I am wretched... I am beautiful

Update with John Wesley

2011-11-11T09:00:00.002-05:00

I took this week off of work to try and finish my house. Yes, this is the house we purchased back in February. No we haven't moved into it yet. Yes we bit off more than we could chew. Unfortunately this week isn't going as well as I had hoped. Productive week but I swear time goes faster while I am in that house. Not a lot to show for all of my house expect constant paint on my hands and a sore/tired body.

Anyways, since I have been working on the house 10-12 hours a day I haven't had much time to get ahead on my blogs. I also have barely had any time to think about something good to write about... actually I have multiple blog ideas at work but I don't remember them. Good thing I wrote down the ideas at work and not at home where I could write them. Fail.

So since I am tired and haven't had much time to write I thought I would cheat and give you an awesome quote I just read from John Wesley. It's ridiculously long but I think it's worth the read. Hope you enjoy it:
"If (thy heart is as my heart is with thine) then give me thy hand." I do not mean, "Be of my opinion." You need not: I do not expect or desire it. Neither do I mean, "I will be of your opinion." I cannot: It does not depend on my choice; I can no more think, than I can see or hear, as I will. Keep you your opinion, I mine; and that as steadily as ever. You need not even endeavor to come over to me, or bring me over to you. I do not desire you to dispute these points, or to hear or speak one word concerning them. Let all opinions alone of one side and the other: Only "give me thine hand."

I do not mean, "embrace my modes of worship;" or "I will embrace yours." This also is a thing which does not depend either on your choice or mine. We must both act as each is fully persuaded in his own mind. Hold you fast that which you believe is most acceptable government to be Scriptural and Apostolic. If you think the Presbyterians or Independents are better, think so still, and act accordingly. I believe infants ought to be baptized; and that this may be done either by dipping or sprinkling. If you are otherwise persuaded, be so still, and follow your own persuasion. It appears to me, that the forms of prayer are of excellent use, particularly in the great congregation. If you judge extemporary prayer to be of more use, act suitably to your own judgment. My sentiment is, that I ought not to forbid water, wherein persons may be baptized; and that I ought to eat bread and drink wine, as a memorial of my dying Master; however, if you are not convinced of this, act according to the light you have. I have no desire to dispute with you one moment upon any of the preceding heads. Let all of these smaller points stand aside. Let them never come into light. If thine heart is as my herat, if thou lovest God and all mandkind, I ask no more: "Give me thine hand".

Life Lacking Luster

2011-11-07T09:00:00.011-05:00

This was the group that we went trick-or-treat-ing with. We make it a priority to go with my brother and his family every year.

Current song: Listener - "wooden heart"
-----

I just had a moment and maybe you have had it too.

You ever have that moment when the melancholy you thought you were avoiding catches up to you? In a moment you realize you are mortal and that the second law of thermodynamics is true?

I am a visual person. If we were to chat in person you would realize this because I use my hands a lot (I see the picture in my head and I am trying to describe it with my words and actions) and I rarely look people in the eyes. I imagine being able to see what I am trying to describe and it's always over your shoulder or up on the ceiling.. So when I try to describe this sense of "being caught" by my melancholy I see it as moment of slowing down.

The world can lack luster but if you go fast enough you won't notice. The world can be shades of black, gray, and white and if you just fly through it or close your eyes you won't notice. It will all seem a blur but that can be ok because it can get you through the blah-ness. But if you slow down if you are forced to stop for a second and breath you will notice that the luster is lacking. You go to smell the flowers and they are gray and you go to lay in the grass and it is gray.

That is the moment I just had. A moment where I realize that so much of my life is pointless and I am investing myself in wrong places. A moment where I needed to realize the important things in my life like my children, my wife, those in need... basically people instead of places and things.

Have you had these types of moments dear rare reader? What have you done to address this feeling? Did you change your life or speed back up so you didn't notice?

I have a feeling most of us have had this moment at some point in our lives. Our society asks us to go so fast and to invest in so many things that I have to imagine you know what I am talking about. But how healthy is this? If we look to Christ as an example it's hard to get around the constant reference of Him going off alone and praying.

In those moments where we slow down I think we need to remember that the world is probably lacking luster because we are lacking the presence of the Spirit. That which is beautiful and that which is pleasant, it comes from God. I hate cliches but there are normally truth in them and this is especially true when life seems to be lacking something. Because it's when we are thirsty that we remember how wonderful worship with God can be. It's when we are confused that we remember how His presence can feel.

So may we slow down together. May we remember that when life seems so gray and so dull that it may be because we need to reconnect with He who gives life.

Seeing People Complexly

2011-11-04T09:00:00.007-04:00

I stumbled upon this artist/band the other day and I am enjoying him/them more and more. The band is called Listener and the guy you see is Dan Smith. Listener has gone through a couple members but Dan is always the one speaking through the songs. You should listen to a few (I recommend wooden heart).
Current song: the one above of course
---

One of the reasons I love my church so much is because they focus on getting people involved in the community. They especially want to see this happen through life groups (small groups/family groups/whatever you call them). Thankfully I have a group of families that are very prone to serve so when an opportunity came up for us to help out we all jumped on the occasion.

We went to the Boys and Girls club where they had a food pantry (I think that is what you would call it). People lined up outside, grabbed a brown bag, and they were able to take some food for free. My group was there to carry on conversation with them as they walked through and to make sure that they didn't take too much. We actively failed at making sure people didn't take too much but I think it was ok because in the end we still had food left over. The serving last a whole 30 minutes and probably 120-150 people came through.

The time was great because of a couple practical reasons:
1) It was during the time that we would normally have life group so everyone had the time free
2) It didn't require a lot of skill or talent
3) It was quick and didn't require a lot of time

*transition*

I have written about how much I love John Green and the vlogbrothers in general. This year they, especially John, seem to have focused on two similar primary ideas:
1) Trust resists simplicity
2) Seeing people complexly
These ideas ring true to me. They are basically the thought that we need to look deeper to really understand people or understand things. That there are too many layers to assume that we have something all figured out and we can wrap our arms around it. I find this to be true in my interest in theology as well as when I build relationships with people. Individuals are never as simple as "the goth kid" or "the homosexual". These titles may be accurate to an extent but you are selling yourself and them short if you say that IS their identities.

*tie it together*

And here is the moral of the story. We cannot see people complexly unless we are with the people and interacting with them. I can abstractly realize that there are families in need in Elyria. I can even give to my church so they can help the people in need. But what happens to me when I see them in front of me? When the mother with three children says "thank you honey" as I hand her some beans. When the 4 year old says "Oh, I like those! Can we have those!" and grabs a couple cans of chili. What happens to me when I see the old couple hold hands as they walk through the line together? Surely something has to happen!

I feel that Dan sees the woman in his poem complexly and shares her story with us. That is my desire with those in need in Elyria. I hope that instead of just knowing they are there, I hope to see them. To be able to share their story with others.

What about you dear rare reader? What stories can you tell of people in need? How are you hoping to change your schedule/life to tell more people's stories?

Response - Secular Influences

2011-10-31T09:00:00.008-04:00

If you haven't seen UP yet then you should. Just be prepared to cry at the beginning of the movie. So sad.

Current song: "Please don't go out tonight" by Spitfire
-----

A few blogs ago I mentioned about why I wouldn't be a famous theologian and that someone pushed me to clarify a few of my reasons. One of those reasons was that I was too friendly with "secular" things. I felt I clarified myself pretty well in my email and felt I should clarify to you as well my dear rare reader. So here it is a little bit edited and cleaned up but pretty much the same response:

Obviously if I dislike Christian stuff and disliked secular stuff I would be left with nothing. So inevitably my dislike of Christian stuff has led me to liking a lot of secular stuff.

Dan Samms commented on my Salvation post about Paul’s “Mars Hill” sermon. In Acts 17 Paul is addressing people in Athens and he mentions an alter to an unknown god and he tells the audience that the god of that alter is GOD. What he did was take a cultural element and claim it or redeem it for God. The alter was certainly not made with YHWH in mind. The creators definitely had some hedonistic ideas and intentions for the object. But when Paul saw it he figured out a way that he could use it as a teaching tool. Also during his response in Athens he quotes a philosopher. So it seems that Paul was at least somewhat aware and familiar with the local cultures focus on philosophy. I think Paul’s example here is certainly one we should consider when talking about how much we should engage with the culture and world around us.

Before I get too much further into how I handle it I should note that I think this issue is incredibly subjective and personal to each believer. Like my sicknesses and immunity system metaphor in my last response, some believers can handle a lot more than others and not get sick. Some people are just not built to handle germs/secular things. Those that aware of it shouldn’t just spend their whole life being sick/sinful but should avoid as much as they can. So the advice and how I live my life will be completely different than you dear rare reader.

So how are we able to “be in the world but not of the world” as Christ calls us to be? I think it has to do with how we are interacting with the world around us. If we are lazy and passively let influences over take us (both inside and outside a Christian environment) we are going to lose ourselves (in a bad way) and be thrown around like a ship in the storm (James 2 I think?). Instead I think we need to be actively aware of all our influences around us. This includes the pastors we listen to and the shows we watch on TV. We need to be comparing what they are saying to the Bible. We need to be checking how they are impacting us and how they may be encouraging or discouraging us towards God. This means if the pastor isn’t matching up to the Bible or they are discouraging us away from God then we need to make sure that is an influence we want in our lives. Not that we reject their influence outright but that we check ourselves. The same is true of a TV show. Simply because it isn’t matching up with the Bible doesn’t mean it’s sinful.

This active listening or active learning that is required with TV shows is also required with Pastors. We need to make sure we aren’t just drinking the koolaid they are giving us by finding the truth in what they are saying. We need to have our eyes opened and trained to see God in their words, and I also think we can find God in TV shows.

If you ever lose your keys your eyes seem to only be able to see the keys. In your minds eye you see the keys and your eyes cant see anything else, even if they come across something else you lost a while ago. It’s this type of looking that I am suggesting we should do in the world around us. In the movie UP the little kid and old guy play a game of “red car blue car”. They sit on the edge of the street looking for a particular car color. We should be looking for the red cars everywhere and even though we are seeing the other cars we aren’t giving them much attention. We are looking for God everywhere and even though we see other than God we don’t pay much attention to them. (of course all metaphors break down at some point and I think I have exhausted this one)

So I think we should be watching TV shows, listening to music, and enjoying movies that are secular. While watching them we should appreciate them for the entertainment and enjoyment they provide but we should also be looking for lessons inside of them. If I was given this song or this movie to teach a lesson from what could I glean from it? Where is God inside the show or this song? There are a few secular songs that I have tied particular spiritual imagery with and when I hear these songs they normally cause me to be very reflective. It isn’t that the songs are necessarily Christian but I have been able to find or apply an image of God to those songs that encourages me.

I think this practice is similar to what so many people experience in nature. We see a sunrise, we experience the tides of the ocean, we observe the connectedness of nature and we marvel at the work of God’s hands. These things are not necessarily Christian but what we do is see God in them and we highlight God in them. I think we should do the same thing with shows.

Again, this does not mean that every song or movie has God in it. But all good things come from God right? So where there is laughter, love, beauty, etc I think we have a chance of seeing God there.

This is what I hope to relay to my children. That they can enjoy veggie tales and dora. That they can listen to my music and their music. I hope to teach them not to be scared and stay away from the world but to help them find ways to see and experience God in the world.

What about you dear rare reader? Are there any secular shows or bands that you really enjoy? Are there any high quality Christian influences out there that you would suggest to me?

Splitting and theological hairs

2011-10-28T09:00:00.008-04:00

We try to go to the same place every year to get the pumpkins. They have a huge pile.
Current song: "Why so serious?" by Hans Zimmer and James Newton Howard
-----
I realize this is a theological hair that may not need to be split but I still feel it's worth posting about. Simply put:

I don't believe God is timeless.

I may have written about this in the past (if so, let me know in the comments) but I think it's important to clarify that God is not timeless but He is everlasting instead. What is the difference you ask? A God that is timeless means that time has no impact on Him. He is constant throughout all of time and in fact He is not and cannot be in time. You might be very comfortable with all those statements but I am not.

If we believe Christ is "very God of very God" then how do we continue to maintain that He is fully human and yet still timeless? Do we really want to create a dualistic Christ that says "well His divine nature is timeless but his human nature isn't"? That some how now that Christ is at the right hand of God that He has given up His human nature and is once again "spiritually timeless". I think Christ's example shows us that God can, and does, experience time. This means God, at least in some sense, is not "outside of time" but is "in time" with us.

I also am not comfortable saying that God is constant throughout time or at least I am not comfortable saying that He never changes. Yes, I do believe His nature is constant throughout all of time but I think that is different than saying that He never changes. If God never changes then we have to give up the idea that God has emotions (doesn't sin anger Him and those accepting His salvation make Him happy?). (side note: Abraham Heschel did a great job of establishing God's emotions/pathos in The Prophets. You should check it out) We also have to give up the idea that prayer actually moves God (I have written about this HERE and HERE before) because if God moves at all He has changed in some way.

So if Christ shows us that God can be inside of time and if the Bible shows us that God does have emotions, and thus changes, then we cannot say that God is timeless and never changes. But what about before Christ became incarnate or before even the creation of the world before there was even "time"? Even then I think God is not timeless or changeless.

If we believe that God created ex nihilo then we believe that there was a point when there was no creation and there is a point when there is creation. Let's put it this way:
Point A: God does not desire to have a creation
Point B: God desires to have a creation
Point C: God creates
Even when there is only God there is still progression, which I would call change. That change happens in what we call "time" because there are separate points.

Now hear me, I do believe that God is everlasting (He has always been). And I do believe that His nature (at the core of which is love) never changes. I just think it's important to split these theological hairs because I feel it changes how we relate our faith to others and how we interact with God.

What about you dear rare reader? Do believe that God is timeless or everlasting? Do you think there is a difference? Are you encouraged or frightened by the idea that God changes?

Pro Life and Pro Death?

2011-10-24T09:00:00.008-04:00

Apparently someone using cafepress is on the same page as I am.
Current song: "Writers bock" by Britt Daniel and Brian Reitzell
------
I will start this blog off by saying that I realize this is a hot button topic. I cannot promise that I won't offend you or upset you. Continue reading realizing I am not objective and I am addressing this topic because of particular influences and resources I have come across. I don't claim to have all the answers, just an opinion.

Some would probably title me as a "progressive evangelical". It's a new breed of individuals that find themselves to be socially liberal (loaded term) but theologically conservative (another loaded term). I get painted this way, and probably rightly so, because I disagree with fundamentalists (more loaded terms) on social issues and even if I agree with them I entertain opposing ideas a little too much. One issue this happens often on is that of the death penalty.

When it comes to abortion I believe that it is wrong in most cases (most cases meaning when it's not incest, rape, or life threatening to mother) and I believe that it is murder. Now when that life begins is another conversation but I willingly take on the title of "pro life". And most evangelicals would as well. Their basic argument is that life is too precious or too important to God and we shouldn't take it from such an innocent being. If life is so important to God then I think that has to be taken into account when we declare war and when we punish someone for their crimes.

Now I am not saying that I am a pacifist or that I believe there are no situations when taking someone's life isn't the right thing to do (read: "least evil thing"). But what I am saying is that I believe Christians should be the last people in line when it comes to taking a persons life and that doesn't always seem to be the case.

When it comes to the death penalty it comes down to one simple question for me:
"Why is the death penalty the best or only punishment possible for this crime?"
I get the idea that people need to have consequences for their actions. I get that some people are pure evil and may not ever be able to come back into society. I understand that we there is a sense of justice that we are trying to achieve here on earth. I get all that but I still don't understand why DP is the best or only option?

I also wonder what it says about the Christian belief in resurrection or transformation. When we say that someone is too far gone and can never be redeemed what are we really saying about the power of the Holy Spirit. Aren't we basically saying "Satan you win. You got that guy and we cannot get him back. Good move.... Now let's kill him!"

Let's go a different direction. Let's say that you really want this guy to pay for his crime and there is nothing worse than killing him. Really? I would think that killing him would be letting him out of the punishment. If you are on the side of "let's really punish him" then I would imagine you would want to take him out of America and destroy him physically and mentally.

In the end I think I have a few pretty simple points:
1) Christians should value all of God's creation and protect it. This includes both unborn children and murders.
2) Christians should be holding tightly to the idea that the Holy Spirit can redeem anyone. Because in the end aren't we all "the chief of sinners"?

What about you dear rare reader? Do you feel the death penalty is the best or only possible punishment? Do you feel I am missing something here (I'm sure I am)?

Response - Christian as an Adjective

2011-10-21T09:00:00.000-04:00

Are you "RAD"!? (I feel lame just typing it out)
Current song: "Urda real thing" by Pneumatic
---
A few posts ago I wrote about how I was never going to be a famous theologian. It was tongue-in-cheek but, as if often the case, it was some what true as well. One of my dear rare readers pushed me a little to explain why I feel or view some of the things that I do. We engaged in some emailing and I thought I would post my explanations to her so that you know as well. Don't worry, I asked permission before posting an email correspondence.

Question: Why do you dislike "Christian things" and/or using Christian as an adjective?
This is really just a response to my background and upbringing. When I was growing up I was all about the “Christian version of X”. I had a Christian band for every secular band out there. I had T-shirts with Christian slogans or rip offs of secular products. But then I started thinking more about the downline of those products. Example, I want to support a Christian publishing house but the biggest ones (say Zondervan) is owned by a secular conglomerate. Or maybe I get a Christian t-shirt, but the t-shirt is made from an American Apparel T-shirt (a company known for using sexuality to sell merchandise). So I began to question the sense of “purity” I felt I had by buying so much Christian stuff (which is an issue in and of itself. I mean who feels they can purchase purity?)

Also, Christian merch is normally of lower quality. Whenever a band or product tries to be the “Christian version of X” they normally aren’t as good as X and so I question why I even need it. Do I really need a Christian version of DDR, breath mints, or bed sheets? If I need these products to prop up my faith or to protect me "from the world" then I think it's fair for you to question the strength of my faith.

Another thing is that too many people use Christian merch to create a Christian bubble that protects them from “the evil world around them”. Now don’t get me wrong, there are certainly things we should stay away from in our culture but simply because something is “secular” doesn’t mean it’s bad or evil.

You should also know that I grew up home schooled and my dad was a pastor. I saw TONS of sheltered kids who had parents that used Christian merch to keep the world from negatively impacting their children. What happened was that the parents tried to control everything that was in the child's life. But when the parent couldn't control everything anymore the child was exposed to "the world" and the child wasn't prepared for it and lost their faith. I think “things of the world” is kind of like sicknesses. If you keep your child from ever touching germs and you never get them immunized then the first time they get sick it’s going to be REALLY bad. So what you do is you protect them and slowly let them build up their immunity system. There are some things they should always stay away from because they will always get sick from it but by building up their system they aren’t going to get destroyed by the simplest thing. They can take a few germs and not be impacted by it. In the same way, Christians should be able to watch a secular movie or show and be ok. They should be able to be “in the world” and not be controlled by it. There are of course some things that all Christians should stay away from (say pornography) but simply because there are some wrong things doesn’t mean we need a Christian version of everything.

And lastly, sorry I just keep going, Christian merch too often has less to do with the Christian virtues they hope to instill with the merch and more about making another buck. Christian greed and/or Christian materialism are things that I avidly hate and too often Christian merch supports those things.

So what about you dear rare reader? What is some of the "best" Christian kitsch that you have found? Are you encouraged or discouraged by the amount of Christian products that try to replace secular versions?

Personal Update - Lists

2011-10-17T09:00:00.005-04:00

My wife sells Scentsy and she LOVES it. If you want to make a few extra bucks for the holidays you should check out her website.
Current Song: "Solstice" by Empyrean
-----

I told you that you would be getting more "random thoughts" updates and fewer deep theological ones. Since I warned you I feel I am justified to talk about whatever I want to take up blog post space. Today I thought I would give you a little glimpse into who I am.

++I have tried just about every single coffee creamer flavor. How many could there be you ask? Well, I have tried every flavor that these companies have to offer: International Delight, Coffee Mate, and Baileys Creamers. Of course by "coffee creamer" I mean
1) Liquid and not powder
2) Full flavor and not fat free or skinny
Those two are the qualifications for what counts as a coffee creamer. If it's powder or fat free then it's something gross and shouldn't be put in your coffee. That's not an opinion. That's a fact.

++The majority of my casual wear has at least one rip or one hole in it and there is a certain element of pride that goes with it. You should understand that I have probably around 8-10 t-shirts that I wear and now up to about 5 pairs of shorts. Some how I am able to pat myself on the back for having holey clothes because it says something about a simplistic lifestyle to me or that I am not caught up trying to wear the latest things. Really I just hate buying shirts that
1) Are not comfortable the moment I put them on
2) I might see on someone else in the mall/store
To avoid these things I try to purchase my shirts either at concerts directly from the band or from thrift stores.

++I don't like wearing pants. If I had my choice I would wear shorts every where, regardless of temperature. There are multiple reasons why this is true
1) Trying to find the right cut and the right length of pants is so complicated. I don't know if I am too old for skinny jeans or if baggy jeans are too out of style to still wear them. Shorts are a lot easier to figure out.
2) I HATE wet feet. This means that when it rains or snows the last thing I want happening is my pants to pick up the water, put that water on my shoes, and then my shoes give the water to my feet. To avoid this I just wear shorts.
3) My legs don't get cold. Well I should say "they rarely get cold". It's really easy for me to be outside in shorts when its' 20-30 degrees outside because my leg hairs perfectly insulate my legs. Ok, now I feel like you are starting to know a little too much about me. Moving on.

++I try to convince myself that I get winded by walking up stairs not because I am out of shape but because I subconsciously hold my breath while walking up them. That is the only way I am able to justify to myself why my heart would possibly be beating so fast from simply walking up one or two flights of stairs.

++I like lists and bullet points. See above for proof.

++I listen to NPR on my drives to and from work and while at work I listen to Foxnews in the background. I feel this gives me a nice middle ground when it comes to politics. But I would say that wouldn't I?

Alright, that is enough for now. But what about you? Do any of these apply to you or variations of them?

Book Review - The Best News You Will Ever Hear

2011-10-14T09:00:00.027-04:00

The picture actually is related to the post for once. Read on for more info

Current song: Explosions in the Sky - "The Birth and Death of the Day"
------

Earlier this month (September) Tom (Note the casualness in which I mention him by his first name. As if we have shared dinner together and know each other's children well.) posted on a couple facebook pages that if you were willing to read and review one of his books by Christmas then he would give said book for free. Since I already own The Nature of Love (A too long review/essay here) and Defining Love (to be read for my thesis) I had one option left: The best news you will ever hear. Tom was faithful to his word so I will be faithful to mine as well.

The book is both different from how Tom normally writes and yet the content is very familiar nonetheless. The difference is immediately obvious, it is his intended audience and the language that he uses.

Language
The preface starts out "The title of this book is true. You are holding a book that tells the best news you will ever hear. Ever! We are not exaggerating." Obviously the approach of the book is a little more relaxed than in previous books where he is trying to defend Essential Kenosis as God's character. The audience he is writing to is the common layman and it was written for someone with a 5th grade reading level. It is also written in such a style that it's difficult to read this book without imaging the authors typing furiously with excitement or relaying the books message to you with a big smile.

It also appears that he is trying to avoid some of the loaded and confusing Christian language. Things like "the Kingdom of God" or "eternal life" are rarely, if ever, mentioned. Instead he substitutes in "God's loving leadership" or "abundant life" to try and make the concepts easier to understand. I am not certain how intentional he tried avoid Christian-ese but I appreciated how approachable he tried to make the subject matter. What happens too often is that theologians get caught up in trying to relay what they feel are critical distinctions and forget how to translate those distinctions into "common language." From my perspective Tom was successful in relaying the good news in an understandable way while maintaining a unique perspective.

But how did he present the good news?

Common Oord Themes
Surprise surprise, another one of Tom's books focuses on love. Who would have saw that coming?!

This is how the book felt so familiar and similar to Tom's other works. The book starts with the claim that "God is not mad at you". From there Tom develops a theology of a loving God who desires for us to be in loving relationship with Him. Tom also hints at his process background by saying that God tries to have us love properly in each moment and when we do that we will be experiencing His "loving leadership" (aka the Christian life).

A second familiar element to this work is Tom's acknowledgment that science and Christianity don't have to be opposed. The name of chapter two is "God is a good creator" and he ends the chapter saying that "Science and the Bible are not enemies. We(the authors) consider them partners for helping us discover truth about who God is and what God's good creation is like." He did not give a full apologetic of how science and religion can work together (check out these works for a full exploration in that matter: book one, book two, and book three) but even just the acknowledgment that they can (should?) work together is unique to a gospel presentation.

Overall Impression
Overall I really appreciated his approach to presenting the good news. He founded his whole presentation on his understanding that God is love and kept that as the center throughout the whole book. He also made sure to emphasize that salvation (I don't believe he ever used that word) begins now and has the ability to significantly impact the world we live in today. He made sure to acknowledge there are benefits in the afterlife but every time he mentioned the benefits of following God it always included a "now and later" point.

However, I have a feeling that focusing on love will upset a lot of readers because they will feel it downplays sin. In fact Tom doesn't even really approach the subject until chapter three (out of five chapters) and even then he rarely, if ever, calls it "sin". A lot of reformed believers have focused so much on our depravity that they are probably going to count Tom's dealing with sin as unsuccessful at best and sinful at worse (ironic, no?)

In the end the book seemed authentic. The authors did not appear to be selling a used car to a reluctant "pre-believer". Instead they seemed to have been on a great adventure with amazing sights and are now inviting others to go along and see with them. I feel the book does a great job of countering the sin-heavy-Christian-ese-speaking gospel presentations that are abundant in the Christian market. If given an opportunity I would feel very comfortable giving this book to someone who is trying to understand a base level presentation of Christianity.

Parenting Tips

2011-10-10T09:00:00.007-04:00

Here is an old picture of me back in 2001/2002 and I still wear that shirt often... it just has a lot more holes in it now.
Current song: "Time Stops" - Explosions in the sky
----

Experience is a great learning tool if you allow it to inform your decisions. It's with this in mind that I want to reflect a little on my life and offer some suggestions to those that may not have been where I have been. So for the next few blogs I hope/plan on writing "_____ tips" for different environments. Hope you enjoy them.

Things I didn't expect when I thought about becoming a parent:
Plan nap time and bed time well or you will be destroyed!

Are you any good at making plans? What about problem solving? Analysis? Strategizing for optimum settings? If you answered "no" to all of those then don't become a parent.

Ok well that's a little harsh. Let's just say that if you cannot do these things then you are going to be hurting right around 7-9pm every night. Why? Because you didn't properly plan out your nap time strategy. You remember how annoying it is to hear a parent go through their schedule and try to figure out when they can hang out with you (single/non-parent person)?

"Well Jimmy has to eat around 9am. Then their nap time starts at 11:45am. I guess we could get some coffee around 10:15 as long as we go to shop down the street. If we go to the one across town then Jimmy will be in his car seat too long and I will have to break out his toys too early. If that happens then I will have to give him a snack during....."

All you wanted to know is if the parent was free for coffee tomorrow and you just got a detailed plan rivaling that of Valkyrie in complexity. You roll your eyes and think once again to yourself "I'm so glad I'm a free bird!"

So those of you who are thinking about transitioning from "eye rollers" to "baby strollers" (I'm such a poet!) take heed of my warning. You must plan nap times and bed times well or you will be destroyed!

You might be thinking to yourself "Dan is just trying to be funny. It isn't that big of a deal if I move Jimmy's nap time by 90 minutes." Just know that if you are thinking that or saying that then the other parents around you are getting their popcorn and chairs right now and are getting ready for the upcoming showing.

This is what I know. If my wife has the girls take a nap during the day (because she's tired, not the girls) I know they will stay up later for me. I can actually map out when they will go to sleep based upon these variables
1) how active were they today
2) how much sleep did they get last night
3) how much sleep have they gotten this morning
So let's say they had a "typical" night last night, spent no time outside, and got a 2 hour nap in. That means they are not going to sleep until 11pm. If they had a normal night sleep, spent all day at the zoo, and only got 45 minutes of a nap then they should be sleep by 9:30pm. Or if it is the same example but with no nap they will be asleep by 8:30 and will be whining/crying from 6:30-8:30.

My point is this dear rare non-parent reader, if you are going to become a parent realize that your children's sleep patterns will dictate your schedule. And if have the guts to ignore that pattern then be ready for hours/days/years of whining and crying.

You've been warned.

Things/People You Should Know

2011-10-07T09:00:00.005-04:00

It's very important that when you go to the beach you dig multiple holes. Building castles is alright but you can't build anything unless you dig a good size hole first!
Current song: "Bixby Canyon Bridge" - Death Cab For Cutie
----

Here are a few things that I enjoy thoroughly and I thought you should know about them. In no particular order:

Stuff Christians Like: The blog was first a list, similar to StuffWhitePeopleLike, that would use satire to show just how silly Christian/church culture is. A book came out by the same name (same author) and it is a collection of some of the finer points on the blog. Anymore, however, Jon uses the space for more than just satire. His posts are funny and he has a great heart. You should definitely check it out.

22Tracks (relax): A really simple website that provides different playlists (22 songs in length) of free music. The reason I love this website, and particularly the relax playlist, is because it's from Amsterdam and provides me with a bunch of music I wouldn't have heard about otherwise.

Vlog Brothers: They are two brothers who communicate via video on their youtube channel. Their channel has gone through yearly changes but the format of one brother "speaking" to the other has always been consistent. Their vlogs to each other are insightful and entertaining. If you are going to subscribe to any YouTube channel it needs to be this one. (I have even blogged about them before here.)

Sigur Ros - "Glosoli": I have been a fan of Sigur Ros for a long time. I distinctly remember playing () over and over again in college to the point that I made my roommate hate Sigur Ros. How could you not love this video when it has: a little drummer boy, a drum build up, a great melody, and awesome landscaping?

Kongregate: This website may or may not be where I spend a good amount of my time at work. What I do know is that it has thousands of flash games and it gets updated frequently. Some of the games are event decent.

Alright, there are 5 things that I really enjoy. What about you? What are a few things that are making your life better recently?

(not) A Famous Theologian

2011-10-03T09:00:00.000-04:00

From top to bottom and left to right: Irenaeus, Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards, Karl Barth, and NT Wright. If you don't know these guys you should check them out!
Current song: Radiohead - "Optimistic"
----

Have you had a moment in your life that you realize your dreams wont come true? Maybe you hit high school and realize your dreams of being a professional basketball player is out of the question. Or maybe it's when you realized getting into outer space is a lot harder than you thought when you were 7. I have had plenty of those types of realizations and the most recent one was realizing I won't be a famous theologian.

I'm sure you realized this long before I did but for a while there it seemed too easy. Make a couple good observations. Publish a book or two and bingo-bango I will have speaking deals through the summer and a tenured position at a university. But alas it is not that easy and I'm starting to see there is no "bingo-bango". Here are a few of the things that I think will keep me from bingo-ing or bango-ing.

My personal theology is constantly changing on too many topics.
I have discussed how I think it's important to continually remember we still see things dimly. Well this leads me to being cautious to make any absolute or definitive statements. I seriously consider differing opinions on issues I have given little thought to, instead of holding to my mildly considered stance. Some people see me as "changing my opinion based upon the current book I am reading" (almost an exact quote from someone recently).

I am too friendly with Emergent thinking.
How many presidents at universities are saying "Emergent church?! Well why didn't you say so! Come on in!!"? I have to imagine that "Emergent/Emerging" has two reactions in high level academics
1) "Emergent? He's a heretic and I am contacting his pastor now to have him burned at the local stake!"
2) "Emergent? I thought that died back in 2009. He's so out of touch"

I am too friendly with Process theology.
Open Theism is already a black mark on one's theological card but when you start getting chummy with process theology you are just asking to stay unemployed. That isn't to say that process theologians don't get hired because I'm sure there are 2 or 3 schools out there that hire them. But what is the likelihood of getting into one of those three schools with so many other unemployed process theologians?

My spelling and grammar are horrible.
The chances are that you have read something on this blog and had to reread the sentence a few times because I forgot to add a "the" or remove an extra "and". Sure there are editors to fix issues like that in books but it still doesn't look good in a thesis or a dissertation.

I like too many "secular" things.
I mean I even put quotes around secular, obviously I'm too friendly with "things of the world". I like:
Bands like Radiohead, Bon Iver, Explosions in the sky, and other ambient/post-rock bands.
Movies like Donnie Darko, Zoolander, and Grindhouse.
I have read/listened to all of the Harry Potters and I take every chance I can to read/listen to more Stephen King.

I dislike most Christians things.
Things like "Lords Gym" on a T-shirt, Christian music stations, anything that claims to be "the Christian version of ___insert popular product here___", televangelists, most evangelists, spiritual hierarchy, etc etc. If you use Christian as an adjective I probably dislike what you are describing.

I want to spend more time playing video games than reading books.
This is a killer. If you are going to be famous you need to have hobbies like "reading the recent publication from 'random journal that two other people read'" or better yet "Reading the Bible and denying myself all other pleasures my body desires". Sorry but I'm not that guy. I know too much about the spray range on an MP5 navy in Counter Strike and Call of Duty and not enough about the differing Soteriological stances from 3rd century churches.

I'm sure there are plenty more but those are the big ones. If I was a little more solid on a few beliefs, if I spent more time reading books, and if I wore more Christian kitsch then I would be set. But I'm, I don't, and I won't.

What about you? What was a dream you realized was out of reach? How did you come to this conclusion? Did it cause you to change anything?

Understanding Salvation - Linear

2011-09-30T09:00:00.000-04:00

When I saw this picture it made me laugh. Then I realized exactly how much of a geek I am. His name is Adolf von Harnack and he is a huge theologian for liberalism.
Current song:
----

A while ago I discussed my view of sanctification (found here) and I also wrote about some thoughts I was processing about salvation (found here). Some of what I will say in this post I already said in those two or at least hinted at. Forgive me for the overlap in thoughts.

I generally like linear things. Like logical conclusions or processes that involve steps to reach a conclusion. I think this may even be tied into my love of goals. I already commented about how those goals have too often included spiritual disciplines and how that has screwed up some things. My enjoyment of linear things has, likewise, had some negative consequences.

I know I have mentioned in the past that I was raised Nazarene and as you may remember their big identity thing is "entire sanctification". They believe in a second work of grace where you give Christ your complete and full life and die to your sinful nature. Basically you are no longer a slave to your sin nature (but that doesn't mean you cannot sin anymore). I always understood salvation and sanctification as points in a line that you reach. Something like this:

So you start as a non-Christian in life, move to salvation, and then into sanctification. You do this until death when you are then eternally set. But the problem is that I also thought that you could backslide. Which means that you might cross the salvation point but maybe as you are about to reach the sanctification mark you mess up and go back to start. Do not collect $200.

So there is this constant fear that no matter how secure I was in my faith that at any point I could sin and go back to start. It's like climbing a mountain and being scared that you might lose your footing and lose all the ground you just gained. A horrible way to live a life of faith for sure but unfortunately this is the view that has been pounded into me for so long.

Another bad by-product of this type of thinking is that I can reach salvation or sanctification. That if I only pressed on hard enough that I could reach the magical point where I am saved/sanctified. It is a very singular moment that stands in time at a point, it is not a process. And that's bad news because if the New Testament tells us anything it is that salvation and sanctification is a process. That while it is true that we "were" saved it more often speaks about "being saved" or "will be saved". So what I have found myself doing so often is that I keep hoping to reach the point where I am safe. I think if I push hard for this month, week, or year that I can reach "that point" which will allow me to rest without furthering my relationship with God. That I can become "entirely sanctified" and coast the rest of the way through life.

When your view of salvation is linear it is too easy for you to view it as a race. That if you sprint hard enough for a limited amount of time then you will get there and get your reward. And once you are there you can be done. But that's not true and it's something I too often forget.

Salvation is a long hard process. It is not a fine point in time that you reach and are done with. There is certainly a point when salvation begins, but I am hard pressed to find a biblical example of when someone was able to reach it and they were done.

What about you? Have you found yourself viewing salvation as something that is reached and done? If not, then how do you view salvation? Have you found yourself living like salvation is linear but trying to believe it isn't? (I know I have)

Possible Change

2011-09-26T09:00:00.001-04:00

I am going to attempt to change the format of this blog. Here is a quick history review of how this blog has gone:

+Create it while still having a different blog (I think xanga?)
+Eventually started writing here exclusively
+Began seminary and actively ignored the blog
--In my defense I was busy writing, thinking, and studying other stuff
+Would write during breaks
+Would write after I had put off a topic for 4-5 months
+Challenged myself to update every 5 days during this past summer

My new challenge/format for myself is to have a new update every Monday and Friday. It's close to every 5 days so I think I can keep up with that pace. The thing is that as I get deeper into school (probably within the next week) I will be too busy to give well thought out and deep content. So begin to expect more "random thoughts" posts or family posts. Not that they are bad, just different.

This was just going to be a quick little update. So in summary
Pro: I will be updating every Monday and Friday
Con: The content will be less theological/philosophical and more personal

Hope that you continue coming back dear rare reader.

Theological Annoyances

2011-09-22T09:00:00.003-04:00

This video has absolutely nothing to do with this post but it's awesome and I wanted to share it.
Current song: The Strokes - "Electricityscape"
----

I thought I would let you into my head a little and share a few theological annoyances. These are things that when used in conversation normally annoy me or in the very least make me apprehensive about what the person means. If you remember saying these things around me or will say them in the future, please realize I don't hate you or find you annoying. It's more about the general over use of these things and less about the people.

"God is in control"
-Well if you are trying to relay the idea that God is powerful then I certainly agree. If you are trying to say that God is divinely wise then I will agree. If you are saying that God has caused this horrible event to take place then we are going to have a problem. If you are saying that God already has our future mapped out then I completely disagree. God is in control to the extent that He has allowed Himself to be in control.

"God's mind is not like our mind... God's ways are not our ways... We cannot really know what God is like..."
-If you are saying that God is part mystery then I agree. If you are trying to say that God is beyond our ability to wrap our minds around then I agree. If you are saying that God's will is always better than our own then I agree. However, if you are saying that I cannot have certainty of how God works then I disagree (and I have Christ on my side!)
-Another annoyance associated with these statements are how quickly they are used. Too often a difficult theological question will come up and someone won't know how to answer it. Instead of struggling with the seemingly contradictory facts they will throw down the "God is beyond our knowledge" card. I agree we cannot know God fully, but don't you want to know Him more?

"Satan is attacking me and that is why ___insert bad thing here__ happened to me."
-It's very possible that Satan loves that this bad thing has happened to you. Maybe he is even looking for ways to make things worse for you even now. However, simply because something bad happened to you doesn't mean that Satan was behind it. Maybe you got a speeding ticket because you screwed on the computer too long and were now speeding to get where you needed to go. Maybe your phone got shut off because you spent your money eating out instead of paying your phone bill. Maybe you got fired because you are disrespectful to your boss. I am not questioning Satan's delight in our pain or suffering. What I am questioning is his direct hand in your irresponsibility.

I'll stop there before I upset or offend anyone else. What about you though? Are there any theological cards that annoy you when they are played? Is there anything you hear from fellow Christians that rub you the wrong way?

Unnecessary Spiritual Goals

2011-09-17T09:00:00.009-04:00

This my nightly babysitter. She is super reliable and my kids love her!
Current song: Radiohead - "Pulk-Pull Revolving Doors" (Radiohead helps me write)
---

One thing you should know about me is that I am a goals oriented person. Give me a goal and I will give you 110% but if you don't give me something to shoot for then I general lack the motivation to do awesome. Without a goal I will simply do enough to get by and meet the needs of whatever it is. This is both a strength and a weakness for me.

One thing that I have realized is that I have let this creep into my relationships, including my one with God, and it generally just impacts how I do life.

When it comes to friends, or my wife, or the kids I will create unnecessary goals for myself. I'll say how I am going to play with the girls every night and not use the TV as a babysitter. Or I will call every friend in my phone this month. I will work out every day this week. I will ___insert goal here___ ___insert time range here___. These goals can be great. It will give me something to focus on and something to pursue. I am not saying that these goals are bad and if I keep to them they can be great but what happens too often is that when they pertain to God I sometimes lose Him in the goal.

What we do too often is that we setup good goals that we believe will help our relationship. Similar to saying "I will get my wife flowers once a month". That gesture is a great thing but if you focus too much on the gesture you might forget that this isn't supposed to be a chore you have put upon yourself but it's supposed to be something done with love. How meaningful could it be to your wife if you gave her flowers and said "this meets my flower quota for the month!" I'm sure it would melt her heart, I know Sarah would get all weak-kneed over such a comment.

I think this is pretty classic for most evangelicals, and Stuff that Christians Like recently wrote about a similar topic (HERE). We do this unnecessary goals thing with God as well. We say that we will read the Bible for 30 minutes every morning, or pray the whole commute to work, or journal our life daily, or etc etc. These things are wonderful but what good are they to God if we turn them into chores instead of love moments?

"Oh no! This month is almost over, I had better get those flowers for my wife!"
*grab the first ones inside the walmart doors*
"Here hun. This shows how much I love you...Yeah I know, I know, I have ignored you this month. But look, I got you flowers! I bet you weren't expecting them!"
*back to ignoring the wife*

"Oops. Forgot to do my devotions today. Better read before I fall asleep"
*Cross-eyed-tired-reading. Not gathering anything*
"Good thing I got that in or I would have had to read twice as much tomorrow!"
*Yells at the kids about staying in their beds and threatens death*

Admittedly goals are good and helpful. But the goal is not the end, it is a means to an end. We too often forget that the flowers aren't where the relationship ends but where it begins. After the flowers are presented then comes the talking about the day's stresses and the upcoming events. After the Bible reading comes living in God's presence as we experience the rest of life, involving Him as we move.

So what do we (me) end up doing? We either get stuck on the goals being the end or we drop the goals all together. At least this is what I do. Being afraid of making Bible reading my God, I forget how it can help me connect with Him. I am so worried that my wife might get bored with flowers that I don't remember how happy it makes her when I bring her home her favorite ones. This is sort of where I am now. Afraid of making gods out of my spiritual disciplines, I have made them obsolete. I have forgotten how meaningful they can be to my relationship with God.

What about you? Do you have a tendency to focus too much or too little on spiritual disciplines? Have you gotten lost in the actions of spiritual disciplines and forgotten the end result they should be producing? How did you get out of that funk?

Thesis - Uncovered Concerns II

2011-09-12T09:00:00.004-04:00

My sister got married back in early August. We obviously love each other very much.
Current song: The Mars Volta - "L'Via L'Viaquez"
---

In my previous post I started to talk about a few theological concerns that have come to the surface as I consider and research for my thesis. I had space to address one of the concerns and I'll use this post to discuss the other one. Which is:

If God is currently doing everything He can to stop evil, then what is happening when we pray for God to stop more evil?

Obviously my concern has a basic assumption that I did nothing to develop so far. My assumption is that love fights against evil. Since God is good and God is love my assumption is that He is always and forever doing everything within His power to stop evil, within the confines of this created universe. Of course what those confines are and who put them there is another blog post. But just to mention one, I believe when God created a world with free will agents He gave up His power to exclusively dictate what the future will be. So God is doing everything He can to stop evil but I also believe He will not overtake our free will because of the confine He has already established (I have mentioned this thinking in another post here).

Now you can easily disagree with my basic assumptions and if that is the case then the question is meaningless. But let's say you do agree. You believe, like I do, that God is actively and currently working to redeem the world. To rid His creation of evil and He is doing this to the fullest extent He can because He is love.

Let's also say you agree with me that we have the ability to move God. I would define "move God" by saying that God will perform an action if our request and His will are aligned. (Thanks go out to a recent facebook discussion to help me define it in such a way.) I believe this stance to be easily supported by the Bible and Church history. It's the basic idea that "prayer has power".

Now what I want to be careful not to do is paint God as a genie in a bottle. I don't believe we can throw out a request to Him and He has to answer it positively. But I do believe that He moves in special ways at times because we ask Him to. So my question (similar to my previous post about prayer and open theism) is if our prayer has the ability to influence God into doing something supernaturally then can we still confirm He is doing everything He can to stop evil? Apparently there is something a little extra that He could be doing if we only ask Him to.

So what are we left with? It feels like we are either left with a God who isn't moved by prayer or a God who isn't currently doing everything He can to stop evil. Neither of these leave me with much comfort.

I realize there is always the "God's ways are not our ways" and His mind is not like our mind. I get that He is too large for us to fully comprehend. But we also have to remember that when we see Christ we see God. That Christ is God and Christ became human. So God is not so far off that we have no way of understanding Him and approaching Him. He has made Himself incredibly accessible in Christ and we should have confidence that we can understand God to a great extent (but obviously not fully).

Thesis - Uncovered Concerns

2011-09-07T09:00:00.015-04:00

Ever find yourself alone in a hotel with nothing to do but there is a movie on and you keep watching it but you don't know why? Yeah, that's how I found out about this movie.
Current song - Coldplay - "Swallowed in the sea"
----

So far I am really enjoying the reading and little writing I am doing for my thesis. For the most part the books have kept me wanting to come back to them and I have stayed interested in the topics so far (notice how I am leaving room for losing interest and the whole thing starting to suck?). As I consider free will and the problem of evil in depth a few issues have come up that I don't know how to work through completely.

Thankfully I have smart friends and family that can help me think through the concerns. They have given me some suggestions and tools to utilize but so far I haven't been able to put all the pieces together and come up with solid answers to the concerns. So I thought I would share them with you, dear rare reader, and see what you think. They boil down to two ultimate questions:

1) Will we have free will in heaven?
2) If God is doing everything He can to stop evil, then what happens when we pray that God will stop more evil?

The first question may seem harmless. Regardless of your answer we are still talking about heaven so how bad could an answer of Yes or No be? Let's consider the options.

If No:
Primer:A basic point of my theology, which you may not agree with, is that libertarian free will is necessary for there to be a authentic loving relationship between two beings. Without free will we have no real way of saying "yes" or "no" to God. Instead we a dictated by our genetic make up, previous experiences, or God's declaration to do or say particular things. When we are presented with an opportunity to respond to God's love positively or not it isn't our desire to please Him that makes us say Yes to Him. Instead it's God's desire to be pleased that causes us to say Yes. I personally don't see this as a loving relationship.

Let's give another example that may flesh this out some more. Let's say that Bill Gates shocks the world and says he is divorcing his wife and is marrying his newest invention. This invention looks just like a human but is a robot. He has programmed this robot to meet all of his desires and wishes. It makes him breakfast before work, packs his lunch, and has a long island ice tea ready for him when he gets home (apparently Bill Gates is a lot more low maintenance than we expected). Everything he could ever want out of a companion the robot is able to provide for him. It never argues with him and every time Bill asks it to do something it responds just how Bill wants it to. The question is, is this a loving relationship? Does the robot love Bill and does Bill love the robot? Bill may be enjoying the power and control he has but is his use of the object really a loving relationship?

(end of primer)

This is why I believe free will is necessary for a loving relationship. When I purchase flowers for my wife it is meaningful because they came from my desire to please her. Not her desire to be pleased. So how does this relate to the after life? Well if we answer that we won't have free will in heaven (as Greg Boyd does) then I believe that means we cannot have a loving relationship with God in heaven. If we have no way to relate lovingly to God in heaven then how can it be the place we all imagine it to be?

If Yes:
However, if you answer that we will have free will in heaven then my concern becomes God's final triumph over sin. Boyd's argument that free will is temporary is that he doesn't feel you can affirm free will in heaven and confidently say that God will be "all in all" and have final victory over sin. I share his concern.

In heaven there is supposed to be no more pain or tears. That sin and Satan have finally been defeated. Let's say that someone in heaven exercises their free will and does choose other than God. Then we can no longer say that God had final victory over sin because now there is someone sinning. We can't say that God is "all in all" because there is at least one individual that is outside of God's will.

But maybe you are saying that no one would ever choose other than God once they get into heaven because everything will be so perfect they wouldn't want anything else. What about angels though? They were with God in heaven. They saw and experienced God fully in heaven and yet some of them still chose other than God and fell from heaven. So with their example in mind can we really say with confidence that no one will ever desire other than God once they get into heaven?

This post is already far too long so I will address my concerns with prayer in my next post. I'll end this by asking where you stand on this issue. Are you more comfortable with a situation where we cannot relate lovingly with God or a situation where God might not actually be able to affirm final victory over sin? Do you think we will have free will in heaven? Maybe you disagree with how I painted the two possibilities and you see a third. If so make sure to share it with me in the comments!

Thoughts on Communion

2011-09-02T09:00:00.008-04:00

Did anyone else grow up having these communion wafers? Weren't they so tasty!?
Current song: Sigur Ros - "Hun Jor?"
---
In my last post I wrote about how our memories are often tied to our senses. We smell something and we remember our childhood. We hear something and we remember summer camp. We taste something and we remember our wedding. So the question to me is, how are we using this information in our churches?

I don't want to say that the church needs to be like __fill in the blank__ because that happens to often. A business. A plant. A family. A bridge. A bride. Obviously the Bible gives us some ideas as to what we should look like and how we should conduct ourselves. And I am cautious to say that the church HAS to be considering how to utilize our senses more. So it isn't that I think churches who aren't using our senses are doing church wrong. However, I do think it's an area that isn't explored nearly enough and it's something that churches would do well to consider more.

Maybe a better question than "how are we using this information in our churches" is "how did Christ try to tap into our senses?"

He obviously used parables and imagery that was common for people so they could follow along (or confuse them even more. such a tricky guy.). But did He do something or setup something that intentionally utilized people's senses? YES! Communion.

In the Last Supper Jesus calls His followers to eat these things in remembrance of Him. I think what He was trying to do was to tie their memories of His life, future death and resurrection to the taste and sight of the bread and wine. He knew that our senses have significant power in helping us remember. The look of the bread and wine. The touch of them. The sound of the bread breaking. The taste of them. He has called His followers to utilize all of their senses in hopes that they will help Him remember Him. But are we?

This seems to be something that most churches fail to highlight. Some churches do a good job of relaying how taking communion is important. Some churches do a good job of helping people remember the significance of Christ's death associated with communion. And others highlight the resurrection and our empowerment to be like Christ. But I am hard pressed to showcase a church that actually ties the life, death, and resurrection of Christ with the senses involved with communion.

It seems like most churches just assume it will happen. That people will connect the dots themselves. They assume that the lay person will be able to say "ah, yes. The sight, smell, sound, taste, and touch of this flavorless, plain, small, smooth wafer reminds me of Christ's life, death, and resurrection." And maybe they do? Maybe there are individuals out there that are broken and then empowered again by the sight of the small cup of grape juice and flavorless wafer. If so, GREAT! But that person isn't me.

Unfortunately I don't have the answers. I think this is an area of improvement for most churches but it's too big of a thing for me to try and articulate fully here. So maybe it's something we can work towards together.

What do you think? How can the church start utilizing more of the senses in our services and projects? Should churches be doing more to highlight the use of the senses in communion or should we just allow the lay person to connect the dots?

The Impact of Music

2011-08-28T09:00:00.005-04:00

Granted it's a small picture but this is from the church campgrounds I would go to every summer. Ah, the memories.
Current Song: Radiohead - "Idioteque"
-----

I went to musicovery today (8/17) to listen to some music while at work and normally I try to keep my music to myself. My coworkers for some reason don't enjoy the same music as I do (odd!) and so I have one ear bud in most of the day. Since I still have to do work and be able to hear things I normally listen to softer/ambient music (ie. Bon Iver) and today I felt like listening to a little Radiohead. Typed in the band and the "current song" above came on. It had an interesting affect on me.

The song came on and I closed my eyes and breathed in deeply (thankfully my coworkers didn't notice this moment) and let myself be taken back in time. My freshman year of college with Bryan Yost came flooding into my mind because we listened to radiohead all of the time that year. When we were studying (rarely), writing papers, sleeping, entertaining people, etc etc we had radiohead playing. He had a three disc CD player and he had Kid A, OK Computer, and Amnesiac. The best radiohead albums if I do say so myself. And of course "Idioteque" was from the Kid A album.

What I find so interesting is the impact that the song is able to have on me. I go back and remember the carpet strips we had in our room (literally. We didn't have rugs or carpet, we had strips of carpet from my parents house). I remembered the way we rearranged our room multiple times either increasing or eradicating our privacy from each other. I remembered the difficulty of writing 500 word papers for Research Writing (it was a horrible class). I remembered the stress and ache of my high school girlfriend and breaking up with her. I remember my anxiety and joy of starting my relationship with Sarah (my wife). All of these things are brought to the surface and the emotions (joy and stress) have a real impact on me as I'm at work. My heart stops for a few seconds as I remember being a home schooled kid trying to navigate the politics of "going to school" for the first time. This song had an impact on me and I don't think I'm alone in my reaction. It might not have been this same song or band but I think you have experienced it as well.

Actually I am going to bank on it and this is because NPR is doing a "sounds of summer" series. Where people write in or record their memories of what sound reminds them most of summer. The slamming shut of a screen door. Farm work. The ice in a glass of ice tea. Everyone has a sound that takes them to a place and a memory. And it isn't only sound. There is a smell that reminds you of when your children were babies. There is a sight that reminds you of playing with legos as a kid. There is a touch that reminds you of your mother's hugs. Your senses trigger significant and meaningful memories. Whether they be stress-filled or ecstatic happiness, our senses take us places that we had forgotten too long ago.

I think this is critical for Christianity to remember and in my next post I plan to touch on how and why.

But what about you? Have you recently been blindsided by a memory because you heard, smelled, touched, tasted, or saw something? What is the thing that reminds you of summer? For me I think it might be mosquitoes and their annoying buzz and bite.

Bibles are like bands

2011-08-23T09:00:00.005-04:00

This picture makes me laugh. It really has nothing to do with the post :)

Current song: Sports talk radio that my coworker is listening to

----

Most of my life I have normally travelled in “non-conformity” circles. You know, the ones that have agreed to “fight the system” by creating a new system? What happens too often in these circles is that individuals try to “out-obscure” each other, showing exactly how non-conformist they really are.

Them: Have you heard ___insert obscure band here___’s latest CD?
You: No. But I really liked their early stuff!

You might have only heard one song of their “early stuff” and even then it was mildly embarrassing to listen to. Then again you could always try to one-up the person.

Them: Have you heard ___insert obscure band here___’s latest CD?
You: No. I stopped listening to them about the same time I started listening to __insert another obscure band here__”

Once you cross the line you had better be ready for a non-conformity street fight. You better have a large list of bands no one else has heard of because you know your non-conformist friend has one as well. You will go back and forth naming off bands that no one has heard of, except maybe their parents and even they don’t acknowledge they know the band’s name.

Ah yes. The non-conformist scene.

Now let’s play a game. Instead of hipsters let’s say they are Christians and instead of bands it’s translations of the Bible. Sound familiar?

Them: Did you see the new TNIV just came out?
You: No. I never really got on that bandwagon. I have stuck it out with the 1984 version. I really appreciate the purity of the version
Them: If you like the classics why don’t you read the KJV? I read that whenever I am feeling really disconnected. The “thou’s” and “thee’s” are like comfort food for me and take me back to my childhood.
You: Yeah I know what you mean, but when I really want to appreciate the classics I pull out the Vulgate. The Latin just gives me chills every time!
Them: Sure I can appreciate that. I guess I never really got into the Latin because every time I started reading it I got a hankering for the Septuagint and pulled out my 3rd century addition.

And so ensues the one-uppery of a Bible translation street fight.

What about you? Ever admit to liking a Bible translation that you rarely (if ever) read? Do you have a translation you “use for devotions” but you use a different one in church because of its respectability?

The Via Media

2011-08-18T09:00:00.013-04:00

It's funny because that's not compromising. lol. (not really lol)

Current song: Bon Iver - "Towers" (seriously I listen to bon iver constantly at work!)

---

The via media is one of those "college terms" that I only use to look smart. I mean there are easier ways to say "the middle way" but via media just sounds cooler. I mean you know it's cool when you have to use italics on it! For some reason I remember the term coming up in a church history test: "Explain how the church of the Nazarene is the via media between the Lutheran church and the roman catholic church." I felt smart because he never discussed how the Nazarenes were the middle way but I was able to piece an answer together.

This has close to nothing to do with the actual topic at hand but my wife says she gets bored of my posts because I never have anything personal in them. So that one is for you.

(transition)

A few years ago my friends would always hear me talk about balance. "It's all about balance" is what they would often hear me say. Balance between evangelism and discipleship. Balance between seeker friendly and hardcore bible studies. Balance between love and judgment. Between justice and mercy. I had this theory that we needed to do our best at holding up opposing views as much as we could. I still feel this is important but I have serious doubt that it's even possible now.

I will openly admit that I might be a little two postmodern for my own good but "I yam what I yam." I'm currently working on/through three thoughts
1) There is no such as an "objective place" from which we can process, think, and make statements.
2) Everyone thinks they are the compromise (the via media).
3) We are all responding to something or someone.

The first thought is one that more and more people are coming to agree upon. That no statement can be made and no thought considered without our personal biases getting in the way. As much as we want to remove the possibility of "human error" from science or our preconceived notions from our theology we simply cannot remove ourselves. We have to admit that our own experiences and opinions are clouding our ability to not be invested in one side or another.

The second thought, however, isn't one I have heard from many other people and it is tied directly to my third thought.

The third thought can be seen in most of our lives. In how we parent we are responding to how our parents or our in-laws parented. We either want to do things differently or do things the same way but we are nonetheless responding to what they did. In how we do our theology we are responding to those crazy fundamentalists or those crack-nut liberals. Even when I started leading our current life group, I was responding to the leaders of the groups I had been in before. I wanted to do things similar to how he did it but I didn't want to follow in this regard. We are all responding to an influence or experience that we have had.

The second thought is that we always think we are on the middle ground and we are the compromise. When someone is a hardcore bible-thumpber they say they are compromise between liberals and Fred Phelps. Churches that ordain homosexuals say "at least we aren't like those crazy conservatives and we certainly aren't as bad as Bultmann." Regardless of how soft or hard we are on a position we think we are in the middle ground. I think we saw a great example of this with the "national debt crisis".

So what's the moral of the story? Caution and humility. We need to remember that whatever we say or whatever we do we are moving from a very subjective space. We think we are right because we are defining the extremes and safely putting ourselves in the middle. I don't think this means we can't say anything with authority but it does mean that we have to remember that we still see things dimly and we need to speak with certainty and caution at the same time.

What does God look like?

2011-08-13T09:00:00.006-04:00

According to Google images this is what God looks like. I guess I just answered my own question.
Current song - Nothing
----

(first influence)

So I was reading Stuff Christians Like and his blog reminded me of a similar topic I had been wanting to address. In his blog (already linked to) he talks about the God in his head and how the God in his head is a jerk. That some how he constructed a God that is mean and takes things away.

(second influence)

I am reading Gregory Boyd for my thesis and in his Is God to Blame he early on drives home the importance of having a correct image of God to relate to. That if we say that God is something He is not then we are doing a disservice to ourselves and to Him. How we relate to God is dependent upon how we construct God out of the Bible, experience, church tradition, and reason (the quad!).

(observation)

It seems that some of the biggest problems that people have with Open Theism is that they feel it takes away from God's power. By saying that God doesn't know the future as certainties all of a sudden what I have really said is "God isn't all knowing." When I say that God allows humanity to impact and drive some of the future people really hear "God isn't all powerful."

Really? That's what you heard? ::sigh::

I think we are all kind of guilty of something though; we are all guilty of looking to the value/skill/talent/power that we hold to be important and project that on to God. It's seems that we hold highly whatever attribute it is because we wish we were like that. We wish we could control the weather because the weather gets in our way too often. We wish we could feed hundreds or thousands because hunger kills thousands daily. We see problems, we see a way to correct them, and we say "man it would be awesome if I could do X... I bet God could do that to perfection!" And He certainly can. We have seen Him control the weather and we have seen Him feed the hungry. But I think this can get out of hand.

I think sometimes we can put on God the idea that authority equals power. That power equals knowledge. We look at our lives and see the problem of uncertainty and say "I wish I knew everything that was going to happen.... I bet God does!". We look at our inability to control our children, spouse, friends, etc and say "I bet God could control them!" We project on God the values of all powerful and all knowing, not necessarily because we see how they are defined in the Bible but because our perception of them shapes them a certain way

I have a hard time finding in the Bible a God who knows the future in exhaustive definitive details. I have a hard time finding a God in the Bible that controls people and manipulates their actions. I realize some people see this God but I would like to encourage them to look again. There is something in the prophets that shows the heart of God as broken because He thought His children would return to Him but they don't. There is something in the accounts of the kings that shows His regret for putting certain people in power and changing His plan.

I mean if Christ is our example. If we can look to Him and see God then surely we can look to Him and see a God who doesn't control his environment (He got way too frustrated at times) and doesn't know exactly what will happen.

So I guess in the end this blog is an encouragement or a challenge to some. Look again and see the God you have a relationship with. Does it match up with the God presented in the Bible, and more specifically the God that Christ shows us?

A Quick Rant

2011-08-08T09:00:00.007-04:00

These are my friends. Well not really but they're hipsters so they probably would be if we were to meet.

Current Song - Bon Iver - "Beth/Rest" (I listen to a lot of Bon Iver at work... see I'm such a hipster)

---

So this will just be a quick rant. I don't know about your circle of influences but I often find myself in circles that value non-conformity. Yes there is significant irony that their is conformity in non-conformity.

I have gone through punk, hard core, screamo, indie, and I am somewhere around indie and post rock right now. Throughout all of my life I have been around people that are constantly trying to one-up someone else with their lack of random knowledge. "Have you heard of band X?... Have you read author Y?... Have you seen the latest movie from director Z?" I can comment about these statements, not only because I have been the one having to force out the shameful "no" but also because I have said them myself. "You mean you haven't seen/read/heard __insert random figure here__ ?!?! You have to. You will love them!"

And so this one-uping in vagueness and not-yet-famous people leads to a general dislike of anything popular (or even mildly popular). You see this all the time with an underground band that becomes super popular. When their next CD comes out everyone that found them on the first album yells "sell outs!" but the thing is really that they don't like them as much because they are popular now.

And here is my frustration: disliking things/people/movements that are trying to make a positive difference.

Let's make fun of the people wearing TOMS because instead of buying the shoes they could have donated the money to a direct cause in a 3rd world country. Let's put down micro-financing companies because they ask for people to donate to keep them going as well. Comment in a condescending way about how everyone is "building wells in Africa or trying to create clean water for 3rd world countries."

And yes I have people in mind that I am ranting at. I realize they are kind-of-sort-of joking about it. But shouldn't we be encouraging those that are trying to impact the world with Christ's love and message? Comment about a lack of creativity on how to fix the world but don't mock people for trying to fix the world.

So to those that have poked at me because of my purchasing decisions. I embrace your mockery. I will wear my toms, drink my fair trade coffee, support my microloan-families, and use environment friendly cups. You call me hipster and thats ok... I just wish you were as well.

(end of rant)

The Biter

2011-08-05T09:00:00.008-04:00

I am continually surprised by how much nerf footballs hurt. Then again when your brother is 8 years older then you I guess he can probably nail you pretty good too.

Current song: none

----

The other day I was chatting with one of my coworkers and they mentioned "the biter" in their kids class. I laughed along with them but my laughter was cut short with a realization: my kid is "the biter".

A few months ago we brought home a little note from daycare letting us know that Waverly had bitten another kid and was put in time out because of it. ::sigh:: We have had a few problems at home with her and London but we figured it was a sister thing. You know the whole: "you're my best friend... ok now I hate you and want to take a chunk out of your flesh"... the normal sibling kind of thing. But no, it had transitioned out of the home and into the daycare. Of course there were many talks that came after the daycare note about when to bite (never) and when not to bite (always). We reinforced it multiple times and so far we haven't had any repeats thankfully.

We think she does it because she is so excited (at least this is how we have comforted ourselves into thinking we aren't the worst parents ever). She is playing hard and running around and hugging everyone. She is just having so much fun that she wants a piece of that fun in her belly too!

Apparently I can't write about biting without Hannibal Lecter coming to mind. My children are doomed to be messed up.

This all came up again the other night when we were at Life Group. Friends of ours are the ones that host the group and their 3 year old interrupted us as we were discussing the finer points of God's nature. She was holding a nerf football and said "Waverly chewed my football but I didn't want her to chew it." Sure enough there were two large chunks out of the football (think an adult bite out of an apple... about that size). We had a good laugh and went into the living room where the girls were playing. And my conversation with Waverly went something like this:
Me: Waverly did you eat the football?
Waves: yeah
Me: Well where are the bites
Waves: *looking around* *looking around* *hesitation* Um.... in my belly!
Me: You mean you chewed it up in your mouth?
Waves: Yeah!
Me: And you swallowed it?
Waves: Yeah!
Me: *looking around* *looking around*

And sure enough. No evidence of the biting was ever found except for the large bites out of the football. Thankfully no health issues have come up from this odd meal but it has got me thinking about how to train professional eaters.

You thought Toddlers and Tiaras was awesome, wait until you see Pigtails and Professional Eaters!

Question: Is your kid a biter or do you have a biter in their class? How have you handled it?

The Prodigal Son: the older brother

2011-08-03T09:00:00.007-04:00

This is Rembrandt's The Prodigal Son that inspired him to write his reflections on the story.
Current song: Bon Iver - "Perth"

----

When it comes to the parable of the prodigal son I think we all see ourselves in the prodigal son. We see a time when we have been away from the Father, doing our own thing, and essentially telling Him we wish Him dead. But I find the story of the older son very interesting.

Verse 25 tells us that he was out in the field(s) and in verse 29 he tells the father of all his hard work. So we often look at the older son and see one who was obident but just got a little upset. We look at the older son and say "I wish I was a little more like him." We forgive the son for flipping out out on dad and say "I probably would have done the same thing if I were him." What we see in him is consistency. He didn't leave his father and he didn't ask for his inheritance. "That son is the good one." But I have a feeling we have romanticised him and have overlooked something.

Verse 29 is when the older son goes off on the father. We can all understand his desire for some sort of a reward but I want to take a second look at the very first line:
"Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders."
Job well done sir! You have been a consistent slave to your master... wait. You aren't a slave. He is not your master. He is your father.

The older son has completely missed the blessing of the father. He has been so busy working in the fields, trying to "do his part", that he has missed what it means to be a son. His father has to tell him that "all I have is yours" because apparently the son didn't know this. The son was so busy with other things (good things) that he missed the relationship with the father completely(a better thing).

Think about that. The father has these two sons he loves as much as anyone can love sons and they are gone. One son has chosen to ignore him by being foolish with his money. The other son has chosen to ignore the father by being foolish with his work (over working). Even though the older son is around they don't have the relationship the father wants. He wants his older son to enjoy the fatten calf and the nice things of the house.

(transition)

I met the other morning with a good friend of mine who also happens to be a pastor at my church. He was talking about how he and his wife were discussing a vacation they had coming up. He was talking about how he was just feeling a little worn down and needed refreshing from God again. He joked about turning off his phone but I tried to really encourage him to do this. "Turn it off. Leave it at home. Destroy it. Dive deeply into your relationships with God and your family and leave your job behind for a few days..." (Ok that isn't a direct quote but you get the idea). Pastor's vacation time is very valuable to me. I want to make sure that my pastors are well rested and encouraged because if they are going to be the leaders I need them to be they must be connected with their families and God.

I mention this because I think we are all guilty at times of being the older son, and pastors especially struggle with this. We get so into working the fields that we forget to come home and develop a relationship with the Father. Instead of being so focused on obeying a master we need to focus on pleasing a father. That may also entail time in the fields but it will also include time at the table with Him. Simply being with Him and embracing His presence with everyone of our pores and goosebumps.

So may we put down our tools. May we remember the way back to the house and take a seat at the Father's table. May we dive deeply into the intimate relationship that God desires so that we may enjoy with Him everything He has.

The Prodigal Son: the younger son

2011-07-29T09:00:00.012-04:00

We went camping in June and Waverly enjoyed her marshmallows a little more than the rest of us.
Current song: Led Zeppelin - "I can't quit you baby"
---

The last blog post I made some observations on the father in the parable of the prodigal son. This post I want to make a simple observation about the younger son.

A few weeks ago Jim preached from Psalm 90. It was a unique perspective and I think he did well with what God called him to do (watch the sermon here). In part of the sermon he addressed how some of us flippantly accept God's grace and don't realize the impact our sin has had on God. Or even how mighty and holy God is and how easily He could punish us for our sins. "Cheap grace" came to my mind when he was talking about this. He also addressed people that are not willing to accept God's grace because they feel like they are "the chief of sinners". When God tries pouring His love and forgiveness on them they reject it and remind God how horrible they are. They wallow in their own sin because they are so scared of making God's grace cheap.

But how does this connect with the prodigal son?

I think the younger son gives us an amazing example of how to approach God's grace.

He does not come back with an expectation that his father will forgive him. He isn't even coming back to his father in hopes of being restored to the same relationship. He acknowledges the harm and the pain he must have done to his father. So he asks for what he thinks he might be able to get. He is hopeful for a simple slave role. Even if he cannot have the loving relationship he used to have hopefully he will be able to have some sort of relationship.

This acknowledgement and his return isn't all of the story. As he returns to his father, his father runs to him and embraces him. Even after the father embraced him the son still felt like he had to admit his sins.

"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’"

Even though we don't hear from the son again we know what happens next. Verse 24 says " So they began to celebrate." To this point in the story we know of the father, the younger son, and the servants of the father. This "they" I would imagine has to encompass all of them. The son goes from "I have sinned against you" to celebrating in just a few seconds/minutes.

Like I said before I think the younger son gives us a great example on how to approach God's grace.

We need to acknowledge that what we have done has significantly impacted God and our relationship to Him. We can hope that he will accept us but we have to realize that our relationship with Him will be different. He doesn't have to accept us. We have hope that He will but we won't understand how our relationship might be different now because of our sin.
It is important that we get out a confession. I think sometimes we get lost in the embrace of God that we forget to actually confess. We sometimes sense His love and we don't actually admit that we have sinned. We know we have and we know we are lucky to feel His embrace again but we don't actually confess. That confession is critical. It is as much for you (so you admit to yourself what has happened) as it is for God to hear it from you. It helps create a new space to start your relationship from.
Once God has called us child again. Once he has put a robe back on us and given us a ring. When He has fully embraced us as His child again, then we celebrate. We don't keep harping on our sins. We don't keep reminding Him of how horrible we are. Instead we marvel in His grace and enjoy the life that He has now blessed us with.

These are not new truths and I doubt I can take credit for making these observations about the prodigal son. I mention them for our benefit though. Because I need to read these truths and because you might have forgotten them.

So may we, like the prodigal son, come back home to the waiting father. May we accept His embrace. May we confess our wrongs against Him and may we celebrate everything that God has blessed us with.

The Prodigal Son: the father

2011-07-24T09:00:00.003-04:00

Tell me those glasses and that scarf don't scream "Why yes, I did teach in an Ivy League school. Thank you for asking". Nouwen has got it going on!
Current Song: Our Lady Peace - "Clumsy"

----
Last quarter I read Henri Nouwen's The Prodigal Son. This book was fantastic and exposed me to a new way of looking at art and doing theology. It really was fantastic and I would suggest it to everyone. Also, as I already mentioned, I am finishing up Love Wins and towards the end of that book he also works with the story of the Prodigal Son to support an inclusive approach to the afterlife. I don't agree with his use of the parable here but neither do I disagree with his ultimate stance with the story (figured I would agree with him). However, both of these books have caused me to think carefully about this story in a new way. It should also be noted that I love this story, like many other Christians, and it was actually the text of my second (and last) sermon I preached.

In light of these influences and my own look into the text I would like to offer a few observations in the next couple of blogs. This one I will be focusing on the father.

The text

In verse 12 the son asks for his inheritance and the father responds with "No. You are my son and no one can take you from my hand. Not even you."... no of course not. He instead responds with "So he divided his property among them." Later in verse 24 he says "For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found". A simple observation here is that the father respects the son's decision to leave and he respects the sin that the son has committed. I find it hard to look at this scripture and see any kind of eternal security that is often found in reformed thinking. The son truly left. The son sinned and the father knew him as "dead" and "lost". Of course that is not how the father ultimately sees the son but the father does recognize that at one point the son was "dead and lost".

Another verse I want to highlight is verse 20 when it says “But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him." In other parables we have lost sheep and lost coins and in those examples the God figure goes out looking for those items. However, those items are a far cry from the complicated-ness (made up word I know) and uniqueness that makes up humanity. Those other lost parables illustrate how God pursues us but what we don't see in the story of the prodigal son is the father sending people out to bring the son back.

We don't hear anything about the father going into the city(s) to bring the son back. We don't hear about the father sending out a search party to force the son to come home. Instead the father goes out to the son only after the son has decided to come back to the father. Once the father notices that the son has decided to come back, to turn back, to repent, then the father goes to him and brings him home. The observation to me is that God respects our free will decisions even if that means leaving the sonship/daughtership that he has given us.

He will not overpower us and force blessing upon us and neither will he overcome our free will to give us our sonship back. Instead he allows us to experience as much sin and as much pain as we want to. He respects our decisions to leave him and choose other than Him. It is when we have decided the pain of separation is enough and we turn back to Him that he overcomes our sin and embraces us as children once again. I think the moment that the father embraces the son here is critical. How different might this story look if the father had gone into the brothels or the pig pen and dragged the son home? How might the son have responded differently if he had been forced back into the home of the father? For some reason I think that they relationship would have been significantly lacking.

Just a few things to consider. What else do you see in the story?

An Observation on the Casey Anthony Trial

2011-07-19T09:00:00.005-04:00

We went to Cedar Point for the 4th. The fireworks were amazing and we had a great time riding rides.

----

We hate senseless evil. We see something horrible and evil and we want to establish a cause. "It was the Nazis... It was the dictator... It was tribal wars". When necessary we even result to nonsensical answers "the tornado was a warning to not accept gays!....It's because they are into witchcraft...It's because they were gay and into witchcraft!..."

Whatever the case may be, we want to explain away our evil.

This seems to have shown it's head once again with the Casey Anthony trial. People are absolutely devostated and upset that the jury found her not guilty. What is odd is that some of the people that are so upset barely followed the case at all. They caught highlights and based upon what the media showed them they decided she was guilty. So the fact that the jury didn't agree with them shook their world. But why? Why are some people so upset?

I think it's because they are left with a horrible case of murder unsolved. A little girl was murdered and we have no one to blame. People cannot handle this.

This is why we create theodicies and answers to the problem of evil. We say that God has a greater purpose for this evil so it's ok. We say that God did all He could but He simply could not stop it.

I believe that whatever our answer to why this happened it must be able to bring comfort to those in pain and suffering. Does it help the grandparents for people to say "she got away with murder"? Does it bring comfort to the friends of Caylee to say that God is going to use this evil for good?

This is just part of the thought process I am going through for my thesis. I feel that however we answer the problem of evil it needs to be able to answer the worst examples of evil and it needs to be able to help those in pain and suffering to find comfort. This is what I am shooting for in my thesis. Let's see how well I do.

Open Theism and Prayer

2011-07-14T09:00:00.003-04:00

My little daredevil
Current Song - "In Limbo" by Radiohead
------

I have mentioned on multiple occasions how I often find myself identifying with open theists. From my experience they (like all theologians) paint themselves as the via media. They say they aren't Calvinists who say everything is already determined and they say they aren't process theologians who say God can't do anything. While I normally agree with them that doesn't mean I don't find issues with them. When it comes to the issue of God's metaphysical limitations I tend to be a bit more process than I like to admit (thanks to Tom's influence) because I believe that God cannot coerce us.

This is still something I am developing and I am more aware of the problems it causes than the answers it provides. However, there is something in it that sits right with me and rings true. That certainly isn't enough to say it is correct but I mention it I guess to ask for kindness when attempting to tear me down because of it (it is still a work in progress).

Basically I want to affirm that God can certainly influence us towards His will but whenever people start saying God did X for or in someone I get uncomfortable. I will address why that is some other time but for now I wanted to note one of my difficulties with my own theology. The issue of prayer.

Now I have to note that other open theists do believe that God can (at times) coerce but they want to say that those times are very rare. So they don't necessarily have the same problem I do.

Since I don't feel comfortable saying that God can coerce I have to wonder what I am praying for. Say someone has been in a horrible accident and they are now in a coma. Most people would pray that God would heal them. There is a biblical precedent to show that this is a good idea. But I get hung up here. Do I pray that God supersedes their free will and heals them (assuming they have no conscience will in a state of a coma) or do I pray that God woo's their cells and body to respond appropriately to His love and repair their broken relationship? Obviously the second option is lacking something (a lot).

What happens is that I often find myself praying that people would respond to God's love appropriately. My parents are looking for (6/28/11.. hopefully they found something by the time this posts) a house. They are planning on moving up to Ohio next week but currently have no house or apartment to move into. Some people may feel comfortable praying that God would give them a house or would move in such a way to provide for them. But I find myself having to pray that realtors or sellers would respond to God's wooing in such a way that they would be inclined to help my parents find a home to live in.

Maybe it's an issue of laziness but my prayers seem so much more complicated than they used to.

But then again maybe it's a good thing. Maybe this view has caused me to slow down and really think about what I am praying for. If I am speaking with my friend (God) and I am asking something of Him then I should probably make sure I am not simply repeating something I heard before. It would be the same as me telling my wife "you have great eyes" simply because I have heard others say it but I have no way of going deeper on why her eyes are great.

This post has been a little all over the place. I really just wanted to do a little mental purging and what better place than on my blog? I guess I have to admit that if one of my biggest problems with open theism is that makes me slow down and reconsider my prayers then I am doing alright.

Book Review - The Nature of Love

2011-07-09T09:00:00.004-04:00

I am going to cheat a little and post a review/reflection I had to do for school last December. Hope you don't get too bored with it.

---
“All you need is love” not only is a famous song by John Lennon but also describes well Tom Oord’s description of theology. It may not be all that is needed but it needs to be at the center of our understanding of what it means to be a Christian because it is at the center of what it means for God to be God.

The starting point from which Oord builds all of his theology is that “if love is the center of the biblical witness and the core of Christian experience, it should be the primary criterion for theology.” Before getting too much further Oord acknowledges that love can be understood in a variety of meanings and spends half of his book building definitions of how we should think of love in differing situations. His primary definition of love is “to act intentionally, in sympathetic/empathetic response to God and others, to promote overall well-being.”

Understanding love as promoting overall well-being helps Christians remember that love is not necessarily a one-on-one feeling or action but often includes a community or creation as a whole. Oord also acknowledges that love does have a feeling or desire it in when he rightly includes a sympathetic or empathetic response. These sympathetic/empathetic responses however are properly balanced out and understood in realizing love is to act intentionally.

Oord then addresses Anders Nygren’s agape theology and why it falls short of properly describing love as presented in the Bible. Nygren’s theology is boiled down to “agape is good and Godly (form of love); all forms of eros are bad and distortions of Christian love.” In trying to maintain the sovereignty of God Nygren focuses too much on the difference between creator and creation. He believes that creation holds no value and because of that God’s love for us is unmotivated and spontaneous. Oord disagrees and believes that God can, and does, utilize eros when loving creation and Himself. He offers a differing understanding of agape and says it is “acting intentionally, in response to God and others, to promote overall well-being in response to that which produces ill-being.”

Oord continues to critique previous understandings of love by next addressing Augustine’s view. Augustine believed that to love was to desire. Where Nygren understood agape as completely good and Godly, Augustine believed that love, being desire, can be used incorrectly. Part of this misuse is understanding that beings are not to be used or enjoyed, but it is only God that should be enjoyed. This means that loving others is not an end of itself but a means to an end, the end of love will always be God. However, Oord suggests that beings other than God can be loved and defines eros love as “acting intentionally, in response to God and others, to promote overall well-being by affirming and/or seeking to enhance value.” This definition allows for Christians to love their neighbor or the rest of creation because they see the value and beauty in it and want to enhance it.

The last theology that Oord critiques is Clark Pinnock’s understanding of open theology. For the most part Oord agrees with Pinnock and affirms the work that he has done in realizing classical theism is not sufficient given the biblical narrative. Where Oord disagree with Pinnock is that Pinnock allows for God to use coercive power at times. Oord disagrees here because “if love acts persuasively by granting freedom and yet God sometimes coerces, God does not love consistently.” For Oord the God that can coerce in creation and yet still allows genuine evil is liable for that evil. Similar to the other critiques, open theology provides a basis for affirming an understanding of love and this time it is philia. Oord describes it as “acting intentionally, in response to God and others, to promote overall well-being by seeking to establish deeper levels of cooperative friendship.”

In the final chapter Oord offers his own theology which he calls Essential Kenosis. His view is similar to voluntary kenosis which believes God creates out of love and this love is the reason he respects the freedom of his creation and does not coerce. However, voluntary kenosis does not go far enough because the limitation in place, God not wanting to trend upon human freedom, is voluntary and as such it is reversible at any time. This means that God must view human freedom to be a greater good than stopping genuine evil; since at any time God could remove the limitation He has set upon Himself. Instead Oord suggests that God is necessarily limited and this limitation means God must love humanity. This seems to be the distinguishing mark that places Oord’s theology as unique, that he believes God’s nature necessitates love for creation.

God’s nature necessitating that He love creation impacts how Oord deals with the creation account and the problem of evil. For Oord to love means that you do not control but that you give freedom so that others may respond to the invitation to respond to that love. Because God necessarily loves creation He must give them freedom to choose love or evil. It is because God cannot do otherwise that God is not liable for genuine evil, the bottom line is that God cannot stop evil because God cannot coerce. The necessity to love creation and the fact that God cannot coerce leads Oord to deny creatio ex nihilo, he also comes to this conclusion because he does not believe the biblical support is there for it.
---

The rest of the paper was spent critiquing some of Oord's material. I have sense had the pleasure of dialoging with Oord about my disagreements and have come to a better understanding of his position. Actually it was our dialogue that was pushed me towards the thesis that I am now doing (thanks Tom!).

My biggest disagreement with Tom is in how we understand a necessarily loving God. For Tom for God to necessarily loves creation then there must have always been something other than God. This basically means that he is comfortable with a dualistic stance that says there has always been God and there has always been something other than God, for all of eternity. If at any time there has not been something other than God then you can say that it is not part of God's necessarily nature to always love His creation (because it's an addition that happened at creation).

However, I understand God's necessarily loving nature as God loving all that is. I believe this allows me to say that there could have been a point in eternity where there was only the trinity. In those moments God loved all necessarily and all that was was the trinity. Then when creation started God necessarily loved that as well, because God still necessarily loved all that was. This allows me to still affirm creatio ex nihilo and avoid an eternal dualism (I am very uncomfortable with dualistic systems).

This post is already way too long so I will stop. If you are interested in reading my paper with page references and my full critique just let me know.

Is Eminem a Christian?

2011-07-04T09:00:00.008-04:00

Waverly fell in the water so she got to wear my shirt as we walked around a park.
Current song: Whatever night time music is currently playing in the girls room
----

I like Rob Bell.

I can think of three responses to that statement. Either
1) You agree with me and enjoy his teaching
2) You roll your eyes at me and name some more remote/random author/theologian you like (you theological hipster you)
3) You think I am now going to hell for making such a statement

I purchased Love Wins when it first came out but my brother and I decided to read the book together. This made my reading of it go slower... and by slower I mean not happening. I am trying to take some time this summer (among my researching/writing for my thesis) to read the book finally. I have a feeling I will agree with most of what he says (go back to my focus on inclusive theology) and so far I have enjoyed it.

In chapter 5 he talks about seeing eminem in concert and noticing a cross around his neck. Rob doesn't do much more with the story but I have a feeling that a large amount of Christians look at that story and a small part of them think "well it's obviously not because he is a Christian. Look at his lyrics/lifestyle/influences/etc." They feel they can get a pretty accurate picture of him by the choices he has made so far and I have to agree. You can certainly tell a lot about a person by the people they hang out with, the words they say, or the purchases they make. However, can you tell what type of relationships they have?

LeBron James (BOOOO!) said that he talked with his mom the morning of his "Decision" to talk about what he was about to do. You can tell what type of person LeBron is by the way he has handled all of the attention and stress of his choice (He sucked!) but do we really understand his relationship with his mother?

You have read some of my thoughts on theology and Christianity in general. In fact there is a good chance that you are reading this because you are a facebook friend of mine. So you have some knowledge about me, what I believe, and what I do with my life. But what do you know about my relationships with my grandma or the kid that used to live across the street from me when I was growing up?

My point is this. Yes, we can tell a lot about Eminem by his choices but we cannot tell how his relationship with Christ might be. Obviously we can look at his life and see that his life has not come very close to matching Christ's. But nonetheless we don't know what type of struggle there might be and how he might be to trying to follow Christ. Heck, I think if some people could see all of my life they would question if I was trying to be a Christ follower or not.

We don't know how much Eminem has spoken to Christ or how much he has given up for Christ. Is it possible that his public sins are as bad as the private sins of your priest or pastor? Maybe the cross means nothing to him and it is indeed a fashion thing. But my inclusive bent comes out and says to those that are quick to qualify who is and is not a Christian "please let God be the judge of their hearts."

Ultimately it will be God who decides who is in and who is out... and this brings me hope.

Tuesdays Suck

2011-06-29T09:00:00.005-04:00

The girlies helping paint their room.
Current song: Anathallo - "Canopy Glow"
-----
I hate Tuesdays.

I don't know what it is about Tuesdays but it has a much higher percentage to suck than any other day of the week. Each week I find myself being short, getting annoyed quickly, just complaining about everything and think "oh... it's Tuesday. No wonder I hate today." It really makes no sense at all but the simple fact is that Tuesdays suck. You cannot convince me otherwise.

As I was coming home today (6/14/11... a Tuesday!) NPR had an interesting bit about how our brains respond to ads. LINKED HERE. It was all about how much control we have over our buying habits considering the amount of ads we see.

Both the fact that Tuesdays will suck (it is a fact) and that our buying habits are impacted by ads got me thinking about free will... or the lack of it.

Maybe Tuesdays are going to suck because of a biological clock that I have that just says "every 7 days be pissy and short about everything." Maybe it has something to do with the moon cycles. Maybe people at work have organized to make Tuesdays suck for me... think something like The Trumen Show. Whatever the reason I am unable to control any of those factors, I have no free will here.

Maybe my brain responds to particular ads or environments in ways that I have no way of controlling. Similar to when the doctor hits your knee and you kick. It's just an involuntary response. Super bowl ad = purchasing habits. I again have no free will here.

And yet no one really believes this right?

We don't really believe we are the star in a show that revolves around us (even though we sometimes live like it). We don't really believe that simply because we saw an ad we now have no way of controlling ourselves when we see that product in the store.

The mom in the NPR story was on to something when she said "So I wouldn't worry so much about how whether your brain will react. It's more what decisions you make after your brain reacts,".

Whether we believe God orders all the days of our lives. Whether we believe that God moves all beings and is the cause of all actions. Whether we believe in free will or not we at least live like there is free will. We live like I am responsible for my buying habits. I am responsible for the abuse or the love I give my children. Is anyone really willing to say that Casey Anthony did what she did because God controlled her? I don't think so.

So to me a theological position that affirms free will, instead of denying it or using a "well yes.. BUT..." statement, makes sense. For me Open Theism just makes sense.

Oh. And I still don't care what you say. Tuesdays suck.

My Thesis

2011-06-24T09:00:00.005-04:00

My beautiful girls back in may!
Current song: Bad Company - "Shooting Star" (again Sarah's song... and it sucks)
------

Tonight (6/10/11...I schedule my blogs to post later) we had life group and one of the questions came close to addressing the thesis I will be writing for my masters. I had been meaning to blog about it for a while and instead of waiting any longer I thought I would take a second and discuss it.

I realize for most people my thesis would not be that interesting, but being the nerd that I am I am really looking forward to it. I am doing a comparison and contrast between Gregory Boyd, William Hasker, and Thomas Jay Oord's view of theodicy. Theodicy basically tries to answer the problem of evil. And the problem of evil is: If God is all loving, all powerful, and all knowing then why is there still evil? I am doing those three because they are all open theists (a camp I find myself in often).

I am doing this thesis for multiple reasons. Hopefully to help myself develop a more thorough answer to the problem of evil. Partly to help open theists have a more consistent theodicy. Partly to help other Christians have a viable alternative to a traditional reformed answer. All in all I am very excited about it.

I also wanted to write about it tonight because part of the answer I gave tonight in life group I didn't explain well. So I wanted to clarify it through my blog. Plus I am curious how my position might change or mature as I research it some. So here is my semi-educated position.

God is actively doing everything He can to stop evil but He is passively allowing evil to continue to happen.

If God is not doing everything He can to stop evil then I either have to question if it truly is evil or if God is truly opposed to evil (as the Bible seems to indicate). However, evil continues to happen. So if I believe there is true evil (that which God opposes) and God is doing everything He can to stop it that must mean that He cannot stop it. If God cannot stop evil that must mean that either 1) He is not all powerful or 2) there is a limitation put upon His power. I believe that He is all powerful so I am left with the idea that there is a limitation that has been put on His power. If I believe that God is all powerful then the only possible way there can be a limitation on His power is if that limitation is created by God Himself.

But if God really was doing everything He could to stop evil why wouldn't He simply remove this limitation of power and remove evil? I believe the answer to that is that He cannot remove the limitation. This means that the limitation is not self-imposed, at least not in the sense that at any time He can remove the limitation. Instead I believe that God's nature being love forces Him to enable that which He loves to have free will. Free will is necessary for love to be received and given away. I don't believe that God values free will over the removal of evil. Instead I believe that God's nature being love forces His hand to offer free will to humanity. That free will necessitates the possibility of evil. To say it another way: If God were to remove this limitation and remove evil then He would also remove our freedom. In removing that freedom He would be removing His love from us. I believe if God were to remove His love from us then He would cease to be God.

So I believe God is doing everything He can to stop evil. He is wooing His creation to return to Him. To respond correctly to His prompting love and restore shalom. However, evil continues to happen because God's nature of love requires that He enable His creation to love Him freely. This free will puts God in a passive role that allows evil to continue to happen as we do not respond to His love correctly (ie. sin).

Hopefully that made sense.

Inclusive Theology

2011-06-19T09:00:00.003-04:00

This is from a hike my brother and I went on in Mohican State Park (back in April).
Current Song: Noggin Toboggan - "Snapcase"
----

In my Person of Ministry class, this past spring, one of my peers was addressing something the professor said. In his (the student's) response he eventually said something along the lines of "If you are going to do ministry you are going to get your hands dirty. That's just how it is. Either you do ministry or you go into academia."

Maybe there are those of you out there who agree. You have seen professors and academics get in the way of doing ministry. If that is the case then I apologize on behalf of academia. Unfortunately I was not so kind to my peer. I harshly told him he was wrong and that he completely offended me.

I bring up this story to relate to something else that I learned in that class. Inclusive theology is critical to me.

What I mean is that his statements made me somewhat upset but the primary reason I spoke up was because my friend sitting next to me has no calling into church ministry. She has an amazing heart and is a great Christian woman and has been called into academics. I didn't think she would speak up so I took up her cause and anyone else in the room feeling called to the university.

But how does this connect with inclusive theology?

What I mean by inclusive theology is that it's important for me to focus on the unifying relationships between individuals/theologies/doctrines/etc. I would rather look to ways that we are connected and should include more people than spend time trying to define who is not in. This can be see in how I define those that are "saved" and how I understand "the Church." I think this also is part of why my heart is so broken for the homosexual community. All of these topics are ones I have been meaning to write about for a while but just haven't found the time.

I mention all of this partly as a primer to those topics and partly just as a way for you to get to know me better. If you define something as black and white just know that I am going to be searching for the gray. If you make an absolute statement I will do what I can to show you the exception.

In theology it is critical that we start with humility. Remembering that we only know in part.

Swings in Heaven

2011-06-16T14:38:00.004-04:00

I watch a lot of youtube videos. I mean a lot. Today I found this video and it quickly became a favorite.
----

It has to be a rare person that can view that video and not smile or not remember swinging as a child. When was the last time you swung?

You swing to relax to simply enjoy the wind on your face. You swing to feel exhilarated and feel like you are flying. You swing to race. Swing to jump. You swing to remember a childhood that feels not so far away anymore. It is simple, and it is wonderful.

I am thankful that my children allow me the right to swing on occasion and I feel sorry for those that don't get to the park often enough to enjoy a good swing.

There is one thing that I am certain of though. There will be swings in heaven. It's a simple truth.

Explain to me how swings are evil and how they wont be in heaven. Explain to me how after The Fall swings suddenly changed and are now wrong. They aren't and they didn't.

They are a simple and pure pleasure and one that is surely a part of God's goodness. You don't think it brings God joy to see us smiling? Doesn't it bring God joy to see His children shed the stresses of life for a few seconds? Surely our God delights with us as we jump from the swing and seemingly fall for yards and yards until we finally touchdown again

I have a feeling some people may disagree with me. They will say that we will be so engulfed in God that we won't realize there are swings or dogs in heaven (because all dogs go to heaven you know). But I disagree. I believe that it will be through our activities, through the use of objects that we will be worshiping God in heaven. Heaven isn't going to be some large church worship service where we sing "Amazing Grace" for all eternity. Heaven will surely be about experiencing God and worshiping Him for all time but I have a feeling it will be more like what happens outside the church walls. We will be worshiping God as we walk. As we talk to others. As we watch the sunset. We will be worshiping God as we move and as we be.... Maybe something similar to what we are called to do now on earth?!?

So may you swing. May you swing to relax. May you swing to race. To fly. And ultimately may you swing to worship.

The House II

2011-06-14T09:00:00.002-04:00

Sometimes they play so well together.
Current song: Damien Rice - "All Dressed Up"
------

Last post I shared about how we got a new house and how God was the reason we got the house. Here is the direction I was planning on going with that last post:

Since we got the house so cheap we are able to spend the money we "saved" on the house into upgrading it. The house was liveable when we first purchased it. After only one work day it was no longer liveable. Walls came down. Ceilings came down. Flooring came up. Windows were broken. All in all it was a very productive day.

But now that we are putting it all back together and fixing everything I am starting to see how hard it will be to be a home owner. How hard it will be to stay away from materialism.

There is a balance between customizing the house to your style and customizing your house to what will make everyone else ooh-n-aww over it. I don't want it to sound like Sarah and I are doubting every decision we make if it's really our style or just something to impress other families. But I am asking if we really need "this" or if we really need to spend that much money on "that". There are some things that are really easy to go cheap on. Say drywall or things that wont be seen. But then comes the appliances. Then come the doors. And you could go with the cheap refrigerator or the cheap door without windows but then you are forced to find that balance between materialism and stewardship of your money.

I am not one of those that believe stewardship = saving every penny or giving it all away. Stewardship means giving your funds over to God to have Him do with them as He wishes. I find it ridiculous to suppose that God doesn't intend to bless you as well. There is no need to not allow yourself a nice meal on occasion or have something nice, because God does desire to bless you as well. But the other side of that coin is that maybe God is asking you to hold off on another McDonald's meal so that you can bless someone else with that money.

Trying to find this balance is nothing new and it isn't unique to homeowners. This is something that every Christian has to work through daily (maybe hourly?) to see how God would desire to use their time/money/skills/etc right now. I just wanted to take a second to share that this is a new struggle for me and I guess ask, those that do, to pray for my wife and I to make wise decisions with our money.

May God be glorified in my choices of doors and stoves. Amen.

Stats

2011-06-12T08:00:00.001-04:00

Current song: Goo Goo Dolls - "Iris" (It's my wife's song. I promise.)

This might be simple self-promotion or ego stroking but I found it interesting. These are the countries that have viewed my blog from May 2009 - June 2011. I don't know if I am more surprised that Russia is in second place or that Canada is that low. I mean aren't people in Canada interested in my life as well?!?

United States

2,213

Russia -

Iran

Germany

Netherlands

Canada

South Korea

Hong Kong -

United Kingdom

Ukraine

The House

2011-06-09T19:00:00.002-04:00

This is at a local metro park only a couple blocks from my new home
Current song: The Rolling Stones - "Ruby Tuesday"
-----

I don't think I have mentioned this before but the wife and I finally purchased a home. For the past 4 years we have been living with her parents. How that has gone and the lessons I have learned through it are for another post.

The house finally became ours on Feb 14th and ever since then we have been trying to fix it up. Even trying to get it was such a hassle. I believe from the time our initial offer went in to when we finally got it was about 8 weeks. Stupid mortgage companies. But thanks to God's goodness we were finally able to purchase the home. I say thanks to God's goodness because the house is a ridiculous blessing.

We were looking in a specific neighborhood and no one in that area has all of the extra stuff we have. Such as an attached garage, wood burning stove, an addition, and a laundry shoot. I just said that we have been working on the house since we purchased it because the price that we got it at was so low we were able to throw some "extra" money into the house an customize it. I mention all of this not to show off or say what we got but really to show the amazing blessing God has given us.

I am the type of Christian that really dislikes giving credit to the supernatural. Maybe it is my academic mind or the fact that I rely so heavily on thinking (vs. feeling) but it makes me uncomfortable to give credit to only God. I think it's partly because I see the relationship between believer and God to be so important that I believe God will rarely work without also working with human agents. All that to say, this was all God. The way we found the house. The way we were able to see it right away. The price of the house. How we finally purchased the house. How we have been able to do so much of the work without professionals.... all of it God. It's one of those blessings that you sit back and think "wow... I cannot take credit for an ounce of this." So I don't feel comfortable saying God provided this house for us because some how some way He moved and enabled us to purchase the home.

This was not at all what I was going to post about but it's what came out. So there is the blessing God has provided me and my family.

Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow;
Praise Him, all creatures here below;
Praise Him above, ye heavenly host;
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Confession and Change

2011-04-20T09:39:00.003-04:00

We love our TOMS.

------

I remember reading a blog (I believe by Pete Wilson) that talks about blogs being used for confession. In the post he acknowledges the benefit and beauty of it but cautions pastors to not “over expose” (my words not his) themselves in their blogs. It’s with that encouragement and caution I proceed.

So I have a confession about this blog. If I am being honest I use this blog to try and impress people. There is a side of me that writes for myself. It gives me a space to articulate what is in my head and heart and this blog gives me an opportunity to formulize those things into actual words. But there is another side, the one where I want it to impress my fellow seminarians and show them what a great thinker I am. There is a part that wants a well known blogger or author to come across it and affirm me and my thoughts. And it is this last part that keeps me from posting more often.

You see I try to use this blog to show what I am thinking about theologically and utilize the space to form solid doctrinal thoughts. But an inconsistency has recently come to mind and I hope to correct it.

I have this belief that everything is theological and spiritual. Whatever we do or say comes from a spiritual place in us, whether it is love or hate. What we see or eat comes from a place that reflects how we believe God cares for us. Everything is spiritual and theological. And that is where the inconsistency is. If I truly believe that then I shouldn’t feel like I am “watering down” my blog by posting family details and events. Those events are spiritual as well.

I realize it’s a silly thing, to feel like I need to justify using my blog for my own family events. Come down to it I really just wanted to do two things
1) To let you know, rare reader of this blog, that things may get more personal in the future
2) To share with you that I do believe everything is spiritual and theological

Hopefully this will encourage me to see that which is spiritual in my girls, my wife, and our activities together and in seeing that I hope that I will share that with you. Both for your benefit and mine. Let us go down this path together as the beautiful and wretched body of Christ.

The Girls are Sleeping

2011-02-26T22:29:00.005-05:00

Quick note.

My girls just fell asleep. Bed time in the Smitley family is not an easy time. They still want to play, and talk, and jump, and run, and do everything else they have been doing today. So when I come back into the room (because we hear the running, jumping, talking, etc) they try to act as if nothing was happening. That happens a couple different ways:

1) Running to the bed, as if I might not see them jumping back into the bed. "I didn't get out of my bed, promise!"
2) Laying down real fast and closing their eyes. "I not talking, I sleeping."
3) Blaming it on the other sister "I wasn't kicking it was Waverly."

Those are the most common. My favorite is number 2. Because normally there is a loud sound of a head hitting the pillow and a small "uh oh" as I open the door. However, when they finally get to sleep its obvious when I open the door. Their arms and legs are at weird angles and their eyes aren't all scrunched up trying to stay close. There is a small sense of calmness and peacefulness when they finally go to sleep.

I mention this because I have to think that it's similar to how our relationship with God is at times. We try so hard to not get caught. We try to blame our mistakes on someone else. We think that just maybe no one else noticed so its ok it happened. We might even try some faux righteousness. We do our spiritual disciplines real hard trying to show God "look look I am serious" but He knows. He just shakes His head and says "you aren't doing it right." But then, just maybe, we relax we give in to God's desires and we let go. We lay there and partake in God's grace and empowerment. We finally go to sleep instead of scrunching our eyes tight acting as if we go it all figured out.

So may you stop scrunching your spiritual eyes. May you remember that God realizes you weren't listening to Him and that no matter how many times you fake it He will keep coming back into the room and hope you will finally just fall asleep in Him.

Guest Post

2011-02-14T08:59:00.005-05:00

I stole this from ATS. Hopefully they don't mind.... at least I am linking to them.
------

For my thesis I am going to be looking at Theodicy from the perspective of Open Theism. One of my fellow thesis students asked me if I would be willing to write up a blog about why I hold to Open Theism.

I agreed to do so and it has been posted here:

http://highmileagehermeneutics.blogspot.com/

Go to check it.

John Green + Nerdfighter = Christianity?

2011-02-11T10:29:00.001-05:00

I love the Green brothers (I am partial to John) and have watched all 783 of their videos. I was watching the one linked above and noticed that what John was saying could easily be said of Christianity as well. Start watching at minute 3 to get to the quote, or just watch it all (its worth it).

He states:

“No one can tell you that you are a nerdfighter and you can’t tell anyone else if they are a nerdfighter. Nerdfighter is an identity you chose and we collectively define that identity not by talking but by living it…Identities are important but generally the ones you chose and the ones that chose you, resist simple definitions."

So how does that relate to Christianity? Well let’s place with ”nerdfighter” a little.

No one can tell you that you are a Christian and you can’t tell anyone else if they are a Christian. Christian is an identity you chose and we (The Church) collectively define that identity not by talking but by living it (by being Christ’s hands and feet)…Identities are important but generally the ones you chose and the ones that chose you, resist simple definitions.

I brought up the ideal of resisting simplicity in my Christian Ethics class a few weeks ago. The visiting professor was the author of one of our books (and my advisor!) and in her book she says that we often long for days of old when definitions were simpler and we knew right from wrong with no vagueness.

John (Green) said in a vlog a few weeks ago that “truth resists simplicity”. This may not be his original idea but I attribute it to him, and I think it is true (which is kind of ironic since it’s a simple statement).

Again this applies to Christianity because our truths resist simplicity. We are surrounded with seemingly paradoxical faith statements. That Christ was 100% man and 100% God. That God is all power and loving and yet there is evil. That God desires all to be saved and yet not all will be saved. Sin is both individual and corporate. Salvation is both individual and corporate. The Trinity is three persons but one God. Our religion is not a religion of simple answers and quick fixes.

What about you? Have you found any truth relating to Christianity in unlikely places?

My understanding of sanctification

2011-02-08T08:00:00.007-05:00

This image has long been a part of my life and is part of the tattoo on my back.

----

To set the stage of the post. In my online salvation class my prof asked me the questions below in blue. My response to the question follow that. Enjoy.

What experiences do Nazarenes say are subsequent to conversion? I thought their understanding was that there is a second work of grace, entire sanctification, at which the power of sin is broken in someone's life. They used to express it in terms of the eradication of the sin nature. I didn't think they said that one doesn't receive the gifts of the Spirit (tongues, mercy, etc.) until that time. So what is the Nazarene view, and what do you think about that view?

You just opened a can of worms :)

I will say first off that my membership in the Nazarene church is no longer active and it has been about 4 years since I regularly attended a Nazarene church. So please don't think that my stance or understanding of their articles of faith is the best representation. They are my background and I often find myself agreeing with them. So with that being said I will try to answer your questions as best I can.

The best way I have understood sanctification is in dating and marriage terms. Let's say that I am the unbeliever, and Christ is a girl... hear me out! :)

I want to get married. I don't know to who or when but I have been dating for a while and know that I want to be with someone for the rest of my life. So let's say that I just found out about this new girl in town/campus/work. I know little information, if any, about her. I am interested in her but I don't know what she is like. So I ask my friends about her, maybe get some general information if this is someone I might be interested in dating. Eventually I get up the courage and ask her out. We go on a few dates and I realize that we really connect. I get her, she gets me, and things seem a bit calmer with her around. So we go from casual dating to exclusive dating (going "steady" :). We are still trying to get to know each other, and there are certainly times when our personalities clash because we don't know how to respond to each other. I hurt her because of selfishness and she frustrates me because of what she expects. But nonetheless we continue our relationship. Eventually I come to a point when I realize she is the only one I want to be with for the rest of my life. So I ask her to marry me and she says yes. We get married and now I am completely dedicated to her. True, before we weren't seeing others but I hadn't reoriented my life to her, I hadn't given up my life to please her. However, in marriage that happens. In marriage I change everything. My personality adjusts, my eating and sleeping habits adjust, I begin to think of her first and her love even changes my financial choices. I am completely dedicated to her and her alone. Of course there are other girls out there, girls who can be tempting and I might look too long at them. When that happens the relationship is strained but the relationship is not broken. I am still dedicated to her but temptation still exists.

Obviously a metaphor can be taken too far and break, so please be gentle with this one. Now how this relates to salvation.

I believe the Holy Spirit calls every humans heart into a relationship with God. We may know nothing about Him but there is a basic call to be with Him. Once we do hear about Christ one of the best ways to find out information about Him is through the Church. So we gain some information and we find out if we want to pursue Christ (obviously He is pursuing us even before this). We attend church, sunday school, small groups, etc and start to see that this Christian thing really feels right. So we begin to remove other vices and things that get in the way of our relationship. Eventually we get to the point that we realize we want everything in our lives to be centered around Christ. That we don't just want to give up the big ones (you know the "public sins") but we want to have Christ form and inform every decision we make. So we make a commitment to be completely dedicated to Him and put Him in the center of our lives.

Previent grace is the desire to be married.
The church is the friends who give us basic information.
Attending church can be the initial couple dates.
Dating exclusively is conversion.
The frustrations in dating is the transformation process of conversion.
Marriage is entire sanctification.

I like viewing it this way because it sees the process of becoming a believer as a belong --> behave --> believe process. Also it sees conversion as more of a process than an initial moment. I know at least for myself my wife and I were "dating" even before we took on the title of "dating" (exclusively). So this relationship metaphor I think follows Smith*, at least in the sense that its a very dynamic and fluid understanding of conversion. Also I should note that to be theologically consistent it is the girl that initiates the relationship and it is the girl that asks me to marry her.

*Smith = Gordon Smith's Beginning Well. A required read for the class.

Now how this relates to Nazarenes.

"We believe that entire sanctification is that act of God, subsequent to regeneration, by which believers are made free from original sin, or depravity, and brought into a state of entire devotement to God, and the holy obedience of love made perfect."
http://www.nazarene.org/ministries/administration/visitorcenter/articles/display.aspx

It is the girl that asks me to marry her (act of God). Marriage comes after the initial dating (subsequent to regeneration). I reorient my life to consider her in my decisions and focus my life on her. I don't go around dating other girls anymore and in fact don't even desire it. I desire only her attention and her affection. (made free from original sin, and brought into a state of entire devotement to God, holy obedience of love made perfect).

I think the original sin nature is our desire to sin and to pursue other than God. I believe we can reach a state in our lives where that is no longer our driving force but instead God's nature and God's love in our lives is our driving force. This does not mean that we cannot sin, but simply that our first desire is to love God instead of to love ourselves. So being "made free from original sin" is not the idea that we can no longer sin but simply that our desire is to love God (holy obedience of love made perfect). Also I do not believe that once we are married (reach sanctification) we have reached a static place. We have to continue to grow our relationship in marriage and sanctification and continue the transformation of love.

**edit**

I just talked to my father on the phone (second generation Nazarene pastor) and apparently I am blending my time in the Nazarene church with my time in the Assembly’s of God. The Nazarenes would say that the gift AND giftS are present to all believers in conversion. Obviously the AG believe the giftS of the spirit come with the baptism of the spirit. Sorry for the confusion.

Hopefully that clears up where I stand on sanctification and the gift(s) of the spirit.

-Dan

Lost at Sea

2011-02-04T08:00:00.004-05:00

This is mimi (short for mememememememememe) trying to get my attention while I read Creation Made Free.
-----

I read slowly. This is one of my weaknesses in academia (that and grammer+spelling). I have used different reasoning in the past as to why I read slowly and I just thought of a new one.

So imagine that we go out into the middle of the ocean and jump in. We get acclimated with the water and begin to float there. Some people are comfortable just floating there and letting the current take them wherever. They figure once they reach their end destination (assuming they can float without water and food long enough to reach it)that they will be satisfied with wherever they land. True they might be a little lost once they get there, not knowing where they are or where they need to go. But they are ok with this. Other people are not comfortable just floating. They tred water for a while trying to get their bearings and see which direction the current is taking them. If they don’t like where it is taking them then they might try and fight against it and end up where they want to go. The current might to be too strong and but at least they will know where they have landed and where they need to go next.

The current is the book. It can take you different places and if you aren’t paying attention then you can end up lost and completely confused, possibly denying some things you used to believe strongly. So I would like to think that when I get into a book I pay attention to where the author is going, what are they trying to connect with, and what are the underlining things they are not saying. This way when I finally get to the end of the book I don’t feel completely lost, I was able to track with the author and see where they took me.

Of course there are some books that I do just let take me wherever (Harry Potter) but unfortunately I don’t get to read those books for school.

Just thought I would share the imagery with you. Back to slowly reading for school now.

Good ol' Ms. White Hair Betty

2011-02-01T08:00:00.004-05:00

I am not a big "healthy" person (and I doubt these would qualify) but they sure are great!

---

As part of my salvation class I am reading Gordon Smith’s Beginning Well: Christian Conversion and Authentic Transformation. In it he highlights the importance of language in understanding our conversion experience. Because of this he encourages his readers to bring back the practice of personal testimonies. He says “A contemporary quest to recover the conversion narrative as a means of self-expression should have this very end in mind: to see and embrace the work of God in our lives and our communities.” (page 43-44)

I have a feeling that some people are anti-testimonies because they remind them of their “old fashion” church. The one where Ms. White Hair Betty would stand up every week and say “I am just so happy Jesus loves me” and would take 5 minutes to sit back down (with assistance). There may also be another group that is anti-testimonies/conversion narratives because they see it as relationship comparisons. “Well Jesus and I went on a date last night and spent 4 hours in the Bible together!”… “Well Jesus and I never stop talking to each other all day. We just cant get enough of each other”. That some how expressing what Jesus is doing in our lives is the same thing as saying “my relationship is better than yours.”

But here is the thing, I think comparing our relationships with others can be very healthy.

My wife and I are in a Sunday school class for parents with young kids and we are in a life group with LOTS of little kids (and their parents of course). Sometimes we come away from these contexts and pick up things we would like to do with our kids or practices we can apply in our own relationship. We don’t sit there and say “thank goodness we aren’t like so and so” (well… maybe we do sometimes) and we don’t say “If you were only more like person X then we wouldn’t have this problem”. Instead we look at how other relationships seem healthy and what they are doing to keep their relationships healthy.

I think testimonies/conversion narratives can be the same thing. It can be a way for us to pick up pointers to improve our relationship with Christ. It can also be as simple as affirming that person and saying “that is wonderful!” If we wanted to we could go negative and ask God why He isn’t doing such-and-such for us, like he did for person X, but why would we? That obviously isn’t constructive or healthy.

So I say, let’s bring back testimonies in the church and realize that Ms. White Hair Betty might have a thing or two to teach us about what a relationship with Christ can look like.

The TMZ of Bible Reading

2011-01-27T22:35:00.004-05:00

Here are my girls at Toy Story 3 on Ice. As you can see from everyone behind us, we had the best seats in the house!
-----

I have this coworker that loves to question Christianity. She is “Catholic” herself (read: goes to church) but almost perfectly articulates the pluralistic and relativistic voice that I read so often in text books. So whenever something religious comes up she is a great sparring partner. Today she asked me a difficult question and in the moment instead of saying “I don’t know how to answer that” I side stepped the question and drew her attention to something else. I don’t think I did it on purpose but the fact still remains I did it and it wasn’t fair. So I will attempt to answer the question now.

Question: The Bible is just dependent upon a person’s interpretation. Everyone has their own so how do you know which is the right one?

Answer: Relationship(s).

So let’s change who is speaking and how they are speaking for a second.

Let’s say a movie star allegedly says something. TMZ, Gawker, FoxNews, and CNN (They all hold about the same credibility to me) are all over it. They are repeating what was supposedly said and spinning it to fit their point. Their interpretation is completely different dependent upon the message they are wanting to get across. FoxNews wants to say that the celebrity is a small government person, TMZ is saying that the celebrity has a small person fetish, and CNN says that the celebrity is thinking about running for president under the “Small Persons of America” ticket. So how do you know what was actually said and what the celebrity meant by it (assuming you care enough to check)?

The easiest way is to contact the celebrity. If you know the person and have a relationship with them then it’s as easy as calling the person up and asking them “Did you say this? Well what did you mean by it?” By communicating with them you clear everything up and you move on with your life.

But let’s say that the person isn’t so approachable. Maybe they are someone that you have had contact with at parties but don’t have any way to communicate with them directly. What is your next best option? I say contact people that do know the celebrity personally. You reach out to them and say “Did He/She really say that? What do you think they meant by it?” Maybe you don’t trust the first person so you go to a few others and eventually find out that they are all pretty consistent and you finally get to what you feel is the correct way to interpret the celebrity.

Lastly. If you can’t just contact the person, and you don’t know anyone that can then your last option is to compare this quote with other things that celebrity has said. Is this something similar to what they have said before? What did they mean then? Is this consistent with how they live their life in the public light? You reflect on them as a person and try to come to a conclusion about what they supposedly said and what you think that means in the end.

Now how does this relate to God and how to interpret the Bible?

Well I believe the Bible is one way that God has chosen to communicate to us. So if there are different interpretations of it one way that we can clear it up is to approach Him about it. In prayer ask what he meant in this passage/chapter/book. What was His message He was trying to relay then and how does that impact me now? Secondly, if you don’t feel that God is giving you a clear answer on the passage then another resource (but not necessarily “second best”) to use is the Church. Go to others in your church and ask how they have understood and interpreted it. Even go back through history to see how others have understood the passage. Don’t be so foolish to think that you know God the best and that no one else has anything to say that might help you connect with him. And lastly (again not the last option or "worst" option) you can consult commentaries, dictionaries, and especially other parts of the Bible. Let other resources help you see what this might mean in its’ context and how other parts of the Bible shed light on the passage.

Whatever you do, do not become a FoxNews or TMZ of the Bible spinning things to fit your particular view. PLEASE!

My Holey Spiritual Pocket

2011-01-25T20:25:00.003-05:00

My girls and I about to go play in the snow.

----

I am taking a class on “the doctrine of salvation” and if I am being completely honest I am only taking it because it fits my schedule and it meets a core requirement for me (sorry Dr. Colijn). But it has been much better than I was afraid it would be and it has really brought to light some things. One thing in particular is how horrible my misconception was of salvation.

I grew up thoroughly evangelical and I would say strongly Arminian/Wesleyan. My background had (has) a strong focus on “entire sanctification”. Growing up I understood it as the point when you completely “sold out” to God and “gave Him everything”. My undergrad profs would talk about being entirely sanctified and how they had reached a point where they don’t sin (Wesley’s understanding, not Calvins) anymore. So I saw that as the end, the goal, that is what I was to strive for. I needed to get to the point where I didn’t sin anymore.

Growing up Arminian/Wesleyan there tends to be an importance put on the human response to God’s grace. That we have the ability to either accept or deny God’s graces in our lives. As a teen I understood that as the ability to backslide. For some reason I thought it was important to say that someone could backslide (I think there were people in my life [read: online] that were argued the other side) and so one had the ability to leave Christ and the relationship we have(had) with Him. I still hold to that truth but my immature mind did something with that truth (and I think the seasonal revivals we had also might have messed me up a bit). I overemphasized that truth and began to see salvation as this slippery substances that was difficult to hold on to.

Give me a break. I was a teenage boy. I had struggles. I had have sins. And so for me salvation felt like something that I got this Sunday, and then “lost” a few days later. Then “got back” maybe a week later and so on and so forth.

This is where my salvation class has helped me come to grips with how I viewed (hopefully that is past tense) salvation. I saw it as this thing that you had. That it was important for me to know that I “had” my salvation but the problem was that I kept putting it in this holey (not holy) spiritual pocket where it kept falling out. I would “get” my salvation, store it away, and then “lose” it almost as soon as I got it. So I was constantly feeling my spiritual pocket to make sure it was still there. “Did I do something recently that I forgot to confess. Well I had better get saved again just in case I forgot something!”

…sigh… so foolish.

So that brings me to where I am now. Trying to reshape how I view salvation and what that might mean for my spiritual pocket. Maybe I will talk about that next time.

"I have a personal relationship with my Bible"

2011-01-14T11:13:00.002-05:00

"Oh Bible. I love you so much!"

---

It seems that some people have a relationship with the Bible instead of God. They look at you funny if you forget to put “holy” before Bible and will write you out of their wills if you use the Bible as something hard to write your sermon notes on. They wear their “I read the bible an hour a day” pin to all public gatherings and when they get together with their best friends they talk about the different places they have “illegally” left Bibles for others to find. “I just put it down and ran! I felt like such a rebel! I cant believe I put a Bible in front of the Captain Crunches!” When they hear I have been raised in the church and yet have not read all of the Bible they honestly question my relationship with God. Why? Because their relationship is with the Bible. *Insert My Buddy picture here and replace “buddy” with “bible” and you have it. “Wherever I go it goes!”

Don’t get me wrong. Reading the Bible is great. The fact that I haven’t read the Bible completely is a negative and (whether it should be or not) is embarrassing for me. However, your particular copy of the Bible does not have some sort of supernatural powers. You do not need to take it with you everywhere just in case there is a surprised street sword drill. “Yeah I will take a pound of the on sale swiss cheese please…. Quick, find Galatians 2:22!”

Isn’t there some (biblical) truth in the idea of hiding the word in you heart?

So to those My Bible=My Buddy people, please remember that your salvation and your relationship is not with the Bible. Your relationship is with God and I honestly believe that you can have that relationship without the Bible (now they think I am going to hell for blasphemy). I have to question how full and healthy that relationship will be without the Bible, but it is still possible. I have used this illustration in a class before and I think it best articulates how I view the Bible:

I am married to a beautiful woman (true story) but we have not always been married. There was a time in her life that I was not in the picture. During that time she had friends, she had crushes, she may have even had a relationship that didn’t involve me. Now let’s say she kept a record of those feelings, experiences, or relationships in a journal (paper or digital). Is my relationship with her, right now, dependent upon those records? No. I know her now and love her as I see her now. We have grown together. My love has changed her and her love for me has changed me. I know things about her that cannot be described by only experienced. Like how a simple sigh could mean she is frustrated or depressed or happy. That knowledge cannot be learned in her journal but can only be experienced. I have chosen to be in a relationship with her now not because of what I have read about her but of how I desire for her love to shape me into a better person and for my love to shape her.

However, think about how much fuller our relationship might be if I were to read that journal (with her permission). I could understand that she sighs when she is frustrated because that’s what her father did when she grew up (still does too). I could learn that when she was in 3rd grade she won a gold metal in gym class and now looks to that as a proud moment for her. I could learn these things in communicating with her but by looking back on these experiences I get a fresh perspective. I see what they meant to her then, on that day, in that week, and the element of time has not dulled down the emotions and experiences. My relationship with my wife is not dependent upon me reading her journals but if I read them, read them closely and thoroughly, then my knowledge about her can grow and our relationship can become deeper.
I think it’s the same way with the Bible. My relationship with God is not dependent upon the Bible but if I read it, and read it thoroughly and thoughtfully, then my relationship with Him can grow. I can learn how he ached when His creation turned their back on Him. I can learn of his joy when He started a covenant with Noah. I can read his lover’s letters and learn how much he fancies me.

So again to the My Buddy Bible Readers. I am happy you know the Bible so well and that you value it so highly but please remember your relationship isn’t with the Bible but God. Please don’t lose yourself to the love letters and ignore the lover that wrote them.

…Also I found your Bible in the cereal aisle, you can have it back.

The Physical-Spiritual False Dichotomy III

2010-12-18T08:00:00.001-05:00

I love Ohio in the fall.
====

So in my last post I said that God is currently working in and with creation to redeem it. I believe that God is using both the physical and the spiritual to redeem the physical and spiritual. The reason I believe this is because I believe Christ was 100% God and 100% man. I also believe Christ ascended into heaven in bodily form and His body remains present in eternity to this day. For me this has implications on how I am coming to understand the eschaton.

I want to say that this theology is something that I am still piecing together and probably has a lot of holes in it. And if I am being honest I am scared to put it for the public to see because I have not read anyone else presenting this case. But alas I will allow the community to correct me in my errors.

Is God timeless? This is my basic question. I am not asking if God has always been, I believe God has been eternal, but is God outside of time? Most people would probably say yes. They believe God to be somehow outside of time as if it is a box God that He holds in His hands. They believe timeless and eternal to be synonyms (and if you ask Microsoft Word, they would agree).But I think there is a difference and I don’t think we can say God is timeless.

Does God change? I am not asking about His nature, I believe His core to remain the same (love). But does God go from something at one point to something at another point? Say happy about His creation (it was good!) and upset about the fall of man? I would say that He does go through change, that He experiences things and my relationship with Him is a genuine give-and-take relationship. Some people will disagree (most?) and that’s fine, we can discuss Open Theism another time. But for now understand this is a primary block for my personal theology. Does God change (not in his core nature)? Yes.

Maybe you are saying that God does not change. Then do you feel creation is eternal? If you believe that creation once was not, and then was, and if you believe God is the source of creation then did He not change? At some point God had not decided to create, then he decided to create. At some point God had not spoken and at some point God spoke. There was change. There was sequence. There was time?

It seems that God is not static but dynamic, even in eternity. If God is dynamic, or changing, before creation then it stands to reason He would also be dynamic after creation. God is dynamic and changing even in heaven (the eschaton). If God is changing in eternity then there would be sequence and time in eternity. As I said in the previous posts I believe there will be a physical element to the after life. So joining these two it seems to me that there will be space and time in heaven.

From this I say that God is not timeless. He is eternal but He works within time.

The Physical-Spiritual False Dichotomy II

2010-12-13T08:00:00.000-05:00

My girlies little piggies

=====

In my last post I asked if God is willing to redeem the physical work, aka creation, now? My answer is yes.

God is willing to redeem each of us and we are more than spiritual, and we are more than physical. God will remove our past sins from us and He will remove our physical pain from us. God is willing to heal the blind man and He is willing to heal the heart of the non-believer. Maybe you are saying “yeah but God doesn’t always heal us!”. It is true, He doesn’t but I am arguing for the possibility of Him redeeming/fixing the physical.

If He is possibly working with, and in, creation now then that should impact our understanding of culture and Kingdom of God. For some the Kingdom of God is something that will happen later, that He will establish His Kingdom on earth and reign for 1,000 years before judgment. I however think that what happened on the cross and in the resurrection began something new. That when Christ was raised from the dead He began the beginning of the end. Christ’s resurrection and the creation of the Church began Christ’s reign on earth. I view the Church as the Kingdom of God. I wont go into detail about that now but that means that I believe the Kingdom of God is both present and future, it is both physical and spiritual.

As the Church spreads the message of Christ throughout the world we are spreading the Kingdom of God. We are working with God to redeem, to fix, creation and bring it back to Him. This means that when our current world comes to an end it will not be a complete destruction but a reordering, a redeeming, of what we currently have. If we see part of our responsibility as a Christian to be spreading the Kingdom of God, and if we believe that creation will not be completely destroyed when Christ comes back then how we treat creation now is critical.

If God is working to redeem His creation now then how do we justify abusing it? We need to be conscious of how we treat other humans, because they are a part of God’s creation. We need to be conscious of how we treat animals, because they are a part of God’s creation. We need to be conscious of how we treat plants, because they are part of God’s creation. Being conscious of how we treat God’s creation is going to lead people in different directions but if nothing else it will help us remember that we are busy doing God’s business and our actions are directly hindering or helping the Kingdom.

Being conscious of how we treat creation and trying not to hinder God’s Kingdom is the first step. The next step is looking for ways for us to join God in the Kingdom work. This means we are looking for ways to redeem that which is around us, we are looking for ways to redeem creation and culture. When we look at creation we do not look at something that will be eventually destroyed but something that God can use to bring shalom to the world. When we look at the (pop) culture around us we don’t look at something that is evil and will be destroyed but something God can use to bring shalom to the world.

Personally this means that I try to respect creation, try to have a “small carbon footprint”. I try to join God in loving the least of these. I look for ways God is speaking through music, look for ways God is seen in movies. And I find Him. I find Him in the changing of the seasons. I find Him in the indie song of hope. I find Him in the handshake of the guy in a nuns outfit (not made up). Believing that our future hope is one that will be both physical and spiritual can (and should?) change how we live our lives now. At least it has for me.

The Physical-Spiritual False Dichotomy

2010-12-08T12:27:00.005-05:00

Here are my girls picking out our Christmas tree. It was FREEZING that day!
====

So obviously I haven’t been blogging much recently. School has required a lot of reading this quarter and I am not a faster read. Thus I have had little free time and little time to blog.

One thing that I have been thinking about over the past couple months is the implications of Christ’s resurrection and ascension being physical. For most evangelicals it is important that Christ’s resurrection was physical and not spiritual. They also feel it is important to affirm that Christ’s second return will be bodily. So if we accept these to be true here are some of the implications to me.

If Christ’s ascension was physical then somehow we need to be able to bridge eternity/heaven with the physical. Unless people are willing to say that Jesus went into the clouds, hid out for a while, died, and THEN returned to God we have to be willing to say that somehow Christ is physically present in heaven. Also I think that His resurrection should inform us of our resurrection (during His second coming). We should understand that our resurrection will not simply be spiritual but will also be physical like His.

Death throughout the Bible often has both a physical and spiritual understanding. So it makes sense that our understanding of resurrection from the dead should also have physical and spiritual elements to it. I think this should impact how we view our culture, the eschaton, and God’s relation to space and time.

Much of our thinking of the eschaton is incomplete and unpolished but our instincts tell us that there wont be a physical world or have a physical part to it because we equate “physical” with destruction, decay, death, and sin. We understand this world too be imperfect and the only way for God to fix it is to burn it all down and build something perfect/static/spiritual. We hear about the “apocalypse” and think about the world going to hell (double meaning?!?) and being completely destroyed.

If God cannot, or will not, work with the physical world and redeem it in the future then what does that mean for us now? Is He willing to redeem the physical world now? I would say yes. Yes, God is willing to work and redeem the physical world now. The Incarnation is the perfect example to say with certainty that God is willing to work in creation and redeem it. I would say this was not a fluke or a one time event but is the example of God being willing to consistently work within creation.

I will post later on how this impacts our view of culture, the kingdom of God, heaven, and God’s relation to time.

Confession: Just Enough

2010-09-09T08:00:00.004-04:00

Clark Pinnock was awesome. It is sad to use the past tense here.
----
*I wrote this post on 8/29. I am hoping by coming to this realization and confessing to the body that it will motivate me past this point.
---
I realized something today that I am not all too proud about. I realized that I wanted Christ in my life because He gives me purpose but only to the point that I am still in control of my life.

Yeah. It isn't pretty.

I have this deep rooted conviction that Christ gives life and gives it to the fullest. That is why I believe evangelism is important, that is why I feel heaven is not the only reward for Christianity, that is why I believe. I believe this because I feel it in my own life. I can feel the thirst and hunger when I am not near Christ, when we haven't talked for a while, or when I am obviously and purposefully ignoring Him. I feel a loneliness, and emptiness that I feel no other time. And this is because when I am with Him, when we are deepening our relationship I feel purpose and joy.

Christ is my purpose to live and love.

While I have known this to be true for some time I have still struggled to go deeper with Christ. Our relationship has often stayed at surface level (and by "often" I mean 99% of the time). I finally realized why. Because I want Christ in my life to give me purpose, to push me forward and make me feel I like have a reason to live, but I don't want to let Him have control of my life. I want Him in my life but I don't want Him to rule it, to run it, to embarrass me, to bring me to an uncomfortable place.

This is my struggle. This is my confession.

*I understand this is very personal and maybe not blog friendly/necessary. I wanted to share this though with those of you that might read it so you understand where my theology comments come from. They come from a broken and selfish place. God save us all.

**Listening to Jose Gonzalez helps one become introspective. True story.

Fake Friends

2010-09-04T08:00:00.003-04:00

I got some new shoes a while back and I love them.
----
I like to think I am not the only one but I have a list of people that I believe would be friends with me if we were to ever meet. You know, the semi-famous people that you know a little about, you have seen/read/heard them here or there and you decided "they are pretty cool... I think we would be friends if we were to ever meet". Maybe I am alone in this imaginary list making but I thought I would share part of mine (part because I ran out of people that came to me in the five minutes I took to write this).

Actress: Zooey Deshanel. She plays sarcastic and dry humored characters in movies: I am a sarcastic person. She is in an indie folk group: I like indie fold music.

Writer: Donald Miller. He is open and honest in his writing: I like to think I am open and honest with people. He wears TOMS shoes: I wear TOMS shoes.

Theologian: Tony Jones. He is progressive in his theology: I generally make my friends nervous with my theology. He went to fuller and is now teaching with them: I wish I could go to fuller.

So what about you. Do you have anyone that you would obviously be friends with if the two of you were to ever meet? What does this say about us that we have this imaginary list? We aren't crazy are we?!

Rhett and Link speak to the Church

2010-08-30T08:00:00.004-04:00

Seriously, who has an $800 phone bill?!
----
I love Rhett and Link. I found them only recently but have already watched all of their videos (on their primary channel).

*Confession: When I find something that I think might be awesome I will watch/read/get everything of that thing so I can claim to be a “real” fan. Examples: watching all 700 videos from the Vlogbothers even though they had already recorded a few hundred before I found them, owning the poetry books from the lead singer of Project 86 just so I could say “yeah their songs are great, but have you read his poetry!?”, and accomplishing every task/award in video games (see Confessions of a Gamer).

This video spurred and thought and then this blog helped develop it a little more. It’s the simple truth that we are constantly ignoring people. I cannot speak authoritatively on why or when we do this, but we do it... I do it.

"If we refuse to open our eyes to reality that Jesus says is right in front of us, there are things that we see and other things that we ignore. We see certain people and ignore others. We see certain aspects of God's work while ignoring other aspects of God's doings in this world that are less agreeable and congenial to us." (yes I am quoting one of my ATS profs. No it isn’t considered sucking up.)

It almost seems like it is the red car phenomenon. You think “man there are a lot of red cars out on the highway today” and then suddenly the only cars you see are the red ones. Your eyes and mind begin to filter out everything except that which you are focusing on. A great example of this is found here (seriously it’s worth the 2 minuets of your time). The problem is that we aren’t missing silly details like the blue cars and the gorillas but the hungry, the thirsty, the abused, the discarded people in our society. We are missing Jesus.

Maybe I am putting the words in God’s mouth or maybe it really is the Holy Spirit speaking to my heart but I often find God replying to my prayers with my own words. A perfect example of that is last night, my prayer was “make yourself known to me” and in reply He said “make yourself known to me”. Basically calling me out and helping me realize that I assume He knows everything about me and thus I need not share my heart or my life with Him. An outgrowth of that answer was my prayer that He help me find Him where He already is. I know He is out there in the needy, the lost, the homeless, the abused and yet I continue to avoid Him and not see Him. I need to open my eyes.

So what about you? Who are you ignoring and how are you going to try and change that. As the food vendors and hungry alike are asking “will you remember my face”?

Survey: The B-I-B-L-E

2010-08-25T08:00:00.001-04:00

Standing alone on the world of God. You’re doing it wrong.
---

So the wife and I disagree about something (no surprise there). We were discussing the Sunday school song The B-I-B-L-E. One of the last lines is:

“I stand alone, on the word of God.”

The disagreement is the meaning of that line. Is the meaning that we are standing, by ourselves on the word of God, with no one else with us and sole in our faith? Or does it mean that we are standing on God’s word and nothing else (but possibly with other believers)?

Help us settle a disagreement by giving us your opinion.

Holy Spirit Baby

2010-08-20T08:00:00.004-04:00

*edit. the original video was removed so it may just be a matter of time before this one is as well*

So I think there are a few responses you might have to this video:

1. You are laughing – You see it as a tongue-in-cheek video and love the captions! “Ice cream poop!”
2. You are awe struck – You see the child speaking in tongues and feel it is a true witness to the infilling of the Holy Spirit.
3. You are upset – You see the church allowing this child to “pretend” to speak in tongues and “pretend” to have a word from God.
4. You are scared – You see/hear people encouraging the child and getting into his(her?) “message”. You are nervous.

I am a 1 and a 4. I think more than being a message from/about God I feel this is a message about our church cultures and the impact that it has on our children. Watch the video again, the child is mimicking so many things it doesn’t understand

· The hand/arm gestures
· The repetition of particular hard hitting phrases
· The getting soft to bring in the audience and then get loud with the important message
· The jumping around to show excitement
· The running/jumping in place to show excitement

I am not going to critique the church this video was taken in (I don’t who or where they are), even though I may have an issue or two with them. What I want to draw out of the video is that our children are picking up more than we realize while they are at church. How we interact with each other, how we respond to the music, how we respond to the sermon, how we express our relationships, etc etc.

It makes me wonder what I am sharing with my children and what my church is sharing with them. I hope our children are picking up that part of serving Christ is serving others. I hope our children are picking up that there are multiple ways you can worship God and that one is not superior to another. I hope they are picking up that intimate relationships with other believers (and nonbelievers) is crucial for personal spiritual growth. I have hope for our children…

What do you think the children in your church are picking up?

Found here: http://www.jesusneedsnewpr.net/possessed-by-holy-spirit-baby-speaks-in-tongues/

Confessions of a Gamer

2010-08-15T08:00:00.002-04:00

Who knows which Super Mario game this is from?

---

I’m a gamer, well I used to be when I still had time. I played Mario Brothers when I was in elementary school, I played Super Mario carts when I was in Jr. High, I played Golden Eye when I was in high school, I played Counter Strike when I was in college, and a variety of online games during and since college. Games have been a big part of my life and I have generally embraced all of the nerdy stereotypes and clichés that went with being a gamer.

One way you know you are gamer, and not just a casual player, is if you have spent more time playing games than sleeping (or working) during a week. When a hobby starts to push into an obsession and addiction. On more than one occasion I have laid down to go to sleep and have found the game still running in my head, practicing map lay outs and places to hide. Yes, I am a gamer indeed and I’m ok with it.

Some games have the ability to “restart”. Meaning you might be on a mission, trying to accomplish a specific task or action, and if you fail you do not have to play through the rest of the game/map/level but can restart. So depending upon the difficulty of the task you might be restarting to the same point dozens of times just trying to accomplish this specific task. “Jump, jump, punch, kick, jump… crap failed again *restart*. Jump, jump, punch… crap failed again! *restart*”. Repeat ad nauseam.

One of the game types I play the most are first-person shoot’em games. Normally these games lend themselves to two unique gaming styles: run and gun vs. sit and snipe. I’m a runner. So I grab my machine gun and I go as fast as possible trying to take down as many people as I can before I am taken down. Jumping around corners, running for the flag, shooting before I even see anyone, all apart of my runner style. I will be killed, it’s inevitable when you are on the front lines, but as long as I can get a 2:1 kill to death ratio then I am happy.

Maybe I am being TOO introspective but I was realizing that my gaming style is too close to my spiritual style.

*click here to disconnect from this introspective session and find out what I did last night.

I always want to restart. I think we all want to from time to time and that is why we love Birthdays, New Years, and Lent so much. It gives us a single point from which we can restart. We can say “From now on I will(not) _____” and feel like we have a chance to restart. I will exercise. I will lose weight. I will read my Bible every day. I will give more money to the poor. I will stop smoking. I will stop eating out. I will stop lusting. I will stop sinning. I will restart and accomplish this task to perfection in one take. I didn’t pay attention to the kids at all today *restart*. I have been so focused on myself this week that I completely forgot that my wife asked me to do X. *restart*.

I have this feeling that I have abused grace and I have used restart too many times. I’m addicted to restarting.

I also run through my spiritual life too much. I get a little behind and realize I haven’t done (insert spiritual discipline here) for over a month. So to make up for that I double up and try to spiritually catch up. Ok if I just read all of Psalms this month then that will make up for it. If I fast for two straight weeks that will make up for it. If I just…. I need to slow down. I have to thank Pete Wilson for helping me remember this. I need to realize that I can’t rush my way back into the graces of God. I cannot accomplish enough tasks to be holy in God’s eyes. I need to get back in touch with my inner Luther.

I need to realize that God gives me the opportunity to restart, but that isn’t so I can just go back and do the exact same crap as before. I need to realize that because of that restart God takes me as is and I don’t need to earn my way into His graces. I definitely have some room for improving here.

So how about you, are you addicted to the spiritual restart? Are you running through your spiritual life too much? Maybe you are sitting around too much and aren’t moving enough?

Anne Rice (Part II)

2010-08-08T23:13:00.006-04:00

This is what a polar bear looks like while swimming. I knew you wanted to know.

---

In my last post I wrote about the need for Christianity to not just be rouge believers trying to follow Christ by themselves. This stemmed from Anne Rice's announcement that she was going to continue following Christ but "quit Christianity". In a second facebook status she gave a better picture of the Christianity she was leaving. The Christians she knew were the "anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-artificial birth control, anti-Democrat, anti-secular humanism, anti-science, anti-life" type. Apparently Anne and I run in different crowds (say it aint so!) because NONE of my Christian friends would fall into that camp (and I doubt I would be friends with people that do fall into that camp). Don't get me wrong some of them would fall very firmly into one or more of those camps, but all of them at the same time? I mean who could really live a life of that much anti-whatever in their life?

This type of a statement is either a gross exaggeration to make a point and create a little PR or it shows her innocence and ignorance of Christianity outside of her circle. I am going to give her the benefit of the doubt and say she is not over exaggerating to get a little PR but that she truly feels all of Christianity is this way. What is sad is that she is not the only one. Other people have created this false idea/definition of what Christianity must be and then they reject it (straw man what?). On the flip side people also create these false definitions of what it means to be a Christian so that they can reject other people. Both examples are very sad.

I had a dear friend of mine leave the faith because of this type of straw man creation. He had developed this idea that to be a Christian you had to be a fundamental-literalists-Bible-thumper. It sadden me to hear Him renouncing Christ because he felt he couldn't follow Christ without following this and that doctrine/theology. We chatted a little about how he did not have to believe all this extra fluff to be a Christian but the damage had been done and he had grown tired of trying to fit into a box that he couldn't fit into. So he left.

In the last post I made reference to the idea that as much as Anne may want to run from her Christian family she is still apart of us. We all have that cousin who is always getting into trouble, the uncle who believes he can tell everyone what to do, the free spirited aunt who just does her own thing... we all have these characters in our families. We can try to disown them, to say we are no longer going to be apart of the family, but we are. We can say "I am no longer a Christian" but if we are still following Christ then we are still apart of the family.

----

To Anne: you may not be "anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-artificial birth control, anti-Democrat, anti-secular humanism, anti-science, anti-life" but that doesn't mean you are anti-Christian it just means you cannot identify with that part of Christianity anymore. Maybe you are just tired of all the baggage that comes with being in the family but I just wanted to let you know that your cousins, uncles, and aunts are still here praying and loving you. You can't get rid of us that easy :)

Anne Rice (Part I)

2010-08-05T08:00:00.003-04:00

Back in the day, you know, when vampires weren't feminine... oh wait...
---
*Before I agree or disagree I want to say that I understand this is her personal faith and she can express it (or not) however she desires. I also understand that our backgrounds, theology, and religious upbringings are different, so I hope I am not expecting too much of her or taking this too far. *

So recently Anne Rice posted on her facebook that she was "quitting Christianity". This has stirred up Atheists and Christians bloggers alike, and unfortunately I am no different. Her statements have made me ask multiple questions and so I thought I would (try) to blog about them to see what everyone else thought.

If you didn't click on the link above here is her status:
For those who care, and I understand if you don't: Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being "Christian" or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to "belong" to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten ...years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.

Whatever else may be said, her point and her status come down to a single question: Can you really separate being a Christian and a Christ follower? I understand the baggage that comes with claiming the title Christian (I mean who better understands that then a kid who was home schooled, raised in a pastors home, went to a private Christian university, and is currently going to seminary?). As much as she may want to I do not believe that you can separate the two. Whatever a Christian may be (red vs. blue, life vs. choice, rock vs. country) the bottom line for all of us is that we try to follow the example that Christ gave us and become more and more like Him everyday. We can get into how we define Christ or what following Him looks like but if we strip Christianity down to the bare bones we get something close to that.

So as much as Anne may want to try and put a space between her and the other "Christians" she is still inside our big tent. Sorry Anne, you are still related to crazy uncle Fud and wild aunt Libby.

What scares me though is what she is not saying. In a recent interview she made mention that she would not be apart of that community anymore (my paraphrase). I'm afraid she believes she can have a strong faith by herself and that she will be able to follow Christ appropriately by herself. This is a modern day myth that will not go away. This reminds me of the Historical Jesus Quest of the 18th-20th century, at the end of the quest people finally realized that the Jesus they "found" looked a whole lot like their own personal belief system. For those that were on the quest and for Anne the point is that when we try to turn our personal faith into a private one we begin to force Christ more and more into a box that looks more and more like ourselves. We begin to justify our actions and beliefs because "that is what Christ would do and this is what He would look like". The problem is that we do not have a community of believers that can speak truth into our lives, can correct our mistakes, and can point us to a closer and more accurate picture of who Christ is.

We can have a personal relationship with Christ, but that is not the same thing as a private one!

So I do not know the experiences Anne has had or why she has decided to share this with her facebook followers but I am concerned for her. Not because I doubt her faith or her honesty in her status, but I am concerned that she will lose sight of Christ and His example. Does she need the Church to have a relationship with Christ? No. But she is bound to lose sight of a fuller picture of Him without a community and ultimately she will not be able to know Him to His fullest.

A quick email

2010-07-31T20:49:00.005-04:00

Hello church banner. My you are large.
----
My church has their "5 B's" (which are surprisingly hard to find on the website and confirm I know them). Two of the B's are build (relationships) and bring (people to church). One of my life group (aka small group) members asked me a question, via email, and I thought it was worth posting to the internet. Not that I say anything breath taking or original, I just thought I would share my take on evangelism.

-----Original Message-----
From: Little A
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 10:20 AM
To: Dan

So Dan what are your thoughts on the step between build and bring? How
best to bridge that gap? Do you just let people come on their own? Do
you
assist?

Little A

-----
From: Dan
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:35 PM
To: Little A

The place you start with is that every person is unique. Each person is
going to need a different approach (both the sinner and the saint). So
simply because something was successful for you doesn't mean it would be
for me, even if we were trying to reach the same person. There is no
master plan that is going to work. So with that in mind I will answer
with what I think would work with me, and for some of the people I know.

I think the keys are being honest and authentic and to start with the
proper intentions.

Our church is correct that before you bring someone you build a
relationship with them. I just read this article yesterday that suggests
a tongue-in-cheek approach
(StuffFundiesLike). I think it's critically important that we do not build
relationships with people for the express purpose of bringing them into
our church. We build relationships with people because we want them to
be loved. We want to love them, we want them to feel the love of God,
and we want them to love other people. Because of that we want them to
come to our church, where we feel loved from others and from God. Church
is not the end result, but it is on the path towards the end result. We
don't want them to come to our church to look better before our friends,
to increase our Sunday school class, or to grow the church any. I think
our intentions are critical, because the bottom line is that people will
know what our motives are even if we don't. People can sense when we
just want them to come to our church so they can drink our kool-aid and
join the cool kids club.

So with our intentions in line being honest and authentic is the on
going process to bring people to Christ. We are authentic with our
Christianity, that we are not perfect and still make mistakes. We are
honest with our Christianity that we follow Christ not because he
increase our bank accounts or makes our marriages perfect but because He
provides us with life full+complete. I think I have asked the question
around you before but it's one that I think is critical; the question of
"would you be a Christian if there was no heaven". For me the answer is
a solid "yes" because I firmly believe there are practical and real
benefits of following Christ now. He provides me a relationship and
closeness that I cannot get anywhere else. It is this real relationship
that I want people to see, I want them to desire it because they see the
fullness of my life.

So I don't feel it is an either/or of "assist vs. on their own", but
it's a and/both. We let them see the life we have and the relationship
we have. We do not shove our religion in their faith, but we present our
relationship humbly and honestly. In this way we assist them. We let
them do it on their own because we cannot force them to have a
relationship. We can scare them into religion and we can pressure them
into religion, but being saved is not about running from Hell or
fulfilling a spiritual duty, it is about loving Christ and loving others
through Christ.

Why do people want to get married? Because they are introduced to
someone that they cannot live without. Because they know that person and
know them intimately. Because they have seen the joy and pain of
marriage in other people. Because they feel their life will be more
complete by being with this person. Why do people want to come to
church? Because they have been introduced to the idea of Church through
us. Because they have seen our joy and pain by being in relationship
with Christ. Because they want to get married/become saved as well,
because they think they can find happiness and fulfillment there.

So how do we bridge the gap between building relationships and bringing
people? Really there shouldn't be a gap. Our relationship building with
them should naturally lead them to come. If our relationship building is
not doing that then I think either 1) our relationship with them is not
close enough or 2) our relationship with Christ is not close enough.

Just a few (long winded) thoughts.

Dan

---

So readers what do you think? How do you cross the gap between building relationships and bringing people to the Church (and ultimately to Christ)? Is there a gap? Should there be a gap?

Respecting Christ

2010-07-21T11:28:00.006-04:00

Jesus is very nostalgic with his ghetto blaster.

---
Playboy outdid themselves the other day. I don't know if you saw this or not but the Portuguese Playboy needed to stir up a little attention so they added a "Jesus look-a-like" (which surprisingly looked more like Anthony Kiedis than Abraham Heschel, how odd) to their front cover. The picture obviously worked as many bloggers took to their computers and wrote about how Playboy was going to to hell... again... because of this unforgivable sin. One of those writers lumped Jesus on Playboy and the "Jesus is my homeboy"** merch together and didn't have too many nice things to say about either. I wanted to respond to the article.

**Please be aware that this article includes a fuzzed out picture of the Playboy cover. This is NSFW.

The first basic point I can mostly agree with (except for painting a whole nation as "pagan"): "It would be easy to express shock and outrage at the blasphemously pagan Portuguese. But we Americans—both heathen and believer—tend to be disrespectful of Christ too." My agreement with him ends about the same place it begins, because for him disrespecting Jesus not only includes putting Jesus next to naked models but also by putting him on your chest. "Although its not quite the same as a Playboy cover, a few years ago the popular fad was having images of Jesus on t-shirts...The t-shirt fad has faded, but the disrespect is still with us."

For Mr. Carter this disrespect is rooted in Protestant and Evangelical focus on having a personal relationship with Christ. He is concerned that we are ignoring the power and transcendence of God by saying "I am a friend of God".

"How many times, for instance, have we seen an earnest Christian approach someone (including us) and ask, 'Do you know Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior?' While intended as a means of carrying out the Great Commission, the question is asking something else entirely. In essence, it’s asking whether we possess God rather than whether God possess us."

The word that trips up Mr Carter is not "friend" but "personal". For him we are friends with God but when we put the word personal in front of it we some how possess God.

My question is how are we friends with God without it being personal? Actually let's make it a bigger question, how many of your friends are not personal friends? If there is not a personal friendship there then isn't it just some sort of acquaintance? Jesus becomes that one person who requested to be friends with you on Facebook, you saw you had a bunch of mutual friends but you had no clue who they were and accepted them anyways. Friends, I guess, but not personal. For some reason I doubt this the type of relationship that Christ was calling people to.

Mr. Carter continues.

"Jesus, however, is not my homeboy. The term “homeboy” always implies a co-equal relationship and never refers to someone who could be considered either superior or an inferior. Jesus may be a friend, but he is not my “buddy.” Christ is my master, my redeemer, my Lord and my God."

I am taking Theology I at Ashland next month and because of that I am getting some of my reading in. During that reading I have had to read (had to, not wanted to) Nicene Christianity which talked, at length!, about Christ's humanity and divinity. So this is fresh in my mind, for better or worse, and I think Mr. Carter has it wrong. Is Christ to be our master, our redeemer, our Lord, and God? YES! But He is not only that. He has also come to humanity, become humanity, so that we might understand what it means to be human. Mr. Carter seems to indicate that a co-equal relationship with Christ is inappropriate or not correct but what do we do with John 15:14-15?

Mr. Carter says that we are friends with God, but doesn't like the word "personal." He doesn't like the idea of being "buddies" or "homeboys" with Jesus because it belittles Christ's position of power. The thing that I think Mr. Carter forgot was that Jesus became personal and He belittled(humbled) Himself when He obeyed the Father and came to humanity to die. He calls us to obey Him, to follow Him, to have a relationship with Him, so that He might call us friends. A friend we know right away and don't have to wonder who or where we met Him. A personal friend. For this friendship to be personal we must realize that Christ is not only our homeboy, He is also our master. If we are truly in relationship with Him and truly know Him we will know Him in His humanity and His divinity. I agree that we disrespect Christ when we put Him on the cover of Playboy but we also disrespect Him when we refuse to make Him personal and human.

So what do you think, where is the line? Was Playboy wrong for using Jesus on their cover? What about Rolling Stones and Kanye West? If "Jesus is my homeboy" is wrong then what about the other 20 shirts in the Christian bookstore?

A Contemporary Theological Issue: Zombology

2010-06-01T09:55:00.016-04:00

Another example of people trying to cash in on theological and biblical debates. sad.

-----

Please remember there are always two sides to every debate. Some have held very strongly to one side, while others scoff at their ignorance and foolishness. As with all issues, we must keep an open mind to both sides and weigh with scripture and reason what we find to be true.

This particular discussion has recently increased in its vigor and so I thought I would add my voice to the discussion. As with many of the issues I post about, my knowledge is limited at best and I am always willing to discuss further. With this warning out of the way let me begin.

The church has once again found an issue to divide itself over. Some churches may not be willing to say it out loud, but some congregations have tests you have to pass before gaining access to their community.

Are you white: Y or N.
Are you middle class: Y or N.
Are you married: Y or N.
Are you a heterosexual: Y or N.
Are you living: Y or N.

They may not kick out your right away if you are not able to answer all of those questions affirmatively but they will not accept you. If you are lucky they will create special classes for you and create a sub-cultural inside the community for "your needs". This is less than accepting. Some churches are willing to let number 4 slip, for others number 1 isn't an issue at all, and most churches don't even have to ask number 3 because they knew as soon as you walked in the door. This type of categorization, and possibly exclusiveness, is ridiculous! These tests are not biblical and completely spit in the face of Christ's message. If the body of Christ is going to be anything it must be inclusive and accepting of all. Christ said that He did not come for the healthy but for the sick (Matthew 9:12). If we are going to take this seriously, if we are going to follow Christ's message and go towards the sick, open our doors to the unhealthy, then who else should we have in our churches other than the living dead?!

You might want to shut me out after that but I plead with you to hear me out. Much of Christ's ministry was directed towards these social outcasts and often ignored living dead. When Christ sent out His disciples in He instructed them to raise the dead, He instructed them to minister not only to the living but also the dead (Matthew 10:8). Again, when John the Baptists' disciples came to Jesus to confirm He was the awaited Messiah one of the ways He confirmed His identity was by saying the dead were living again (Matthew 11:5 and Luke 7:22). One of the more well known miracles that Jesus performs during His ministry is calling a close friend to the life of a zombie (John 20:38-44). If we were to exclude the living dead from our churches, these zombies, then why would Christ be confirming His identity through them, instructing His disciples to minister to them, and even calling His own friends to become one?

Not only do we have examples of the living dead being ministered to in the gospels we also have examples of them being prophesied about in other literature. When Isaiah was prophesying about the coming day of the Lord he made sure to not only include the peace and joy that some may feel but he also declared that the dead will live again (Isaiah 26:19-20). Ezekiel also had a vision from the LORD of the dead coming to life again (Ezekiel 37:1-14). Zechariah uses the imagery a plague coming that will cause flesh and eyes to rot (Zechariah 14:12). It should, even be clear to the simplest minds, that this is a direct connection to the living dead. Would anyone be willing to argue otherwise?! Lastly, John uses zombies to show the events of the end times when he mentions the dead will stay in the streets and then rise after three and half days (Revelation 11:8-11).

If you still have doubts on how to properly handle our discussion of zombology then please consider Matthew's account of the Crucifixion. He not only described that the curtain of the holy of holies (that which separated man from God) was split in two but he also described the dead coming back to life (Matthew 27:50-53). These were not merely the living dead, but they were holy people! Surely this is a sign of the possible greatness of the living dead. We need to look no further than this example to see that zombies can be holy, they can add value to our churches.

So what I ask of you is to open your mind to the possibility that our zombie brothers and sisters should not only be accepted in church but they should be encouraged. Yes it may be difficult at first to understand them and their way of life but they, like all living things, have value. It is then up to us to find their place in the body of Christ and make sure they feel welcomed. My prayer is that the church will put down their tests and embrace the homo and heterosexual alike, the middle class and lower class, the living and the living death. May we follow in Christ's footsteps and love all.

Resource: I recently found a new version of the Bible that has helped me immensely in my study of Zombology. Hopefully you will find it helpful as well. The version can be found here.

(To Jamie Blair - Blog challenge accepted and completed. Zombies and religion successfully discussed with a minimum of 10 biblical resources. Thanks for the great idea!)

Practical Theology II

2010-05-26T22:35:00.005-04:00

My beautiful girls from this past sunday. My wife loves putting the girls in matching dresses.
----
So in my last post I tried to make the argument that theology must be practical. That it must be able to connect the farmer with the professor and that it must be able to connect the heart and the head. The irony of that post though was that it was all head, I provided to no practical ways for the reader to implement practical theology in their own life. I hope to correct that here.

*preface: I feel like I should cite some of this but really this is just my own opinion. take it for what it's worth*
In youth ministry it is pretty often understood that you are going to lose most of your youth during the transition periods, either at ages 12 or 18. Both of those ages youth are trying to re-establish themselves in a new context, Jr. high or College. During that re-establishment they reassess their identity, "what does it mean to be Dan Smitley?" They go through their previous social circles and identify areas they liked and areas they didn't like. They also assess their new social environment, they try to figure out what they like in the new environment and how to receive what they are looking for. For some youth this means they are going to strive for more friends, better grades, less stress, more fun, etc. So often during this assessment period they look at the church and do not see how it is going to fit into their new social environment. They do not see their vacation bible school experiences or their summer church camps as critical to their self-identity. In short, they have not developed a personal theology that is critical to their self-understanding.

The fault may fall on the youth themselves, maybe they didn't take their faith seriously or maybe they have been so shaken by the new social environment that they cannot see their faith anymore. Unfortunately though, I have a feeling that the churches inability to teach the youth plays a big role. We bring them into the churches and have them listen to lessons, we play games with them, take them on trips, and put them in small groups. However, at what point are we forcing them to own their faith? When are we pushing them past the answers we want to hear and into the answers that are in their heart? I have this strange feeling that we are looking to be validated as youth works at the expense of youth having their own testimony.

In this blog, as well as this sermon, I was reminded of the importance of a personal faith story.
"..we cannot own our beliefs until we find our story in the grand Christian story." - Tom Oord
Faith must be personal. Theology must be practical. Without these elements then we have a church that is simply throwing up what the pastor is feeding them without ever allowing it to settle or help them grow. They spew their answers on the world around them but what the world wants to hear is not the answers of the church but the personal-experience-heart-centered answers of that person. I'm afraid that we articulate such grand theological themes on Sunday mornings but don't equip those in attendance to do something practical with them. So what happens is those hearing the message point to the pastor and say "He will explain it to you" because they can't remember the difference between amillennialism and postmillennialism(or insert theological subject here) and feel if they cannot remember those differences then they cannot speak about their faith.

I was also reading this blog and came across a few interesting articles. The basic thought behind these articles was that simple is sometimes better. That businesses and societies begin creating structures that become so grandiose that they collapse upon themselves. So to prevent that the authors suggest we move towards a way of life, business, society, that is more simple. When we are able to do that then things will be able to last longer. And when I read these I wondered if that is what we are doing with members of the church and their personal testimonies. We expect them to be able to present the gospel message with such detail and authority that it becomes impossible for them. We expect them to know all this scripture to support their beliefs, or all of these theological phrases to distinguish their beliefs from another, and along the way they just drop off. We complicate their faith to such a point that it stops being theirs and it stops being personal.

Now don't get me wrong, I am all about theological frameworks and scriptural support, but it cannot come at the expense of the personal experience.

So this is my point: if theology is going to be practical or faith be personal then we have to help those in the church feel comfortable with their personal experience. Allow them the room to say something stupid and encourage them to say "I don't know but this is what happened to me." Discourage them from feeling like they have to have the correct answers before they can articulate their faith. If they are in the church it is because Christ has worked on their hearts, help them find that heart and help them see how Christ has touched it.

Practical Theology

2010-05-14T11:14:00.007-04:00

london got her first bike for her third birthday!

----

Fall registration is right around the corner. I just got an email the other day about getting setup for the fall quarter. A blessing (curse!) of getting ready for next school year is figuring out which classes are offered and what classes are needed. This means I had the pleasure of reading over the school catalog a few dozen times. *(Side note: hopefully I am not branding myself as a complete nerd for looking into the catalog)* While going through the catalog I was reminded that along with my MA in Theological Studies the seminary also provides a MA in Practical Theology.

The seminary has a core group of classes that every student has to take to get them ready for graduate level education. One of those classes is the beloved IT500. In it you learn how to struggle through boring lectures, write papers that articulate the author's words but presented as if they were yours, and ensure you are able to skim text books while getting only the main points. All in all the class' main selling point is that you get in small groups weekly and are able to connect with students who you will be with for the next 2(+) years. During the class, however, I did have an ah-ha moment that validated the class' requirement upon my life...

I don't want to downplay the importance of specializing your education. I mean there is definitely a difference from being a youth pastor and a senior pastor. And because of that difference there should be different degrees and different class requirements. In the same way I realize that being a college prof and a senior pastor are different and so there should be different degrees. So I can't give ATS too hard of a time for having a practical theology degree and a theological studies degree. But maybe a renaming is in order because if my theological studies are not practical then why should I do them?

If I sit in my ivory tower and throw a book upon to the ignorant masses below every year, what have I done for them other than providing a great paperweight? If my ivory tower is so far above the ever-tan farmer or the ever-smelly garbage man then why should they listen to me?

On the first day of Theology I, at MVNU, Dr. Matthews had these words to share: "Theology must be able to wear overalls."

And it is this sentiment that has driven me towards studying theology. Theology must be able to wear overalls, it must be able to speak to the farmer in the fields, the businesswoman in the field, and the father at home. Theology must be practical!

And that was part of the ah-ha moment I had during IT500. That academics could not be divorced from the church. That my head could not deal with God without my heart. That if I am going to be the Church, if I am going to be like Christ, if I am going to take this thing call Christianity seriously then it cannot be just a head thing. This is why I am thinking a renaming of the degrees may be in order. If theological studies is not also practical theology then it is pointless. Theology without a heart for the church, without a heart for the pain and suffering of others, theology that is not driven by love is not Christian theology. We do not need more profs that can explain very heady ideas but have lost their heart to academia. We do not need more pastors that can organize a community outreach but do not know how to do an exegesis. We need Christian leaders who are approaching God with their head and their heart and allowing both of them to be broken by His love.

This is what is on my heart and my mind right now.

My prayer

2010-05-08T21:58:00.001-04:00

My prayer tonight comes from a Hasidic Jewish reggae musician.

-----
"Yih'yu l'ratzon imrei fi V'hegyon libi l'fanecha, adonai tzuri
Yih'yu l'ratzon imrei fi V'hegyon libi l'fanecha, adonai tzuri*

I will crush my fantasy,
bring me olive oil crushed for his majesty
to shine a warmth into eternity, this is an eternal decree,
We’ll dance like flames for there’s no gravity,
for now I’m just a candle trying to stay lit in this windy night.

Got to crush my fantasies of how this life is supposed to be

Bring my broken heart to an invisible king with a hope one day you might answer me, so I pray don’t you abandon me.

Your silence kills me;
I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Is it wrong to think you might speak to me?
You might speak, would it be words and what would you say?

It’s so heavy a heavy price to pay

your silence."

*translation: let it be your will that my words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart come before you, God my rock my redeemer

Anthropomorphism and other fun words

2010-04-20T09:00:00.001-04:00

We found 6 kittens in the barn and the girls had fun playing with them. Aren't they cute?
-----

Anthropomorphism can be understood as:
-The attribution of human characteristics to non-human creatures or beings. (wikipedia)
-The attribution of human characteristics to inanimate objects, animals, forces of nature or others. Biblical anthropomorphism is when human characteristics are projected on God. (theopedia)

I believe most of you already know this but I am all but a card carrying member of open theism. The only reason I don't have a card yet is because as soon as you put a label on yourself someone with that same label will say/do something stupid and you will have to clarify how you aren't like them. So as much as I can be I am apart of the open and relational school of theology.

At the core of open theism is the idea that I have free will and can decide my fate. This then means that God has not planned out my path and that God allows me to make bad and good decisions. If I pick the right choices (ie. loving my children) then it makes God happy. If I don't pick the right choices (ie. beating my children) then that makes God sad. This sadness can make God wish that He had not let me make my own choices and possibly regret giving me free will. This means then that I have the ability to impact God. That I have the ability to change how He feels, either positively or negatively. And if I have the ability to change God then I have the ability to interact with Him, and like a wife and husband have the ability to "change" each other I am able to change God. I will say that I cannot change the very nature/core of God but I can interact and change His plans. Examples of this are Moses, Abraham, and Amos to name a few.

The critics of open theism, among other things, believe that we give too much weight to anthropomorphic language in the Bible. When the Bible says that God "relented" or "repented"(Amos 7) it is not that He actually changed His mind, it is just the best way for us to understand what He did in human terms. They compare it to when scripture calls Him a rock or a fortress. Obviously He is not some physical rock that we can stand upon, so this description must not be taken literally. In the same way, when God "repents" of His decisions we should see that as the authors trying to relay God in human terms but this doesn't mean it should be taken literally.

I say all that to get to my point and that is all of theology is built upon anthropomorphism!

I have not really learned another language other than English (and I suck at that one sometimes) but I hear that when translating from one language to another that something is lost. That when you try to translate "agape" into English you get "love", but it's more than love. That when you translate "hesed" you get "loyalty", but it's more than loyalty. Even going from English to other languages how do you translate "cool" or "hot" when you are really talking about something or someone you find appealing? Is not something lost if someone heard you say "my wife is hot!" and what they heard was "I find my female partner appealing"? In the same way that translating one language to another we lose something I also believe we lose something when we, or the authors of the Bible, try to translate God into human languages.

God is love, the Bible says so, but isn't God bigger than love. God is holy, the Bible says so, but isn't God bigger than holiness. God is full of mercy. God is full of grace. God is just. All of these concepts I 100% agree with and affirm. God is all of these things, but He must be more than these. God is love, but my concept of love is limited. Even Tom Oord's concept of love is limited and no matter how well we feel we can define love, and how God is that love, these terms will fall short of describing God. When we say that God is all knowing or all powerful it isn't that we have hit the nail on the head perfectly and can pat ourselves on the back to say "this IS God", but what we are trying to say is "God is this really big concept". The problem is that God is even bigger than that concept. Whatever is bigger than all powerful, that is God! Whatever is more knowing than all knowing, that is God! When we say God is love or God is holy we are just trying to take incredibly positive terms and say "God is this great thing that we only understand slightly". God is love and God is holiness but to the nth degree!

I don't want to create a God that is so "wholly other" and so transcendent that we cannot touch Him. But I think we have to come to grips with our vanity and pride and realize that humanity cannot properly and fully describe God. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try and it doesn't mean the terms we come up with don't have value. If someone understands "my wife is hot" as "she is appealing" there is definitely something lost but the truth is still shared. I do find her appealing, but she is more than that and when you boil "hot" down to "appealing" you aren't really getting what I am saying. In the same way, when we describe God as love there is still a truth being relayed. God is bigger than my concept of love but a truth is still relayed when we say God is love, or just, or merciful.

So when I say that God repented and someone tells me that is just anthropomorphic language and shouldn't be used literally I will agree that it is anthropomorphic, but isn't all language about God anthropomorphic? You know my opinion; so what is yours?

Just a thought

2010-02-11T12:53:00.002-05:00

I am highly addicted to this song right now:

===
I had a thought and it was too big for a facebook status so I figured I would throw it on a blog real quick.

I am thinking so many fundamentalists have a problem with Genesis (or any of the books of the Bible) being written by multiple people over a period of time is because we have become so individualistic. Did the original audience believe the letter/book/law was writen to or for them like we do? Did the original writers have in mind a specific person that would be reading the letter, or did they write to a community/group of believers/a church?

We have so individulized our faith that we cannot even entertain the idea that our belief system may have a corporate element. We have this false idea that each book of the Bible was written by one person, at one moment, to one person (ME!). Hopefully we begin to realize that the community was critical in the creation of the Bible and is important when reading and studying the Bible now.

Just a passing thought.

A Prayer

2010-02-06T11:13:00.005-05:00

London doesn't think it's a good idea to touch the computer; Waverly however doesn't care.
===
I am full of hate and I am tired.

I am hate discussing the pain and injustice of other people as abstract thoughts and not real pain and suffering. We may be comfortable with our coffee in hand, and the conversation might be great but their pain and their suffering is still real.

I am tired of other people's pain not being my own.

I hate having great points about community but then living in isolation.

I am tired of talking about love being the center of the Christian life but my life is too often centered on the love of me.

I hate assuming that those in pain are "over there". Why are they over there and I am over here?

This is my heart and this is my hope; that my theology would tie my head and heart together in such a way that it would force me into change and into action. Amen.

The Christian Language

2010-02-04T20:58:00.004-05:00

We Smitleys love our group games.

====
In the past couple of months I have come across the topic of the Christian language a few times. Both the pro and con sides understand the Christian language as this unique language that is used to express the truth and understanding of Christianity. I wanted to throw my two cents in real quick and see what you thought of them.

Pro: The pro language side says that for someone to become a Christian they must be able to understand the language of Christianity. The question they ask is: how can someone repent and ask forgiveness when they do not understand the ideas of repenting and forgiveness?

Con: The con language side says that the language we speak in Christianity often has contradictions in the terms (worship service which is often about our warm fuzzy feelings) or puts non-Christians off. The question they ask is: do we really need to create our own language to be have a relationship with Christ and share that relationship with others?

I think both points are asking great questions and the bottom line for both is that they are wanting others to join them in their walk.

My problem with the pro side is not the main idea but the exceptions. If we must understand and learn the language and/or culture of Christianity before belief is possible then what does that say to the mentally handicapped? Yes they may not be able to understand the different parts of our culture and wont be able to fully participate but that is only cultural, can they not have a relationship with Christ still? This comes back to questions about salvation and whether or not we must have a cognitive moment to be saved. I don't have the answers (my knowledge on soteriology is not as strong as it should be) but my theology leads me to have hope in a God that will not hold a lack of knowledge about a language against someone. Now the pro side may not go so far and is really just saying we must have a proper understand but my question to them then is who's understanding? Does not the Holy Spirit lead us all differently? Do we not all read and understand scripture differently? Do we not all have different experiences? This side seems to come from a point of arrogance to say "you must believe the way I believe or you don't believe at all!". Sorry pro side I cannot get on your side.

My problem with the con side is that it is often rooted in their particular understanding. They are not asking why we have terms like salvation, repent, hell, atonement, etc. Instead of asking why we have fundamental terms like that they are asking why we go to church on Sunday, or have to meet three times a week, or have to dress up, or on and on. When they ask "why must we have our own language" they are really asking "why does my cultural background understand Christianity this way" or even still "why did I used to believe all this stuff but now I find it pointless and useless?" Yes evangelical circles have muddied the waters with some of their terms and understandings but that isn't the only Christian camp out there. If you don't like the terms then either 1) fix them or 2) go somewhere else... (wow that seems to be lacking a lot of love.... sorry about that).

So as you can see I cannot support either side as they are presented tonight. I think it is foolish to believe that we do not have our own language and our own culture. This isn't just about having a "biblically supported" culture or having different priorities and lifestyles. I am talking about how we are going to have certain understandings of what "church", "brother", "service", or "marriage" means and how they are some what different to us than the rest of the world. We have our own culture, we have our own language and that is not going to stop. We have unique concepts and to express those concepts we must have our own languages because high-jacking someone's terms will not give the depth and interconnectedness of our terms. We cannot, however, boil this down to a "know the password and you can get into our club" idea. Knowing our language allows us to have a unique perspective and a community that we would not be able to have otherwise, but it does not allow us the room to ignore those that are not apart of our group.

So here are a few questions to think about:
+How much should our culture or language look/feel like that around us?
+How might our language need to be adjusted to be more inclusive?

Another Blog

2010-01-17T22:45:00.003-05:00

A friend of mine has started up a new blog and has invited a few of his friends to post there. I was one of those friends and I took the liberty to make my first post. The content and feeling will be very similar to this blog so if you generally enjoy my thoughts/feelings then be sure to check out the new blog (and post) below:

http://revelationrebirthed.blogspot.com

ps. I will still (as time allows) post here. Just wanted to let everyone know there is another place to check out my thoughts.

what pomo and mod have in common (other than "mo")

2010-01-16T18:34:00.006-05:00

just a friendly reminder for everyone what is just around the corner. i took this in the summer along my local bike path.
=====

pomo = postmodern(ity)
mod = modern(ity)

so in class the other night dr. jacques gave some descriptions that i wrote down but unfortunately i cannot give their original source (if you know it please let me know).

the modern church works from the mindset of believe -> behave -> belong. this means that those in a modern church expect new christians first and foremost believe what they believe. this is why they focus on the sinners prayer and evangelism so much. after a person believes then they are expected to behave. they need to change their lifestyles now that they have the correct faith/ideals. once their life(style) has changed they are allowed to belong to the church.

the postmodern church works from the mindset of belong -> behave -> believe. this means that those in a postmodern church ask the non-believers to join them in action. to join them in changing the community, fighting for equality, or be willing to be honest and authentic. during the process of belonging to a church the person is slowly changing their behaviors. as they conform to that particular social setting they begin to believe the same basic truths and come to a saving relationship with God.

i am not here to say one is better than another (this time, because i do feel one is better) but to comment on what i have seen too often in both church settings, we get stuck on people behaving.

the modern church gets people into the church, they get them to say the sinners prayer, and they start helping the person change their lifestyle. unfortunately once the person begins to change their lifestyle they begin to step out of the "secular" world. when this starts to happen they often are leaving their old friends and hangouts that gave them a place to belong. the church, however, has assumed the person has all they need because they believe the correct things and they have removed the "evil temptations" from their lives. what the modern church doesnt remember is that the person needs a place to belong, they need community and a way to act out their faith. its unfortunate but the modern church gets lazy right at the behave part and doesnt finish the job.

the postmodern church, however, is not perfect either. they are great at staying active in the community around them and building community inside the church members. they encourage people to be authentic in who they are and give the non-christians a place to have community outside of their temptations. the postmodern church, like the modern church, forgets that there is another step after having someone behave. the postmodern church gets people involved, gets people to open up and establish relationships but unless they are getting people to believe i have to question if they are a church or just a social group. for the church to be true to herself then she must be asking people to join her, help her, and believe in Him.

may we all remember that Christianity is more than simply behaving, it must include believing and belonging.

stewardship vs. faith

2010-01-12T15:47:00.004-05:00

still using the same mug.
=====

i am sure we have all heard those from a name-it-claim-it church that will tell you "just have enough faith and you will get what you want". there are also those that there that simply "live by faith". they don't know where their insurance will come from or the next meal or the money to pay the bill but instead of trying to prepare they just "leave it up to God" and live by faith.

on the other end of the spectrum are those that organize, plan, and prepare for everything. they have stock options out their ears, full savings accounts, vacation plans for the next three years, and their kids colleges already picked out (even though the kids aren't born yet). they realize the importance of stewardship and make sure to make the most of everything they are given. make the most out of the money they are given, the time they are given, the skills, etc etc.

so my questions are, where do you lean and what does the middle look like?

Subjective?

2009-07-21T13:26:00.002-04:00

i affirm the wesleyan quadrilateral. for those that dont know the wesleyan quadrilateral comes from john wesley, the founder of the methodist societies (later churches). the wesleyan quadrilateral was seen in how john came to theological conclusions, he used: scripture, tradition, experience, and reason. he believed scripture to be the sole source of truth and that reason, tradition, and experience possibly enhanced or helped us understand the truth of scripture.

this is my basic understanding of the wesleyan quadrilateral. i will be the first to admit that i am not wesleyan scholar and i still have a lot to learn on this subject. this is part of the reason i am posting, i am hoping that someone of more knowledge will be able to correct me or help me understand this theological scruture better.

on to my actual post:

from my perspective everyone has a perspective (i need to save that one!). it seems to me that everyone has a different lens or perspective they work from and it is this through this lens that they understand the world around them. the lens is made up of their biological make up, life experiences, social class, education, family life, etc etc. two people will be able to watch the same event in history and form two completely different opinions from that event, i believe that is because of their lens. these lens are neither wrong or right, they simply are.

i heard a good example the other day to illustrate this point. two people might be looking up at a tree. person number one might look up and say "look there is a bird in the tree". person number two, however, might not be able to see the bird because of a tree limb in the way and say "no you are wrong there is no bird". unless both people are able to realize that they are coming from different perspectives then the conversastion and observations will go no where.

so this is my question: how are we able to use scripture as the sole source of truth when how we read scripture is dependent upon our traditions, experiences, and reasons.

two people from different backgrounds will read the same scripture and find two completely truths. are we then to assume that both people are correct and that each one of their interpretations holds truth? or is only one person correct. and maybe there is a third option of both people are completely wrong. it seems that with the second option we then have to understand how the person came to their interpretations, going to their traditions, reasons, and experiences.

i am trying to understand how we can hold something that seems so subjective as the sole authority on truth. from the example i gave about with the tree, i dont want to go so far as to say there is no bird or that because the bird was not visible to the second man that he was actually correct. i do believe in absolute truths, i simply wonder how many of our truths are not so absolute.

just some thoughts that are going through my mind right now. maybe a few of you will be able to help me think through this topic.

emergents and evangelicals pt 2

2009-06-30T09:52:00.004-04:00

the above picture was taken a few minutes ago (say 9:50am Tuesday). the picture is of sarah and dan's coffee mugs, can you guess which one is which? the black and white one (nightmare before christmas) is a new mug the wife and i picked up yesterday at the disney store (it was 33% off).

maybe i am beginning to stretch but the above picture seems to show how so many people view the emergent and evangelical labels. people say that the emergent movement focuses too much on love and that it, historically, is not deep enough. while some people may say that evangelical movement is deep it is not appealing to people in todays world. there are obviously exceptions. some people are able to look past the apparent "all about love" title that emergents are given and see that it can still hold a great cup of coffee (truth). also, other people are able to get past the first face of the evangelical movement because they understand the movie it is coming from (the past) and see that there is beauty there.

like i said, maybe i am beginning to stretch.

one thing i do have against the evangelicals is that too often they are so focused on winning the lost that they forget the fact that maybe people are not ready for the gospel message. paul had a great truth when he said that some plant the seed and others water. too often people believe that everyone is ready to be watered and forget that some people don't even have the seed planted yet. i just wish that more churches would do activities without the motive to get people into their church. maybe sometimes it is just as good to put the seed of Christ's love in someones life and allow another church to water it. sometimes loving someone is enough, loving without an agenda.

emergents and evangelicals

2009-06-28T08:54:00.003-04:00

Blog songs (on shuffle)
-mama grace: seventeen
-the postal service: natural anthem
-cool hand luke: skydive
-bob dylan: knocking on heaven's door
- godspeed you! black emperor: mother=redeemer (part 1)
-

this weekend i have been by myself at home. sarah and the rest of the family went to "the farm" in PA for a reunion on the fordyce side. friday i came home and did what every single guy loves to do, eat and sleep. seriously all i did was come home sleep then wake up to eat, sleep, eat, and then go to bed. what an awesome use of my time. however, the weekend as a whole as been wonderful. i have been able to clean the house (both upstairs and down), i have been able to get some reading done, finally get some Bible time in, and keep up on the events at GA and about the CNs.

currently i am outside where it seems that the clouds would like to rain. honestly though it is beautiful out here, even with the clouds. birds are chirping (which i didnt notice until i said it was beautiful out here), some flowers are still alive, theres a nice breese going, and i have my coffee. mm the little things in life. also to give you a better feel for my current moment(s) as i write this blog i am going to share with you the songs i get to enjoy on shuffle.... i am REALLY hoping they will be good songs and i can get some indie cred points.

i was on the phone the other day... or week i guess now... and we were discussing the emergent/emerging church/movement/culture (god its confusing). and i made a distinction that i thought was decent and wanted to share.
evangelicals focus almost exclusively on the great commission
emergents focus almost exclusively on the great commandments
and then there is me trying to hold the two together, which in itself is funny because when i wrote my "philosophy of ministry" back in college these two scriptures were at the heart of it.

basically evangelicals say that bringing the lost to Christ is the most important thing in a christians life. that the purpose of the church is to be the medium between the sinner and the lover. emergents on the other hand believe that focusing on that leads to focusing on numbers and that is not what Christ was worried about. instead the worry about loving God and loving the world around them (the great commandments).

obviously if taken too far both can be bad. if you begin seeing everyone simply as a lost soul that needs to be harvested then you lose the ability to truly love them in community. if you go the other side then you can possibly be loving them without ever sharing what their spirit really needs, which is Christ. at least this is what the other camp would say about each other.

as i said a couple (i cant use "few" anymore, dang it!) years ago i wrote my philosophy of ministry in college. i tried to focus on loving God and loving others and then making disciples of all nations. i should probably revisit the project and see just how naive it was. but there is truth there, there is truth that if we go to one side and lose the other then we lose a lot. maybe i would lean a little heavier to loving others then i did before but there still needs to be a balance. we need to first love those around us without having a salvation plan already marked out for them. after building that relationship we need to make sure we are willing to bring up the topic of Christ and how salvation is through him. balance people, its about balance!

GA

2009-06-26T23:43:00.001-04:00

if you are nazarene you may know what general assembly is. well it is happening this and next week. if you remember please keep the church of the nazarene in your prayers. there is a lot of change coming ahead and my prayer is that God will be leading that change.

war... what is it good for

2009-06-13T22:52:00.002-04:00

one thing i have been thinking about recently is war. i am currently struggling to find a decent biblical or theological reason for war. it seems that getting around Christ saying "love your enemies" is going to be hard because his teachings seem so to the point.

i guess i am one of those crazy christians who think that everything before and everything after the gospels point to Christ. and because of that i view Christ's teachings and life as the perfect example for all christians. and because of that i find it hard to find where it says "love your enemies unless they are really really bad people and if they are then go and kill them all!".

going too far with children songs

2009-06-10T19:36:00.002-04:00

so before i even begin i will admit maybe this is too much analysis. maybe there are some things you can just leave alone and say "it is good for what it does. it does not need to be perfect". with that being said i will still go too far and begin to breakdown the beliefs that some children songs are teaching our kids.

this all started when london randomly started singing a song. it was not one that sarah and i taught her and it was right after sunday school. more than likely the sunday school class was singing some very classic sunday school songs which is both great starting point of their faith and very cute when repeated by your two year old.

as i was singing with london i began to wonder if this is something i really want london taking hook, line, and sinker. a few examples of the songs and my concerns. please note i still love these songs for kids, i simply acknowledge that i will need to add onto them when my kids become older.

"The b-i-b-l-e, yes thats the book for me. i stand upon the word of God. the b-i-b-l-e. BIBLE!"

this may be stretch but i want to make sure that my kids are not simply standing with their faith. i want them to read the bible, to embrace their faith full heartily, and i want them to act out their faith. simply standing upon the word of God is not enough. we must act out with the word of God.

also we need to make sure that we are not allowing the bible to become something that we worship. from my stand point wesleyan tradition puts the bible in its correct place as 1 part of the belief system. it still holds reason, tradition, and experience along with the bible as important. too often people protect the bible with more force then they do the poor or the needy. funny how we can see more value in the words then in what the words tell us to do.

"Jesus loves me this i know, for the bible tells me so. little to ones to him belong, they are weak but he is strong. yes Jesus loves me. yes Jesus loves me. yes Jesus loves me. the bible tells me so".

again, i realize that i might be taking this out of context but this type of thinking will not get you very far in a modern or postmodern world. "why do you believe in Jesus.... because he loves me... how do you know he loves you... because the bible tells me so... so why believe in the bible... well because the bible tells me so... um, okay." hopefully we will teach our children to be able to express and show their faith better then simply "the bible tells me so".

God, may i continue to stretch my beliefs and in doing so allow me to understand you better. not only understand you better but show you to the world in a more faithful and truthful way, starting with my family.

concerned for those that are concerned

2009-06-07T18:12:00.003-04:00

while at work the other day i became curious how the nazarene church is handling the emergent movement, so i googling "emergent nazarenes". apparently there is a lot more interaction between these two groups than i would have thought. i was able to find, and now follow, this blog: emergentnazarenes.blogspot.com. i was also able to find this website: http://www.concernednazarenes.org/ (dont let the flash intro fool you, it sucks).

i have to say that after viewing this website i am concerned about these concerned nazarenes. it makes me sad that some people are still as closed minded and negative as i was afraid of. true we cannot be positive about things we feel are evil or something the church should have no interaction with. however some research and being willing to discuss your views is always a good idea before establishing that something is heretical.

however a positive that came out of the search was www.naznet.com and the blog i already shared. it REALLY encourages me that the nazarene church is engaging the emergent conversation finally and being willing to listen to what it has to say back. also one of the leaders in the emergent nazarene conversation gave a great new way of viewing the change that is happening: being a church to the emergent culture (instead of being an emergent church).

i have to say that the search and the subsequent websitse have brought back my hope for the nazarene church and my pride in it. i still consider myself a nazarene and i was reminded why.

failures and forgiveness

2009-06-04T08:07:00.003-04:00

explosion by london

====

i had a moment the other week when i was reading an emergent book. thinking back on the problems of the modern church and how those problems impacted me, when i realized that i was(am?) apart of the problem.

you ever have one of those moments? you are sitting their on your high horse and realize that you have either been apart of what you are complaining about or you could have done something to fix/help it. that feeling sucks.

and because i realized i could have done something about it i feel i need to apologize. there have been people in my life that i have impacted in a negative way. i am not expecting myself to be perfect and i realize that i will let people down in the future as well. however, if i am going to let people down i think i need to be willing to admit my failures and let them know i am trying to grow from them. so please forgive me...

... when i allowed my personal desires to be confused with God's desires. christians should not be using "the will of God" to justify the actions their heart or their bodies desire. may i focus on God's goal for humanity instead of "God's will" for my life.

... when i did not stand up for mercy, justice, love, and forgiveness. these are the bedrock of christianity and while there will be times of weakness there should not be times where i stand for the everything against those principles. may i not only seek these things in my life but in your life as well.

... when i allowed others to make up my mind for me. i should be able to stand on my own two feet and give an account for what i believe. may i always hold my faith close to both my heart and mind.

... when i allowed christian dogma to override christian acceptance. Christ is not a religion, God's love is not a religion, and while religion may help us find those things religion is not the end goal. may i allow you to criticise my faith as long as you can still feel His love through me.

... when i allowed Christ's love in me be hidden by my personality (and all it's faults). Christ's love should be enhanced because of my personality and my characteristics not hidden by them. may i be willing to let myself die so that others might see Christ through me.

this is not a complete list but it is a start. i am not catholic and do not think it is necessary to confess your sins to a priest, but i do see value in acknowledging your sins and letting others know you see them. the more people can see your weaknesses the more they can hold you accountable.

I am a toys r' us kid!

2009-05-17T19:20:00.006-04:00

if you didn't know already i am a big fan of people staying in touch with their inner child. recently i have been trying to make sure he (my inner child) and i are keeping up with each other. here are a few things i have done to make sure we stay close

1) had an ice cream sandwich for breakfast

2) walked slowly in the ran to my car (other co-workers were running... i think they were afraid of melting)

3) spent at least 50% of my time in toys r' us looking something for myself, the other 50% was for london

*side note* legos and g.i. joes are just as cool as ever

4) left my window down when it began to rain

5) listened to music too loud

what have you done recently to make sure you and your inner child are still on good terms?

slow at work

2009-05-06T19:27:00.003-04:00

What’s the deal with social networking websites?!

Has anyone noticed that unless you are on half a dozen websites then you arent really ON the internet. “hey I haven’t seen you in forever, how are you doing? Are you on facebook?”. Really people, really we have come to use a social networking website to make sure we can stay in contact with our loved ones?

We wear our networks with a sense of pride. “I was apart of facebook back when you had to have a college email”… “I was blogging before livejournal was around”… “I was tweeting before Demi Moore” . Or maybe we look to our pieces of flair, or bumper stickers, or mafia war characters to show exactly how “dedicated” we are to this/that network. Have we come so far as to really allow ourselves a sense of accomplishment by having the most electric catch phrase logos?

It seems like using these networks even allows us to pat ourselves on the back and say “I am a good friend…. or acquaintance…or a friendly stranger”. We have fooled ourselves into believing that posting happy birthday to someone’s wall allows us to feel like we have “kept up with them”. Or maybe commenting on one of their recently posted pictures gives us the sense that we really understand what they are doing with their lives. We have gone down the slippery slope of shallow friendships all the way to the point that we have forgotten what koinonia means.

Now I realize there are a growing number of people that see this as well and have began taking steps to walk away, or even have started to run as fast as possible to authentic community. I also realize that it is foolish for us, as Christians, to not take advantage of every avenue possible to spread the love of Christ. However, it seems to this lowly blogger that that majority of people are very content, if not happy, to send me a piece of flair and a nice “happy birthday” come August 1st.

I propose that we stop patting ourselves on the back and realize that we are lacking the meaningful relationships that will stand next to us when our parents die. I propose that we get over ourselves and realize that 99% of the world does not care what we are doing every five minutes of our lives (I leave room for the 1% of crazy people). I propose that we get out and give ourselves something substantial to be proud of like feeding the hungry or clothing the naked.

God may we continue to look past this superficial world and see you in the dirtiness of real life. May we see… oh my, Chris is single again?!?!!

Reference:
http://www.relevantmagazine.com/columns/intentional-living/16751-goodbye-facebook

happy birthday!

2009-05-05T21:17:00.004-04:00

happy birthday london!!!!

london turned two today. weird to think its already been two years and weird to think it has been only two years. it feels like she has always been around but it feels like she was just born yesterday... odd how that works

another solid one from the beggars group.

question for you

2009-05-02T18:47:00.003-04:00

what is better than getting free music from stereogum.com?

getting free music from the indie rock queen herself!!

pictures of the "get together because london will soon turn 2 years old day" to come soon.

...hello...

2009-04-30T20:05:00.002-04:00

why hello my lovely.

you been here long?

really... well i am glad i found you now.

http://stereogum.com/mp3/

focus

2009-04-26T21:31:00.004-04:00

i came to a realization the other day and felt like sharing with the rest of the world. i have realized that when praying for change in my life i was focusing on the wrong thing. i ask for strength so that i can accomplish what i need to that day. i ask for wisdom so that i may get into this university or pass this class. i pray for self-control so that i can withstand this temptation. what i realized was that in my prayers of transformation i was asking for change to better myself and to make my life easier.

i think that when we pray for change in our lives, when we ask for God to fill us in a new way, that we need to be praying this for those around us. that if we really want change in our lives we need to start focusing on others instead of ourselves. it seems that this is an area that all of us can improve on.

we say that we sacrifice for our children or our friends or whatever but exactly what are we sacrificing? i cant speak for everyone else so i will only speak for myself. it seems that i say i sacrifice so much for my family or work but then i realized that i am much more self-centered than i wanted to admit. even when i ask for change in my life its so that i can feel better not so that i can change the world around me.

my prayer needs to be that God changes me from the inside out not so that i look or feel better but so that my children have a better father. i need to be changed from the inside out so that my wife has a better husband. i need to be changed so that the world may change and know Christ's love.

when asking for transformation in my life i need to realize that the transformation is not for myself but for the world around me.