This Makes Me Sad

THIS MAKES ME SAD...

1. Because it's theologically and historically inaccurate. God did not have sex with Mary. That contradicts the idea of a virgin birth and it's simply not what was reported. Mary was the vessel of God, not His mistress. When asked how Mary conceived Jesus, Martin Luther replied, "Through her ear." The Son is the Word of God. When she received His Word verbally, she received Him physically.
   
2. Because it puts physical intimacy at odds with spiritual intimacy. This cartoon makes it sound like if a woman is intimate with God, then she will find marital intimacy boring or unworthy. This is the exact opposite of true. Trust me.
   
3. Because it's actually a funny cartoon. Being such, people typically assume the truth of the setup because only the punchline has to be twisted. That's common sense in the humor world. It reminds me of a joke only Catholics get because only their theology allows the premise: "So Jesus said to the crowd, 'Let the one without sin cast the first stone.' Just then, a projectile soared over the crowd and hit the adulteress square in the forehead. Jesus quickly parted the crowd and, upon spying the culprit, exclaimed 'Go home, mother, I'm trying to teach a lesson here.'" It's only funny if you believe Mary was sinless until the assumption, or if you accept it for the sake of the argument. The trouble is, nonbelievers look to the church to proclaim their own beliefs. If a reader is to receive the above cartoon, he will assume that surely a church knows what they're talking about when it comes to the setup. I wish it were so.
4. Because it's a church advertisement and they should know better. Seeker sensitivity means caring about what people NEED to hear and see from the CHURCH, not what they are USED TO hearing and seeing from each EACH OTHER. This is not advertisement. It is obscenity.

Future Quote from a Great Man

I decided only to care what God thought back when He was the only one listening anyway.

Body Image

I've been hearing the term "body image" since junior high. The topic is usually heavily stressed to girls as a preventative measure against depression and promiscuity. The idea is this: a healthy body image propels one toward continued health, but an unhealthy body image leads to a self-perpetuating destructive cycle. If I feel ugly, I will act as though I feel ugly, which is an unattractive quality to all but two types of people: sexual predators, who will gladly exchange compliments for copulation, and advertisers, who will quickly trade capsules for currency. Since we want to avoid these destroyers of intimacy, we give our young girls axioms to ingest which we hope will reinforce positive body image, thus averting damage and affirming health.

I guess because we're a fragmented and compartmentalized culture, it never occurred me to apply this paradigm more broadly. If Scripture uses the body as a metaphor in a variety of ways, which bodily principles transfer with it? Does "body image" effect the Church's health? I think so, and I'd like to begin excavating this as far as I can, offering some scripture-based axioms which I believe apply broadly to the bodies of individuals, families, and the church:

1. Loving heads maintain their bodies with precision care. We start with an obvious one. Paul does all the work for us in Ephesians 5 when he ties this analogous principle of the individual to the marriage and to the church as well. "²⁸In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. ²⁹After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— ³⁰for we are members of his body." Both excess and neglect are slow and painful murderers. Moderate intake is vital and the quantities vary significantly. The body's survival is of utmost importance to the head, so one must get to know his body's needs and treat her "according to knowledge."
2. Vanity is a vapor and oblivion a void. We want to be able to examine our bodies in such a way that we can evade narcissism (both positive and negative) and still be reflective enough to know where we need improvement. Those who are oblivious about their appearances are usually, let's just be honest, disgusting. But there's no such thing as an unbiased mirror. The person looking into the mirror must interpret the data, and is never objective in his or her conclusion because said viewer has a vested interest in the outcome. Physically, one must depend upon the dual effort of good mirrors and true friends. Reliable mirrors give us meaningful data, and true friends help us interpret that data in constructive ways. Families are an ideal situation for this both physically and spiritually. Spiritually, we must lean wholly upon Scripture as our mirror, but, since interpretation can be skewed, one must consider the historical church one's friend and family. Obviously, since this is a sticky subject for most people (who is truly satisfied with their body?!), this takes some serious trust and humility both on the part of the examined and the examiner. This is why Jesus encourages us to remove the plank in our own eye so that we may see clearly to remove the speck out of our brother's eye.
   
3. Bodies are only equipped with one mind. Jesus says it this way: "Man cannot serve two masters." Individually, we can take this simply to mean that we are to cultivate pure hearts so that we are not divided in our pursuits. In marriage, it gets a even more difficult. God makes the two into one, telling them to be of one mind. Not easy when we're not even wholly united within our individual selves. He calls the woman the body and the man the head. Seems like a good argument for complementarian marriage, and it probably is, but I'm not sure Hebrews were as black and white about the physical location of the mind as we are. It might be good just to explore this cave for a while in your own marriage. The Church, as God's body, is entreated to pray in submission to her Sacred Head's will, and He is covenant-bound to hearing her requests and laying His life down for her needs. It's pretty beautiful when you allow the paradigm to work itself all the way out.
   
4. The female body is designed to nurture new life. The female body has a uterus and mammary glands which are functionally useless to her. They are present for the benefit of an entirely unique person. Within a family, this is very obvious. Within the family of God, the Church plays the female role, which means a prominent part of her profession is the procreation of progeny: making and nurturing spiritual children. I just think that's so huge and special. 
5. She's a one-man woman. I haven't figured out exactly where to put this one yet, but since I already mentioned the principle briefly in the introduction, I'll cut straight to the chase. The Church has no business altering her body to attain to an ideal that pleases someone other than her loving and non-perverted Husband. We need to be really careful to avoid marketing and to ensure that our "seeker-sensitivity" doesn't detract from the things that our Husband finds pure and attractive. As our Pursuer, He's the true Seeker to whom we should be sensitive. He's the one who presents us to Himself as a pure and holy bride. Don't dirty yourself up for another man. That's called whoring and He doesn't like it.
   

I think if the body can hold these truths dear to her heart and truly believe them, her body image will promote healthy function in individuals, families, local congregations, and the church universal. I love analogies, and I feel like we might be missing some serious exegetical goldmines here by ignoring the clearly rewarding hermeneutic spelunking this particular analogy offers us. I keep thinking of more axioms, but this is getting too long. I might just spend some time outlining a book on this.

Relief for the Perfectionist

If I am to succeed at one thing, I must fail at another. Definition, by definition, requires exclusion.

Christmas with the Charlies

I sure do wish the President hadn't preempted A Charlie Brown Christmas this week. As Mr. Schultz said, "If we don't tell people the true meaning of Christmas, who will?" Charlie Brown had the right idea. Charged with the task of obtaining a tree for the Christmas play, good ole’ Chuck, tired of all the commercialism, selects the least impressive tree in the entire lot. It also happens to be the only live tree. Charlie Brown knew that the pink aluminum tree Lucy wanted, for all its size and sparkle, would never live or grow or bear any fruit, and he just didn’t feel right about that.

Another Charles, Mr. Wesley, also appreciated the hidden glory in a tiny Christmas life. He painted his classic carol, “Hark, the Herald Angels Sing” upon the backdrop of the humility of the Almighty Christ. Christ by highest heaven adored was pleased to dwell as man among men. Mildly laying His glory by, he may have been the smallest of men on earth, but he was also, like Charlie’s tree, the only one living. In fact, Charles Wesley’s original hymn ends with a verse thanking God for the reinstatement of life to man by the Second Adam.

Wesley’s original wording was, “Hark, how all the welkin rings, Glory to the King of Kings!” Don’t worry; I had to look it up too. Welkin is the vault of Heaven. The idea is that the very universe rings like a bell in praise and adoration of this tiny, unassuming little boy to whom no earthly attention is paid. Sally, Snoopy and the gang were so caught up in all the trivial trappings of the winter wonderland around them that they couldn’t see the true meaning of Christmas.

Finally, when exasperated Charlie Brown exclaims that he just can’t stand it anymore, Linus begins his recitation of the passage in Luke that has become an iconic moment in television: a point of clarity amidst a world of confusion. The true meaning of Christmas is easy to miss even among all the shepherds and wise men and angels if we’re not careful to place Christ in his rightful place of supremacy. He was only tiny when viewed with earthly eyes. Praise God that He saw fit to give us hymns like “Hark, The Herald Angels Sing” to keep His true majesty on our hearts and minds. How fitting, then, that it is Wesley’s carol that Charlie and the gang sing to give all praise and glory and honor to the rightful center of our Christmas celebrations.

Forced Fatherhood and the Equal Rights Movement

There's a man out there who is suing for his right not to be a father. He had taken every step in his mind to prevent pregnancy, (except for not having sex), but alas, that pesky child made it into the world. His argument is that, if the mother had not wanted to have the baby, she had the right to either abort or give up the child without responsibility or his permission. However, if the man under the same circumstances wishes not to be a parent, he is forced to have her consent to abort or else take financial responsibility for the child he doesn't want. He claims that this is unjust if men and women are to have equal rights. The woman made the choice to have the baby, not him. This is stated as if abortion was the default position, and her choice of action to carry the pregnancy to term was the real choice.

If you accept the premise that men and women should have equal rights, then he is absolutely right. He should be able to invoke a right of the Roe vs. Wade variety. If the woman can make the decision to abdicate responsibility, the man is looking for an identical button to push. And yet it feels so very wrong. One must either accept that this guy can walk away from his child without responsibility, or one must admit that men and women are too different to have identical rights. There is no other way.

A Thought on Parenting

Parenting is the tedious attempt at removing the childish without tainting the child-like, as Michelangelo removed all the marble that wasn't David.

 

Practical Scriptural Interpretation

I've been doing some organizing in my head lately with regard to the way we read and interpret scripture, due largely to the influence of my friend, coworker, and tutor, Jason Hood. He's a firm believer that Scripture teaches us by example of its New Testament authors how to read itself. In fact, a paper he wrote on this very concept is getting a lot of buzz in scholarly christian circles. (Yes, those exist.) I was first introduced to the concept of multiple correct interpretations by D.A. Carson back in April when he spoke at a Union University Bible Conference on the use of the Old Testament by the author of Hebrews. Anyhoo, I think I've synthesized the main Scripturally-modeled approaches down into 3 categories. According to its own teaching, we must submit our lives to Scripture:

1. Doctrinally - Viewing lessons in scripture as intended to change our minds by correcting wrong beliefs (logos).
2. Morally - Viewing lessons in scripture as intended to change our behavior by distinguishing between right and wrong actions (ethos).
   
3. Typologically - Viewing lessons in scripture as intended to change our hearts by pointing to the ultimate Lover of our souls (pathos).
   

As you can see, I've run this collection through the classical transcendent categories to defend its sufficiency (is there another way?). I think it's possible (and indeed sometimes necessary) to read Scripture correctly through more than one of these lenses at a time, but I don't think one can honor the Scripture at all without seeing it through at least one of them.

Death, Love, and Duty

Velma Ford was groomed for this. She married a Navy man fresh out of the South Pacific in 1945 and she was prepared for what that meant. Or at least committed based on what she thought it meant. Sixty-four years of doting and serving later, she is just as faithful to him on his deathbed as she was to their marriage bed. The ideal of the 50's housewife stretched beyond a decade and into a way of life for Velma.

Tommy Smith was never an easy man to love. Just ask his children. As was the case with so many men of his generation, Tommy was as impenetrable as the line of defense he had helped to form halfway across the world. One would have to travel much further than Iwo Jima to find the heart he had so diligently buried. Even his grandchildren found him a mysterious creature; one whom you instinctively feared and deeply respected. He had built a small empire out of nothing based on good 'ole American opportunity and a hard Christian work ethic.

Having rejected with horror all the burnt bras of the women's liberation movement and the father-wound feeling Freudian opportunities over the years, Velma and Tommy now reside quietly in the den of their empty home together, survivors of the 20th century. Velma sits uneasily on the couch, half looking through shopping catalogs, half listening to the TBN preachers by whom she is reservedly convinced of her husband's self-inflicted faithless suffering.  Tommy lies contorted in his hospital bed, tubes and all, struggling to breathe, refusing to eat, begrudgingly choosing morphine over bone pain.

I ask her if she needs anything. "No," she says, "the Lord provides at just the right times." The Medicare I voted against pays for everything, even the hospice nurses. Kathy brings groceries and sometimes stays a while so she can go out to have her hair done. She doesn't know if he'll make it to Thanksgiving. She just doesn't understand why he won't eat. Maybe it feels like an affront to the lifestyle she's made out of feeding him for three quarters of a century. "He never was much of an eater," she consoles herself. "He'd rather have a cup of coffee and a cigarette and get on to his work." I remember that to be true. Barely a tear shines through. She has to hold it together. For him; for us; for herself.

When we visit, I tell him I'm here and I love him. He reaches for my hand or chuckles. I help move his small, withered body or I convince him to take a pill by non-verbal emotional blackmail. He's in and out of a room he never leaves. He lets out a half-hearted "oh me," like he's trying to let us know he's in pain without having to admit that it hurts. I think about the last time I tried to ask him something about his life. It was already too late. He proceeded to tell me a story which my dad later compassionately told me was a little less attached to reality than its historian had believed.

As painful and as frustrating as this scenario is, I can't imagine what it would have been like if Tommy and Velma had not been committed to each other though all the ups and downs. I don't remember them ever agreeing about anything, but that didn't matter: anything less than faithful love and dutiful service was simply out of the question. My parents' generation, with all their liberation and their feelings and their self-actualization, probably wouldn't have put up with this kind of self denial in the name of a silly covenant made by young sweethearts in the midst of deep naivete before God and their few witnesses. My parents' generation also won't have nearly as many people to sit with them as they lay dying because all their otherwise allies ended up as casualties in their war against responsibility. Even though we may have disagreed on theology or emotional intimacy or anything else, I'm so grateful for my Grandma and Pop and what they continue to teach me about true love and duty.

I'm going to miss him. I already do.

An Excercise in Faith and Reason

Let us imagine that, in the midst of a heated discussion on faith and reason, you've exposed an apparent contradiction in the Christian Scriptures for which I simply cannot account. I will then experience a phenomenon psychologists call "disruption." Rational beings are compelled to make rational sense of their world and will restlessly seek to reconcile contrary concepts until they are settled. A disruption is an opportunity for a man to either subject his life to reason until the discrepancy is resolved, or to delude himself into thinking that there is no discrepancy in his foundational tenets at all, or to weigh the gravity of the discrepancy to determine what action should be taken in light of it.

So now, back to the scenario. I am faced with a disruption, and a choice must be made. You, the anti-scripturist, likely have an irrational expectation that I will now reject entirely the basis of my life reasoning, (which is my faith in the reliability of scriptures), to accept the basis of your life reasoning, (which is your faith in the unreliability of scriptures). I say this is an irrational expectation because what you fail to take into account is that this is a deeply invested lifestyle I have, and it would be irrational to move from it toward anything short of what I could rationally accept as a superior lifestyle. Imagine I'm climbing a cliff and I realize that my foothold is not as secure as I believed it was when I took it. If I have no where better to go, then it must suffice until I can get further up the mountain, or else I fall to my death. Any lifestyle will have points of discrepancy for which faith must account until total truth is discovered (or revealed). My choice then is based not on those truths to which I can hold firmly, but those truths to which I must hold by necessity.

Truth be told, my cliff-face still looks better than yours, even with my loose foothold. The rational system through which I make sense of the world gives me basis to believe that men are created equal; that life is sacred; that integrity is honorable; that authority should be respected; that property should be protected; that marriage is for life; that people ought to be free. As I see it, without these Scriptures, I have nothing to convince me that these truths are evident at all, which would make it impossible for me to teach others to hold them with any rational integrity. Society will have taken a severe downgrade as will have my private life. You may point to the utility of these beliefs as basis to hold them, but utility is meaningless without an aim, and nihilism is aimless. Advancement of the species, you say? Without Scripture, I have no vested interest in anything beyond my personal experience.

The choice then to delude myself into thinking there is no discrepancy would be a relatively rational one, since, practically speaking, it would keep me functioning in a positive sphere. However, self-delusion as a whole is a non-rational lifestyle and I believe (because the Scriptures teach me so), that I am created to live in the light of sober-minded truth; not make-believe happy-land.

Since I cannot simply sit around until I resolve every rational discrepancy in the world, and since I cannot reject my lifestyle because I have no better position to which to retreat, and since I cannot in good conscience ignore the problem, the only rational action I can take is to say, "Good move, old chum. Can't argue with that one." And be on my merry way.

How Does One Define the Transcendent?

Truth is the perfect articulation of goodness and beauty

Goodness is the perfect response to truth and beauty

Beauty is the perfect expression of truth and goodness

I just don't know how else to do it...

Identity in Christus

Today in Chapel at Crichton College, Julie Nichols gave us a sheet with a series of questions aimed at revealing the things in which we place our identities. I felt compelled to answer each in two ways. Here are my answers.

1. How do I measure my worth?
In the flesh - By how many people need me
In the spirit - By how much my ransom cost

2. Whose approval am I seeking?
In the flesh - People of whom I approve
In the spirit - My master, who can declare "well done."

3. In what or whom is my confidence placed?
In the flesh - My abilities and achievements
In the spirit - Nothing but the blood of Jesus

4. What am I depending on to give my life meaning?
In the flesh - My legacy through God
In the spirit - God's legacy through me

When I am operating in the flesh, my identity depends upon the fragile and finite works of humans. I think I'd prefer to lean on the immutable and infinite work of God.

I Have Released an Album of Music.

Most of you will be happy to know that my original music is now available on www.noisetrade.com. You can download "Of Guinevere (or Shadows of a Wedding Feast)" from this site by naming your price or get it for FREE by referring 5 friends to listen to my music. It's a great deal for penniless poets such as myself who can't even afford to finish an album, much less mass-produce it. After years of pretending like I would get around to completing this work, I've decided to release it as-is. It's a hot tasty mess, but I think it's better released than kept to myself. Maybe it's moving on; maybe it's creating momentum. You decide. You can go here to get it:

www.noisetrade.com/joshuasmith --->

Thank you for all you've done and have yet to do in bringing my dreams to fruition.

Soli Deo Gloria

Joshua Smith

Stupid Car Names

Aviator - This car will not leave the ground without serious consequences.

Armada - That word is plural. And refers to boats.

Protege - What's it trying to be like? Why not just buy that car?

And in Jesus Christ, His Only Son, Our Lord

Here we are introduced to the second Person in Whom we profess belief. His resume includes four titles, each expressing a powerful aspect of His identity.

Jesus - This is a man. His name means "God saves," but this was given to an embodied and finite individual by human parents at a particular limited time in a particular location on earth. Jesus is a fully human son of Adam.

Christ - In Hebrew, the word is"messiah." It's Greek for "anointed one." But this isn't just any anointing. This word comes with baggage in its context. God had been promising a son of David who would come and crush the head of the Enemy. An oppressed people had waited for thousands of years for this promised one to receive his anointing.

His Only Son - It's necessary to know that in context, this is a royal title. Son of God means that He is the fully divine heir to the Kingdom of God. He is the only heir, and therefore the only way to inherit anything at all is through Him. We can only share in the kingdom as the Bride of Christ, adopted as God's children by way of our marriage to His Son.

Our Lord - Jesus Christ, God's only Son is the Church's Husband. Her submission to Him is compulsory, and His affectionate provision for Her is eminent. There can be no more true, good, or beautiful way. Indeed, there is no other way at all.

The Great Co-mission

Matthew 28:18-22 - "And Jesus came and said to them [the eleven]: 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and teaching them to observe all I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.'" - ESV

Our ultimate mission is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. In this present age, however, we have another temporary mission. A co-mission, if you will: We are to make disciples. A disciple is one who thinks, feels, and behaves the same way his Master does.

Who - all Jesus' followers
What - make disciples of all nations - this is the only imperative command, grammatically
When and Where - as you are going in the present age
How -  ultimately by His power and presence, but also the 3 participles (go, baptize, teach) 

• Go (Incarnation) - embody the Word in community, sharing life as you go - John 1:14
  
• Baptize (Initiation) - Lead them into complete functionality within the body - Hebrews 5:14
  
• Teach (Indoctrination) - teach the essentials, expecting transformation and multiplication - 2 Timothy 2:2
  

Why - all authority is His

Christmas in October

Lowe's and Walmart already have their displays up. Is anyone else groaning at the mere thought of the upcoming season(s)? For me, fall is the best possible nickname for autumn. It feels like an intense gravitational pull toward the bottom of social and financial exhaustion. Halloween, otherwise known as the new Christmas Eve, will launch us into the great high holiday season of Western Consumerism. We are weary at the thought of the immensity of our Christmas gift list and try to pretend that we will be able to stress-gorge without weight-gain. I'd rather not have to be reminded about those things for three months...

We really can't blame the secular world for the creation of a super-long runway for Christmas. We started it. The church has traditionally celebrated the season of Advent, (or "the coming"), for a solid month before Christmas. All the world did was embellish it and change the focus. That's what they do. So why so long a period of fixation? I think it's to remind us that all of humanity waited, groaned, for a very long time to be redeemed from its great Fall. We're a resurrection people, living on the better side of God's incarnation, and it's easy for us to take our position for granted. God's birth into the world is still a big deal! And so is His ability to take all of our worldly anxieties and frustrations and make them seem very, very small. God came to earth and gave us all-surpassing hope and power!

I'm going to try and remind myself every time I see a Christmas Tree on sale next to the clearance bathing suits that I need as much time as I can get to think about how humanity (myself included) is in deep need of its Redeemer. He's coming again. Are we thankful that our reasons to groan are really a reminder to rejoice in His completed work and long for His return?

Maker of Heaven and Earth

The temptation would be to run with this toward an uninteresting debate between Christians of varying historical commitments. We're going to remain ecumenical here, because to do otherwise would be to ignore the purpose of the creed. I believe the problem arises when we separate "Maker of Heaven and Earth" from "The Father Almighty." Never has the distance between two adjacent lines of poetry been so wildly exaggerated. When we separate His creative action from His loving unction, we begin to focus more on the "how" of creation than the "why." Many would say that their focus on the "how" of creation can credit Scripture as historically and scientifically authoritative, thus making the spiritual "why" arguments valid as well, thus saving the souls of all those facts-based scientists out there. Because it's science that's keeping people from repentance. Let me know how that turns out for you.

I refuse to debate these issues. When we connect the Father Almighty with the Maker of Heaven and Earth, we get a character and a motive, and that's the important part. I know everyone is always dying to know the opportunity and the weapon, but it's the least human part of the story. What's wrong with us that we ignore the truth for the facts? The climax of CSI is always about proving the means of the murder, but I'm always much more fascinated with the person behind the action. Usually the motive for one's act of passion is only mentioned in brief monologue as the guilty party is taken away in handcuffs. Meanwhile, Law and Order pat themselves on the back for sticking to the facts. Forensic science is good, people, but it's not supreme.

One's actions manifest his character. Why fixate on the actions when we can know the character Himself? I want to know the "why" behind the "what." I think it's far more unifyingly fascinating to know that Heaven and Earth were made as a radical act motivated by the passion of an Almighty Father. I almost don't even care how. It's particularly easy not to care how when most of my culture's energy is spent arguing about the facts when the truth is the most important thing. The absence of a single fact can completely reverse a hypothesis. Why do we think we can collect all the pertinent facts needed to form or prove a reasonable theory at all? We are very small. We need Truth to be revealed supernaturally. I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth.

I Believe in God the Father Almighty

Our faith begins with a Father. The archetypal father is the provider and protector head of the family. In using this image repeatedly to describe Himself, He surely wants us to feel confident that our needs will be met. Interestingly, when Abraham Maslow created his hierarchy of human needs, the foundational levels were provision and security. Jesus' sermon spends almost an entire chapter ensuring us of God's provision for our basic needs. The next level is community - belonging to a family, which is also implicit in the Biblical narrative and explicit in its doctrine. Finally, accomplishment and self-actualization round out the pinnacle of the pyramid. Although we could conceivably have a discussion about whose accomplishments are attained and whose self is to be truly actualized,  Scripture is clear that God's provision covers the gamut of our needs, as a good father is expected to do. I am reminded of John Adams' famous statement regarding the sacrifices a father makes for his children's self-actualization.

 "I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy ... and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture ..."

In Matthew, Jesus tells us that if we fathers who are evil are able to give our children good things, how much more will our Heavenly Father do?

He's not just any father, but an Almighty One. I seems to me that any bad taste in one's mouth regarding his father pertains to a weakness in the man. He wasn't strong enough to restrain his anger or his addictions. He wasn't strong enough to stay when it was easier to leave. He wasn't strong enough to protect or provide for his family. He wasn't strong enough to discipline or cherish his children. But not this Father. He is the Almighty God, Who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to His power that is at work within us. He is never weak, and our weakness only makes Him stronger.

PS. I like what iMonk does here with the Creeds.

Thoughts on Symbolum Apostolicum

"I believe what I believe is what makes me what I am. I did not make it; no it is making me. It the very Word of God; not the invention of any man." - Rich Mullins on the Apostles' Creed


 If Mr. Mullins' celebration of the creed lies within the pale of orthodoxy, then it seems a worthy text to excavate. If not, then its prevalence in our faith positions it ripe for reckoning all the same. This is precisely what I aim to do with the next series of posts. Stay tuned for what I think are some insightful ponderings on "God the Father, Almighty."

I believe in God the Father Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth;

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord:

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,

born of the Virgin Mary,

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

was crucified, dead, and buried;

the third day he rose from the dead;

he ascended into heaven,

and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;

from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the holy catholic church,

the communion of saints,

the forgiveness of sins,

the resurrection of the body,

and the life everlasting. Amen.

True Reformation Theology

This is a hymn that may answer some questions regarding the connection between works and faith in a truly reformed theology.









"The Means of Grace"
Charles Wesley

Long have I seemed to serve thee Lord
with unavailing pain
Fasted and Prayed and read thy word
And heard it preached in vain

Oft did I with th' assembly join
And near Thine altar drew;
A form of godliness was mine,
The power I never knew

To please thee thus, at last I see
In vain I hoped and strove
For what are outward things to thee
Unless they spring from love?

I see the perfect law requires
Truth in the inward parts
Our full consent our whole desires
Our undivided hearts

But I of means have made my boast
Of means and idol made
The spirit in the letter lost
The substance in the shade

I rested in the outward law
Nor know its deep design
The length and breadth I never saw,
The height of love divine

Where am I now, or what my hope?
What can my weakness do?
JESU, to Thee my soul looks up,
"Tis Thou must make it new

Thine is the work, and Thine alone
But shall I idly stand?
Shall I the written rule disown,
And slight my God's command?

Wildly shall I from Thine turn back,
A better path to find;
Thy holy ordinance forsake,
And cast Thy words behind?

Forbid it gracious Lord, that I
Should ever learn Thee so!
No - let me with Thy word comply,
If I Thy love would know

Suffice for me, that Thou, my Lord,
Hast bid me fast and pray:
Thy will be done, thy name adored;
'Tis only mine t' obey.

Thou biddest me search the Sacred Leaves
and taste the hallowed Bread:
The kind commands my soul receives,
And longs on Thee to feed.

Still for Thy lovingkindness, Lord,
I in Thy temple wait;
I look to find Thee in Thy word,
Or at Thy table meet.

Here, in Thine own appointed ways,
I wait to learn Thy will:
Silent I stand before Thy face,
And hear Thee say, "Be still!"

"Be still - and know that I am God!"
'Tis all I live to know;
To feel the virtue of Thy blood,
And spread its praise below.

I wait my vigour to renew,
Thine image to retrieve,
The veil of outward things pass through,
And grasp in Thee to live.

I do the thing Thy laws enjoin,
And then the strive gives o'er:
To Thee I then the whole resign;
I trust in means no more.

I trust in Him who stands between
The Father's wrath and me:
JESU! Thou great eternal Mean,
I look for all from Thee.

Defining Worship Leadership

If worship can be defined as seeing God and being stirred to interact with and respond to Him, then worship leadership should be filled with efforts to:




- Consistently create environments of interaction with God

- Accurately depict the character and beauty of God

- Honestly stir the affections of others for God, and

- Graciously encourage appropriate responses to God

Thoughts?

Marvelous Grace of Our Loving Lord

I thought the whole "my grace is sufficient" thing was a way out of the pain inflicted by the thorn. Like, "If you'll focus on my grace, then the thorn won't hurt as bad. Just be positive." I know God has a better command of English grammar than that, but he also has a better grasp on grace than that, so let's not quibble. I experienced true weakness yesterday.

When I was completely weak,

• God's grace alone was sufficient to keep me from being destroyed by my own unworthiness.
• God's grace alone kept me from the condemnation that was my rightful my wage.
• God's grace alone kept me from my damnable pride.
• God's grace alone kept me from despair.

If not for my weakness, I would not likely have been truly cognizant of any of these saving graces, though they preexisted my sinful condition. It took my weakness to reveal the power of Christ in me. Therefore, I boast gladly in my weakness.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jesus Ninja

Sometimes Christian small groups take on an element known as "accountability." A typical session will go something like this:

Accountee: "Hold me accountable, brother. I just keep on coveting Bill's car."

Accountant: "Come 'on, brosef. It's about time you kicked this habit like a Jesus Ninja. You can't keep coming back week after week with that amateur act. You gotsta move on. I'll be prayin' fer ya."

Accountee: "Thanks bro. I do need prayer..."

Oh, the camaraderie. Oh, the man-love. Oh the terrible theology...

But they're confessing their sins one to another, right? Yep. And isn't there supposed to be accountability within the body? Yep. And should we rebuke and encourage our brothers, spurring them on toward love and good deeds, right? Yep. But here are some helpful distinctions that should keep you from walking away from your group time like it was a visit with your parole officer(s):

1.) We are not accountable TO one another. We are accountable FOR one another. Check out the whole "your brother's blood cries out" episode and the Noaic covenant. Each man is accountable not only for himself, but also for his brother. So instead of taking confessions like a disinterested and anonymous cleric, we're going to be up into each other's business. His problem is your problem. Kill it dead.

2.) Changing behaviors does not a disciple make. Transformation is not a rearranging of parts. You are not Optimus Prime. We are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. If your brother is continuing in a particular sin, it is because he is believing a particular lie. Identify the false doctrine and kill it with truth. Kill it dead.

3.) Don't forget that we are justified by our faith and not our behavior. We're not attacking our sin so that we can stand before God as perfect saints. We are attacking our sin because we already stand before God as perfect saints. Sin is not becoming a son of God. It is beneath us and it precludes our mission. Kill it dead.

As Close as the East is to the West

It has been said that Micah 6:8 sums up the message of the minor prophets:

"He has told you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?"

It is indeed a great summation of the voices crying out in the near-eastern desert, but I would contend that it also encapsulates western thought quite nicely, and furthermore that the best of the west might help us to better understand this theological feast of the east.

Three imperatives are presented here: 1.) to do justice, 2.) to love kindness, and 3.) to walk humbly with God. I, like Augustine, do not believe it a stretch to see God's wisdom revealed through certain pagan men's honest (albeit blind) pursuit of the ideal, and therefore I have unapologetically assigned these actions to Greek counterparts: ethos, pathos, and logos.

"Do justice." Ethos: the "oughtness" of things, is characterized by the heart (will). The pursuit of justice and deconstruction of injustice is to be the daily activity of a Godly person. Unlike Kant's morality, ethics is not duty-based. Aristotle, like David, knew that the actions of an ethical man flow from his heart. The justice we do flows from who we are, not who we would like to become if we could only do enough justice. We are sons of God, the Just: therefore we do justice. This is goodness in the fullest degree.

"Love kindness." Pathos: the passion of things, is characterized by the gut (desire). The literal translation for this lovingkindness in Colossians 3 is "bowels of mercy" It's an intense and almost uncontrollable desire; an unquenchable thirst for something: in this case, for the Hebrew "hessid." Hessid is mercy of the deepest unction: reconciling the broken, redeeming the fallen, upholding the frail and celebrating the weak. In the Western world, bourgeois art was characterized by the beauty of raw desire. Taken at its purest, we can see in Bernini's "The Ecstasy of St. Teresa" the rapturous encounter of a fallen woman with her passionate lover of a God. A lover who kindly pursues His unworthy beloved even to his own death: this is beauty to the fullest degree.

"Walk humbly with your God." Logos: the reason of things, is characterized by the mind (thought). As two sides of a coin, humility captures the essence of truth. C.S. Lewis, the great synthesizer of western ideas, stated that "humility is not thinking less of oneself, but thinking of oneself less." Man could do with a lot less thinking of himself, this is for certain. The conflict of human history in its entirety can be attributed to man's unwillingness to lay himself aside. But the profundity of our arrogance is far outweighed by the profundity of God's humility. St. Paul reminds us that we owe our eucatastrophe to the ultimate humility of Jesus Christ, who, being in his very nature God, though it not a position to be obtained, but instead humbled Himself, even to death on a cross. The cross is truth to the fullest degree.*

I find myself wondering whether I'm stretching or not when I make these arguments, but it sure is good exercise. I hope my thoughts are a help to those who read them and are utterly forgettable to those who might be hindered by them.

*Paul also tells us that the cross is foolishness to the Greeks, but even John uses the Logos as the subject of his gospel. We can quibble on this one if you'd like; I think I could be swayed by some good rhetoric.

The False Poverty Gospel

I could be reaching here, but I'd like to expose a potentially trendy heresy before it becomes a popular one. This is my theory: As is the case with many breakout theological trends, the prosperity gospel is developing an antithetical counterpart which is equally destructive and even more deceptive than the original. I'm calling it the false poverty gospel and it goes like this:

"Because I am saved, all of my treasure is in heaven, and I therefore live like a vagrant. If anyone questions whether I love Jesus, I need only point to my lack of worldly goods as unquestionable proof that I do. Furthermore, anyone who keeps any worldly goods is clearly a rich young ruler who has walked away from Christ."

I have worded this in such a way that it sounds ridiculous, but that's the point. Of course it's ridiculous when you say it out loud. And yet I see this attitude expressed non-verbally on a consistent basis nowadays. I also see people who have had much taken away from them due to economic difficulties beyond their control become quite self-righteous about their new found simplicity. Claiming poverty as proof of God's love is no less ridiculous than claiming prosperity as proof of God's love.

Poverty is not fruit of the Spirit. It is a condition which can allow us to have faith in the provision of God through others. Prosperity is not a fruit of the Spirit. It is a condition which can allow others to have faith in the provision of God through us. We are justified by grace through faith in the prosperous poverty and impoverished prosperity of Christ.

Mute Math's Electrifying Track

I've been asked about my thoughts regarding "Electrify," track 8 on Mute Math's new album, Armistice. I can only assume this is because the song seems to play fast and loose with the tenaciously guarded boundaries of purity as established by conservative ideals. Within the context of pop music in general the lyrics are far from racy and might even pass as wholesome in comparison to most. However, the expressed faith of the band members forces their more conservative listeners into the position of either censors or defenders of the group. Mute Math seems to have struck a sensitive chord here. They seem to be endorsing (or at least depicting) a lifestyle at odds with the values their brothers and sisters, so if they wish to retain communion with the southern conservative church, this song must be defended or rescinded.

Now. A literal reading of the text seems to establish that the poet is captivated by a woman with such intensity that she is in control of the development of the relationship as he is rendered helpless by his infatuation. There are boundaries established which he hopes she will break because he is very pleased with how their chemistry makes him feel. He hopes to convince her to move at a quicker pace very soon. He would like for her to be committed to him. There are sexual undertones. Does this fairly encapsulate what's going on here?

"Electrify" is not exactly the depiction of a healthy, "Song of Solomon" type relationship. It more faithfully evokes a different Solomonic relationship: that of the foolish man and the adulteress as seen in Proverbs 5. It is clear that this portrait of a relationship is at odds with the ideal image. No argument there.

Now before we make a judgment on this piece of art, we first should begin with a few questions:

1.) What does its context say about a piece of work?, and

2.) Is an artist obligated to present a portrait of the ideal at all times?

I hesitate to answer these questions because this is the point at which I might move from general consensus to an offensive position and I try not to be divisive over non-essentials. Nevertheless I was asked, and since we're all on the same team here and agree to play nice, I will oblige.

I believe Milton gave a very accurate picture of Satan in his Paradise Lost and, separated from the whole of the work, the poem could be viewed as a flagrant celebration of the Evil One. Now obviously the differences between Milton's opus and Paul Meaney's pop are magnificent, but I hope you will generously consider the point. The depiction of evil is justified inasmuch as it points clearly to the depravity left in the void of Glory. If you disagree, you throw out the Bible. So does the entire album point to something greater than the sum of its parts? Does the darkness shown in a single track illuminate the brightness of its negative image? I think one could make an argument that it does, but that's not my purpose here.

I will only suggest that the themes of the album and indeed its name indicate the underlying situation of a war. Just listen to the first track. Then the second. Then just keep going. He's not painting a pretty picture here. What kind of grace is it going to take to call a farewell to arms in this chaos? I think Meaney is searching for bigger answers than traditional moralism can provide. Immediately this separates his ends from those of puritan separatists. Meaney is considering himself an apostle to the Gentiles, and their world is a lot messier than the world of their Jewish homeboys. I think Paul is being honest about the thousands of voices of this world and I think he's painting a bigger picture than a single track can contain. Granted, our culture habitually ingests tracks as independent from the whole, but I would argue that his audience is not going to be led astray if they choose to take "Electrify" and ignore the rest of his work. They're already lost. One might say that Mute Math's decision not to be sold at Christian retail outlets was a severing of their association with the church. You can peddle that bull crap somewhere else. We are united by blood, not marketing. I guess what I'm saying is that if someone is offended by his message, they aren't his audience, and he made that fact clear when he decided not to allow his message soil their "holier-than-thou" shelves.

I hope I have communicated myself well, and I pray that my thoughts would be either helpful or forgettable to you in your pursuit of God's glory and His kingdom.

"Electrify"
Paul Meaney

She knows every little way to get the thing that she wants.
My heart is an oven, and she’s pushing the buttons right now
She’s gonna kill me with a stare and I’m very aware.
No matter what I say, she’s just walking away right now.
But I’ll be ready when she calls.

I’m in love with this girl, , that’s got my head, Electrified.
I hope that someday she might go too far, Go too far.
Cause all I can think about is me and her, Electrified.
I hope that someday she might take me home, and lose control.

Stall and wait is the game she plays,
She knows better than to try,
But I’m hoping she might wear down.
Oh it’s just tearing me apart getting stuck in the dark.
I’m doin’ what I can,
But she can’t understand right now.
But I’ll be ready when she calls.

I feel it, I feel it, I feel it, I feel it, I feel it, I feel it,
I feel it runnin’ through my bones.

I’m in wires for you girl,
You’re coursing through my mind.
All I think about is you,
Yeah I’m electrified.

Maybe sometime, sometime, sometime.
Say that you are mine, show me, sometime.

You gotta electrify.

I Do Not Believe in Equal Rights (and Neither Do You)

Should six-year-olds be allowed to purchase handguns? Should criminals be incarcerated? Should illegal immigrants have the right to vote? Are these people not among men, all of whom were "created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"?

I hear a lot of talk about private and individual rights these days. It seems silly to demand public recognition of one's private rights unless one first assents that the public's approval of his rights is essential. This is because we know intuitively that rights are always and only granted and withheld within the context of a community.

You see, individual rights are granted only as far as the governing body dictates that they do not conflict with the corporate rights of the community. Action was taken in the conception of our government in order to form a more perfect union. The purpose of government is actually to create healthy community: NOT to ensure the private rights of those residing therein. In fact, the goals of the constitution as set forth in its preamble are domestic, common, and general, NOT private, individual, or specific. Individual rights within the union are only of value if they do not corrupt or undermine the integrity of the union. (On the flip side, as long as those private rights do not affect the public sphere, shouldn't they be free from legislation, period?)

My goal here is not to judge which individual rights should be forcefully forfeited in the name of the common domestic good in general (although I do have my opinions), but rather to urge readers in the name of reason to give up all this extreme civil liberties nonsense. Even the word "civil" denotes the public and not the private. I am also interested to know to what extent granting some people more or less rights than others for the good of the community is possible given that humans tend toward the despotic when given the upper hand.

America is a tricky idea...

Bring It.

Sometimes we crawl into worship on Sunday morning. Frankly, it’s all we can do to get up out of bed in the morning after the week (or weekend) we’ve just had. We can’t wait to escape the world and be encouraged and uplifted. We need to hear that familiar song and be empowered by that inspiring message. The last thing we want is for this to be the week the pastors decided to do something “creative.” Why do they keep rearranging the chairs? What’s with the light show? Why does the guitarist always look like his dog just died? Did they really need to move the cross again? For once, can’t something be dependable? Why do they make it so hard for me to worship? My friend Karen said something really insightful this week. She said, “You bring your worship with you.”

Wow.

You know, in the Old Testament, that’s exactly what they did. They sacrificed their resources to secure an offering that would be a tangible representation of their need for a savior and they brought it with them to sacrifice at the altar. There, they laid it down in an act of penitent humility. They knew that they could not come empty-handed to the altar and expect their righteous God to be pleased with them.

I know what you’re thinking. Christ has offered himself as a sacrifice once and for all for our sin debt, but this doesn’t give us an excuse to show up empty-handed to the altar. Paul encourages us to offer ourselves as living sacrifices as an act of worship, not so that God will forgive our sins, but because He already has. This is a time to bring Him the good, the bad, and the ugly, and to say, “I give it all to You. You paid for it, now what do You want me to do with it?” It’s true that we bring that hard week with us to worship: the financial struggles, the marital spats, and the adolescent dramas; all of it. But with it, we should also bring the recognition of God’s abundant grace, an attitude of humility before God and man, and a posture that says, “I am a grateful child of God here to worship Him among His people.”

Our prayer while we are planning worship services is that we are creating an environment where the altar is big enough for everyone to come to lay their burdens down and pick up the yoke that is light. If something is different this week, ask God to reveal to You His divine desire for your worship through it Or in spite of it. God is much bigger than our services, but we always hope that our offering as planners is something that He is pleased to use in your lives. We are confident that if you are willing to bring it all with you and lay it all down at the cross, you’ll never walk away from worship empty handed again.

Waiting to Exhale, Eastern Europe Style

I spent some time in Catherine the Great's backyard a few days ago. After aimlessly roaming the masterfully landscaped gardens, my trek brought me to a Monetesque bridge overlooking the serene lake island, whose distant shore was sprinkled with colorful architectural wonders. The July air in St. Petersburg was dry and cool, and I took a breath which I desired never to exhale. There was a dull ache in my soul to remain in this moment forever. Catherine's winter palace lay just beyond the massive Roman aqueduct to my right. If I could simply make my residence there and retire to spend the rest of my days in idyllic bliss, all would be well. I wondered, (in typical Western capitalistic fashion), if I were to invest everything I own and spent the rest of my life in its pursuit, if something like this could ever be truly mine.

In order to understand the depth of my desire to remain in this particular moment, one might be helped to know that the previous ten days I had spent among the less majestic parts of Russia. After the demise of a regime whose greatest triumph had been to squelch belief in God and replace His statutes and daily bread with statues and millions dead, the Russian people were left with no anchor in present storms or hope for future shores. No Heavenly Father, no Big Brother, only orphans, widows, and alcoholics.

The cityscapes are a testament to the layers of tragic history upon which this strange nation is built. In Pskov, we see the triumphant Trinity Cathedral "protected" by a crumbling Medieval wall, surrounded by miles of soviet-era ghettoes (because everyone should be equally miserable), covered by a thick layer of MTV consumerism and saturated in alcohol. It was layer upon layer of influences, hidden within one another like their matryoshka nesting dolls. I was afraid that the more one exposed the deeper layers, the smaller they would be, until finally nothing remained upon which to build a life. Despite its 20 daily hours of sunlight, this was the darkest place I had ever been.

There are, of course, many somewhat redeeming pockets. One is the Pskov United Methodist Church, the joy of whose members stands in stark contrast to the blank despair seen on most faces. But the absent steeple on their new church building is a testimony to the broken spirits of a people persecuted by the secular and sacred alike. They are viewed as a disturbance by the government and a cult by the Orthodox Church. They therefore do not wish to stand out, but rather desire to worship in peace. However it seems in their attempt to guard their light from the howling Siberian wind, they've hidden it under a bushel (no!).

The towering temples of the Orthodox church remind one of Russia's famous Faberge eggs. They are intricately decorated and wrought with iconic symbolism, but ultimately they are empty shells, the life inside of which has long since passed away. In this way, Russia's godlessness is a classier version of the South's: everyone is baptised, there's a church on every corner, but the Kingdom is under seige and the people have neglected to mount up arms. I was told that when the medieval Russians would be under attack, they would burn their houses and seek refuge inside the cathedrals safely guarded behind kremlin walls. It seems this is a deeply engrained defensive tradition. Across the board, the Russian churches seem to have forgotten what it's like to be on the offensive in the war against darkness.

I was somewhat frustrated with the Lord for not sending me somewhere more glamourous like India or Africa, where at least I'd be meeting needs and would return home with pictures similar to Brad and Angelina's. Everyone waits with baited breath to hear the stories of team members who gave up the shirts on their backs to starving one-legged orphans and preached the gospel to thousands of eager pagans, forever changing the course of history for an unreached village.

But in post-Christian Eastern Europe, it seems everyone is quite comfortable with a perpetual state of desperation. "Why are you here?" seemed to be the unspoken question from the natives. "I have no idea," would have been the reply. There was no work to do. We weren't allowed to hold the orphans and the church had no vision for evangelism or discipleship. Why were we here? We were constantly either berated at bus stops or seen as a novelty to the natives.

So that breath of fresh air toward the end of this journey in the shadow of a palace and overlooking a luscious landscape was something I had no desire to release. But God spoke to me in that moment. "Exhale. Go back to the fields. This palace is not big enough, these lands not wide enough for my sons and daughters. Unless your rest is in Me, you will never truly rest. You have been a foreigner in this place, but you are a citizen of the Greater Kingdom. Do not settle for this pitiful oasis. Let the desperation of this country's situation remain a reality in your heart and continue to ache for these people until I come and make all things new. Seek first My Kingdom's reign among this falling empire. You are right to think that you can do nothing for them. I will bind the broken hearts and I will restore the years the locusts destroyed. My Word is Truth: the harvest is plenty whether you you ever in this life see its fruit or not. Take up My yoke; come and do My work."

Suddenly I was very grateful to be anywhere at all.

Omnibus, Mayne

I've been away for a long time, so this post comes in the form of a few short bursts of brain activity.

1.) Allie and I are reading This Momentary Marriage: a Parable of Permanence by John Piper. You're going to want to go ahead and pick that one up immediately. We've had two weddings in the past two weeks and have seen two of the most Godly couples we know exchange the same beautiful vows in two very different ceremonies. Each service was a celebration of God's glorious image seen in the mystery of two becoming one. My covenant with my wife has been richer by the hour as we've reflected over the past few weeks upon the incredible gift we've been given. Two more weeks until our second anniversary. What a joy.

2.) I wonder if a technology that replaces a man's job is really an advancement at all.

3.) I used to cite three reasons against my ever becoming a pastor. They were, a.) I'm too much of an idealist, b.) I have a hard time empathizing with other people's pain, c.) I wasn't really in love with Biblical studies. God has eradicated all three of these obstacles quite acutely over the past few months. So now I've become very open to the pursuit of this avenue.

4.) Mark and I have been writing some songs together recently and it's really made me struggle with where God is leading me lately. I had finally become comfortable with the idea of pursuing pastoral studies and now my passion for songwriting has been revived (along with some truly legitimate possibilities for success in that arena). I can't possibly pursue both graduate studies and creative expression with the fervor needed to excel at either. I haven't processed this one yet.

5.) I can't find enough time to read what I want.

Idol, Glee, and Cecily

I've been marinating on this for a couple of days now, and I'm finally ready to talk about it. I'll try not to go off on too many tangents, but I make no guarantees this early in the post.

Tuesday night, a couple million of my closest friends and I pledged our allegiance to the Fox network and the ideals it would have our country espouse. Chiefest among them: the ideal that each person is more special than everybody else. Seem silly? Of course it does, but only if you're being rational.

First, we tuned in at 7 central to see an average Joe become an object of worship over a matter of weeks. Heart-wrenching drama. Then, we stayed tuned to see what the critics were all raving about. I won't give you a play by play as to the reasons I loathed Glee. I will instead tell you that I watched with awe the gifted young nobodies who performed with such artistic and athletic excellence. Most of them will remain nobodies within the show's economy, except for the characters with whom you as the viewer are supposed to identify. They're gonna make it, after all. It reminded me of a good friend of mine who is every bit as talented as they, and who is struggling in Los Angeles against all probability toward the hope of fulfilling his Hollywood dream. He, like everyone else within earshot of America's saccharine sales pitch, has a dream of rising against all odds and being that somebody.

The problem is, for every American Idol, there hundreds of thousands who were not chosen. You, my friend, are MUCH more likely to be that person. You may even be more gifted than the guy who actually makes it; that clearly happens all the time. (Who keeps buying Taylor Hicks' albums? Seriously.)

So then, what about all the rejects? Hollywood wants to convince us that rejects are always somebody else, so that they can keep selling us whatever product that will help us rise above the losers and BE the somebody. Nevermind that if everyone were somebody, no one would be special. So the dream rises and falls on the idea that everyone should do everything in his or her power to be that .001% who ever sees fame. (Don't focus on the work of maintaining once it's arrived. Paltry details).

I am told almost daily that my daughter will be the smartest, most beautiful and talented young woman the world has ever seen. Let's be real: that's not likely. Of course she's got better odds than many kids, but just look at the sheer improbability. And I'm not willing to push her to reach for that goal when I know that it's nearly impossible goal to attain. Think of the terrible investment of our time and energy toward such a maybe. Especially when, even if it were to be reached, it's worthless as an end. Even if she were the supreme specimen of female, what then? Then she dies.

So why do we do it to ourselves? Because we have been given a desire and a need to be a part of glory. We're just wrong about the aim. Some of us will be more well-known or liked by virtue of the fact that some of us are more impressive than others. But this is not the point of our abilities. They are given us to give back to our communities in service to the only One who deserves fame at all. So I'd rather train my daughter to love God and serve people. Honing our skills is only a worthy venture inasmuch as it helps us minister to others.

I had intended to be much more sarcastic and harsh in this criticism, but I just don't have the heart for it anymore. I'm just so sad for the people wasting their lives in pursuit of a rainbow. A mist. A vapor. Especially when Shekinah glory is palpable and everlasting.

The Agitator

My daughter is chewing on her agitator. I’d call it a pacifier, but that would be a misnomer. This thing pisses her off. I could call it the pissifier, but that conjures some unpleasant images. The point is, it’s something that’s supposed to have a calming effect upon her, but it in fact does exactly the opposite. Which is why if I want her to be truly pacified, I’m going to need to take away her pacifier. I am allowed to do this because I have authority over both my daughter and the things I have given her, and I love her enough to act in her best interest. Even if it momentarily upsets her.

This reminds me of Jesus’ sparring session (never a fair fight) with the Pharisees in Matthew chapter 12. Jesus tells the Pharisees that Sabbath time is over because their obsession with its parameters are preventing them from resting. Since he’s greater than the temple, he has this authority. After he follows through with his “discipline” by healing a man on the Sabbath, they plot to kill him.

Silly babies. That would be like my daughter deciding to reject me as her father so she could go on trying to be pacified by chewing on her agitator. Father knows best.

It Scares Me That I Believe This

We should give to the point that we have now placed ourselves in the position of the ones whom we sought to serve, having actually transferred our wealth for their sorrow. This is what Christ did, and we are to share in His sufferings. In community, grace is the outworking of our faith in others' lives. It's not about our overarching social action plans to erase poverty and pain from the planet. It's about being Christ where you are and extending your hands as far as they will reach. If, once they have met their threshold, the world drives spikes through them, you will know that you have been successful. In order to share in the Kingdom, we must first share in the Priesthood.

The Holy Spirit Is No Gentleman

Two friends came to me this week and told me that they had changed their minds on a very pivotal point of theology and they now agree with me. I was mortified. These are men with more education and experience than it looks like I'll have in a very long time, if ever. I was immediately struck with the weight of what they were telling me. Did the defense of my position convince them of its validity? I had not suggested that their interpretations were wrong; only that I had believed mine to be defensible. I am not comfortable with the idea of having that kind of influence over such men.

Peace came to me when I realized that the Christian is taught not with a convincing argument but rather with convicting acknowledgment. Believers are taught by the Holy Spirit, and He does not argue. He reveals. The Holy Spirit is not interested in whether you are convinced. He simply tells you what is true and expects you to respond appropriately. If you've ever heard me say Jesus is no gentleman, I assure you the same is true for His pneumatic counterpart. He is God, and He will come and go as He pleases.

This brings me peace, because I know that if my friends were originally convicted of their belief, no convincing would have changed their minds. Likewise, if they were merely convinced of their belief, then I could only have convinced them of a different one, and the Holy Spirit will teach them the truth between the two (or in spite of the two) in His own time. However, if they are now convicted, then we can be certain that our theoretical discourses had no consequential part to play in the transformation at all. For the LORD in His will not share His glory. If I played a part at all, it was because the LORD chose in His perfection to reveal His truth through me. Nothing of mine own was at play here.

I do not use this principle as an escape clause to teach whatever I desire without the fear of demagoguery, but rather as the blanket of grace over the fact that I am far too flawed to teach truth at all. Though grace may abound, I must make my effort toward righteousness. I simply do so without fear of eternal reproach when I inevitably fail.

God is good.

Evil Artichokes

The Prophet Jeremiah says,

"The heart is deceitful above all things
and beyond cure. Who can understand it?"

This is clearly a verse about artichokes.

We must be careful not to read this with our American concept of the heart. Most of us will not be silly enough to conclude after reading this passage that our primary cardiovascular organ is flawed and academically beyond the study of even the finest cardiologists. Instead, we immediately interpret this as referring to our emotions. We would therefore interpret the passage to mean that we should be careful not to be driven by our feelings, because they can lead us astray. While this advice is true, it is not the proper interpretation. As I said before, this is a verse about artichokes.

Jeremiah was a Hebrew, and as such, when he said "heart," he was referring to the seat, not only of emotions, but also of intellect and will. When the Old Testament writers refer to the heart, they do not mean the center of your cardiovascular system or even the center of your feelings. They mean the center of your self.

So when you read a Hebrew's warning about your heart, don't think anatomically or even emotionally. Think culinary. Artichoke hearts are the core of the vegetable: every bit of what's on the outside originated on the inside. If the heart is bad; it's all bad. This means we are wicked beyond hope of a cure and are therefore in desperate need of divine and miraculous regeneration. This also means that when the Bible says David was after God's heart, he was chasing the very core of Who God is.

The verse makes so much more sense when you realize it's talking about artichokes.

Degrees of Sin?

This quote is from a facebook message and is the context for my reply, which is the bulk of this post:

Hey Josh, Remember that old facebook note that I had for my paper on how we tend to rank sin but in God's eyes sin is sin? You had commented on that saying that that is not necessarily correct and you gave your views on it. Well, I deleted that note after I finished my paper but my mom for some reason is asking for me to get your response to that again. If you could tell me again, that would be great. Thanks so much

I vaguely remember the note, so I can only tell you what I think based on the info you've just given me.

The scripture usually in question here is James 2:10, which says, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."This is the great equalizer. The truth of this statement keeps people from becoming arrogant about their righteousness as compared to that of others. For example, "Well, I only steal paper clips, but you are a homosexual. Therefore, I'm not as sinful." We see from the context of James 2 that what we're dealing with is the law of freedom (the gospel) vs. the law of justice (Judaism). James is saying that even if we live by rules and regulations, there's no room to boast. Whether you're an olympic swimmer or an amateur, treading water from New York to London is a hopeless cause, and that's what the law requires.

But we don't live by rules and regulations. We live by grace. Even so, as Paul is clear to mention in Romans 6, we don't simply go on sinning just because grace is there to pick us up. Why? Because there are concequences to our actions. These consequences are both physical and spiritual, and both personal and communal. The heart of the gospel is to restore peace between God and man and between all humans. If an action or attitude does not restore that peace, then we want to avoid it, because our calling is to be peacemakers. If an action or attitude is destructive, well then that's certainly not peacemaking.

So all of that is a foundation for this: There are varying degrees by which some actions or attitudes tear down the kingdom.

Homosexuality is destructive physically because we are, as Paul says, "sinning against our own bodies," but also spiritually, because we are altering the image of God in our souls as male or female. It's destructive personally because it's one's own lifestyle choice, but it's destructive communally because society's foundational institution is the family, and when we're broken at the foundation, there's not much hope for us elsewhere.

Now, compare that to a stealing a paperclip, and you see the vast difference in consequences, even though both break peace with God and man and therefore warrant eternal seperation.

Stealing a paperclip is definitely a physical injustice and a personal flaw. It also has the potential to affect the safety of the community who can no longer trust their things to be safe, which has spiritual remifications for their ability to be vulnerable. Everything is interconnected, which is why a breaking of the peace in one aspect of life is a big deal, and why our job as peacemakers is a huge calling. The Hebrew idea of "shalom" is supposed to conjure an image of a carefully woven tapestry without a single thread out of place.

Now, compare stealing paperclips or being gay to judging your homosexual brother. Maybe there are no obvious physical consequences, but peace is certainly broken as you have become self-righteous, hateful, exclusive, and prideful. And those attitudes deprive your community of at least one peacemaker, which is in itself destructive.

We make far bigger a mess than we are helpful cleaning up, but think about a child who has spilled milk all over the floor. Maybe the child's "help" isn't really all that helpful in the cleaning up process, but their parent certainly does delight in the spirit of repentance and making things right if that child desires to "help" fix his or her mess by grabbing a towel and at least getting down there. God is gracious to us all as a loving Father, and we are peacemakers as a sign of our grateful hearts that he forgave us while we were yet milk-spillers.

In short: we're all hopelessly messy, but some messes are bigger than others and at least some messes are avoidable, so we should try our best not to spill any more and stop pretending like we aren't just as hopeless as the next guy.

Hope that helps.

Josh

Get Your Free Christian Worldview Today!

"Christian Worldview" is beyond classification as a buzz word these days. Frankly, I find it annoying. It's like a gimmick or a product we're trying to sell. Like if you simply assent to these 7 articles, you have Christ's view of the world and can now stop renewing your mind. Three easy steps to total intellectual arrogance!

There is only one Christian world view, and no one has it but Christ. However, He promises us that He will make us like Him as we seek Him first. As we begin to work toward an understanding of how we are to view and interact with the world as the body of Christ, we must be confident that we view Christ Himself correctly. It’s very easy to make God in our own image and never be transformed into His likeness because we are only gazing upon our own reflections. I find the vast majority of Christian Worldview curriculum void of any real Christology. That's simply absurd. An incomplete view of Christ makes a proper view of the world IMPOSSIBLE. So in order to develop a truly Christian world view, we must transform our views on EVERYTHING to His by the renewing of our minds as we gaze upon Him. Not a list of His opinions on this or that issue. He is not a presidential candidate. We will never get there this side of eternity, and we will certainly not get any closer by promoting anything but earnest and diligent study of the Bible.

By the way, in some circles, it's referred to as "Biblical worldview." A rose by any other name...

Are Worship Styles Biblical?

Why do we have different styles of worship? Does the Bible teach us to be divided along lines of musical or atmospheric preference in our worship of Almighty God? I'm going to offer a pretty thick quote for us to consider, but it's ok if you glaze over it, because I'm going to break it down afterward. William Nichols writes in his book Jacob's Ladder,

"The foundation of Christian worship is Christ Himself, as One Who is both the Divine Word [REVELATION] and man's perfect RESPONSE to that Word. If we make it our endeavor, as we think of the different aspects of worship, to RECOGNIZE His work, we shall find the essence of worship, as well as the true concern of the different tradition, and also the unity which these differences obscure."

It's hard to wade through because it's the thesis of an entire book, so let's break it down:

1.) Proper worship happens when a creature responds appropriately to his or her Creator. God is always revealing Himself to His creation, and when we respond to Him in a way that shows we are surrendered to His will in our lives, we are worshipping appropriately. Which is to say, we are valuing Him and not ourselves or our fellow creatures. We set aside time on Sunday mornings to do this as a body, but we should always be worshipping (Romans 12:1).

2.) Christ is the ultimate revelation of God. Philippians 2, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, and pretty much every other chapter of the entire Bible emphatically claims this to be true.

3.) Christ is also the perfect responder to God. Jesus says in John 5, "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." Jesus responds to revelation like a pro. That guy is a worshipping machine.

4.) Therefore, Christ is the ultimate worshipper, and as such, he is both the object of our worship and our example of what worship of Him should look like.

5.) Nichols then confidently asserts that if we study how Christ worshipped, we will find that all of the things which divide the church in worship will begin to fade. All are united in Christ. I agree with his assessment wholeheartedly.

So why different services? The gospel is the good news, but there's also bad news. The bad news is, we're not perfect. The good news is, we are being perfected by the Holy Spirit's transforming work in our lives. One of the key elements of pastoring is meeting people where they are. Where they are right now is ALL OVER THE PLACE. Equally important is loving them enough not to leave them there.

Not that we'll eventually get all of those "charis-maniacs" in the rock n' roll room down the hall over to the sacred sanctuary, or finally thaw the "frozen chosen" folks and bring them over to Seabrook Hall where the spirit moves. We can't even get the people within those individual rooms to agree on much. But in the Kingdom of God, those things don't even matter at all. They are so small compared to the glorious riches of Christ's presence in and among us. Worship styles are not Biblical because they're not even a big enough deal to make it into the Bible.

My prayer is that one day the church will be pleased to worship together without division of any kind, least of all, "style." But since we're not there yet, let's turn our eyes upon Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith, and He'll get us there together and in one piece someday. May our great triune God, Three-in-One perfectly united, make us more truly in His image even this day as we worship Him in spirit and in truth.