Pulse: Church & Christ (A Guest Post by Nathan Jeffers)

I grew up in the church. I can't tell you how many times I've said that phrase. Usually it's in response to a question. Like, "how long have you been a Christian?" or "tell me a bit about yourself..." or "why do you have so many psychological problems?" (you'd be surprised how much I get that last one). Church is where I made friends, hung out, played dumb youth group games, oh and learned a bit about someone called Jesus. The church has always been a part of my life. For better or worse. I've seen people's lives be miraculously transformed, I've seen people become bitter, I've seen enormous good and heart-breaking bad. I'm always reminded that as long as the church is filled with people, it will be flawed. But thank God we don't get to have the last word. The church (and the people in it) have had a part in shaping me into the person I am today. And I've realized the responsibility that our generation has in shaping what the church will be in the years to come. The church is not just our parents' church. It's ours. Our generation is really great at pointing out things that are broken or being misused, but we're not great at fixing things. To quote the prophet Kanye West, "I'm so gifted at finding what I don't like the most." Maybe that's an over-generalization, but I do know that I am really great at complaining, but not so good at finding a solution. So here are a few rambling thoughts on some issues that I've began to notice with the church, which our generation is going to be tasked with challenging: 

(Just a side-note: I'm not pointing out these things to simply bash the church. I actually see great things within the church as it stands and I just want us to be aware of how we get in the way of God working and doing good in the world. Also, I know there are many more problems ailing the church/world and these might not seem applicable to your situation, these are just what I've began to notice in my own context.) 

* Our buildings and programs are all designed to get people to fall into place. You are supposed to come as a new person, feel welcomed, sing some songs, listen to the sermon, maybe even get involved with a bible study, and then find an area where you can "serve" at the church. In the midst of this process you're supposed to become a Christian. Usually by that we mean saying a prayer and agreeing to an established set of doctrines. In this system, the mark of a "healthy Christian" is a person who has signed off on the church's statement of faith, attends a weekly bible study, raises their hands during worship, and serves as a usher on Sunday mornings. Churches are set up to accommodate this conversion process on a large scale. Our services are set up to welcome as many people as possible. But what if this modern, industrialized version of church was actually making it harder to actually follow Christ's teachings? 

* The church has become more like an event we attend, rather than a place to encourage one another towards doing good. Church should never be the main event. It should be the epicenter of transformation that sends out grace-filled people to make the broken things of the world become new again. The church is often just a series of routines to learn and patterns to follow, but it could be so much more than than. Maybe sometimes I don't want it to be more than that, but I've seen some beautiful things come out of taking God's call to be ministers of reconciliation. And I can't help but wonder if there's more to life than Sunday mornings and weekly routines. 

* When does church and it's popular structure get in the way of us doing what God has called us to? What if God was asking us to feed the hungry and we said, "sorry God, I have to go to church"? What if God was asking us to give water to the thirsty and we said, "sorry God, I have worship team practice"? What if God was asking us to care for the widows and the orphans and we said, "sorry God, I have bible study tonight"? Our church structures have the possibility to transform us or to stifle our growth. We must be acutely aware of the tension that presides in our churches and if a tradition is causing us to act less like Christ, then we need to reevaluate and possibly change it. * Going to church doesn't make you a great person. Being a Christian doesn't make you a great person. In fact, some of the nicest, kindest, Jesus-like people I've ever met have been people that considered themselves "searching agnostics". And I've met some Christians that consider themselves as the arbiter of truth who think they are so righteous, holy, and yet are complete jerks. It's better to be a humble searching agnostic, than a prideful Christian. When we believe (as the church has sometimes taught us) that we have all the answers, then we have sorely missed out on what it means to follow Jesus. Was Jesus sometimes about giving the "right answer"? Yes. But his life was dedicated to something much greater. He summed it up when he said, "‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’" His life was dedicated to love. Love enough to heal, love enough to listen, love enough to die for his friends and his enemies. 

* I've been learning a lot about what it means to be a great leader. The best leaders I've ever met try to get their ego out of the way as much as possible, lead by serving, and are vulnerable with the people they are leading. I've learned that a pastor's job is not to be a great preacher, it's to instruct and encourage everyone in the church to be their own pastor. Their job is to give over power by training the members of the congregation to develop their own ability and authority as a follower of Christ. Our churches often have the mindset that the pastor is the holder of all knowledge and we are supposed to attend church to absorb that knowledge like a sponge. Never daring to question. You can even see it in the way that our churches are physically set up. The preacher is up front, often on a literal pedestal, and the congregation is sitting in rows to be guided by their leader. This has caused us to place undue responsibility on our pastors to be holy people while we get on with normal everyday life. We have to recognize that all of us has a mixture of the ordinary and the divine within us. 

* We all have the responsibility to constantly die to our self and be transformed to look more like Christ.

Nathan Jeffers is a fellow graduate of Biola University. He tweets about 1,800 times and hosts Listen, a marvelous organization of searching souls in search of searching. You can enjoy their delightful podcast there as well.

Pulse: Hell (A Regular Post by Nick Ahern)

1. What important topic do you think our Christian generation (20s) has to deal with the most? 'Why' must we deal with this issue?

I'm inclined to agree with many of my fellow contributors on their selected topics. These are marvelously difficult topics to resolve, but for me its now become interesting to step back and think of another issue. One that covers Scripture, tradition, systematics and the character of God.

Simply put, we need to talk about hell. Mainly because this effects how we evangelize, how we talk about God and even how we consider where we all fall within the contours of Orthodox Christian faith.

Rob Bell seemed to expose a rift within evangelicalism, mainly that we tend to avoid the topic. So, like many topics, talking about it is a plus in of itself. However, it does beg the question what falls within Orthodoxy.

Why do we need to talk about hell? Because it exists and if what Bell went through is any indication of evangelicalism, things won't get any easier for ideas to be exegetes and systematized. Best to talk now before the hammer comes down.

2. In what (positive or negative) ways has our generation already engaged with this issue?

Rob Bell.

Okay, you probably want a little more. Positively, we've begun a major shift in discussion. Universalism is now begin given a fairer treatment due to various works (1) and evangelicals are now needing to rethink hell. On another front, you have annihilationism being reconsidered. The names behind the theology are impressive (2) and they have experiences a resurgence, especially in conservative circles. This is a positive development as their case is made through exegesis, thus offering biblical concepts to a curious audience.

Negatively, you have entire denominations reaffirming the traditional view of hell (Southern Baptist Convention), therefore shutting off dialogue. From a personal point of view, I've experienced some pretty absurd private messages on the topic, as have close friends of mine. Tradition is sometimes blindly enforced without taking into account exegesis.

However, as a side note, I think a negative example would be that some would jump ship at the slightest new idea without consideration for the evidence. Our generation needs to further weigh the evidence before jumping ship.

3. What can we do to improve our relationship with addressing this issue? Or can things be improved?

Things have already improved. The fact that some are talking and engaging with their brothers and sisters is indicative that goods things may come from this. The debate has also become mainstream(3). No matter what some people think or say, the dialogue is happening. It is general irenic but that has never stopped exceptions from occurring.

This offers the world a new image of evangelicalism. We are willing to rethink and provide evidence for our belief systems. We are willing to be wrong and to simply pursue truth, where ever this truth leads us.

The debate within evangelicalism is a bit more difficult to measure, especially since it is new. But, I have high hopes that the discussion will rage onwards and upwards. In a good way.

Nick Ahern is probably the reason you are reading this. He is a Biola grad, a future Fuller Seminary MA Student and engaged to marry the lovely Allison Quient. You can find him on Twitter.

Footnotes:

1. Hellbound directed by Kevin Miller. For literature, Gregory Macdonald (Robin Parry) released the 2nd Edition of the Evangelical Universalist and David Congdon is releasing his systematic take on the idea in the next few years, The God That Saves: A Dogmatic Sketch.

2. Richard Bauckham, E. Earle Ellis, I. Howard Marshall, Glenn Peoples, Gregory Boyd. See also ReThinking Hell.

3. Time Magazine, circa 2011.

Pulse: Myths in Pre-Mature Resolution (A Guest Post by Jordan Nakamura)

Before all else, I’d like to respond to the prompt at face value: hands down, the “topic our generation will deal with the most” is homosexuality and LGBTQ rights. It is what has been elected as the cultural question of the age, in the United States at least. I have a lot of thoughts on the issue myself, I think it’s important to talk about it, and i’m glad that we are. I especially hope that people who identify as Christians will continue to begin a healthy discourse. We have handled it horribly for a long time, one response among many inexcusable ones being the whole “if you just don’t talk about it, it’ll go away” charade. It’s often painfully obvious that there is still a long way for Christian communities to go. But for the most part, I’d much rather see people making some mistakes in the same room trying to reconcile than to see them staying comfortably worlds apart, safe in their festering assumptions.

But as for what I think is the most important, other issues come to mind as better candidates. To clarify, I mean better candidates than legalizing gay marriage, not evasive action and advocacy against homophobic violence, which is about as important as anything else I can think of. Basically I’m going to attest that any “third world issue” is more important than “first world issues.” A large number of these third world issues stem from racism, and while racism to some might sound like a simple pitfall to avoid, even black toddlers in the States will pick a white doll over a black one. In light of this, it becomes important to investigate who our white leaders are picking to assist and understand before aiding or bombing, because the results get to be as serious as life and death. At the end of the day, it’s still important in this age to investigate exactly why it was Japan and Asians that were bombed, and not Germany and white people. It is our generation that needs to look at these things to grapple with present issues: why black unarmed teens are still being shot and why nobody covers the story, and why I have seen white co-workers walk in completely blazed on pot and not get a second look for it. In this way, these third world issues of racism and even sexism become the issues of our generation in the first world, but go unacknowledged as relevant or even existent, let alone our onus. This is why I’d argue that issues of racism and sexism in any “world” is a priority. It is more important that people not die because of preventable causes than it is that gay marriage is legalized. That might piss people off, but I stand by it, as do I stand by my belief that gay marriage should be allowed. But people who compare movements of LGBTQ rights to the Black Civil Rights movement simply have not looked at history with clarity or respect. I’m not trying to pit one issue against the other. Disproportionate death by AIDS in the LGBTQ community is a tragedy, and like anyone, I hope a cure is found. but I also hope that we work towards remedying the effects and occurrence of disproportionate murder and captivity of black skinned human beings, which has been going on a lot longer than AIDS existed. Again though, the problem is when people start pretending like this ancient issue is covered, and in the current “Age of Obama,” the post-racial narrative is rampant and sets the stage for the marginalization of these issues.

Let’s examine some of our culture for a minute, the culture that predicates this very post as almost certainly being read from a glowing computer screen: Due to highly accelerated networking, information has completely changed in nature and shape. Capitalism and consumerism have been altered. Young people like myself are not good at imagining a world before this new order, let alone how something like commerce used to run. What most people in our generation will acknowledge is that images are everywhere, at a constant inundating rate. Given this, we might conclude that issues of race and gender are perhaps more relevant today than ever before, because never have our ideas of them been so easily malleable, the icons of these ideas so easily created and spread, nor their effects so easily covered up. By nature, race and gender are sort of airy. For example, even at the genetic level, I have no more chance of being more genetically similar to another Japanese person than I do to a Norwegian person. Despite this, race is a phenomenon that has been called into being. It is real because the effects are real, but there is no locus in object. Sex and ethnicity, of course, are very real in the sense that they’re biologically measurable, and are objective. The mechanics of how images and narratives work in the modern world have mutated, and these changes need to be addressed in addition to inherited systemic problems. 

The idea that we are living in a “post-racial age” is also a major factor. This idea is widely accepted as common sense: the notion that we no longer need to deal with issues of race because it is a solved or moot issue. Race being removed from public consciousness contributes to the emphasis on gender. Therefore, any sociological energy that the public has is given to LGBTQ concerns. Race, once again is marginalized, due to the myth that racial marginalization is a checked off item on the humanitarian To-Do list of history. Some of this has to do with an institutionalized historical slant towards a version of history that sterilizes the Black Civil Rights movement, making it out to be a safe topic that never reaches the present. Some of it has to do with the fact that a man named Barack Hussein Obama is the President of the United States. Again, I want to stress that I don’t want to eclipse one cause with another. It’s precisely that motivation that I re-emphasize race which I think has certainly been eclipsed by other issues. My definition of more important reads as “more important to reassess the importance of.” The effects of racism in America are rampant, widespread, and too often fatal, and few people realize that it is even an issue anymore, whereas legalizing gay marriage is important in the public eye to the point of it being hip. It’s a lot harder to make a mass-profile picture icon about generations of unintentional but destructive microaggressions, and so it doesn’t happen. The quote about white privilege isn’t going to get several thousand shares on tumblr, like the one on gay marriage will. Understandable I suppose, but what isn’t okay is how the issue then drops off the map because it isn’t recognized in pop culture, politics, and daily interactions.

Hopefully, the church will realize that followers of Christ should be running with the vanguard in any true societal brokenness, yearning and fighting for justice and entering into the pain. I do not have the time here to elaborate on why I have become convinced that race and marginalized issues are at the forefront of cultural battles to be stationed within, but I trust readers can continue to investigate for themselves. But I must address the prompt which asks what issue is the most important for our “Christian generation.” Obviously, anyone can fight for racial justice or women’s rights or anything else, believing in God is not a requirement. Sadly, the bulk of the Western Christian population has more or less been content to leave most of these fights to people who do not identify as Christians. But I want to talk a bit about something that is a big question for many in “the church” which probably isn’t for others outside of it. I’m going to refer to this as the “weird supernatural” spiritual gifts, or “miracle work” in the Holy Spirit. 

Jordan Nakamura can be found via the Twittersphere, and on the rest of the Interwebs.

Pulse: Homosexuality (A Guest Post by Andrew Oxenham)

Author’s bias: I am a 24-year-old, straight male who grew up with Christian (non-denominational) parents, attended Biola University, and majored in Humanities with an emphasis in Philosophy. I left college more curious & confused than anything else. I’m conservative in my politics, and in constant flux with my theology although I lean towards being conservative there as well. It’s hard to put myself in a category, and in some ways this piece is me working out what exactly I think about this particular topic.


1. What important topic do you think our Christian generation (20s) has to deal with the most? Why must we deal with this issue? 
 
Homosexuality. I can barely type the word without glancing around the coffee shop I’m writing in to make sure no one gives me a dirty look. It’s a crucial topic for Christians, and I hate to say it but Christianity has done a terrible job addressing it. Somewhere along the way, we failed to understand  (or stopped caring) that discussions concerning homosexuality (especially discussions had with people who consider themselves homosexual) concerned actual people, human beings made in the image and likeness of God. That’s the tricky part about discussing homosexuality is it’s not an abstract concept like the eschaton. It’s a prominent topic that directly pertains to who a person is (at their core). Part of the problem is that various people associated with the Christian faith have said mean-spirited, cruel comments, comments completely devoid of compassion or grace. Some resorted to violent actions. I’m not trying to be hysterical, I’m well aware that there are thousands of Christians engaging in thoughtful, careful debate about homosexuality. Headlines don’t report thoughtful conversations, they report histrionics. The difficulty is that in the court of public opinion, perception is reality and Christians are perceived very negatively when it comes to this topic.

2. In what (positive or negative) ways has our generation already engaged with this issue? 

This topic matters because there are an estimated 9 million Americans who identify themselves as LGBT; that’s roughly the size of New Jersey. But more important than the numbers, homosexuality is the twenty-something’s civil rights debate. It’s an issue that has infused itself into every aspect of the culture. TV shows, movies, music, all aspects of the media constantly have this topic on the tip of their tongues.

To ignore it would be to feign ignorance. On the religious front, the Bible is littered with calls to be informed. On the citizenship front, it is our duty to be informed of the issues which permeate society (Aristotle would back me up on that one).

3. What can we do to improve our relationship with addressing this issue? Or can things be improved? 

To recap: this issue is important and Christianity hasn’t done an adequate job addressing it. So how can we improve? (note: this list is in no way exhaustive)

Trust/Rapport: One cannot approach a conversation which gets at the deepest parts of a person’s being without rapport. This is the same reason why doing door-to-door evangelizing is one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard of. Let me illustrate my point. Here are things I want to talk to strangers about:

• the weather.
• weekend plans.
• nothing.

What all three of those things have in common is that they are shallow conversation topics which have little-to-no emotion invested in them. I would, however, be willing to talk to my best friend about topics that are deep, important and have feelings/emotions invested in them. The difference between my best friend and a stranger? Trust, rapport, credibility. Christians need to understand this.

Definition of Terms: What one person means by a term isn’t always the same as what another person means by that term. In a discussion as complex as homosexuality it’s imperative that both sides define their terms. As we define terms, we must not jump from one area of the debate to another for the same terms may not be applicable. You can’t jump from “Gay marriage isn’t biblically supported” to “it’s not the state’s job to grant marriage licenses anyways!” That move lacks a concrete definition of terms, and it’s sloppy debating. Don’t go for sloppy, keep it tight (your debating, that is).

Remember Your Bias/Limitations: Just because you consider yourself an open-minded and inquisitive soul doesn’t mean you don’t have biases. Being open and aware of these biases will allow you to pursue truth while being cognizant of your limitations. Be willing to say “You know, I don’t know enough about that particular line of thought.” 

Speak Cautiously: As with any debate, it’s important to speak cautiously. Better to say “this might be the case” versus “it is the case unequivocally” and be wrong. Speaking cautiously is even more important when the discussion centers around issues that are core to who a person is. Be careful, not brash.

Speak Confidently: On the flip side, speak with conviction, the conviction of someone who believes in what they’re saying. Don’t hedge your statements too much. Constantly saying “it’s possible...” or “it might be the case...” leaves you sounding flimsy. When the time comes to speak assertively, do so.

Take Offense/Be Prideful: This may be the most controversial thing I’ve said in some time. It’s important to remember that both sides can take offense. Taking offense in some instances is a way of standing up for yourself. You are a person, one with an intelligent mind. You’re entitled to your opinions and if someone downplays your right to have that opinion, stick up for yourself. Don’t be mamsy-pamsy, inform your conversation partner that you’re insulted. I’m not advocating thin skin, quite the opposite. I’m suggesting that amongst cautious yet confident discussion there is space to say “I’m not blindly asserting nonsense and I’m offended that you’d assume that I am.”

I’ll end with an example and a warning. I posted an article a while back centering around homosexuality. The article was written by a Christian. A non-Christian friend of mine called me up and, after some discussion, informed me that the piece was most likely false because it was biased towards its conclusion. Even further, my friend informed me that I was toeing the party line by agreeing with said piece. Her argument was that because I’m a Christian and the author was a Christian, I would necessarily agree with the article’s conclusion. My response to her was that I was offended she’d think that way. Her and I had been friends for years, she knew I was a person with a open mind. With emotions running high, she told me I was close-minded for believing what I believed and she ended the conversation and the friendship. I haven’t spoken to her since.

This conversation is one of the most central issue facing twenty-something Christians. It’s rife with extreme passions, and to enter into this discussion is no task for the ignorant— no matter how well-meaning they might be. If you’re going to just lob bombs, stay out of the debate. But if you can strive to adopt a Christ-like attitude, one of charity, compassion, grace and conviction, I welcome you to the discussion.

Andrew Oxenham may be found on Twitter if he isn't blogging on his wonderfully named blog. Hint. Click it to find out. 

Pulse: Sin & Faith (Guest Post by Kyle A. Kiekintveld)

1. What important topic do you think our Christian generation (20s) has to deal with the most? Why must we deal with this issue? 

The Church always considers itself in crisis, in need to address the differences between secular society and the Scripture, in the need make sense of war, poverty and the sorrow of the world, but one of the biggest issues facing the Church is not exclusive to the Church, it is best addressed by the parishioners. It is an idea as old as civilization, but greatly exacerbated by our culture of constant consumption of media, celebrity and social networking.

It is the concept that we are simple beings. It is the idea that we can see a little of someone, through reality television (which of course is as real as the WWE), we know someone through what they say on Facebook, through the gossip, through the their attendance (or lack of) at Church. We think people have the perfect marriage, the perfect children, just because of a few quick Facebook or Instagram pictures. We have arrogantly oversimplified life and experience that we feel with little information we can understand what another person has gone through, we can pass judgement on their worth.
Of course this has no Biblical basis and we are warned heavily against judging one another, but it is part of the human condition. It is heavily ingrained not only in our culture but our psychology as well. The benefits of making decisions and judgements on people are numerous, even when we know we must fight it.

2. In what (positive or negative) ways has our generation already engaged with this issue?

The Bible addresses this issue directly, most powerfully with the story of the Woman at the Well. In the midday heat while Jesus takes a break at Jacob’s Well, a Samaritan woman went to fetch water, and in typical Jesus fashion, Jesus broke a number of taboos, he spoke to her (who was to be despised because she was not just a woman but a Samaritan woman) and he asked her to fetch him a drink, which would have rendered the drink unclean. The woman was known to have multiple husbands and be living with a man she was not wed to (thus she fetched water at the hottest part of the day to avoid the judgment of others) still Jesus broke taboos to speak to her. He did not think twice to speak to the woman despite her immorality. 

At the best of times Church can be an emotional and spiritually difficult place to attend but for those who are introverted, those who struggle with their own sins, to feel judged when they attend Church just created a barrier that can seem insurmountable. Yet despite of stagnant or even dwindling Church attendance Christian media is a successful and even growing industry. People still have faith but feel a disconnect with Church itself.

3. What can we do to improve our relationship with addressing this issue? Or can things be improved?

Fortunately all is not lost on this issue. Churches have numerous ways to combat this disconnect, from Podcasts of Sermons to Outreach Groups to House Churches. The latter two are perhaps the best responses the Church has. Both allow much more intimate worship than trying to blend into a crowd of dozens, hundreds or even thousands. These are not complete solutions to the problem, in the end we must remember even if we know the sin, the sinner is made in God’s beautiful and infinitely complex image.

Kyle A. Kiekintveld is a writer based out of Western Michigan, he is an avid beer, music, literature and video game aficionado. Despite his love for profanity, violent, violent video games and Harry Potter, Kyle is fairly certain Jesus would like him. He can be found on Twitter and Tumblr.

Culture Wars: Sex After Christianity

Frankly, I'm not certain what I think about this article. Personally, if I don't know what I think about something, I read the article multiple times and sleep on it. But for your interest:

Too many of them think that same-sex marriage is merely a question of sexual ethics. They fail to see that gay marriage, and the concomitant collapse of marriage among poor and working-class heterosexuals, makes perfect sense given the autonomous individualism sacralized by modernity and embraced by contemporary culture—indeed, by many who call themselves Christians. They don’t grasp that Christianity, properly understood, is not a moralistic therapeutic adjunct to bourgeois individualism—a common response among American Christians, one denounced by Rieff in 2005 as “simply pathetic”—but is radically opposed to the cultural order (or disorder) that reigns today.

They are fighting the culture war moralistically, not cosmologically. They have not only lost the culture, but unless they understand the nature of the fight and change their strategy to fight cosmologically, within a few generations they may also lose their religion.

The source.

--Nick

The Power of Race in Interracial Churches

McKnight on Korie Edwards:

There are problems in American culture for interracial churches: since churches are disestablished, people can choose which church they attend. Since people are smitten by “homophily” (we choose people like us), we choose churches like us … and that means white folks choose white churches and African Americans choose African American churches.

What’s more: white people, or better yet white hegemony, are both structurally powerful and blind to what whiteness means. Whiteness is about power in the deep structures of society; race is about structured power.

Her contention is that interracial churches are more or less white-based churches and not genuinely interracial churches. They are merely a dish of white ice cream with sprinkles spread all over the surface. Whites have a structural advantage, there is white normativity, and white transparency (not seeing whiteness) means white normativity will prevail. This whiteness is inherent to interracial churches, so she argues.

African American churches have been places of refuge, so interracial churches — remember the element of choice — is not the choice of most African Americans, and those who do choose the interracial church are usually those who were reared in multi-cultural contexts.

Korie Edwards examines church worship, church participation in extra-church activities, in spiritual affirmative action, in racial identity, and in why folks attend interracial churches … her conclusions mesh across the board: interracial churches are shaped by whiteness and not genuine interracial elements.

What will those be?

For the rest of the article, and Scot McKnight's endorsement, enjoy it here.

--Nick

Fundamentalism, or the Inability to Play Safely on the Playground

 I know Roger Olson and others have begun to post quite a bit on this subject, but I offer (an admittedly biased) comment on this pernicious topic.

Allison:

Fundamentalist?

Christian Fundamentalism, especially of the evangelical stripe, has also been confusing.  In part this is because evangelicalism at one point transitioned from revivalism into fundamentalism and then back out (though some fundamentalists are also evangelical!). For a while “fundamentalism” just meant one adhered to the fundamentals of the faith. However, it became deeply reactionary against culture and withdrew, especially after the Scopes Trial. They pulled out of their denominations and started to create their own schools in order to maintain doctrinal “purity.” While many who are fundamentalists hold to certain views (premillenialism, dispensationalism, penal substitution, young earth creationism, KJV only and some form of patriarchy—at least today) and tend to resist certain behaviors (no movies, no card playing, and no drinking), not everyone who holds to one or several of these is a fundamentalist.

Evangelicalism is quite diverse. However, Some parts that are key to fundamentalism are: 1) The tendency to view only itself as true evangelicalism at the exclusion of everyone else, 2) non-essentials of the faith become essential (ex: one is not a true Christian if they drink or go see rated R movies), 3) a tendency to separate from what they do not agree with and 4) they are aggressively anti a lot of things such as: Catholicism, evolution, or ecumenicalism. Fundamentalists very often have what they call a “literal” view of Scripture, which is more like a rigid understanding of the inerrancy doctrine and resists all Biblical criticism.

 For the rest, enjoy it here.

--Nick

What We Talk About When We Talk About Rob Bell

I think the title may be my favorite part of this post.

Moving on.

I'm excited for this little book for three reasons. My first is that the hype will likely be less hyper and so maybe the book woill be more likely to be read without any sort of premature lens. Doubtful, but maybe. You have Peter Enns breaking down the video in his own way, with a brief critique of others here. For me, I think things are far less controversial this time, but with higher stakes.

My second reason is Rob is going deeper here than he did in Love Wins, in dealing with the doctrine of God. So higher stakes, but surprisingly, the controversy has been more along the lines of "don't worry about it, he's irrelevant." Which isn't necessarily a good or bad thing this time. I think many folks who were vocally upset with Bell this time are realizing that being vocal isn't a good thing.

Finally, I like the book cover. Love Wins didn't pop, but this one did.

As a brief appendix, I am inclined to think of the following: we ought to judge the trailer by it's own merits, and thus, Bell's book in the same way. If the trailer interests you, read the book in the same way you would see the movie. If the trailer doesn't interest you, read something else.

:)

--Nick

An Egalitarian Perspective on Women in Combat

This is not an easy issue. Most Christians would agree that war is something to avoided at all cost, and that one doesn't go to war unless one has excellent reasons. This controversy over the service of women has been percolating in the back of my mind for a long time, and I think I'm completely uncertain about what I think. I'm a convinced Egalitarian in the church and in the home, so this is a new idea for me.

So this will be mostly off the cuff, just to put some thoughts down on pixelated paper.

I think that . . .

The physical and psychological duress can easily effect men as well as women. I've seen such things in both male and female friends, especially in some people I love. So in terms of "durability" I don't have much reason to be opposed to women in combat.

I think that . . .

I wouldn't exclude women from combat, or being on the front lines, if they were able to pass the standards set by the military and we had the complete support of not only the higher ups but also from those on the ground. This means testing such things and allowing for units to support or deny the motion.

I think that . . .

It would bother me greatly if, hypothetically, I were to hop on YouTube one day to find a minute long video of a female soldier being tortured. On an emotional level, it bothers me period but for some reason, to watch a woman suffer (as I have witnessed women being oppressed) has always bothered me. Violence towards women in film and television is a phenomenon that rattles my bones and I can't bother to watch. I nearly walked out of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo multiple times.

I think that . . .

The Bible doesn't seem to explicitly disallow a woman from serving in the military, though it doesn't give much positive reasons to support it either. Deborah was a leader, general and prophet over all Israel but it never says she picked up a sword. You have instances of women defending themselves with mighty force throughout the Scriptures (Jael being an example) but Scripture seems to be silent on the issue.

I think that . . .

I really don't know what to think. Part of me believes that if a capable woman wants to serve her country and wants to do so on the front lines, then she should be allowed to do so. Another part of me wishes we didn't have a problem with this in the first place.

All of me wishes it never came to any of this. A poll by Politico shows that 75% of American voters are in favor of women in combat. I wonder what the stats are for those in the Church.

Thoughts?

--Nick

Evangelicals and the "New" Fundamentalism

As per usual, Brandan offers up an incisive critique of the new fundamentalism, broadly defined as Mark Driscoll and others involved in the Reformed movement. He offers the following definition of what fundamentalism is. Before I comment on this, I want to emphasize that I think I more or less agree with him. We had a wonderful little back and forth a while back so I enjoyed his post a lot.

Robertson:

"Fundamentalism was a movement that arose in the late 19th and early 20th centuries within American Protestantism reacting against “modernist” theology and biblical criticism as well as changes in the nation’s cultural and social scene... During the 1920s, fundamentalists waged a war against modernism in three ways: by (unsuccessfully) attempting to regain control of Protestant denominations, mission boards, and seminaries; by supporting (with mixed success) Prohibition, Sunday “blue laws,” and other measures defending traditional Protestant morality and sensibilities; and (fairly successfully) by attempting to stop the teaching of evolution in the public schools." (Wheaton ISAE)
To expand upon the movement itself, Fundamentalism has generally accepted the following list of theological propositions:

• The inerrancy of the Bible
• The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account.
• The Virgin Birth of Christ
• The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
• The penal substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross

 Before I add more of what Brandan wrote, I want to respond a bit to this. I think fundamentalism (1920s and so one) arose out of the modernist controversy, spearheaded by multiple fronts: 'errors' in Scripture, archeology and evolution. The split from Princeton (done by J. Gresham Machen and others) was seen specifically as a reaction to these issues. Whereas folk like B.B. Warfield accommodated the threats and worked to adapt theologically.

This was seen by many as apostacy and evangelicalism ever since has been working out it's faith with much fear and trembling. Fuller Seminary worked within this controversy to find a third way, and it looks like they have succeeded.

Here we get to the meat of Brandan's response. He writes:

So what are your thoughts? Is New Fundamentalism truly a new movement? Let me know!

Frankly, no.

I don't think Mark Driscoll, D.A. Carson or the Gospel Coalition are saying anything new within fundamentalism (and I only use those names because they are easily recognized, not because I'm currently on an anti-Driscoll binge). I don't think this fundamentalism is new simply because they aren't saying anything new. Dress up a puppy dog in jeans and give him a faux-hawk and he's still a puppy dog.

Much of what the current fundamentalists (which could be considered evangelical but I'm not certain they really want the label) are saying is primarily sectarian. Case in point, see Rob Bell. The difference between much of fundamentalism, both classic and modern, is primarily superficial. Carson and Driscoll emphasize gender roles and eternal conscious torment just as much as John Calvin, John Rice and others.

Allow me to conclude that I could be wrong. From my research, there are nuances to be sure but by and large much is what is written and said by Driscoll and others falls directly in line with the fundamentalism in the modernist controversy. I wouldn't call this the "new" fundamentalism simply because, to my knowledge, it isn't "new."

--Nick

Republicans, Gallup and Young Earth Creationists

According to Charles Johnson:

That’s right — according to Gallup, 46% of the American public are hard core young Earth creationists who believe the Earth was poofed into existence in its present form about 10,000 years ago.

And for Republicans, of course, the numbers are even worse; 58% of Republicans are young Earth creationists.

America, we have a problem.

Most Americans are not scientists, of course, and cannot be expected to understand all of the latest evidence and competing viewpoints on the development of the human species. Still, it would be hard to dispute that most scientists who study humans agree that the species evolved over millions of years, and that relatively few scientists believe that humans began in their current form only 10,000 years ago without the benefit of evolution. Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief, at least as measured by this question wording, that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature.

The picture is awesome. Half the reason I posted this. 

--Nick

The Bible Made Impossible: The Collapse of Evangelical "Biblicism"

I've started reading Christian Smith's book entitled, "The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism isn't a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture." Smith is a top sociologist at Notre Dame (and an evangelical Roman Catholic, a title I particularly enjoy) and I found his book challenging and profound. Much of what he said enlightened me in regards to what Scripture is, what it claims and what we claim about it.

Smith isn't arguing against inerrancy per se (though he makes a few cracks about it in passing), but rather how we read the Bible and how individual claim to hold it as their authority. In another way, when inerrancy becomes a defining point of one's salvation or sole authority. This boils down to a larger critique of evangelicalism, namely pervasive interpretive pluralism.

I will post a little quote by Smith and let you do with it what you will. Scot McKnight has a series over at Jesus Creed about Smith's book so I won't beat the horse further into giblets.

Smith:

I am not suggesting that the Bible is just a set of historical writings set in particular cultures, or the record of human subjective experiences of the divine that has little to say to contemporary people without being translated into terms modern people can accept. Instead, what I say here is simply that the biblicism that in much of American evangelicalism is presupposed to be the cornerstone to Christian truth and faithfulness is misguided and impossible. It does not and cannot live up to its own claims" (1).

Thoughts?

--Nick

Footnote:

1. Christian Smith, "The Bible Made Impossible" pgIX.

Potential Theological Trends within Evangelicalism circa 2013

Brandan Robertson wrote a post, and I hate to say it but I had been pondering the same thing. I think there will be three things approaching.

1. Annihilationism will increase, as will support for universalism.
With the rise of ReThinking Hell and the increasing atmosphere of openness (given the Rob Bell fiasco awhile ago), we will see more open support for annihilationism. Given that Preston Sprinkle of Erasing Hell fame now leans towards annihilationism or conditional immortali, this trend is indeed a hot one. Bad pun intended. You have other scholars like David Instone-Brewer, John Stackhouse and even Justin Brierley throwing their hats in the ring. Within the near future, the traditional view will die down and the debate will shift between annihilationism and universalism, with annihilationism becoming the dominant view.

2. Egalitarianism.
Due in large part to the scholarship of varying egalitarian heavyweights (Philip B. Payne being one), I believe that the equality of women and men in ministry will begin to be sorted out in my generation. Thanks to the continuous remarks of many Complementarians such as Mark Driscoll and John Piper (both whom don't speak for many of my Complementarian brothers and sisters), the trend within evangelicalism is to reassess the traditional standing. Simply put, Christians are beginning to stop and stare and think about this issue. Many who are involved in justice are sensing something amiss, as well as many seminaries doing the same. The tides are changing, both at Talbot and at seminaries across the United States.

3. The battle for the Bible.
Inerrancy has been a hot topic since the 50s, but I suspect that the liberal/fundamentalist divide will begin to widen with more moderate scholarship and attitudes prevailing. Given the aforementioned emphasis on justice, I see many within my generation being repulsed by both the right and the left. This is a tendency to be sure, but I think one could mine for the best of both sides and create something new. We are currently within a giant hole left by the emergent church and the collapsing nature of fundamentalism.

I see multiple topics seething in the background but they are less likely to be explosive; atonement, evolution and maybe even a little something call gay rights.

Thoughts?

--Nick

Mark Driscoll, Twitter and the Inauguration of President Obama

 I'll confess, I'm not certain about how I feel right now. I think this issue is not only sensitive but is quite primed to explode. Driscoll and the President both provoke fairly intense feelings on all sides so this controversy is by and large fueled by passion. Which is by no means a bad thing.

I will lay out a few points and attempt to explain what I believe is going on.

1. Mark Driscoll shouldn't have posted the tweet. Period. For a few reasons. One, it is far too hasty and two, the opening clause about "praying" may be well-intentioned, but what follows seems to contradict it.

2. As with the nature of controversy, it is fanned and flamed because people, simply, lose their minds over it. This is, for many, a special day. The inauguration of the President of the United States creates passion and optimism for the future, particularly on MLK day. Detractors of Mark need to realize this and tone things down. Calling him an asshole doesn't do much besides piss off everyone else.

3. Despite Mark's comment about the President not "knowing" God, the President claims to be a Christian. According to the President,

I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn't 'fall out in church' as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn't want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.

There is one thing that I want to mention that I think is important. Part of what we've been seeing during the course of this campaign is some scurrilous e-mails that have been sent out, denying my faith, talking about me being a Muslim, suggesting that I got sworn in at the U.S. Senate with a Quran in my hand or that I don't pledge allegiance to the flag. I think it's really important for your readers to know that I have been a member of the same church for almost 20 years, and I have never practiced Islam. I am respectful of the religion, but it's not my own. One of the things that's very important in this day and age is that we don't use religion as a political tool and certainly that we don't lie about religion as a way to score political points. I just thought it was important to get that in there to dispel rumors that have been over the Internet. We've done so repeatedly, but obviously it's a political tactic of somebody to try to provide this misinformation.

You can read the entire interview here.

I think we should take the President at his word that he is a Christian. I do not agree with his stance on taxes nor do I approve of his handling of the abortion issue. However, the attempts he has shown to live out in regards to helping the poor and providing healthcare are firmly with the Gospel. If one must criticize him, do so by saying he is "inconsistent," not "unChristian."

Still thinking this through.


--Nick

Evangelicalism, The Center and Boundaries

http://lostinthecloud.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/in-loving-memory-evangelicalism.jpg

Is the Evangelical Quadrilateral good enough?

Do Brian McLaren and Mark Driscoll both have a legitimate claim to be an "evangelical?" Of course, I would make the distinction that an evangelical can be either liberal, moderate or conservative but that is neither here nor there.

I think Roger Olson's post moves us towards a possible consensus. Roger Olson stated, "It has always seemed self-evident to me that movements cannot have boundaries. In fact, secretly, only to myself, I have long considered people who think movements can have boundaries either disingenuous or sociologically ignorant. Organizations have boundaries; movements do not. It’s self-evident. Movements have centers, not boundaries" (1).

If one looks at fundamentalism within the 1920s to the 50s, you get a clear look into the heart of remnant theology rooted in dispensationalism, coupled with the fear of the Soviet empire in the 60s and so on. Today, you have many folks within Protestantism who would prefer a smaller venue with less distinctions in term of doctrinal strife.

Or, in other words, doctrine trumps fellowship.

So, it makes sense that many conservative Christians put inerrancy up as the deciding vote on whether or not one is an evangelical. Besides the difficulty in defining inerrancy to most people's satisfaction, one is really out in a leaky lifeboat if they think the resurrection is as important as the complete historical and scientific accuracy of Scripture.

Biblicism. Conversionism. Crucicentrism. Activism. Bebbington put these out there to attempt a calm in a sea of bewildering chaos. Beyond being disputed by DA Carson among others, people make a point that doctrine is the method by which we measure one's orthodoxy, not character or sociology.

I think we've got multiple deep-rooted problems here, not the least of which is that the people who want to define the legitimacy of certain trump card doctrines all more or less believe the same thing. Therefore, evangelicalism is an exclusive or even ecclesiocentric patchwork quilt, not a big billowing tent.

 Another issue comes about when you have people who seem to fall outside the realm of "evangelical" but still desire the label. Do we honor the request for the title, redefine the title or entirely exclude the inquirer? I confess, I don't know.

Olson, "Thus, I argue that evangelicalism, like Pietism, charismatic movement, “New Age,” etc., etc. refers to a category that can only be defined in terms of prototypes that constitute a center. I would put Noll’s and Bebbington’s four hallmarks at that center and with them Jonathan Edwards and John Wesley. What did those men have in common that was not as noticeable among most of their peers in Protestant Christianity? I would say those would be biblicism, conversionism, crucicentrism and activism. And I would add to that a tendency strongly to defend the Great Tradition of Christian orthodoxy (broadly defined). Yes, to be sure, there were others who displayed the same characteristics, but they especially stand out as the prototypes of the Great Awakenings of the eighteenth century that gave birth to the modern evangelical movement" (1).

I will confess that I think evangelicalism is a big tent constituency, and I think one can very easily be an evangelical if they hold to the general terms outlined above.  The issues these days is more or less a redefinition of the terms.

The question is, do we allow it or fight it? I have no idea.

--Nick

Odd Theology: P.O.D. & the "I Am"

For those sensitive, the following post contains bad words. 

Read if you wish.

For those that don't know, P.O.D. released their newest album recently, and with it has come a firestorm of controversy within some Christian circles. You can see my review of the album here, but I'm more interested in exploring why and how this song "I Am" received such a frosty response. 

For thoughts that interact with mine, check out James Arnold's post.  

CRITICAL CHRISTIANITY

I reviewed the album before the official release and honestly missed the controversial word. I only noticed it when my friend James pointed it out to me via text message, and he heard it from my friend Calvin. I went back and finally listened to the song several times, and was shocked. Not at how aggressive and profane it came across, but by how blatantly Christian the song was. 

Here are some excerpts from critical reviews that I found to be gravely missing the point.

JesusFreakHideout:

Though P.O.D. claims to be a mission-based band focused on reaching the lost, their main fan base is undeniably in the Christian market. Many were shocked, and will be shocked, to hear that the boys decided to go with a word that is held as the ultimate "dirty word" in our society. Sonny sings, "Are You the one that's comes to set me free? 'Cause if You knew who I am would You really want to die for me? They say You are that cursed man, the one who hangs from this tree. Well I know You are the one and Son of God, so tell me who the f*** is he?" It's been a point of contention for quite some time now (since an unedited form of the song made the rounds to media). Thankfully, the guys decided to edit the word after some prayer and deliberation, but the fact remains that it is plainly there and recognizable, smeared out or not. In my opinion on the matter, I find it unacceptable. The usage of such a word directly after the name of Christ is completely disheartening and dirties the most beautiful name on earth. I understand reaching out to a person that doesn't know Christ, but that doesn't mean we have to act or talk like them to accomplish the mission, role-playing or not.

The author goes onto complement most of the tracks, suggesting that without the addition of "I Am" the album would've earned four stars. But this one song sadly "skews" the entire album.

Pluggedin:

So what's with the crass slang and rogue f-word? Regardless of the intended social or spiritual commentary, they just don't belong here. Ultimately, Sonny Sandoval, Marcos Curiel, Traa Daniels and Wuv Bernardo do a better job stumping for their San Diego heritage and the 'hood than respecting their legion of Christian fans. Moreover, there's enough righteous anger and grim imagery on hand that some young Warriors could get fired up and pointed in the wrong direction. Parents inclined to let their children download Murdered Love's safer tracks a la carte should still plan to walk through those lyrics together.

So, here are two examples that I will explore in the next section.

KEEPIN' IT REAL & OR CULTURE GAP DEFINITIONS?

The review by JFHO has simply missed the boat for the ocean. A minor point first. The "dirty word" in our society can easily shift tomorrow to something silly like "floops" or some such absurdity. Ask someone what the worst thing you can call someone, and you will get several different (colorful?) responses. This is a subjective claim.

Second, I don't think P.O.D. has ever been concerned about what evangelical Christians have thought. Especially when these same Christians (not JFHO that I know of) made a point of getting on P.O.D.'s case about tattoos, touring with Linkin Park and other such things. Sonny has made it clear that he isn't interested in the homogenized atmosphere that evangelicalism can produce. 

Third, I find it completely acceptable to include the word. Why? Because Sonny isn't writing for the reviewer of JFHO or PI or even me. The issue is solidarity, and Sonny has chosen to side with the victims. The poor, the abused, the forgotten, the deemed worthless. Seriously, I doubt that these souls mince their words about their experiences and since Sonny is channeling their voices into this song, why would he? In talking to non-Christians, I encourage honesty and that includes listening and saying what is on my heart, and listening to what is on theirs. This is identification with victims. Plain and simple. This is relationship.

It simply isn't fair to the context of what Sonny is singing about. The reviewers may not like it, but this reveals a large gap between Christendom, namely this:

Idealization and reality.

P.O.D. has shown they aren't interested in playing up the idealized notion of everything is okay. Everything is not okay. Read the headlines. Look at the slums in San Diego and Los Angeles. Look at these mega-churches and the wealth they have. Everything is not okay. To expect them to acquiesce to the reviewers' personal preferences of how one "ought" to talk is simply not how experiences and reality work.

Interestingly, if one listens to the entire song in context and avoids zeroing on the naughty words, the song is incredibly powerful. It includes spiritual warfare, a hearty dose of total depravity and Sonny explicitly paraphrases 2 Corinthians 5:17, and this passages deals with restoration and inclusion with Christ. This also echoes Isaiah 43:18, "Forget the former things; do not dwell on the past." The song is redemptive and triumphant. It is overcoming sin with grace, with atonement, with Christ.

This not only implies that the soul involved is delivered from his or her suffering, but that Jesus is the only way. This song, from a theological standpoint, is as orthodox as one can be. You have atonement, resurrection, and redemption as clear as a bell. If I may be allowed to be cheeky, this should not be about "farewell Sonny Sandoval."

This is a triumphant ending to a sad, horrific story about individuals desperately in need of Jesus. This track is as missional than anything I've heard sung in church. Perhaps even more so.

And we miss such things because the word fuck?

PRAYING WITH ANGER

I'm not necessarily of the opinion that one has to conform to an image in order to convert the image bearer, but there is a time and place to recognize that things aren't as simple as we would like to think.

Sonny and Christianity Today:

The new album seems like the most explicitly Christian one you've ever done:

I don't think it was thought out that way; I think it's just what's on my mind. As I read Scripture and prepare for the return of the King, it's like, this is the reality. This is the truth. Kids in this culture, as extreme as they are and as crazy as they are, need truth. We don't have time to sugarcoat the gospel. It doesn't take a genius to realize that we're all living in a dying world, and without our faith in God and without his redemption we're lost. These kids realize that. So I think they just need someone real and relatable that says, "You're worth much more than you think, and God's not your problem. He's for you; he's not against you. And once you realize God loves you, you have to embrace it and make a decision on how you live your life."

Context is everything. Singing about sin doesn't involve butterflies and prosperity for every person. It instead invites us to look into the darkness for anyone, and to dive into it without abandon. We are called to imitate Christ, and He didn't seem to have a problem getting His hands dirty.

Sonny's purpose in this song is mission. Is seeking out those that are lost. 

If one reads the Psalms, or even Job, you will see prayers that are fraught with anger, with abandonment, with sin. Crying out, yelling. All this to say, the fundamental difference is reality versus idealization. Some Christians are idealists, and others are realists.

I am a realist. I don't expect good things to happen, and I've been not only blessed by "I Am" but I played the song with my very conservative mother in the car, and she got it. It prompted an insightful conversation about our hidden sin, and how condemnation always seems around the corner.

CONCLUSION:

But then there's this guy named Jesus. The guy who makes all things new.

And He moves in mysterious ways.

The people this song is about don't hear the naughty language, they hear the identification. They hear the understanding, the empathy, the sympathy. This makes them open. This let's them know that they are human.

This assures them that they aren't alone. Never alone.

P.O.D. and I Am:

I am the murderer, the pervert, sick to the core
I am the unclean dope fiend, I am the whore
I am the beat down, mistreated, sexually abused
I have violated, fornicated, and sexually used
I am the con artist, cold hearted, smooth preacher
Cash stealer, emotion bleeder, the soul leecher
Feed off the poor, but I'm a slave to the rich
I'm in depression so this reflection is making me sick

Are you the one that's come to set me free?
Cause if you knew who I am, would you really wanna die for me?
They say you are the cursed man, the one who hangs from this tree
But I know this is the one and only son of god, so tell me, who the fuck is he?

I am fake, fraud, phony, I'm a known liar
Anorexic, rejected object of your desire
Suicidal thoughts keep one in the chamber
I'm a turned out streetwalking heroin banger
I am a secret cutter, porn lover, the town drunkard
Next door, neighborhood slut, I'm somebody's mother
Outcasted, arrogant, bastard son
I'm the talk of the town but this story has just begun

Are you the one that's come to set me free?
Cause if you knew who I am, would you really wanna die for me?
They say you are the cursed man, the one who hangs from this tree
But I know you are the one and only son of god, but tell me, who the fuck is he?

So tell me
So tell me!

And now it's spreading like a deadly disease
And now it's spreading like a deadly disease
And now it's spreading like a deadly disease
But I won't let you bury me!
Woo!

I am
I am what you've reaped, I am what you've sewed
I am that guy talking to himself, I am alone
I'm the forgotten child, ravaged and raped through sex traffic
Since I'm a little strange, my daddy called me a faggot
I am insecure, immature, even I disgust me
In denial, pill poppin', prescription junkie

Are you the one that's come to set me free?
Cause if you knew who I am, would you really wanna die for me?
They say you are the cursed man, the one who hangs from this tree
But I know you are the one and only son of god, but tell me, who the fuck is he?

So tell me

I see demons, eyes bleeding, my soul impure
Already know that I'm diseased, but tell me what's the cure?
This is me, we are him, and I am you
Old things pass away and all becomes new
This is me, we are him, and I am you
Old things pass away and all becomes new
This is me, we are him, and I am you
Old things pass away and all becomes new

--Nick 

Willems, "Why the 'Christian Life' isn't worth living"

As usual, Kurt manages to make me think. Thanks Kurt, now I'll be sitting up all night thinking about something that is really awesome. Jerk. 

Willems:

Compulsively, I would give a few bucks to homeless people as they asked. In my youth curriculum (while I served as a youth pastor), more of the emphasis moved toward Christian activism. That is not to say that I didn’t care about relational aspects of knowing God, but that justice (at times superficial forms there of) became a primary emphasis. As a result many areas became important in my personal life: signing every progressive petition that would lead to influencing the system for the poor, avoiding stores that are known for their social Darwinism, and purchasing anything I could find that is organic.

It would be safe to say that I went from conservative evangelical focuses to a progressive faith emphasis. Still holding to the essentials of the Christian theology, but believing that true discipleship meant doing certain things. It’s interesting to me looking back: at one end of the pendulum of my faith journey I tried to avoid things, and at the other end of the swing I tried to do things. Both attempts at living the Christian life miss the point of discipleship – completely!

Which begs the question: What’s the point?

I’m becoming convinced that both polarities of holiness miss the point. We aren’t supposed to live as though God is a cop, ready to bust us each time we sin. Neither does God call us to work ourselves so hard that we become void of spiritual vitality. In this sense, the Christian life isn’t worth living.

For the entire post, click HERE.

--Nick

5 American Myths and Successful Churches and Ministries

I thought this was quite interesting. I just discovered Joseph's blog thanks to Scot McKnight, so what a great first introduction. I hope you find this as interesting as I did. Or not.

Oh.

The picture just made me laugh.

Mattera:

In my reading of the Word of God over the past 34 years I have noticed a keen difference between the biblical measure of success and the way many American churches seem to measure success.

Many of the ways American churches measures success are in fact direct violations of the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 23. In this passage Jesus speaks against people loving titles, celebrity status, and desiring prominent places in public events. Through the centuries theology and church practice have been greatly influenced by the surrounding cultures. The following are my opinions regarding five myths for success that have crept into the church from American culture.

MYTH #1: The Size of the Church Shows Success.

There are some churches in the USA that have grown by the thousands within the first few years of their existence. That may not seem odd in certain parts of the world where the Spirit of the Lord is blowing upon a nation for true revival and evangelism (for example, Brazil, Africa, Indonesia). Unfortunately, most of the time in America, churches that number in the thousands after only a year or two of existence usually have grown so large via “transfer growth” (people who are already saved jumping from one church to another).

This happens usually in two ways: either a celebrity church (a church with an already established worldwide name brand) with a lot of money plants a church, or a celebrity leader (well-known TV personality) with a large following and mailing list opens up a church. In some cases a church without a prior name brand explodes in growth because of their talented worship team, great administrative ability, marketing schemes, or charismatic preacher, and happens to be planted in an area in the midst of many small congregations that don’t offer the same level of excitement through its programs, marketing and presentation.

When churches grow like this I usually don’t fault the pastors of megachurches unless they are specifically targeting a Christian audience in their marketing and even service times. For example, when they advertise on Christian media outlets or choose a time on Sunday to initially meet when most churches don’t have church services, like 6 p.m.

Megachurch pastors can’t be blamed for people leaving other churches if they have not been properly discipled or rooted and grounded in the faith. However, at the same time I do not hold up these churches as models for church growth because they are not growing organically through converting the lost, and because most likely they are gathering an uncommitted crowd rather than a true church that has members relating to one another as a family of families. (There is also a lot of turnover in these kinds of megachurches, with a different crowd every year.)

In megachurches even much of the pastoral staff eventually gets hired from outside the church because many times they do not have the capacity to develop their own leaders fast enough to keep up with their rapid growth! This can perpetuate a cycle of having a hireling and/or a professional mentality among the key staff who are not committed to long-term tenure and to the community they presently serve.

Unfortunately many saints with low self-esteem or ego need to attend one of these “successful” churches because they feel it gives them status. This is a far cry from the early church that numbered in the thousands after the Day of Pentecost because of mass conversions and the contemporary persecuted church (for example, in Muslim nations) who often meet from house-to-house, break bread, and covenant with one another as brothers and sisters, and are willing to risk their lives for the gospel by being baptized!

I am all for explosive church growth: the kind of church growth that involves mostly new converts rather than transfer growth.

I am not necessarily opposed to quick megachurch growth but neither am I enthralled by it or hold it up as a model for true revival or church expansion.

For the four other points, enjoy them HERE.

--Nick

Female Pastors: Nature or Nuture?

Allison:

Generally, I have found little awareness among men (and sometimes women) when it comes to the lack of female involvement in leadership positions in the church. One of my male friends actually asked me why, if Egalitarianism were true, that there are not many good female pastors. He had not actually heard any female pastors preach and when I asked him what would be an example of a “good” female pastor his answer essentially came down to one that was in his denomination and held to its doctrines. However, his denomination did not allow women to be pastors in the first place. More than that, they were discouraged. What I wonder is why it comes as a surprise to us that there are not many good female pastors when we discourage women who are drawn to theology, Scripture, counseling (pastoral counseling) and teaching from going to seminary in the first place. Beyond this, they are taught in their churches and often their homes that this is a negative thing and to rely on men for leadership. Nature or nurture?

What fascinates me about this dynamic is that it is self perpetuating. Not allowing or supporting women in seminary means there will be no examples to give any indication that maybe this is not how things naturally are. Interestingly, many who become convinced of Egalitarianism have had examples of gifted women in their lives that challenged them to take a second look at their presupposed theology.

What are some other indications that maybe nurture rather than nature is responsible for the lack of female initiative when it comes to going to seminary and becoming pastors? Well, to begin with, we have examples where secular professions used to be male dominated, but were later associated as being female at different times in different cultures  (nursing and psychology/counseling). In the church women often drastically outnumber men and it is not unusual to find many women serving as pastors abroad. If women are by nature not prone to these things (and many Complementarians today would agree many are gifted in these areas), then why are they doing this in large numbers abroad? And this is not confined to ministering to unbelievers.

For the rest, enjoy it HERE.

--Nick