A Lesser Yeshua

The Gospel Is Better than Nice

2011-03-24T11:01:00.003-05:00

So this is pretty old by now, but still relevant (is that even possible?!?!):

A vocal minority claims that the film Avatar is racist on a fundamental level because it propagates the archetypal white man coming in as the messiah of the savages.

"It's really upsetting in many ways," said Avatar star Robinne Lee, who is black with Jamaican and Chinese ancestry. "It would be nice if we could save ourselves."

It would be, but we never can. And as "upsetting in many ways" as that is, we must accept the bad news before we can receive the good news.

*Let the record show that Jesus is not white.

The Primary Purposes of Church Music

2011-03-09T23:31:00.000-06:00

to aid the memorization of doctrine and scripture
to facilitate active participation in united confessions of faith
to stir the affections for Christ

I try and let these shape every worship service I lead. Are there more?

Nevertheless...

2011-03-01T17:10:00.009-06:00

Conjunctions are so important. "I generally believe in pacifism, nevertheless I must kill you now, for you have eaten the last pink Starburst."

I believe Jesus' prayer in the Garden would have been incomplete had he merely said, "Thy will be done." You know, as if he was supposed to just man up and John Wayne the Passion. Just put on your poker face and stare down the Enemy. No, Jesus didn't suppress his own identity in order to glorify His Father's. Instead, along with his unconditional surrender to the perfect will of His Father, Jesus also disclosed His own hurts, fears, and desires to His Daddy. I think this is VITAL for us as we think about what it means to live in relationships where authority and submission come into play. Jesus modeled this perfectly by making not only His surrender but also His vulnerability complete. He may have stood silent before his mockers, but not so before the True Judge. Jesus knew and even said that Pilate held no power over Him, but His plea was loud and clear to the One in Whom authority did rest. "I don't want this!" But a real man knows his place.

Nevertheless... Your will be done.

We often think that submitting to authority subverts our individuality. This is not so. It only prioritizes it according to what will bring God the most glory. I hate that the words "dominate" and "Lord" have etymological ties (domini), but Jesus showed us a different way to view "Lord." He hearkened his ear to the cry of His beloved. He had compassion upon the harassed and helpless. All authority (dominion) in heaven and on earth belonged to Him, and so He used that position to have Himself brutally murdered for the sake of our needs. That's not domination - that's lordship.

On her best days, when my wife comes to me for something, she comes having already committed to follow my lead as a fully invested supporter. But that doesn't mean she has to agree with me or keep her opinions to herself. In fact, she knows that my devotion to her means that she has more influence than anyone else in my life, and I will only tell her no when I can see no other alternative. She trusts me in that and so she feels free to be both vulnerable and submitted at the same time. She should have nothing to hide. It would grieve me to know that she had ever withheld her feelings from me in the name of obedience to me. Now translate that to your own prayer life (hint: you're the bride).

Postscript - I can sympathize with people who would prefer an egalitarian approach to marriage on the basis of having seen this trust continually violated. Nevertheless, I believe complementarian marriage reflects a very Biblical model of these relationships - both the complete vulnerability of the beloved and the final accountability of the lover for having seen to her well-being over and above his own. Jesus, as his Father's beloved and His beloved's Husband, modeled both positions FLAWLESSLY. Let us imitate Him in whatever role we might play.

Cities Apart

2011-02-08T15:47:00.003-06:00

Several years ago I met a quiet curly-headed kid who could shred on the guitar. He's now one of my truest friends, and I can't imagine life without him. A couple of years ago, we began writing some worship songs together, and then with the support of our church, we began the recording process. On March 5th, we will release Cities Apart. I'm really proud of this work, and I hope it's a blessing to everyone who purchases it. The profits will support refugees in Memphis. We're not making a huge deal out of that for fear of exploiting our brothers and sisters, but we do want people to know that the object of our affection is the Lord whose concern is for the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner, and so we're putting your money where our heart is.

You can become a fan on Facebook to stay updated,

Or visit www.citiesapartband.com.

Andrew Peterson, Tolkien Style

2011-02-03T12:37:00.001-06:00

"I am convinced that poets are toddlers in a cathedral, slobbering on wooden blocks and piling them up in the light of the stained glass. We can hardly make anything beautiful that wasn’t beautiful in the first place. We aren’t writers, but gleeful rearrangers of words whose meanings we can’t begin to know. When we manage to make something pretty, it’s only so because we are ourselves a flourish on a greater canvas. That means there’s no end to the discovery. We may crawl around the cathedral floor for ages before we grow up enough to reach the doorknob and walk outside into a garden of delights. Beyond that, the city, then the rolling hills, then the sea. And when the world of every cell has been limned and painted and sung, we lie back on the grass, satisfied that our work is done. Then, of course, the sun sets and we see above us the dark dome of glittering stars." - Andrew Peterson

If you liked that but you've never read "Leaf, by Niggle" (pronounced Ni'juhl), check out J.R.R. Tolkien's heart-wrenching short story celebrating an artist's journey into sanctification.

The Sci-fi Writers of the 20th Century Would Flip.

2011-02-02T11:57:00.000-06:00

Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert comic strip, calls today's humans "cyborgs."

“If a cyborg can remove its digital eye and leave it on a shelf as a surveillance device, and I think we all agree that it can, then your cellphone qualifies as part of your body.” He sees the phone as an exobrain: “Your regular brain uses your exobrain to outsource part of its memory, and perform other functions, such as GPS navigation, or searching the internet. If you’re anything like me, your exobrain is with you 24-hours a day.” - via moreintelligentlife.com

Implications? I'm thinking many.

Tweeders

2011-01-29T11:14:00.002-06:00

There's an implied element to Twitter that is conspicuously ignored in its language. Can there be so many followers without leaders? Are you willing to admit that following someone means you're allowing them to lead you in some way? Are your own tweets leading anyone anywhere worth going?

The Insufficiency of Time

2011-01-17T17:07:00.001-06:00

"Time heals all wounds"

Who said it? It's not in the Bible. Most would attribute this proverb to Chaucer, who actually got it wrong here. It's vaguely comforting; it's just not really very true. It's the kind of popular line people pull out when they are groping around in their ill-stocked memories for something compassionate to say to a grieving friend (a good reason to memorize Scripture). When I look back on some of the things I did and said in my teens, I often ease my regret and disgust with the thought that these events occurred over ten years ago and I'm a different person now. I can forgive myself for having been so daft and coarse. On a much smaller scale, if I can keep myself from gnawing my nails for a week, I often look at my former nail-biting self as a sort of monster, far removed from the civil human I am now.

But let me ask you this: if the man were caught today who had murdered your brother ten years ago, would you accept his version of that defense? "I was a different person then. Time has healed this wound. I am not responsible for what that young man I was once did so long ago." A general rule of jurisprudence is that if the argument only sounds good when you're using it to defend yourself, then it's probably not a good argument.

Time cannot erase consequences. It cannot separate you from culpability that you have earned for yourself. It cannot make you into a different person. In fact, most often time festers wounds, multiplies bitterness, and hardens hearts. Time is no friend to the hurting. That's why Hell is such a believable reality to me.

But Jesus IS a friend to the hurting. And if you'll let Him, He will take that time, along with all the mess that is your life and He will forgive and recreate every bit of it.

He will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears
   from all faces;
he will remove his people’s disgrace
   from all the earth.
            The LORD has spoken.
Isaiah 25:8

"Be very careful then, how you live, not as unwise but as wise, and redeeming the time, for these days are wicked." Ephesians 5:15-16

Nietzsche is Dead. God is Risen. Christ Will Come Again.

2011-01-06T12:52:00.001-06:00

Nietzsche misidentified the body of the god whom he pronounced dead. His philosophy had successfully attacked and killed the Supreme Ontology of Greek metaphysics, not Yahweh of the Jews. Easy mistake to make, considering the contagious Neoplatonist conceptions of the God of Scripture found in Origen and Augustine. In fact, the Great I AM had his own people to kill him, but that was 1900 years prior to Nietzsche, and unlike the philosopher's own demise, Jesus' death just didn’t take.

I wish you a very surprising Epiphany today.

What Happens When I Read Descartes in the Morning

2011-01-04T10:06:00.003-06:00

The attempt to divorce reason from revelation is itself irrational. Reason cannot exist without revelation because a grammar cannot generate its subject. Reason is form and not content, which is to say it can only contain something that exists independently of it. The life of the mind is an attempt to make sense of that with which it has been confronted. The mind is an operating system; revelation is a series of programs. The ability of reason to arrive at Truth is contingent upon:

a.) the furnishing of sufficient and reliable premises by an outside source,
b.) one’s ability to receive these revelations accurately, and
c.) one's ability to interpret and meaningfully combine these to produce useful conclusions.

I think an honest and humble assessment will show that this is an uncommon confluence of circumstances. Our mental logic boards are filled with viruses and there's a lot of bad information out there to begin with. God help us.

Recent Logos/Ethos/Pathos Sighting

2011-01-03T20:31:00.000-06:00

Calvinist philosopher John Frame claims that knowledge has three perspectives to it: the normative perspective, situational perspective, and existential perspective.

The normative perspective asks, “What do God’s norms [the Bible] direct us to believe?”
The situational perspective asks, “What are the facts?”
The existential perspective asks, “What belief is most satisfying to a believing heart?”

Sounds an awful lot like:

ethos (ought = goodness)
logos (facts = truth)
pathos (satisfaction = beauty)

I'm sure Mr. Frame cited my blog in his dissertation, so I won't bother to check. Although I am a little miffed that he botched the order. Amateur.

Evolutionary Theory Still Evolving

2010-12-28T17:54:00.001-06:00

I read in the today's paper that archeologists have discovered a homo sapiens tooth they're dating back 400,000 years; around twice as old as the previous benchmark for the genesis of humans. Oh, and one more thing: it was found in Israel, moving the origins of man from Africa to the Middle East. Two points for the creationists?

Now I hope there aren't any creationists out there getting hopeful about how this has completely obliterated the case for evolution. That would be the same kind of blind hubris that you mock in the straw-man caricatures of your avowed enemies, the evolutionists. This is merely a different set of facts to plug into the same old Darwinian Secular Humanist religious framework. Evolutionists will no more budge their faith at this discovery than you did yours when they presented you with their own set of extremely convincing evidences (which do exist).

The war will not be won in the mind alone when the battleground has spiritual dimensions.

An Open Letter to Santa Claus

2010-12-23T12:28:00.006-06:00

Dear Santa,

I'm not going to try and convince you I've been nice this year or justify my attitudes and behaviors. I've actually been rather naughty. I've done things that should have remained undone. I've left undone things that should have been done. I've said things that should have remained unsaid. I have forgotten who I am and what I ought to do. I have reveled in evil and caused suffering to my friends and family. In fact, if I'm perfectly honest, I've never deserved a spot on the nice list. I owe you some presents back, I guess.

So this is just a letter to say I'm removing myself as a candidate for future presents. Don't worry about me though. I talked to Jesus and He said even though I suck at life, I can have all His stuff anyway if I let His Dad adopt me. You're too busy to help me be the person you're asking me to be anyhow. Jesus is a bit more hands-on with my sanctification, and He's going to make me just like Him. Don't be too hard on yourself though. You're just a fictional, finite creature and He's almighty God. Who could compete?

Glad tidings and great joy,

Joshua Smith

The Real Santa Claus?

2010-12-19T20:15:00.000-06:00

The legend goes that during the Council of Nicaea, St. Nicholas of Smyrna became so agitated at the heresy being promulgated by Arius of Egypt, that he rose and struck the heretic in the face. That tale is probably not true, but neither is all the the reindeer crap, so I think I'd prefer to celebrate Christmas by physically accosting schismatics rather than just buying stuff and giving elves the credit. How about you?

My Daily Bread

2010-12-14T10:35:00.001-06:00

I sat in the middle of Panera Bread and wept as I read these lines from the great George MacDonald, chastising me as if he were my own stern Scottish Grandfather:

“If you who set yourselves to explain the theory of Christianity, had set yourselves instead to do the will of the Master, the one object for which the gospel was preached to you, how different would now be the condition of that portion of the world with which you come into contact! Had you given yourselves to the understanding of His Word that you might do it, and to be the quarrying of material wherewith to buttress your systems, in many a heart by this time would the name of the Lord be loved where it now remains unknown.” (Unspoken Sermons MacDonald 159)

As I came to the end of the passage, Matthew Ballamy of Muse was pleading, “Why can’t we start it over again?” into my headphones. One does not often hear the Holy Spirit so clearly.

apatheism

2010-12-08T23:55:00.000-06:00

I had a conversation tonight with a college student whom I love about his concern over his own loss of faith. I asked him if he was dissatisfied with agnosticism, and he replied that it was more like he just didn't care anymore. I quipped something about "apatheism*," and later mused about how common that posture seems to be. The faith we're presenting to them must be pretty underwhelming, or else they are just being amused to death. Probably both. Until we show them something radical, I'm afraid we're looking at a rising population of apatheists in our future.

*Apparently I'm not so original, because a quick Google search reveals that the concept of apatheism preexisted my own epiphany.

Pick the One You Find Least Attractive

2010-11-27T12:10:00.000-06:00

"For some people, conversion is a call to arms to fight the enemy, but for others, it is a call to fight oneself and have a beer with the enemy." - Anthony Esolen

The Infallible Rule for Life

2010-11-19T21:54:00.000-06:00

I grew up in a culture that wore this bumper sticker slogan proudly:

"God said it. I believe it. That settles it."

I wonder how my world would have been different if instead it had been:

"God commands it. I obey it. That settles it."

I think maybe better.

Living Liturgy

2010-11-16T15:20:00.000-06:00

When the members of his synagogue complained that the words of the liturgy did not express what they felt, Abraham Heschel, the great philosopher of religion, replied wisely and very Biblically. He told them that the liturgy wasn’t supposed to express what they felt; they were supposed to feel what the liturgy expressed. To be taught by the Bible to pray is to learn to want and feel what the Bible expresses—to say what it means and mean what it says. God’s Prayer Book, 7

Reformation Day for All Saints

2010-10-31T15:58:00.007-05:00

In honor of Reformation Day and All Saints', I've been reflecting on Ephesians 2:8-10.

I'm working on an idea that maybe at the heart of the Calvin/Wesley conversation lies the preference of one prepositional phrase over the other from the statement "Salvation is by faith through grace." Each camp pledges the entire statement proudly, but I think each subconsciously emphasizes the concepts that support their theology. The Calvinist will stop short, ending with verse 9, "lest no man should boast" as the natural conclusion of God's work of Grace, while the Armenian will skip to verse 10 "created in Him to do good works" as the natural conclusion of man's work of Faith. Each uses the text to launch out into familiar territory. Each is an incomplete expedition. Let's now endeavor to pioneer the entire landscape of our salvation.

I've said before that prepositions are my favorite part of speech because of their ability to express relationships with precision. Based on those used, I'd like to suggest that faith is the door through which we receive the gifts of grace, which together offer a complete salvation (past, present, and future).

Faith challenges us to rest from the past, remain in the present, and redeem our future.
Grace gifts us with pardon from the past, power in the present, and promise for the future.

I think all saints would agree that active faith gives access to grace that:

RESTS in His PARDON for our past
REMAINS in His POWER for our present, and
REDEEMS his PROMISES for our future.

"O the joy of full salvation!
Glory, glory, to His Name!"
DeVenter, 1896

When Am I EVER Going To NEED This?

2010-10-29T14:23:00.001-05:00

Hint for teachers: when they ask "When am I ever going to need this?" Tell them. If you don't know, then find out. Some people need vision for motivation to succeed. Kids who ask the above question are almost always that breed.

For example, I discovered years later that Algebra is useful for developing the ability to think logically from an abstract perspective, enabling the thinker to be detached from the content and thus more objective with his or her thought progression. This discipline develops higher thinking skills. If I had known that 10 years ago, I might have tried harder.

But wait... Then I would have passed Algebra II the first time and I wouldn't have needed Allie to help me pass it the second go 'round and then I wouldn't have started dating her, so we wouldn't have gotten married, and we wouldn't have Cecily...

On second thought teachers, keep enabling mediocrity by forced academic servitude without educational vision. That worked out for me.

(As a side note, the above "change of heart" was a functional illustration of how reason can suffer when personal investment muddies the components of the argument, eg. I'd rather be married now than academically successful years ago, so I'll settle for a flawed argument that supports my favored outcome.)

Yay for Algebra, and yayer for knowing what its value is.

Captain Eugenics?

2010-10-28T11:42:00.000-05:00

Captain America is a movie about a scrawny boy who wants to fight the evil Nazis who perform evil scientific experiments to create perfect human specimens because some humans are better than others. ...So he lets America do a scientific experiment on him to make him a perfect human specimen. Am I missing something here? Is there no cognitive dissonance in this?

“The interesting thing about this character is that he’s an everyman who in the course of a few minutes become a perfect human specimen." - Captain America Director Joe Johnston

Jesus Doesn't Need PR.

2010-10-27T10:17:00.000-05:00

There's a church in town touting a banner that reads as follows:

"We've been called non-traditional... progressive... even radical... Funny, that's what they said about Jesus."

I'd like to point out 3 things.

1. Those things have been said about Jesus, but as the Lord Himself pointed out, it doesn't matter who or what others say He is. It matters who HE says he is. Because, let's be honest - He was also called blasphemer, traitor, and home-wrecker. I don't know if we want those adjectives affixed to the side of our buildings. Word on the street can't be sufficient criteria for our resume. It's unreliable.

2. The aim of the banner is two-fold: a.) to distance themselves from the stereotype of conservative churches in the area, and b.) to suggest their superiority over such churches by claiming that their antithesis to conservatism is what's really Christ-like. This is supposed to be a blow to conservatives, who seriously contemplate their WWJD bracelets and look at liberals as those to be pitied. Listen, if traditional churches are teaching heresy, come out and say it. Don't suggest. Doctrine is serious business; not an ad-campaign.

3. The ad is relatively clever, in a low-brow political kind of way. But the problem is, I've seen the same kind of thing on conservative church grounds. There are entire websites devoted to posting pictures of church signs ("If you think it's hot here..."). The clergyman feels pressure to keep the the ad space fresh and appealing, so he comes up with rhymes and puns to fill the space and he goes back to his study secretly proud of himself. And the people he's "trying to reach" stop in front of the church, take a snapshot, mockingly post it on the web, and never dream of actually attending the church because advertising doesn't save lives.

Let's let our lifestyle be the advertisement. If they want to know where your church meets after seeing that, then you can be pretty sure you're representing Jesus for who He really is, and not just what's been rumored.

The City Sacred - A Verse

2010-10-04T15:58:00.002-05:00

The City Sacred stands secured, her streets now bathed in blood

Which washed away the wicked stain that had endured the flood

Though every incantation known be uttered by a priest

No other substance interposed could save her from the siege

Worshiping Community in the Worshiping Community

2010-09-28T10:10:00.000-05:00

I've begun to see a pattern lately of people accidentally worshiping community instead of the Trinity. Their search for Christian fellowship leads them to believe that community is an Biblical ideal to build towards, rather than a current reality to be participated in. Christ has purchased our fellowship in full. Our job is to acknowledge it in its every form and participate in it wherever we find ourselves among fellow believers. Don't LOOK for the ideal. BE the ideal.

Psalm 84 and the Theory of Relativity

2010-09-21T16:13:00.003-05:00

The first time I heard Psalm 84, it was put to song, and I didn't understand it. One day anywhere can't possibly be as good as a thousand elsewhere, right? It's over too soon. Well, I was stupid. Time is relative in many ways. That one day would last much longer than the other thousand.

The Greek uses two words which we commonly translate in the Bible as "time." Kronos refers to the quantity of time, or the measurement of duration. This is where we get our word "chronology." Kairos refers to the quality of time, or the measurement of meaning. It's more like a season.

September 11, 2001 was, chronologically, just another day. As long as the earth kept going, September 11 was going to arrive, live out its commanded 24 hours, and disappear forever. But humans are not mere counters of things. We need to know why the numbers are significant. We are creatures of meaning. For humans, this day seems much larger in the collective memory than the day preceding it. I would venture to say that not many people recall with clarity where they were standing at 9:30 am on September 10, 2001, but the day after was different. It was not just another day. It was a much, much, bigger day. Lives have been dramatically changed. Global policies have shifted. Art has been created. Some say it was the last day of the 20th century, even though chronologically that's nonsense. Even greater weight than this can (and should) be given to the days of Jesus death and resurrection.

The past 10 days of my life were much longer than thousands of the days that preceded them. I had the privilege of traveling to beautiful places and encouraging people with my gifts in fruitful ways. I'll spend a long time unpacking them, reflecting upon them, making decisions based upon what happened within them. I don't recount them by day or hour, but by themes and motifs. In some ways, I'd prefer to do as Mary did, and keep them to myself, pondering the wonder of it all.

Time in the chronological sense will pass away, but the rich and gracious seasons of God's loving action toward us will roll on like an endless tide. Better is one day like that than any other indeed.

The Worship Tension Spectrum

2010-08-10T16:16:00.000-05:00

Inspired by some conversations with Memphis Area Worship Leaders, I began to think about the way some worship values compete with one another, and I began to craft the following spectrum with the help of my scholarly friend, Dr. Jason Hood. I intend to use this to help my own church think through our worship identity and to then use our conclusions as a touchstone to help us avoid any unnecessary conflict. I have attempted to give fair voice to all without exposing my biases. I thought this might help others think through these things for their own churches.

The Worship Tension Spectrum
We cannot order our worship with intentionality if we are not confessing and communicating our values. These are not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts, but they do create tension when we attempt to pursue them simultaneously. What does your church value? Are your worship efforts being hindered by duality of vision? Is there another tension you're dealing with that's not listed here?

1. Performance vs. Participation

Performance – God’s transcendent nature is best imparted through displays of excellence in presentation.
Participation - God is most pleased when the whole congregation has ownership and involvement.

Tension: Excellence is typically produced by limiting productivity to the specialized.

2. Attraction vs. Discipleship

Attraction – If more people could only get in the door, then they would be transformed by the gospel.
Discipleship –If people could only be transformed by the gospel, they would bring more people in the door.

Tension: Discipleship requires effort and obedience, which is unattractive.

3. Targeted vs. Inclusive

Targeted - Focusing on the fewer interests moves people with greater efficiency toward Kingdom goals.
Inclusive - Creating an environment enriched by diversity is a Kingdom goal.

Tension: Diversity requires compromise, which hinders agility

4. Dynamic vs. Conservative

Dynamic – Meaning emerges spontaneously from the immediate context of the worshipers.
Conservative – Meaning is preserved within the proven liturgies and traditions of the Church.

Tension: Spontaneity can create competing authorities

How Many Paces from the Shire is Mordor?

2010-07-31T12:05:00.001-05:00

The argument usually goes, the New Testament was written by and to people who came from a Jewish or Near-eastern background. They understood things like "priesthood" and "burnt offering." We don't. We understand "paparazzi" and "Twitter feed." People in the West today need to have the gospel contextualized in their own culture so that they can understand. Sounds reasonable.

Then I started to think about the LARP phenomenon. Let's use Lord of the Rings as an example. How many LOTR junkies do you know that actually come from Middle Earth? And yet if you ask them questions like, "Who were Beren and Lúthien?," or "Who was the final Steward of Gondor?", they will reply with such disdain for amateur questions, you would swear they had a hint of elven blood coursing through their virgin veins. They intimately know the history, even as far removed from the world of origin, because they buy the story. More than that, they actually prefer the story to their own. They have chosen to exchange their own anecdotal lives for Tolkien's epic, meeting their buddies on the weekends for some live action role-playing, and spending the rest of the week obsessively osmosing their trilogic tome of devotion (not to mention The Silmarillion and other apochryphal texts!). You would not dare suggest to them that we update the imagery for something a bit more culturally relevant. They would call upon the Uruk-Hai to feast upon your flesh, because if it's worth living for; it's worth learning about.

Obviously this isn't the end of the discussion concerning contextualization. It doesn't really address how to explain the allure of The One Ring to an unregenerate who just doesn't see what all the fuss is about, or why it's reasonable at all to practice such "escapism." I'll save that for another time. Suffice to say, the argument that we need to reconcile foreign imagery to our own culture's vocabulary in order to experience it fully is a load of orcwash.

“No horse blankets”

2010-07-28T23:36:00.003-05:00

About a mile from my house stands Berclair Coin Laundry. Berclair is a racially diverse area, mostly Hispanic and black, with a small remaining core of white elderly survivors from its heyday as a nice Memphis suburb. We’re also seeing an influx of young families since the houses are well built and inexpensive. When I pulled up to the empty parking lot, I noticed the sign overhead:

<-- Laundry Parking Only -->

Because they carry the heavy Laundry

APPRECIATE

I immediately recognized the syntax as an indicator of an Asian-American proprietor. A few more signs inside the otherwise empty museum of washing machines confirmed this suspicion:

“Please, pick your dryer sheet up, because don’t hurt slip down everyone.”

“Please, use rag for wipe out, if water leaks on floor

because be dangerous slip down, don’t hurt everyone."

“No horse blankets.”

Ok, that last one was perfect English, but the fact that we were 20 miles from anything remotely equestrian made me giggle. These illustrations serve to set the tone for the language barrier that caused a great deal of frustration in my conversation with the Laundromat’s owner, Phillip. I couldn’t pronounce his real name, and I guess that’s why he goes by Phillip. He could tell that I had no idea where to put my quarters, which machine to use for my oversized bedspread (the occasion for my visit), or how to even open the thing, so he came to my rescue with a great deal more patience than I would have had for someone as clueless as I was. I noticed as he rose from his desk that he had a pocket Bible and I leapt at the opportunity to ask him about it.

What follows is the result of a LOT of repetition, hand-motions, and failed attempts to cross the linguistic divide. He knew barely enough English to run a Laundromat and I know absolutely zero Korean, so this conversation took well over an hour.

Phillip was 48 when he and his wife moved from South Korea 8 years ago. Their two sons are in their late 20’s and live in New York. When I asked him why he reads the Bible, he said because he wants to go to Heaven. I asked him where he attends church, and he said he doesn’t go and then said something about the Antichrist. I dared to press further, asking if he knew about the Korean Presbyterian Church about a hundred yards south. He said, yes, that’s the one he was asked to leave. Mesmerized, I continued the investigation, and he launched into how he had been studying the Bible through correspondence for a few years and had come to the conclusion that the church had misinterpreted the passages about tithing, so he had confronted his pastor and asked for a refund of his 30 years’ worth of tithes. They had, of course, refused, and then he went on a diatribe about how all churches were money-making scams and that he needed to only trust the Bible because pastors were liars. I decided at that point not to tell him what my job is. Also, for some reason there was quite a bit of hostility toward the Catholic Church. I’m sure this kind of talk was what led to his dismissal. He then pulled out his Holman Atlas, Strong’s Concordance, Korean, Chinese, NIV, and KJV Bibles and showed me all the discrepancies he had discovered. He showed me where the Korean version had omitted the second half of Genesis 2:20 because of a cultural philosophical disgust at the idea that God would have looked for a suitable mate for Adam from among the animals. He really wants to learn Greek and Hebrew, but new languages are hard at his age, he says.

Then things got weird.

Phillip believes that the Trinity is a false doctrine based on his conviction that Jesus and the Spirit are the same person. We should not be waiting for Christ’s return, because he already came back at Pentecost. Since it’s Jesus who’s talking to us now in His Spirit, we’re all apostles. He showed me a stack of Korean sermon CD’s that I think are probably the original source of his hard divergence from the orthodox path. The thing I find most fascinating about that is, apparently the Korean Church still practices church discipline to the degree of excommunication. It’s not even practical to do that in Memphis, which has more churches per capita than anywhere else in the world. If we disagree with the leadership we can just go anonymously to another assembly. And boy, do we.

¡Viva La Revolución! - Righteousness and Che

2010-06-22T14:59:00.000-05:00

Although it is difficult to tell by the modern roster of celebrities, fame was once a byproduct of true greatness and not mere novelty. Ernesto "Che" Guevara is the kind of man whose mystique and mythology is more hypnotic to me than any modern celebrity could hope to be. His renown is the result of an idealism so unwavering and active that it changed the face of Western politics in a matter of mere months. The world is still shaking from his legacy. An Argentinean doctor on a quest to discover an earthly cure for human suffering, Che met Fidel Castro in Mexico City and decided to help the Cuban revolutionary in his mission to overthrow his government and begin a Communistic way of life for the Cuban people. After a brilliant and successful guerrilla campaign, Che could have enjoyed the adoration of the public and the status of a statesman. Instead, his restless soul beckoned him to aid the Bolivian people in a similar endeavor, one to which he ultimately gave his life.

Politics and social ethics aside, I can't get over how dedicated this man was to the dignity of humanity. The motivation Christianity provides for such a passion is far more rooted than is Communism, yet here was a man who found within himself an intensity of conviction that I simply cannot muster despite my most sincere efforts. My temptation then becomes the desire to justify Che before God and man, partially because of my starry-eyed crush on the Argentinian and partly because if God is not pleased with a man of such selfless justice (methods aside) as Ernesto Guevara, then what hope do I have?

But this is something I must not do. Isaiah 64 tells us that all the righteousness of men is like filthy rags before a holy God. Not even the heroic life lived by a man like Che Guevara (or if you prefer the pacifist Gandhi, you're welcome to substitute) adds up to the perfect standard required for a relationship with Yahweh. This righteousness is only attainable for men by the blood of Jesus. Knowing that I now have this imputed righteousness, I can work out my salvation inspired by the examples of men greater than I, but releasing the anxiety of trying to add up to the goodness of Theresa or the passion of William Wallace. God's Kingdom will prevail. Human dignity will be restored. Justice will be served to the oppressed and their oppressors. Even the greatest men are in need of grace. We labor faithfully knowing that it is Christ who works in us and through us.

¡Viva La Revolución!

Legacy

2010-06-18T17:15:00.000-05:00

My wife cut and enjoyed gorgeous flowers from our yard today. They are the remnant of a woman's labor of love many years ago. She has long since passed away and we do nothing to nurture the flowers at all. We just bought an old house and we're benefiting from the fruit of another person's work, at least until her legacy fades. Eventually, if we do not learn the art and invest the time into gardening, the beds will all be overgrown and the flowers choked out.

While I am encouraged at the prospect that the fruit of my own labors will have lasting effects far beyond my sight, I also pray that I will be diligent to pass down the art and science of my trade to the next generation. Otherwise they will become as arrogant and blind as our own generation, boasting in the flowers of faith they enjoy all around them while ignoring to learn the craft and work that produced them.

Forgiveness

2010-06-17T16:34:00.001-05:00

This one is slippery.

Forgiveness cannot be contingent upon an apology. You do not accept a man's apology as restitution for his sin against you. That's too cheap for grace. You don't allow him to make it up to you. That also is too cheap for grace. To forgive is to accept the consequences of another man's sin as against you as your own instead of requiring that he do the one thing he cannot: pay you back. He can no more make it right than you can be made whole again by taking vengeance. Something has been broken. All you can do is freely give what has already been taken from you. If he takes your coat, then forgiveness is considering it lost.

The only way one can afford to take such a personal loss as sin will demand is if he has access to the riches of Christ. Then, whether it was reputation, power, freedom, security, or intimacy that was stolen by the sin, you can freely let go the debt because yours is an inexhaustible storehouse of wealth in Christ.

If he does change after you've forgiven him, it will not be in payment to you against the debt he has incurred. It will be in response to the payment in full you have already accepted on his behalf. This grace will change your life and his as you both experience the mind of Christ.

LOST SPOILER ALERT

2010-05-24T21:39:00.000-05:00

So we're all clear, the theology of LOST is terrible.

Now let's talk about the story.

The main theme of LOST is "Live together or die alone." Everything that happened on the island was real. In season 6, the flashes sideways were really flashes to the afterlife, where community is the highest ideal. As Jacob said, the losties needed the island as much as it needed them. Before flight 815, each of them had lives that were doomed to end without any real community connection. Their being brought to the island served the dual purpose of protecting the island and giving each of the candidates a chance to create community, which is the stuff of the afterlife. If you have no community (if you die alone), then you can't get from the afterlife to the post-afterlife. People who had communities of their own didn't need to be a part of the lostie community, so that's why we don't see people like Daniel Faraday or Richard Alpert in the final scene at Our Lady of Ambiguous Redemption Cathedral. Daniel's community was with his mother and Charlotte, etc. Richard's was with his wife. Others, like Michael, haven't even made it to the afterlife yet because are being held as prisoners between worlds, presumably to pay for their crimes against community.

As Jack intuitively knew when he made the great Live Together; Die Alone speech, if any of these people had a chance, it was going to be done through community. He just didn't realize how deeply this was true. Each of the characters' moment of redemption would not have been made possible if not for the community of people who gave them the opportunities and the support to work out their salvation. The island was purgatorial in that sense, but it was very much a real, down to earth experience. They were all alive when they had their island experiences, and the afterlife was a time for them to transition to their reward; not to earn it. Those stuck in between, like Michael, and probably Christian as well for a while, are there to do the work they were neglect in accomplishing in life.

At least that's what seems plain to me.

Hmmmm...

2010-05-07T10:06:00.002-05:00

"Sunday's Coming" Movie Trailer from North Point Media on Vimeo.

Freedom and Boundaries in Worship

2010-04-30T15:46:00.003-05:00

I was asked yesterday by an aspiring young worship leader if I lean more toward planned-out worship or Spirit-led worship. A few days before that, another young worship leader asked me if I feel creatively restricted in my position. I completely get where both of these guys were coming from, but I answered them both the same way: the questions set up a false dichotomy between freedom and boundaries.

Order is a friend of freedom. Chaos is a cesspool of slavery. If we are to be truly free, we must have boundaries. When every player agrees on the rules of a game, each is free to play his or her best without frustration. When no one agrees, everyone is hindered in their progress. In fact, the very existence of games is predicated upon rules. The Bible takes great pains to bring structure, order, and limits to our worship, while also encouraging us to be creative and exuberant in our expressions. Jesus is clear that true worshipers will do so in Spirit and in Truth. Paul demands orderliness and also says where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. We are much more able to enjoy a drink that is restricted to its cup than one that has been freed from such limitations and is now liberated to a puddle on the floor. To be sure, even then, the liquid is simply obeying the limitations of space and gravity.

The real heart behind the questions these young men posed is, "Can I trust those who have the authority to set the boundaries for me?" Now that's a telling question, and one we should expect young men to be wrestling with. Not yet commissioned to positions influence, these young men must submit to the leadership under which they find themselves, and this can create cause for anxiety, to be sure. They've been gifted with certain visions and abilities and they fear they may never be fully reached if forcibly bound by another man's unsympathetic power.

I struggle with that fear myself, and therefore I'm not in a position to give much advice. But as we're asking these questions, let's not fall into the trap of believing that restrictions and structures are somehow unspiritual. The Bible won't let us go that route.

Prepare the Way: A Study of Mark 1:1-4

2010-04-29T00:37:00.003-05:00

As residents of the 21st century, we have inherited the word “gospel” with thousands of years of traditional meaning already poured into it, and we’ll address a lot of that today, but first I want to make clear what meaning the word had in it before Christianity adopted primary use of it. When a word is used in the first sentence of the first book of the New Testament, we have to recognize what it meant to the author and original audience before we start reading it through the lenses of theologians (which is a good thing, by the way, we just have to have a decent historical/cultural hermeneutic as well). The word euangelion, or good news, was used 2000 years ago as a report of a king’s military victory. Not a surprising word choice when you realize that the author takes great pains to ensure that we see Jesus as just that: a conquering King. “Christ”, or “anointed one” and “Son of God” were both loaded with royal meaning for Jews and Gentiles alike, and they are two other phrases that are even more richly infused with meaning when they refer to the person Jesus.

But now I want to look at what the word Gospel has come to mean to us in light of Who the Word revealed Himself to be, particularly within the themes found in this short passage. They are: Incarnation – God with us; Initiation – God for us; Imitation – God through us

Incarnation – God with us

We see in this passage that the Lord is on his way. Here. That’s a big deal. To give us some context, let’s imagine our chief executive, the president, was able hand down an executive order that dismissed the legislative branch of our government and gave him full legislative power. He then wrote a law making himself the supreme judicial power, and to top it of, he claimed full authority over the religious sector. How are you feeling so far about our nation’s state of affairs? I know, some of you are thinking: that depends. Is it Obama? Now what about this: This supreme ruler has all this power and you’re a dissenter, and He’s coming your way. Terrifying, right? To bring it back to the Old Testament, their supreme ruler was the kind of guy whose very presence, his glory, would melt your face off.

Initiation – God for us

We get near Christmas time and we’re so excited to sing about Immanuel, “God with us,” but let’s be real. If we’re at odds with Him, we don’t want Him around, especially not with that face-melting thing he’s got going on. But we look at this text and we see something beautiful: He sends a messenger. Why is that awesome? Because He could have sent a mercenary to take us out. He could have just shown up and we’d all have been destroyed. He’s showing us that there’s hope. His message? He’s preparing your way for you, if you’ll accept it. God’s initiation is what makes His incarnation such a desirable thing.

Now what’s the direction He is initiating? Well ultimately it’s Revelation 21. Many would be content to go straight there, but Jesus didn’t. He had His sights fixed on a more immediate destination. John elaborates a bit more on what this way is in the parallel passage, John 1:29 when he says of Jesus, “Behold the Lamb of God, who comes to take away our sins.” Now this is great, because it’s our sins that are making God’s presence so devastating to us. That’s why part of the message John was proclaiming was repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness! God is for us! He’s taking the initiative to pursue us! We don’t have to be the ones to send a messenger to Him begging for terms. He sought us out while we were a long way off.

You see the best part about this whole passage, I think, is the setting. We’re in the desert. Isn’t that great? What I mean is, God only interacts with one group of people in the desert: His family. Everyone is pretty familiar with the desert motif in scripture as a place of testing and discipline. Hebrews 12 says that He discipline those he calls sons because He loves them. He’s preparing His heirs to reign with Him, just like he used the desert to purge Israel of her Egyptyness before she entered into the land he wanted to be a City on a Hill. But a lesser-known use of the desert motif is found in Hosea 2, where He says He will take His bride, Israel out to the desert to seduce her: to win her back after she had abandoned Him. You see, ultimately we will reign with Him, but before that happens, He has to take the initiative to win us back from our slavery and bondage to sin. The Lord Jesus was blazing a path straight to the cross where He would lay down his very life for his bride’s sake, so that he could take her with him to inherit the earth and reign with Him forever. He has the heart of a Father and a Husband, and I can tell you: that is a furious and unrelenting passion, especially if your wife or child is in danger.

Imitation – God through us

So He has prepared our way for us, but that’s not the end of the message. He’s got some things for us to do, too. He says, “Prepare the way of the Lord, and make His path straight.” He wants not only to be reconciled with us and take us with Him where He’s going; He also wants us to be, as Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5:20, His ambassadors, through whom He is making His appeal, that all would come to Him and be satisfied. We’re not just beneficiaries of the message, we’re bearers of it! Imagine, the very thing that was a terror to those in the Old Testament, the Glory of God that would wipe us off the planet if we even saw it, His GLORY, is now seen through us!

How do we bear this message? It’s pretty clear that we do it by imitation. We get a hint of this in this passage when we go from having a way prepared for us to being preparers of ways. Monkey see, monkey do. That’s actually what we mean when we say disciple, or discipleship: to become more like someone else. We’re becoming more like Christ, and through that, His glory is revealed. So it comes full circle: He sends his messenger to invite us to accept His payment of debt on our behalf and then we ourselves become messengers who prepare the way of His kingdom by living the way of the cross, and then being resurrected as He was to reign forever. That’s why the story ends with the great commission. He’s commissioning the messengers to imitate Him, preparing us, and the world, as the paths of His victory over sin and death.

God is WITH us, and His glory is magnificent.

God is FOR us, and so who can be against us?

God is making all things new THROUGH us.

THAT is GOOD NEWS.

Citizens of Heaven: Exiles or Colonists?

2010-04-26T16:54:00.000-05:00

Christians are citizens of Heaven. There's not any serious debate among Christians about the truth of this claim, but the interpretation, however, is quite another story. The Crusades were carried out in the name of the Kingdom. Fundamentalists are charged with culpability for global warming for their angle. Even the emerging church is in large part divided by their views on this. I typically prefer to avoid shaping a personal opinion on debates of this kind, but I cannot by any stretch deny that one's interpretation of this truth will have profound effects upon the way his or her life is lived. I'll therefore attempt to lay out the dualistic landscape as I see it and maybe that will serve as sufficient conceptual geography for a healthy battle, the outcome of which I hope will mean victory for all who enlist.

Exiles - If we view ourselves as Citizens of Heaven, temporarily exiled in this foreign land but ultimately destined to escape this pagan place and finally return "home," that's going to affect how we live. We will not invest much of our resources in this land, our daily activities instead reflecting interest in different place. I have some friends who are staying in a temporary sublet while their seminary housing is refurbished. I doubt they will hang pictures or even unpack any more boxes than they have to until they move to a more permanent abode. To the exile, we remain on earth but for a missional purpose: to offer citizenship in heaven to the indigenous peoples of earth before they (and their planet) are destroyed and we are called home to live with the King.

Colonists - If we view ourselves as Citizens of Heaven, dispatched as colonists of a conquering Kingdom and charged with beginning the conversion of all on earth to reflect life as it is in Heaven, this too will affect how we live. We will conduct ourselves as ambassadors and heralds of the coming regime, allowing the natives the opportunity to naturalize or be destroyed. I have another set of friends who have intentionally moved into a forgotten part of town as an attempt to revitalize the community. They invest their lives in making the world around them come to life as a result of their hope. To the colonist, we are dispatched to this earthly outpost to begin the redemptive process that will be consummated when the King returns to establish His City on Earth.

No doubt most of us hold a blended view to an extent, but that begs the question that forces one to draw a line: will we ultimately escape earth or conform her?

Congenital Genocide

2010-04-14T10:44:00.000-05:00

"National statistics indicate that 80-90% of such babies are now aborted — meaning that we have launched a search and destroy mission on Down syndrome babies in the womb." From Al Mohler's Blog.

Numbers-wise, this means America's genocidal attack on people with Down's Syndrome is far more successful than Hitler's attempted genocide of Jews. The only difference is, even if you kill them all, they will not be permanently exterminated, because they are continually created inside their murderers.

The worst part is, this sounds more like a conversation about weeds than it does human beings.

Hitchensianity and the Decalogue

2010-03-08T14:08:00.000-06:00

The New Atheism's rockstar Christopher Hitchens recently went to town on the 10 Commandments in Vanity Fair, offering his own list as a much more enlightened alternative. My first inclination is to defend the holy writ from such asinine attacks. I’m not really going to do that. No serious Biblical scholar would even finish reading his sophomoric article (except maybe me), much less engage it. Instead, I will "do unto him as he has done unto the decalogue." Hitchens' replacement of the traditional Ten Commandments with his own is predicated on one piece of shoddy hermeneutics and the two great commandments of what I call Hitchensianity. If these are accepted, then we can in good conscience alter the foundational Judeo-Christian laws to best suit our own perceived interests. However, if they are proved inadequate as basis for such revision, then Hitchens will have tasted his own rhetorical medicine.

Hitchens first claims the Ten were always work in progress. He asserts that there are “three or four” different versions of the 10 Commandments in Scripture, each “improving” upon the last. He also claims “They show every symptom of having been man-made and improvised under pressure.” If this is the case, he reasons, then why not keep the evolution going? (I suppose he humbly assumes he’s the most qualified contemporary human for the job…) I will address the bogus "work in progress" claim last. First, let’s examine a reduction of Chris’ commandments:

The greatest commandment of Hitchensianity is this: "Mere fear of unseen authority is not a sound basis for ethics." Bold statement. On this alone, he throws out the first three original commandments as unnecessary. Let’s ask a simple question: If one is any sort of genuine Authority at all, what difference does His visibility make? If this unseen Authority truly were real and powerful and good, then respect for His wishes would seem a sound, and indeed the ONLY basis for ethics. (Sidenote: I won’t nitpick, but Christopher makes no distinction between ethics and morality, using them interchangeably. This is annoying.)

The second is like unto it: Cultural sensibility should dictate morality. If there is no higher authority than human, then democracy should do the trick, Hitchens claims. However, his actual commandments show that not even he believes this to be true. He sees fit to pontificate absolute essentials about several legitimately debatable issues, claiming their universality above what ANYONE else thinks. His final command it that we denounce any God or religion that contradicts his. Wow. That seems culturally sensible. I’m sure we’d all vote “yea” on that one… As if a real God would take the time to conduct a job approval survey before destroying dissenters.

He sums it all up with this: “Do not swallow your moral code in tablet form.” Which is, of course, a moral pronouncement in easily digestible form. If he’s being sarcastic here, I’m not sure what he’s proving, because he stands condemned in his own eyes. So it’s clear that even if we grant that the Ten Commandments need revision, Hitchens has disqualified himself from such a work. Writing in a few tongue-in-cheek commandments does not immunize you from serious criticism, Christopher. I know your game, rogue.

But I won’t concede that the original Decalogue was “a work in progress,” as evidenced by the existence of "three or four wildly different scriptural versions." Or that these "works in progress… show every symptom of having been man-made and improvised under pressure.”

The second Decalogue was an exact copy of the first, written in Moses’ hand rather than God’s. The third changes only ONE thing, which is the impetus for Sabbath, and it was written to a different audience for a different purpose. Hitchens all but claims the differences are mutually exclusive, but in fact each points to a time in the past when one greater than them rested. The point in both is this: "If your fathers and even God Himself saw fit to rest, don’t think you’re above it. Take a day." Even still, the commands themselves are the same. The “fourth” edition is no Decalogue at all. He only throws in because it’s written on tablets, but doesn’t fit the genre one bit. Hitchens knows that, and that’s why he says “three or four” from the beginning. If someone catches the absurdity, he’ll throw it out. He just wanted the jury to hear it before it was withdrawn and stricken from the record. Smoke and mirrors, and nothing more. He’s a seedy defense attorney. There is but one Decalogue in scripture, and it needs no revision.

So do the commandments show every symptom of being man made and improvised under pressure? First, what are the symptoms of man-made law? In Hitchens’ estimation, there is no other kind, so how would he even know what God-made laws would (or should) look like? I suppose he would expect them to be sensible, like him. The more I think about it, I think Hitchens fancies himself qualified for the job. So Chris, pretend you’re Moses spend 40 days writing ten rules for everybody. Then break them to prove a point and start over. Then make sure you write down how you disobeyed God and didn’t get to enter the land you spent most of your life pursuing. The Decalogue is not self-serving. It is not the kind of thing a man would write to keep a bunch of former slaves under control. It was very different from what his Egyptian education would have led him to write on his own behalf.

In short, Hitchens is cheeky and anti-authority (except his own). Not the kind of person anyone wants to be, much less follow. If he were a real scholar, he would address his rivals with respect instead of his choir with contempt. The truth about Hitchens, as Douglas Wilson once observed, is that "he says there's no God and yet he hates Him."

Cruciform Worship

2010-02-26T14:07:00.008-06:00

Psalm 67:1-2

¹May God be gracious to us and bless us
and make his face shine upon us,
² that your ways may be known on earth,
your salvation among all nations.

A leader in the denomination I serve has asked an important question. Why do we make a distinction between "vertical" and "horizontal" words and actions and songs? If the second command is like the first, then why separate them? This is a question of integrity and I think it's a no-brainer, so I'm simply going to draw an obvious conclusion from it:

We need to write and sing songs that deal both with the vertical in Heaven and Earth and the horizontal in the Church and the Nations as though they are all meant to be addressed at once. Our Sacred Head was crucified at the point where these concepts intersect and are reconciled in space and time. A post and a crossbeam formed the image to which our every movement must conform. We need to write and sing songs that make no distinction between loving God and loving people.

I'm not saying that your favorite hymn is unacceptable for worship because it's not holistic enough. (I'm also not not saying that.) But what I am saying is that if Christ is supreme in all things and in all ways, then we should strive to sing and write songs that see mission as a natural conclusion of worship and the reconciliation of heaven and earth as inevitable and pursuant to our existence.

Where Can I Go?

2010-02-17T14:24:00.000-06:00

I am continually amazed that Cecily doesn't hold my disciplining of her against me. When she receives correction, she cries and immediately looks to me for comfort and acceptance, which I am compelled to give by an equal urgency. It's like I expect her to reject me for having stood against her will. But when I stop and think, it's simple: where else would she go? In her world, Mommy and Daddy are one, and there's no one else to go to for comfort and acceptance when she needs it.

I am always surprised, because I'm not as good a son as she is a daughter. When my Father who loves me disciplines me, I often shake a rebellious fist at Him and turn to my lesser gods for comfort and acceptance. I'm not very much like Peter, who said, "Where else can we go, Lord? You have the words of life." I'm not like David who understood that there was no where he could go to flee God's presence. I'm not like Cecily who doesn't know the hollow comfort and cheap acceptance of idolatry.

Have mercy on me oh God, according to your steadfast love. According to Your great compassion, blot out my transgressions. Teach me to accept your correction as from a loving Father who seeks reconciliation. Where else can I go for true comfort and acceptance? I reject any other source of Love. Amen.

Grace, Justice, and Mercy, Via Victor Hugo

2010-01-28T11:54:00.006-06:00

In Hugo's Les Miserables, Bienvenu catches a calloused liberationist off guard with the thought that "perhaps mercy is but a higher form of justice." The holy Bishop of Digne caught me off guard, too. Ever since I read that line, I've wrestled with what I thought I knew about the higher economy. I intuitively sensed that Bienvenu was right, but I couldn't reconcile this with my understanding of the relationships between justice, mercy, and grace.

As a child, I was taught that:

Justice is getting the things you deserve.
Mercy is not getting the bad things you deserve, and
Grace is getting the good things you don't deserve.

While I still think these are reasonably sufficient definitions for a 6 year-old, my understanding was skewed by the hierarchy they occupied in my mind. To me, justice was the norm, and grace and mercy were exceptions given by a benevolent God who was too nice to let consequences mess up our lives.The idea that mercy could ever be higher than justice was to me, counter-intuitive.

I'm trying out a new paradigm:

What if grace is the standard, rather than justice?
What if justice is merely the structures which maintain the status quo created by grace?
What if mercy is that which prevents the status quo from destroying the original intent of grace's creations?

This would therefore mean that grace is the motive, justice is a means, and mercy is a higher means, as it more closely resembles the motive. Remember as I have only just truly realized, that grace is not God's plan B response to sin's derailment of justice. Grace preceded sin, because creation itself was an act of grace: it's a good thing we didn't deserve. Grace created order out of chaos. The maintenance of order is called justice. Mercy returns order to a broken world in a way that justice sometimes cannot, for while justice is but a blind process, mercy flows from relationship, the highest of created orders.

If This was Victor Hugo's understanding of the higher economy, then his comments via Bienvenu make perfect sense.

Thoughts? Anyone?

You Use the Weak to Lead the Strong

2010-01-18T13:30:00.002-06:00

Jon Stewart went BUCK on Pat Buchanan yesterday, defending the Bible, of all things, against misuse.

Stewart's main point is a good one: In times of tragic catastrophe, no one gets to play all-knowing editorialist commentator. Enough said. Now, onto my editorial commentary about all the editorial commentary.

In the paradigm of traditional conservatism, Robertson is a highly exalted prince. In this same economy, Stewart, an unabashed liberal, would be viewed as a rather lowly fool. I like that a foolish man such as Mr. Stewart was used to shame the proud while unabashedly proclaiming the compassion of God to his largely unbelieving audience. If bashing Christians is what it takes to elevate God and his Word, then this was a huge win for the Kingdom. Soli Deo Gloria

Ezekiel 21:26 - This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Take off the turban, remove the crown. It will not be as it was: The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low.

1 Cor 1:27-29 - But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.

Why Write New Worship Songs?

2010-01-15T12:11:00.000-06:00

From Sovereign Grace's Bob Kauflin: "Because God’s saving acts in history and in our lives demand new songs. Because 1000 tongues or a 1000 songs will never be enough. Because Jesus Christ is a great Savior worthy of unending praise. Because the Word of God is eternal and life-changing. Because this is one small way we can contribute to building up the church, comforting God’s people, and advancing the gospel, all for the glory of God. And because, in the words of King David, “He put a new song in my mouth, a song of praise to our God. Many will see and fear, and put their trust in the LORD” (Ps. 40:3)."

I'd like to think of our songs as drops in a series of waves beating in endless succession against the shores of God's glory. Each generation is a new wave, made up of a lot from the old and a bit from the new.

"Before the Throne" - New Verse

2010-01-03T22:54:00.000-06:00

I was noticing how "Before the Throne of God Above" doesn't have a verse that actually tells the gospel, so I thought I would attempt to write one with the imagery of baptism, since the Christian Calendar year celebrates the Lord's Baptism this upcoming Sunday.

From Heaven's throne came Christ in love
To ransom sinners such as we
His blood alone was price enough
His body bore our penalty
And as He laid below the earth
The object of wrath's recompense
So we are dead before our birth
Til we are raised alive in Him

This Makes Me Sad

2009-12-18T13:13:00.000-06:00

THIS MAKES ME SAD...

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.
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.
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.
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

2009-12-16T17:18:00.002-06:00

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

Body Image

2009-12-13T15:43:00.001-06:00

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:

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."
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.
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.
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.
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

2009-12-07T23:26:00.000-06:00

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

Christmas with the Charlies

2009-12-03T16:52:00.002-06:00

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

2009-11-29T19:18:00.000-06:00

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

2009-11-23T22:53:00.001-06:00

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

2009-11-20T17:20:00.000-06:00

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:

Doctrinally - Viewing lessons in scripture as intended to change our minds by correcting wrong beliefs (logos).
Morally - Viewing lessons in scripture as intended to change our behavior by distinguishing between right and wrong actions (ethos).
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

2009-11-14T12:55:00.001-06:00

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

2009-11-12T10:02:00.004-06:00

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?

2009-11-10T10:30:00.000-06:00

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

2009-11-04T10:55:00.000-06:00

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.

2009-10-28T00:40:00.000-05:00

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

2009-10-22T21:17:00.000-05:00

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

2009-10-21T16:04:00.000-05:00

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

2009-10-20T17:26:00.001-05:00

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

2009-10-14T16:19:00.001-05:00

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

2009-10-14T10:57:00.000-05:00

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

2009-10-10T12:00:00.004-05:00

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

2009-10-09T22:10:00.005-05:00

"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

2009-10-03T13:15:00.003-05:00

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

2009-09-28T22:31:00.005-05:00

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

2009-09-09T22:42:00.005-05:00

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

2009-09-08T12:13:00.001-05:00

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

2009-09-06T14:01:00.006-05:00

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

2009-08-29T14:19:00.003-05:00

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

2009-08-25T20:29:00.002-05:00

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)

2009-08-18T00:39:00.006-05:00

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.

2009-08-13T13:51:00.002-05:00

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

2009-07-22T16:34:00.007-05:00

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

2009-06-15T22:14:00.002-05:00

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

2009-05-21T13:05:00.005-05:00

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

2009-05-18T12:31:00.006-05:00

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

2009-05-15T13:11:00.003-05:00

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

2009-05-11T23:56:00.003-05:00

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

2009-05-11T23:50:00.005-05:00

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?

2009-05-11T15:29:00.008-05:00

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!

2009-05-08T00:15:00.006-05:00

"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?

2009-05-05T11:01:00.013-05:00

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.

Calendrical Conundrum

2009-04-30T12:44:00.001-05:00

There's no astrological marker for days of the week. Did you know that? This troubles me, because, assuming days of the week were ordained by a literal six-day creation, (Don't ruin this with your serious doubts about a literal six-day creation. It doesn't change the conundrum.), we're only still on track if we kept up our count accurately for the past 10,000 years. That's 520,000 weeks. That's 3,640,000 days to have kept up with. It's easy now, because we have so many people keeping up with it. If someone sleeps through a day and thinks that Friday is Thursday, many people and newspapers can easily correct him. Not so easy when it was just two of them and maybe a few completely unaware children running around. I know from experience that a young married couple with a small child can lose track of a lot of time very easily.

Surely there was a day when Eve said, "Hey honey, did you feed the pterodactyls?" and Adam replied, "No, we feed them on Tuesdays." And Eve said, "But it IS Tuesday." And Adam said, "No, it's Monday." And Eve said, "Are you sure?" And she looked down at Cain for a little help, but he just paused for a minute to drool and then went right back to being overly aggressive with his pet velociraptor. And Adam (of course) said, "Absolutely I'm sure. I'm the man, and I never forget things like that." And Eve had no Washington Post with which to check his arrogant masculine omniscience.

The website that hosts this blog will timestamp this entry "Thursday." What if it's really Friday? What if the whole world is behind? I posed this question to my friend Jamey, and he said, "But Jesus rested on the Sabbath with everybody else, and He would know if it wasn't the right day." Then I pointed out that Jesus broke Sabbath a lot. What if this was because He knew it was really just Sunday? All the disciples just thought Jesus was prone to significant laziness on Fridays because it was the end of the tough work week. Maybe it's because he knew what day it really was.

MAYBE that's why Jesus could say with confidence that no one would know the day or the hour of His return, because He knew that even if they got it right, they would be a day behind, and He would come a day earlier and surprise the crap out of them anyway. He's got the odds fixed, because we're all walking around here thinking it's Thursday. It's really Friday, friends, and you're all deceived. But not me; I've got a friend in Australia, and he knows what day it really is. I called him last night, and I said "Hey Chris, what day is it?" He replied, "Thursday." I hadn't even told him my theory.

The Truth in Love (aka A Christian Beat-down)

2009-04-29T14:13:00.007-05:00

My marriage (and yours also, for that matter) is not metaphysically big enough to display the entire glory of God's love for us. Because I realize this, I can say both with deep conviction and without abandoning absolute truth that some marriages should be egalitarian and others should be complementarian and we're just all going to have to be ok with that.

An egalitarian marriage gives the world a radically intimate picture of the kind of mutual service and love between its members the church is entreated to share. Equally submissive, equally empowered, equally responsible to God for their share. It's a beautiful thing.

A complementarian marriage gives the world a radically veiled image of the kind of extreme selflessness the all-powerful Christ acted out of in surrendering to the needs of His fully submitted Bride.

Both models are Biblically defensible and supremely beautiful. Those whom God invites to partake in the sacrament are not worthy or capable of bearing the image of God completely or faithfully. We are only asked to do it to the best of our ability and to His glory alone.

So I say again: my marriage (and yours also, for that matter) is not metaphysically big enough to display the entire glory of God's love for us. Because I realize this, I can say both with deep conviction and without abandoning absolute truth that some marriages should be egalitarian and others should be complementarian and we're just all going to have to be ok with that.

Brush off those haters.

For Where Your Treasure Is...

2009-04-23T17:45:00.007-05:00

TOWSON, Md. - They seemed like an ideal Long Island family: William Parente was a lawyer, his wife Betty a stay-at-home mom active in the community. Their daughters were well-liked by teachers and classmates. They lived in a neighborhoodof million-dollar homes in Garden City, N.Y., next to a golf course. William, 59, was a tax and estate planning attorney who commuted to his Manhattan office. Betty, 58, volunteered. They were in Maryland to visit older daughter Stephanie, 19, a sophomore at Loyola College in Baltimore. With them was her sister, Catherine, 11, a sixth-grader at Garden City Middle School.

On Monday, after they failed to check out of their room on time, a housekeeper found their bodies. Baltimore County police said they were investigating the deaths as a murder-suicide. “In the last few months, she said, "there's a clear rash" of such killings,” stated Kristen Rand, legislative director for the center, a nonprofit gun control advocacy group. Richard Gelles, dean of the School of Social Policy and Practice at the University of Pennsylvania claims, “They can be tied to the nation's
economic woes.”

[Excerpt from Associated Press April 21, 2009]

I was ashamed not to be more shocked and horrified when I was first made aware of the incident. I then realized that it was because I identify with this man. If my god decided to leave me, I would probably end it all too, and since I wouldn’t want to hurt my family, I’d have to take them with me. I am still not shocked, but I have grown more horrified: not at William Parente, but at human nature (specifically my own). I can only thank my God for His grace that sustains me and His Holy Presence which will never leave or forsake me. Lord, have mercy on us all.

If a Tree Falls in the Forest, Are Embyos People?

2009-04-19T23:43:00.003-05:00

The problem is as follows: "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" For the first several times I heard this, I turned my nose up at its "obvious" sophistry. It seemed to me to be no more than a skeptic's metaphorical attempt to convince one that experience is the only true means of knowledge. Recently, however, I have begun to reexamine the question in question. What is sound? Surely the impact of a felled tree produces waves, which when passing through the ear canal are processed as sound, but if the waves are never processed, are they sounds? Or merely sound waves? The well-crafted analogy eventually leads one to answer this most basic question: Is potential actual? One's answer has far-reaching implications. If potential IS actual, then "pre-crime," (unmanifested criminal intent such as that surrounding the plot of the sci-fi film Minority Report) should be a punishable offense. If potential is NOT actual, then how does this affect our view of frozen embryos? I humbly admit I don't have a black and white answer here. I guess I'm just suggesting that the world is a much more complicated place than I ever imagined back when I knew it all...

The Memphis Messiah, (or Coach Cal and Christ)

2009-04-16T16:00:00.012-05:00

Now that the dust has settled a bit, I'd like to share some thoughts regarding the recent departure of University of Memphis basketball head coach John Calapari. When the announcement was made that our Coach Cal was considering the position at the college basketball Mecca University of Kentucky, our city was thrown into an uproar. My wife and I gave one another bewildered glances as the newscast informed us of the candlelight vigil outside his home.

This was a huge blow to the morale of those Memphians who had seen a great deal of healing and unity across racial and socio-economic lines centered on a powerhouse home team. Our impending 2009-2010 season of glory was evaporating before us like Marty McFly's hand in Back to the Future. Gone were the hopes of many that Cal would then retire and run for a landslide victory as mayor of the newly formed Memphis/Shelby County Metropolitan Alliance. Cal would surely take his golden-child recruits with him and leave us in the wake of his Lexington legacy. Emotions ran the grieving gamut, from disbelief and anger to pleading, acceptance, and so on. Our Hope was moving to a new tax bracket.

As this was all taking place, I was reading about the four hundred years of silence between the last prophet Malachi and the birth of Jesus Christ. Time and time again, Israel would experience small victories under leaders such as the Maccabees, only to be forced into subjugation once again by the evil empires of the day. Zealots would rise up in the spirit of Joshua and the ancient judges to take back in glorious battle that which belonged to the Lord, but it was to no avail. They awaited the promised Messiah to deliver them once and for all. Then Jesus Christ came onto the scene, kindly and repeatedly revealing to them, "Right desire; wrong method." But His followers were thrown into an uproar when they realized he was not meeting their hopes as they had expected. Even Peter, close as he was to his friend the Savior, used futile Maccabean methods to the end to act out his deep-seated expectations for the way the Kingdom would come.

To all the sentinel hearts out there, longing to see things set right, I give this kind and repeated revelation: "Right desire; wrong method." Memphis has a messiah, and while the anglicized version of his name IS Joshua, his last name is not Pastner (although I do pray he would lead us to a championship win soon) The luster of a title will soon wear off and people will resume their disdain for all things Memphian. We will see mayors and coaches come and go, but ultimate deliverance is in the hands of our Almighty God, who gave us the way of peacemaking to prepare for His triumphal and final entry to rule His kingdom, soon and very soon. And THAT will be our “One [eternally] Shining Moment.”

Discourse on Worship with a Good Friend

2009-04-16T15:32:00.004-05:00

I'm still wrestling with how to best understand and communicate worship. What follows is a transcript from a recent text-messaging conversation with a close friend and fellow thinker/saint/artist:

HIM: I have another "R" for you. Revelation, REFLECTION, response. Think about it. Miss you.

ME: I like it. reflection should be implied within response, but I like the idea of being more explicit. Response is sometimes thought of as being mindless, like a reflex. Good.

HIM: Now you can effectively teach it because it is "threefold." haha [Editor's note: I am infamous for trying to shove ideas into threes. He is rightly making fun of me here.]

ME: And alliterative! (Editor's note: I also think alliteration is neccessary in all situations of life.]

HIM: It is implied, but I think it is important to note a periond of realizing that God is revealing Himself AND realizing that something must be done because of it, which leads you to a response. Haha. That's my Easter present for you.

ME: I agree, as long as the recognition is under the banner of response. The idea is that, like Jesus, we do nothing until the Father reveals. Christlike worship. Recognition is certainly the first response, though.

HIM: It's trinitarian in that none of them can BE without the other two. God's always revealing Himself; we are always responding. It only becomes worship when we recopgnize that it is in fact God's revelation and recognize the proper and holy response. We might not agree on this because I'm not as calvinist as you.

ME: You must agree that God was displaying His love before and without need of our response to it. He can BE without us. P.S. I'm not as calvinist as I am either.

HIM: Haha. I agree with that, but it seems that God needs something to reveal Himself to. He doesn't need us, but His revelation does.

ME: That's the ole' "if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it make a sound?" problem. [Editor's note: remind me to blog about that sometime. I think I have a good thought on this one.]

HIM: It is nit-picky, but that's what we do. Haha.

ME: It's a debate well worth having. I do agree that PROPER response is a must, and that does require reflection. But I do not think our part in worship is as important as His.

HIM: Well of course not. The only true trinity is THE trinity. God is revelation, but within the context of worship He needs something to worship Him. Without it, he is unworshipped glory.

ME: If we do not, even the rocks will cry out. While I do very much like your distinction that reflection is the key difference between worship and selfish existence, the idea that God somehow lacks something without us is a bit on the icky side of liberal for me. (There certainly is a non-icky side of liberalism too. It's called freedom and compassion.)

HIM: Yeah, I agree. I guess it's only dependent from the bride's side.

ME: Well said.

First Things First

2009-04-12T18:54:00.003-05:00

Passover precedes the Exodus. Metaphysically speaking, this means the law was written on blood-stained door posts, and not vice-versa. Let our lives reflect this order; I assure you it was intentional.

Uncle Roy and the Prodigal Nephew

2009-03-24T16:02:00.004-05:00

My parents took a trip to the Ozarks when I was a boy and they left me with my aunt and uncle for a week. Aunt Jody was and continues to be a delightful southern belle. Her only discredit in my mind at the time was that she was married to a scary, mysterious man with a penchant for rules and ridicule. This did not mesh well with my default settings. I thought he must have won her in some kind of shady speakeasy poker game. A usually rambunctious if not obnoxious boy, I was often the recipient of Uncle Roy’s displeasure at family gatherings. Luckily, I was also often able to avoid him due to the sheer massiveness of our family.

Now I was going to live under his roof for a week with not a room in the house outside his jurisdiction. Fortunately, this was during the school year and in good weather, so I spent the majority of my time out from under the Shadow. The only catch was that my weekly behavior report would be coming back to him this week. I shuddered at the thought of his calling me to account for the offenses which were to be inevitably listed. However, at the end of this particular week, I had been a saint. My teachers were baffled. I brought my report home to Aunt Jody, whose pleasure was palpable. But while her approval was pleasant, it had not been the motivation behind my perfect performance. My motivation had been to circumvent a conversation with Uncle Roy.

Pastor Timothy Keller gives a definition of sin that seems to hit closer to the truth than the traditional “breaking God’s rules.” Instead he points to Jesus’ story about the prodigal sons, one of whom ran away from the father’s love by breaking his rules while the other ran away from the father’s love by keeping all the rules. Both sons were guilty of avoiding true relationship with the father, though their hearts’ intentions were manifested in polar opposite ways. Thus Keller’s definition of sin is simply, “running away from God.”

I lived under Uncle Roy’s roof and I obeyed his rules, but I did not behave as one of his sons. I instead did everything I could to avoid any kind of relationship with him. I wonder how many of us live under God’s roof, obeying His rules while clinging to orphan identities, afraid or unwilling to let Him know us warts and all. For what it’s worth, I discovered years later that I had been wrong about Uncle Roy. Have we been wrong about God, too?

Reruns and Encores

2009-03-16T10:25:00.000-05:00

On Saturday mornings when we were children, my sister and I would wake up early and run to the living room where we would consult the oracle TV Guide as to what viewing glories awaited us. Occasionally, we would be disappointed by that dreaded symbol next to one of our favorite programs: the letter "r." You may be familiar with the MPAA rating, but I assure you the TV Guide "r" was much, much, worse. It meant the this episode was a rerun, and, being connoisseurs of cartoons, we would inevitably have already seen it. A toddler's tragedy.

This week, as we partake in communion at Christ Church, I can't help thinking that many of our congregants will open the bulletin and view the liturgy with the same underwhelmed spirit as those forced into sitting through a re-run. "Again? I feel like we just did this." Even if we concede that the sacrament and liturgy are are deep and powerful (which I assure you they are), one might be understandably wary of falling into a repetitive rut by doing something too frequently. After all, we wouldn't want to simply go through the motions and risk not getting anything out of it.

The problem with the rerun mentality is that it puts us on the couch when we belong on the stage. We are the players in this reenactment of the pinnacle of God's love for us. Of course the actors know the lines and can recite them from heart; perhaps they occasionally become so familiar they lose meaning in the speaker's ears. But memorization is only the beginning. The actor's ultimate work is the pleasure of the audience, (of which we are not primarily a part).

God is the Writer and Director of a masterpiece; the Author and Perfecter of our faith, and He loves to see His actors celebrate His passion with fervor of their own. As I think back to my time in the theatre, I remember with clarity the cast's desire to please our director, a man who watched the same cast perform the same show night after night after night. He delighted in our passionate effort and we in His pleasure. How much more so when the script itself recounts the very foundation of our own hope and future? This week, let's try to think of communion less as a television rerun and more as our encore performance of the greatest masterpiece ever created.

His Kingdom; My Castle

2009-03-10T13:58:00.004-05:00

It just occurred to me that it never occurred to me to ask God where He wanted me to live. Last year, my wife and I found out we were pregnant, and so we decided it was time to grow up, move out of the 3rd floor apartment, and buy a house in a neighborhood closer to work. We knew that buying a house is one of the biggest and safest investments one can make, and so we did what came naturally: we looked for the best house in the safest neighborhood we could afford. It was practical, it was normal, and it was a reflection of our culture's habit of ignoring God's will in our decision-making processes.

Why is it a given that whenever we decide for whatever reason to relocate, that we immediately look for the "best" we can afford? Unlike our choice in automobiles or appliances, our choice of residency is not a private affair; it has much deeper implications than one's own preferences. Where you decide to live is not just your retreat and shelter; it is also a choice about the base of operations for our ministry to the world.

I have repented this comfort-centered attitude, but even if I wanted to reconsider now, we will not be in a position to relocate again for a long while. I'll never know if God wanted us somewhere else and we chose comfort instead. I'll never know if God would have used our family to be a light to desperate people whom we will now never meet. The flip side is, I'll never know if our neighborhood isn't exactly where God would have called us if we had surrendered our will and asked Him. He doesn't give us that insight. Perhaps he would have called us into a less comfortable community, but as my friend Michelle says, "Everybody's neighbors need Jesus; ours just happen to be poorer than yours."

The fact of redemption in a believer's life leaves no room for regret. God does not desire that I dwell in the guilt of what I could have done differently until I can be my own savior by fixing my own mistakes. Instead, He simply wants me to recognize my need for Him and my place in His kingdom, surrendering each following step to His will and for His glory.

A Theory of Atonement (Or so it seems to me...)

2009-02-26T21:17:00.013-06:00

I've been trying to make sense of the atonement in my own mind for many years, wrestling with two very difficult intellectual hurdles, both of which I believe I am on the way to overcoming. As far as theology is concerned, I am only a moderately educated layman. With that in mind, I submit to you some ideas I've been working on which are now, I believe, developed to the point of peer review. If I have wandered into heterodoxy, please rebuke me kindly.

The problems are these:

1.) How can substitution be truly just? I've heard many times the story of the wise judge whose own son's case is brought before his bench. The judge rules his son guilty and then takes off the robe to pay the penalty on the behalf of the guilty. Fine. But payment with a federal reserve note and payment with blood are hardly comparable. The former can transfer hands easily and the latter can not. It does not appear fair that a guilty life can be replaced with an innocent one. If one's reply is that it's grace, then why require payment at all?

2.) How is one death satisfactory payment for many errors? Even in cases when a serial killer is put to death, justice is not completely served. It's only as close as we can get unless the condemned is a cat who has killed less than ten people.

The responses are these:

1.) My response to the first problem comes from the idea of corporate culpability. Many Old Testament examples come to mind of individual sins meriting corporate condemnation. God seems to view people in perhaps less of an individual sense than the average Westerner does. It seems to me that if one man's sin can be in some ways another man's condemnation, then the reverse must be true. Christ can fairly pay for a man's sin if He, as a member of mankind, is victim to its consequences. Thus, corporate culpability makes subsititutionary atonement logical. Or so it seems to me.

2.) My response to the second problem comes from the idea of infinite personhood. One finite person dies a finite death. But one infinite person would die an infinite death. An infinite death could theoretically be a more than sufficient replacement for any possible number of capital offenses. Thus, infinite personhood makes a single act of atonement satisfactory. Or so it seems to me.

I foresee some objections, but I'll let someone else bring them up instead of battling straw men of my own creation...

An Excersise in Situational Ethics

2009-02-09T22:05:00.003-06:00

Prompted by my annoyingly intelligent friend Jon Vowell's prodding regarding my thought in a previous post, I have a few questions.

1.) Is it better:

a.) that a man thoughtfully holds a door open for a senior citizen out of compassion because he sees that the elder is disabled, or

b.) that a man thoughtlessly holds a door open for the same senior citizen because he has trained within himself a general respect for his elders?

2.) If one is better than the other, is the lesser wrong? (If you say no, I win)

3.) If yes, is it possible to live within what is popularly called God's "perfect will?" (If you say yes, I seriously question your grasp on reality.)

4.) If no, why do we even talk about it?

Loathing No Country

2009-02-01T18:41:00.004-06:00

Here, I will give a poor attempt at explaining my distaste for the Coen Brothers' highly acclaimed film, "No Country for Old Men."

Several years ago, I had a conversation with my then-roommate about the movie he had just made me watch, entitled "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas." He asked me what I thought, and I told him point blank and unequivocally, "I hated it." He then kindly attempted to correct my obvious ignorance, because clearly I had not understood the film. He explained to me that it was an uncanny reflection of the downward spiral of licentiousness. He assured me that this was a very accurate representation of how each of these drugs alters a man's consciousness. I took his word for it.

I'm sure that the same kind of thing could be said for "No Country." A very compelling and well-crafted account of the apparent blind forces that bring fortune and misfortune into one's life, shot with a keen eye for southwestern sense and sensibility. Masterfully and subtly acted. Etcetera. I will not argue this point.

I will, however, ask myself what the point of a story is when evaluating a piece of fiction. Not that individual story, but stories in general. Why are they told? Why should they be told? C.S. Lewis mentioned in his essay "On Stories," his astonishment at the sheer volume of work regarding style, order, and the delineation of characters in stories when there was scarce written regarding the ontology of stories themselves.

A story (in my opinion, to which I am entitled), should give us a fair glimpse into the eternal so that we may be better worshippers of God. It should not be merely a nearsighted snapshot of a single aspect of reality separated from the whole. Even if the snapshot is a very accurate one. The Bible would be the penultimate example of a story. Our culture has a way of celebrating the individual, the special case, and the deviant with no regard to the part they play as members of the whole. Altered states of consciousness and sociopathic homicide may be facts, but they are not truths when disconnected from judgment and/or redemption. Case studies are not stories. They are rarely worth mentioning, and never masquerading as entertainment or in any way a helpful social commentary when separated from their ultimate and inevitable ends.

Unfortunately for the Coen brothers' souls, missing the telos from the outset made No Country for Old Men a very well-crafted waste of time.

A Thought

2009-01-23T15:22:00.000-06:00

Wisdom is found not in distinguishing right from wrong, but good from best.

Pagan Birds and Breakfast Foods

2008-12-30T16:44:00.004-06:00

Someone asked me if I write Christian music. She meant to discern whether my lyrics are Jesus-y and intended for church use, and my reply would have been "sometimes," if only I had been willing to leave it alone. But I would have walked away feeling very misunderstood, and since humans have a deep need to be understood, this simply wouldn't do.

I wanted to ask her if she makes Christian waffles. I wanted to tell her that Christ has all of me, including my creative ability, and I am therefore as incapable of writing a non-Christian song as a duck is incapable of making non-duck-like sounds. I wanted to tell her that the songs of mine that best reflect the revealed nature of God are the least likely to be sung corporately or enjoyed in a church setting. I wanted to tell her that my songs about adultery and depression are more Biblical than "I Can Only Imagine."

Instead, I just said "No, not really."

The Thickest of Threads

2008-12-17T22:49:00.013-06:00

I broke bread on two separate occasions this week in the company of men with whom I have little in common. Through the nature and content of our conversations, I've come to a conclusion: unity would be a meaningless concept if those bound were exactly alike. The diversity of those unified is what makes the idea worth talking about. It's not so much complete agreement as it is resolve to remain attached in spite of disagreement. All that needs to exist is a single common thread that transcends any and all dissonance. The more transcendent the thread, the more strongly it binds, and so we find that love (self-sacrifice for the benefit of its object) is the thickest of threads.