work of the Holy Spirit is frequently accomplished through other people in our lives. Another person’s look at scripture will improve ours. Most importantly, we realize that as much as we want to represent Christ to the world, we also want to represent Christ to each other. This, again, is something that is not easy to do, but is part of what it means to be a Christian.

These three things –authenticity, humility, and community- are all things Christians desire. They are all things that Christians need. They are all good things that we know we should have, but usually do not have. We want to live in a community of authentic human beings who love each other enough that none are afraid to admit their faults. We want to be the kinds of Christians who listen before we judge. However, we all know that this does not happen as well as it should.

I will write on the nuts and bolts of confession and reconciliation next. Please keep reading because of those future blogs.

N.T. Wright, thanks for speaking for me.

2010-07-06T18:17:00.000-07:00

Since leaving graduate school, I have been reading Surprised by Hope. The book is incredible. The subject is Christian hope. Most evangelicals feel like they have an idea of what that is -especially in relation to the afterlife. Imagine though, you had never seen anything but a 1950s black and white television complete with bunny ears. Then someone came in and replaced it with 36 inch plasma screen. That is the difference between the tepid evangelical approach to Easter and the dramatic interpretation that N.T. Wright offers.

In one section, N.T. Wright took words straight out of my mouth. The final chapter of the book deals with Christian mission and Christian worship in light of Easter Sunday. When commenting on the various traditions in worship, specifically the difference between older traditions and low-church contemporary worship. He says:

I am always amused, on this point, when I visit churches that carefully abandoned all signs of professional worship from a former age -robed choirs, processions, organists, and the like -and then invented new forms of worship that demand just as much professionalism in terms of competent people managing sounds systems, lighting, overhead projection and PowerPoint, and so on. There is nothing wrong with either. All can and should be done to the glory of God. But the implication that older styles of worship are somehow less spiritual and modern electronic worship is somehow more worthy is sheer cultural prejudice and should be happily laughed at whenever it emerges. (Emphasis mine)

I could not have said it any better myself.

if it was my funeral...

2010-06-21T19:54:00.000-07:00

Here goes, it is time to get morbid.

There have been a few funerals around my world recently. I won't mention whose, as anyone reading this can probably guess if they know me. At these funerals, there are some peculiar practices that -if it where mine- I would probably not like. No, I think of something else entirely.

Sometimes, there is a bit sermonizing at funerals. It is usually about the need to accept Jesus so you can get into heaven when you die. Apparently, this is sometimes accompanied by a full on altar call. So after everyone remembers the deceased, there is a need for the minister to make sure everyone is going to get to heaven too. It seems to make sense. If the Gospel is about going to heaven when you die, then what better time than a funeral to make sure everyone gets to heaven when you do?

Now, don't think that this practice is wrong. Yet, if it were my funeral, I think I would resurrect from the dead right then and give the minister an earful. I am not a fan of altar calls in general. Now altar calls at a funeral seem just plain thoughtless. It is as if evangelical ministers do not know how to do much except evangelize, and they only way they know how is via altar calls. It seems a tacky -and perhaps even manipulative- practice.

Christians believe in things other than making everyone Christian, right? We believe things beyond "go and preach the Gospel", right? We have entire traditions of devotions, practices, and above all hope, yes? Wouldn't some of those be more appropriate for a funeral? This leads me to my next thought...

At many funerals there is a lot of talk about heaven. The soul of the deceased is in eternity with God. The deceased may even still be with us in spirit and watching down. I am reminded of the old Family Circus cartoons in which a ghostly apparition of the deceased grandfather happily watches his grand children from the clouds. This hallmark image of heaven is what is so often invoked at a Christian funeral.

In contrast to altar calls, please do think that this is wrong. This is not what the Bible teaches. It is not what Christian hope is. This is not what Christians are supposed to believe about life-after-death. As one blogger put it, this belief is a second rate consolation prize compared to what God really has for us.

Paul speaks of the redemption of the the body (Romans 8:23) and elsewhere he talks of the raising for the dead (1 Corinthians 15). This is not some metaphor for salvation. This means that our bodies, which are now cursed by sin and will die, will be physically raised up and returned to perfection with the rest of God's good creation some day. It is for this reason that early Christians dug catacombs for their dead, rather than burning them. Their bodies were simply to sacred to be burnt on a Roman funeral pyre.

I think of it this way: my last earthly memories of my late grandfather were when he was tired, sick, old and unable to remember our names. He was so weak that he could not swallow applesauce. But when the dead are raised, his body will not suffer anymore and stroke that so damaged his mind will be of no consequence. I do not think of my grandfather as floating on the clouds watching my life right now, but I look forward to telling him all about it when the dead are raised on the last day.

At my funeral, this is what I want people to talk about it. We can forget about an altar call. We can forget about souls floating to heaven. Whenever I die, and am buried in the dirt, I want whoever speaks to emphasize the future bodily resurrection. That is what I look forward to with the entire Christian world.

I guess that wasn't so morbid after all, huh?

Ted Haggard starts a new Church

2010-06-04T14:19:00.000-07:00

You all remember Ted Haggard? I'm sure most people here will. If you don't know, you are probably not Evangelical, which believe me is okay.

Only a few days ago, Ted Haggard released a public statement in which he described both his healing process from his moral failing and the beginning of his new church -St. James in Colorado Springs.

Candidly, Ted Haggard talked about feeling marginalized and outcast in his own town. I can imagine that he felt like many of New-testament lepers, who were forced to ring bells and cry "un-clean" wherever they walked. His new purpose at St. James church will target the marginalized, afraid, and outcast. His most revealing statement is here:

After three and a half years of not being accepted, feeling shame and embarrassment going into a store, Starbucks, or McDonalds, ashamed to run into someone who might know me. I’ve gained a new compassion for people who are afraid, who wake up in the middle of the night with cold sweats wondering how they will get through the next few day. I understand the fear of being scrutinized and judged by so many. I understand struggling with life, and have decided that this is the time to use the years I have left to serve others.

I have to admit, this great. I am neither evangelical nor charismatic (except in a very technical sense). If I was, I would want a pastor with some dirt in his life. This is because self-righteousness, impeccable holiness, and judgment are (sadly) staples in many churches. It would appear that this may not be possible in Ted Haggard's new church.

But I wonder, will the paradigm shift within the new St. James church? It is clear that the members of New Life expected a certain level of holiness from their leaders. This is good thing, but when is the bar too high and the pressure to much? Haggard, to my knowledge, has never complained about the pressures of ministry affecting his behavior. Yet there is not doubt that the charismatic tradition has a strong streak for moral perfectionism. Whether things will be different at St. James will remain to be seen.

Representitive McClintock to President Calderon: "Fuck off Please"

2010-05-22T02:34:00.000-07:00

I do not think I have commented on politics since the election of Obama. I have avoided talking about immigration since it is a polarizing issue in which a person is either a racist or a foreign insurgent depending on which side you take. I must also necessarily view people entering from Mexico as either illegal immigrants or the vulnerable poor. There is however, an issue which I think is worth a short blog post.

Imagine that it is the 1960s. We are deeply embroiled in the civil rights turmoil. The dixiecrats in the south are still pulling for Jim Crow, while representatives from various groups are campaigning for reform for what they see as racial injustice. The arguments are deeply impassioned on both sides.

Then, one day, a representative from South Africa comes before congress. He lectures the dixiecrats and anyone else who supports Jim Crow. He, a foriegner, has important insight on American domestic policy. He says the dixiecrats must change their mind and change their laws. Jim Crow, he explains, is a racial injustice in the United States. "All people are created equal," he says. Yes, he is a representative from South Africa -the country with the apartheid.

This is somewhat analogous for today. President Calderon of Mexico spoke before the American Congress on our immigration policy. McClintock, who made me proud to be in California, responded firmly, even-handedly, but with clear indignation. Among other things he noted: 1) It is rather rude for a foreign official to lecture another nation on its domestic policy. 2) Mexico's immigration policy is harsh and far more exclusionary than anything the United States has ever held, and consequently 3) The Mexican government is hypocritical.

Mexico's immigration policy, in my opinion, hurts the cause of its immigrants here. Calderon's rudeness does not help the poor of his country. If immigration rights "know no borders" or if "God created the earth for everyone" than that applies to Mexico too.

Much of Central America thinks of Mexico as arrogant and jingoistic. I am beginning to understand why.

Final Thoughts on Graduate School (Doctrina Suprema Qua Reppereram)

2010-05-14T11:18:00.000-07:00

Abandon sageliness and discard knowledge, and the people will benefit a hundredfold.
Abandon humanity and discard righteousness, and the people will return to filial piety and care.
Abandon skill and discard profit, and there will be no thieves or robbers.

These three sayings:
They are are not yet sufficient for forming a pattern,
thus they shall be connected with something.

Manifest plainness, embrace simplicity,
Reduce selfishness, have less desires,
abandon learning, have no worries.

-The Dao De Jeng Chapter 19

(Special thanks to Dr. Wong.)

The Orthodoxy of Eternal Torment: HELL NO!!

2010-05-13T22:05:00.000-07:00

At no point in my life would I have ever thought that I would write in the defense of an old-school, Bible belt, TBN-Pentecostal minister -who is deeply rooted in Oral Roberts University. I would have given a strong no if asked to do this a few weeks ago. Amazingly, the story of Carlton Pearson has inspired me to do just this.

Feel free to listen to the entirety of the radio. It is rather interesting. But here’s the skinny: Pearson was born, bred, and thriving in Bible-belt, turn-or-burn, Pentecostalism. Getting other people away from hell was his job. He had full-time mega church ministry complete with a spot on TBN. He was a spiritual protégé of Oral Roberts and mentor to T.D. Jakes. One day, Pearson had a mystical experience and realized that he could no longer believe in Hell. He abandoned this doctrine in favor of Universalism (everyone goes to heaven. There is no hell.), and consequently found himself ostracized by his congregation and his peers. He was branded a heretic, and is regarded as such today.

I should probably remove any doubts or confusions about what I am actually defending here. I am not, of course defending TBN itself or Oral Roberts University. This will become even clearer later. Furthermore, I am not defending universalism itself. Neither am I defending Pearsons current ministry at a Unitarian church. I think Unitarianism is silly. One of my favorite stories, that turned into running joke, was the dead-locked Unitarian church meeting: they couldn’t agree to a statement of faith. What I am defending is premise that universalism (whether right or wrong) is not a heresy, or a violation of faith. Conversely, I am saying that a belief in hell is not an essential for Christianity.

Now back to the story. Pearson was a successful, humorous, and loved minister. He, a black man, lead a church that integrated both black and white people in a place like Tulsa. He rubbed shoulders with the best of the fundies. He also was not dumb. He was well read and understood Greek. However, not everything was right. In the late 1990s he had particular experience. In Pearson’s own words:

I was watching the evening news [covering conflict in Rwanda] I’m watching these little kids with swollen little bellies, it looks like their skins is stretched across their skeletal remains, their hair is kinda red from malnutrition the babies are got flies in the corners of their eyes and their mouths. They reach for their mother’s breasts and the mother’s breasts looks like a pencil, hanging there…there’s no milk…and I say, “God, I don’t know how you can call yourself a loving sovereign God, and allow people to suffer this way and then suck them right into hell.” (which was what my assumption) and I heard a voice within me say, “So that’s what you think we’re doing?” [I answered] “That’s what I’ve been taught.”

Pearson felt that God asked him, rhetorically, if you think they’re going to hell, then why not go preach the Gospel to them? This was too much for Pearson to accept, as he had already been a minister for forty years. He knew he couldn’t save the whole world. What he believed, after this short conversation with God, was that humans make their own hells –but God eventually brings everyone into his presence. God’s work of salvation and atonement applies to everyone. He said, “for the first time in my life I did not see God as the inventor of Hell.”

This led to some problematic conclusions. If there is no hell, there is no need to accept Jesus to escape it. Likewise, there was no need to go to church. Everyone is going to heaven. This led to some serious problems. His church attendance shrank. Pearson and his pastoral staff parted ways, because they could no longer understand each other. Those who followed him were considered damned by many. He eventually moved his church, where his congregants are accosted by others who feel like they still need to be saved. Oral Roberts became silent on his association with him now. T.D. Jakes became distant.

Why believe in hell? There were a number of answers that kept coming up in the radio show. One of them was that even though believing in hell is an offense, people needed to remember that God makes the rules. Even if we don’t like it, we must not re-write the Bible whether we like it or not. This is not a good reason to believe in hell. First, no one is re-writing the Bible. Pearson and many universalists believe that their interpretation of the Bible is right. It is no more of a re-writing of the Bible than anything else that Pentecostal movement has done. Secondly, “God makes the rules” is an idiomatic way of saying, “Things are right or wrong because God says so.” This is one answer to the Euthyphro question. It is not an premise that all Christians accept. It has to be decided before people feel they can use it to brute force a belief in Hell’s orthodoxy.

There is another reason why it is really important to believe in hell: it keeps people coming to your church. This was clear, as when Pearson denounced hell, many people left. One youth pastor, who still attends Pearson’s church, commented that a fear of hell is one of the first things he remembered learning. It was through this fear that he kept going. Later, he said that if you remove the “requirements” and the threat of hell a church will thin out and some people will be “out of a job.” Even as he described all this, he chuckled at it.

Why does this not strike more people as absurd? Hell is the appeal to fear that keeps people loving God? Personally, I cannot imagine serving God out of a fear of hell anymore. I will say this of fear appeals: If your church needs a cosmic appeal to fear to keep people motivated to attend, serve, and evangelize, than you need to really re-think the church and what the Gospel is. Christianity is supposed to offer good things to the world. Faith is to be sustained by love and hope. Appeals to fear will eventually wear off, but a church that offers love to the world will be sustained and fulfill its mission for the Gospel, and no The Gospel is not simply “keep people out of hell.”

What about the alternatives? What about people who still attend Pearson’s church? What I have noticed about both Pearson and his one of his congregants is that they seem sensitive to Christian charity. Pearson’s experience with the Rwandans on TV was motivated out of a need to understand God’s love in the face of evil. His church, right now, has opened the door to people who were ostracized by their families and the charismatic Christendom of Tulsa. When one of his congregants was accosted by those who criticize Pearson and his church, she realized how insensitive such kind of evangelicalism really is. Though it irritates her, she feels compassion for the people who still are motivated by a fear of hell.

There is another irony. People who ostracize Pearson and his followers are still following one of his former protégés, T.D. Jakes. T.D. Jakes still holds the to the doctrine of hell, but his oneness Pentecostal background has made him hazy on the Trinity. Though Jakes says he believes in the Trinity, his descriptions sound more like modalism to me and many others. This really bothers me. How is it that a belief in hell is considered an essential for faith, but the Trinity can be replaced with modalism in everything but name? This demands an entire blog in itself, but I am still stunned that dogma about hell is more important too many people than The Trinity.

Now is Pearson a wrong or right in his universalism? That’s not the point of this blog. The point of this blog is to show that I think there is a serious problem. Dogma about hell should not be not an essential for the Christian faith if its justifications are fear appeals or “God says so.” Furthermore, those who insist on it hurt their case when they fail to show Christian charity, whether that be by ostracizing people like Pearson or accosting members of his church. Hell is not an essential Christian doctrine. Let no Christian worship because of fear of it.

Penulitmate Blog on Graduate School

2010-04-22T21:45:00.000-07:00

I am about to finish college 2.0, and I am remarkably unstressed. That is, I am unstressed at the moment I am writing this. I could be losing my mind tomorrow. But for now, I'm good.

I am, bluntly put, resigned about academia for the time being. I am not expecting any of my papers to be stellar, propel-you-into-PhD, or present-at-conference quality. The learning curve for my Kierkegaard class and my Aristotle class is simply to high for me to accomplish that. My paper for the Pascal class -which I really hoped to do well in- is going to suffer as a consequence. Yes: all my papers will be of "promising start" quality. They will not be superb quality. They will, however, be finished.

For the remaining weeks I plan to dedicate a certain amount of time each day to my writing of these papers. I find that simply petting my iPod timer to something like ninety minutes at a time, ignoring everything else, and just writing takes away a tremendous amount of stress. I will be getting two to three hours of work done each day. That should give me enough time to get the papers done.

After those are done, I simply have to defend a paper in front of three professors. It will be the paper I wrote for my Aquinas class. You know, that preamble to Open Theism I wrote a year ago. I expect that to go evenly. It will be intimidating for sure, but I do not expect a fail.

In the meantime, I am applying for jobs around Los Angeles, renewing my passport, getting materials ready for my applications to Korea, and looking foreward -with great excitement- to my trip to Portland.

Rest in Peace: The Internet Monk

2010-04-08T14:14:00.000-07:00

Well I'm extra sad.

One of my favorite bloggers has recently passed away. Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk, died two days ago at age 53.

I am sad that he is gone. I greatly enjoyed his blog, and I will continue to enjoy it. His book, Mere Churchianity, was on my list of things to purchase and read soon.

I regret that I will never get to hear another one of his podcasts or equally wonderful and challenging blogs.

A Christian Hipster reflects on G-pack's Liturgy at New Life

2010-03-29T14:24:00.000-07:00

I went to a church service in Jesusland* and I liked it.

I am on my final spring break of the combined times of College and Supra-college. I am spending a good chunk of it in Colorado Springs (Jesusland), CO. Since yesterday was Palm Sunday, I knew I was going to be in church. On Sunday morning, I went to an Episcopalian service with an Episcopalian friend. Later, I was spending time with some quality folk that Sunday. This included a few friends from Azusa Pacific.

I wound up going to New Life, for their evening service. It was run by Glenn Packiam -G-pack, if you will- who is incorporating the Book of Common Prayer, the Nicene Creed, and Readings of scripture into the standard, de facto mega-church liturgy. This is a bold move for G-pack, since many people in that tradition consider the "t-word" and the "l-word" the rote incantations of those who don't rely on the Holy Spirit or whatever. G-Pack has written a nice explanation and defense of what he is doing. I applaud him for his efforts and bravery.

The net result of the service was an interesting concoction. For the New-Life regulars, this was an unfamiliar, and strange addition to what they are used to. For me and other high churchgoers it seemed an odd dilution of the order of worship that we are used to. Reciting the Lord's Prayer and the Nicene Creed is not new to me. Those are what I hear every Sunday. It is not the new addition to the service time. It is the heart of the service time.

G-pack read prayers of confession from the Book of Common prayer. Everyone prayed the Lord's Prayer in a Lectio Divina style. This is clearly not normal of a mega-church, and I think it is a good move. Evangelicalism suffers from doctrinal apathy, historical amnesia, and sometimes presumptuous view of the Holy Spirit. What G-pack does will no doubt help with all these maladies. After all, Evangelicals should not have to go to a Christian college to learn where Christology came from.

Alas though, my high church sensibilities still prevented me from taking communion, though it was offered. The Sacrament of communion was still handled according to the standard liturgy of evangelicalism. The bread and the wine where placed on several different tables out at the periphery of the worship center. Everyone wandered out to them and took them on their own. After that, everybody took the sacrament and then listened to G-pack, who stood center stage. This is a very sharp contrast: the Minister in the center under the spotlight, and the bread and wine lurking by the door way in the shadows.

I do not know what G-pack things on this last issue, but this manner of handling communion will always be odd to those of us deeply ingrained and sympathetic to high church liturgy. When we see take the bread and the wine, we do not feel that we are merely doing a remembrance. We feel that we are touching the the literal, physical, presence of Christ. Because of this, it is odd that the literal physical presence of Christ would be literally and physically on the periphery of the Church. If we are going to the Church for the communion, it is odd that a minister's "talk" (what is formally known as a "sermon") would be central with Christ casually placed beyond the back pews. Even if I suspend my commitment to the real presence, it still seems odd that a sacrament could ever play second fiddle to a sermon on the same Sunday.

Please understand, this last bit is not a criticism of G-pack or New Life. If I am not in a church that is committed to the real presence in the bread and wine, I can't very well fault them for not acting like it. Yet still, I feel that Christians that really understand the traditions that G-pack wants to bring to New Life are generally also committed to a very serious and very privileged view of communion. It will be hard, even after many years, to imagine New Life changing in such a way that it can accommodate this aspect of high church liturgy. What G-pack will do is anyone's guess.

For now though. God bless new life and God bless Glenn Packiam.

How Do We Expell the Immoral Brother?

2010-03-23T14:43:00.000-07:00

It has been a few weeks since I’ve blogged. I guess, I can do the standard blogger apology now: sorry for being so absent. That’s just the way it works. School has kept me busy and I have been at a loss for inspiration of what to write, until last night.

I have been thinking lately about the following: when is a church justified in excluding someone from fellowship? This means no longer associating with them. It is spiritual and social ostracization of an individual from Christian fellowship. Most of you reading this are Christians who attend a church. What would you have to do that is bad enough to get kicked out? What could someone do in your church that could get them expelled?

The difficulty of this matter is reconciling two passages of scripture. I hate quoting verses in isolation from context, but here goes.

9I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;
10I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.
12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?
13But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. -1 Cor 5:9-12 NASB

If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.
9If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us. -1 John 1:8-10

The first verse, I never expect to hear when I go into a church service. The second verse, I am used to hearing. It is usually quoted in Lutheran liturgy just before the communal prayer of confession. If I heard that first verse, I would be a little cautious of the church I was in. Here are my concerns:

Most importantly, every person in a Church (including every Christian) is now and will always be a sinner; forgiven sinners, but sinners nonetheless. Every person in a church is already guilty of covetousness and idolatry. Many other –especially those in brother’s recovery ministries- are drunkards and revilers. Everyone is already guilty of being a “so-called brother” as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians.

This creates a serious problem: who is qualified to judge when someone else should be excluded from fellowship? At what point has someone sinned in such a way that he cannot receive the grace of the Christian community? Consider this: I think most Christians will recognize that there is such a thing as “diminished capacity” when it comes to sin. Someone may sin, but this sin may not be out of malice or a purely volitional desire to defy God. Someone may sin due to emotional hardship. The drunkard may be angry over the loss of his job. The swindler may be acting out of his need to get food. Just watch a season of Lost, and you’ll see that people aren’t always fully culpable of their bad behavior.

It is precisely because of this diminished capacity that a priest, when hearing a confession, does not accuse the penitent of sin. The penitent accuses xomself* of sin. Only the sinner can know xois own inner state well enough to know that he is fully culpable of sin. If we are thinking of expelling the immoral brother, than we have a serious problem. We assume that other Christians know the sinner’s state-of-mind well enough that they can exclude xom from fellowship. Wouldn’t there be some hypocrisy in doing so?

I also see a serious and insurmountable interpretative problem with 1 Cor 5:8-12. Anytime we read an epistle, it is important to remember that it was written at a specific time, to a specific audience for specific issues. Paul’s epistles are not some kind of law book that was written yesterday. This doesn’t mean that the epistles have nothing to say to us, but it does mean that if we don’t first get a hold on what they meant to original audience, we will likely distort the message by reading our own world into the letters.

In 1 Cor 5:9-12, Paul refers to the letter he wrote to the Corinthians prior to 1 Corinthians. He refers to a letter he wrote to Corinth, but that we do not have today. Whatever was in that letter, might’ve shed some more light on what was going on in Corinth and who this individual was that was being so immoral. Who was this the immoral brother? What did say and do? How did Paul understand what was transpiring? Did Paul have any personal interactions with him? Did Paul himself recognize the difficultly of one sinner judging the other? That letter is no longer with us, sadly.

It is like reading someone else e-mail conversation, in which two small businesses owners discuss negotiate an important purchase, but we have only the forth and fifth emails. We are completely ignorant of what the deal is and why it is important and possibly who is even selling.

It seems that anytime we even consider that we feel we need to expel the immoral brother, we face at least two problems. How do we know when one person’s sin is enough to make the worthy of expulsion when all Christians do things that are sinful? Also, we have to admit that when reading 1 Cor 5:9-12 there is a significant and likely relevant amount of information that we do not have access to. This makes fully understanding what Paul was insisting on difficult to get a full grasp on. We cannot fully understand the background of the passage.

When and how do we know when we should expel the immoral brother?

=============
*I bemoan the fact that the English language does not have a gender neutral, third person, singular pronoun. I use xo, xom, xois as anyone might use she, her, hers or he, him, his when a gender neutral pronoun is needed.

And The Wicked Shall Inherit Your Pets?

2010-02-23T09:14:00.000-08:00

Most folks know that I am no fan of dispensational futurism, including its dogma of the rapture. Part of the reason I reject is the outright strange impasses it creates: such as what unworthy pagan will care for your pets once Jesus takes you away from earth? After all, good Christians care for their pets.

"Why not Us?" says a clever and enterprising atheist. Businesses Week reports that wicked pagan Bret Centre has started a foundation to care for your pets as the world inevitably goes to shit during the tribulation. Futurists are at an uncertain about this, but some are paying the fee.

Yeah, it's weird.

Personally, I can't help but have some respect for Bret Centre. I imagine he thought to himself something like this: "if members of their religion capitalize on the rapture, why shouldn't I?" (LaHaye and Jenkins, after all, aren't exactly living below the poverty line.) Since he never expects the rapture to come, he will never actually have to provide a service. This is, pretty much, free money. If he ever runs out of atheists to care for his pets, I'd like to volunteer myself, every other preterist, and Catholic and Orthodox Christians, who many dispensationalists believe will be left behind.

Perhaps my cynicism is getting the better of me.

In all seriousness, I wonder if this semi-overt exploitation of hysteria is going to warrant a little bit of self-reflection among those who read things like the rapture index. Futurists (like any group I suppose) can make themselves look very silly. More than once folks have racked up their credit cards or called their kids home from college because they expected the tribulation. There has been a small fortune made in selling things like rapture dog tags. Even groups like the SDA started with irrational growing popularity of an end-times prophet who kept failing in his predictions.

I have no idea how those who believe in the rapture will deal with this impasse regarding their pets. I do think, however, that Bret Centre will make a nice amount of free money.

Does the Bible Authorize Blogging?

2010-02-21T14:54:00.000-08:00

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season reprove rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. -2 TIM 4:1-2

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. - 1 COR 4:6

Based on these two verses, and the pattern of scripture, how do we justify blogging? 2 TIM 4:2 calls us to preach, the word not post it on the internet. Where is the New Testament authority for google reader, blogspot, html, comments, and facebook posts?

The Crow: Are There Crimes That Cannot be Forgiven?

2010-02-18T08:50:00.000-08:00

This blog is dedicated to my cousin, Christine Apa-Gonzaga

Pardon the short departure from plans in my last blog, but I now return to my reviews of The Crow. In my last blog, I talked about the character of the Crow himself, but now I’d like to deal with the major theme. The book asks whether there are crimes that can be forgiven. Implicit in that question is a certain view of justice that leaves a taste a disappointment. I will deal with both in this blog.

Two Contrasting Views of Justice

The Crow is a revenge tragedy. In a revenge tragedy, there is a view of justice that is best called retributive justice. In retributive justice, the emphasis is on the perpetrators. Those who commit crimes or injustice must be brought to account and be punished for their wickedness. This may also be done in order to prevent them from doing more crimes, but the main purpose is that they have committed some crime and they must now pay. The scales must be balanced. Typically, the perpetrators are brought to account by an avenger who acts on the victim’s behalf, but in the Crow the victim himself rises again to overpower his enemies.

Retributive justice, whether in comic books or not, contrasts with restorative justice. Restorative justice, as far as I understand it, is part Christian theology, as expounded by Jurgen Moltmann’s In the End-The Beginning: The Life of Hope. Restorative justice does not place an emphasis on the perpetrators, but rather on victims. Justice, in this case, is not concerned about balancing scales of wrongs, but rather restoring what was lost to evil. So if a person is terribly traumatized by having a loved one taken from them, restorative justice seeks to bring that loved one back or at least heal the trauma of the victim. If a relationship between two people is broken, restorative justice seeks to repair the relationship not punish who was the wrongdoer. Moltmann takes this even further as he believes that all people are victims, including those who perpetrate evil*. The wicked man who abuses his spouse was first abused as a child.

Reprobates and Tragedy in the Crow

Is there any room for forgiveness in the Crow? Not really. The Crow is merciless and wrathful, as I mentioned in an earlier blog. Already, it is clear that J. O’barr thinks that there are things that cannot be forgiven –and one can hardly fault him for his feelings. The character of Fun Boy embodies this theme.

None of the characters the Crow kills are repentant, but Fun Boy is nearly the antithesis of repentance. The ugly criminals the Crow kills all have rotten souls, but none of them have any since of self-examination to acknowledge it. Fun Boy is different. Fun boy is fully aware of his state. He is not sorry for the crimes he has done. He knows that he is monster deserving of death. Yet at no point does he ask for or presume mercy. When the Crow kills him his dying request is not “forgive me” but only “kill that bastard slow.” (He refers to T-bird, the next person the Crow intends to kill). Fun Boy’s dying request is not forgiveness, but only more hatred, of which he is fully aware of.

Not only is there no forgiveness in the Crow, but there is not even the preceding penitence either.

After the killing of Fun Boyd, the story quickly moves into its final movement of tragedy. The Crow spends one night in his loft. He burns all of his memoirs of Shelly and then shouts out the window, “Shelly I’m coming home.” He confronts his final murderer, T-bird. The Crow’s last fight scene is long, insane, and bloody. He kills not only T-bird, but everyone who works for T-bird. T-bird dies in a panic, and the final time we see him is when the Crow veers over with holding a hammer.

After the last killing, the Crow returns to grave. The final pages of the comic are still, serene, scenes of a snow covered graveyard. The Crow is dead. He rests again with Shelly. This is the tragedy of the Crow. The avenger completes his task, and then just dies.

Happy Vengence?

I can now only speak for myself, and not what the story attempts to communicate. Is there such a thing as happy vengeance? I am not sure. In the story of the Crow, every evil doer is killed. But the hero leaves the dark world to its darkness. With justice done, he returns to his grave. The ending is sad, as it leaves the reader wanting. It is not enough to know that all the murderers will no longer murder. We all want to see the happy couple alive again and the Crow free from his mourning. Anger and wrath sprinkled with kindness leave a disappointed taste in the mouth not matter how one serves up the revenge platter. This feeling of let-down seems to go beyond the novel itself: J. O’barr admitted that writing the Crow did not prove the emotional catharsis he hoped it would become.

No one can stand in judgment of the Crow or J. O’barr for the feelings they have, least of all me. Anyone who has lost someone they love has a right to feel angry and to want the murders brought to account. Yet I cannot help but think that the let-down feeling at the end of the Crow is part of the failure of retributive justice. The grief at losing a love one to murderers is to fold: the desire for that person to be back in your life, and for the death to be avenged. It seems to me, that the first is the stronger emotion. The desire to overcome our own grief is what turns into anger and wrath directed at those wicked people who hurt us. But vengeance does not remove sadness and grief from the heart of the victim. It only adds more dead bodies.

I cannot help but see the restorative justice of the Christian Gospel as the only hope for the victims of evil, both living and the dead. The Gospel tells us that God-the-Son became a victim of horrendous evil at the crucifixion. It tells us that God the Father is well acquainted with the feelings of grief and injustice. The answer is that of a Resurrection from the dead and overcoming of evil with restorative justice. Christians look forward to a glorious future in which every victim of murder, every dead prisoner from the gulags, every refugee who was gunned down by soldiers, and every martyr who was fed to lions will one die rise again in resurrected bodies and meet their savior who suffered as they dead. Death and injustice are not avenged. Death and injustice are reversed. The feelings of anger, wrath, and trauma will likewise be defeated in the all-encompassing victory of God. There will be no need for vengeance in the new heaven’s and new earth.

Behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind. –Isaiah 65:17

In that place, the Crow dances joyously with his untarnished bride, and the atrocity of their deaths never comes to their minds.

Thanks for reading.

========================
*I can never forget that Moltmann was a German soldier in WWII and knew fully the kind of evil that infected his whole society.

Unfished Thoughts on Lent

2010-02-17T14:44:00.000-08:00

12 "Even now," declares the LORD,
"return to me with all your heart,
with fasting and weeping and mourning."

13 Rend your heart
and not your garments.
Return to the LORD your God,
for he is gracious and compassionate,
slow to anger and abounding in love,
and he relents from sending calamity.

14 Who knows? He may turn and have pity
and leave behind a blessing—
grain offerings and drink offerings
for the LORD your God.

15 Blow the trumpet in Zion,
declare a holy fast,
call a sacred assembly.

16 Gather the people,
consecrate the assembly;
bring together the elders,
gather the children,
those nursing at the breast.
Let the bridegroom leave his room
and the bride her chamber.

17 Let the priests, who minister before the LORD,
weep between the temple porch and the altar.
Let them say, "Spare your people, O LORD.
Do not make your inheritance an object of scorn,
a byword among the nations.
Why should they say among the peoples,
'Where is their God?' -Joel 2:1-17

Behold, Lord, an empty vessel that needs to be filled. My Lord, fill it.
I am weak in the faith; strengthen me.
I am cold in love; warm me and make me fervent, that my love may go out to my neighbor.
I do not have a strong and firm faith; at times I doubt and am unable to trust you altogether. O Lord, help me. Strengthen my faith and trust in you.
In you I have sealed the treasure of all I have.
I am poor; you are rich and came to be merciful to the poor.
I am a sinner; you are upright.
With me, there is an abundance of sin; in you is the fullness of righteousness.
Therefore I will will remain with you, of whom I can receive, but to whom I may not give.
Amen. -Martin Luther

A Tiny Blog... What Books to Read?

2010-02-14T09:27:00.000-08:00

This blog begins with the following Maxims: Writing down goals and making them measurable is the best way to get them accomplished. Millionaires read one non-fiction book a month. I like reading a lot. I can't wait till I'm out of graduate school.

I have several goals. Perhaps to many. However, one of my goals is to read five books this summer. That's already a lot. However, I know I can do it. I am busy, picking them right now.

What I need are suggestions from other smart people of what books out there are worth reading -especially in the second and third categories.

Here's the list of books by categories:

1. Theology and Pastoral work. (So that I can be better lay minister).
I will without a doubt read Surprised by Hope. My brother got it for me for Christmas. It will be the last "middle-weight" theological reading I do for a long time. I also really want to read From Wild Man to Wise Man by Father Rohr. I like the whole masculine Christianity stuff. I like it better when it is thoughtful, serious, and not cheesy. This book came with the recommendation of a retired Methodist minister -my cousin-in-law's father. I am trying to keep my theological reading down to a mininum this summer. I imagine I'll read both of those, and no more in this category.

2. Creativity and Humor (For my writing talent and future re-imagining of the Uber Bean webcomic.)
I am right-brained, technique oriented writer. I need therefore, to read some stuff that is decidedly left-brained book like Writing Down the Bones. Dr. Kern, from APU, said I should read it. I will. Also, there are other books on writing and story telling like Aristotle's Poetics for Screenwriters. I don't know much about this book, but I know I want to learn how to tell better stories.

3. "People Skills" and other things that make you money. (So that I can learn how to be kinder, gentler, leader)
This is probably going to be the most important category. I need to get some of these skills growing again whether I become a teacher, a sales rep, a manager or whatever I do for employment. There is one book called Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion which I am interested in, but I have no idea if it is good or not. There are others that are aimed specifically at large groups (students maybe?) such as Win the Crowd. Finally, there are even sexier books aimed at using the verbal medium only.

Of course, there are books like If Aristotle Ran General Motors that sit on my shelf unfinished.

That's the end of this strange little blog. I am not sure what to read next.

But five books this summer for sure. That's nearly two a month.

The Crow: Hatred Sprinkled With Kindness

2010-02-12T10:54:00.001-08:00

I have recovered a bit of teenage goth past; I purchased a copy of The Crow by J. O’barr. I only recently read through this graphic novel, but have enjoyed the movie since I was about fifteen. Originally, I intended to write a one blog review of this book, but I realize now that I might as well do two. For those of you who don’t know, The Crow is about an anti-hero who comes back from the dead to kill all the people who killed him and his fiancée. It has many of the qualities of film noir and reminds me a bit of Frank Miller.

What made me really want to read though this was the trauma that inspired the book. J. O’barr grew up in the shit-hole ghetto of Chicago as an orphan. When he was barely out of high school, his fiancée was killed by a drunk driver. He joined the marines to deal attempt to cope. The Crow was a further attempt at a catharsis to deal with the tragedy.

Knowing this made me read the novel differently. It certainly has a very angry and raw feel to it. One does not get the impression that this comic was drawn with a clear, beautifully planned, story arc in mind. Neither do you get deeply insightful characters. You do not even get deep into the protagonist’s past and history. The comic is simply pages of anger and pain drawn in the form of an ugly hero in an ugly world doing ugly things to ugly people.

Yet all this is what makes the character, the Crow, so interesting. On one hand, he is abjectly and unashamedly hateful. This first comes out vividly when he kills his first mark, Tin-tin. The Crow gives him a few aphorisms on the rottenness of his soul (and it surely is) and then stands over the body and says, “may God grant you the mercy that I cannot.” His second kill is a fellow by the name of Top Dollar. Top Dollar is in a meeting with other unsavory cronies. The Crow mocks them by coming in the window and declaring himself Santa Claus and they’ve all been very bad. The killing of the entire group of criminals could only be described as a bloody wrathful mess. Top Dollar attempts to barter for his life, but the Crow ignores him. He shoots top through the eye first and finishes him with another shot.

This is not the killing-style of a shrewd, professional, assassin. It is plain vigilante rage that is almost animal. It is human only that it is fueled by emotions that only humans have.

On the other side, the Crow shows politeness and even compassion. Right after killing Top Dollar, the Crow walks casually down a hall, turns back and winks and an old lady and politely says “Good evening ma’am.” The compassion comes out even stronger when he meets the victimized little girl named Sherri. Sherri’s mother is busy having sex for drugs. Sherri, who looks about twelve, is neglected and without a childhood. The Crow takes compassion on her and gives her a necklace that belonged to his dead fiancée and it is the first gift this little girl has ever received.

His compassion for Sherri is exemplified when he meets her mother, who is bed with the morphine addict Fun Boy. Sherri’s mother is panicked and scared, but the Crow touches her gently on the head and says, “Mother is the name for God on the lips and hearts of every child. Your daughter is waiting for you on the streets.” When the Crow kills Tin-tin, Top Dollar, and Tom-tom, he is unconcerned about collateral damage, but for Sherri’s account he slows down just little bit and waits for the mother to leave.

Right before the Crow goes to kill his final mark, and prepares himself for his own funeral, he visits Sherri one last time. Without spoiling the moment for those who have not read the book, I can only say that the Crow shows gentleness one last time and eliminates one other “problem” in her life. He even finds a way to ensure that someone else will look out for her in the dark, shit-hole, of a world that the comic takes place in.

That is the first part of my thoughts on The Crow. In my next blog, I will talk about its overall questions: “are there crimes that can never be forgiven?” and “Is there such a thing as happy vengeance?”

Thanks for reading.

Christian Movies not made by Christians

2010-02-05T16:05:00.000-08:00

This blog is on the curtails of Glenn Peoples’ Berreta Cast. In one pod cast (“stop being a Christian, and starting being a person”), Glenn the wise criticized “Christian Ghetto” thinking. People who love the Christian Ghetto believe that a work of entertainment, scholarship, or literature is better because it is labeled “Christian” and produced by Christians and sold to you by your local temple money changer …umm… I mean Christian bookstore.

I need not repeat what Glenn has already said about the Christian Ghetto thinking. His podcast speaks for itself. Instead, I will point out a few great movies that have strong Christian themes, believable Christian characters, and –dare I say it- and presentation of the Christian message. How do these compare to the movies produced by the Christian Ghetto? Who cares! This is a positive case of where God is seen in film, whether or not it was produced by the approved sub-culture. After this I’ll ask some random questions about the Christian Ghetto.

Saved!. In Saved Jena Malone plays Mary Cummings, a perfect Christian girl at a perfect Christian high school with perfect Christian friends. There is a minority of heathens at the school, who Mary knows to steer clear from. The conflict takes off when Mary, in an effort to help her boyfriend overcome homosexuality, has sex with him. Then she gets pregnant.

I have already written a blog for this movie elsewhere in this blog. To summarize, this movie chastises evangelicalism like Jesus chastised the Levites and Pharisees in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Dramatically, this movie further shows how much evangelicalism has failed in the area of sexuality. The party policy fails in all its degrees: from silly neuroticisms to blatant judgmental hypocrisy. This movie is self-criticism for Evangelicals, if we can take the medicine.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose This movie begins with the death of Emily Rose, played by Jennifer Carpenter. She is dead from malnutrition and physical trauma. The priest, who was charged with her care, is arrested and charged with negligent homicide. The majority of the movie takes place in a courtroom. The important question is not whether the priest is guilty or innocent, but whether or not Emily was possessed by a demon or suffered from some psychiatric disorder.

The Christian themes of the movie are pretty obvious, and it is hard for me to expound on them without ruining the story, so I won’t. The themes can be listed at least. This movie presents what it might mean to imitate Christ in his death, very vividly and rather literally. It also addresses political issues, such as the role religion is p;ays in the public square. The courtroom setting also dramatizes the philosophical debate between religious reasoning and secular reasoning. It’s the enlightenment versus the middle ages all over again!

Finally, this movie is important for the same reason the Dexter series is. Jennifer Carpenter is hot.

The Mission I have only recently seen this movie, but it is my current favorite of the Christian movies not made by Christians. The film is set in 18th century South America. Jeremy Irons (who makes any movie better) plays Father Gabriel, a Jesuit priest. Robert De Niro plays the swashbuckling Rodrigo who joins the Jesuits to assuage a guilty conscience. The two work peacefully in a Mission to make Christians of the natives, but the empires of Spain and Portugal are at odds with the Church over territory, as well as access to abundant and affordable labor.

As things grow worse and worse for the mission, the movie asks “where is God?” The empires of Spain and Portugal eventually descend upon the peaceful mission. The church’s representative from Rome did nothing to stop this, even after visiting the mission. Throughout the siege, Father Gabriel confidently leads a mass and which ends with him carrying the monstrance. His brown-skinned flock follows him into a hail a musket fire. What is happening here is more than symbolic. The Eurcharist, inside the monstrance, is the presence of God for Father Gabriel and his flock.

“Where is God?” The answer is the same as the Gospel: among those who are abused by the empires and neglected by an indifferent and corrupt religious hierarchy. Like Jesus and the disciples in the first century, Father Gabriel and the native converts choose to die with Christ. Such is the only choice for them when the Kingdom of the World decides that the Kingdom of God has gotten in the way.

All three of these movies show something about Jesus. They all have believable Christian characters, many of whom are believably flawed. The themes of this movie, especially the Mission, present the facets of the Gospel and the Kingdom of God.

Yet, none of these movies where produced or written by the Christian Ghetto. None of them are likely found at the Christian bookstores. In fact, I think the Christian Ghetto may not like these movies, most of all, Saved.

But do we really need the Christian Ghetto when it comes to movies? What exactly is the purpose of the Christian film industry? Has it produced anything on par with movies listed here? Is there something that “Christian Movies” do for Christianity that these movies do not?

Thanks for Thinking.

De Res Futuras

2010-01-31T17:57:00.000-08:00

De res futuras mei scribere dercervi. In kalendis pacuis, iter per Academiam philosophiae perfecta erit. Entonces, illa mons -quae intras me atque alia destinanta mei stat- arrosa erit. Viam scolasticorum nollo premere. Enim, illi scolastici, qui cum me legent et relegent, deliciam premerentis ad illud habeant. Ego in re publica vera malo vivere.

In fact, one of the reasons why I want to get out of school so much -and why I emphatically decided not to stay another semester is the idea of funds and career. It seems like applying for a PhD philosophy program is a kind of cognitive dissonance and self deception that only really smart people are capable of. We all know that very, very, few people are getting accepted. We all know that the job market is a scarce, viciously competitive, zero-sum game. We all know that there are plenty of people who get their PhDs and then do nothing that has to do with the subjects and that they could've gotten with their BAs and less debt and more fun. I don't want to be in school anymore. I look foreward to teaching someday, but right now, the only research I care about is more like the arts and outright sophistry than philosophy.

Plato would kick me out of his academy. How could I ever hope to get into a PhD philosophy program? I can imagine writing that on admission essays, "Plato wouldn't want me. Can you give me funding to study at your lovely school?"

So what do I care about right now?

Over the summer, I look foreward to preparing for NaNoWriMo. Over the summer, I hope to purchase a few books on creative writing at the recommendation of an old instructor. Though it apparently follows some silly new-age stuff, I need to get a copy of Writing Down the Bones and read through it. Hopefully then, I will have some ideas of how to get into my characters heads better.

It is like method acting.

I also realize, that in order successfully complete a novel for NanNoWriMo, I need to spend some time planning ahead and finding ways to stay motivated. This probably means finding ways to spend time with other future NaNoWriMo people. That can be approached another time. I know that there are other people who are thinking the same kinds of things right now anyway.

Of course, I need to put together the actual outline for NaNoWriMo novel. I have to think of the subject matter. The most obvious is to work with the characters from my webcomic. I am thinking about their mutual lives a few years outside of graduation. Or, the novel could be a long brainstorming session of a complete re-imagining of the whole comic. I was even thinking about telling how Ian and Andy meet.

Ahh well. That's what's on my mind right now. Leaving LMU and pursuing other interests.

Thanks for reading.

Spamming for Jesus: A Christian Hipster Pleads for Sanity

2010-01-28T12:35:00.000-08:00

When Gutenberg invented the printing press, it had an incredibly wonderful effect on Christianity. Whereas for centuries only a few people could a hold a Bible, after the invention the Bible was then manufactured and distributed at an alarmingly fast rate. It was the original information age. It sparked literacy across Europe. Thank God for the movable type!

Now, centuries later, we are in a new information age with not only the internet, but also with email, cell-phones, twitter, podcasts and everything else. Good? Sure, I'm a blogger. I love it. There is however, a bit of abuse; a dark side to this supra-information age. What happens when many Christians start compulsively sending information to other Christians? When does it reach overkill?

Can we stop the Christian spamming?

Yes Christian spamming comes in many ways. It might be a vaguely spiritual email message. They are forwarded again and again. The headline might read "How has God blessed you today?" or "Twelve Reasons why God loves you." They can also be cause oriented like "Protect Traditional Marriage" or "Pray for Christians in China." They are often accompanied with stirring images, such as a "Precious Moments" doll, Thomas Kincaide painting, or an image of Korean charismatics in prayer ecstasy.

Other types of Christian spamming might pop up in the cell phones or mobile devices. How about a Christian twitter? 144 characters of a reminder to pray or short devotion delivered throughout the day? Maybe a Bible verse from your pastor, small group leader, or such might be shared through iPhone contact list. Even facebook feeds, which are certain kind of spam, have applications reminding us "What God wants us to know" because no Christian, before facebook, was able to discern that. No sir!

Again, I have to say it: Please stop the Christian spamming!

For those you send the text messages, twitters, and emails, I think I can see where you might be coming from. God, through the Holy Spirit, will send you something that you find warm, enlightening, and otherwise insightful. When we find something insightful -especially when it comes to our faith- it is completely natural to want to share it with everyone that we care about. When it comes to the Christian causes, there is no doubt about the urgency of the issues at hand. Again, it is natural to want to share it with everyone.

But try to see it from the world of the people you are spamming. We all come from our own unique backgrounds. We are all already reading our own devotional material. We probably have a stack of Christian literature on our bookshelves. We even have our own lists of blog feeds, email lists, and news articles that we all subscribe to. Because of all this, what will be insightful, warm and fuzzy, to one Christian (the spammer) may not have the same affect on another Christian (the spammee).

It gets annoying sometimes. It can feel invasive, like someone saying, "this beer is so good! You gotta try it!" and then pouring a pint into my empty glass after I'm already full. Because of this, most Christian spam goes straight to the virtual trash-can.

Now I writing a blog here, so I am as much a fan of technology and sharing and communicating things about God through technology as anyone. Probably more so. My point though, is this: there can be "to much of a good thing." Good things need to be presented right way at the right time with the right sensitivity from the presenters. That sensitivity means not sending out spiritual insights as if it were mass-marketing junk mail.

Can we please stop the Christian spamming?

De Fabulas Fidorum

2010-01-26T09:16:00.000-08:00

"Concerning the Stories of the Faithful"

If God wills it, I will be helping lead a "guided autobiography" at Mosaic in the near future.

If God wills it.

In any case I have been thinking about personal stories in Christian churches, or as they are commonly referred to as "testimonies." Everyone has one. The new converts have them and the older Christians have them. Whose do we hear more often?

I think, for better or for worse, churches tend to privilege a certain kind of personal story. The personal stories that get told through the projectors or in front of the mic are often the most dramatic. Usually, churches look for stories that follow the following narrative:

1. Before I knew Christ, I felt like a totally unfulfilled loser.
2. Then I met Christ.
3. Now I don't feel like a unfulfilled loser anymore.

Through design or habit the stories are often those who overcame the drug addiction, severe depression, hateful sin, or where the rock bottom losers before they knew Christ. They can be inspiring and hope filled for other people in the congregation. They serve as tangible reminders of God's work in people's lives.

I think there is a small downside though. In privileging personal stories like this, there is a tendency to ignore the personal stories of those who have been faithful their whole lives, or have been Christians for a very long time. The celebration of personal stories tend to be from new converts only, and it is seldom that you hear the stories of those who have not had such a rocky, emotionally shaky, journey to the Christian faith.

How do the long-time Christians see the personal stories of the new converts? Almost always in a positive way, for sure. Older Christians love to listen to these as much as the new converts love to share. Yet I remember something I read in an interview with Christian musician Steven Curtis Chapman years ago. He confessed that he always regretted just a little bit that he, as life-long Christian, did not have the a personal story as dramatic as those of the new converts. I think he speaks for a lot of people.

There are probably two ways to look at this. On one hand, this could be a strange kind of envy. Remember the parable of the prodigal son? Remember the other brother? It is that kind of envy. The other brother was clearly jealous of the prodigal's special treatment when he returned home. Life-long Christians and older Christians need to guard carefully against this. Envy, after all, steals our joy and gives us not even the most vaporous benefit in return.

On the other hand, I think Churches should be careful to listen to the stories of the life-long Christians as well. The personal stories of those who converted long ago or even when they were children may not follow the sought-after narrative, but are important testimonies of God's work as well. They help the church become more self-aware, as these stories might put to light unseen failures or uncelebrated successes. It also ensures that older Christians do not eventually feel marginalized as their struggles and victories do not go unacknowledged by the rest of their churches. Everyone, after all, wants to share their story.

Please understand, I am not saying that we need to cut back on the dramatic, new convert, stories and replace them. I think that there is plenty of room for both. There is no need to think of this as a competition of whose stories are more worthy for celebration.

What's your story?

The Suffering of Haiti and the Silence of God

2010-01-22T09:40:00.000-08:00

Recent events in the news have finally forced me to blog again about the problem of evil. In addition to the dementia and influence of Pat Robertson, there was a tragic earthquake in Haiti. While in either situation we ask, “how could God let this happen?” I prefer to focus on Haiti.

Yes, I am opening this blog a little tongue and cheek, but in all seriousness I do want to talk about the problem of evil once again. Specifically, I want to talk about theodicies. A “theodicy” is an attempt by Christians to explain why God allows evil. Theodicies come in many shapes and sizes, and are vigorously argued. When it comes to Haiti, I will present two common theodicies, which will in turn open up for a bigger problem of theodicy in general.*

One type of theodicy might be called the “sovereignty theodicy.” In the sovereignty theodicy, nothing happens without at least God’s consent. God is never surprised by any event. God, who sees the entire picture, works everything out for his own good justice in the end. Evil is part of this process. This will even extends to humans, as our suffering (and reaction to other people’s suffering) will make us more holy or Christ-like. This theodicy might be summed up as saying, “God works out everything for his own good, and our good in the end.” The bitter medicine of evil and suffering will not compare to glories that await us and the world to come.

Of all theodicies, I like an idea of theodicy in which evil is part of a cycle of growth for Christians and for a future glorious new creation. Nonetheless, I think this theodicy faces a big problem. It makes God a utilitarian: a certain amount of evil, for a greater amount of good. Why would God need to do this? I recognize that utilitarian is something that human beings need to do. Jack Bauer must occasionally (frequently) torture someone in order to save many lives. Though he (hopefully) knows what he is doing is wrong, he understands that there will be a great good that will come of it. Jack Bauer does this trade-off because his power is limited. If he could save lives without having to torture someone he would, but as it is plastic bags and bamboo shoots are the only. God’s power is not limited. So why is evil necessary?

There is another problem with this kind of theodicy: God must make some people victims in order to make other people better. Consider the following, there is a great amount of “good” that has come out of the horrendous tragedy of the Haiti earthquake. Among other things, Christians are getting together to express Christian love in a very tangible way. Undoubtably, many will come back with a fresh perspective on poverty, suffering, and Christian service. Of course, for this kind of Christian growth to happen, many people had to die or at least endure terrible suffering. Why must some people die in order to deepen the spiritual lives of the living? It seems like the Haitians are getting the short end of stick. Again, this is a kind of utilitarian trade-off that doesn’t make sense to if God is omnipotent.

There is another theodicy that can be called the free-will theodicy. This is one of the most common ones heard in everyday evangelicalism. All evil comes from sin, and sin comes from our free choices. God could override our free-will, but wants Christian to love him willingly and “not be robots.” There is something so supremely good about free will, that it justifies the side effect of evil.

Those who know me well know that free will is a pretty big deal for me, but I still don’t think this justifies evil and suffering, especially in relation to Haiti. First, the tragedy of Haiti is not totally the result of human sin. We may have misused our free-will to create the economic and social conditions of Haiti, but human sin did not bring the earthquake. Furthermore, this still faces the same problem as the sovereignty theodicy: a utilitarian tradeoff. Why would an omnipotent God need to have some people suffer in order that others might exercise their free will? Couldn’t an omnipotent God have set up a universe in which free-will of one person did not involve causing others to suffer?

Any Answer at all?

Now I get to the big problem. There is a possibility that I think all Christian need to face: that we might not have access to a theodicy at all. Why would God allow the earthquake in Haiti? We simply do not know. For some, I think that this may threaten the Christian faith. I do not think so, because although we cannot know the answer it does not mean that the answer is not there. God’s reasons may simply be hidden from us. God may simply be silent on this matter.

But is strange for God to be silent on this matter. For Christians, God has obviously spoken on a great many things. So presumably, God could simply tell us why evil exists in the world. Yet we do not quite something so clear and unambigious, and are left to coming up with theodicies on our own. The best answer we ever get from God is same answer that we see at the end of the Book of Job, “who are you to ask these kinds of questions?”

Honestly, that seems to be the world that we live in, but what does that mean for Haiti?

=======================================
*I credit Nicholas Wolterstorff for pretty much everything that I am saying in this blog. See his article, “Silence of the God who Speaks” for a more detailed discussion of what I am condensing here.

Why I Will Never Get Away from the Centrality of the Eucharist

2010-01-15T12:11:00.000-08:00

In my previous blog, I listed problems when it comes to placing a minister’s sermon as the pinnacle of Sunday worship. I appropriately tagged that blog as an “iconoclasm” since I know that many who may come across this blog consider such a set up as something so fundamental that I might as well be questioning sanctity of scripture itself. Thing is, I think most people who read enough theology know that iconoclasms are necessary from time to time. Every once in a while you have to scratch at metaphorical icon if for no other reason to get people thinking about why it is there in the first place.

But I would be total cliché tool if that is all I did right? Yes, the average 20-something post-evangelical Christian who attended a private Christian college probably does this all the time. Those of who are (sadly) more well-read than many professional ministers have a lot to say about what’s wrong with churches we usually don’t even attend anymore. We’re so cool about bringing hope to the world, that we make sure we segregate ourselves from the rest of Christianity. If you have to ask why, you’ll never know.

So in order to avoid said cliché and in an effort to ensure that my blog is motivated by Christian charity, I have decided that I will always try to follow up an iconoclasm with something positive.

What do I think should take the place of a lengthy sermon? I don’t think I will ever get away from the worship of Christ though the Eucharist. It is difficult to explain why. Much of what Eucharistic worship means is done by doing, not by reading and not by listening. Nonetheless, here are a few reasons why.

Eucharistic worship, is a largely egalitarian “team effort” form of worship. It is ironic to me that a tradition that has some official sacerdotalism behind is still less sacerdotal than sermonizing in many ways. When a church body takes the Eucharist, the minister my still pronounce a few words, there are of necessity people who serve the wine and the bread, but nonetheless Eucharistic worship does not happen unless everyone in the service takes a role in what is happening.

For instance, many traditions precede the serving of the Eucharist with times of recited prayer in which the whole congregation is involved. Everyone is given a part to play, so to speak. In fact, a “script” analogy works great here. If preaching is central, only one person has a part. In the Eucharist, everyone has a role.

Consider the following liturgy taken from the Book of Common Prayer:

MinisterThe Lord be with you.
People And with thy spirit.
Minister Lift up your hearts.
People We lift them up unto the Lord.
Minister Let us give thanks unto our Lord God.
People It is meet and right so to do.
Then, facing the Holy Table, the Celebrant [minister] proceeds
It is very meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we should
at all times, and in all places, give thanks unto thee, O Lord,
holy Father, almighty, everlasting God.
Therefore with Angels and Archangels, and with all the
company of heaven, we laud and magnify thy glorious
Name; evermore praising thee, and saying,
Minster and People
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Hosts:
Heaven and earth are full of thy glory.
Glory be to thee, O Lord Most High.

This is fairly representative of most “high church” liturgical settings. The minister is more like a guide, rather than authority to be obeyed, or a Prometheus who brings down the fire from heaven.
Furthermore, when the Eucharist is central everyone takes the Eucharist, the minister included. This is good for the minister, as it allows him to get off the pedestal for moment and join his flock in following the God that they all worship.

The Eucharist was instituted by Jesus himself on one of the most important holy days of the Israel’s calendar. Look through the Old Testament and you will find an elaborate list of rituals, customs, special days and other such details down to the tiniest of minutia of how to worship the God of Israel. As Christians, we know that we are no longer bound by such things and that God has given us great liberty in how we worship him (my Eastern Orthodox friends will disagree with that point). Jesus did, however, instruct us to “do this in remembrance of me” on an incredibly important holy day, and on the night just before he was betrayed and crucified.

If Jesus does not demand that we obey the innumerable laws of Old Testament worship propriety, but he does ask this one particular sacred meal. Furthermore, he asks his disciples on very sacred day in an incredibly intimate moment the synoptic Gospel writers sought to make sure we heard about. Does this not indicate a certain kind of gravity to this sacrament? Compared to ancient Israel, the modern day Israel (Christianity) is asked very little. I like to think on this one thing we can get it right.

Christ is physically present through the sacrament. This last point is a point I suspect that most people reading this blog will not share. I do not believe that that Eucharist is only remembrance of Christ’s death and Resurrection, but that Christ is physically present through the sacrament. In other words, I accept the doctrine of “real presence” and it is an important part of devotional life. Because of this, the centrality of the Eucharist has become fairly straight forward for me: if the Eucharist is the presence of God, why would anything other than the presence of God be central?

I realize that this point is clearly a point of contention. I do not have the space to expand on a defense of this point. I really do understand how weird it is to say “I eat the body of Christ on Sundays.” It took me a long time to really get it myself. I can leave my readers with this small thought: is there not a strange silence on John 6 in many evangelical circles? Very, very few times have I heard this passage even addressed –much less exegeted- by people who do not believe in the real presence. When they do, they usually explain what Jesus didn’t mean when he said “I am the bread of life,” but do not explain what they think he did mean and why.

No, I do not expect everyone reading this blog to be persuaded. I admit that scripture is ambiguous on this issue. Nonetheless, John 6 really tipped the scales for me.

In any case, the centrality of the Eucharist is something I will never get away from. Even as I attend Mosaic West LA I must frequently return to a local Lutheran Church or Mountainside Communion to really feel like I worship fully. The truly communal experience and physical, tangible, presence of God are things that can be found there, and is sadly missing in much of Evangelicalism.

Book Review: Mad Church Disease

2010-01-09T21:27:00.000-08:00

Book Review: Mad Church Disease

Does Working at this church interfere with your communion with Christ?

In a previous blog, I mentioned that one of the perils of preaching is the pressure on the preachers. This can easily be extended to all Christian leadership. This problem is one that is not easily addressed. Thankfully, Anne Jackson has provided Mad Church Disease: Overcoming the Burnout Epidemic for the perplexed.

If you even consider getting your feet wet in ministry, even at the lay level, this is a book worth reading.

Spend time with any group of Christians who have done ministry, especially those in the mid-twenties, and you will hear tales of burnout. Feelings of lack of fulfillment, depression and betrayal abound. Bad church politics can chew up the most idealistic and caring minister. People fall into sin and hide it from others. Other times, so much moral judgment is passed around that no one measures up. Too much can be demanded by a few people. Family health can go by the way side. All of this happens as ministers and lay people attempt to fulfill the God’s mission through their work in the churches.

Anne Jackson’s own story is unique, but her experience is no doubt familiar to many. The closed door church meetings are often the sanctuary of the hypocrites, and she knew this as a pastor’s kid. In one episode, her father voluntarily stepped down after a vicious fight about what “evangelism” meant for his church. The verbal and emotional abuse eventually infected him and his family. Not surprisingly, Anne Jackson spent a period of her life that could be described as a “secular sabbatical.”

Yes, we’ve all been there. If you haven’t yet, you probably will be soon.

This book in no way pretends that we can avoid all the trouble that comes with being in church, but there are nonetheless ways to protect ourselves and even endure in the task of ministry. Her recommendations begin with common prescription: spend time with God and spend time in prayer. I have admit, when I first read that chapter I was little irate. Why would you prescribe to someone burnt by the church to go do more “church” things?

Fortunately, her prescription begins, but does not stop there. Rather, Jackson expands to other sections. Physical health, for instance includes obeying a reasonable sleep schedule and exercising. Emotional health means avoiding bad outlets of emotional escapism –like dodging our feelings through work or substance abuse. Relational health cautions us to keep relationships a priority over our ministry. Also, there is the need for those in the ministry world to create practical and firm boundaries. It is saying ”no” when we asked to do too much even if other people will not understand or insist that they “depend” on us. All of this comes from meticulous research that only a popular blogger can provide.

But what else I think is really great about this book its presentation. The subject matter could easily go on and on and fill academic journals, but it is presented in a short and concise way. Also, the end of each section Anne Jackson offers a personal checklist for her readers. It is done so in order to demand that the reader check up. It helps catch the hidden problems before they fester into something worse. It also provides second opinions in the forms of interviews with other pastors. The is also meant to be used in groups, so that ministry teams can prayerfully consider how to avoid burn out.

Mad Church Disease is a good resource. The sad part is many people might only read it on the other side of burn out. Because of that, anyone who is entering ministry –or even considering it- stands to benefit from this book the most.

So all you ministry n00bs, go check it out.

More book reviews

Some Shirt Ideas! I will love you for you feedback!

2010-01-06T11:58:00.001-08:00

Okay, so what if on my "day's off" I spend a lot of time designing shirts for my Zazzle store. It is probably more profitable than reading Aristotle!

And, at the moment, a whole lot more fun.

But you see, I can't really do this on my own. I need some feedback. Anyone and everyone who reads this blog, or found it facebook, or trolled the internet, or loves me, offer comments in the blog comments.

There are three designs in this blog. All are current works in progress. The first is a mug, the second is a T-shirt, and the third is also a T-shirt. There are questions for the kind of feedback I need at the bottom of each design. I hope to re-fine them so they are the best they can be.

Here is the first design: A mug.

"Hell is Other People is a famous quote from Sartre. This is a mug for secular existentialists, bitter introverts, and other misanthropes. No questions for this one, as I like the design.

Here is the first shirt, with apologizes (and compliments) to Frank Miller: In one I have cut out some of the white lines for a more "shadowy look" and the other left them there.

Which looks better? Lines cut out for "shadows" or all lines remaining?

My second shirt has a front and a back. The front of the shirt will have the phrase "Christian Hipster" on the front in a pretty font. Which font looks the best?

One of these will be drawn on the back:

This design is surely in process. Which of these options look better? What do you see in it?

So please, in the blog comments tell me what of these designs catches you eye? Which would you wear? Which would put on your mouse pad, coffee mug, or messenger bag?

Thank you so much for taking the time to check it out. It means a lot to the happily unemployeed.

Perils and Problems with Preaching

2010-01-01T16:02:00.000-08:00

There comes a time in every Christian’s life when they get bored with listening to sermons on Sundays. Can we all admit it? Preaching is the central focus of a Sunday service in just about every evangelical church, but inevitably many of the attendants are going to get bored.

Many churches come up with new ways to circumvent this problem. They might update with some nice power point. They could even euphemize “sermon” with “conversation.” Maybe the preacher needs to dress down a bit and put more clever stories in his sermons –err conversations. We can even remove pulpits. We can shorten their length. There are so many things we can do –even sermon notes!- in order to keep the congregation engaged in what the Holy Spirit has to say to them.

But what if none these are really solutions? What if the problem is not with the manner of preaching, but the fact that preaching is central to the sunday worship to begin with? What if the expectation that you go to church, sing songs, and then “tune in” to “the man of God who gives you the word of God” is the problem? None of these the adjustments above would seem to offer a solution.

I realize that many people reading this can’t imagine going to “church” and not expecting the pastor’s sermon to take up most of their time. Sitting reverently during a “conversation” is part of Sunday worship. To do otherwise might seem to fail to make God’s Word important.

It is for all those out there that I write this blog. Please bear with me a bit. Sure, what I’m writing is not going to be popular, but I think if you read it you’ll see that I am not completely mad.

Making preaching the center of the service can create problems. Not all the problems I list are inevitable, but I believe that they pop-up more often than is easily seen. With an iconoclast’s hammer in hand, here I go:

Making preaching central can reduce the communication of God’s truth to verbal mediums only. Of all the reasons I could list, this is probably the most abstract so let’s get it out of the way. Not all communication is verbal. Not all communication uses words. Preaching reduces our worship and learning to what we do with our ears and one person’s voice. The other senses of touch, sight, and smell are ignored.

In older high church traditions, the senses of hearing, sight, smell, and touch are used in concert with each other. In a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church I attended the central visual focus of the church was stained glass image of Christ the King. The pastor stood off to the side when he preached a short homily, not a grandiose sermon. The senses of touch took place through the partaking of the Eucharist, which was preceded by prayer and singing, not an explanatory sermon.

Thus the worship and learning was not through words alone, but through other senses and experiences.

Making preaching central can give an inordinate amount of authority to the pastor. Ignoring other mediums of communication doesn’t mean that something is not communicated through them. Consider what is visually center. Often the pastor stands on an elevated platform above a crowd that is sitting. All eyes are on him. He might have a pulpit or not, but that makes no difference –especially when the pulpit is replaced with a spotlight. The most reverent Christians are the ones passionately taking notes. This lasts, in many cases, for the majority of the Sunday service. It goes on week after week, year after year.

All this communicates that this man talking, is not only a special, specific, role, but that he is to be followed and to be obeyed. This is a bit autocratic, no matter how benign the leader maybe. It is also incredibly ironic that a single person becomes the center of attention for the greater glory of God. Are we not able to look to God directly? Do we follow Apollos?

There is also a problem with a commitment to have the Bible as the authority. Most people in the pews do not have the time, the resources, or sometimes even the will to learn how to study scripture (and I can add that neither do many ministers!), thus the job of interpretation falls to one person. Eventually, what the pastor says gets conflated with what the Bible says. (Admittedly, there is always an interpretation of some kind going on when we read the Bible.) Still, when the pastor’s sermon and the Bible get conflated, it produces a kind of dogmatism. Questioning the pastor becomes the equivalent of questioning the Bible. This is too much influence in one guys hands.

Making preaching central can create a “cult-of-personality” or outright sacredotalism. It should go without saying that there is a problem when a well-known minister receives celebrity treatment when he walks into a room or attends a conference. Again, this pastor becomes the center of attention for the Glory of God. What is even worse is when it turns into sacredotalism.

Sacradotalism is a ten dollar word that is lost in evangelical vocabulary, but it is alive and well in practice. It means that there are two types of Christians; the lay Christians and the really spiritual ones. Sacradotalism means that there is a “man of God who delivers the Word of God” to the lay people. That one person has the role of being extra holy and has an almost exclusive access to the Holy Spirit. He delivers it to the congregation through his presence and speaking –with the appropriate humility of course. In some circles, the pastor may even declare himself the anointed man of God who is accountable only to God. (I recommend running from such people.)

People sometimes shrug and ask what the problem is. There are two. First, this creates problem with the congregation. Now, not only is authority of the pastor conflated with scripture, but pastor can become proverbial prophets who can be no more questioned than the Apostles. As bad as this is, it is only a small problem compared to what it can do to a pastor.

Exactly how holy is holy enough for the “man of God who delivers the word of God”? I think very few people can appreciate the kind of pressure it takes to be “extra holy.” Pastors often talk about how they need to watch their own moral and spiritual lives for sake of their congregation. The problem is you can never be holy enough. The external pressure of a spiritual perfectionism can be crushing. A pastor cannot pray enough, fast enough, avoid sin enough and such if his condition so dramatically determines how much of the Holy Spirit gets to his flock. One has to wonder if pressure like this paves the way for downfall through hidden escapisms. Ted Haggard anyone?

It is not that I don’t like a good message and a good sermon, and I don't think they should be abolished. In fact, my wonderful iPod has kept me busy as I have downloaded various messages from ministers all over the country. Neither am I saying that I think that all these problems will happen every time, in every church, on every Sunday. I am saying that the problems are there, and I think for the most part unadressed because they are unknown. As long as preaching central to sunday worship, problems like these will eventually come up somehow.

And I can never get over the subtle irony that worshiping god Sundays means (in part) sitting down, passively, while focusing on someone other than God for forty-five minutes.

Unto us a Child is Politically Incorrect

2009-12-22T12:35:00.001-08:00

I hadn't expected to do another blog on Christmas, but as often happens I got inspiration. This time it came from a wonderful blog called Say Hello to My Little Friend. This audio is timely and funny. Really funny. So enjoy it. It is a story of all the Birth of Christ and the various nonsensical reactions to it from the secular world.

There is one thing I would like to comment on. At one point in the various people who come to Mary with grievances, one lady has this to say:

Religious holidays are important, but can't we learn to celebrate them in ways that unite, not divide? For instance, instead of all this business about 'Gloria in excelsis Deo,' why not just 'Season's Greetings'?"

This quote so wonderfully sums up how much of our culture views the holiday. I am sure that many of Christian peers reading this that are already annoyed with it. I am too. Yet I thought I'd post a few things why. I don't doubt that we call list of plenty of things that we think motivate this seemingly pious approach to a holiday. I'll offer two, and I invite everyone to add their thoughts in the comments.

First, I think there is an idea of "neutrality" towards religion as kind of a virtue in and of itself. It is this: we like the idea of our government being "neutral" towards religion. I am sure most Christians like that too. The problem is when people think that because the government is "neutral" towards religion, the rest of society should be too. If people start asserting their own religious communities to much in public, that might mean people are divided and it won't be long before we start killing each other or something.

Secondly, I think there is a kind of capital "P" religious Pluralism that motivates "Season's Greetings." All religious make people nice and happy. They all make people good. So lets all give eachother presents and have a nice "good will towards men" and cut out the messy religious dogma that we don't all agree on. Let's all agree the "God" is vague anyway.

Did I mentioned that I get annoyed at this kind of thing?

When someone is worried about division, I wonder what kind of division they talk about. When I say "Gloria in Exclesis Deo" I am not saying it with anyone except those who are already in my religious community. I am not expecting those outside to understand it. Is this divisive? I don't care. The holy day of Christmas is for Christians and by Christians. I'd rather not have anyone outside of the community offer me ways to improve my own religious devotion. I don't scorn people outside of it, but please mind your own businesses.

Additionally, I don't care much for capital "P" religious Pluralism. This is largely because I am not offended or threatened that there are people who are out there practicing religions other than my own. I am not bothered by Hannukkah or a pagan winter solstice celebration. In fact, by all means, celebrate away. I fully support little "p" pluralism: that there are several religions each with own distinctive practices and mutually exclusive claims. Why should I, a committed Christian, feel offended by other religions? Does the devotion of a winter solstice affect my ability to celebrate Christ's birth?

In truth, I think that the politically correct "let's not divide on the holiday" approach is really plain insecurity on part of those who endorse it. People either have such little devotion to their own traditions, that they are threatened by those who are deeply dedicated to different faiths. This in turn creates the need for "neutrality" in the public space because they can't handle it. It seems to want to take the life out of the faith of others because of the lack of faith on their part.

But Merry Christmas.

Anyone else annoyed with "season's greetings"?

Book Review: Jesus Made in America

2009-12-20T16:38:00.000-08:00

Just Give me Jesus…Which Jesus?

One of the most difficult endeavors anyone can undertake is describing what “water” is to fish. Or in this case, how American culture influences Christianity to members of American cultural Christianity.

Yet this is exactly what Stephen J. Nichols accomplishes in his book Jesus Made in America.

This book is a historic survey of American Christianity. It begins with the puritans and ends with the present day. Some chapters on the past help us understand the present. Who is Jesus according to founding fathers or Jesus according to cowboys? Later, several chapters of the book are dedicated to issues relevant to the present day Christians. Who is Jesus according to the political right (and left) and who is according to Bible book stores? The book is a flowing, and fascinating read that is neither boring nor heavy on jargon. All of it is quite illuminating and challenging.

But this book is not for faint-hearted or the non-introspective. Nichols criticizes much of contemporary evangelicalism as having missed the mark on the understanding of Jesus of all matters. Not only does he tell fish what water is, he tells fish that the water is polluted. There are more than a few sacred cows (golden calves?) that Nichols wants scratch at. He even calls out a few heroes by name, including Max Lucado, Beth Moore, and James Dobson. Not even Veggie tales remains untouched!

Space does not allow me to cover every section of this book, but I there were two that hit close to home for me. The first was Christian music. Nichols points out how often Evangelicals get their theology from their songs, and their songs are sometimes –shall we say thin. Much of evangelical CCM creates and then perpetuates the cultural image of Christ that Nichols decries. There is too much emphasis on “how Jesus makes me feel,” little regard for “what Jesus has done in history,” and barely any “who Jesus is.” He even points out how close Christian lyrics are to pop love songs*, as has been satirized on South Park. At one point the Christian Contemporary music was a grass-roots, spontaneous and genuine before in turned into a money making industry that watered down its message as it tried to evangelize. This leads to the second section of the book I enjoyed: Jesus according to consumer culture.

Many Christians are often shocked when Jesus overturned money tables and chased out the lenders with a whip. Strange think is, Nichols probably believes that Jesus would do the same thing at most Bible bookstores. Jesus and consumer culture form an unhappy marriage in Nichol’s view. One of the saddest points in the book is a story of women who was not able to buy a Jesus fish for her car. She wondered who she was supposed to witness. Nichols is fair in his belief that the Holy Spirit can use anything, but the culture of T-shirts, endless mass-market books, childhood media, etc makes him wonder if this is because of or in spite of a mass-market Jesus. Yet this is the water that many people swim in. What kind of Jesus are we really looking at? Is the culture conforming to Christ or is Christ revised to fit the culture?

Even thought the book is critical, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Nichols, in the epilogue, explains that he believes evangelicalism can hit the mark. To do so, Christians must learn to look outside their own generation and pull on resources from the past. He suggests the great Creeds (while recognizing the bias they had) as a guide for evangelical Christology. He also admits that the Christology has never been an easy task, but we should never be afraid of complexity. It is our job, as Christians in the dominant west to ensure we both learn and pass on these teaching of Christ. No matter how difficult the task.

Thanks for reading. Now go read this book or see a few other interesting ones.

======================================
*May I gently add a point to all the Christian girls/women who ask “where are all the good, single, Christian men?” this comment: please consider that men worship God differently than women do. For instance, Christian heterosexual men are generally not interested in relating to Jesus as if he is our boyfriend. We’re not interested competing with him either.

Have Yourself a very Civic Christmas

2009-12-14T17:53:00.001-08:00

Isn't there anyone who can tell me what Christmas is all about?! -Charlie Brown

Yesterday was the the third Sunday of Advent and I am yet to comment on Christmas.

I am such a bad Christian.

I had hoped to do a series of worked out, fully fledged, articles for this Advent season, but my school schedule, my quest for summer employment and to some extent even Christmas shopping got the better of me.

In other words, I was sucked into the civic side of Christmas.

It seems, when Christmas comes around, Christians really wind up celebrating two different holidays at the same time. One, is the secular holiday; henceforth "x-mas." X-mas is marked by the traveling stress of coming home from school during winter break, (or waiting for your kids to come home if you are the parent). It is about the big day of shopping of black Friday. It is about getting presents under the tree. Hanging stockings above the mantle. Getting gifts and receiving them, and shopping while hearing "Jingle bells" or "I'll be Home for Christmas" or something else vaguely "Good will" orientated. X-mas, is the secular, cultural, holiday that all people of any religious or non-religious persuasion can enjoy.

Do I think any of these things are bad? Not at all (except the shopping). I enjoy giving and receiving gifts. X-mas remains the one time of year when I really look forward to going home. Decorations are still fun. As long as there is not a great deal of stress, I will have a good X-mas this year.

The thing is though, I really want to celebrate Advent and Christmas during December. I want to prepare myself as if Christ was coming on December 24th. I want some time to take emotional, spiritual, and even mental inventory and redirect everything towards God. I want to show Christian charity through acts of Christian charity. I want to sing Christmas songs that reflect the importance of Christ's birth. I want to be amazed by the incarnation.

I found this Advent, and many others like it to be an unstable balance of X-mas and Christmas. It seems every year, that the aspects of X-mas, because I am so stuck in the culture, eclipse Christmas. Never fully so, obviously, but a little to much in my mind.

This year, though, I did get all my shopping done by November. Next year, I will pay special attention Advent and will hopefully be able to decorate my apartment accordingly.

Thanks for reading.

Thoughts on a Post-modern Testimony

2009-12-08T15:11:00.000-08:00

The power of the personal testimony is valued in all ways and in all places by Evangelicalism and fundamentalism. How we answer the question “What has God done for you?” is a shillobeth for membership in either of these circles. Dramatic stories told in high school youth groups, recovery ministries, and missionary pulpits are ever flowing and ever dramatic. Good Christians, like family, are always ready to open their ears to them and give people a place to speak, share, and be understood.

At least as long as the speakers tow the party line.

It is no defective fault that Evangelicalism desires to listen to Evangelicalism. That is to say: there is nothing wrong with the fact that evangelicals are eager to hear about how other people have come to experience God through evangelicalism. Yet, I think Christian charity calls us to more than that. Can evangelicals truly listen and understand those who depart from evangelicalism for some “other” Christianity?

One such testimony comes from the Emergent Podcast. Here, the speaker A.J. stitch confesses that Emergent is the only way that he can remain a Christian after leaving a conservative, charismatic, Christian college at Asbury. This phenomen is far more common than many people realize (or admit).

For the record, I do not consider myself a member of or an advocate of the Emergent Village, but neither do I count myself as one of their detractors. What I hope though, is that everyone reading this blog will listen to this blog and give the speaker as fair of shake as they give anyone else giving an evangelical testimony. After that, here are some questions that I would love to hear you all answer on this blog.*

Cultural and Philosophical Challenges: The story begins with a reading of “Life of Pi” and “Under the Banner of Heaven.” Both of these books provided a cultural and philosophical challenge to Christianity he was raised in. Does evangelicalism adequately understand how weird the crucifixion look to outsiders? How does one answer the apparent contradiction of God condemning Murder and then later calling for it?
Josh Harris and “Christian Courtship.”: The author described himself as “all out evangelist” for Josh Harris/Christian courtship, but later he said that this failed to address the issues of depression. How might “Christian Courtship” overcome this problem? If it is unable to, what must be done with it?
Experience versus Scripture: The speaker, at one point, mention that reading in the Bible “God will not tempt you with more than you can bear” did not quite fit with his experience and observations during a depressive period of his life. He also criticizes his own literalistic, modernist, interpretation of scripture. What was wrong in this situation? The Bible? His interpretation of it? Or his understanding of experience?

*For my Facebook friends, I’m glad you’re reading this here. There will be a lot of room for a great discussion if everyone consolidates their comments in the blog itself. If you like what’s said here, please go ahead and repost it or email it.

Thoughts on the First Season of BattleStar Gate-ica

2009-12-04T22:06:00.000-08:00

It has finished. The first season of the dark sci-fi series: Stargate Universe has finished. I just watched the last episode and I feel compelled to blog while the show is fresh in my mind.

For the uninitiated, Stargate Universe is the latest in the the Star Gate canon (which is now the new Star Trek) and is bit of a divergence from the two previous military/exploration shows. In this series, a group of military and civilian scientists escape a battle through a gate and find themselves on spacecraft flying through space on the other side of the universe.

It seems to be a hybrid of Battlestar Galactica, Lost, and Stargate.

SGU (Stargate Universe) is a bit like Lost. The characters, those ambiguous heroes, have a troubled past that occasionally shows up one way or another. One character was raised by a drunken Catholic priest. His dark past was getting a girl pregnant at 16. Dr. Rush does not have a clean moral slate. A particular marine was released from the brig in the first episode and his dark past is yet to be revealed.

SGU is like Stargate in the fact that there is a stargate.

But SGU is really like Battlestar. It is dark and immersive. A lot of work is done with hand-held cameras. Often the camera is tilted or blurred. Much of the shots look like indie films. The general lack of soundtrack, pacing, and such give the episodes a sense of frustration and aimlessness that you imagine all the characters are likely feeling. The grit of the spaceship is much like Galactica as well and is a far cry from the technologically pristine Atlantis.

Like BSG, the show is full of dark characters and dark times. Dr. Rush's motivations are never known from the beginning of the series. More than once, he clashes with ship's military officer who does not trust him. While on the ship, we see the characters, civilians and military, struggle to create a political society in which economic, social, and survival needs are all met. This climaxes in the last episode with the court scene, but I won't ruin that for you.

Of course, it is easy to see how this show make take a few to many pages from the Battlestar book. Dr. Rush, if even for superficial reasons, is a little to much like Dr. Baltar. Likewise, I keep seeing Lee Adama in one of the lieutenants. This is certainly not enough reason to write off the series, but viewers should be aware of this if they are put off of it easily.

Of course, it is not as dark as Battle star, but it did just finish its first season.

As a Stargate fan, I think this is worth seeing. If you like Lost, Stargate, and Battlestar you will probably enjoy this nice hybrid.

Why I Prefer Preterism

2009-11-29T19:56:00.000-08:00

I meant what I said when I wrote that I don’t want my blog to be excessively negative. The last post, on my frustrations with dispensational futurism, was quite deconstructive. In this post, I’ll be positive instead. I will explain why I prefer preterism.

I realize that many people reading this have probably never heard of preterism. It is fairly new to me too. Briefly put, preterism is the view that many of the prophecies in Revelation and the Olivet discourse were fulfilled by the end of the first century. More information can be found a The Preterist Site or you can listen to the Preterist Podcast if you (like the Podcast's author) are a Mac loyalist, or at least own an iPod.

As a caveat, I reiterate that I am relatively new to preterism. I missed the “Biblical Apocalyptic” class at Azusa Pacific. Eschatology in general is not my area of expertise. Additionally, I would like to make it clear that I support orthodox preterism. What this means is that I reject the kind of preterism that denies a future bodily resurrection among other essentials to the Christian faith. I find that there are those who automatically equate preterism with heresy. I hope that those reading this won’t have such a knee jerk reaction.

Here goes:

Preterism understands literal and temporal context well. If there is one fundamental reason why I like preterism, it is the fact that I never scratch my head and wonder why preterists believe what they believe. Preterists know what their hermeneutic is and they understand how it is distinct from actually interpreting the bible. N.T. Wright, who is often invoked by pretestists, spends a whole four-hundred page volume explaining his method before he proceeds to exegete the Gospels in later works. I know his assumptions, he knows his assumptions, and consequently I understand him when he gets into the story of Christ’s ministry.

Preterists, when commenting on things like the Olivet discourse or revelation are upfront with their hermeneutic and I see that. For instance, when reading through Jesus’ words at Olivet they rightly point out that condemnation of the Jewish Apostates was a major theme in Matthew, and they understand Olivet in that light. Preterists then, look to the surrounding literally context of a passage to get to an understanding of what that passage is talking about.

Preterists also get deep into the time period of when a passage is written. First, they rightly assume that when Jesus was talking about things happening “soon” and when he refers to “this generation” they ought to be understood as if they were written to another audience, in another time, and in another place –because they were (in fact!) written to another audience, in another time, and in another place.

Literal and temporal context are imminently basic to any hermeneutic of anything. Yet it seems to me the preterists are the only ones applying it to scripture.

Preterism is consistent when it comes to cultural idiom and genre. Idiom and genre are other important aspects of interpretation that preterists have a firm grasp on. Most people agree that there are plenty of idioms in the Bible. When Jesus says in Luke 14:26 that the disciples must hate their family and their own lives, most people will agree that Jesus did not want us to be hateful, but recognize that Jesus was using a cultural idiom for choosing between two alternatives. (“I love this, and I hate that.” Was a way of saying “I choose this.”). Likewise, genre is something that nobody wants to ignore. The parables of Jesus are understood in the way they are because we know their genre. We know this, and how they were understood, because lots of other people in that era spoke in parables. So we come to understand genre by comparing what the Bible contains with similar literature from the era the Bible was written in.

When preterists read phrases like “the moon will not shed its light” and “coming on the clouds” and even “[violence/tribulation] never to be equaled again” they are fully aware of the idioms and hyperbole of Jesus or whoever else might be speaking. Likewise, when looking at Ezekiel, Daniel, or Revelation I have noticed that preterists are also aware of the genre of apocalyptic literature, which they glean from other sources just like the non-biblical parables. From this, they learn to look at Revelation in a way the author likely intended.

Preterism makes the Good News sound like “Good News.” There is another thing that I’ve noticed about preterism, that may not be essential to it, but often goes hand and hand: the idea that the Kingdom of God was initiated with the coming of Jesus and continues to this day.

This is some serious good news! The idea that the Kingdom of God is a way of life, a political order, and/or liberation of the oppressed etc deserves an entire blog. Preterists take it as a given and often articulate that God has been growing the Kingdom of God like a muster seed since its inception in the time of Jesus. There is also an assumption that waiting for Christ’s coming is preparing the world for him to come. This is like how you would clean up your house for an honored guest. The Church, then, works in the world to make the world better. When preterists say, “The Kingdom of God is at hand” they mean things like “We intend to liberate slaves” rather than “Christians are going to disappear and the planet will pretty much literally go to hell.”

All Hail Dee Dee Warren!

I think that those three reasons are only the beginning of why I am attracted to preterism. It really boils down to one thing; even before I knew there was something besides dispensational futurism (yes, I was eye-ball deep in a church that believes it), I learned the basics of hermerneutics. When I listen to the preterists, I hear them appealing to, understanding, and applying the principles I learned. Because of this, I simply trust them a lot more than others. Additionally, the idea of end times being about regenerating and providing hope for the world is an eschatology I am instinctively drawn to.

So color me an Orthodox preterist. It was inevitable after leaving Azusa Pacific anyway.

Why I am Frustrated with Futurism

2009-11-27T10:19:00.000-08:00

While it was never my intention to be overly negative or deconstructive when it comes to this blog, I think I finally need to comment on Dispensational Futurism, otherwise known as “end times” by the popular evangelicalism. Dispensational Futurism, for those of here who may not be familiar with it, is a specific understanding of the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24, Revelation, Daniel and such. It represents the popular dogmas like the rapture (when Christians disappear) the coming tribulation, black helicopters, and a world government of the Anti-Christ. It was popularized by the Left Behind series, which is a whole different blog entirely.

At this time, I not only think that Dispensational Futurism is off track, I think that dispensationalism faces quite a bit of problems; problems that I think are not easily overcome. Here are some of the reasons why I am frustrated with futurism.

Dispensational Futurism is not a “conservative” view. Dispensational Futurism is often taught in evangelical churches, and especially charismatic and very fundamentalist churches, “what the Bible teaches.” Deviations from futurism are often taught as “liberal” viewpoints to be viewed with suspicion. Dispensationalism is right because it is conservative.

The strange thing is, dispensational futurism is far from conservative. It began in the 1800s –very late by Church History standards- and it was incredibly novel of an idea even then. Most Christians, including the big names in Protestantism like Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, never knew of futurism like we know it today and would not endorse it if they knew of it now. Furthermore, when futurists first came on the scene, they snubbed ministers who they considered to intellectual (and were consequently the actual conservatives) as not having anything worth saying.

Dispensational Futurism is a liberal view. In fact, if one considers how futurists approach scripture, the positions might actually be radical. This leads me to the second point…

Dispensational Futurists are hermeneutically challenged. While I am sure that there are futurists out there who are very conscious and aware of their interpretative methods, I am beginning to think that many futurists not only do not know their own hermeneutic, but do not even know what a “hermeneutic” is.

The more I talk to futurists, the more I am convinced that they do not know the difference between an interpretive method (a hermeneutic) and the act of interpreting. Furthermore, some of the most basic principles of interpretation are outright doubly ignored, such as reading a passage in its literally context or according to the time period it was written.

I believe that the conclusions of futurism are matters of presumption, and it is a presumption they are not aware of. The parable of the Purple Cow exemplifies this problem.

Dispensational Futurism has made Too Many False Prophecies. One can pick up a book at a Christian bookstore entitled “Charting the End Times” but chances are you aren’t going to find “88 Reasons why Jesus is coming in 1988.” Most books that talked about the end of the world around the year 2000 are less than likely to available for purchase too. I also doubt anyone is reading “the Late Great Planet Earth.” Why? Because these books prophesied about then current events that turned out not to be true.

There is a serious problem with consistency here. Many Christians rightly denounce the latter day prophets of Mormonism and the Jehovah Witnesses for their failed visions of the end of the world. Rightly, people invoke the test of a false prophet in Deuteronomy 18.

For even one false prophecy made by the founders of Mormonism, your average evangelical will rightly say “away with them and their theological projects.” Why then do we tolerate the failed predictions of dispensational futurism? Is it because names keep changing every ten years or so? Failed prophecies are failed prophecies. This should be enough to make at least reevaluate futurism if not dump it completely. Sadly, people seem to have a short memory about these things.

Dispensational Futurism encourages a “fire escape” Gospel I almost entitled this section as “Dispensational Futurism has a suspicious genesis.” But I think it suffices to say this, Dispensational Futurism, since its inception, has taught that the W.A.S.P.’s are alienated people, losing control in their society, and thus will eventually be sucked away from world because they’re just that special. In other words, get on board, and get out. Many articles, like those found at the preteristsite.com and the slacktivisit have already noted this same attitude in the Left Behind series, and I need not expound on them here.

I do not believe the Gospel, the Kingdom of God, and such is about escape planet earth and letting all God’s creation burn. The Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed that starts small and then grows into something huge within the soil it was planted in. It is not like a soldier in a foxhole waiting for helicopter evac. Christians should not be looking to things like the rapture index to see how horrible the world is getting and looking foreward to our escape with self-satisfactory smugness, rather we should be doing the work of God in the world and preparing it for his coming.

So there it is: Four reasons why I am frustrated with futurism. It is a liberal view supported by poor interpretation. It has a bad track record when it comes to predicting the future and encourages, if only implicitly, that Christians need not care about the condition of the world around them. This is something I have been frustrated with for years.

So suck it, LaHaye.

The Single Most Los Angeles Thing I Have Ever Done

2009-11-16T19:10:00.000-08:00

This saturday, I went and did something that was the most completely "Los Angeles" thing that I have done in my four and half years of living in southern California.

I attended an independent film festival.

The film festival was put on by Mosiac. It was all themed around Erwin's latest book
. I hadn't been to such an event since the festival at my undergraduate, and I loved those too.

This event, took place at "the Mayan," a themed-out downtown club in LA. There was a red carpet. There were people posing behind large frame -a kind of "living artwork"- as per the themes of the festival. There were two guys playing guitar and singing, that way we all knew it was an evangelical thing.

The energy of the place was exciting. I was there with my roommate who is working on the next spider man movie. We got our picture taken on the carpet. I got a nice bottle of "metro water" and drank it without embarrassment. There was popcorn and even Korean Tacos available for purchase. There were a few big wig hollywood people there.

The movies? Well they were all great. My favorite was a short film entitled Marbles with Thoreau. It was simple yet profound. One of those rare movies that is thought provoking in a way that children can understand. It had everything it would need to be a full length film, and it will be.

I left feeling quite happy. It was a great event and I am glad to know my church community there.

I just I hope I haven't turned into a complete Los Angeles native in doing so.

:-)

Greg Boyd on the Book of Revelation

2009-11-13T14:21:00.001-08:00

I must admit, that eschatology is becoming a pet hobby of mine. Also, Greg Boyd is a nice guy.

This video, Greg Boyd comments on both.

He has a very light touch on what he thinks about futurism.

How does sound to everyone out there?

Thinking about the next step and such

2009-11-12T22:52:00.000-08:00

If there has been a lot on my mind lately, most notably near future plans.

A year ago, I was dead set on getting out of Los Angeles and moving onto to wherever that may be (which means, wherever I could find the right job) afterwards. This is still mostly the plan, but I think now I am much more willing to consider Los Angeles as one of those possible places.

I think generally plans are important to make but they are also important to change should things change, and my experience around Los Angeles has changed a bit. If I stayed here, there are plenty of things worth staying for. For instance, I am enjoying my church a lot. If I wanted to cultivate my aesthetic side in addition to my Christian life, MOSAIC happens to be a great place to do that. Additionally, my younger brother is coming down to Southern California (very likely) in the fall. As is one of my closest friends from undergraduate. I will also have finished my graduate program, and that means I do not have to worry about education harming my financial situation (as it continually does).

In otherwords, if I do leave, I will be a bit reluctant to do so. I think I am open to the possibility of staying. It remains unlikely, but things could change in between now and May.

In other news, I really, really, need a seasonal job for December.

Mark Driscoll's preaching made me repent.

2009-11-11T11:00:00.000-08:00

As some of you know, I have been listening to the Minister Mark Driscoll’s pod casts over the last week or so. Following the some veins of tradition, Driscoll passionately denounces sin and then calls people to repent before God.

Mark Driscoll has led me to repentance. I have repented of every time I have ever acted like Mark Driscoll.

The last sermon I was listening to was entitled “Trail: Marriage and Men.*” The subject of Christian masculinity (or lack thereof) has been of interest to me for a few years now. Driscoll has a reputation on this subject, so I thought I would give him a listen.

Eloquently, Driscoll divided men who miss the mark of masculinity into several archetypes. One is called “Little Boy Larry” which is the kind of guy who is in his mid to late 20s and fairly irresponsible. He needs his girlfriend to be his mommy. Another guy is an authoritarian boss man, who intimidates both his wife and his children. There were several others that could be listed as moral failures. He seemed quite right in his list.

The issue I have with Driscoll is not the sinful behavior he rightly denounces, but the excessively angry and borderline hateful tone in which he does so. He is not just using strong language, he actually starts screaming at people. No, I am not exaggerating. Go listen to the pod cast. At one point he has this to say to people, “in love” presumably:

Some of you guys are a total joke. I have no respect for you at all. You can’t get a job, keep a job, you can’t keep your hands off a girl, you can’t stop downloading porn…

Are the sins he denounces serious? Sure. But it would take an incredible amount of mental gymnastics to believe at that a statement like this is simply “love the sinner, hate the sin” rhetoric. This is an overt, naked, insult intended to make the listener angry. But this is only the tip of the iceberg, as Driscoll (by his own assertions) does this on purpose. He even said that in this sermon his speech (and screaming) was restrained since it was going on the internet.

There is even another incredible level of irony in Driscoll’s approach. At one point in this sermon he denounced men who use brute intimidation and their own authority in their families as veritable bullies. Yet this sermon and many others are riddled with fear appeals and unrestrained, authoritarian, moral judgment. Is it really that credible to think that which is moral vice when dealing with families becomes a moral virtue when being a minister?

I cannot imagine this kind of rhetoric actually helping the Little Boy Larrys of the world. One of them came to my small group a few months ago. His immaturity was obvious to everyone in the room, and his pot habit was obvious to me. At one point in the discussion, Little Boy Larry was talking out of turn and would lot not let a certain subject, in this own case sexual/relational struggles, go.

We all knew that he was not ready for a relationship and that is probably why God did not send him one. I kept my mouth shut, but eventually one man verbally and publically denounced him in front of the whole group. At this point he went from defensive to extremely defensive. Wisely, the leader took him aside and had a private conversation with him. It should have happened sooner. I felt doubly bad for Little Boy Larry. On one hand, he clearly had some years to go in regards to maturity, on the other hand he got a public verbal lashing from a older man (not the leader).

I am fairly certain that screaming at that guy would not have been a good idea.

But on personal reflection, I realize that I have been about as bad in my mind as Driscoll is with his words. I have shown little patience with those people, especially young men, who I consider my moral inferiors. I have stupidly believed that harsh treatment inspires people to virtue. I have failed to show patience and Christian charity to the others not like myself. Foolishly, I have made blanket judgments on people before understanding them.

So thank you Mark Driscoll for inspiring me to repentance. I repent that I might never preach like you.

Thanks for reading.

===================================================
* It can be found at Mars Hill Podcasts. The message was delivered 3/23/2009

“Protect Marriage by Banning Divorce!” Or “Christian social ethics with a hammer.”

2009-11-07T11:22:00.000-08:00

Every once in awhile, in the world of American politics, someone comes a long and shows us how absurd we all we are. To paraphrase Neitzche, some one does politics with a hammer. The activist with a hammer today is John Marcotte who is starting a grass roots campaign to rescue marriage from the evils of divorce.

Marcotte is confident that those who defended traditional marriage with Prop 8 last year will be just as supportive of his ban divorce. To do otherwise, would be hypocritical.

I am sure many Christians out there don’t appreciate the joke. Snide remarks on his website like “hell is eternal, just like your marriage was supposed to be” are likely to get under people’s skin. Yet he has a point he is trying to get across and it wouldn’t be right to ignore the issue that his project raises. Such would seem to affirm his accusation of hypocrisy. Instead, I think maybe we need to think carefully about the problem reflect on our own social ethic. While I don’t think the charge of “hypocrisy” really sticks, I think there is a serious question about consistency on this issue.

The problem is this: What exactly does defending marriage mean? Conservative Christians have fairly clear idea of its definition: marriage is between man and women. Thus, many Christians felt that it made sense to vote “yes” on Prop 8 because that affirms the traditional view. The reasoning behind the social ethic was fairly simple for most:

1. Christians believe that marriage is between man and a woman.
2. Therefore, we should make sure that is the law.

Now, there are many other arguments that were added, but I don’t think there is much doubt that at the root, it Christians defended traditional marriage because this is the way God intends it. Defending it means protecting it with secular law.

So why not do the same thing with divorce? Jesus condemns divorce explicitly in the Gospels. While we all know many divorced Christians, few Christians say that divorce is concept we want to endorse any more than gay marriage. So consider this reasoning:

1. Christians believe that marriage should not end with a divorce.
2. Therefore, we should make sure that’s the law.

What is preventing us from taking this route? If defending marriage means making secular law that affirms what Christians think about it, then legally recognizing divorce is just as much of a problem as legally recognizing gay marriage. Many of the anti-gay marriage arguments apply here too. Non-divorce is clearly better for procreation and raising children. How might this charge of inconsistency be resolved?

I know that many thoughtful Christians will offer good reasons of how to resolve this issue. Here is mine: Traditional, Christian, ideas about the religious sacrament of marriage cannot be defended by appeals to secular law. I do not think that secular law has the right to define marriage at all, whether “marriage” accepts gays or not. I would happily take a "civil union" if that means my religion -and only my religion- defines my marriage. It was on this principle that I abstained from voting on Prop 8 last year. If Christians want to defend our religious practices, than we need to do it with our own religious institutions and not hold hands with secular law.

This may not be convincing to some, and that’s okay. My way may not be the best way. But I still feel there needs to be a way out of the inconsistency. If you have another and better way, please post it!

After all, someone has to shut up the activist with the hammer.

And if you liked this little blog, go ahead and re-post on facebook!

Halloween Weekend in Review

2009-11-04T07:10:00.000-08:00

This weekend, I had more than my share of fun.

The remainder of this story, names will be changed and censored so as to protect the guilty.

On Friday night, I went up to a house in the San Gabriel Valley and bartended a party that was populated mostly be alums and current students of classified. I dressed as Mormon There was a lot of dancing as we had a DJ there, as well as a nice hookah in the pillow room. I reconnected with some old friends and made a bunch of new ones. One friend, classified, insisted that she hold back on the drinking but still managed to have a good time. I can never forget how classified took several shots and sang "Everyone's a Hero" from Dr. Horrible's sing-a-long blog.

On the dance floor, I met a few friends who got tipsy. The dancing was classified. I can't remember the last time that I felt that energized and had that much fun.

On Halloween eve proper, I spent some time with the other graduate students. It was much smaller and kick back, since I was already burnt out. I did however, see one student dressed like the Bee from Blind Melon's "no rain." I couple of us attempted to find a bar, but it was closed to what we can only assume was a fight of some sort.

I turned in earlier than expected Halloween night, but the fact that I came back into Playa Vista at 7:15am that very morning makes me feel like I had my fun.

What I did for All Saint's Day/Day of the Dead

2009-11-03T09:00:00.000-08:00

It looks like I did do something for All Saint's Day/Day of the Dead after all.

For those who did not read my Halloween rant, Day of the Dead/All Saint's Day is the day of the year when Christians remember those who have passed on and will be raised by God again on the last day. It is a day that everyone remembers not only the "big name" Christians, but also the every-day Christians.

Anyway, at the LMU library this Sunday, there was a small alter for Dia de Los Muetros (Day of the Dead). People had put a few picture of their loved ones, and written letters short letters to them. There was the usual painted skull mask, which although "creepy" was not as scary as you might think. There was an invitation to all students to take a moment, write on some canvas, and pin it to the burlap on the altar.

I took a few moments to remember my long deceased Grandfather. He loved children (which I have inherited), and was married to the same woman for over 50 years. He came from the greatest generation and fought in World War II, yet never became a bitter man. He had a hard life when he was younger, as his parent's died, and never made it past the 8th Grade. He was devout and simple Christian of the Billy Graham generation, and I will never forget how often he prayed at dinners with and for his Grandchildren.

He died at a strange time in my life. I was in the middle of a faith crisis and generally frustrated with my life. I had, at that time, finally decided that set some goals for myself and was going to get through College and probably get a graduate degree. I am now working on that degree. In many ways, I am strangely beyond my grandfather in my understanding of my religion. Most likely, I will also see more of the world than he did, and not because I am getting shipped off to shoot people.

But I think back to that funeral and can remember that my Grandfather still is way ahead of me in many ways. Few people I know died with more loving friends and family around them. He was described as honest and humble businesses man and a gentle lover of children. He impressed even the nurses of his rest room with his kindness. And yes, he remained faithful and married all the years of life.

In that letter, I pinned to the altar, I wrote that my Grandfather's life still inspires me.

Expectamus resurrectionem mortuorum et vitam futuri saeculi. Amen.*

Who did you remember on November 1st?

=========
*we look foreward the the Resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

Why I Need God in Silence

2009-10-30T12:22:00.000-07:00

Internet Monk posted a nice article recently that made me think about my own devotional life; specifically my tendency towards contemplative meditations and Liturgy. Also, it helps me understand why I can see some styles of worship as gaudy and over powering, while others can see God through them.

There are a lot of reasons why I need contemplative silence in my spiritual life.

I am an intellectual. Christian intellectuals have a role to play in the life of the Church and the world. We do a lot of the heavy lifting that others (often mercifully) don't have to do. There is a downside though, we are often always talking and we frequently get the point where we simply love to hear our own voices. Philosophy and Theology can become "mental masturbation" as my friend put it. Silence reminds us to shut up.

I am a Musician. Musicians love music and we love being heard playing music. I am no exception. I have done music for the approval of others and for my own enjoyment. Bad thing? Of course not. Yet like being an intellectual, it is often a mixed bag when it comes to one's relation to God. Do I need a worship CD -whether that be Sergei Rachmaninoff's Vespers or rock-worship on a Sunday night to see God? The answer, when I think about it carefully, is no.

I am an Incurable Extrovert. I am often to outgoing for my own good. Maintaining friendships is so important to me that I often do not know when to say "no." I am the first to assert that our encounters with God are rightly also encounters with other people -most specifically those Christians whom we pray, eat, and live with. Yet still, this does not mean that I can ignore times of reflection on the life of Christ or on the psalms or whatever else might be guiding my prayer life.

Learning how to shut up and listen, even when bored, is an on going process for me.

The Hack Holiday of the Harvest Festival (and the better alternative)

2009-10-25T11:32:00.001-07:00

This is part II of the Halloween blog.

I know that there are many Christians out there who believe that Halloween is evil and that Christians need to do something else or nothing. As per the previous blog, I think that these fears are silly, but even if we must celebrate an alternative to Halloween, I think that we can do better than a “Harvest Festival.” My point is fairly simple: rather than arbitrarily renaming the secular holiday, why not instead draw on Christian tradition for a historic Christian holy day?

Let’s start with weakness of the Harvest Festival solution. Holidays are not about what you name them, but that activities done on the day and the why behind them. When we compare the activities of the Harvest Festival and Halloween, it turns out there is little different. Both days people dress up in costumes. Both days people carve pumpkins. Both days people eat candy and generally party somehow. Now, it might be said that Harvest festivals don’t have the evil ghouly stuff or scary pumpkins and takes place at a church, but this all difference in degree, not substance.

So how about the why behind the activities? The very term Harvest Festival implies the celebration of a harvest. So what Harvest are Christians celebrating? In most cases, none. Such a celebration makes sense in an agrarian community which depends on a harvest of crop to sustain itself –and I am sure there remain such communities- but that is not what most Christians are doing. I live in Los Angeles, and most people here behave (and vote) as if they don’t know where food comes from. Years ago, I even celebrated a Harvest Festival in my home town, which is surrounded by farm communities, but even there a “harvest” was moot.

Thus I can only really conclude that the why behind the Harvest Festival is also the same as the why for secular Halloween: an excuse to dress up in costumes and have fun. Sorry fearful fundies, the Harvest Festival solution is little bit more than an arbitrary renaming of the same substantive holiday.

I propose that if we must do something different, then let’s participate in a historic Christian holy day instead. The historic Christian holy day(s) I am referring to is of course All Saint’s Day and the corresponding All Hallow’s Eve on October 31st. Briefly put, All Saint’s Day and All Hallow’s Eve were Christian rites that coincided with the pagan October revelries. All Saint’s day, was a day to remember the “cloud of witness” –those Christians who came before us- once a year. It was not a funeral procession, but rather a remembrance of the hope that Christians have beyond death. The Saints, in this case, are not merely the super Christians of history, but literally any Christian who had died was remembered. Such is exemplified by the tradition of Dia de los Muetros in Spain, Latin America, and Mexico.

This is clearly a different substance than the secular Halloween (which actually comes from “All Hallow’s Eve” a Christian overtone) and avoids the cheesy inadequacies of the Harvest Festival. Personally, I would love to have a Holy Day where I could come to church with a portrait of my deceased grandparents among other Christians, doing the same, to remember their lost loved ones. There need be no sense of grief on such an occasion, but rather a triumphant celebration of future resurrection of the dead. A pastor’s sermon could be an annual sermon that reminds Christians of the hope that have through Christ in this matter. Surely, this is a more spiritually substantive alternative than the Harvest Festival.

But I imagine that such a thing would be hard sell around most Evangelical circles and would be loudly rejected by Fundamentalism. After all, it would probably look superstitious and decried as being extra-Biblical. Such objections could be overcome, but not easily. The resistance towards such a thing is indicative of larger problems in the North American Church, which is simply not a position to appreciate and understand holidays beyond minimal celebrations of Easter and Christmas.

Oh well. I will be having more than enough fun with the secular celebrations anyway.

Thanks for reading.

Why I Celebrate Halloween (and You Can Keep Your “Harvest Festival”)

2009-10-22T16:27:00.001-07:00

It’s October and that means Halloween, my favorite secular holiday. I will being having a great amount of fun this year, as I do always. However there are often a lot of Christians that have serious moral hang-ups with the alleged worship of evil and pagan aspects of Halloween. The alternative, for much of evangelicalism, is to have a “harvest festival” at Church instead.

I submit though, that the concerns about the evil of Halloween are exaggerated and misplaced. Furthermore, if there is a need to “Christianize” Oct 31sth, than I think we can do better than a change in nomenclature to harvest festival. I will deal with the misplaced fears first, and the alternatives in a subsequent blog.

The general anti-halloween sentiments are well summed up here:

The October 31st holiday that we today know as Halloween has strong roots in paganism and is closely connected with worship of the Enemy of this world, Satan. It is a holiday that generally glorifies the dark things of this world, rather than the light of Jesus Christ, The Truth.

Have you noticed how costumes and masks are getting generally more bloody, gory, and depraved each year? Unfortunately, the gruesome and grotesque and the occult are increasingly glorified in American society, not only on Halloween, but throughout the year in horror movies and in television programs.*

Those of you who actually worship Satan on Halloween, please comment on this blog. I ask, because I have never met any of you yet. Clearly, many Christians have because I keep hearing this rhetoric from both pulpits and message boards every October. I am of course, being sarcastic here. I really think that Christians make up the majority of people labeling Halloween a worship of evil, whereas the broader secular culture, which is busy celebrating it, knows of no such thing. For the majority of society, Halloween is an excuse to dress up and have some kind of celebration with no religious or spiritual aspects whatsoever.

For instance, when I was young, it was an excuse to go the grandparent’s of my neighbors and have a costume party out in the orchard. In College, it was an excuse to goof –off with the other undergraduates of my living complex. We would get creative with costumes (my friend once dressed up as an iPod). Now, it is a regular excuse to come up with fun outfits for my webcomic characters to wear each year.

Worship of evil? Quite clearly so!

But someone may persist (if they were not put off by my sarcasm) that Halloween does indeed have Pagan roots. It was, in fact, the Celtic new year and the suppression of evil spirits that roamed the earth on that night. This is true, but I still do not think that it justifies the general condemnation that many Christians have about Halloween. I have one simple reason: most people who celebrate Halloween are completely ignorant of these things. Most kids dressing up as ghosts, ninjas, faerie princesses etc have no knowledge of its roots and neither do their parents. The idea of the broader culture actually celebrating the “true meaning” of Halloween is so absurd that it was lampooned by the Onion News Network last year. Those true blue pagans who do, are an incredible minority.

There are many Christians, who still insist on a Christian alternative. While this might be a nice move, I think the Harvest Festival fails to hit the mark. But that is for the next blog.

For now, I will announce my plans. This year, I will be by an house full of 20-somethings and dressed up as either a Captain Hammer or a Mormon missionary. There will be much revelry and some liquor, like most years. I will likely be singing songs from Dr. Horrible and the Nightmare Before Christmas. Various other party games will ensue. It will be a joyous occasion shared with friends dear to me.

And this year, I preside over the goat sacrifice.

Thanks for reading.

The Preterist Podcast

2009-10-20T20:38:00.000-07:00

I do not believe in dispensationalism.

Some may be shocked that I reject something that is so conservative. Thing is, dispensationalism is not a conservative position. It is fairly liberal position that has only be around since the 1830s, and is only believed by Christians in the United States (not even all of them) and not shared by most Christians throughout the world.

Now, I don't comment much on eschatology beyond that, mostly because it is far beyond my knowledge. This is frustrating, because I still think it is important.

But where to turn when everyone around me reads Tim Lahaye?

Thankfully, I found Dee Dee Warren's Preterist pod cast!!

You can listen to the promo here Here it is!

You can find the site here, the Preterist Podcast

For all my Christian Hipsters Homies, sign up and start listening on your iPod today!!

For All the Single Folks (or "Single People are Christians Too")

2009-10-17T19:53:00.000-07:00

We all did it. We all grow up evangelicals or something similar. Then, we went to a Christian college and likely attended a few Christian college and career groups. We probably have been through a few camps and summits. We are all now the quarter life Christians out in the world.

And if any of us are not married, we’ve likely felt the pressure to hurry up and do so!

For those of us, who for whatever reason, remain single in our twenties, I like to think that our Churches get it, but the reality is that evangelical culture can sometimes be less than understanding. Folks like Josh Harris, Dobson et al make marriage seem like requisite for all “real” Christians. Fortunately, I recently stumbled on an old article written by the Internet monk that was a nice change, especially in light of the case for young marriage in Christianity today.

I won’t go through the whole article, but there are number of things in it I liked. Internet Monk asks whether we emphasize marriage to much. His answer is in many ways “yes.” Let’s start with this.

Saying that delaying marriage is bad is overemphasizing marriage. This is too simplistic, and we all know it. Don’t get me wrong. Mohler sees a legitimate problem: singleness as an excuse for immaturity and rejecting legitimate adul;t responsibilities. There are such people. I’ve met them. Kick them in the pants.
On the other hand, there are so many other legitimate, good reasons people delay marriage, it’s almost beyond belief that they are ignored. Mohler is speaking to the culture that he sees influencing America in sitcoms like “Friends.” Let me speak about the single’s culture I see at our ministry here.

Oh wise Internet Monk, you speak the truth. Thank you for affirming those who delay marriage for good reasons. Thank for reminding us that we can be faithful Christians when we live in large cities, have ambitious career, education, artistic or even religious commitments that force us to put of marriage past the ripe age of 21!

We overemphasize marriage when those who are not married are out of the “center” of the Christian community, thus violating clear implications of the ministry of Jesus. I am extremely concerned that the emphasis on marriage in contemporary evangelicalism has created an imbalance within the body of Christ. I am already sensitive to this because of my own life experience.

This is another great point. How many post-college single people stick around the college groups? Feels odd doesn’t it? One wonders exactly what we’re supposed to though, if every other demographic segregation is geared towards married people and their kids.

I would also like to speak for myself here. I am very, very, tired of how evangelical culture shuns the divorced and those who have had or are having sex outside of marriage. Why are these two things the litmus test for who is a “real” Christian? It seems very arbitrary to me.

I think he really hits the nail on the head with this though. What about dating and “courtship”?

1) Courtship is far from a Biblically established and ordained way of finding a spouse. Ever since post-Josh Harris youth speakers began saying “Don’t date. Court!” there’s been enough confusion on this topic to fill a warehouse. This essay won’t attempt to straighten that out, other than to say this: The view of family and adulthood I read in the courtship movement would be quite at home in medieval Islam. If an individual wants a parentally supervised or arranged marriage, then by all means they should have it, but nothing in the Bible compels such a thing. If we are going back to the view of women in Leviticus, please let me know.

2) Dating is not a dirty word. In fact, what I am learning is that there is so much mass confusion over single people of opposite genders spending time together that condemnation of dating is no longer a fringe activity. It is mainstream. Parents of small children confidently assert their children will not date. Those who have dated imply that it was sex, 24/7 and ruins marriage. Dating leads to depression, suicide and certain divorce. All this is said routinely.

I can’t speak to the details of the courtship thing. I can only say that my experience with it was not positive. Believe it or not, dating and relationships is something that is learned by doing not by some kind of pious avoidance of the opposite sex. Even at my Christian alma mater, I know that many of the girls were upset about how the guys were not open to casual dating. Is the courtship movement partially to blame for this? Yes.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that people should stay single forever. My own long stretch has gone past due, and is especially poignant since my recent summer relational debacle. Nonetheless, I like that there are those out there will to openly question the “hurry up and get married” script that is so often prescribed in the evangelical land.

Thanks for reading.

Book Review: The Orthodox Heretic by Peter Rollins

2009-10-14T09:32:00.000-07:00

The ironically titled Orthodox Heretic is the first books I have read of its kind. Peter Rollins might be called an innovator for writing a book of parables, but on closer reflection it seems completely obvious. Why not, when talking about God, the Kingdom of Heaven, and other subjects, use the same teaching method that Jesus used? I doubt that Peter Rollins is the first, but he is likely the first for many.

The full affect of Jesus’ parables are often loss to us in the modern age. Many of them used irony, cultural references, and scandal to drive home the message. For instance, in the parable of the Prodigal Son, no self-respecting Israelite would’ve have expected the son to be accepted back after such a terrible offense against his father. Also, the parable of the Good Samaritan was spoken in such a way to shame the honored religious leaders who derided the inferior race. Even little things, such as the importance of dressing properly for a wedding, are misunderstood in our time.

The parables of the Orthodox Heretic affect contemporary Christians in the same way that Jesus’ parables affected his audience. One parable “turning the other cheek” tells Christians who lived in suburbs of affluent countries that we are not Jesus’ intended audience, who were the oppressed and helpless. Rather, we are more like Romans. We expect those in the third world or the more helpless to carry our burdens while we reap the benefits. We are not the ones commanded to forgive, but rather those must learn to accept forgiveness.

Another great parable is “the Payoff.” The parable tells of a humble priest and an indignant, anti-Christian, prince. The prince envied the priest’s influence sought to discredit his rival. To this end, he offered the priest a large sum of money to confess publically that he was a hypocrite and so was his church. To the prince’s surprise, the priest was eager to so and offered the prince money to print the confession instead. This is an interesting lesson in how Christian leaders today seek to expand their influence by hiding, rather than exposing, their own sin.
The number of parables cannot be summed up here; but this much can be said. These are relevant and insightful parables for contemporary Christians. It is a book that is best read slowly and discussed with others despite its relatively short length.

I was really, really impressed with this book. Peter Rollins really understands what parables are. His stories all contain commentaries if there is any confusion as to their meaning. It is probably one of the most creative and insightful books I have read in a long time.

Christian Reasons for Vegetarianism: Part IV

2009-10-11T14:30:00.001-07:00

This is the end of perfect virtue for all alike-that, even while still desiring it, we should approach with restraint the food that we are obliged to eat in order to sustain our lives.
-John Cassian ”The Institutes”

Welcome to the fourth and final blog on Christian reasons for Vegetarianism.

Let me remind (admit to?) everyone that I am not a vegetarian, will likely never be one, but nonetheless like finding ways to cut back on my meat consumption. I don’t believe in prescribing vegetarianism as a kind of dogmatic rule for all Christians, but I hope everything I write here will challenge all those reading to examine their consciences on the matter. One way or another, I feel Christians should follow the advice of John Cassian, who is quoted above.

In the second part of these blogs, I wrote about things Christians believe in: fasting, greed, concern for the poor, and the environment. In the third, I described some realities of food production and the finite nature of what we can grow and produce. In this blog, I will finally put them together and offer some practical ideas of practices Christians can take up, if they feel so compelled.

The Environment

Many Christians I know drink water out of reusable aluminum bottles, recycle their soda cans, and even drive a Prius. We all do this because we are well aware of the impact our garbage and our gas have on the planet, which we regard as God’s creation to be cared for. We do this even knowing that the problem is “to big” for a few of us to solve. Regardless of what industries might do, we know that our individual “footprints” on the earth can be lessened.

Eating habits are a nice extension to the things just mentioned. Food is usually not high on the list of environmental concerns, but it is there. Growing meat requires a significant amount of resources. In my state of California, that means fresh drinking water for cattle in addition to the water that was already used to grow crops. Also, even though cars come first to mind, the raising of cattle produces significant amount methane into the atmosphere.

Fasting

Imagine giving up on meat one or two days a week consistently. What might someone learn by going through this simple process when combined with prayer and personal reflection?

One thing that someone might learn is that meat is a luxury. Now, I know that term comes off as rather strong. It needs explanation. I do not mean luxury in the common sense of “something that everybody wants, but few people have” like a Rolex watch or Lexus SUV. I mean it the sense that eating meat is non essential to human well being. It does not meet any of our basic physical needs like nourishment, shelter or clothing. Likewise, it is not needed for any of our higher needs such as our need for good relationships, aesthetic and artistic needs, intellectual needs, spiritual needs etc. Neither (except in very special cases) does it meet our need of economic survival in a society such as ours.

This definition of luxury is broad. Most things we labor for in our society would probably be luxurious and most people have them regardless of their economic standing. However, would this perhaps not be something that God might want to teach Christians in affluent nations? Ecclesiastes reminds us of how seeking things, including food, does not make us happy. It is one thing to read about it and learn it, but the Holy Spirit also teaches us when we take up certain habits. The simple truth: “we have too much in America” is not something that is easily learned by book reading alone.

Overcoming Greed

People like Christian anti-debt advocate David Ramsey and many other financial gurus offer a profound piece of wisdom: eat beans and rice until you meet certain financial goals, like paying off debt. What is the connection here? The idea is that meat is usually more expensive than beans and other vegetables. In fact, the price of meat is kept artificially low though government subsidies for crops that serve as food for cattle or other industry. If it were not for these subsidies*, the price of meat would be so much that I am fairly certain most people would be de facto vegetarians.

Bottom line is this: the less we spend on meat, the more we have to either be financially stable ourselves or to simply have more to give away to those in need.

Keeping the World’s Poor in Mind

Most of us can think of a meal-time prayer -usually before a large amount of food at family time- in which someone asks God to “help us to remember those who have less.” All Christians want to keep the world’s poor in mind, but why not pick a more practical way to do it? In other words, why not eat like the poor of the world every once in awhile?

Obviously, I do not mean do not eat at all. But why not have a (as one Christian called her nights in) a “poverty night”? Instead of inviting friends over for a barbeque, why not take one of the simpler vegetarian recipes from the Mennonite inspired More-With-Less Cookbook? Eating like those who don’t have meat will surely help us to remember those who don’t have what we have. Another popular classic on this subject is Diet For A Small Planet, which details out eating habits from several perspectives.

End

Hopefully, by now the idea of eating meat is something on everyone’s mind. Again, I don’t think that vegetarianism is a kind of mandate for all Christians. I do think, though, that our eating habits need to be on our consciences. The ecological realities and the spiritual practices that Christians accept, really do make this an issue that cannot be ignored.

=======================
*To be clear, I am not opposed to government subsidies for food per se. It is important to keep the cost of food whenever possible. The question is: does it have to be in favor of the meat industry? There are other issues worth considering. For instance, given that meat is not a biological necessity, is also an inefficient expenditure of resources, is it reasonable to provide food-stamps for chicken and steak?

Christian Reasons for Vegetarianism: Part III

2009-10-09T17:18:00.000-07:00

Part III

In the last blog, I explained some universally held Christian beliefs. While it may not seem that these important practices connect to vegetarianism, I think after explaining some realities of the world it will be a little bit clear.

When discussing food, especially meat, we need to ask where it comes from. No, I don’t mean Ralph’s and Costco.

The Energy Pyramid

There’s one thing we all learned in high school biology called the energy pyramid. Basically, there is a certain amount of energy that comes from the sun. It is continuous and inexhaustible, but only comes in at a constant steady rate. This energy in turn helps produce plants, which provide energy for herbivores, which are then eaten by predators and so on up the food chain.

What results is a loss of energy at each link on that chain. It works like this: the sun makes a plant grow. This plant has certain amount of potential nourishment for a mouse. The mouse eats some of the plant, and then uses that nourishment to move about, dig holes, squeak, etc. The mouse is now potential nourishment for the snake. Because the mouse used some of the energy from the plant, it now has less potential energy to give to the snake. Likewise, once the snake eats a few mice, it then uses some of that nourishment stored in them. So the snake provides even less nourishment to the hawk. At each step, the total energy that first came from the sun is lost. This is one reason why there are more mice in the world than hawks and more plants than mice.

”Growing Beef”

Agriculture is no exception to this reality. Growing a large land mammal like a cow for purpose of steaks is something that heavily taxes the resources of the planet. Cows eat quite a bit and they also need quite a bit of water to survive. It takes the equivalent of twelve loaves of bread to produce one pound of beef. Beef is one of the most extreme examples of this kind of resource consumption, but the same principle applies to chicken, pork, or fish.

Twelve loaves of bread could go further than a hamburger. Maybe this isn’t such a problem though. After all, the population of hawks still survive even though they eating snakes. This is certainly true, but Americans –who eat meat with nearly every meal- must understand how much they are consuming. There is not enough fertile farmland on the planet for everyone in it to eat like an American. According to the UN, if all United States citizens abstained from meat just two days a week, we’d be doing the world a huge favor.

The consequences of this issue are put best a scholar wise than myself:

12.9 pounds of grain could have been converted to 12.9 loaves of bread that could have, in turn, been fed to world’s starving poor. Instead, that grain/bread is wasted, just so people in affluent nations can eat meat and other animal products. There is no way around it: Whenever one purchases a pound of beef, one is supporting a system of agriculture that effectively squanders 12.9 pounds of grain for every pound of beef produced.*

The point then is clear. You can probably already imagine where I am going with this in my final blog. Eating is wasteful. My last final blog will explain how abstaining from meat, given everything I have said here, connects with the things that Christians already believe. Then, I will offer a few practical suggestions to cut back on our meat consumption.

========================
*This quote comes from Mylan Engel, Jr. in his 2003 article “Hunger, Duty, and Ecology: On What we Owe Starving Humans”

Christian Reasons for Vegetarianism: Part II

2009-10-07T20:26:00.000-07:00

Thank you for reading the much belated Part II. As most of you know, bloggers often apologize for not writing more often. Tonight, I write to with (likely) many mistakes and am sipping a cup of coffee to keep me going.

In other news: Stargate

The Subject at Hand

In my previous blog, I mentioned arguments that I do not intend to use and to find persuasive towards vegetarianism from a Christian conscience. I mentioned that despite the weakness of those arguments, there are things that Christians believe that I think will guide us towards vegetarianism if we prayerfully examine our consciences towards that end. Here they are.

The Principle of Fasting

Fasting is something that all Christian believe in one way or another. It is most famously found in the Gospels in which Jesus fasts for forty days and is tempted by the Devil. Traditionally, fasting from food for a short amount of time gives us more time to pray. Also, it teaches us to discipline our bodies so that we better resist temptation. After all, if one can resist the natural desire for food, than one can learn to resist other desires as well.

Of course, it is worth noting that food need not be what we fast from. After all, I remember during lent one year I gave up facebook. Nor does it have to be all kinds of food, but perhaps a specific kind. Fasting is flexible. The duration of it and what kind it may be is left to the individual conscience of the believer.

Freedom from Greed in order to be Generous

No Christian I know denies the special admonitions to help the poor, yet still Christians fail to give even the paltry 10%. Understandibly, this is because we are in financial straits ourselves and are habituated to self-preservation first. But equally, we too easily fall into the pattern of the world around us.

Part of what prevents us from giving is our natural greed. Greed, very broadly spoken, is giving ourselves some kind of non-essential luxury when that money might be better used to provide life-sustaining essentials to another human being. So I do not need new video-game, pair of shoes, Blue Ray player, or expensive book. That money is better spent either in my church nearby or sent to a World Vision child across the oceans.

With the idea of Christian charity comes the idea of solidarity with the poor. Can every Christian, take up his cross, sell all he has, and live in a semi-homeless state like Jesus and the apostles did? It turns out not all of us are cut out to be Franciscan Monks. Nonetheless, all Christians need to be aware of, understand, and keep in mind the world’s poor. Again, we must remember the poor near us and the poor across the ocean.

Environmental Concerns

The Christian Environmental conscience is, sadly, weak. Nonetheless it is there. More and more Christians are beginning to understand that the earth is a creation to be cared for, and not a resource to be plundered. Some may object that I have stepped into the world of new-age religion at this point, but how seriously ought we to take the idea that earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it? It seems that if we recognize God’s creative purpose for the world and his ownership of it, than we have a good reason to think that care for the earth is important.

This point is especially strong depending on your view of eschatology or “end-times.” Many Christians believe that the “end” is restoration of the present world. In other words, when God re-creates through a liberation from the effects of sin, not a cataclysmic “reset button” in which God smites the entire planet. Yet even if Christians expect this world to be destroyed by sin first, that is no reason for Christian to stand by and watch it happen.

Onward and onward

If you’ve read this long, you’re awesome. Thanks for sticking with it. In part III, I will show how these Christian beliefs, when combined with environmental and economic realities, point us in the direction of vegetarianism.

Thanks for reading.

Christian Reasons for Vegetarianism: Part I

2009-10-02T17:25:00.000-07:00

Opening Thoughts

I am not a vegetarian. I eat meat most days of the week, although I avoid red meat like I avoid soft drinks. I do not think that I will ever feel the need to become a full, strict, vegetarian either. I certainly could never become a vegan. I also do not believe that I am willing now, nor should ever be in the future, able to commit to a “cold-turkey” (no pun intended) instant cut out of meat from my diet.

Nonetheless, I believe that there are good reasons for Christians to cut back on meat consumption. I have, imperfectly, committed myself to refraining from meat on Sundays. I find that I am losing my need to eat meat and am fully satisfied with not eating it once a week. I hope to eventually take this into other days of week.

Scaling back and even eliminating meat from our diets is something all Christians should consider.

Why avoid meat when Scripture doesn’t say so?

To begin, here are some arguments I am not using in these blogs.

I am not, for instance, arguing from a perspective of animal rights. Many people argue against eating meat by virtue that animals are moral equals in the universe. While the points they bring up are often of great value, I believe that Christians are right to point out that many of the animal rights activists do not so much as elevate the moral status of animals, but rather bring down the spiritual status of humans. Humans, so said by animal rights activists, are very well evolved animals, but not above the animal kingdom or better than our cousins the chimpanzees. Whatever reasons people may have for this, I think it is right for Christians to reject these appeals on the grounds that we do believe that we are above animals via our special relationship with our creator.

Neither do I argue that eating meat is intrinsically wrong. Christians have often said that the raising of animals for slaughter, consumption, and obviously sacrifices cannot violate the laws of God. These things happened in scripture and received no condemnation from God and sometimes even his mandate. Many of the early patriarchs in the Old Testament domesticated animals and treated them as property. God also called for the sacrifice of animals. Several other passages, such as the famous example of eating meat before idols in the New Testament, could be added here. So the point is this: If God ever felt that the killing of animals by humans was wrong, and this includes eating them, then it would seem he has contradicted himself.

Furthermore, I am not arguing that we need an explicit, clear biblical command to refrain from meat in order to do so. Many things Christians do (like blogging) come not from a clear command in scripture, but rather from careful reflection on what the Christian life is (which includes scripture), and an application to our contemporary habits of living. Thus I would never say that vegetarianism is “Biblical” but rather that it is “Christian.”

There are few things that Christians believe that influence how we think about our diets. Likewise, there are some facts about the economy that we live in it that should make us think about what the real cost of a nice steak is. When two things are put together, I think it seems that Christians can be light of the world more fully if we, as the Church, pass on the capon when eating dinner.

Stay tuned for part II. It will be up by Monday.

"Will Draw Comics for Food"

2009-09-30T16:54:00.001-07:00

Hello again!

As some of you may remember, I asked for support for my comic back August. I was ecstatic with all the help and support that I got: about fifty people, including some people that heard about the comic via advertising and hearsay, joined the comic’s facebook fan page. People purchased items at the store. Finally, I received nearly twice the hoped for advertising budget via donations. This money was put to good use at both facebook and at topwebcomics.com

And I can’t wait for it grow. Recently, I have submitted some fan art to one of my favorite comics ever. I even finally found (thanks to those of you on tweb) another comic about quarter life Christianity over here! I’ve constructed new banner ads, and updated the comic page. (so I guess I’m not the only “Christian Webcomics” around) Soon there will even be one of those annoying “which _____ character are you?” facebook quizzes floating around!

But I still need support. Here are some ways, for those of you who like the comic and/or like me.

Guest Comics This is by far the most important way that you can help the comic. During December, I usually take a break to queue up the comic and more importantly enjoy advent. My comic is building some momentum, so I hope not to have a huge blank space in the updates. This is why I hope I can get a dozen comics sent in. It’s been done before.

Naturally, anyone who does a guest comic will have a permanent link to anything they want on the page –err within reason. I’m not doing your porn-cam.

I don’t care if you feel like you can’t draw (neither can I), if you don’t think you are funny, or even if you can only do “fan art” instead of a full comic. Just make something fun with my characters as a guest strip. I don’t care if I haven’t met you yet. In fact, it feels great to get fan strips from people I don’t know in real life. Cross-overs with comics are also fun.

Dig it and Stumble it Those of you who are familiar with sites like stumbleupon and digg can plug this blog at those sites. I am sure there are dozens of other sites like this out there. Every bit of exposure helps.

Finally, there is of course this:

Donate as much as you can. I hope for a $250 dollar average from each person donating. No, just kidding. I’ll probably get something like 5-20 from each person. Once again, if you donate $15 or more you will be forever immortalized in the comic as a character in the background. You can check out the facebook group to see who is already there.

This money will go into advertising the comic and towards support the two world vision kids that I support monthly.

Thank you for your support, and as always, thanks for reading.

Are You in Space Horror?

2009-09-26T14:29:00.000-07:00

Netflix steals my time, and it has stolen my time in the form of a few movies of the space horror genre, such as Event Horizon and the animated Dead Space. I’ve seen aspects of space horror in other things as well. Even Firefly had a space horror episode.

I have decided to write a blog to the people of the distant future. Hopefully, this blog will still be around in a few decades/centuries in to help those who spacefarers know the signs of space horror and how to avoid common mistakes in responding to them.

That’s right people of the future: pay close attention to this blog. If you do, you won’t have to be the last surviving crew member, desperately repairing the distress beacon as the space demons close in, in the darkest corner of your once proud ship, which now drifts aimlessly through the black, vast, uncaring void of space.

Signs that you are in Space Horror!

You are on a gritty, dimly lit, and coldly metallic space vessel. Hey, I don’t judge why you signed on. Maybe there’s a lot of work found in mining asteroids. Maybe you got posted on a new military vessel. You might even make a living hauling cargo around in a used junker. It could even be the future has a completely different view of aesthetics than we do.

Nonetheless, ships like this are magnets for the space demons. I would suggest avoiding ships like this at nearly any cost. Maybe you should give up spacefaring and become a doctor like your father wanted. Who knows? Try to get aboard ships that look like they’d be a place you’d want to live. Look for sleek, brightly light interior designs and spacious cabins. The space demons never bother with those.

In fact, the only time you should get on a gritty, dimly lit, and junker-type space vessel is if it is crewed by an unlikely gang of adventurers who sail under the guidance of a gruff, but caring, space-captain. Ships like that are usually pretty safe, but avoid snooping around for cargo compartments.

Your ship finds a large, mysterious, and seemingly inanimate object someplace. Perhaps it is a giant monument covered with mysterious runes. It may be a beacon left by an ancient civilization. It may even be experimental technology from your own government. Nonetheless, you look to the obelisk with fear and trepidation.

But whatever it is leave it alone. Things like this are likely not inanimate. They could very well hold evil toxins or something similar that will turn you and crew into space demons/zombies/mutants or whatever. Go ahead and just note in your log and sail on by. You might even consider reburying it if you unearthed it. Don’t listen to the token science guy on the ship when he insists “we must stay here and study this for blah blah blah.”

You have found a crazy person or a crew member has gone crazy. Now here is something we’ve all seen. The doctor’s got some poor guy sedated, but he keeps needing more medicine. When he wakes up, he babbles incoherently. He might be saying, “they’re going to eat our bones” or “don’t open the gate! Don’t open the gate!!” He might even be trying to cut himself or attempt to escape via an empty air lock in a panic.

Chances are, this guy is probably about the most reasonable person on the entire ship right now. If he is saying things like “must escape, must escape” or the even more ominous “they’re coming back. Don’t let them come back” he –though crazy- is giving you very good advice. If he was a stranded survivor, leave wherever it was that you found him immediately. If he is your own crew member, leave whatever area he first started going crazy in. Don’t forget to quarantine him and run a thorough scan of your ship for toxins, viruses, or little tiny robots.

You have an annoying, science officer on your ship. This character believes that he is the voice of reason in any crisis. He is always the first to say “there must be a scientific explanation of all this” or maybe “now is not the time to panic.” As I alluded to earlier, he is the guy who insists that the mysterious objects or anything else must be studying or that we must wait for more data before doing anything.

Ignore this character. His role in the space horror is to remind everyone of the hubris of science against either superior science or the supernatural. Unless carefully reined in, this character will guide you and your ship to disaster. Be happy that he is often one of the first people the space demons will go for, but of course when the space demons are already eating major characters it might already be too late.

So there it is people of the future! Avoid space horror by following these steps and many others. I wish you the best in your space faring future. Now boldly go, and don’t do anything stupid!

What Have We Unlearned?

2009-09-24T07:24:00.001-07:00

I’ll mope around the campus and I’ll feel betrayed, all those guilty summers I stayed. Then I’ll laugh that I feel for the lure of the pain of desire to feel so pure. And I’ll bear all the burdens of my little daily crimes. -Dar Williams “Teen for God”

It goes without saying that as we grow and learn we often find that the values we hold to are not the same values that we were taught when we were young. For most people, this stage of personal growth is either our internal acceptance of our parents’ values, the realization that we have rejected them, or somewhere in between. For quarter –life Christians, I think this process goes beyond what our parents taught us (if indeed, we learned anything from our parents at all) and expands to what our churches, especially our youth pastors, camp counselors and other leaders taught us. This kind of self-examination is especially strong at Christian Colleges, but is by no means limited to those places.

I have reflected on this, on and off, for years. I think it is time to hear what others’ also think on this subject. Many Christians I know tend to recognize the change and shift in their understanding of what Christianity is. For some, it is fairly benign reforming of and understanding of what Christianity is about. For others, it is a radical shift or complete recreation (and perhaps, rejection) of their faith.

In this blog, I am inviting anyone who is reading to share their own stories about this matter. I can frame it with two questions:

First, what is one thing about the Christian life that you learned between 15-20 that you either have either reformed or rejected now?

Secondly, if you could explain an alternative to your younger self (or to another 15-20 Christian), what would that alternative be?

These questions are intentionally open-ended. Here are some more thought-joggers.

-Movies and Entertainment. Some Christian traditions are incredibly extreme about this. I have heard of Christian Colleges in which students must use “code-words” to describe when they are going to see a movie. Likewise, there are often rules and ethics about the music we listen to. Are we supposed to privilege “Christian” music? If so what constitutes “Christian” music?

-Drinking, smoking and other forms of debauchery. Were you taught to not “smoke, drink or chew?” Was it careful advice to never touch liquor, hang out in a bar, or smoke a clove? What was the justification for this and did you find it acceptable or not?

-Sex and relationships. When dating, what kind of parameters were you expected to adhere to? Was dating a non-Christians off limits? Did you feel like you had to ask the “how far is to far” question? What kinds of things did you learn in the gender-specific message times? Do you still hold them today? Issues like homosexuality would definitely be under this heading.

-The Bible and Theological issues Is the Bible inerrant? Where did it come from? What was your perception of the Bible now as compared to when you were younger? What about the various theological issues? Some of us eventually disagree with some of the cornerstone doctrines of churches we were raised in. Opinions about hell/heaven, end-times, the understanding of “Kingdom of God,” and approaches to evangelism are only but a few.

Politics. Evangelicalism has traditionally been aligned with the political right, with only a minority aligning with the democrat party. We often learned about how our founding fathers were outstanding Christian men. Now, not all Christians believe this and some resist it quite strongly. Our faith is never divorced from our politics, but is it same as traditionally taught?

Naturally these are only a few of the things I can limit. You can use your own imagination and experience to expand on this. I hope I can get a lot of comments on this blog, as what is written here will be the substance of future blogs.

Feel free to submit whatever it is you have to say anonymously or sign your name.

Thanks for reading.

More Strange Sights and Sounds...

2009-09-22T21:13:00.000-07:00

Though not necessarily all at the beach towns, here are some more visual phenomena of the last few weeks of note.

A huge guy and small lady dancing While blues dancing a few weeks ago, I saw the (ironically) one black guy in the room dancing with a petite Chinese woman. He actually had her doing some kind of hand-stand type deal. It was like a swing aerial in slow motion.

Crazy nutball doing Tai-chi one evening on Santa Monica blvd. It was late at night and I watched him with a friend from across the street. Both of us contemplated what it might mean for society to have to deal with a crazy guy like that. What does society owe to those who are... well nuts?

A Homeless Guy Outside of Ralph's who looked up hopefully at me and asked for change. He said he would work for it by helping me carry my groceries to my car. I was impressed. I let him do so and gave him a little bit of change from my car.

An LMU student wearing a "Republican" shirt. It had the republican logo with a bunch of dollar bills spilling out of its nose. The caption said "Republicans have more money" this is probably true, damn blatant, and funny.

Confessing before God, and to you my Brothers and Sisters.

2009-09-19T12:46:00.001-07:00

While reading blogs today, I stumbled upon a fascinating site. The site is entied Permission to Speak Freely. Apparently, it started back in 2008 when blogger Anne Jackson asked the question: what is one thing you cannot say in church?

It has since turned into a ongoing, online, project in which people will anonymously or publically submit a confession of things they feel they cannot say in church. Many of these are quite enlightening.

Allowing someone to confess is like allowing them to breathe. Guaranteeing grace is what allows someone to become good.

It's a great project.

“I Just read the Bible”

2009-09-17T11:23:00.001-07:00

One thing that I continually come across in the world of the wired is a particular approach to Biblical interpretation. When confronted with the complexities of Christian tradition, contemporary issues, and of course hermeneutics, many Christians respond in a way that sounds incredibly pious. They might say something like this: I just believe what the Bible says. I take it literally. This may be expanded into a principle that says Take the Bible literally until you have to take it metaphorically.

This kind of approach is motivated by a sincere desire to be faithful to scripture. It is often supported by appeals that the Bible should be understood by the common man. The idea then is dispense with the “academic” hermeneutics and arguments about tradition and simply get into God’s word while the Holy Spirit is your guide.

As good as that may sound, it simply does not work. Here are a couple reasons why.

One of the problems, I think, is what it means to read the Bible “literally.” Literal often meant that this simply means “in the sense of the letter.” So if I read something literally, it means I read it according to its genre. Thus, a “literal” reading of the Bible will mean different things in different sections. The Gospels will not be understood like the psalms. Neither will Revelation be understood like the epistles. This is all done for the same reason that phonebooks are not understood like adventure novels.

What this means is that there may be metaphors within scripture and reading it “literally” will give you clues as to when something is metaphorical or not. Because of this, there is no simply dichotomy between “literal” readings and “metaphorical” readings. Interpretation is more complex than that and requires more background knowledge –knowledge that is surprisingly basic, but often ignored.

When I have seen people insist on taking the Bible literally, I think they really mean something else. Typically, taking the Bible literally is an attempt to read the Bible, only the Bible, and not have any “interference” from any kind of tradition, hermeneutic principle, 1st century Palestinian context or whatever. When people say they take the Bible “literally,” they are trying to say that they read the Bible with no hermeneutic or assumptions at all. Scripture, after all, is sufficient right?

It seems that a literal reading of passages like 2 Tim 3:16-17 indicate this: “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching for reproof, for corrections for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” Or how about Hebrews 4:12 “For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Other examples abound, such as Isegesis 24:7) Scriptures like these are often propped up to show that all we need to do is just read the Bible –hermeneutical tools/knowledge are therefore superfluous.

Both of these verses, by themselves, do not prove what is hoped for. Nonetheless, I think there is a stronger argument against the idea that we can, or should, read the Bible free of any kind of assumptions, tools or method, for interpretation.

A close look at some hard-to-understand verses might help. In look at these, we see that nobody reads the Bible so plainly. Here’s my favorite from John 6 (this is Jesus talking by the way).

I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out heave, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh. Then the Jews began to argue with one another saying, “how can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them, Turly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in yourselves.
John 6:48-53 NASB

What does the Bible literally say here? It means that we must eat of the Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood -literally. After all, it is not as if Jesus corrected their misunderstanding when the Jews restated what he just said. But the point I am trying to make is not one about the real presence of God via communion.

My point is this: Why do those who invoke 2 Tim 3:16 and others who want to “just believe the Bible” resist this so much? After all, if we can take 2 Tim 3:16 to support the sufficiency of scripture, without further discussion, why do people resist so strongly when someone else reads the Bible so plainly in John 6:53? It is because (like all Christians) they have assumptions, a hermeneutic, and an interpretive method, even if they deny it or are unaware of it.

There is another great example that I think literalists often stumble on. Luke 14:25-26

Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:25-26 NASB

Again, no literalist thinks that being a disciple means we must hate our parents our children, or other members, of our family. Jesus didn’t literally mean that we should hate the sacred bonds of the nuclear family because….. well because why? Whatever reason someone offers to explain why Jesus meant something different is an appeal to some assumption or interpretative method. If a person does not believe hating the family is what Jesus meant, then they are denying the same “just read the Bible” approach that a equally plain reading of 2 Tim 3:16 was supposed to support.

There is no such thing as a “just read the Bible.” There is no taking it literally, so we can ignore all interpretative methods, traditions, etc. No one is free from assumptions when they read the Bible, no matter how hard they try. So what is common man to do?

My suggestion is similar to what the Reformers in Geneva thought. Then, they realized that the common man was illiterate. Their solution was, “let the Common man learn to read.” Today, the common man should learn to read well. Learning how to interpret the Bible is not some esoteric, mystical, discipline reserved for Monks on mountain tops or pipe-smoking scholars at Ivy leagues. It’s actually fairly simple. It does take time and a few resources, but considering the amount of books that flow thorough a Bible book store, I don’t doubt that anyone lacks the time or the resources to learn a little bit about reading the Bible well.

And I think it’s when we do that is when we really get to where the literalists hope to go.

Thanks for reading.