Java Jesus

Great Article Defining "Emergent"

2009-07-15T11:42:00.002-05:00

This is bodaciously long, but it is wonderfully wise. Must have been hard work. You guys might recognize the author, Michael Patton. He's the poor soul I raked over the coals for saying "God is mainly interested in the doctrine you believe, not in what you do." Well, I'm tippin' my hat to him today. Go read Will the Real Emerger Please Stand Up?

It's like Ultimate Fighting, but With the Bible

2009-07-12T19:25:00.003-05:00

Okay, I think I get it. Preaching is a competitive sport, and the one who can interpret biblical truth in the most extreme and stringent way is the winner. Say it with style and it's like a slam dunk, except the spectators say "amen".

Hagee Clip. Huh?

2009-07-12T18:45:00.003-05:00

I found this on a site quaintly called "Hard-Preaching-Dot-Com", on the "Heresy" tab. What do you make of it? What's the point he's trying to make? What could he possibly mean that "Jesus did not come to be the messiah"? I wonder how he explains why Jesus' disciples refer to him as "the christ" some 515 times?

Southern Baptist Seismic Activity

2009-06-23T22:14:00.001-05:00

Interesting article from iMonk, Michael Spencer. Short and telling.

Professional Player loves Jesus?

2009-05-25T11:14:00.002-05:00

Got this today from my friend Jeremiah. Went to LCC with him and he has definitely taken things in a different direction then we thought. I know it is sometimes hard to reconcile these two worlds, but if we really are to embrace the world around us, why not be a financial planner, a software developer, or even a professional blogger/poker player? This may be a source for some good discussion (or maybe not), but regardless, would you mind lifting him up in prayer?

Gentlemen,

Tomorrow I head back to Vegas for the 2009 World Series of Poker. Last WSOP was an incredible experience for me; I've never had that much fun playing poker or developing relationships. I'm incredibly excited about this summer...I am in a great spot this year for both working and playing. However, what I'm really looking forward to is renewing the relationships and friendships I've developed in the poker community over the past few years. Obviously, there's larger issues at stake for me than how my next podcast turns out or how I played in a given tournament.

One thing I'm going to need a lot of this summer is prayer support; Christians are few and far between in the poker community. If possible, I'd love it if you could include me in your regular prayer time these next several weeks. If you're interested, I'll send you at least a weekly email with bullet points to pray for. If you're not interested, that's too bad and I'll just spam your inbox :) Of primary concern to me is my relationship with Melissa; I'll be going back and forth a couple times and she's used to me traveling for work, but it's always tough being away from her and the pooch.

My schedule is very full; I hope to collect enough "data" for articles and such through the end of the year. Here's what I'll be doing:

Producing a series of strategy videos for pokerlistings.com/pokerroad.com
Weekly tournament articles for pokernews.com (newest one here)
Cash Plays podcast for pokerroad.com - link
I've had a number of requests for articles/blogs etc...gotta figure out what to do/not do
Playing 10-12 tournaments (May 30, Jun 1, 3, 6 coming up quick)

I'm really hoping for a little more of Matthew 13:33 this summer:

"The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough."

Blessings,

Jeremiah

The Hidden Curriculum

2009-04-27T12:05:00.001-05:00

And yet another one from Leadership Journal...

Your Hidden Curriculum: What do people learn from you about the Christian life? Sometimes it's what you never intended to teach.

Here's what Sr. Scribe JoeB had to say about the article:

If the invisible curriculum of my own life hasn't shouted it down, you may recall my many rants on this subject. I call the invisible curriculum the "Unwritten Rules", and I believe the Bible calls them "spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenlies."* I imagine all of his superb examples fall in the category of "reverse beatitudes", the ways of the world. Power before love; expedience before justice; victory before mercy. The shabbily dressed are welcome...if they sit here, at my feet. The meek inherit the earth...as soon as the powerful are done with it, and they've decided where the meek must stand.

I think these "spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenlies" begin as individuals' shortcomings, but people play along with them and they become institutionalized. They become prescriptions for attitudes and behavior. And people master the curriculum just by breathing the air.

The invisible curriculum can be positive, by the way. And it is overwhelmingly powerful. I have experienced communities that overflow with love in the holy spirit, and it is earthshaking. In evangelism terms it is like the irresistible force.

Traditionalism vs Reforming Tradition

2009-04-21T17:28:00.001-05:00

Another great article from a friend:

Something Old, Something New: Combining liturgy and postmodern culture leads to fresh forms of worships in the U.K.

A few choice quotes:

"...the goal isn't to be trendy. The gospel always comes to us wearing cultural robes, speaking the language of its own time and society."

"the contemporary worship movement structured itself around bands that led blocks of singing followed by preaching and responses. In the 1970s and '80s, this movement was an exciting recovery of freedom of expression in worship. But over time, in many places, contemporary worship has gotten stuck, and what once felt radical and alive now feels a bit past its sell-by date."

"Communion is another precious old gift in the treasure house. We have improvised by putting Communion back in the context of a meal in homes or around tables in a café."

I also liked the part about NT Wright's example of "faithful improvisation," and us being in the middle of the fifth act of the Bible. Discuss.

Regarding Spiritual Gifts...

2009-02-09T07:56:00.004-06:00

Barna Survey Describes Christians' Spiritual Gifts Awareness

(Feb 9, Ventura, CA) - The Bible teaches that all followers of Christ are given supernatural abilities by God to serve Him better, known as spiritual gifts. Two-thirds of Americans (68%) who say they are Christian noted they have heard of spiritual gifts, according to a national survey by The Barna Group. That represents a small decline from past surveys, which found 72% awareness in 2000, and 71% in 1995.

Awareness of spiritual gifts was most common among self-described Christians who live in the South (75%) and West (71%), and least common among those living in the Midwest (63%) and Northeast (58%).

Such awareness also varied within the various segments of the self-described Christian population. For instance, 99% of evangelicals have heard of spiritual gifts, far more than the 74% among non-evangelical born again Christians and 58% among notional Christians. Similarly, there was a large gap between Protestants (75%) and Catholics (54%) in awareness. Even within the Protestant community there was a noteworthy gap between those who attend a mainline church (68% awareness) and those who attend a Protestant congregation not associated with a mainline denomination (78%).

Which Gifts People Claim

The survey asked people who said they were Christian and who claimed to have heard of spiritual gifts to identify which gifts they believe God has granted to them. The most commonly claimed gifts were teaching (9%), service (8%) and faith (7%). Those were followed by encouragement (4%), healing (4%), knowledge (4%), and tongues (3%). The gift of leadership was mentioned by just 2%.

There were significant differences in the answers provided by evangelicals, non-evangelical born agains and notional Christians. Evangelicals were more likely than people from the other faith segments to say that they had gifts of teaching (28%), service (12%), encouragement (10%), and administration (7%). The non-evangelical born again segment was the group most likely to claim the gifts of faith (10%) and hospitality (3%). Notional Christians were most notable for having the largest percentage who said they had no gift at all (37%, compared to 16% of evangelicals and 24% of non-evangelical born agains).

Patterns

The percentage that claims to have the gift of encouragement has grown steadily from 2% in 1995 to 6% today.

Since 1995, the proportion of born again adults claiming the gift of evangelism dropped from 4% to 1%.

Those who do not know what their gift is rose from 8% in 2000 to 13 today.

False Gifts

The survey also found that many people who say they have heard of spiritual gifts were not necessarily describing the same gifts outlined in the Bible. Among the gifts claimed that are not among those deemed to be spiritual gifts in the passages of scripture that teach about gifts (Romans 12:6-8, 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4:7-13, 1 Peter 4:10-11) were a sense of humor, singing, health, life, happiness, patience, a job, a house, compromise, premonition, creativity, and clairvoyance.

In total, one-fifth of all the gifts cited by respondents (21%) were attributes that do not fit the biblical lists of gifts given by God.

Thoughts on the Meaning of the Results

The survey data point out several interesting conditions.

Between those who do not know their gift (15%), those who say they don’t have one (28%) and those who claimed gifts that are not biblical (20%), nearly two-thirds of the self-identified Christian population who claim to have heard about spiritual gifts have not been able to accurately apply whatever they have heard or what the Bible teaches on the subject to their lives.

A specific set of gifts, commonly described as the charismatic gifts, are widely possessed by Christians. Overall, 13% of Christian adults claimed to have one of more of those gifts (e.g., healing, interpretation, knowledge, miracles, prophecy, tongues). The people most likely to say they have a charismatic gift are woman (twice as likely as men); people without any college education; born again Christians; and people 45 or older. Intriguingly, although 13% say they have one or more charismatic gifts, the survey revealed that nearly twice as many (23%) described themselves as charismatics.

One of the reasons the evangelical community may seem to be so verbal about its faith and faith-driven convictions relates to the fact that more than one-quarter of them (28%) claim the gift of teaching. Possessing that gift might also raise people’s expectations regarding the quality of sermons and other teaching received at their church, triggering the often-cited high turnover within evangelical congregations.

By the same token, the fact that evangelicals were far more likely to claim the gifts of administration and service also reflects the widely-cited tendency of the group to be well-organized and to be generous in donating its time and energy to causes it deems worthy.

A much higher percentage of born again Christians claims to be a leader than cites having been given the spiritual gift of leadership. This suggests that perhaps many Christian leaders are torn between relying upon their natural talent and training rather than depending upon God’s gifting to empower their leadership. This issue may be even broader than the struggle of leaders. Spiritual gifts are provided as “special abilities” that enable believers to serve each other (as indicated in 1 Peter 4:10 and Romans 12:7). The struggle of the aggregate Christian Church in America may be related to the fact that a large share of individual believers who engage in ministry do so on the basis of personal preference and natural talent rather than supernatural capacities, resulting in ineffective ministry.

The stagnation of evangelism relates to many factors, but one of those is probably the fact that just 1% of Christian adults (self-described or born again) claims the gift of evangelism. While the Bible never suggests that one must possess this gift in order to share the gospel, the depressed proportion of believers who identify with that gift reflects the stalled growth of the Christian body in America.

Research and article copyright Barna Group, 2009. Visit their website to subscribe to their fine newsletter!

Fine Article From a Fine Pastor

2009-01-27T11:45:00.001-06:00

"Southern Baptist Fight Decline"
From Ramblings of a Hoodlum Pastor Pat Hood, Smyrna TN.

Yesterday's article in the Tennessean on the decline of the Southern Baptist Convention was very revealing. For instance, the article revealed that we've lost 455,000 children in Sunday School in the last 36 years. I'm no mathematician, but my trusty calculator tells me that's a loss of 12,638 (and some change) each year. At the same time, our population has increased by 46%. If that's not depressing enough, SBC baptisms have declined to the levels not seen since the 1950's. Last year, more than 9000 churches reported 0 baptisms. Do you see what I mean by REVEALING?

This is not why Jesus established the church. I've heard people say the church is the only organization that exists for those who are not yet a part of it. But, I think I disagree. The church exists to be the Body of Christ for the GLORY OF GOD. Now, living for the Glory of God always results in people seeing & falling in love with Jesus... it's the produce, not the purpose. But, just like any organization in existence, the church has to fight hard against the urge to be self-serving. Have we not fought hard enough in the SBC? Have we lost the fight? Have we given up the fight?

I've talked to many pastors who've entered the fight by trying to develop new strategies & innovation in such areas as Children's Ministry only to get beat up by people with good intentions who simply don't want to change. The boat is taking on serious water, but rather than getting in another boat, they just try to paddle harder & faster, & they continue to go down.

So, many pastors are faced with a decision to either lead their church to make necessary changes to continue building God's Kingdom or keep everyone happy while the ship goes down. This tension has led to many churches claiming rapid growth, but the growth isn't from new believers, it's from discontented Christians moving from churches trying to engineer new ships to churches just trying to stay afloat. (Forgive me if this sounds a little...cynical, but I've seen too many Christians lose focus on THE Kingdom & be more concerned about THEIR kingdom.)

I'm so thankful for pastors & leaders like Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, Ed Young, Andy Stanley, Mark Driscoll... (the list could go on & on) who have stood strong in the fight, giving inspiration to those of us in the trenches. Any dead fish can float down stream, but it takes someone with strength to go against the flow.

I'm also thankful for the people who make up LifePoint Church. You have stepped in the ring & fought hard to build God's Kingdom. LifePoint is full of people who have laid aside their own agenda to passionately pursue God's Agenda. Some of the changes we've made over the years have been tough, even for me, but Lifer's have stood strong in the battle so that kids & adults alike can see & fall in love with Jesus. It's an incredible joy & tremendous privilege to lead a people who are so passionate for the supremacy of the Glory of God in all things.

David versus...Driscoll?

2009-01-15T10:45:00.007-06:00

Speaking of Pastor Driscoll, check this out. I don't think I would have posted this article if not for a lunch meeting I had with a certain prominent person who ended his association with Mr Driscoll. The article explains it in just the same way as that fellow did. My thanks to old buddy Brian Daugherty for the link! My point in posting this is not that M Driscol is evil. I still love his message and style. Rather it has to do with the corrosion of basic Christianity when it gets infected by fame and BIGNESS.

I once had a friend who worked under a very famous mega-church pastor in the 1980's. That is, until he refused to put the good pastor's socks and shoes on him (which all the rest of the staff dutifully did each Sunday. Seems he was just too busy to bother with dressing himself for church. What with all that praying and all.) About a week later her was "exposed" in a sexual scandal that ended his ministry. Now he writes and lectures other ministers, men who have not disgraced their office, who line up to hear how and why they should keep their britches pulled up.

Sometimes I think they're all speaking Klingon. A normal person should not understand this stuff.

Oh, by the way. Please, never let me pose for a picture that has me sitting all cool as the gatekeeper at heaven's stairway. Please, oh please...

Evolution of Blogdom

2009-01-12T12:59:00.003-06:00

If you haven't noticed by now, a lot of the GOOD stuff is now being discussed over at the unchurch blog. That doesn't mean we are locking the doors here at Java Jesus, it just means more of our discussion is leaning away from "how to DO church" towards... Well, towards something else.

Go on over and check it out. Check back here once in awhile, just in case something crops up. We have great diversity in our interests, so you never know.

Reformission

2009-01-01T12:00:00.003-06:00

(This was posted as a comment on another blog by fiber_tech. I thought it was perfect for Java Jesus.)

In his book Confessions of a Reformission Rev, Mark Driscoll does a good job of making the a case that both the institutional mega-church and the organic simple-church playing a vital part in a comprehensive approach to being Christlike in ministry.

"Jesus' incarnation itself is in itself, missional. God the Father sent God the Son into culture on a mission to redeem the elect by the power of God the Ghost. After his resurrection, Jesus also sent HIs disciples into culture, on a mission to proclaim the success of His mission, and commissioned all Christians to likewise be missionaries to the cultures of the world (e.g., Matt. 28:18-20; John20:21; Acts 1:7-8). Emerging and missional Christians have wonderfully rediscovered the significance of Jesus' incarnational example of being a missionary immersed in a culture."

"But sadly, they are also prone to overlook the attractional nature of Jesus' earthly ministry. In addition to immersing himself in a culture for a mission, Jesus' ministry was also marked by the large crowds that were drawn to him because of his preaching and miracles."

"One important example of the attractional elements of Jesus' ministry is found in the sixth chapter of John's gospel. A very large crowd, numbering thousands of people, came to see Jesus perform miracles and to hear him preach. Jesus appears to be modeling attractional church growth strategies of doing what was needed to gather many people to hear the preaching of the gospel. Jesus then fed the entire crowd by miraculously multiplying a little boy's lunch, which would only have increased the crowds that thronged to see him."
"But Jesus then preached that he was the bread of life, which drove many people away from him in confusion and disagreement. We see that Jesus not only gathers a crowd, but also intentionally drove many people away because they were not among the elect chosen for salvation (John 6:37). Some disciples, however, remained with Jesus and continued to be trained as missionaries by Jesus. They were later sent out to follow his pattern of incarnating in a culture, attracting crowds, preaching hard words that harden some hearts and soften others, and then training those who believe to be missionaries who follow Jesus' principles of attractional and missional ministry."

"Missions once solely meant sending American Christians into foreign lands and cultures to live among the people there and to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to them in a relevant way. But reformission also seeks to determine how Christians and their churches can most effectively be missionaries to their own local cultures."

"Reformission, therefore, begins with a special return to Jesus, who, by grace saves us and sends us into reformission. Jesus has called us to (1) the gospel (loving our Lord), (2) the culture (loving our neighbor), and (3) the church (loving our Christian brothers and sisters). One of the causes for the lack of reformission in the American church is that various Christian traditions are prone to faithfulness on only one or two of these counts. Consequently, when we fail to love the Lord, our culture, and our church simultaneously, reformation ceases, leaving one of three holes: the parachurch, liberalism, and fundamentalism."

Gospel + Culture - Church = Parachurch

"First, some people become so frustrated with the church that they bring the gospel into culture without it. This is referred to as the parachurch and includes evangelistic ministries such as Young Life, and Campus Crusade for Christ. The parachurch has a propensity to love its neighbors but not to love the church."

Culture + Church - Gospel = Liberalism

"Second, some churches are so concerned with being culturally relevant that, though they are deeply involved in the culture, they neglect the gospel. This is classic liberal Christianity. Liberal Christians run the risk of loving their neighbors and their Christian brothers and sisters at the expense of loving their Lord and His gospel."

Church + Gospel - Culture = Fundamentalism

"Third, some churches are more into their church and its traditions, buildings, and politics than they are the gospel. Though they know the gospel theologically, they rarely take it out of their church. This is classic fundamental Christianity, which flourishes most widely in more independent-minded, Bible-believing churches. Fundamental Christians are prone to love their Lord, and their brothers and sisters, but not their neighbors."

"The only way out of these holes is repentance, which enables reformission. Through repentance, Christians and churches are empowered by the Holy Spirit to simultaneously love the Lord, love their neighbors, and love their Christian brothers and sisters."

Gospel + Culture + Church = Reformission

"Reformission combines the best aspects of each of these types of Christianity: living in the tension of being culturally liberal yet theologically conservative Christians and churches who are absolutely driven by the gospel of grace to love their Lord, their neighbors, and their fellow Christians."

2008-12-12T07:35:00.004-06:00

"In the first century in Palestine Christianity was a community of believers. Then Christianity moved to Greece and became a philosophy. Then it moved to Rome and became an institution. Then it moved to Europe and became a culture. And then it moved to America and became a business. We need to get back to being a healthy, vibrant community of true followers of Jesus."
- Priscilla Shirer

This is a great article I found, and pasted it here. You can download the whole book by clicking here.

Defining "Church" (Webster Has It Wrong) by Roger Thoman

Church according to Miriam-Webster's online dictionary:
1: a building for public and especially Christian worship2: the clergy or officialdom of a religious body3: a body or organization of religious believers: as a: the whole body of Christians b: denomination c: congregation4: a public divine worship

Webster defines church according to the way this word is used today. I was taught this same definition as a little boy when I would put my hands together and recite the rhyme: "Here is the church, and here is the steeple; open the door and here are all the people."
Jesus, however, introduced the term "church" with a very different meaning in mind. He used a word "ekklesia" that simply described a group or assembly of people. This is the original definition of the word. He described "church" as those people who were following Him-people walking in allegiance to him. People. His followers. Nothing more than that.

Jesus did not spend much time describing how to organize his people together or how to do meetings. Rather, his focus was on a lifestyle of loving others and obeying Him: "Go into all the world..." "Let your light shine..." "Do what you see the Father doing..." "Love one another..." Church, as defined by Jesus, was simply his followers living life for and with him.
Over the years, however, the word "church" began to include the many structures and forms that we added to the original meaning: Public meeting places (buildings or storefronts), Organizations of believers who get together to be led by a worship team and preached to by a pastor, or even Denominations that we join.

But, as John Eldredge reminds us: Church is not a building. Church is not an event that takes place on Sundays. I know, it's how we've come to think of it. ‘I go to First Baptist.' ‘We are members of St. Luke's.' ‘Is it time to go to church?' Much to our surprise, that is not how the Bible uses the term. Not at all. No. Not at all. Church is God's people-those who are choosing to live life with Jesus... 24/7. That is it. Nothing more.

But don't God's people gather together? Yes. We do see gatherings take place in Scripture. Many gatherings. Most often informal and simple. Normally in homes (Romans 16:5). Everyone participated (1 Corinthians 14:26). They functioned as spiritual families that cared deeply for one another (Romans 12:10). Yet the focus of the church (God's people) was a lifestyle of Jesus-following, rather than organizing events, attending programs, or joining organizations.

Perhaps the best way to describe the church of the New Testament is as small, vibrant, caring families of believers who are loving others and reproducing themselves into every corner of the world.

The Things I Learned About Church From Bible College
I attended a Bible College as a brand new Christian hungry to live a life useful to God. I loved reading the stories of the disciples following Jesus, traveling with him, ministering with him, doing miracles alongside of Jesus as he poured out his life for others. I thought it was fantastic. I enjoyed studying the book of Acts and seeing God's people going throughout the world, filled by the Spirit, walking in God's purposes and power. But, as a subtext, I was also taught to "do church" in Bible college. It was not a specific class. There was no text book. I simply learned to follow "how it was done" by those around me. Frankly, the way I learned to "do church" did not look much at all like the lives of the early disciples that I was studying and wanting to be like.

Nevertheless, by the time I felt called to pastor a church, I no longer questioned how church was done. We started with a building and a core group of Christians. We invited, and planned, and organized, and put together Sunday events. We built more buildings and started more services to invite people to. We developed programs for young and old, men and women, married and divorced. We hired staff and we organized ministry teams.
Without realizing it, we were following human traditions for church life that were developed over the centuries: cathedrals, pulpit-led services, pews, order-of-service, etc. All of these things may be useful in their place (God can use anything), but they have no place in the basic definition of "church."

Sadly, as the church has adopted more and more traditions and become more and more institutionalized, it has become largely ineffective in its impact on earth. In the western world, where we have created the best organizational church systems that exist, Christianity is declining. In contrast, in parts of India and China where the expression of church is largely organic, simple, and fluid, the church is flourishing.

Our longing is to see the church restored to its essence of life and vitality so that she becomes the full expression of Christ's power and love on earth. This is the great hope of God's kingdom coming to influence, save, and redeem a lost planet. Priscilla Shirer made this comment:

In the first century in Palestine Christianity was a community of believers. Then Christianity moved to Greece and became a philosophy. Then it moved to Rome and became an institution. Then it moved to Europe and became a culture. And then it moved to America and became a business. We need to get back to being a healthy, vibrant community of true followers of Jesus.

Being Church
My Filipino friend, Molong Nacua, wrote an excellent article entitled "Being Church" that reminds us of the true meaning of "church": Church is where Christ lives, not the place where we meet. It is Christ-empowered people, a kingdom of priests for the purpose of winning against the works of the devil and establishing God's Kingdom (1 Cor. 3:17; Matt. 18:19; Ex. 19:6)... Christianity is not about doing church, but being the church. Church is not some place to go to participate in, but it is about being who you are in Christ and thus experiencing His real life in you. Your Christianity was never defined by attending a particular church. It is defined by Christ in you. In other words, you are a Christian 24/7, not because you participate in a two-hour worship service, but because Christ lives in you every minute of every day.

From "The Simple/House Church Revolution," chapter 2 by Roger Thoman. The entire book can be downloaded here.

Relational Tithe

2008-12-01T12:58:00.003-06:00

Up for discussion this week: Tithing! (Again.)

Here's the website for Relational Tithe. You also might want to check out the About Us page.

...They believed that there are enough resources to meet the needs of every person, and that the needs of each person are the responsibility of all people. The beginning of Relational Tithe can be boiled down to a question: “What would happen if we all set aside a tenth of our incomes to meet the needs of people we know?”

...This network, RelationalTithe.com, is a platform to allow people and groups from around the world to live together in the economy of abundance. It is a tool for connecting people across geographic and socioeconomic barriers and making it easy to redistribute money, wherever it's needed.

The concept is not entirely new, although the ease at which we can transfer money globally is much more handy in the 21st century. Many believe that the Biblical notion of tithing was to gather money to care for the poor among us, and that the 60-85% of current-day tithes that remain "internal" to churches (salaries, mortgages, electric bills) nowadays is completely unBiblical.

So this is a similar issue as the previous post -- how much can be spent on church "infrastructure" before it becomes sinful and directionally wrong?

And later, we'll take a look at Acts 7:48-49

2008-11-25T09:40:00.008-06:00

Today, we'll have a discussion of church building architecture, entitled "A Lesson in Extremes."

First, we have Crystal Cathedral in California. An embodiment of light and space, grandeur and intimacy, the glass structure is recognized the world over as an architectural treasure. It was featured recently alongside the Hagia Sofia, Notre Dame, St. Peter's Cathedral, and Barcelona's Segrada Familia in The History Channel's documentary "Building in the name of God."

Lovely!

Next, we'll take a look at the Church Under the Bridge, under I-35 and 4th Street, in Waco, Texas.

It's, uh, a bunch of people. Under a bridge.

Both are places people can go to worship God. Both teach and proclaim Christianity, although I imagine they are probably two slightly divergent "flavors" of Christianity.

Can two immensely opposite "institutions" truly stand for the same God? What say ye?

Ray Boltz

2008-11-06T08:38:00.003-06:00

A long, interesting article about famous Christian singer Ray Boltz...

Gospel singer Ray Boltz shares coming out journey in this Blade exclusive

I'll leave this one without commentary for the time being, although I'm curious what others might have to say. There's often so much backlash at this type of thing after it happens. I imagine it's only a matter of time before you stop hearing songs like "Thank You" sung at many churches, sadly. (Sadly because the cheesed emotion of the song makes me chuckle every time I hear it.)

"I'm Catholic, staunchly anti-abortion, and support Obama"

2008-10-07T12:32:00.005-05:00

As election-time looms nearer, I thought I'd revive some of our earlier political discussions. Here's an article from the National Catholic Reporter -- can an anti-abortion Christian support Obama over McCain?

"I'm Catholic, staunchly anti-abortion, and support Obama"

What do you think?

Church Fiction

2008-09-22T13:07:00.002-05:00

And now for something completely different. And slightly less serious. The Java Jesus team presents... Church Fiction.

The Death of Suburbia?

2008-09-10T17:52:00.002-05:00

Check out this story on white flight... to the city.

The Coming Demise of Suburbia
The kind of churches the next generation will plant

I’m at the point in my Church Leadership course when the entire class organizes into small groups to develop their own plans for church planting. Each group is required to develop a full-blown strategy for a new church plant as evidence of their church administration skills in planning, budgeting, promotion, along with attracting and organizing people. Since they are free to design any kind of church they want, I get a unique opportunity to peek at the dreams of the next generation.

What kind of church do they dream about? They dream of planting a downtown church. In the past four years, only two groups (out of 48 groups total) have designed a suburban church. The other 46 groups went downtown.

My students think living down town is cool. They think life in the suburbs is hollow and fake. No wonder. On TV for the last generation Seinfield, Friends then Sex and the city portrayed city life as the ideal. More recently, Desperate Houswives and The Sopranos reinforced the idea that suburban life as a place of despair and moral decay. Even when students are forced to develop a church planting plan in a town of 30,000, they still pick the “inner city” for their new plant. They do not despise storefront churches like their parents do.
We may be at the tipping point for suburban churches. Beltway churches have reigned supreme at the top of the food chain among evangelical churches. They may be at their zenith. Large sprawling churches with mall-like parking lots are still the envy of most boomer pastors. Now comes a younger generation who dismiss both the size and the location of top rung of the ladder. They prefer simple coffeehouse accepting storefront churches with active social programs providing a chic comfortable Starbucks-sized atmosphere. My student’s heroes are pastors like Adam and Christy Lipscomb, not the famous suburban Boomers pastoring sprawling mega churches. They don’t despise mega churches, they just dismiss them. The Lipscombs are the indy bands of the coming generations and mega church pastors have become mainline pop.

Until this week I thought this trend was only a generational shift among ministerial students. Now I’ve read Chris Leinberger’s article (to appear in the upcoming March 2008 issue of the Atlantic) and think is it more than that. This is a massive cultural trend I’ve missed by assigning it only to ministerial students. Leinberger is a fellow at the Brookings institute and a professor at the University of Michigan. He outlines the history of the rise and fall of the suburbs in vivid text that is so common for the Atlanticmagazine. It is convincing. If he is correct it will mean a massive shift for churches and church planting in the coming 50 years. I think he is right. In the next 50 years or massive “big box churches” may wind up with grass growing in their parking lots as their building decline, the younger population moves back into town and they increasingly cater to an ageing leftover population. They are the old downtown churches of the future, still bragging about their stained glass windows (or landscaped parking lots) while their children attend elsewhere. Leinberger outlines this enormous shift in the culture predicting the suburbs are headed for 50 years of decline while downtowns revitalize. Are we seeing the first signs of this tipping point?

Consider these factors:
1. Fashion. Generation X & the millennials already have shifted their dreams downtown. While the church jobs for young ministerial graduates are still in the suburbs, their heart is downtown. It is no longer cool to be on the beltway. As millions of the “greatest generation” move out of their homes the emerging generations won’t be buying them—they’d rather have a downtown apartment. Who will buy them? Poorer families will buy (or, more likely rent) these declining homes. The younger people will have moved into quaint (but cleverly decorated) downtown apartments and mini-homes. The market follows fashion—as demand for suburban homes declines so will prices. Chic is moving down town.

2. Sub-prime mortgage crisis. We already see the precursors. The suburban housing market is collapsing and prices are falling. Millions of homes have already been abandoned and turned back to the lenders. They sit unoccupied, as vandals tear out the copper wiring and squatters move in. Prices fall monthly until homeowners are relieved to simply “walk away” from their mortgage and forget recouping their down payment. The supposed “equity” in many homes is a fantasy, especially so for any who have owned their home less then 5 years. As the market floods, prices will spiral downward. Renting a home has become smarter than buying one today—and renting out empty homes is better than leaving them empty so suburban markets will go rental and that usually means eventual blight.

3. Suburban blight. We may see a reversal of what happened downtown in the 50’s and 60’s. Then, people moved out of the downtowns to the suburbs and inner city home values declined. Poorer families moved in and the properties (now owned now by landlords who had scooped up cheap houses) simply “milked” the properties. We may see the reversal of that and the “trading places” is now headed the other way. Suburban space (per square foot) is already cheaper than downtown space. Builders notice such disparity and “the market follows the market”—new building will move downtown. Downtown space is gentrifying. In the coming decades suburban housing will decline and poorer families will move in. Landlords will divide giant McMansions and they will become “rental units.” Neighbors will fight it at first but eventually they’ll sell out too, if only to escape the crime and blight. Deterioration in suburban homes will be worse than the downtown homes of the 60’s and 70’s though. Most suburban homes are built cheaper than those old downtown homes (same with suburban churches.) Suburban building features hollow core doors, 10-year shingles, cheap drywall and plastic trim. These will not survive renter’s abuse like the old downtown solid oak doors, slate roofs and plaster and lath. A suburban home can get trashed in three years. By 2020 we will see “suburban ghettos” emerge. They will become as infamous as the former inner city ones were and we’ll see them on the news each night. The plot of Escape from New York will be reversed. Upscale young people won’t be moving to the edges of town—they will head downtown where all the newest and most exciting churches will be located. Suburban churches will continue with their brightly lit big boxes with tiered theater seating and praise teams on stage while the younger folk will seek out dark flat-floored club-like or coffeehouse atmospheres that Boomers will dismiss as “not a real church.” By 2020, many cheaply built suburban churches will be 25 years old or more and their bathrooms and classrooms will feel like the bathrooms at the mall. Mega churches will still ‘stack them higher and sell them lower” but younger people won’t be at Wal-mart, they be shopping over at J.Crew, G.A.P. and Abercrombie and Fitch… and at the local Salvation Army outlet.

4. Decline of malls. The temples of Boomer suburban life have been its malls, big box stores and mega churches. Yet shopping malls have fallen out of fashion as the owners milk their former investments and board up empty stores. Big box stores are still at their peak, as Mega churches are. But the cutting edge for developers is neither shopping malls nor big box stores. The cutting edge has moved to developingfaux downtowns—complete “cities” with narrow streets, tiny shops and hidden parking lots built at the edge of town to cater to the desire to return downtown. Yet these edge-of-town cityscape faux downtowns are missing one element: churches. They offer banks, shops, coffeehouses and exercise spas but no churches. Where are all the Boomer church planters? Still chasing the mall crowd and buying property on the beltways. Denominations who do not seek space in these faux downtown cityscapes will be left out of the future wave of culture. And it will be expensive—just like beltway property was compared to declining downtown or rural land. Denominations who ignore the great cultural shift back downtown (either faux or real) will be left paying off debt on their declining megaplex monstrosities filled with baby-boomers-using-walkers. They will become just like the old downtown congregations of the 1980’s. Will boomers support this trend that undoes their own great works or will they fight like the old “downtown association” of retail shops did in the 70’s?

5. Walkable living. More than any other trend, this one mystifies Boomers. Boomers can’t imagine life without a car. Some younger folk can. Suburban life is car-driven. Downtown life is walkable. None of my ministerial graduates could survive an interview in a suburban church if they admitted they have no car and don’t intend to buy one. They’d be laughed at by Boomer interviewers! Yet, in the coming 50 years the “walkable lifestyle” will increase. I know several of our graduates who moved into downtowns and have no car whatsoever. (I am not making this up!) They ride bicycles, use public transportation, hire taxis and get cheap rental cars to take on long trips, or even borrow their friends’ cars. They have crunched the numbers and say they save both money and the environment. Boomers are bewildered at such ideas. We don’t consider you grown-up if you don’t own a car. the walkable lifestyle is a central feature of downtown life. What will this trend do to our notion of church planting? I notice this trend every time my students plant their dream church. Most envision a neighborhood church—reaching out to those near at hand. Where do they get this? Yet they “see” it when asked to let their vision loose. Perhaps more than all other cultural trends, this one will affect the kind of churches we become in the future. These younger people will either change the kind of church we plant, or we will change these younger people’s values and vision.
------------------------
The bottom line is suburban churches seem to be hitting their zenith. We may soon see a cultural tipping point when the suburbs (and suburban churches) enter a 50-year period of decline. The suburbs had 50 years to do their thing. Now it is the downtown’s turn. Downtowns began their period of decline in 1946 (when suburbs were invented). The next 50 years saw a period of decline and deterioration for the down towns. Most downtown churches declined along with their neighborhoods. These downtown churches became drive-back churches for the moved-out members of the “greatest generation.” their boomer children didn’t drive back. Instead, we founded sprawling suburban mega-centers patterned after our beloved shopping malls. Now, 50 years after the founding of the suburbs have seem to have reached their own zenith. The fashion is shifting back down town. Will boomers be just like the downtown stores of the 70’s, believing things will never change? Will Boomers never listen to the different ideas about lifestyle and churches the newer generations cherish? These younger folk don’t dream of suburban mansions and megachurches far away from the downtown. They seem curiously satisfied with modest downtown apartments where they and their neighbors “do life together.” When my students dream up church plants they design churches that would appeal to the characters in Friends,Seinfield and Sex and the City… and themselves. They dream of a church that is socially active in caring and sharing with their community who “does life together.”

I wonder how the incorrigibly suburban boomers will react to this massive cultural shift? How will suburban churches respond? How will denominational church planting efforts “church daughteringstrategies” address this coming shift? How will Boomers respond to the dreams of emerging generations to go downtown and start the kind of churches again the boomers left long ago?

My Generation and "The Churched"

2008-09-08T12:41:00.004-05:00

...The study shows that only 3% of 16 - to 29-year-old non-Christians express favorable views of evangelicals.

I'm in the midst of reading a book called unChristian, by David Kinnaman, the president of The Barna Group (good recommendation, Ron!). It studies Christianity's "slipping image" among young people. These people don't necessarily have a negative impression of Jesus, they just have a negative impression of CHRISTIANS.

I think that says something that we seriously need to take a look at. We discussed some of these same impressions back on this post.

Common negative perceptions include that present-day Christianity is judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), old-fashioned (78%), and too involved in politics (75%).

The "hypocritical" and "old-fashioned" doesn't surprise me. But three fourths believe that present-day Christianity is too involved in politics? Do American evangelicals need to seriously rethink their approach?

When young people were asked to identify their impressions of Christianity, one of the common themes was "Christianity is changed from what it used to be" and "Christianity in today’s society no longer looks like Jesus." These comments were the most frequent unprompted images that young people called to mind, mentioned by one-quarter of both young non-Christians (23%) and born again Christians (22%).

Young people think that Christianity in today's society no longer looks like Jesus. What does that tell us?

CFW Walther

2008-09-02T20:33:00.005-05:00

Another "no comments necessary" post. I wanted to share this link to the 25 theses set out by CFW Walther in his magnum opus The Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel. One page, great reading. Thanks, Elephant's Child!

Link to Doofus article

2008-08-29T08:45:00.004-05:00

Don't stop your great discussion on the other post. I just wanted you all to have the live link to the article Big Doofus recommended. It is required reading for anyone in the intellectual, cutural, or teaching leadership in Christ's church. I'm not kidding, it's that good and it's that important. Thanks Rog!

The Gospel in All its Forms
by Tim Keller

Mixing up the Gospel?

2008-08-24T19:40:00.001-05:00

Big Doofus posted a very thoughtful comment on the worship music post which I think is at the crux of a huge doctrinal tension. I thought it deserved a whole new thread of its own. It read, in part:

"I really think that our corporate worship should reflect united praise to God for who He is, what He has done, and what He will do...I just don't want to mix up the real gospel with the results of the gospel in our lives--if that makes any sense."

The whole reason we discuss things here is to make unified sense of differing views. We Caffecclesiologians obviously are looking at this differently, so let's tackle it. DOES it make any sense?

What IS the gospel? What IS its result in our lives? What truth is at stake if the two are mixed? Or, what is at stake if we fail to mix them?

Does Christ Jesus separate the gospel from the results of the gospel in our lives? Or are they actually one thing in Him.

What did Jesus say?
What did the apostles say?
What did the prophets promise?

(I think I scheduled this to post on Monday AM. I don't want to cut of the great discussion on the last post.)

Worship Music, the Phenomenon

2008-08-16T13:42:00.006-05:00

Continuing with the theme of posting quotes from books, just because I find it generates some fascinating discussion...

Fin.

cool

you

This diatribe comes from Body Piercing Saved My Life: Inside the Phenomenon of Christian Rock. It was (obviously) written by a non-Christian, but actually, this passage is more harsh than the rest of the book reads. As a whole, the book is a fairly engaging stroll into the world of Christian music, arts, and culture, as seen from an "outsider."

This particular passage fascinated me because, like many things within the "church," I've been around worship music my entire life and I would have trouble looking at it from an unbiased, inexperienced point of view. I understand that we can't expect someone who doesn't know Christ to understand how or why we worship -- I get that.

But at the same time, do we ever truly step back and look at how or why we worship? Why is so much of the music the same? Why is it the way that it is? Why are the lyrics the way they are? Have we settled for bland mediocrity in our worship music, just because that's the standard, the base, that we understand? What about his points about the lyrics pointing to evangelicals being self-centered in their faith?

At the very least, it's interesting to acknowledge the point of view of people outside the church. This is far from the first time I've heard from people who absolutely abhor worship music. This isn't a critique of God or Jesus, this is a critique of a certain part of Christian culture.

I think his entire argument -- and especially those last two paragraphs -- are worthy of discussion.

Building Christian Communities

2008-08-06T14:20:00.004-05:00

Today's post will be generated almost entirely using quotes from a book I recently finished reading.

--------------

We are actually facing the need, not simply to reorganize the institution of the church... but the need to create something that is not there now -- a community; that is, an environment that has a real unity to is, an organism. Organisms are not legislated. They grow naturally. In other words, an organic process of change is needed to form basic Christian communities... Leaders in the Church today need to understand community dynamics and not just organization dynamics.

Today's church is primarily a service institution, providing worship services and sacraments for all who come to them.

Churches instinctively look for a specific solution to the specific problem (a structural solution to a structural problem, a financial solution to a financial problem, etc.). They can accept the fact that spiritual renewal is important, but they cannot see how it has direct application to the specific problems which are clamoring for attention. And so they naturally try to deal with the pressuring problems first and do not get around to turning their attention to the problem of spiritual renewal.

This approach has to begin by the recognition that the church needs subcommunities and that these should be considered an integral part of the church life. It should involve forming the communities in an organic way -- that is, not be assigning people to form a community, but by fostering the beginnings of community among a group of people -- and encouraging and guiding their growth into a basic Christian community... Eventually, as there were a number of these communities that were successful, everyone in the church might find a place in such a community, and the church building would be a service unit at which a number of communities might gather and it could also provide some services that basic communities might find difficult to provide out of their own resources.

Although there are many factors which go into making a community vital, the most direct source of vitality is purpose and the commitment of the members to that purpose. If a community has a purpose that is clear and compelling, one that seems to be of real importance, and if its members are committed to that purpose and therefore put as many of their resources as possible into fostering that purpose, the community will be a vital community. If the community has no purpose, it will not last, no matter how well-structured it is.

...it might be possible to think that what the Church most needed was sociologists or community organizers. But this is not at all true. What the Church needs most is men of God, men who can and will function as pastors, evangelists, spiritual directors... Communities are not formed primarily by sociologists and community directors. They are formed by leaders of men who are dedicated to something.

A functional approach is work-oriented. It is oriented to getting a job done. An environmental approach is interaction-oriented or value-oriented. It is oriented to getting a group of people together who share certain values or concerns. It focuses on the growth of the relationship among people and on how people are being changed for the better... Some business executives are effective at getting production but poor in their ability to draw people together.

...From this point of view, much of what happens in the Church today is not very effective. There are many activities and many organizations. They do things which are good. But they do not build up a community of people committed to Christ and so they are ineffective in meeting the main pastoral needs of the Church today... [Even if] the Church were primarily an institution which was supposed to provide certain services (educational services, worship services, and social change services), it lacks... But if the Church is primarily supposed to be a community of people committed to Christ, there is an even more serious problem -- the lack of any community being built up through these activities.

A good term for the type of leadership that is natural to a community is "elder." An elder has a position. He is one of the recognized heads, and he has an openly accepted responsibility for the order of community life. But he is chose because he really is one of the elders, and not only in name. He is chose because he has a natural positions of respect and leadership in that community. His opinions and decisions "count" more than most people's... This would be true even if he did not have the position. In a properly functioning community, the position reflects the reality.

Watching for leaders as they emerge does not mean making the mistake of picking the people who are already in Church organizations, because they are usually there because they volunteered and are frequently ineffective in forming Christian communities. Nor does it mean electing people, because there is not enough community in the Church today where an election would be a good indication of how the community accepts a person as a leader... It means observing where real Christian communities are being formed effectively and picking the people who are responsible for that process.

The solution to the problem of climate and of coordination can be provided only by those who have positions of pastoral leadership in the Church. For instance, acceptance and understanding on the part of Church leadership is of great importance to those who belong to a movement. It can make all the difference in their loyalty to the Church and their willingness to work for it. The lack of it can lead to alienation among those who could be the strongest supports of the Church.

The process has to begin by putting the emphasis on community formation, not on programs or activities. If what is needed is forming communities which make it possible for a person to live a Christian life, the beginning is to actually have such a community. A person cannot begin by forming structures and programs and expect communities to come out of the hopper on the other end. Communities grow, they are not produced. If a process of renewal does not begin with an environmental approach, it will probably never get to one.

---------------

The book is Building Christian Communities: Strategy for Renewing the Church, by Stephen B. Clark. The fascinating thing about this book is that it isn't some brand-new, 2008 book from Willow Creek Press. This book was published in 1972, by Ave Maria Press. Not only is it 36 years old, it was geared specifically to the Catholic church. I took the liberty of substituting the word "church" for the word "parish" in most of the quotes above.

This is a fairly short, simple book, but I've heard that it was used as a stepping stone for a number of intentional communities that were formed in the 1970s. Much of the book is geared towards Catholicism, and there are a number of issues that are specific to issues and movements of the late-60s and early-70s, but as you can tell by the quotes above, it's still quite relevant for churches today.

Many of us have been talking about this type of thing for quite some time, so while this "organic approach" is fascinating, it's not exactly a huge revelation. The book isn't exactly a step-by-step instruction manual for how to create Christian communities -- it's not intended to be. But it is intriguing to see some of these relational/holistic ideals being suggested, and then put into practice, before I was even born.

How cool that those crazy Christian hippies were so emergent!

The question remains, how do you foster this kind of attitude? How does Big Huge Megachurch encourage the formation of these Christian communities? Even if it begins as a movement within a church -- can it happen at all in a large church? Can it happen if leadership doesn't have a passion for it? And would a large enough percentage of the attendees be able to understand what it means to throw your life in with a group of people, rather than just showing up at a building for a weekly ritual?

Thanks God!

2008-07-29T13:54:00.001-05:00

There are some times that God tells you... "You know, here is a little gift for you. Just to let you know that you are on the right track."

God has given me a few of those lately. Today in staff meeting, we had a discussion... on block parties.

If you know me well at all in the last few years, you have heard me talk about block parties. I have talked about how we need to be doing them, we need to be intentional about them, etc. I don't mean block parties out in the church parking lot, I mean block parties that you organize with people, *gasp*, on your block!

Today in staff meeting, one of the issues that was on the agenda was block parties. Obviously, I was curious about what they would say about them.

Currently, there are two staff members that are talking about them. Our music minister's block is having one, and our senior minister is wanting to do one. John's block does them quite frequently. The discussion today was about how to take church money and support them.

We are talking about letting them use tables and chairs for free, we are talking about using outreach budget to furnish some things, like bounce houses and food. We are talking about doing outreach with the express purpose of reaching out to our neighbors, regardless of whether they go to our church, the church down the street, or if they even go to church at all!

There have been several God moments already in the last couple weeks that I have been here. Thanks God for talking... I am trying to listen!

I'm dumb!

2008-07-27T11:39:00.002-05:00

Our preacher at the MacArthur campus was preaching on the affection of Jesus today. He was sharing about how while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. It was good stuff, and then he said something that I have never realized before

34Then^(AO) the King will say to^(AP) those on his right, 'Come, you^(AQ) who are blessed by my Father,^(AR) inherit^(AS) the kingdom^(AT) prepared for you^(AU) from the foundation of the world. 35For^(AV) I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you^(AW) gave me drink,^(AX) I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36^(AY) I was naked and you clothed me,^(AZ) I was sick and you^(BA) visited me,^(BB) I was in prison and you came to me.' 37Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' 40And^(BC) the King will answer them,^(BD) 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these^(BE) my brothers,^[f] you did it to me.'

I don't know how many sermons I have heard on this text, but it's a lot. He read that passage and said as much, you have probably heard this text many times.

He went on to say, "Notice who was Jesus here. Not the ones doing the serving, but rather the one's receiving the service. When we serve, we are not being Jesus to people. We are serving Jesus."

DUH! I'm dumb. That makes so much sense. It makes so much sense about the Kingdom of God. Those who are weak, those who are broken, those who are poor and troubled. Those people are Jesus! It is the job of us christians to serve Jesus!

Yup. Just thought I would share.

The Slow Death of Pews, Sermons, and "Ministries"

2008-07-21T08:00:00.002-05:00

The "functional" aspect of the American church continues to distress me.

The hallmark of the early Church was "see how they love one another." Not "see how efficiently they work together" or "see what a fantastic show they put on." Yet we still have SUCH a hard time picturing a shift in focus from ministries, functions, and Sunday mornings towards a community of "love-relationships" -- building each other up and helping each other live a better life for Christ.

In a late-night conversation many of us briefly had on a recent Saturday night, we were discussing how statistics show 20-30 year olds very interested in Jesus, yet running from the church like the plague. Why is that, we wonder. How do we get those people into our local churches?

Some might suggest trendier services on Sunday mornings. Being more seeker-sensitive. Louder music, some hipper clothes on the preacher. A fancier website.

I say all that is like polishing the brass on the Titanic. It looks nice, but it's all going down.

Societal changes in the past 30-40 years have been vast. Society has changed a lot in a short time, in a way that it didn't for hundreds and hundreds of years previously. We went from a "Christian" society (not that everyone was a Christian, but it was the expected thing to be, and there was an environment of Christianity surrounding people) to whatever you want to call it now. Post-modern. Post-Christian. Post-Church. Biblical Christianity is NOT normal now. Most people are NOT surrounded by a Christian environment.

And even more so, people are NOT interested in "the church." We've presented the church to them as a place to go on Sunday mornings, rather than a community of Jesus-followers that love each other. To society, a big Protestant church looks like a huge fancy building with a bunch of paid staff. And it does the following: A) produces a nice show to watch on Sunday mornings, B) has a bunch of "ministries" you can "serve in" to keep the gears turning, depending upon your demographic, and C) exists pretty much to get other people to attend on Sunday mornings. To add more people serving in ministries, plus of course more money in the offering to pay the bills.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see the church keeping up with society in the 21st century. That doesn't mean it needs to change its Biblical understanding or water down the message of Jesus (not that the church has necessarily done a stellar job of teaching the message of Jesus in the first place). But I do think we need to open up our minds to radical changes that are bigger than just changing up a Sunday morning service or adding additional "ministries" to the mix. I think it needs to, somehow, completely back off from the Sunday morning-centric focus, and begin putting time, people, and resources into forming a COMMUNITY of love. I think people are drawn to love, and people are drawn to community. Even the 20-something crowd.

That probably doesn't mean one big community of 1000 or 5000 people. It's nearly impossible to have a true love-community that big. You'd have to have a number of smaller communities. They've got to commit to one another.

We're a nation that is ruled by functionality. We think of ourselves in terms of our jobs, our careers, and the tasks that we do. And Christians, nay, church-goers, think of themselves by the ministry-tasks that they do. They'll say, I run sound at church. I play some guitar with the praise band. I help out in the nursery. I'm a greeter at the front door. I'm an usher and I pass the communion trays.

There is nothing wrong with any of those tasks. But we need to radically rethink our focus. The "church" is dying.

Departure

2008-07-14T09:19:00.006-05:00

We raise our Starbucks glasses... We eat some Mango Habanero chicken wings... We down a pint or two of Guinness... All for our good friend Soebs, who is leaving our little community for the bustling town of Springfield, Illinois. Later this week, he'll be starting at a new church serving as senior high minister.

We wish Soebs well. He's really a man that desires to see God's people get excited about ministry, about evangelism, and about serving the poor. He's got a heart for all that stuff, and he's never been short on laughter and encouragement. He's not afraid to let his voice be heard (after all, anyone within a two-mile radius can hear him) and, like many of us, he's got opinions and passions that he'd be happy to share with you.

Darin departed just a couple of months ago for a preaching job near Atlanta. Joe is no longer serving as an elder. Macca is an ex- (recovering?) worship minister himself. The makeup of the contributors to the Java Jesus blog has changed greatly in a short period of time!

Of course, the great thing about the Internet is that we can continue to discuss and debate our ideas, philosophies, and methodologies, even if we're spread out a bit. And this way, we can add smiley emoticons to diffuse any loud arguments.

Thanks for that, Internet!

Left Behind, the Insurance

2008-07-09T04:40:00.002-05:00

I've seen a lot of things sold in the name of Christianity, but this one takes the cake. Basically, for $40 a year, you can ensure that your pagan relatives get access to your "stuff" when the rapture takes place through a service by youvebeenleftbehind.com. No, I am not making this stuff up.

Here's how it works: Jesus splits the skies. The dead in Christ rise. Those who are left are taken away. What's left are the poor pagans and procrastinators who meant to become a Christian but never got around to it. Since the 5 owners of youvebeenleftbehind are all claimed to be Christians, they've programmed their system to send out thousands of emails to the unchurched loved ones of those who are gone. The email will say something like, "I'm sorry that you didn't make it, but here is the pin code to my bank account, as well as all my passwords. I won't be needing them anymore, and with tribulation coming, you could probably use a little bit of cash." How does the computer system know that the Rapture has occurred? It's currently programmed to hold back the flood of emails so long as 3 of the 5 website owners log in at least once every 3 days. So, after 6 days of no logins, a flood of information will go pouring out over the internet to comfort the poor saps.

I probably won't subscribe to this service, but really, who wouldn't want to have one more chance to say, "I told you so?"

Kickin 'em to the Curb: More Fun With Admonishment

2008-07-02T15:55:00.001-05:00

Is the church actually called to excommunicate people?

The term "excommunication" denotes something very... Catholic... in our mind. We like to think that us Protestants (at least us "emergents") don't "kick people out" of the church.

I've had spiritual discipline on my mind lately. Maybe not "spiritual discipline," per se, but at least the topic of church leadership trying to run people out of church. Granted, it's probably not easy to do in a big, seeker-sensitive church -- it's unlikely anyone is going to file a restraining order to keep people away on a Sunday morning. But multiple people have pointed out that it can be done in other ways. Psychological ways. Cutting them off from participating in different groups. Perhaps not letting them sing on the worship team anymore, not letting them lead small groups or Sunday school classes, or just generally ostracizing them from the community.

I think most of us would agree that is probably NOT the ideal Biblical model of admonishment, by the way.

As much as I dislike the notion of "kicking someone out" -- people already have such a negative view of the church as an exclusive club -- there is plenty of scripture and historical basis for it. We could find plenty of writings of Paul in the New Testament (Titus 3:10, I Corinthians 5, I Timothy 1:20, etc) where he encourages churches to cast people out of the fellowship in certain situations. (Paul was all about the church discipline!) And we often use Jesus' model of admonishment in Matthew 18.

The question becomes, how do we fine the line between a relational, loving church model, and upholding the Biblical standards of church discipline?

When do you actually cast a brother out of the community of believers?

"Controversy for the Sake of Heaven"

2008-06-24T10:00:00.002-05:00

Today's post is lifted straight out of Keren Hannah Pryor's "Taste of Torah," a weekly email that goes out to a mailing list. It fits in quite nicely with some of the debates we've had online and offline.

“Controversy for the Sake of Heaven”

Positive disagreement. For those of us that enjoy debate, but also enjoy love and peace, this is a wonderful reminder. The reason we discuss church, religion, and philosophy to the extent that we do, is that it is very important to us. Most of us are striving to find the "will and Word of God," and we wouldn't be so passionate about it otherwise.

Having disputes that can still be based on respect, friendship, and love can, indeed, honor God.

Ethics 101: A Discussion of Moral Philosophies

2008-06-11T13:59:00.002-05:00

Okay, before we get started: This topic isn't really "church" related, and it's one of those issues that has almost no real-life application. But it's an interesting debate, and I think that there are things to be learned here.

Monday night, Soebs and I were having another go-round at a discussion that many of us have had before. I know Darin feels the same way that SoeBeck does, because I think I've had the same debate with him.

This is the question, in an oversimplified nutshell:

For non-Christians, and specifically, those that believe in no higher power such as God (we'll use the generic term "Atheist" here), what reason could they logically have for living a moral life?

On one side of the argument, the reasoning is that if one believes he or she is not accountable to any God and that there will be no afterlife, there is no logical reason to do anything but live a "life for self." It doesn't matter who you step on or what you do, just get what you can, while you can, because you've got no moral code or accountability. Living any other way seems to be at odds with your own belief structure.

From a logical standpoint, I strongly disagree with that argument. I believe that this line of reasoning is flawed, and it makes jumps from "no God" to "no moral code" without proper correlation.

Although I love the topic of philosophy, I didn't take enough of those classes in college to really have a deep well of ideas in my brain to pull from. Why I thought "Paris and Berlin Art and Architecture in the 1920s" would be more helpful in the long run, I have no idea.

I do know, though, that philosophers such as Immanuel Kant made very strong arguments for the existence of good will, duty, and imperatives, apart from any notion of being "accountable to God." Kant's "Categorical Imperative" says, in a simplified manner, that one should "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

Epicurus observed that indiscriminate indulgence sometimes resulted in negative consequences. The greatest good was prudence, exercised through moderation and caution. Utilitarianism, described 150 years ago by John Stuart Mill, essentially states that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility in maximizing happiness as summed among all persons in society. Or, simply "the greatest good for the greatest number."

All of these ethical ideals give differing reasons for living a "moral life." Granted, what is considered "moral" will vary slightly whether you subscribe to the Categorical Imperative, or Utilitarianism, or the Hebrew God. My point is that I could also be "accountable" to any number of other things: Love, family, society, or government and the laws of the land. Each of these worldviews will bring about some semblance of morality, although again in each case the details of my rulebook will differ.

From an observational standpoint, we know there are plenty of good, moral people who don't believe in God. And at the same time, we also know there are plenty of people that claim Christianity, and yet they are mean, immoral people. So the argument itself is more theoretical than practical.

But I do think there are important details we can glean from this debate. We often think that Christianity and religion has the market cornered on morality, but the truth is that forms of ethics within society were around before and apart from Judaism, and they would most likely still exist without Christianity or religion in general.

Luckily, I'm not the smartest one here, so I'm ready to see some comments. What do you think? For nontheists, what reasoning might they have for living morally?

Slain in Suing the Spirit

2008-06-06T10:10:00.003-05:00

Today's discussion on Pentecostal church services comes to you via a lawsuit in Tennessee...

Man Falls After Receiving Spirit, Sues

Last June, Matthew Lincoln was attending an evening service at his nondenominational Tennessee church when he approached the altar where a visiting minister was offering individual prayers for parishioners. Assigned "catchers" were present on the altar in case congregants fainted, fell, or otherwise lost control. When the minister, Robert Lavala, slightly touched his forehead, the Knoxville-area man "received the spirit and fell backwards." Except nobody was there to catch him, Lincoln charges in a $2.5 million lawsuit filed yesterday against Lakewind Church and its pastors. Lincoln, 58, claims that he fell backwards, striking his head against the "carpet-covered cement floor," according to the Circuit Court complaint, which was first reported by Courthouse News Service. A copy of Lincoln's lawsuit can be found below. Since he already suffered from a "degenerative disc disease of his neck and back," Lincoln, a former church board member, contends the fall exacerbated the pre-existing condition and has caused him "severe and permanent" injuries. As a result of the fall, Lincoln, a recording engineer, claims that he is no longer able to care for his disabled daughter. Lincoln alleges that Lakewind and its pastors were "negligent in not supervising the catchers to be sure that they stood behind the person being prayed for...should they have a dizzying, fainting, or falling in the spirit as had occurred on many occasions before." Lincoln's lawyer, J.D. Lee, told TSG that the church's insurer, Zurich of North America, rejected an insurance claim, asserting that Lincoln should have realized that no catchers were situated behind him. [from The Smoking Gun]Is it really the "power of the Spirit" when it gives you severe and permanent injuries?

Monday Night Starbucks Should be Globally Mandatory

2008-06-03T21:54:00.002-05:00

Man...I miss Monday nights. There are plenty of Starbucks around here just outside Atlanta that is for sure - but only one Java Jesus group. Maybe it needs to franchise...we need to incorporate and start opening branches.

I'm starting my blog back up but a little at a time I guess. Pathetic Rambling is what I'm using.

The kick I have been on -

why do we teach people to "witness"??

i wonder if we have to teach people to witness because they haven't really seen - or perceived - or maybe even really believe...

i find it amazing how many in our churches have to be poked, prodded and or threatened with guilt in order to see any spiritual movement at all -

A must see

2008-05-29T08:18:00.002-05:00

Hey guys...i know i don't post much - but i had to this time.
I wanted to post this video - you really need to take the time to watch it.
I know that it is lengthy but it is worth it...
It shook me for some reason - sometimes I think I lose my way...
I needed this...
thanks

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=19fd9c84c942a08316e0

2008-05-26T07:38:00.008-05:00

I’ve been formulating this entry for a while as I pondered how to get it off my chest.

By and large, American Christian Culture is disconnected from reality and in some respects, downright creepy. Yes, it's creepy. Downright weird. A mockery of that which we are re-born to proclaim.

It doesn't take long to see that our faith is lampooned in the media. The Simpsons (which I enjoy immensely) feature an evangelical Christian family led by patriarch Ned Flanders, who frankly makes me wince, as his noodly-doodly portrayal makes us wince when he comes out with such gems as he prays, "Lord, forgive me for the impure thoughts that I had about the girl on the raisin box." His children Rod and Todd are portrayed as robots incapable of generating a creative or original thought. Wife Maude is quoted saying that "I went to Bible Camp to learn to be more judgemental."

Laugh or cry, it demands a response, because this is how the media portrays us, as innocent but wacky Kool-Aid-guzzling weirdos proclaiming a faith that makes no sense, devoid of relevance. In some respects, they're right. Our faith would much rather imitate the world, rather than coming up with an original idea. I found a parallel rant from this blog:

People like Coldplay? Then let's find a band that sounds exactly like Coldplay, but injects Christian words and themes throughout their lyrics. Doesn't matter if they are unable to match the musical ability, creativity, and vocals of Coldplay. They remind people of Coldplay, and they sing about Christian stuff.

People like video games with violence? Then let's make a violent video game about the end times. We can slaughter enemies of the kingdom in the name of Jesus.

People like brand name t-shirts? Then let's slightly change the wording of the t-shirt to have a Christian theme.

To a world watching what we do, how we present ourselves, and how we function and communicate, Christians tend to come across more like a Disembodied Hand than they do an Easy Button. We've shortchanged the church by bypassing the difficult, yet so necessary creative/inventive/innovate process and instead we've chosen to rip off popular culture. With one hand we wag our finger, condemning popular culture for it's debauchery. With the other, we pick its pocket. And the result is a disembodied hand that looks downright strange to a culture we're trying to impact.

Are we really THAT weird? Disconnected from reality? Certainly, we've been called to be different, not participating in the evil practices of the world. But weird to the point that it alienates us from the rest of the world that we're supposed to be reaching?

I was dumbfounded when I read an article in Rolling Stone titled "Jesus Made me Puke," by Matt Taibbi. His article is an excoriating, embarrassing exposee on a Christian retreat that's beyond weird. A nonbeliever himself, he posed as a seeker and attended a weekend experience that is beyond strange. Granted, the practices that he experienced are way beyond the norm, but they are, I feel, how nonbelievers see us when we are in our element. He says,

When most Americans think of the Christian right, they think of scenes from television — great halls full of perfectly groomed people in pale suits and light-colored dresses, smiling and happy and full of the Holy Spirit, robotically singing hymns at the behest of some squeaky-clean pastor with a baritone voice and impossible hair. We don't get to see the utterly bats**t world they live in, when the cameras are turned off and their pastors are not afraid of saying the really dumb stuff, for fear of it turning up on CNN. In American evangelical Christianity, in other words, there's a ready-for-prime-time stage act — toned down and lip-synced to match a set of PG lyrics that won't scare the advertisers — and then there's the real party backstage, where the spiritual hair really gets let down. I was about to go backstage, to personally take part in the indoctrination process for a major Southern evangelical church. Waiting to board the bus for the Encounter Weekend, I had visions of some charismatic ranch-land Jesus, stoned on beer and the Caligula director's cut and too drunk late at night to chase after the minor children, hauling me into a barn for an in-the-hay shortcut to truth and freedom. Ridiculous, of course, but I really was afraid, mostly of my own ignorance and prejudices. I had never been to something like this before, and I didn't know how to act. I badly wanted to be invisible.

What followed is something that every believer needs to read. It's an embarrassing indictment of our practices and faith (even if we don't go to the extremes that this encounter reaches).

He nails the typical Christian male:

My disguise was modeled on other men I'd seen in church — pane glasses and the very gayest blue-and-white-striped Gap polo shirt I'd been able to find that afternoon. Buried on a clearance rack next to the underwear section in a nearby mall, the Gap shirt was one of those irritating throwbacks to the Meatballs/Seventies-summer-camp-geek look, but stripped of its sartorial irony, it really just screamed Friendless Loser! — so I bought it without hesitation and tried to match it with that sheepish, ashamed-to-have-a-penis look I had seen so many other young men wearing in church. With the glasses and a slouch I hoped I was at least in the ballpark of what I thought I needed to look like, which was a slow-moving hulk of confused, shipwrecked masculinity, flailing for an Answer.

He recounts his experience in a small-group breakout where he was forced to tell his life history. I admittedly doubled over in laughter at how ridiculously funny it was (and reminded me of a few small group life-sharing experiences from my days in campus ministry), but the sad thing is that his small group bought the story:

"Hello," I said, taking a deep breath. "My name is Matt. My father was an alcoholic circus clown who used to beat me with his oversize shoes."

The group twittered noticeably. Morgan's eyes opened to tea-saucer size.

I closed my own eyes and kept going, immediately realizing what a mistake I'd made. There was no way this story was going to fly. But there was no turning back.

"He'd be sitting there in his costume, sucking down a beer and watching television," I heard myself saying. "And then sometimes, even if I just walked in front of the TV, he'd pull off one of those big shoes and just, you know — whap!"
I looked around the table and saw three flatlined, plainly indifferent psyches plus one mildly unnerved Morgan staring back at me. I could tell that my coach and former soldier had been briefly possessed by the fear that a terrible joke was being played on his group. But then I actually saw him dismissing the thought — after all, who would do such a thing? I managed to tie up my confession with a tale about turning into a drug addict in my midtwenties — at least that much was true — and being startled into sobriety and religion after learning of my estranged clown father's passing from cirrhosis. It was a testament to how dysfunctional the group was that my story flew more or less without comment.

That said, I don't expect for the world to understand us. Viewing the meaning and power of the Cross is backwards and upside-down to unbelievers. They can't grasp it. They see us as pig-eyed, bigoted, narrow-minded robots who have been programmed to view the world with racist eyes. Taibbi concludes:

By the end of the weekend I realized how quaint was the mere suggestion that Christians of this type should learn to "be rational" or "set aside your religion" about such things as the Iraq War or other policy matters. Once you've made a journey like this — once you've gone this far — you are beyond suggestible. It's not merely the informational indoctrination, the constant belittling of homosexuals and atheists and Muslims and pacifists, etc., that's the issue. It's that once you've gotten to this place, you've left behind the mental process that a person would need to form an independent opinion about such things. You make this journey precisely to experience the ecstasy of beating to the same big gristly heart with a roomful of like-minded folks. Once you reach that place with them, you're thinking with muscles, not neurons.

Ouch.

When Peter (the Apostle, not Frampton) declared "that we were a peculiar people," he didn't mean wacked-out or creepy.

When I look at Jesus, he wasn't weird. He was certainly unconventional, but he did everything within the cultural context of the people that he wished to reach. Supernatural results followed him, but they drew people to God, rather than weird them out.

Maybe we've become disconnected from reality because we've become disconnected in some important way, from the Head of the body.

Is Christ actually the "head of the body"? Or is that really a metaphor about authority delegated to apostles, elders, and ministers?

2008-05-20T11:07:00.005-05:00

There is a minor discussion going on among some church leaders regarding what is a "biblical" leadership scheme.

Some seem to feel the bible teaches a basically top-down heirarchical organization, wherein a key principle is Heb 13:17 "Yield to your leaders and submit to them. They keep watch over you as men who must give account (jrb)." It is based on benevolent but binding authority, and leaders are the mediators of God's will for the church.

Others seem to feel that the New Testament teaches a bottom-up organism. A key here would be Eph 4:16, "From (Christ) the whole body, fit and held together by every bond, from the proper working of every part, grows and builds itself by love (jrb)."

The world has plenty of examples of organizations based on power relationships. The whole world is, right? Well, is it possible to have organizations based on just submitted LOVE RELATIONSHIPS, under the direct authority of Christ Jesus?

But Should They Get Stock Options?

2008-05-12T15:03:00.004-05:00

Things have slowed down on the ol' Java Jesus blog, which could be attributed to three things:

1) spring weather;
2) busy jobs, busy families, and busy life;
or
3) complete and utter burnout on church-talk.

From the weary looks on your faces, I'm thinking #3 is probably the correct answer.

Too bad. The Internet masses are clamoring for a new topic.

Something that's been discussed briefly in these circles before is the notion of paid ministry staff. One could find Biblical backing for either argument -- to pay or not to pay. Old Testament Levitical priests were provided for. The New Testament apostles were, I assume, housed and fed as they went from city to city. Yet many of the people that were "teaching" still had a job (tentmaker, fisherman, that sort of thing) as a source of income.

The answer that I'm looking for here isn't so much "what's the Bible say to do?" I'm looking at this on a different level. I realize that in this day and age, it makes perfect sense to have full-time salaried "employees" who run the church, coordinate and administer the stuff, and teach or preach to the members. Yet at the same time, I wonder if all of that feeds our current "Sunday-morning-centric," top-down church ideology.

If the church was truly run by people that held day-to-day jobs, just like everyone else, would the average churchgoer feel like he or she had more of a vested interest in the happenings of the church? Would we feel more like part of the leadership? Would it help to dissolve that chasm between "minister" and "laymen"?

Or does appropriate 21st-century-pastoring truly require a 50-60 hour workweek?

Stuff Christians Like

2008-05-05T12:27:00.002-05:00

I realize this is another in a long line of ripoffs from the "What White People Like" website, but I still found it quite funny (and often spot-on).

Stuff Christians Like

A Year of Java

2008-04-28T11:37:00.003-05:00

Sometime back in the spring of 2007, a couple of guys went to a Starbucks late on a Monday night, just to discuss theology and church and whatever was on their minds.

The next week, they went back again.

Over the following months, a core group of people were showing up late on Monday nights. These people were passionate about God and about the church. They were passionate about changing the church into something more Godly and more effective for the 21st century.

We've been getting together pretty much every Monday night for over a year now. No agenda. No "teaching" or specific lesson plan. We just get together and talk. We debate scripture, philosophy, and "how to do church." Sometimes there might be more than a dozen people, sometimes there might be just four or five. The common denominator is that all of the guys (yes, it's mostly guys, but we're always looking for some female input) are passionate about God and about church and about relationships.

And now, one of our core group members is leaving. Darin has resigned from his ministry position and his family will be relocating near Atlanta in a few weeks to begin serving at a new church.

This blog is intended as an open discussion and debate among anyone on the Internet, but it grew out of many of the discussions that we've been having in person on Monday nights. This Monday night group consists of a number of church ministers, elders, and people heavily involved in the matters of God's church. We often speak of a collective "Church," but the majority of us having these discussions are all a part of one local church body. And the majority of us are eager for some change.

It's sad to think of Darin leaving. And it's sad to think of the others that are considering leaving, as well. When we aren't happy with "how things are," we push and push for change. If the change doesn't happen, if it is refused or if it can't happen under the present structure of the church, then eventually, some people are going to decide they need to go in a different philosophical direction.

This isn't just about Darin. I would guess that a large percentage of us, whether paid pastoral staff or just church members, have considered whether or not we need to part ways with our church over matters we consider to be of vital importance. And this isn't just random church shopping over petty issues of worship style or how padded the pews are. As I said, these men are passionate about God and about church, and when passionate men see problems that refuse to be corrected, they will eventually consider the costs of moving on.

So here's to Darin, and his passion, his sense of humor, his teaching, and his push for Christian community. Starbucks is going to miss him greatly.

*Edit 4/30: I'm hiding comments on this post for the time being.

We Eat These Chicken Wings in Remembrance of You

2008-04-17T12:58:00.003-05:00

Our discussions of prayer and creationism have slowly moved into some dialogue on communion. What is communion? Why do we do it the way we do? What does the scripture really say, and is some of it misunderstood? And what about the Catholic "method of communion" -- do they have some aspects more "right" than many Protestants?

On one end of the spectrum, you have people taking a sacrament (a sip of juice/wine and a little cracker) as a means of individual reflection, and remembering Christ's death. On the other end of the spectrum, you might have a group of people having a communal meal together, fellowshiping around the table, in a sports' bar or wherever... and remembering Christ's death.

What "makes" something communion? Why do we do it with wine or grape juice, other than the fact that it's what Jesus did? Could we remember the death and resurrection of Jesus with any food that we're eating around a table?

Where DID Cain get his wife?

2008-04-10T20:10:00.005-05:00

A plausible, but radical, alternative to standard Six Day Creation theory is what I call "Second Creation" theory. It will freak people out, but it elegantly harmonizes a lot of difficult details in Genesis. I want us all to break out our scripture sticks and give it the “pinata treatment.” Or, prop it up and see if it fits into the panorama of scripture. Let’s see how it holds up to scrutiny:

A few folks suppose that Genesis 1 says that in a six-day period, God created a world full of light and sky and fish and sea and animals, and…men and women. But at some point (in Genesis 2, either on Day Six, or maybe ages later) God separately and specially “formed Adam of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils so he became a living being." Eve was taken and fashioned from Adam himself, so she too was a “living being.” As were their sons. Get it? Adam and Eve were not the first and only people created, rather they were the first of a CHOSEN RACE of people. All the other men were of God’s likeness, but not of the same God-breathed character, since they were not “inspired” in the same personal way, with God blowing up their noses. So, man began in Gen 1, but "humanity" began with Adam in Gen 2, when God breathed life into him.

This does several things. First, it asserts a literal creation and a literal Adam and Eve. But it also can accommodate a scientists' claim that the Earth is a zillion years old, and that some human remains appear 10x older than Adam. It also accounts for several problems in Genesis:

(1) Whom did Cain fear would kill him if he left the vicinity of Eden? (4:14)
(2) Where did Cain get his wife, or why was incest God’s design for the first generations? (4:17)
(3) How is it Cain was building a city when he had just a wife and one son? (4:17)
(4) In Gen 6:1-4, who exactly are the sons of God, the daughters of men, and the Nephilim ( “the "fallen") and what do they have to do with anything? (In this theory, the sons of God are Adam and the sons of Adam, also called "sons of God" in Gen 6:2, who went out from Eden and took the "daughters of men". Pretty slick.)

In this theory, Adam, Cain and his brothers were not the genetic fathers of every person on earth, they were the men from God who would rule and subdue the Earth and its inhabitants on His behalf. In Gen 4 we see the sons of Cain introducing agriculture, art, industry, and government into the earth. No wonder they might be called "the heroes of old, men of renown." This gives a great significance to the otherwise strange Ch 4 closing verse: "At that time men began to call on the name of the Lord"...it seems perhaps that Adams race, the sons of God also introduced the men of the earth to the One True God. This also gives an interesting slant on The Fall, very much in sync with Jesus’ teaching: perhaps the sons of God were “sent into the world not to judge the world, but that the world through them might be saved." But Adam chose the fruit of judgement instead of the tree of life.

In many respects it fits neatly into the whole Bible story line: A chosen but fallen race whose mission of subduing and ruling the world for God is always thwarted by their sin until Christ, the Last Adam (a half-breed God man, himself) comes to redeem their lives, to lead them in a reconquest of the Earth, to rule them in justice, and to share the fellowship of eternal life with them.

The Second Creation theory has never been in the main stream of thought so far as I know. So here is my question: Is this theory soundly debunked by the scriptures? I mentioned that Adam named the woman Eve because she was the mother of all living, but it was pointed out to me that “living” is defined in Gen 2 by having God blow up your nose. So that wouldn’t necessarily K.O. the Second Creation theory. Let’s get critical and see if it stands or falls.

Prayer: Just Do It?

2008-04-03T09:39:00.002-05:00

We've had a couple of interesting discussions over the last week concerning prayer. Some of us apparently have a slightly skeptical attitude about prayer -- we know we are supposed to do it, and we know it's important to be in communication with God, but at times, it can be a struggle to have faith in prayer.

We live in a fallen world. We know that pain, suffering, evil, and death are inevitable. That problem of evil will always be a paradox for us on earth. Why does God allow so much suffering? Why do the prayers of the righteous go seemingly unanswered?

Because of sin, and because of free will, we think we know the answer to the above questions. "God knows best, it's part of his plan, etc." Or, as the great theologians Mick and Keith once wrote, "We can't always get what we want."

The issue of unanswered prayer becomes more of a quandary when we look at many of the passages in the Bible that seem to be so straightforward on prayer.

Matthew 7:7-11, the words of Jesus --

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!"John 14:13-14, again from Jesus --

"And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."How about 1 John 5:14-15 --

This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us - whatever we ask - we know that we have what we asked of him.And of course Mark 11 --

"'Have faith in God,' Jesus answered. 'I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, "Go, throw yourself into the sea," and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.'"There are a couple choices here, and we could take them as deeply as we'd like. First of all, we could look at these verses more in context, to find what they are truly speaking to. Eric suggested that in John 14, Jesus is speaking specifically to the apostles (and only to the apostles), as he sends them out to work miracles.

Secondly, we could say that everything here hinges on knowing what to ask and having those requests be in God's will. That's the easy answer, that's the "Sunday School" answer (nod to Soebs and Darin), but perhaps it's also the RIGHT answer.

But if it is, it begs a lot more questions.

First, let's be uber-Biblical today and throw out some more verses.

The problem is that we don't KNOW what God's will is. We want to pray specifically, and we want to pray for what we think we need. Often, those feel like righteous prayers. We pray for a child, dying with cancer, to be healed. Surely that is a righteous prayer! We pray for a good job, to support our family. Surely that is a righteous prayer! We pray for a friend's marriage, that it would be reconciled. Surely, a righteous prayer!

But the young child dies a painful death.

The job we needed falls through, and a family has to declare bankruptcy.

The marriage breaks, a couple divorces, and a family is torn apart.

These are all realities of life, even sometimes when you have a huge group of Christians praying around the clock. We can't always get what we want. We tell ourselves that it just wasn't part of God's will. That it's part of some "master plan."

Maybe. But it doesn't make people feel any better. Nor does it do much to convince people of the loving nature of a God who wants us to bring our requests and petitions to him.

What DO we pray for? How do we know when our motives are "pure"? Do we just offer up vague "may your will be done" prayers? Do we make them specific, but then realize that it's quite possible that they won't happen?

Or do we need to change our entire prayer model, and make it more about God and less about us?

The Code, Pt II

2008-03-25T10:38:00.003-05:00

This post is to tag-team with Scott's "The Code" post. His dealt with the social issues of dress, modesty, and hypocrisy. Part II looks inward at the eye, the motives, and the intents of the heart.

"The lamp of the body is the eye. Then if your eye is wholesome, all your body is light. But if your eye is evil, all your body is dark. If, then, the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" (Mt 6:22-23, Green's Literal Translation)

I think this strange saying from the Sermon on the Mount holds enormous power for the life of faith. It follows the seven "but I say unto thee's", and is couched right in the greed and worry verses. The broad theme is that faith triumphs over greed, lust and ambition. Here is my commentary.

The "eye" is your outlook, more or less. Do you look at that cute rear end with evil intent? Are you cursing that kid by wishing evil things upon her? Like adultery? Like debauchery? Maybe worse? Do you resent her beauty because you can't rub up against it? If so, the evil eye you cast on others fills you with darkness--you become the evil you project with your eye.

Or, when you see that Sweety, are you blessing with your eye? Do you see a child of God? Do you wish her life and peace? Is this God's handiwork? Is this another man's bride? Is this where babies come from, the hope of humanity? Are you humbled by God's art, content to love her as just a fellow-human? If your eye is wholesome, then all the hips and lips in the world will only fill you with light. You will not stumble or fall.

It goes back to LOVE, "for to love thy neighbor is the sum of the law." THIS is the righteousness from God that comes by faith in his son.

The Code

2008-03-20T14:00:00.001-05:00

In this week of Easter, in this time that we ponder and celebrate the death and resurrection of Yeshua as a sacrifice for His church, I think it's time to discuss something really important.

The dress code.

On Easter Sunday, all sorts of people will show up at church. A lot of people that aren't normally there. And people will dress up. The men will wear a suit, or maybe a tie. The women will wear bright yellow dresses and maybe even a big weird hat. Kids will be in uncomfortable clothing that makes playing on the floor practically impossible.

That's fine. It doesn't matter much to me what people wear to church. A suit is fine, shorts and tennis shoes are fine. I'm not terribly concerned either way.

It does become more of a problem when people get upset about what OTHER PEOPLE wear to church.

This is quite common, and it comes in many forms. First of all, you have the people who claim that we must "dress up" to show our respect for God. If you aren't wearing the appropriate clothing, God apparently isn't going to be pleased with your worship.

God likes his ties silk, by the way. No cheap imitations.

But worst of all is the Cleavage Police. These are the folks that believe that if women wear anything too tight, too short, too cute, or too provocative, that it's not at all appropriate. The reasoning for this generally seems to be that men can't control themselves in the sight of attractive females.

Evidently, if a pretty girl has a skirt on that doesn't go below the knee, all the men's minds will be filled with lust and they won't be able to listen to the sermon without visualizing themselves in an all-out pew orgy.

These rules seem to have a certain pecking order in churches:

They only apply to women,
They only apply to attractive young women, and
They especially apply to attractive young women on stage.

This means that if you are an attractive woman who is a singer, or in drama, or in choir, or maybe up front to give the announcements (or preaching)... Please wear multiple turtlenecks, lest the men in the congregation try to molest you when you step off the platform.

Men. They're animals, I tell ya.

I've never understood these arguments, because they don't seem to give Christian men any credit whatsoever. They imply that 1) women need to cover up attractiveness, as if being cute isn't "reverent," and 2) men have no self-control over their sexual thoughts.

Never mind the fact that we're seeing women's legs and arms the other six and a half days of the week. That two hours a week on Sunday morning might just send me over the edge.

In I Timothy 2, Paul asks women "to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God."

I understand that women are to keep in mind reverence for God when they are choosing clothing. They shouldn't be putting stuff on merely to attract an eye of admiration, or to show off. It's something men should keep in mind too, but for some reason, all of the church "clothing rules" only seem to apply to women.

This is, admittedly, a silly topic. But it's also one that I know a lot of people have strong feelings about, and that's why I'm posting it. What do you think? How far do we go, as a church, in policing the clothing choices of people in attendance and people that are "up front"?

And you thought ecclesiology was just about the important issues.

The Avoider's Creed

2008-03-10T10:11:00.002-05:00

Unity does not equal avoidance.

Confrontation does not have to be an evil, divisive thing for believers.

The Church has somehow, through the years, arrived at a point where we want to avoid controversial topics at all costs. And Christians are fantastic avoiders. We have relationships that are superficial and non-accountable. We have sermons that feel good, but aren't convicting. We have church politics and leaders that often don't know how to deal with bad behavior.

Why are we so scared of conflict? Is the charge for Christian unity among brothers and sisters a call to sweep things under the rug? Can love and admonishment coexist?

We know the answer to that, but we rarely put it into practice.

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.

Teaching and admonishing go together, don't they?

Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.

We are to restore our brothers and sisters, and at the same time, we are to help carry their burdens.

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Christians know these verses. They get thrown around all the time, yet rarely put into practice. Because it's UNCOMFORTABLE. We've somehow been trained to avoid confrontation. A lot of people won't like to be confronted! It's true. It will be uncomfortable.

But it's needed. It has to be done. The church isn't going to grow and thrive without it. Without gentle admonishment, without some serious talking, without confrontation, the church will remain lukewarm.

In our quest to put all believers on the same level, in our desire to see the lines between leadership and layperson dissolved, we have to make sure we don't forget that there IS a Biblical call for confrontation and gentle admonishment. A church full of "avoiders" may grow in numbers, but it will always be a mile wide and an inch deep.

Now we ask you, brothers, to respect those who work hard among you, who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you. Hold them in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other. And we urge you, brothers, warn those who are idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, be patient with everyone.

So I ask -- Why have Christians become so scared of confrontation? Are we so frightened of the "hypocrite" tag that we avoid any direct accountability whatsoever?

Only Visiting This Planet?

2008-02-29T14:30:00.004-06:00

Larry Norman passed away on Sunday.

Granted, most of Larry's career was well before my time. But everyone always said he was the father of Christian rock, being one of the early Christian "counterculture" guys in music. And his influence was (and can be) found all over the musical map.

I recall Gene Eugene's death seven or eight years ago. Gene wasn't as well-known as Larry, but he was a producer and musician that had worked with a huge number of the bands that I really was weened on in the time I started finding "Christian" music I could get into, sometime in the 1990s.

It's lesser-known, underground guys like this (not that Larry Norman wasn't well known, but you know what I mean) that really had me thinking about the term "Christian music" ten or fifteen years ago. It's such a silly misnomer. There are so many churched individuals that listen to nothing but the "Christian" music stations, and "Christian" recording artists, as opposed to that dreaded "secular" music.

They also may or may not only drink milk from a Christian cow. (Was that an obscure reference?)

I do like a lot of music that fits into the Christian category. I love singing worship songs, and there are even some fantastic bands that may fall under that dreaded "Christian" label. "Christian music" isn't nearly as derivative as it was 20 years ago, although I'll admit I really can't listen to a Christian radio station very long without being annoyed at hearing the same mediocre songs over and over.

Still, though... Music isn't Christian or non-Christian. It's music.

Larry Norman was described as a "stubbornly independent artist." He made some Christians angry because he was so different than the standard "Christian singer" in the '60s and '70s. And that really makes my inner anti-establishment soul smile just a bit. He hung out with, or influenced, people from all sorts of backgrounds. McCartney. Dylan. Van Morrison. U2.

He went out of his way to reach people OUTSIDE of the church. He wasn't quite as interested in the ones sitting in the pews. They were already there. The ones that needed the help were the ones on the streets, the ones involved in drugs.

And what could be more emergent than that?

Women! Teaching in Your Church! Call the Authorities!

2008-02-18T11:02:00.003-06:00

When I was 17, and not very smart, I dated a girl from a Methodist church for awhile.

The "not very smart" thing had nothing to do with the girl I was dating. I just wasn't very smart. Most 17 year-old guys aren't. I'll get to that in a minute.

Anyway, some Methodist churches had women as pastors. Growing up, I had always learned that this was a big no-no in churches. So some debate ensued between this girl and I. Pretty soon I even brought her pastor into the discussion, as well as some others in my church.

Yeah, like I said. I wasn't very smart. These are not necessarily the type of discussions that go over well in a teenage romance. Nothing was resolved, and obviously it did nothing to enhance my relationship with the girl.

Fast-forward 15 years to present day. I'm still in a church that frowns upon the notion of women being in teaching positions over men. It's not talked about, of course, because Big Churches don't like to put those kinds of topics front and center, for fear of offending the masses. But the leadership of the church will have to bring it up on occasion -- for instance, if a woman wants to teach a mixed-gender Sunday School class, or lead a small group, or maybe, I don't know, lead worship on a Sunday morning.

Yes, it's fifteen years later, and I'm so much more grown up. I'm an adult. Fifteen years of additional Biblical wisdom, teaching, and counsel. Obviously I should be an expert on the issue by now.

And I have no idea where I stand. The older I get, the less sure I become of the things that I once thought I knew.

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

This is nothing if not straightforward. There doesn't seem to be a lot of wiggle room, and that's why so many mainstream churches -- such as mine -- adhere to it. But, as I said, they don't want to OFFEND anyone. It's not like most churches have a "We are men, and all women must be silent and barefoot and in the kitchen!" mentality. It's just... No one seems to be sure what else to do about it.

So we push it to the side and hope that too many people won't rock the boat.

Churches -- and when I say "churches," my knowledge is limited to the three or four I've attended in the last fifteen years -- apply the "women teaching" passages a number or ways. The mentality seems to be thus:

Women can't "teach" adult men in a group setting.
Women can teach boys, generally up until those boys are somewhere around junior high age.
Women can be on paid staff of churches on certain terms, as long as, again, they aren't teaching adult men. And for some odd reason, many churches (read: mine) don't like to give out titles like "Minister" or "Pastor" to the women on paid staff.

Leading worship is another topic altogether, because some mainstream churches will allow women to do this, and some won't. In my current church, I'm fairly certain that they'd never hire a woman to be the "Music Minister."

So how do people debate this whole "women-teaching" topic?

Here is one side you might find interesting. Starting on page 179, check out the chapter entitled "What Does It Mean Not To Teach or Have Authority Over Men?" This logical and well-researched argument holds that the restrictions from I Timothy 2 are permanent and authoritative for the church, in all times and places and circumstances.

And a seemingly opposing view, which is also well-written and well-researched, is here. The discussion on the I Timothy passage begins about halfway down the page.

A number of counterarguments have been made, from the culture of the first century church, to the original audience and how the Greek was used and translated. Logical, understandable arguments, that have me shaking my head and saying, "Yeah, I can see that course of reasoning." But in the back of my mind, I'm thinking, "We're still having to try awfully hard to disprove something that is written out in black and white."

Here's what I wonder: Why does Paul make these statements? Why does he, in one instance, say that in Christ there is no male nor female, yet here he gives such huge restrictions upon women? What about the different spiritual gifts that Paul talks about elsewhere? Can't women have those gifts? And what's with the "women will be saved through childbearing" in verse 15? Doesn't that contradict numerous other passages about how we will be "saved"?

Much has been written about this topic (and I'll admit I only skimmed the articles I linked above). I still don't know where I stand on the issue. The I Timothy passage seems straightforward to me -- even regrettably so -- and I'm not sure I could come up with a good, Biblical argument that perfectly refutes those verses.

Yet in the larger context of things, it just doesn't always make SENSE in my mind. In the vast majority of scripture, we tend to equate the words of the author with the words of God. But this is one of those passages where it seems to come from a very HUMAN vantage point. Granted, my understanding of God is very small, and very finite. But I still have a hard time grasping why God would tell us that.

Of course, this is the reason that Teh Interwebs was invented: So that we could debate and argue about it here.

Experiential Worship

2008-02-12T16:27:00.000-06:00

Here's an excerpt from the introduction in the book "Experiential Worship" by Bob Rognlien (www.experientialworship.com). Has anyone read this book or ever heard of Bob Rognlien?

Owning Up to Our Present Story

Biblical worship is a life-changing encounter with God himself, moving us to give all that we are back to our Creator. However, we realize that these kinds of encounters are best-case scenarios and do not reflect the effect of typical worship services today. Even if we do occasionally witness key turning points taking place during our gatherings, far too rarely do we see in the lives of those who worship regularly the incremental changes that constitute an ongoing process of spiritual transformation.

In the majority of our churches, life-changing experiences, even incremental ones, are more the exception than the rule. If we are honest, we will admit that our services can easily slip into meaningless rote, driven more by habit than spiritual passion, and that many people attend every week and leave unchanged.

This worship impotence is not due to lack of effort. Most of us put tremendous energy into planning and leading meaningful worship experiences. Many are willing to make sacrifices and endure criticism in order to create an environment in which people can worship God and be touched by his Spirit. But for all our effort, the lack of actual changed lives can be a crushing disappointment to those who give so much. [ed: AMEN!]

The way out of this predicament is to rediscover the wide range of historical worship traditions and learn how to connect them to our emerging culture. We are in the midst of nothing less than an epochal transition, a tectonic social shift, a cultural revolution that is birthing a world we call “postmodern” because we can only describe what it is not. [ed: I think this is very eloquent and well said] Like fish unaware of the sea they swim in, we have often planned and led worship without recognizing the impact of our changing cultural environment. But now the currents have shifted. No longer is the water flowing in the direction of the traditions we inherited. If we do not learn to navigate these new waters differently, we will be swept away by this relentless tide of cultural change.

Why Does Obama's Pastor Matter?

2008-02-07T08:51:00.000-06:00

Thought this was an interesting read.

Jesus Pooped

2008-02-05T21:11:00.000-06:00

When I first became a believer at the age of 18 I can remember some of my new Christian brothers and sisters sharing their "life verse." I never had a "life verse" as I thought the whole book was probably worth mentioning, but I felt the need to come up with one anyway, just to mess with people (in retrospect, it was probably a bad idea). I decided on Deuteronomy 23:12...

"Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself."

Many of you have heard what is referred to as "the shortest verse in the bible,"

Jesus wept. (John 11:35).

It's actually quite profound if you think about it. God in the flesh cried. He wasn't a Vulcan that suppressed his emotions because it gave him greater control. He cried when he learned of the death of Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha. He wept when he saw how upset Mary and Martha really were. He was really human--which also means that he ate, slept, had a runny nose, suckled at his mother's breast, had skin rashes, urinated, threw up...and defecated.

It doesn't sound right, does it? But the other day as I was thinking of the idea of Jesus pooping (why? I don't know), I was reminded of that weird little verse and some of the rest of the chapter. Imagine a passage where both defecation and nocturnal emissions are mentioned in one fell swoop:

9 When you are encamped against your enemies, keep away from everything impure. 10 If one of your men is unclean because of a nocturnal emission, he is to go outside the camp and stay there. 11 But as evening approaches he is to wash himself, and at sunset he may return to the camp.
12 Designate a place outside the camp where you can go to relieve yourself. 13 As part of your equipment have something to dig with, and when you relieve yourself, dig a hole and cover up your excrement. 14 For the LORD your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you. Your camp must be holy, so that he will not see among you anything indecent and turn away from you.

If you have trusted in Christ then you now have the Holy Spirit (also God--but God in the Spirit) living inside of you. It's not just God walking around the camp as in the Deuteronomy passage. He's with you everywhere and he's shared your earthly vessel. He knows what it feels like to weep...to go through puberty...to laugh...and even to feel alone. This is the Jesus that I want to get to know more.

--Big Doofus (Rog)

The Hollywood Emergent

2008-02-04T09:23:00.001-06:00

Back when I was in late high school and early college, I decided I wanted to make movies for a living. Or maybe TV shows. Or work in radio. Something telecommunications-related, at the very least. What did I know, I was just a teenager.

But whatever it was that I would be crafting, it would be something decidedly Christian.

Telling someone that you are going to make movies is one thing. Telling someone that you are going to make Christian movies is something entirely different. It's more likely that you'll get some snickers. And maybe a well-timed Kirk Cameron joke.

The problem with "Christian" movies is that, of course, a piece of film can't really be "Christian." It's kind of like that other mass-market misnomer, Christian Music. A G-D-Em-C chord progression is neither Christian nor secular. Someone might write a song with lyrics that speak of Jesus, and we might even sing hymns or worship God with our voices. But a song, like a movie or a painting or a sculpture or a piece of toast, cannot really be "Christian."

Ah, see, but the artist, the creator of that movie or song or painting? Of course, *that* might be a Christian. Or it might not.

Most of us know that what is being passed off as Christian film these days is generally pretty much crap. Granted, there exists a bigger market for that type of thing than ever before, and the movies are probably much better-made than they were 30 years ago. But still, come on, let's be honest.

Crap. Direct-to-video crap.

And a lot of what has come from the "Christian" production companies in the past decade have just been rip-offs of more recent blockbuster successes. A lot of apocalypic thrillers or Bible-as-a-code dramas that either seriously lack any mention of Jesus, or present a false gospel altogether.

But what do I know. I don't really watch any of it. When I get together to watch movies with guys, we end up watching Fight Club or Shoot 'Em Up or films about mutated zombie sheep.

What I have noticed, however, is that there are a ton of mainstream (or independent) films that present perfect opportunities to discuss Jesus and/or Biblical themes. And I'm not just talking about The Passion. I'm talking about The Matrix, and its obvious Messiah themes. I'm talking about The Simple Plan and its overt discussion of materialism and how it affects our real-world relationships. Or Frailty and how we discern "voices from God."

How about something even more direct, like The Apostle? Or The Last Temptation of Christ?

The running joke about the "Emergent label" is that everything is a "conversation." It's about living missionally, baby! And to an extent, this is true. Opportunities for Biblical conversation abound in everyday life. Yet sometimes we miss it. Instead of looking to create relationships and have a conversation about life and Jesus and God's creation, we sometimes think it's too much work. Wouldn't it be easier to just invite them to church?

Anyway, I'm in my 30s now, so my chances of moving to Hollywood to make movies is pretty slim. The opportunity passed me by.

But yet, everyday, there's an opportunity for topical discussion in even the silliest of films.

What films have YOU seen lately that are heavy on the symbolism? What movies do you think inspire The Conversation?

The Napkin

2008-01-30T10:25:00.000-06:00

This was forwarded to me recently.... -E

--------------------------------------------------------------
The Gospel of John (20:7) tells us that the napkin, which was placed over the face of Jesus, was not just thrown aside like the grave clothes. The Bible takes an entire verse to tell us that the napkin was neatly folded and was placed at the head of that stony coffin.
Early Sunday morning, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and found that the stone had been rolled away from the entrance. She ran and found Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved. She said, 'They have taken the Lord's body out of the tomb, and I don't know where they have put him!'
Peter and the other disciple ran to the tomb to see. The other disciple out ran Peter and got there first. He stooped and looked in and saw the linen cloth lying there , but he didn't go in. Then Simon Peter arrived and went inside. He also noticed the linen wrappings lying there, while the cloth that had covered Jesus' head was folded up and lying to the side. Is that important? Absolutely! Is it really significant? Yes! In order to understand the significance of the folded napkin, you have to understand a little bit about Hebrew tradition of that day.
The folded napkin had to do with the Master and Servant, and every Jewish boy knew this tradition. When the servant set the dinner table for the master, he made sure that it was exactly the way the master wanted it. The table was furnished perfectly, and then the servant would wait, just out of sight, until the master had finished eating, and the servant would not dare touch that table until the master was finished. Now if the master was done eating, he would rise from the table, wipe his fingers and mouth with that napkin and toss it on to the table. The servant would then know to clear the table. For in those days, the wadded napkin meant, 'I'm done.' But if the master got up from the table, and folded his napkin, and laid it beside his plate, the servant knew that the folded napkin meant, 'I'm not finished yet.' The folded napkin meant, 'I'm coming back!'

How Should We Then Grow Facial Hair?

2008-01-27T13:58:00.000-06:00

I just read an article called "What Can We Learn From Francis Schaeffer?" on The Pearcy Report
and found it to be very fascinating. I became a Christian when I was 18 and it was just a few years after Francis Schaeffer had passed away.

My early mentors (Scott's church as well) were big fans of his work and so I was quickly getting up to speed on his books and films. I still like to go back and read his words as they seem all the more relevant today. I'm curious to know what you think--especially the author's claims about Schaeffer's relevance pertaining to Modernism and Post-Modernism today.

Oh, and this is my first official post on Java Jesus. Scott told me about the $50 membership fee that you all paid and I sent him my check. Who would have thought it was that easy. He also told me that my Java Jesus Secret Decoder Ring is in the mail along with instructions on how to correctly do the Super Secret Java Jesus Hand Shake and Break Dancing Moves.

--Rog (Big Doofus)

New Church Model

2008-01-23T08:46:00.000-06:00

Since this is originally a blog on Church models, growth, etc., I figured I'd throw this out as a valid design which we should all consider.

I present to you, the Church of the Jedi .

-Eric

Do not touch

2008-01-22T13:51:00.000-06:00

Colossians Chapter 2, verses 20-23
20 If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, 21"Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!", 22 which all pertain refer to things destined to perish with use--in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? 23These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

Fascinating verse. What do you make of it? What does its teaching include, and what does it not extend to?

Read it in context here.

Then Peter Stood Up and Said, "If You'll Take a Look at Slide 3..."

2008-01-18T08:00:00.001-06:00

Who are we as a church? What is the ratio of men to women? How old are we? What is our median income? How racially diverse are we?

What about our community? What does the community "around" our church look like? Who are the people we are trying to reach, trying to serve?

These are all questions we ask on a regular basis, especially if we belong to a large church. Surely it helps to know who we are, right? And if we want to reach people in our community, it can only help to know who THEY are. Even if we are focusing on relational evangelism, it still helps to know who we are trying to develop relationships with!

This might be one of the not-so-subtle differences you'll find between the 21st century, suburban Midwestern church, and the 1st century church you'll find in the Book of Acts. You didn't see Peter handing out demographic surveys on the day of Pentecost. I'm not sure Paul and Phillip were necessarily putting together PowerPoint presentations to show who their "target" was.

Yet surely it existed to some extent, right? Obviously they didn't have the same tools that we do today, but did they at least THINK about the kind of people that made up their local churches, and the kinds of people they were trying to reach?

One problem may be that our Bible, as authoritative as it is, doesn't contain ALL the facts from the daily lives of the apostles. There were, no doubt, things going on that were not recorded.

My thinking is that they just forgot to assign someone to take minutes in all of their elder meetings.

Anyway, the "demographic target" discussion is one where I'm torn, because let's admit it: The more time we spend looking at statistics in databases... The more time we spend breaking down our "constituency"... The more we look like an institution! A corporation!

The very thing we're trying so hard to avoid.

Like so many other issues, I just don't think it's completely avoidable in today's society, with the current setup of how our churches function. One problem may be that we want to emulate the early church, yet at the same time, we tend to view that same church as a bit of a fluid hippie commune, a bunch of excited young Christians living together and telling everyone they know about Jesus. With anarchy reigning.

But that's deceptive. Sure, it was new. They didn't have 2000 years of history and assumptions to fall back on. It was small, they were persecuted, and they weren't meeting in $14 million buildings, with worries of mortgage payments and electrical bills.

Yet they did have some structure. They did have a semblance of a plan. There were certain demographics (stereotypes?) associated with each city where people were sent to spread the gospel. Isn't that sort of the same thing?

So then: How important is it for us to know how many Hispanics, blacks, and Asians are in our churches? How important is it for us to know which ones make six (or seven) figures, and which ones are just scraping to get by?

How important is that information?

$500 billion of ministry

2008-01-15T10:35:00.000-06:00

George Barna recently reported that over the last decade, as apercentage of the population, there was zero gain in the number of Christians in America. This zero growth came despite that $500 BILLION was spent on domestic ministry during that same period! Think about it. For all of our spending on buildings, programs, and outreach... zero! This sobers me, but it also awakens my resolve to find an approach to Christian faith that is NOT an abysmal failure. I truly believe that if advancing the Kingdom of God is that hard, it's because we are making it hard.

Does that $500B for nada qualify as a failure of the prevailing norms of church?

The Dark Side of God

2008-01-08T13:05:00.000-06:00

Living in a foreign country has helped me to understand a little bit of how Christians think outside America. And for better or worse, I´ve discovered that culture cannot help but flavour your faith.

For example, I have berated the health-and-wealth Gospel for years, although I sprang from that particular fount. The truth is that it sprang from the baby-boomer years of the 1950s when certain Tulsa-based evangelists began to declare that you can be a Christian, AND be rich! Their message found a strong following because America began to flow in that vein. That strain of faith is re-heated like bad microwave food in Joel Osteen´s "Your Best Life Now." I call it Hyperfaith-Lite.

But I maintain that Christianity tends to mirror the culture that hosts it. I became more aware of it since being in Spain, because the Church has no similarity to the American Church. The mentality is different. The approach to faith is different. The expression of the Christian walk is a stark contrast. The Spanish church has its own issues, no doubt it. We are human, after all.
I am more qualified, however, to address the severe case of Plankeye we suffer from in the American church: The commonly-held belief that God is here to work nothing but good in our lives.

Hogwash.

Hooey.

Let´s be honest. Our cultural filters portray God as the benevolent Creator of all, who is here to love and shepherd us, to comfort us in our darkest hour, and to provide all of our "needs." The truth is, this distorted view of God is a very Americanized view of Him. At His core, God is love. He IS all of those wonderful things.

And yet, He is the righteous Judge who can destroy our lives at any moment. He is bound by no promise to make us rich or prosperous. He cannot have his arm twisted to protect us from all harm. No man can thwart His purposes or stay His hand by quoting the latest "happy verses" from the Bible.

Let´s face it....God has a dark side.

Not evil. Dark. Threatening to our happy little American worldview.

He destroyed nations in the Old Testament. He ruthlessly decimated Pharoah´s army in the bottom of the Red Sea. He instructed the Israelites to "utterly destroy" several people groups. These are accounts that we gloss over by claiming "that´s Old Testament." But I say that God remains the same. Grace? Yes, I´ll have as much as I can! But let´s make no mistake: God is both Savior through Jesus Christ, but He is the Righteous Judge of all. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is the blessed Comforter, but He is also given to us to root out the stubborn wickedness that remains in our hearts. It´s grim stuff.

God may destroy me. I may lose all that I have in the blink of an eye. My family might be taken from me. And God is completely justified in doing it all.

And in the end, we can only repeat Job´s prayer: "The Lord gives, the Lord takes away. Blessed be the Name of the Lord."

No comments necessary: tidbit of high-brow trivia

2008-01-04T20:14:00.000-06:00

I love the blog name Java Jesus, you'll see what I mean. Sorry to pollute this blog with something like this. Don't read it if you don't wanna.
Below is the origin of the term "the public sphere", coined by Jurgen Habermas in 1962. It is directly from the concept of "public sphere" that the term "Blogosphere" emerged. Read from the Wikipedia article:
"Jürgen Habermas wrote extensively on the concept of the public sphere, using accounts of dialogue that took place in coffee houses in 18th century England. It was this public sphere of rational debate on matters of political importance, made possible by the development of the bourgeois culture centered around coffeehouses, intellectual and literary salons, and the print media that helped to make parliamentary democracy possible and which promoted ENLIGHTENMENT IDEALS (see below) of equality, human rights and justice. The public sphere was guided by a norm of rational argumentation and critical discussion in which the strength of one's argument was more important than one's identity.
According to Habermas, a variety of factors resulted in the eventual decay of the bourgeois public sphere of the Enlightenment. Most importantly, structural forces, particularly the growth of a commercial mass media, resulted in a situation in which media became more of a commodity – something to be consumed – rather than a tool for public discourse."
Oh yeah, ENLIGHTENMENT IDEALS? This is what Habermas concluded late in life:
"Christianity has functioned for the normative self-understanding of modernity as more than a mere precursor or a catalyst. Egalitarian universalism, from which sprang the ideas of freedom and social solidarity, of an autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, of the individual morality of conscience, human rights, and democracy, is the direct heir to the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in the light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk."
CAFFECCLESIOLOGY? Habermas was also a driving force in deeloping the linguistic school epistemology (particularly, applying it to society and government) whence sprang our current theological notion of a "divine conversation". From which, of course, comes the trendy Emergent buzzword "conversation."
I RECOMMEND: Eugene Peterson's "Christ Plays in Ten-thousand Places: A Conversation in Spiritual Theology." It is magnificent. It plays out the divine conversation, God's symbols and Man's praxis.

One True God?

2008-01-02T10:39:00.000-06:00

What significance is there to the reality, easily demonstrable, that our biblical faith has some serious overlaps and parallels with pagan religions contemporary with the Bible?

What does that say about the faith of “pagans”? Can there be such a thing?

What does it say about the Bible, the apostles, and the fathers?

What does it say about our claim of the "one true God"? Does he have rivals out there?

What does it say about exclusivism/inclusivism (that is, is "being a Christian" in a certain way the only way to be spared the wrath of God?)

Consider Luke 4 and Jesus’ statement where he compares favorably the faith of the widow at Zarephath to the faith of his Israelite contemporaries. See three themes?

1. God wants Gentiles to know Him. Exod 14:4 is a good example:”But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.” God wants to make himself known to Gentiles. An example I think we need to study more carefully is Acts 14:17: in his comment to the Gentiles, Paul says of God: “yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good and gave you from heaven rains and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.” What's that mean?

2. Some came to know God or truth about God who were Gentiles: Melchizedek (Gen 14), where Abraham uses the name of his God for YHWH.Pharaoh’s magicians (Exod 8:19)Balaam, Rahab, King Huram of Tyre, Naaman, NebuchadnezzarActs 17:28 where Paul quotes Epimenides and Aratus, showing revelation of truth to Gentiles. What's that mean?

3. God’s people's religious culture and customs overlap mightily pagans/Gentiles/etc in ways that predate Jesus, Moses, & Abraham. Circumcision, sacrifice, temples, singing, moral codes, etc. The names for God in the OT are found among pagan religions: El as “God.”Cornelius in Acts 10 and this powerful statement: “but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him” (10:34-35). What's that mean?

(This is plagiarized from Gordon McDermott's "God's Rivals" as it is quoted by Scott McKnight on http://www.jesuscreed.org/ . )

The Word became flesh, then paper...then mere words

2008-01-02T10:12:00.000-06:00

“The centrality of the community to the gospel means that the message is never disembodied. The word must always become flesh, embodied in the life of the called community. The gospel cannot be captured adequately in propositions, or creeds, or theological systems, as crucial as all of these exercises are. The gospel dwells in and shapes the people who are called to be its witness. …If there is good news for the world, then it is demonstrably good in the way that it is lived out by the community called into its service… The lived out testimony of the Christian community is to become a witness, visible and audible, given in and to the world, so that the gospel will spread.” — Darrell Guder

Some might say that is what we already do when we "do church." It sure doesn't feel that way to me. What do you think?

Seeking a New Approach To Church

2007-12-14T10:13:00.002-06:00

Ever wonder if our 21st-century approach to church is entirely wrong?

I have conversations with many people that are rather disgruntled at the state of "the church." And they don't always know if the problem lies with the leadership, or the congregants. After all, a good portion of many church-goers are once-a-week attendees that really have no community with the church body. They come, they enjoy a nice show, they are spoon-fed some sermon points, and they go home and go on with their lives. They have nothing invested whatsoever.

It's a cycle, really. The more that people expect to be Sunday morning consumers, the more the church provides it on a Sunday morning. The more they provide it, the more consumers show up. And to an extent, if we're talking about numbers, it's a great way to grow a church. A church can grow into a megachurch 10 miles wide. And two inches deep.

We talk about what the root cause might be, and whether it's theological, or a problem with vision, or leadership, or just 21st-century consumer culture. But I have another suggestion.

Perhaps the seeker-sensitive church approach is entirely backwards.

Let me explain. All of my life, I've heard from other churchgoers about how they need to invite non-Christians to church. After all, if they come to church on a Sunday morning, they'll listen to some nice songs, and they'll hear about Jesus! Then they'll become a Christian! It happens all the time!

Technically, that might be true. It does happen occasionally. People go to a Sunday-morning service, hear about God, and they become Christians. And then they come back the next Sunday morning, and the next, and they are spoon-fed every week. In fact, they'll continue to hear about Jesus for years without ever needing to DO anything.

Instead, try this: Don't invite people to church. Build a relationship with them and tell them about Jesus. Tell them about Jesus' life, death on the cross, and resurrection. Tell them about how you are a new creation, and how God has worked in your life.

If the spirit tugs on that person, and that person understands, you know what?

He or she may very well become part of the church. Right there. Then, it might be a good opportunity to tell them about a group of Christians that gets together in your house on Monday nights for small group. Or Wednesday nights for a meal. Or Sunday mornings for a celebration service. Invite them to come along.

A church that caters almost exclusively to non-Christians, or even nominal Christians, might be nice for evangelism. But it's not really The Church. The Church is made up of Christian brothers and sisters, and they are living, working, learning, and serving together. If you try to make everything about the church "sensitive to the non-believer," what's going to happen?

The people that ARE new converts are never going to grow past that two-inch thickness. The possibility will always exist that they'll remain Sunday-morning consumers for years. They were spoon-fed a show, and that's what inspired them to come forward and accept Jesus in the first place... So isn't THAT what Christianity is? A Sunday-morning show?

Well, we say, the Sunday morning service can be seeker-sensitive, because if people want to grow deeper, they need to get involved in Sunday School classes and other areas.

Seriously? Why would they need to get involved anywhere else? We've shown them that all they need to do to be saved is to come to a Sunday morning service and hear about God.

Relational evangelism is SO important, and it's so much more than inviting someone to church. I'm starting to seriously question a "seeker-sensitive" approach to church. Are WE, the people of God, to be "seeker-sensitive" when building relationships? Of course we are. But are church services supposed to always be "seeker-sensitive"?

I'm starting to think that's a bad idea.

What say you, random blog readers?

O Come!

2007-12-12T18:43:00.000-06:00

My favorite Christmas hymn is “O Come, O Come Immanuel,” a 12th Century Christian hymn originally written in Latin:

O come, O come, Emmanuel, and ransom captive Israel, that mourns in lonely exile here Until the Son of God appear.

Refrain: Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Wisdom from on high, Who orderest all things mightily; To us the path of knowledge show, And teach us in her ways to go.

Refrain

O come, Thou Rod of Jesse, free Thine own from Satan’s tyranny; From depths of hell Thy people save, And give them victory over the grave.

Refrain

O come, Thou Day-spring, come and cheer Our spirits by Thine advent here; Disperse the gloomy clouds of night, And death’s dark shadows put to flight.

Refrain

O come, Thou Key of David, come, And open wide our heavenly home; Make safe the way that leads on high, And close the path to misery.

Refrain

O come, O come, great Lord of might, Who to Thy tribes on Sinai’s height In ancient times once gave the law In cloud and majesty and awe.

Refrain

O come, Thou Root of Jesse’s tree, An ensign of Thy people be; Before Thee rulers silent fall; All peoples on Thy mercy call.

Refrain

O come, Desire of nations, bind In one the hearts of all mankind; Bid Thou our sad divisions cease, And be Thyself our King of Peace.

Spoiled, But Still the Bride of Christ

2007-12-05T10:59:00.000-06:00

You probably won´t care much for this post, but I feel it expedient to get it off my chest.

The last 4 months have been the most eye-opening and humbling period of my life since, oh, I don´t know, Junior High.

Spiritually speaking, anyway.

I´ve been on my own journey on the purpose of the church after years of railing about the deficiencies of the Body. I´ve been sourrounded by a worship experience that most of us would dismiss as "devoid of excellence" and "irrelevant to the seeker." The PowerPoint, when it has the correct words, isn´t color-coordinated to match the pews or carpet. The "sound system" is less than pristine. In fact, most of the time, the sound that it emits is unintelligible to my tired ears. The worship services are far longer than the 1:10 limit that we Americans say are more than sufficient. And the worship facility? Don´t plan on cushy pews with lush carpet. It´s plastic chairs and cold marble. In fact, the picture that I attached is First Christian Church of Valencia.

Impressive, isn´t it? To me, it´s absolutely delightful. In 4 months, I´ve started understanding what Christian love really is. It´s not bound to the Sunday worship hour. It´s the pastor calling, asking "how´s it going?" It´s brothers and sisters volunteering to drive to your town at $6.50 per gallon for gas, for the opportunity to pass out publicity in steaming hot weather for your new business. It´s inviting those less fortunate than you to your home for a hot meal.

Ouch.

Let´s face it: we´re really, really spoiled in the US. We have privilege, resources, and facilities that most Christians around the world will NEVER have.

So, next time you complain that the church isn´t "meeting your needs," I ask you, how are you meeting the needs of the church?

In This One Body to Reconcile Them Both to God

2007-12-04T09:05:00.000-06:00

"For he himself is our peace who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations."

This post is not for "Theologs", but for everyone.

Here is a glimpse into my spooky side, what really is going on in Joe B all the time. I just try to express it in theological terms, not knowing what else to do with it. The stuff below was written to an old campus ministry comrade, one of the many now on the front line of foreign missions while I fight "The Battle of AT&T." I confessed:

"I just feel the heavens swirling around me again like in some days past. Something big is building in heaven and in the hearts of men, and I cannot articulate it but somehow I understand it. The huge post-christianity world-view shift of this generation sees dawning a new vision of God, and I just see the temple courts (you know, just outside the sanctuary?) filling up with unwashed nations of tax-collectors and prostitutes, entering with joyful force. And I see the priesthood of the sanctuary divided: whether to exclude them to keep it holy, or whether to risk defilement by passing thru the torn veil, by breaking the bread and pouring the wine of the Eucharist. Will we recognize the day of our visitation?"

"If that paragraph were spoken it would have had that spooky "prophesying" sound to it. This thing has been swelling for seven years as God has kept me peering into some mystery of Eph 2:11-22, especially v14-15. These last two years God has stirred me to pray that the "church" will remain whole, and not a branch broken off as a new shoot is grafted in. I see well-meaning Dividers on the Inside and on the Outside, MacArthur v. McLaren, and I cry and say "must it be so?" (I'm much better at crying than praying.)"

"It sounds so foolish to be swept up in cosmic things when my life is such a speck."

I know this is personal, but it is profoundly ecclesiological too. And all of you are a part of it. What is the Spirit saying to the Church?

In the Image of God

2007-12-03T10:08:00.000-06:00

Let me just shed a tear here on Java Jesus for Emily Sander. I never heard of her before I read the gleeful, smirking stories in the press: "Missing College Student May Have Had a Secret Life as a Porn Star." But, she had a secret life as a human being, too. It didn't matter that much, though, until they found out we could see her boobs on the internet. Still I see a sparkling specimen of humanity, a kid who just yesterday was climbing a tree or riding a bike, or writing on her backpack. In the Image of God.

I wish I could have shown her some sort of kindness in the days of her short life. I wish I knew something kind to say about her, and I’m sure there is something that could be said. I want to pray for her, but she is dead. Tissue and specimens and slides and samples. Something to be studied, no more to be loved.

Here in the end, only God knows the depth of wonders and the real beauty that lived in this little child of his. May God receive her soul, and vindicate her name, and may he crown her with life in the Resurrection of the Dead.

Goodbye, little girl.

Paradigm Shift

2007-11-27T23:52:00.000-06:00

hey guys....i posted a link to a speech by Donald Miller - I would love feedback if you can ever find the time. It is on my blog - click on "here".
he seems to articulate so much of what i have been feeling - it made me uneasy a bit too...
anyway
thanks

The God Battle: O.T. vs. N.T.

2007-11-20T10:44:00.001-06:00

Funny thing happened last night... I was with a group of friends outside of Starbucks, and I walked next door to grab a drink about 11:30 pm. When I came out, they had all left! Can you beleve that? They all left! What a bunch of maroons.

So instead of bringing up rousing philosophical and theological topics in person, I shall do it the old-fashioned way -- by blogging.

One of the more common discussions I have with Biblically-educated non-Christians (i.e., people who are fairly well versed on the Bible but who just don't buy into it) is the topic of the Old Testament God versus the New Testament God. They talk about how the God of the OT is a wrathful God who seems to fit the profile of a mass murderer, killing women and children and doing a lot of stuff as an Angry Powerful Being. Yet, they say, we want to reconcile that with a New Testament God -- a God of love and peace and hugs and happy trees. Is our God distant and wrathful, or near and loving?

One of the things I usually talk about in these instances is Jesus, his death on the cross, and the temple veil tearing in two. Giving us access into the Holy of Holies, God's presence. To me, it's the perfect symbol of how our relationship with God "changed."

Yet we say that God doesn't change. He is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last. Joe talked quite a bit in the comments on the tithing post about how God changeth not:

Why would he require us to be people of faith for a millennium, then cold legalists for a couple of millennia, and then people of love thenceforth? Do we have a better covenant because we got a better God? Did the Son overthrow the Father? Did Paul overthrow Jesus?

Good questions, all. In my mind, if I keep things simple, I can understand. Yet the hard truth of God's wrath is shown time and time again in the Old Testament. Do we see that today? Did God just stop killing people for either sin or because they were in the way of his chosen people?

It seems as if we've got a couple of choices. Either,

God still does many of those things -- He shows wrath through disease, weather ("acts of God") and war. To be honest, my 21st century, peace-loving mind doesn't much like this idea.
Or, he doesn't do those things any more, or at least not to that extent, and he somehow has changed. Maybe we don't call it "change." Maybe it's his evolving nature, or an adjustement to his relationship with his creation.

I agree that "God changeth not," but the fact remains that Jesus' life, death, and resurrection was a major turning point in how God interacts with his creation. If we go by what most of our churches teach -- and most of them teach the New Testament 90% of the time with a few select Old Testament verses thrown in only to back up a specific topic -- then God doesn't seem to require as much of us as he did of the Jews 5000 years ago.

I ask these questions for the sake of discussion. It's difficult to know how to respond when people ask me about "the two Gods," especially because they aren't really ASKING, they are ACCUSING the God I serve of being the architect of genocide in many cases. We don't like to think too much about death and killing -- Christians generally pride themselves on valuing life, after all.

How do we reconcile many of the actions of God in the Old Testament with how we portray God now? And how do we respond when people charge God with mass murder?

Happy Holidays?

2007-11-14T07:48:00.001-06:00

If Joe can dedicate a blog post to getting upset about a Youtube video, then so can I.

Some family recently forwarded me a link to a video. It's a song (with a bunch of spoken word edited in) about people saying "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas." The video can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAckfn8yiAQ

My Mom asked my brother and I what we thought. It will surprise no one that I had a number of things to say.

First of all, I love the acappella group Go Fish. We have a couple of their CDs and the kids really like them. We used to listen to them all the time. Fun music. Fantastic. I'll get that out of the way.

Secondly, I... uh... STRONGLY DISLIKE listening to Brad Stine. I'm pretty sure that he is the comedian whose diatribe has been edited into the song... I recognize his voice and can tell by the stuff he says. He did stand-up at both of the Promise Keepers events I've been to, this year and a few years back. He drives me absolutely nuts. He's pretty much the redneck "conservative Christian comedian"... Equivalent to the Larry The Cable Guy and the guys on the Blue Collar Comedy Tour, even down to the fact that he tries to have his own little catch phrase. He constantly talks about how America is God's country (I think he even used the words "favorite" once, which made me want to stand up and argue with him in front of 10,000 guys), and our Christian heritage, on and on. He can talk for an hour about the same sort of stuff as he does in the song.

While the song is nice, and I understand the sentiment, the problem I have with Brad Stine and those kind of discussions, is this:

Christians in America are not persecuted.

We have it so easy here that we have to come up with something like this and call it persecution, as if it's even an issue. We do the same thing with our kids not praying in public schools, or not having the 10 commandments on a courthouse lawn. We make it as if because of these things, we are being "persecuted."

Christians in China being jailed or killed, and in the Middle East? That's persecution.

Christians in America don't know true persecution, and I think it's one of the reasons so many Christian Americans are so lazy and uninvolved with Christ, and each other. I'm supposed to get angry and make it an "issue" if a non-Christian wants to say "holidays" rather than "Christmas"?

I realize that for the most part, I'm probably preaching to the choir here. I know stuff like this has been discussed before by some of the contributors over there on that sidebar >>>. But I still think it's worth discussing, because stuff like this is debated ad nauseum among American churches and American politicians.

If a Wal-Mart greeter wishing me "Happy Holidays" is persecution, I'm curious what we would call it if we were being eaten alive by lions and wild animals, with people cheering on the carnage from the stands.

Anyway... Who knew that a silly Youtube song would provoke such debate?

*Shout outs to my Mom for sending me the link, and Bill for being a Brad Stine fan. I know you're reading, Bill.

"Should the Church Teach Tithing?"

2007-11-06T08:26:00.001-06:00

Take a look at an interesting view on whether the church should teach tithing here.

More specifically, he puts together an argument about why he is "opposed to supporting churches using the false doctrine of NT tithing instead of better New Covenant freewill offering principles."

I'll sum up his main points, but go read it if you have the time.

N. T. Giving Principles in Second Corinthians 8 and 9 are Superior to Tithing.
In God’s Word the Tithe is Always Only Food!
Money Was an Essential Non-Tithed Item
Abraham’s Tithe to Melchizedek Reflected Pagan Tradition.
Tithing Was Not a Minimum Required from All Old Covenant Israelites
First-Tithes were Received by Servants to the Priests.
"It is Holy to the LORD" Does Not Make Tithing an Eternal Moral Principle.
First-fruits are Not the Same as Tithes
There are Four Different Tithes Described in the Bible.
Jesus, Peter, Paul and the Poor Did Not Tithe
Tithes were Often Used as Political Taxes.
Levitical Tithes Were Usually Taken to the Levitical Cities.
Malachi 3 is the Most Abused Tithing Text in the Bible.
The New Testament Does Not Teach Tithing.
Limited Old Covenant Priests Were Replaced by All Believer-Priests.
The New Covenant Church is Neither a Building nor a Storehouse.
The Church Grows by Using Better New Covenant Principles.
The Apostle Paul Preferred That Church Leaders Be Self-Supporting.
Tithing Did Not Become a Law in the Church until A. D. 777.

His conclusions:

In God’s Word, “tithe” does not stand alone. It is the “tithe of FOOD.” The biblical tithe was very narrowly defined and limited by God Himself. True biblical tithes were always: (1) only food, (2) only from the farms and herds, (3) of only Israelites, (4) who only lived inside God’s Holy Land, the national boundary of Israel, (5) only under Old Covenant terms and (6) the increase could only be gathered from what God produced.

Therefore, (1) non-food items could not be tithed; (2) clean wild game animals and fish could not be tithed; (3) non-Israelites could not tithe; (4) food from outside God’s holy land of Israel could not be tithed; (5) legitimate tithing did not occur when there was no Levitical priesthood; and (6) tithes did not come from what man’s hands created, produced or caught by hunting and fishing.

There is much more detail and scripture in his argument, but I've just copied the main points for those too lazy to go read the whole thing. Thoughts? Anyone?

Nevermind...

2007-10-28T22:01:00.000-05:00

http://revealnow.com/story.asp?storyid=48

After 30 years of marketing church success, Willow Creek changes its mind.

Will people will pay big bucks to learn how to fail from such successful people? You can bet on it. Can you buy stock in a church?

Subculture or Counterculture: Is Church Relevant?

2007-10-25T09:13:00.001-05:00

...This raises the missional question as to whether the church exists simply as a subculture or a counterculture or whether it can become truly cross-cultural in the sense of crossing into the broader culture through proclaiming the good news within that cultural context.

Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures

We KNOW that the gospel is relevant. Jesus is still relevant. But are most modern churches relevant to society?

Sometimes we get the two confused. We think Obviously, all our churches are relevant. Because Jesus is still relevant!

Jesus immersed himself in first century Jewish society. He took on the culture and practices -- he became accessible, he became one of us. Yet sometimes we believe that our churches should stand totally apart from the culture. Should they? Should churches really be countercultural?

I haven't read much of the book that I quoted above, honestly. But some of the parts I've skimmed have made me think. Missionaries immerse themselves in the societies in which they live. Yet sometimes we criticize local churches that become too much "like the world." We like our traditions. We think that just because the world is in a constant state of change, the church doesn't necessarily need to change the way it functions.

This book mentions that the church occupied a central position within Western societies for more than 1600 years. But that has recently changed. Within the last 100 years, cultural shifts have created a post-Christian society. "The church as an institution has lost its privileged position and increasingly occupies a place on the margins of society alongside other recreational and non-profit organizations."

Most people don't go to church anymore.

And, though this is a big assumption, I believe that the vast majority of the minority that DOES go to church, does just that. They go to church. They don't go to WORSHIP. They don't consider themselves to really be the church. It's a building to go to on Sunday mornings.

The message of Jesus doesn't need to change. Our need for God doesn't change. But that doesn't mean that what church IS, and how church is done, can't change.

So how should it change?

We use the word community a lot to talk about what we think the church needs to be. Most of us truly believe that people long for relationships -- they long for an intimate community. The thing is, on the surface, that's not always true. People isolate themselves in their suburban homes because they want to. They avoid seeking out those relationships because, sometimes, it can be uncomfortable.

I talked to someone the other day who said she hated when people talked to her that she didn't know. Friendly people bothered her. She just wanted to be left alone, because she thought that any stranger that talked to her was going to be full of fake, insincere bullsh**.

So that takes us to the next set of words we like to use. Honesty. Vulnerability. Transparency. The church needs to rid itself of the faux smiles we automatically put on when we walk in the door. It needs to get real.

Are these things true? I don't know. Probably. An intimate community of honest people is nice. But that's not the gospel. That's not the message of Jesus. That's a self-help group, which is exactly what we're trying to avoid.

Obviously we need to show the love of Jesus. We need to be more outwardly-focused, yet at the same time developing true relationships within. Maybe the church DOES need to be countercultural. Surely, it needs to be different. Yet it still needs to understand our society, and be willing to change.

Once again, I have more questions than answers.

Should the church cross into the broader culture? How? Does the church need to change its "business model"?

"What Must I Do To Be Saved?"

2007-10-15T15:00:00.001-05:00

Growing up, I heard the standard, Protestant Christianese from pastors, youth workers, Sunday School teachers and church leaders. Repeat it with me:

You need a personal relationship with Jesus Christ... You need to accept him into your heart. Recite this prayer with me...

As much as this sounds like Standard Operating Procedure for the lifelong protestant evangelical, an unbiased look at scriptures and the words of Jesus might make us rethink that paradigm.

Still, to me, everything in that formula sounds good. A personal relationship with the Son of God. "Accept" him into my life, surrender to him. Sure, sounds fine, maybe even theologically sound. What's not to like? All that is exactly what must be done to become a "Christian," right?

But where do we find any of that language in the Bible?

In Matthew 19, when Jesus was done telling the rich young man that he must sell all of his possessions and give to the poor, the disciples asked, "Who then can be saved?"

Jesus' initial answer was cryptic, but in verse 29, he says,

And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life.In Mark 16:16 (which, incidentally, was not in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts), Jesus tells the disciples after his resurrection:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.Of course, this is also the same passage that he said,

And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.That could get us into a whole 'nother discussion, but for now, we'll leave it be.

When Peter addressed the crowd at Pentecost, he said,

... everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.One would be hard pressed to find the entire notion of a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" and "accepting him into my heart" in the scriptures. We could say it's inferred, and that it's just current language for the same basic scriptural concepts that have been there all along.

My guess would be that the "accepting him into our heart" and "personal relationship" language is a fairly recept concept, perhaps even a 19th or 20th century evangelical construct.

Am I wrong?

I have no idea. Someone with more knowledge will correct me anyways, so there's no point in me doing the research.

A lot of this goes back to our evangelical eschatological focus -- the Only Important Thing is what we must do to escape the fires of hell, after all. Giving people an easy-to-understand formula to get into heaven is the key. People want a personable God. People want relationships. Matters of the heart are important to people.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not necessarily saying that all of the ideas I've heard my whole life are necessarily wrong. Even if there isn't specific Biblical language to match, I have no doubt that our God IS a God that desires a relationship with us. It's called love.

But really... What must I do to be saved? And were the original people that asked that question using that language in an entirely different way than we do today? When we say "saved," our minds automatically think of fiery pits of hell.

Were first century Jews really thinking along those same lines?

World Religions 101

2007-10-05T14:44:00.001-05:00

I went from writing nearly every post on this blog, to writing nearly nothing in the last month. But with all the link-posting we've been doing here lately, I think it's time for a bit of original thought.

If only I *had* any actual original thoughts. Drat!

Since we were talking about different denominations and worship-styles -- like those crazy Pentecostals -- I thought I'd go even farther and talk about some different religions.

As many of you know, I've been rather fascinated with Judaism over the past couple of years. Jewish history (cue the NT Wright theme song) is vastly under taught in our churches, and because of that, we often don't grasp the historical context of Jesus' life and teachings.

But there is one other major world religion -- many say it's the fastest growing religion in the world, in fact -- that has a number of similarities to Christianity and Judaism.

Islam.

The majority of Americans see Islam as a religion of Middle Easterners, and a religion of terrorists and radicals. People holding AK-47s over their heads or strapping bombs to their chests.

But... We also talk about not judging a religion strictly on the actions of a few followers. After all, people do that with Christianity, and they get turned off right away. So what do Muslims actually believe?

Islam gets lumped in with Judaism and Christianity because in a way, the three religions all believe in the same "God." At least to the point in that they are monotheistic belief-structures that teach submission to that higher power. Islam actually holds the belief that we believe in the same God, but Judaism and Christianity, over time, distorted the messages of the prophets like Moses and Abraham and Jesus.

Since an in-depth discussion of Islam would take years, and more pages of text than I care to write, I'm just going to look at the Five Pillars of Islam:

The shahadah, the basic tenet of Islam: "I testify that there is none worthy of worship except God and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of God." To my ears, that's eerily similar to the "statement of faith" that many Christian churches ask new members to recite: "I believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God." It's straightforward, it's simple, it's the religion wrapped up in a nice little package.
Salah, or ritual prayer. It's to be performed five times per day. Now this is dedication! In the comments to the last post, the discussion turned to whether some of our worship is "fake," and whether some of it is just performed out of discipline. Being required to do a ritual prayer five times a day? That's discipline.
Zakat, or alms-giving. This would be the Muslim equivalent of the tithe. It's obligatory for all Muslims who can afford it. Besides being used to assist the spread of Islam, a fixed portion is spent to help the poor and needy. I wonder how much membership would dwindle in our (Christian) churches if tithing were an obligation, rather than voluntary?
Sawm, which is fasting during the month of Ramadan. This is the practice of not eating or drinking (or doing a number of other things) from dawn to dusk during this month. It's to encourage a feeling of nearness to God. How many of our churches are talking about fasting? It seems to be a nearly forgotten practice. I know that I don't do it -- I'm too much of a fan of food. In my own church, it was mentioned in a booklet as a part of a recent stewardship campaign, but I never heard it mentioned anywhere else. I only know one person that made an effort to give up a number of certain foods, and people didn't even understand why she was doing it. (Although yes, technically, if fasting is being done correctly, no one else should really know about it anyway.)
The Hajj, or the pilgrimage to Mecca. Every able-bodied Muslim who can afford it must make the pilgrimage to Mecca at least once during his or her lifetime. There is really no Christian equivalent to the pilgrimage. I don't see a lot of people using their life savings to get to Jerusalem or Nazareth.

From just looking at these five pillars of Islam, on the surface it appears that the major difference between Islam and Christianity is how disciplined and devoted the followers are expected to be. What is truly expected of Christians? They are supposed to get baptized and follow the teachings of Jesus. Love people. Help the poor. Forgive. But overall, we have fairly low standards for each other. We have churches FULL of people that invest about one hour per week in Christianity.

One could argue that the difference is that we have grace. And maybe that's true, I don't know the Islamic teachings on grace.

We do have grace, but over time, we, as Christians, have just become a people of very low expectations of each other. We ask much, but require very little.

I don't know the answer, but I do know that we've become lukewarm as a result.

*Credit to Wikipedia, where I got most of this info. So who knows how much of it is completely accurate.

**I'm also wondering how many people will read this post and think that I've embraced Islam as my new religion. Insha'Allah!

Caffelalia

2007-10-03T12:32:00.000-05:00

Lacking anything original to say, I decided just to steal the blog post of a young sage. We've scraped this subject before, but I love the way she wrote about it.

http://paperbackthoughts.blogspot.com/2007/10/adventures-in-churchland-pentecostal.html

I invited her over to chop us all to bits. This is a rough corner of the blogosphere.

The Vodcast that will knock the Devil's Socks Off!

2007-09-29T16:01:00.000-05:00

I hate to be the bearer of incredible news...but it is now out. The vodcast that changes lives on a daily basis! The vodcast about which
Time magazine writes, "A masterpiece, it should be on display in cultural centers everywhere!" Newsweek, "Vodcasting has now been redefined thanks to the Darin Hansen Show!"
Ladies' Home Journal, "Sexy! 50 ways to say I love the Darin Hansen Show!"
National Enquirer, "Boy turns into a bat thus beginning Armageddon - and the Darin Hansen show is incredible!"
Sesame Street Magazine, "V stands for Vodcast and D stands for Darin, daring and delectable!"

soon to be on ITunes
but right now you can watch by going to my blog and clicking the link
or just click here

mission shaped podcast

2007-09-27T21:34:00.000-05:00

http://www.allelon.org/podcasts/media/ANRJ008.mp3

Got 30 minutes? This is a neat interview with a layman dude who is spearheading a "Missional Movement" in Lincolnshire UK. Remember my hare brained Block Parties idea? Holy cow, wait til you hear this guy about what they are doing over there. This model was made for the burbs. They call it planting "mission shaped churches."

Worship Evangelism: The Ghost of Churches Past?

2007-09-27T13:44:00.000-05:00

http://www.allelon.org/articles/article.cfm?id=402

This is a must read. Powerful, insightful...and pretty long. But if you only read one article this month, make it this one.

Hey, if you find it important, invite your comrades here to hash it over.

2007-09-24T20:05:00.000-05:00

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=280

Opinions of Christianity on the decline among younger generations. Wow, who'd have thought it? 91% negative is a pretty cold slap.

Funny, I believe these numbers are accurate, but I don't believe the picture is clear. I tend to think that young folks are far less inhibited about expressing a negative opinion about Christianity than they once were. I do not take that as hostility.

Should I?

controversies versus unity, my penance

2007-09-20T11:41:00.000-05:00

Yesterday Darin and I were having a discussion of a philosophical, nonbiblical proof for God's existence offered by St Anselm. Unfortunately, we were doing it across the length of a table full of 7 dining companions. It seemed rather silly in that setting, although it was very mentally challenging (and therefore fun.)

Speaking of silly, I can manage to take almost any conversation down that path, most recently forcing the tragic resignation of the beloved Robotface Shumway from Scott's last blog thread. Mea culpa.

As a penance, let me propose a certain reading of Eph 4 that has grabbed me. No, it is not from NT Wright, just li'l ol' me. :-)

We usually think of this passage as being "about ministers." But the whole of Ch 4 is about the unity of the body, and v11 is just one component (and notably, one that does not make the list of "seven unities" in vss 4-6.)

v11: there are these "gift-people" (apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher);
v12: their purpose is to promote works of service for the building up of the body;
v13: the twin-goal of which is UNITY in the faith-knowlege of Jesus;
v13: which equals attaining the fullness of Christ, maturity;
v14: THEN (when in unity) we will be resistant to deception and deceivers;
v15: and, thru increasing love we will be truly in his body;
v16: and the Body will truly work, manifesting the reality of God in the world;
v17-32: therefore, DO unity as follows...(maintain the bond of peace, v3)

Most of my bickering is on this one point: the church is too intent on defending God by enforcing doctrinal rectitude. I think Jesus presents a different picture of evangelism. I do not believe the Bible (nor common experience)teaches us that people come to faith by being logically cornered, nor do they abandon God because someone makes a more compelling argument. This view ignores the work of the Spirit and the witness of love.

Am I just rotten on this, or do I have a worthwhile point?

Oh, and sorry for being a jackass. Conversation just excites me.

Emerging Blog Posts

2007-09-14T15:56:00.001-05:00

No one else seems to be posting, and we can't let this site lie stagnant for that long. Time for me to step up to the plate.

Sadly, I don't have much to say, but the Emerging Church discussion (conversation!) is always a good one. I found some interesting articles here...

http://zealfortruth.org/category/religion/emerging-church/

I haven't read very many yet, but they may be worth a look.

While I find some aspects of the "Emerging Church" interesting, I don't completely identify with them. And that's mostly because 90% of what you read about the Emerging Church really doesn't state any real beliefs, like an actual denomination. They just say they are current! and postmodern! and they engage in conversation! Yeah, okay, that's nice, but what does any of that mean?

I think our society just likes labels too much, honestly. Label something enough, and it becomes institutionalized, just like the very thing that I'm trying to avoid.

Cool Christianity from hell

2007-08-27T17:15:00.000-05:00

Let me set this up by saying how thoroughly I disagree with this crap. I understand these videos are widely shown in churches, no doubt to cheers and derisive laughter. If you've bought into this, I ask you to look again behind the cute veneer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT9ZSnYwhiA

Thanks, Jared Wilson for your post on this subject. Very long, but a brilliant read, and VERY timely for we who fancy ourselves as the great hope of the Church.

http://gospeldrivenchurch.blogspot.com/2007/08/gospel-rant.html

The Tithe Blessing

2007-08-27T09:40:00.001-05:00

The discussion in the post below continues, but it's time to move along to something else. I think we can manage two discussions at once.

"Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it."

The passage from Malachi chapter three is an interesting example of the "Tithe-and-Be-Blessed" mentality, and it's a fascinating one. You can't argue that God is telling his chosen people, "Stop robbing me. Give back to me a full 10% of your crops and food, and I will bless you abundantly."

That's not the only verse in which God tells us that we will be blessed through our giving. And we do hear stories from numerous people about God blessing those who give sacrificially.

Yet, I sometimes hear an argument against this mentality. "That's not what it's about," some say. "It's not about GETTING SOMETHING. It's about giving. You can't just tell people to give because your life will be blessed."

The thing is, I often agree with that critical sentiment. Even though it's fairly Biblical, it seems a bit strange. How is it giving sacrificially if we're going to be so hugely blessed by God as a result?

And, as Biblical as that is, is it true?

I sometimes wonder if there are stories about a family giving a tithe and then not being able to pay the rent. I wonder if there are stories about a person giving sacrificially, but then having the electricity turned off because he couldn't afford the electrical bill.

The simple answer is that we should be good stewards of our money, right? We can live off 90%. And he'll provide.

As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. "I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."

Hmm. Well, okay. We all know that passage. It's about giving sacrificially, of course! But look at it for an extra moment... Do you wonder what happened to the widow after she gave? She's broke! Did she starve? Did she die in obscurity? Did a non-profit charity feed her a meal and give her a cot to sleep on?

Quite honestly, I don't think giving your last dollar to the church would count as being a good steward of your money. I think God would want your family fed first.

Everyone says that giving is a heart-issue. It's about intent, it's about how we feel about it. "If you don't do it joyfully, don't do it at all!", we'll say.

I'm not even sure about that. I'm not very joyful to pay my student loan bills every month. But I do it, because it's required of me. I suppose one could say I'm blessed as a result of the education I received.

Are we to give because we'll be blessed financially? Or just because God requires it?

Once again, I'm full of questions and very few answers.

But hey, isn't that what blog comments are for? Answers?

Eschatologically Focused

2007-08-09T15:30:00.001-05:00

I just like to use the word "eschatology," because it makes me feel smart.

Although I don't think I can really turn it into an adverb by adding that "-ly" at the end, honestly. Plus, it becomes really hard to pronounce.

Anyway... One of the things we've discussed (and made fun of, via "Church Musical") is how overly-focused the modern day church has become on all things "rapture" related.

We talk so much about going to heaven. And NOT going to hell. And getting our friends to go to heaven with us. So they WON'T go to hell. We talk about evangelism in very narrow terms, as in "what steps must one take to get to heaven?" We wait for Jesus to return and take us away from this dreadful place.

Because obviously, this world is not our home, right? We're just passin' on through.

And in all of this, perhaps we miss the big picture.

The Jews of the first century weren't talking nonstop about heaven and hell, and going somewhere far away after they die. And really, Jesus didn't talk a great deal about it. His "kingdom of God" was something much bigger than just a place for the faithful to go after death.

I'll fully admit that a lot of the ideas I've gotten lately are thoughts I've gleaned from NT Wright, Rob Bell, and Joe B (the three wise men). And I still struggle to completely comprehend everything that we talk about when we say "the kingdom of God."

Why? Because my entire life in the church, Christianity has been about telling other people about God so we can all get to heaven. That whole "Romans Road" ideal. Not that evangelism is a bad thing -- far from it -- but perhaps we need to rethink what we are selling.

Jesus' proclamation of "the kingdom of God" was much more than just escaping the fires of hell. The fullness of what it is, though, is hard to explain to people. Because yes, we DO want people to be saved and know Jesus personally.

So... [nudge, nudge] What IS the "kingdom of God"? What was Jesus talking about? We know that the Jews were expecting a political and perhaps military savior, to save them from Roman rule. And we know he didn't give them that -- He gave them something entirely different than what they were expecting.

If that something is not just "heaven," what is it?

Intentional Community

2007-08-02T10:40:00.001-05:00

Here's a link to an article that someone forwarded me about Christian community. Actually, the whole website is for groups that might be considered "Intentional Christian Communites," some of which live together, some of which are just tight-knit groups of people. They've got 65 different groups like this in a number of countries.

Interesting stuff. Here's a small portion of the article:

And one other part I have to highlight:

There's a lot of great stuff in this article.

Church Musical

2007-07-27T12:02:00.001-05:00

Just in case anyone hasn't seen it yet... Presenting "Church Musical," a documentary in four parts. Enjoy.

Excellence in Worship

2007-07-23T12:25:00.001-05:00

A few of us were at a Promise Keepers event last weekend. The worship there, among 9000 other men, was fantastic. I don't know how everyone else felt about it, but it felt like an incredible worship experience where I was able to connect with God in a deep way.

Of course, when I try to explain it in writing, it seems... Trite.

My worship is supposed to be for God, yet I'll admit that I was benefiting from it. It isn't supposed to be just an overwhelming feeling of *emotion*, but let's be honest -- At times like these, it is. It's an emotion-based experience.

I also was thinking about how we often talk about wanting to avoid a worship service that focuses too much on "excellence" and "production." Striving to do well is a good thing, but when having things look and sound perfect becomes more of a goal than worshipping God, then we have a problem. We know this, and it's been discussed many times over, because it is nearly always an issue in large churches.

Yet Promise Keepers is a huge event, and I'll admit that the PK band, the worship leader, and the "production values" were excellent. So how much did this factor into my sense of feeling good about the worship time? How much did it impact my "emotional-connectedness" with God?

I don't know. I'll admit that for all my talk of wanting things to be less production-oriented, I'm a big fan of a high-energy worship event. So it's hard to know where the line is.

One thing that struck me was that at the event, the worship leader mentioned that they had prayed and decided just the previous day to incorporate more worship (singing) and cut some of the speaking time. He said they were calling a few "audibles" during the event as a result of this.

How often do we allow the Holy Spirit to call "audibles" during our worship?

Is it even an option? Is it a bad idea in a large church?

I know that structure isn't a bad thing, but can too much of it become a barrier?

More on Christian Community

2007-07-11T16:58:00.001-05:00

When you stay up talking outside of Starbucks until 2:30 AM on a Monday night, it really sucks away your ability to be awake enough to write anything compelling on a blog the rest of the week.

I'll give it a go anyway.

Many of us are aware that "church" is not just a building or a worship service, but it's a group of people. Christians. Followers of Jesus.

At least that's what we *SAY*. However, a lifetime of preconceived notions about "church" are quite difficult to transform. Regardless of how much I talk about the "community of believers," it is still amazingly hard to back out of my "church" paradigm.

For instance, I think of my small group as just that -- a "small group." It's a subset of my "church." The group of guys that stay up talking late into the night at Starbucks is still, often in my mind, a subset of my "church."

We identify our churches by name. Even if we avoid the term "church" and ask someone, "Where do you go to worship?", we are still wanting to know which specific church they attend -- it's nothing more than semantics.

By putting a name with a church, we generally know a denomination, or at least something about that church's belief structure. I could look up an address, a phone number, a web page. Maybe even find a mission statement or a vision.

The problem with this paradigm is that, while it's handy and efficient when I want to classify and categorize things, it often does very little to foster and create a real Christian community.

You know what? My small group is a church. We're a group of people that care about one another, and we often get together at predetermined times to meet, to eat, to pray, to laugh, to talk, or to study scriptures. At least in our case, there's no real bureaucracy in which we must report our activities up to "the church."

House churches are a fascinating topic. I think it's easy for many of us (me included) to write off some house churches as fringe groups, meeting in somebody's living room, led by some crazy guy who has little to no understanding of the Bible. We look at many of the big churches -- the Church Growth Model megachurches, the House of Hybels and Warren -- and we think, Well, they must be doing something right. Look how many people go there each week!

Many of the megachurches are preaching the gospel, I'm sure. But we cannot look at Sunday morning attendance as a metric of "church success." If 3000 people show up for a Sunday morning service, how many of them are truly experiencing Christian community the rest of the week?

For that matter, how many of them are even experiencing Christian community on Sunday morning?

The idea of some form of communal living continues to intrigue me. Not just for economical and efficiency reasons, but because I believe that in the right context it would be something more. Many of us are looking for something more. Something deeper. Something above and beyond Sunday-morning-centric Christianity.

A way to grow and commune with friends.

A way to grow and know God more deeply.

A way to befriend and reach other people that don't know Jesus.

I look at so many modern churches, and I think, Is this really what God had in mind? I see good things, yes, but I also see so much... fluff. So much stuff. Random ministries that are sucking the life out of volunteers that got pulled into something they had no heart for in the first place. Worship services that require a cast of literally hundreds to produce the show. And then hundreds that attend to watch the show, before leaving with a heart that hasn't been changed in the least.

In the meantime, the Christians that are looking to be fed, the Christians looking for a sense of community, wander about like a boat with no anchor.

They feel at times purposeless and powerless.

Perhaps only within smaller groups, smaller "churches," can we feel that community. That sense of purpose.

Maybe it's just something that you can't foist upon people. Maybe people just have to find it themselves.

Can large churches have true "community"? If so, how do they do it?

Church Relevancy

2007-07-11T15:49:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the double post today, but I found another great article on church relevancy. Its another long one, but again, well worth it.

Read it here.

"A" Worship In A "B" Body

2007-07-11T15:33:00.000-05:00

Found this on the net today. I was amazed (yet again) at how well someone else has captured my thoughts. Parts IV and V are especially golden.

I know its a long read, but I think its worth it. In regards to the church's current view of worship - from the leader's perspective - its a great article.

WHAT is a worship service?

2007-07-02T11:29:00.001-05:00

Joe wrote some very interesting things in his comment on the last post. It deserves some discussion if only because it said some things much more clearly than I did.

He pointed out that a list such as this one comes across as being nit-picky. True. But he also pointed out that it is clear that there is a single problem at the root of it all. The central question, then, is this:

"WHAT is a worship service? Why do we have these things at all -- just what is it we are DOING?If he doesn't mind, I'm going to copy most of his comment here, as it makes for an excellent post.

The central theme here is community. Actually, that's been a central theme within our little "circle of friends" for years now. How can the church get back to being a community? Is it even possible in our 21st century, suburbian lifestyles?

Many of the things within a normal "worship service" are good things. Singing to God, the reading of scripture, preaching and teaching, the rememberance of Christ through communion. So, on the surface, things don't look half bad. But where is the community? How do we do all of this on a personal scale, and not as a mass production?

I love to listen to Darin and Joe talk about these things, but too often we talk in vague and abstract terms. Sure, we are idealists. We may know what we WANT.

But my main question, each time, is HOW. How do we accomplish this? How do we get there?

The Wittenburg Church Door

2007-06-19T14:55:00.002-05:00

Okay, so we've had many discussions on what church should be, and what church seems to be lacking.

We know we want action. In fact, I *feel* a call to action. A call to do something concrete, rather than just the bitching and moaning we've been doing for the past many ~~weeks~~ ~~months~~ years.

Wait, can I say "bitching" on a family-friendly blog?

Too late.

So I think it's time for some specifics. If something is wrong, what is wrong? And if something needs fixed, how can we fix it? What do I *desire* to see out of a church?

I THINK IT'S TIME FOR A LIST.

Bloggers love lists. Martin Luther loved lists. Have you seen High Fidelity? John Cusack. Good flick. His character loved lists.

Let's begin, shall we? This list will be fluid, as these are all up for discussion, debate, and editing. I doubt I'll come up with 95, but it's a start. Please feel free to add your own or argue some of these.

Church is a community of believers, and much of the focus of "church" should be on that community.
Obviously, the focus of a worship "service" should be on God.
The purpose of "church" should NOT be to get people to sit in a pew on a Sunday morning. A church that is too "Sunday morning-centric" is not healthy for the church as a whole or Christians individually, as it fosters institutional thinking within the church and a "once-a-week" mentality within Christians.
A worship service should be careful not to fall into a routine. If it lacks creativity or any discernable change on a week-by-week basis, it becomes problematic (we may need to explore the "why" here some more).
A worship service should be careful not to be performance-based. When it becomes a production, when it becomes all about excellence, then it becomes less about God and the Holy Spirit.
The Gospel of Christ, of love, of His kingdom... All those things should be preached. There is nothing wrong with "seeker-sensitive" worship services, but psychological self-help, chicken-soup-for-the-soul type of sermons are a problem.
The church is smart enough to follow a sermon without needing blanks to fill in.
Giving the Holy Spirit room to maneuver during a worship service means that occasionally, things may not go as planned. We should allow this.
God doesn't care if there is feedback, or if a screen flickers, or if a microphone doesn't work.
Along the lines of #4 and #8, worship services could be drastically different from week to week. That could mean a week of all singing and scripture reading. That could mean a week of drama and prayer. That could mean people coming forward to give testimonies.
Other teachers could be raised up to preach on occasion. These don't even have to be paid staff or elders or someone with a PhD.
A church needs a common vision, something to work towards and bring people together, moreso than just a generic mission statement. (This one is up for debate, as one could argue that the New Testament church did not have a specific "vision" beyond Jesus' call to make disciples of all nations.)
Honesty and vulnerability is tantamount in a church. If the church is in a major financial bind, the congregation needs to be aware of that. If Sunday morning worship services are the main meeting time for the congregation, it is obvious that during a Sunday morning worship service, honest talk of finances is vital.
The "success" of a church is not measured by its weekly worship service attendance in numbers, or by its "growth" in numbers from year to year. If numbers must be used to measure real "growth," then small groups, Sunday School classes, and other specific ministries are probably the best way to quantify.
Along with #13, vulnerability and openness within a church needs to be fostered from the ministry staff. REAL vulnerability and openness, including sin and repentance.

That's only 15, but I don't want to hog all of these. Any thoughts on these 15, or additional ideas?

Noah vs. Moses, round I

2007-06-15T11:05:00.001-05:00

In the absence of deep theological discussion, I'd like to throw out something a bit different...

Go here now. Do it. You'll thank me later.

Rob Bell Interview

2007-06-07T09:23:00.000-05:00

Velvet Elvis guys - this was an interesting interview I thought

Sex and Church

2007-06-06T09:56:00.002-05:00

Well, we've hit on the topics of Men and Church, and then Kids and Church... Why not Sex and Church?

So... here we go.

Sex is shameful.

Masturbation is dirty.

Lust is sinful.

Notice a trend here? Churches really corner the market on telling people to wait until marriage for sex. Sure, I believe that the statistics point out that there is no noticeable difference in churched and unchurched kids having sex, but the fact is that "Sex is Baaaad" is a common theme in American churchianity. Perhaps the only statistical difference is the degree of guilt after-the-fact.

While 90% of the sex talk is centered around abstinence before marriage and faithfulness within marriage, there MIGHT be 10% that mentions, "And oh, yeah, sex is a *good* thing within marriage. God made it, so it's good, and, uh, stuff. But make sure you wait! And make sure you don't look at other women lustfully! Or PORN! That's really bad! And, uh, hey? You women? Dress modestly, because all men (even the Christians!) are pretty much ruled by their johnsons, so it's your responsibility to wear turtlenecks and baggy pants, lest the men be overcome by their lustful ways!"

Or something like that.

Let's face it, the church has conned generations of people into thinking that anything sexual is shameful. You can't just go from hearing these things your whole life, into having a ring on your finger and your mind doing a complete 180.

"Great, I'm married now! Anything goes! No guilt, no shame, no more worries, and no more problems! Everything will be perfect now!"

A great deal of Christian couples DO have premarital sex, and then they deal with the guilt of that for many years within their marriage.

A great deal of Christian couples have sexual struggles within their marriages that are never discussed.

A great deal of Christian women are taught that being nonsexual is virtuous.

A great deal of Christian men are taught that sexual thought and desire is of the devil.

And just out of curiosity, how many here have heard an in-depth sermon from the pulpit on I Corinthians 7:1-5? A show of hands? Anyone?

How many Christian couples are sleeping in separate bedrooms? How many are going months or years without having sex? And how many children are growing up, seeing THAT as their model of Christian marriage?

We know that God made sex and it is something that is good, but I sometimes wonder if premarital counseling at churches should actually be some sort of intensive deprogramming from years of "Thou shall nots." I once heard someone say that regarding all-things sex, God is cast in the role of The Great Frustrator.

It's about time that the church get a lot more candid.

Kids and Church

2007-05-30T13:49:00.001-05:00

Well if no one else is going to post here, I'll just have to do all the hard work myself. Ya bunch of slackers.

The last post was about Men and Church. I was thinking this morning about kids and church.

A couple of months ago, I watched the documentary "Jesus Camp." It had been in my Blockbuster online rental queue for quite some time, because I had heard about it, and I was really curious. The film was nominated for a number of awards, and it stirred up a lot of feelings in people, mostly because it painted a fairly scary portrait of a group of "evangelical Christians" and the ways they brainwash children into become political soldiers of God.

Or something like that. Either way, some of the footage really made me wince.

I even had a short argument on the IMDB message boards about whether the film really documents "evangelicals," or a tiny subset of pentacostals. But that's not really the point here.

My question is this: Within our churches and homes, do we teach our children Bible stories and blind faith, or do we teach them Bible stories and critical thinking skills?

For me, I know that the common thread growing up was that kids would attend church until they were no longer forced to go by their parents. This often happened sometime between the ages of 15-17. By that point, a lot of my friends had stopped going to church, except for two groups:

Those that were Catholic, and going to church was a ritual and tradition, or,
The ones who had a "cool" youth group, where the popular kids and cute girls would hang out.

Other than that, a lot of teenagers weren't going to church. Why not? Did the ones that had been raised in the church not have a solid foundation already built?

In "Jesus Camp," much of the story centers on two kids, ages 9 and 12. And both of them seemed to be totally committed to God, to the point where the 12-year old mulleted boy would get up in front of a room to preach, and the 9-year old girl would happily evangelize strangers on the street because she said the Holy Spirit told her to. The movie is chock full of children speaking in tongues (it's pretty much mandatory), children weeping and shaking with the Holy Spirit, and children praying in front of a life-size cardboard cutout of George W. Bush (go ahead, laugh a little nervous snicker at the last one).

While I admired a 12-year old kid that would have the guts to preach to a room full of other kids, some of the kids -- and most of the parents -- disturbed me just a little.

Obviously, the children in this film are miles apart from most of our own children.

Right?

Right?

I'd like to think that I'm not "brainwashing" my children. I'd like to think that I can teach them and introduce them to Jesus, and that they'll be able to develop a relationship with Him of their own choosing (and His) if and when they desire. I'd like to think that as my kids get older, I will prepare them for the fact that these Bible stories that we read at night aren't taken as fact by many of the people they will encounter later in life.

I'd also like to think that the majority of teaching will be done by me and my wife in our home. But realistically, my kids, although young, are at church a great deal. Multiple times per week, quite often. Sure, right now it's coloring pictures, doing crafts, singing songs, and listening to stories. My kids are young, but when I get home with my 5-year old daughter, she can recite the entire story -- with details! -- that she heard in class about Peter being in prison and an angel coming to let him out.

So the truth is, we entrust a great deal of our children's learning to people at church. And I trust those people, even (for the most part) the ones that I don't know. I don't feel like we are brainwashing our children. We teach them the Truth, we teach them about Jesus' love, and as they get older, they have the free will to accept or reject it.

Yet two things still trouble me. One, if The Church (in the broadest sense) is doing it right, why do so many of those kids reject that truth as they get older? And secondly, do "outsiders" look at what we do as indoctrination? As brainwashing?

While it may not truly matter what those people think, might they have a point?

Men and Church

2007-05-22T09:00:00.001-05:00

Is much of today's "church" geared towards women, and alienating men? Some articles and quotes for discussion...

A few posts from the Church for Men website:

Some of the latest worship songs border on the erotic... When I saw the phrases “moving to the rhythm” and “spread wide” I just about fainted. Lyrics like these leave little doubt: today’s praise music targets love-starved women. (Gals buy about 75% of the praise and worship CDs) I don't know any man who follows Christ for his "intoxicating fragrance."

I'm so used to today's "praise songs" that I barely notice this anymore. But in contemporary praise music, the tone of Christ as our "lover" rather than our "leader" is pretty obvious when you compare it to the masculine hymns of old. (And yes, I just made myself sound like an old fuddy-duddy... I actually generally prefer newer upbeat praise songs to old hymns, but I understand the point of the author.)

Also see the great article, "Why Men Flock to Islam."

Islam’s unbending moral code, its five strict pillars and even its reputation for ferocity are attractive to men at a gut level. A man thinks, “Here is a faith that’s going to hold me to a higher standard. Men are dying for this.” Furthermore, Islam appeals to the kind of man who is repulsed by the soft, accepting and relational faith pushed in many churches today.

If you don't have time to read the article, the author talks a bit about how our churches might be able to "deliver" for men without oppressing women in the process. And some might find number one interesting:

1. A clear mission for every church. Most church mission statements are rambling and non-specific. Men are drawn to clarity and brevity. If they’re going to give up their weekend, they want to know why.

There is a serious gender gap in our churches... The statistics show that churches are comprised of 61% women and 39% men. And a lot of the men that DO attend, do so because their wives tell them to. They are unaffected.

Jesus was a magnet to men. What is it about modern ~~churchianity~~ Christianity that is driving men away?

The Epicurean Paradox

2007-05-15T15:56:00.001-05:00

Continuing last night's discussion of the problem of evil (which has been continuing for the last few thousand years, I suppose)...

The Wikipedia article on the subject is an interesting read.

I'm actually only about halfway through digesting the article, but hopefully I'll have time tomomrrow to finish it up.

Were there any deep thoughts on the subject last night after I left?