AfterChurch

A Yankee Fan

2012-02-26T09:12:00.003-08:00

It's hard to understand why a person is a sports fan. I mean to get at the roots of it. It's not easy to be a fan today given the insanely high salaries (Melo Anthony gets $18 million a year while the Knicks newest star Jeremy Lin "only" makes 500K), and the steroids use which makes records meaningless, and the mercenary impact of free agency ( Pujols in an Angels uniform? Come on!). My wife has not a clue why or what a baseball fan is. How can a grown man sit in front of a Mariners game day after day, even with a DVR. How can any sane person watch a Mariners game when they are so bad year in and year out.

But my story is more about the Yankees. I am a fan of the Yankees. The Mariners are a distraction until I move back to NY - and without Root sports on the local cable lineup this summer my love for the Mariners will be seen for what it was - just baseball lust.

I am not sure how I came by my passion for the Yankees. I did live in NY. My parents though were not sports fans. My dad played basketball in high school. He was 6 feet 4, tall and wiry. But he grew up on a farm during the depression so he did not make every game.There were chores and he lived four miles from the school with no transportation other than his legs. He told me once his parents never saw him play once. When I was growing up my dad watched the Dallas Cowboys on Sunday but I don't ever remember him watching baseball. Of course, there weren't many games on tv then. I played baseball with a passion. Every day in the summer there were pick up games at a local ball field. My dad coached my Little League teams and he even got a bunch of dads together and built a sandlot ball field in a vacant lot behind our house. That was cool. So, how did I became a Yankee's fan. I can't put my finger on the genesis of that passion. In my mind I was Mickey Mantle every time I came up to bat. I treasured my Yankee baseball cards. For a couple years I had a strat-o-matic league with a buddy of mine and we played 162 games with about 5 teams (that was all we could handle: it was so time consuming!) keeping meticulous stats. My Yankees lost in that league, too. They were not too good when I was growing up. Mabye that was when I developed a love for the underdog. Hard to believe now that the Yankees were every underdogs. But, their history does include those pre-Steinbrenner years.

My mother had no use for sports. She grew up in a large family and they all had outside jobs just to make ends meet. She never had much interest in my sports pursuits and she never missed a chance to mock my sports hero, Mickey Mantle. "Old rickety legs", she called him. When he was ministered to by Bobby Richardson on his death bed after a life of self indulgence and accepted Christ as his savior, she never believed it. You don't get to live life in the fast lane and then get God too in the last minutes of your life, she said. He should have done it sooner if he was really serious.

So my Yankee passion was not born at home. There was no tv. I had a transistor radio so I could listen to some of the games. Many of them were played while I was in school though. While I lived in upstate NY I never went to Yankee stadium until I visited it with one of our sons who was in his school's marching band and then I even got to walk out on the outfield grass - right where Mantle ran on his old rickety legs. It was a thrill. I couldn't sleep the night before (or was that because I was chaperoning a bunch of middle school kids).

So I don't know where that Yankee spirit came from. But I do know I grieve the loss of Posada, and can't bear to think of Mariano retiring in one more year. I hope Jeter bounces back after a slow start last year. But win or lose, baseball's back.

Public Education

2012-02-23T11:36:00.000-08:00

My wife is a teacher. She always wanted to be a teacher. It was a good and decent profession to which to aspire. One could help young people learn and perhaps inspire them to do good work. She loves her students. Many of them speak English as their second language and are new to the United States. They are eager to learn to read in their new language and discover all they can about this new place. Many of their parents work two jobs or more and live in large extended families. They are very committed to their children's education. My wife's school is filled with committed teachers who love the students they teach. They love their jobs. It is a wonderful place to visit because of the exceptional school spirit. Test scores which are the important evaluators today are rising. My wife is a reading specialist and she routinely passes her students on as they become proficient according to their test scores. It's a great achievement for these students.

I know there are some teachers who are not doing their best work but I don't know very many. By far most of the teachers I know are teachers who I would be very happy to send my children or grandchildren to.

The climate of public education has changed over the past ten years. Since No Child Left Behind the assumption is that we are leaving too many children behind and the teachers are to blame. So the solution seems to be more teacher evaluation and the way to do this is by assessing a teacher's performance based on how his or her students do on their proficiency tests. While this simple idea sounds good it is inadequate. Teachers do not deal with a classroom of children who come to school equally prepared to learn. There are problems at home to deal with. There are learning problems. There are language problems. There are lots of problems that teachers deal with in order to help their students learn.

The politicians need a scapegoat. They are making budgets that commit a lot of money to public education. People pay taxes to fund these budgets and they demand accountability. Here in Alaska our governor has stated he does not favor any more education increases because it's the "ultimate giveaway". Money spent with no accountability, with no means of knowing if it is getting the job done. Thus, the teachers are left feeling unsupported and having to do more with less every year. They do it, too. They love their students and are committed to helping them learn.

Our governor or anyone else who questions what our public education is doing for the money that is spent only needs to spend a day in my wife's classroom, or in any of the classrooms in our community. It would be time well spent.

The Way

2012-02-23T11:00:00.000-08:00

I watched The Way on Ash Wednesday. It was a good day to watch it as Lent begins. Lent is a journey to Easter that involves a greater awareness of our sins, and confession of our need for forgiveness, and the importance of the Community of Christ. The Way included all those themes. The Way is El Camino de Santiago or the Way of St James. It is a 500 mile trek through Spain that ends up at the Church of St James - the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela - locacted in Galicia in northwest Spain. It is said to the be the place where the bones of the apostle James are buried. The Way is a well worn trek used by pilgrims for thousands of years. Many people walk the Camino every year - for all sorts of reasons, religious and other. In the movie, The Way, Martin Sheen plays a doctor whose wife has died and their one son has dropped out of a doctoral program in anthropology so he can travel to some of the places he has studied about. His father is not in favor of his decision and tells him not many 40 year olds can afford to drop out and travel all over Europe. His son wants his dad to take off with him for awhile. His dad tells him he is more responsible than that and he is fine with the life he has chosen. His son replies, you don't choose a life, you live it. And those are about the last words the father hears his son say. One day on a golf course he gets a call from a French police officer who tells him his son has died walking the Camino de Santiago. His father has never heard of it. So, he goes to France to pick up his son's body. While there, on impulse, he gathers up his son's gear and decides to cremate his son and take his ashes with him on the trek scattering them along the way. Along the way, he meets fellow travelers, all of whom are carrying their own burdens. Sheen's character, Tom, is aloof and distant not wanting to share the reason for his journey. Still, he ends up walking with a threesome of characters who alternately try to draw him in to their lives and leave him behind in frustration because of his indifference.

On the walk which takes several months things happen just like in life. There are mishaps and wrong turns and dead ends and people out to take advantage of the travelers. Together, they face all these things. Together, they begin to share their lives, their sins, their mistakes. Together, they learn to trust and forgive each other and themselves. Tom is a different person at the end of the walk.

The Way is a metaphor for life but also for the church. Sometimes it seems the church can be a place where people are the least honest and transparent. We get ready to go to church and put on our best face as if we are going to meet saints not sinners. It's impossible to be at your best on the Camino trek as you stay in large dorm rooms, and go days without showers, and have to use a pit toilet outside. People get to know you at your worst. There is no place to hide your irritability, or moodiness - or what personal demons you are fighting. And because of that real community can happen - it does not have to but it can - and when it does as it does in the film - it is a powerful thing. Especially when it is centered on Christ - in a real way - pay attention to the scene at the end of the film when the characters reach the Cathedral of St James.

See you on the Way.

No Super Bowl This Year

2012-02-03T11:37:00.000-08:00

Sunday is Super Bowl Sunday (is there anyone - in America anyway - who does not know this?). I'm not real good at Roman Numerals so I'm not sure which one this is. But, I do remember Roman Numeral 1. I am that old. I guess I have watched every one of them. Except the one I missed most of when I suddenly came down with the flu. We were at a super bowl party at my bosses house at the time and I threw up most of her specialty snacks. We immediately left the party. My wife had not learned how to drive our manual shift Toyota yet but she learned quickly because I had to hang my head out the passenger door most of the way home. DVRs were not invented yet so I missed the game. I have not missed many others. Although, I have left before some of the games that were real dogs were over and went out for a walk. I have been to many parties and I have watched some with our sons and I have watched some by myself. My wife does not watch the super bowl. She does not know a touchdown from a home run. She does not even watch the game for the ads which is good because that is a lame reason to watch a football game. But, this year I don't plan to watch the super bowl. Someone asked me at the gym I go to if I was going to watch it and I said No, surprising myself. They guffawed. No one who knew me believed I was serious. I didn't know if I was or not either. But, now after a few days to think it over, I realize I am serious. I'm not sure why I am not going to watch it. I don't know why I have to justify it. I have watched a lot of Roman Numerals so I guess I can take this year off. I don't really like either team all that much and they just played each other a few Roman Numerals back with pretty much the same players and coaches. Tom Brady has had a couple bad playoff games (for him) and the Giants were about the worst team in football at mid season. (If some new team like the 49ers or Ravens were playing or if Tebow was then I might be more interested, I don't know). I am sick of the hype for the past two weeks although I have tried to avoid reading anything about the game. It's still hard to avoid all the chatter and headlines on MSN like Madonna does the Victor Cruz salsa dance or that the huge tight end for the Patriots has big hands - is it newsworthy that really big men who catch passes for a living have big hands. Really. That's another reason not to watch it though - Madonna is the halftime show. Then there are the ads. If you don't like the game, at least watch it to see the ads and then after the game rate the ads, some people say. The ads are designed to get us to buy stuff we don't need so why watch them. They cost millions for a super bowl spot. So, that's a lot of stuff they think we are going to buy. Then, there is the food. I don't need to eat any more snack food for the rest of my life. I have sworn off Doritos, and dips and chicken wings. They are not good for me. Even diet coke is not good for me so I have sworn off that too. So, if there is a change in the weather here that lets me get out and walk. I will do that this year. Maybe with my wife who I know won't be glued to the tv.

A Really Good Book on Christian Marriage

2012-02-03T11:05:00.000-08:00

Follow up post to the last one: there is a very good new book on marriage titled Are You Waiting for the One? And subtitled: Cultivating Realistic Positive Expectations for Christian Marriage. It's written by Margaret Kim Peterson and her husband Dwight N. Peterson, both teach at Eastern College in Pennsylvania. They are not celebrity teachers or pastors. The book is not all about sex although chapter six is about sex. The authors are not marketing the book from a bed atop the college administration building. There are no titillating confessions from their past failed sexual experiences. It is simply a very good and wise book about relationships, love, and marriage. It debunks cultural myths about the same and offers good guidance about how to think about these things today. If I were to put one book in the hands of a young couple considering marriage (or not), or recently married (or living together) or any person/couple needing a good book on Christian marriage today, this is the One I would recommend.

Celebrity Pastors Write Sex Books

2012-01-12T15:20:00.000-08:00

Believe it or not, the pastor of one of the largest churches in Texas is going to go to bed with his wife on the roof of his church. Tomorrow, Friday January 13. It will be streamed live on the internet. It will be interactive, although they will not be interacting, sexually, anyway, we are told. People can call in their sex questions. This church top experience is coordinated with the release of Pastor Young and his wife's new book, Sexperiment, in which they counsel a week of sex to solve your marriage related problems. This is the second sex book by a Christian celebrity pastor I heard about this week. The other book is by Pastor Driscoll of the Seattle megachurch empire Mars Hill. His book, simply called, Real Marriage, promises to answer everyone's sex questions, frankly and openly. Much of the book is about Pastor Driscoll and his struggles with sex and marriage - and his wife's too, since she confessed to an infidelity that happened before they were married but Pastor Mark found out after they were married and says in the book that had he known about this infidelity before they were married he would never have married her. I have not read either book and I am relying on reviews in Christianity Today, Huffington Post, and the Seattle Times. I have read the reviews on Amazon as well. I don't intend to read either book. What I find interesting is that celebrity pastors with huge churches find it so interesting, and profitable. Pastor Young who makes more than a million a year in salary saw his latest sex book rise to the top of Amazon when his bed-in was announced in the press. Which was a nice coincidence. I may be a bit cynical. Susan Wise Bauer in her CT review said there is not much new in Driscoll's book about marriage except, of course, all the material on Driscoll. She wrote that much of the wisdom gained from his book could be gained from talking to any couple in one's church who had been happily married for a long time. That is, marriage is built on friendship, communication, and intimacy. Sex is part of marriage too, but I have always believed most people don't need a manual to figure that out. Sex is a topic that we never get tired of. Witness the novels and films that come out every day with plenty of sex in the stories. Sex abuse, sex trafficking, sex education for youth - are all important topics for the church to address. So is poverty, the world wide AIDS crisis, and other social issues. Sex is a hot topic and sex sells. No doubt Pastors Driscoll and Young will sell many more sex books than if they had written ones on theology or prayer or a study of the gospels. That is not their fault entirely. They are giving people what people want to read. But, I wonder about the message that is being sent. That somehow we have a right to sexual satisfaction in marriage and that if we don't have that then there is something wrong with our marriage. In the culture of the Bible years marriages were mostly arranged. Sex was a minor theme in the marriage plot. People figured it out. Kids were born. Families started. They served God together. It's hard to imagine Moses or Paul writing a sex book. Unfortunately, the evangelical church mirrors culture, takes its cues from culture instead of the other way around. As Pastor Young said: "culture has kicked the bed out of the church and God out of the bed; it's time to put God back in the bed, and the bed back in the church" Hard to imagine Paul saying that, either.

Times of Our Lives

2011-12-30T16:15:00.000-08:00

I watched two movies this week between Christmas and New Year's Day. Both had to do with time, appropriately. The first was a Woody Allen film called Midnight in Paris. It's about a Hollywood screen writer who wants to write a novel. He does not feel satisfied with his current writing jobs and his fiance and her parents do not appreciate the work he does. He loves Paris and he and fiance tag along with her rich parents when her father has business to transact there. The Paris he is love with is the Paris of the 1920's full of famous writers and painters. If only he had lived then, he would have been a serious writer. Still, he believes just being in Paris will stimulate his writing juices. His future wife wants to shop and sight see and they run into one of her former professors and his wife. He is an arrogant know it all who impresses Gil's (the screenwriter played by Owen Wilson) fiance with his erudition. Gil is bored and turns to walking the streets of Paris. Paris is beautifully filmed and Gil is in love with it. Around midnight the first night of his walks and after a few drinks he gets lost on his way back to the hotel and sits on the front steps of a building. An old looking car with driver approaches and a man in the back waves for him to join a party going on in the car. Once there he realizes it is F. Scott Fitzgerald and Zoe and a series of magical midnight excursions into the 1920's begins where he meets many famous authors and artists. He has the time of his life. He meets someone there in the 20's who is a kindred spirit and he falls for her. But, she feels she belongs truly to an earlier era and leaves him for that time. He realizes that he can't live in the past, only learn from it, and when he accepts that he can be his best writing self where he is right now.

The second movie was based in modern Kenya. The Kenyan government has declared everyone has a right to free public education. Schools begin to form all over the country. Out in the bush children crowd into a small building to attend first grade. There are two earnest teachers and many enthusiastic children ready to learn. Then, an old man comes to the gate of the school compound. He is 84 years old and he wants to come to school. After all, the government said education was free for all. He is told he is too old and it will be too disruptive for him to join the school. They don't even have enough resources for the children. He says he wants to learn to read. When he was young the British would not let Africans go to school. Then, he became one of the Mau Mau who fought the British for independence. He was in a prison camp for ten years. He was tortured and he saw his family killed by the British. He will not be denied a chance to learn to read now. Many people did not want to hear his story and relive the pain of the war years. They wanted to move on, to leave the past in the past. But he knew we have to learn from the past not ignore it or deny it. The present can only be made better through the past.

Then, I read a book. It was written by Tony Judt. Judt is a world class historian and a book in European history since 1945 was a New York Times book of the year in 2005. Then Tony found out he had ALS or Lou Gehrig's disease which eventually left him paralyzed. That's when he wrote his last book, The Memory Chalet. For Tony, with ALS, time is a burden, a heavy weight. In one of the essays in the book called, Night, he writes about the long seven hours in bed unable to move and waiting for the morning to come. He has the time just like you and I do but he can do nothing with it. All he has are his memories of the past. He is like someone in solitary confinement trying to stay alive within himself. He says, " there is no saving grace in being confined to an iron suit, cold and unforgiving. The pleasures of mental agility are much overstated, by those not exclusively dependent on them... Loss is loss, and nothing is gained by calling it by a nicer name. My nights are intriguing; but I could do without them."

I am preaching on New Years Day and so I have been thinking about time. I have written several sermon drafts. I thought it would be an easy week to write a sermon. It has not been. Someone suggested spending the hour of worship on Sunday in prayer and singing. I have considered it. But, I have come up with a word to say. Probably, too many words. Time is an important commodity. We all share it. Or we waste it, or kill it, and then we wish we had more of it, for it flies.

Eugene Peterson says that the Teacher in Ecclesiastes (he calls him the Quester) is necessary reading for Christians today because we have the propensity to go off on our own - trying to be human by our own devices, and desires. Ecclesiastes, he says, sweeps our souls clean of all "lifestyle" spiritualities so that we can be ready for God's visitation revealed in Jesus Christ. Ecclesiastes is a cleansing read, it is repentance, a purging; we read it to get scrubbed clean from illusion and sentiment, from ideas that are idolatrous and feelings that cloy. It is an expose and rejection of every arrogant and ignorant expectation that we can live our lives by ourselves on our own terms. Peterson says.

People will be thinking of all sorts of things New Year's Day. Some will be making plans to change old habits in the new year. Some will be making new resolutions. Some will be reliving the past, some will be focussed on the future. Some will be barely thinking at all after a night of revelry. But, for those of us in Church this Sunday a meditation on time may be a good use of it.

God is Red

2011-12-16T09:34:00.000-08:00

I just finished God is Red, the story of Christianity in China. I could not put it down. What makes it so compelling is that it is a series of interviews by the author with Christians, many of them old enough to have lived through the wars and Chairman Mao's reforms. It is not a history but more like a book of snapshots about Christianity in China over the past century. China is so large that a book like this can cover only a portion of the whole country. This book's main setting is in the rural South of the country. Most of the people are poor villagers. Yet, the revolutions and reforms that shook China over the past 100 years impacted every day of their lives.

The author is Liao Yiwu, a writer and an outspoken critic of the current Chinese regime. A poem he wrote about the government crackdown at Tiananmen Square landed him in prison for four years. His works, including a book called The Corpse Walker: real life stories; China from the bottom up (2008), are banned in China. Yiwu claims to be an unbeliever but his work brought him into contact with a Chinese Christian, a doctor who was active in the Chinese underground church movement. This doctor had given up a highly prized position in big city medical practice in order to do missionary work in the mountainous regions of southwestern China. Yiwu had never known a Chinese Christian. Like many of his fellow Chinese he had only been exposed to government propaganda - Christianity was a religion of the Imperialists and a "spiritual opium" of the people. There is a sense that Yiwu was going through a rough patch in his own life and was intrigued by the Christians and the message of the gospel but this book is not about him and his search for truth. Traveling with some of the Christians he meets he is afforded access to a number of vibrant Christian communities and this is the power of the book. The World Christian Database estimates there are 70 million Christians in China today. When the Communists came to power in 1949 all the western missionaries were expelled from the country. At that time estimates are that there were only 700,000 Christians. China has been such a closed society that little was known about this growth and the nature of the church in China today. It has been a closely guarded secret.

I remember reading mission stories about Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission which began it's work in the 19th century. Taylor was a pioneer missionary who did not dress western and try to make the people like western Christians. He was criticized at the time for adopting the local culture and trying to assimilate Christianity to the local cultural practices when he could. It is an inspiring story and it was a long tough slog to make even one new convert for Christ. Yet the missionaries from China Inland Mission hung in there until they were expelled and in many of Yiwu's interviews of the older Christians the impact of the "seed planting" by the early missionaries is evident.

It is the story of the endurance of the Christians through all the years of persecution and suffering that is the real story here. No one knows for sure but the government put to death many many thousands of Christians because they would not renounce their faith, or acknowledge that their highest allegiance was to the Communist Party rather than God. Many Christian leaders spent the better part of their lives in prison or in forced labor camps. Even if they were spared prison their lives were greatly restricted and very poor. Yet, the church grew. One is reminded of the early Christian leader, Tertullian, in his defense of Christianity, writing that "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." Thus, it seems so in China, as well.

After Mao died, the government tried to deal with their "Christian problem" by registering churches with the government. There is 'freedom of religion" today as long as the churches come under the sponsorship of the Communist Party. The Party is the official head of the church in China. This is an untenable arrangement for many Christians. Their primary loyalty is to Christ not the Party. So, they are seen as unpatriotic and they are watched closely and continue to suffer persecution. Yet, it is the underground or house church movement that is growing.

Another story line that is not developed is the growth of the church in the cities. There is a rabid hunger for all things western in modern China as the wealth of the people grows. Christianity is seen by some as the religion of the west so it is desirable as are all the trappings of western culture. The younger affluent Chinese do not seem to be as discriminating about whether they go to a registered church or an underground one. It is the western experience they are after.

There are many conflicts and controversies in Chinese Christianity today and this book only offers a glimpse of some of those. One is left wondering though whether the greatest struggles in the history of Christianity in China are still to come as China continues to modernize and it's western - like affluence grows.

Tebow, again

2011-12-13T14:40:00.000-08:00

I was watching the pregame chatter before the Monday Night Football game. It was Boomer and Key, CC, Coach and TJ -the ESPN lineup of former players who comment on the games. I thought I was at a revival meeting. They were all believers - in Tebow. Tebow the football phenom who has led his team, the Denver Broncos, to a 7-1 mark since he took over as quarterback. He has turned the ESPN commentators from agnostics to believers in that same time, too. It seems he has converted most of his critics into his fans. Those who were saying he had no chance of making it as an NFL QB are now singing his praises. This past weekend when Denver was down by ten points in the last minutes of the game there seemed no chance Tebow could pull this one out. Even after he drove his team down to the Bears goal line and then threw a touchdown pass into the end zone, there still seemed like he had no chance to win it. Chicago had the ball with under a minute left! All they had to do was run the game clock down to zero and they had it won. But then the improbable happened. Their veteran running back ran out of bounds stopping the clock. With 46 seconds left which in the NFL is a lot of time. Tebow took over. A couple plays later Denver was around midfield - 50 some yards away. They sent their field goal kicker out - a guy named Praeter (no kidding pronounced like Pray to) and he nailed a 59 yard field goal forcing overtime. Then in overtime the same Bear running back who ran out of bounds fumbles! And the same field goal kicker kicks a 51 yard field goal! Tebow wins again! Actually, Denver got the credit for the win. But the way Denver won had people saying things like it was miraculous. And Tebow's fame grew in stature with FOX Sports and ESPN, and others.

While the sports commentators are tripping over their tongues saying Tebow's miraculous run has a lot to do with his fervent faith (not just faith but fervent faith), at the same time, they want to say his faith is not the reason for his winning streak. What is the reason? Well, it's his leadership, his skill set, his belief in himself and .... his fervent faith. While Tebow does not downplay the importance of his faith, he is clear that God is not picking winners and that football is a team game so it is a team effort not just one player. Yet, others are not so sure. Even his own pastor was quoted as saying this week that Tebow is enjoying the special favor of God rewarding him for fervent faith.

Tebow is a good football player, maybe a great one even. He has only played 11 professional games so he has a tiny body of work,as they say, to make a judgment. But, he was a winner everywhere else he has played. Florida won a lot of games while he was their QB and he won the Heisman as the best college player in the land. So he knows how to win football games. He has won lots in a row before. He has always been a team player. There have been other great athletes who were Christians with a fervent faith. Reggie White, Kurt Warner (a pretty fair QB in his day) to name two. Bobby Richardson was an outspoken Christian player with the baseball Yankees in the Mantle era. All these players enjoyed great success. They played on great teams. They also knew great failure on the field, too. They didn't win every game. They had losing streaks. They made mistakes and had bad days on the field. Tebow will too. He is on a great run now. It will come to an end (perhaps this week when they play Tom Brady and the Patriots) sometime. He will lose some, too. He may be the reason for the loss. He will hear his critics loud and clear again. Faith does not depend on wins and losses.

Some Good Reading in 2011

2011-12-02T09:47:00.000-08:00

Right now I have on my reading stack a book by N. T. Wright called Simply Jesus and one by Edward Oakes entitled, remarkably, Infinity Dwindled to Infancy - subtitled A Catholic and Evangelical Christology. I am reading them together and thinking about a Sunday School class in 2012. Both are very good so far.... Also my daughter in law, Jess, was raving about The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks and when she raves I take notice and it will be on my best books of 2011 list when I am finished! But what kind of a reading year has 2011 been up to now? Interestingly, of all the books I read this year, about 1/3 of them were on my kindle! I still have a love-hate relationship with the thing. I love the convenience of it, and Marcia loves the fact there are fewer stacks of books around the house, but I hate what it's doing to the book stores around the country. There's nothing better than a day spent at a great bookstore like Powell's in Portland (although my wife would never let me stay that long - it is big enough to get lost in for quite a while though!). Our local bookstore is going out of business and the owner sited Amazon and Kindle as two of the main reasons. It causes me great pain knowing how I am contributing to the demise of the local bookstores I love. Not enough pain, apparently, to keep me from buying on Amazon and reading on my kindle! So here are some of my favorites this past year:

If you ever wondered how deep the riches of Bible reading are, read Deep Exegesis by Peter Leithart. An amazing book about learning or relearning how to read Scripture.

In the Bible field, too, I read a new commentary on Jonah by Philip Cary which led to many new insights on this overlooked but significant Old Testament prophet.

Eugene Peterson's memoir, entitled simply Pastor, was a personal choice for book of the year. I love Peterson and have read everything he has written. As I have said before, I would not (still) be a pastor today without Peterson. I never would have made it. Loved this book.

In history, I read in some big chunks. After reading Uncle Tom's Cabin for the first time I wanted to know more about the fascinating family of Harriet Beecher Stowe so I read a new history of the family and the book by David Reynolds called Mightier Than the Sword and new biography of Harriet's brother, Henry Beecher Stowe called The Most Famous Man in America by Debby Applegate. Henry Stowe was one of the first mega church pastors leading a church in NYC. He was also one of the first whose fame proved to be his undoing.

I discovered Tony Horowitz who I would call a popular historian. He is not an academically trained historian but he researches his subjects by getting out there and experiencing his subjects firsthand and writing about why the history matters today. In Confederates in the Attic he joins up with some civil war reenactors to tell how the civil is still being fought today. In A Voyage Long and Strange and Blue Latitudes he traces the routes of the early European explorers to discover how their "discoveries" are still impacting the "new world" today.

I find anything Adam Hochschild writes to be worth reading. This year I read his story of the very unpopular anti-war movement during World War 1.

In fiction, I liked Ann Patchett's State of Wonder, and John Irving's Last Night at Twisted Creek.

Carlos Eire was one of 14,000 children airlifted out of Cuba in 1962. He was 11 years old. The first volume of his memoir tells the story about how life in Cuba changed when Castro took over and his second volume tells the amazing story of his journey toward a new life in America as a refugee. He was on his own! His parents who he thought would be following him to America never did (his father never did, his mother did years later). The books are: Waiting for Snow in Havana and Waiting to Die in Miami.

Always up for a good theological conversation, I liked Rob Bell's Love Wins although admitting that fact can get you tossed out of the Evangelical Church. Bell's writing is engaging and provocative. He likes to stir things up and pick fights but that is not all he is doing. He is asking the questions our culture is asking of the Church today. The witness of the Church is in real trouble. It is perceived as isolationist, intolerant, and anti just about everything. How will we have a witness if no one is listening or cares anymore what the Church is saying. We may have quarrels with the answers Bell comes up with but we have to deal with the questions if our witness is going to be credible today. It is amazing how much fear and anxiety within the Evangelical Church his book prompted. Seems we would rather excommunicate the messenger than listen to the message - which was, hey, real people are wondering about this stuff - how are we going to deal with it?

The witness of the Church needs to make a difference in society. Daniel Walker in God in a Brothel raises the issue of sex trafficking and how the Church can make a difference there. Bob Lupton who has ministered among the poor in Atlanta has written a very wise book about how the Church can help people and not harm them with their charity and good works. Good book to read for any Christians who want to "serve" others. It's called Toxic Charity.

Steve Jobs had more of an impact on us than maybe anyone else in the past 50 years. Everyone, it seems, carries around some device Jobs had a hand in creating. Some of us can hardly be without his inventions. They are shaping our lives: how we work and how we play. At a recent holiday gathering everyone was ipodding, or iphoning, or ipadding at various times. Out of town family members were present on the screen of the imac pro. Our grandchildren are more literate in the use of "I" devices than anything else. It's the brave new world of Steve Jobs. He was a brilliant, innovator whose passion for technology found a hunger in the marketplace for the same. In fact, his genius was to know what we wanted before we knew what we wanted and then make us want it. His biography, Steve Jobs, by Walter Isaacson is important for many reasons. Not only for the impact Jobs has on our lives but for the impact technology has on our lives. Jobs was famously relationally challenged. He had a hard time relating to anyone. His book is an attempt to let his children know who he was. He was a rude, insensitive and obnoxious boss. He had few friends and he was not known for loyalty to them. He had no faith other than in himself. His book tells the story of a life that was phenomenally successful in the business world and tragically unsuccessful in the relational world of family, friends and faith. It is a story of our times. There really is a disconnect between technology and people, things and relationships. We all deal with it every day. We all have to make choices. There is only so much time in every day. What do we want to be good at? What will last? What really matters? We need to keep asking ourselves those questions in an increasingly "I" world.

Steve Jobs

2011-11-04T09:52:00.001-07:00

Nearing the end of his life Steve Jobs reflected on his death with his biographer, Walter Isaacson. He said, I'm about fifty - fifty believing in God. For most of my life I've felt there must be more to our existence than meets the eye." He admitted that since he was near death he might be hedging his bets a bit hoping for some kind of afterlife. He wanted to believe something survives death. "It's strange to think you accumulate all this experience, and maybe a little wisdom, and it just goes away .... but on the other hand, he said, maybe its like an on -off switch and click you are gone." "Maybe that's why I never liked to put on - off switches on Apple devices."

There is no doubt Jobs was a genius and that he influenced our culture more than any other person in the past 50 years. His inventive genius will put him right up there with Ford and Edison. Just look around the next time you are in a group of people and observe how many are holding a product that came from the fertile mind of Steve Jobs. Some might say he didn't really invent anything, he just made some things better. Some might say that he didn't really produce anything people cannot live without. Both statements are true. Yet, he made things people want. He made technology cool for the common person. His products are not for the techno geeks - you cannot get inside an Apple product to take it apart and see how it works. You can't attach all kinds of other devices to it to make it do what you want to do. It does what Steve Jobs wanted it to do because he had an uncanny sense of what you and I wanted it to do. He made a lot of money making things and then showing us how much we wanted them before we knew we wanted them. His genius was partly in that. And partly in knowing how to make technology cool and wanted. He controlled the whole process from creating the idea to designing the product to engineering it to marketing it. What you hold in your hand is exactly the way he wanted it. It is what he wanted. And he made all these products interconnected. The i devices plug into the i computers and sync with itunes where you just purchased the latest media to play or view. He controls the whole experience.

Isaacson explores where this obsession to control came from. Jobs was a controlling CEO who rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. He controlled his diet, his homes and furnishings, his cars, his family - he even took control of his cancer treatment protocols. Isaacson locates this need to control in the fact that Jobs was abandoned by his father. Jobs was never reconciled with his father although he knew who he was. He never forgave him. He never got over it. In a sense, he was never going to leave anything else in his life up to chance. It's odd that he was a risk taker in the steps he took with so many of his products and management decisions. But, he didn't really leave them up to chance. He was involved every step of the way and he had great confidence he could do what he set his mind to. And he could make you do what he set his mind to make you do (after all look at the devices you own). He famously made his employees and "A" teams do much more than they thought they could. In one story, he told the CEO of Corning who ended up making the glass for the iphone that he could meet the specs Jobs wanted in six months time. The Corning CEO told him is was impossible; they didn't even have a plant producing that glass at the time. Jobs told him to get his mind around it and get it done. He did.

Jobs did not make many friends. Or, he lost as many as he made after Jobs alienated them. He didn't seem to care. He didn't need people. He had many admirers but few could get or stay close to him. He was alienated from a daughter he had from a previous relationship and he even abandoned her for many years denying he had any responsibility for her. Later on he was married for 20 years and had three children but he was away from home and their lives a lot. There was a distance between them and their father. One of the reasons he gave his biographer for this book he wanted him to write was so that his children could get to know him because he had not been there for them while he was alive.

There were very few people Jobs trusted. It is hard to think of more than a couple after reading this biography. He surrounded himself with bright people but he was the smartest guy in the room. From very early on he was labeled special and that's the way he saw himself his whole life.

It must have been a kind of shock not to be able to control your own death. He was working on new Apple products right up until the days he was too weak and in so much pain he could not. His spiritual guides were Buddhist principles. It was again about control. He controlled his body through diet and fasting. He didn't smoke or drink (although he credited his use of drugs in earlier days with his bursts of creativity). He had ascetic tendencies to discipline the body in order to nurture the spirit. But, dying is a letting go. No one is in control. Jobs had thought about reincarnation and perhaps he hoped his hopes and dreams would be recycled that way. That's a kind of control, too. But as I read his life there was no mention of faith. Not faith in others and no faith in God. Only a kind of faith in himself.

In his 2005 commencement address at Stanford which was after his cancer diagnosis he spoke frankly about death. He said thinking about death was a clarifying experience - it helped him know what was truly important to spend time on. He challenged the Stanford grads to remember their time is limited so they would not waste it living someone else's life. Then he warned them not to be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people's thinking. In essence, he was saying don't trust anyone but yourself. Trust your heart and your intuition, he told them, nothing or no one else. Those two things know who you want to become.

That was Jobs secular credo; it sums up the way he lived. By many standards Jobs did more than ok for himself. But in the end, the man who left nothing to chance, did not have a clue. Without dogma, or Faith, or the support and prayers of faithful friends, he entered eternity leaving it all to chance.

Game 6

2011-10-28T11:02:00.001-07:00

It wasn't a great game. It was entertaining, for sure. I would once like to hear a player say, after a game like this, we won but we were lucky. Instead of saying we never give up, or we always find a way to win, or we wanted it more than they did, etc. No, the Cardinals were lucky. Either team could have won a game that had plenty of sloppy moments. The Cardinals third baseman dropped a little league popup. The Cardinals centerfielder rushing in on a flyball while calling out to the shortstop who was rushing out - to catch it! It was clearly the centerfielder's play. This same allstar centerfielder got picked off third base! The Rangers first baseman bobbled an easy groundball in the late innings that led to a Cardinals run. Then, there were the managing decisions. Why was Mark Lowe out there in the 11th inning when CJ Wilson was warming up, too? Lowe faced one batter and gave up the winning home run. But the biggest piece of luck in the game was the Rangers rightfielder's misplay of a ball hit over his head that allowed the game to be tied in the 9th inning. The Rangers had the game won. They had two strikes on the batter. There were two outs. They were two runs ahead. And the batter hit a ball over the head of the Rangers rightfielder. When he was supposed to be in a defensive posture designed to prevent that from happening. No balls hit over the outfielders heads! Except in the case of a home run. This went over his head for a triple scoring two runs and preventing the Rangers from celebrating. As luck would have it, the Cardinals won. Not a great game, not a classic, but a lot of fun to watch.

By the way, I read today (source: Tyler Kepner in the NY Times) that Josh Hamilton said God called his extra inning home run that almost won the game for the Rangers. He said God told him he was going to hit a home run. What God forgot to mention was that it would not be the game winner!

The Gospel of Moneyball

2011-10-27T10:50:00.000-07:00

I saw Moneyball the other night. I had read the book when it came out. If you don't already know it's the story of Billy Beane, Oakland A's general manager, who was faced with building a competitive baseball club when he had millions of dollars less than other ball clubs to work with. So, he turned to statistics to lead him to undervalued baseball players who could still play and win ballgames. It was a novel idea at the time. Old timer baseball guys did not understand it. They were used to going by baseball instinct and gut feelings and knowing - just knowing - how a guy would perform in the future by watching him take some at bats or field some ground balls. It was baseball know-how vs the new science of baseball. You could take a guy with an MBA from Yale armed with a manual of new kinds of statistics like OPS which means on base percentage - someone who may have never played the game and value his advice over a well seasoned baseball grunt spitting tobacco juice, cussing, backslapping good ole boy, who knew the game, for crying out loud! It was unbaseball like, it was unAmerican, it was unorthodox. But, it worked and in the past decade has become the way baseball does business. Now,even the rich teams do what Billy Beane did.

In the movie, Beane explains his scientific method this way: don't bunt, don't sacrifice, don't steal - these are all low percentage ways of getting on base. Take a walk - who cares if you get on base by a hit or a walk. The point is to find guys who get on base. If your not on base, you can't score a run. It was unorthodox and the oldtimers did not like it. Instincts, bunting, stealing, sacrificing - this was the way the game was meant to be played. When Billy traded one of his best players and sent another one down to the minors, his assistant told him, you can't do that! They are not going to like it. He said, don't worry about what they think. If you believe it is right, then do it.

Of course, I was thinking about how often in life we don't do that. We do what we do because it is the way it has always been done and we want to avoid taking the flak for changing it (I am thinking of the Church, in particular, here). We don't want to chance the unorthodox. Now, to switch gears here, I believe in Orthodoxy when it comes to the Faith. But, I think we can do Orthodoxy unorthodoxly (if that's even a word). I think we have to. Jesus was totally Orthodox but he ran afoul of the religious establishment of his day because he went about Orthodoxy unorthodoxly. There are many ways to do Orthodox. We have to change things up sometimes. Or we end up with what has been called Dead Orthodoxy. An Orthodoxy that no one cares about. An Orthodoxy with no life in it.

Billy Beane could have taken his paycheck and been satisfied with fielding a last place team. Instead he shook things up, and found another way to field a better ball club which was competitive. He took the heat of the baseball establishment for doing things differently from the way they had always been done. It was a risk. As his assistant pointed out, it could have cost him his job. He had faith in this new way of looking at building a baseball team. It was the same game but a new way of looking at how it was played.

All is Grace

2011-10-09T09:19:00.001-07:00

Brennan Manning has been singing Amazing Grace for a long time. He is 77 years old and his last book is just out. All is Grace is the title and the theme of his life. Manning led a fascinating life. He was a soldier, a Catholic priest and a much sought after speaker and retreat leader who spoke at many Evangelical conferences and institutions. He wrote many best selling books on grace and popularized the phrase, ragamuffin gospel, which meant God loves us -and even likes us- the way we are. His books and sermons are filled with great stories of how God's grace was made real to him. As a priest, Manning lived in France with the Little Brothers of the Poor and was part of an experimental Little Brothers group in Alabama. For Evangelical audiences he was a unique blend of classic spiritual disciplines, and a passionate relationship with God that led him to get involved with the kinds of people that were on the fringes of society. One year he might go live as a contemplative in a cave in Spain and the next year might find him ministering among the urban poor. What endeared him to many people was his honesty. He was a fallen, broken human being who was loved by God, and many of us fallen, broken human beings were deeply touched by what he said and did.

Yet, according to this last book, he was never completely honest in his speaking or writing. There was always too much of himself and it was slanted in a way that would make him look good even when he was trying to look bad. His life was a search for human friendship and approval. Like most of us. In this book, he tells about his relationship with his parents and family. His mother wanted a girl and instead she got him, he writes, and never was he allowed to forget that. He took his first drink at 16 and alcohol took over and controlled great chunks of his life. Even though he was in rehab several times, he would always relapse. Even on his cross country speaking trips, he managed to fit in week long drunken binges. On the night before his mother's funeral he got so drunk he blacked out in a lonely hotel room and missed it the next day. When he was about 40, he renounced his priestly vows so he could marry a woman who had two children from a previous marriage and who he met at one of his spiritual retreats. He did not do this lightly but took a year of discernment to seek God's will. It took him seven years to make sure he was doing the right thing. Marriage and becoming a father to her two children were the happiest experiences of his life. But, he says, he did not do marriage well, his alcoholism wreaked havoc on his marriage. Yet, it lasted 17 years and he gives most of the credit to his wife for making it that long.

When he left the priesthood, his Catholic conference and retreat speaking dried up. Two full years of speaking commitments canceled overnight. His Irish Catholic family who had been proud of him when he was a priest, disowned him for awhile. His Catholic friends ignored him. Yet, out of this crisis, came an inquiry or two from Evangelical organizations asking him if he was available to speak. One was Young Life and that began a relationship of speaking and leading staff conferences that lasted for years. Another was with Mike Yaconelli who was associated with Youth Specialties and organized a national Pastors Conference every year. Manning was a regular speaker and retreat leader for these meetings.

In later years, as Manning struggled with his highs and lows, his sobriety and drunkenness, his imperfections, he pulled a group of men together which became known as the Notorious Sinners. Yaconelli, who wrote a book called, Messy Spirituality, was part of that group. They met every year. They were a support and accountability group for Manning and for each other. They strove to be as honest with each other as they could. Manning did not always appreciate their honesty. Yet, they loved God and loved each other.

Today, Manning, suffering from the ravages of alcoholism, needs almost constant care. This last book was written with the help of John Blase. Manning could not have done it alone. Like most of his life, Manning was deeply aware that he could not do it alone. In this book, it is as if, before he died, he wanted to make sure that was perfectly clear. He was a failed, flawed human being who depended totally (even when he tried to fake it) on the grace of God. And God was there, as Manning, often said, He is very fond of me. He trusted that the light of God would shine through the cracks in his life. And it did. All is Grace.

Improbabilities of Baseball and Faith

2011-09-30T12:47:00.000-07:00

In one of the most exciting and improbable nights of baseball this season -or any season- the Boston Red Sox lost their bid to gain a spot in the American League playoffs and the Tampa Bay Rays gained a spot. On the last day of the season the Sox lost a game to the Orioles they had to win and the Rays won a game with the Yankees they had to win. In that season ending game the Rays were down 7-0 after 7 innings and had managed to scratch out only two hits and the Sox were ahead after 7, 3-2, heading into a long rain delay. With a combined four innings left to play it looked like the Sox would at very least end the day tied with the Rays (if they lost to the Orioles and the Rays lost to the Yankees) and have to play a play-in game with the Rays the next day.

What happened next was improbable ( note: I am depending on an article by Nate Silver in the NY Times for these statistics). In the ninth inning of the Sox - Orioles game when the Orioles had two outs and nobody on and were losing 3-2, the odds were 95.3 % in favor of the Sox winning. The batter was down to his last strike and Jon Papelbon, one of the premier closers in the game, was on the mound for the Sox. 95. 3% seems too low. The Rays chances of pulling out a win against the Yankees when they started the 8th inning down 7 runs were down to 0.3%. That's 300 to 1 against them winning. In the ninth inning after they had scored 6 runs but were still down to their last out their chances were only 4.2% of winning. Plus, the Rays pinch hitter had two strikes on him and he was hitting .108 on the season - and he had only one hit in his last 45 at bats! But, he hit a home run to tie the game. Then Evan Longoria hit another homer in the 12th inning for the improbable win.

More improbabilities: the Sox began September with a 97.7% chance of making the playoffs. When you put all these improbabilities together there was one chance in 278 million of all these events coming together as they did.

[If Bud Selig has his way and expands the wild cards to two teams this great night of baseball would never have happened - both the Sox and the Rays would have been guaranteed a playoff spot. Don't do it, Bud!

Theologically, I got to thinking about the Improbabilities of Faith. What were the chances of anyone escaping the Great Flood? Or, of Jonah surviving in the Belly of the Great Fish? Or, of Pharaoh letting his slave labor force go? Or, of the Virgin Birth? Or, the Incarnation? Or, the Resurrection?

Most ballplayers on the winning teams said that the reason they won was something like the grittiness of their ballplayers, or the never give up attitude of their team or the confidence they had to believe they would win no matter what. Had the other teams won their players would have said the same kinds of things. That's what ballplayers say at times like that. No one says we were just lucky but luck played a big part in their wins, too. Papelbon doesn't locate, or hangs a curveball or a split doesn't split. Carl Crawford doesn't get to the ball that fell in for the single that won the game. It's the last game of the season for the Yankees and they don't have to win so they bring in Scott Proctor to close out the game instead of Mariano Rivera. Lucky, the Rays don't have to face Rivera in the ninth inning!

Luck changes the odds. Theologically, we call it grace. Grace changes the odds for us. So Jonah is saved, and Mary says yes and Jesus is born, and the grave is empty on Easter morning. And what are the odds of you and I believing, and repenting and having our sins forgiven and receiving the gift of eternal life. Not as good as the Sox losing or the Rays winning. But grace trumps the odds.

Pat Robertson on Alzheimers

2011-09-16T09:36:00.000-07:00

Like many people I was saddened to see Pat Robertson's latest comment hit all the main media sites this week. Robertson was quoted (and the video evidence is readily available) saying that it is morally justifiable for a man to divorce his wife if she has Alzheimer's disease. He was responding to a caller who was asking if it was alright for a man to date another woman if his wife had the disease. Yes, Robertson replied, but divorce your wife first. His in studio partner questioned Robertson's reasoning reminding him of the marriage vow, "til death do us part". Robertson said that Alzheimers is a kind of death. His wife is gone so he is justified in seeing another but he should divorce his wife first and make sure she gets custodial care. I don't really care what Robertson says. But many people do. For many people he is one of those very visible faces of Christianity and so when he speaks, people do listen, and they form opinions about the Christianity he espouses. He has said some outrageous things in the past like when he defended China's one child abortion policy, and when he identified God's judgment with the 9/11 attacks and the hurricanes that hit New Orleans and Haiti, and on and on we can go. Russell Moore, dean of the Theology School at Southern Baptist University, wrote in an online editorial in Christianity Today that "sadly, many of our neighbors assume that when they hear the parade of cartoon characters we allow to speak for us, that they are hearing the gospel .... they assume they are seeing Jesus...but they are not."

Moore said Robertson's comments are more than an embarrassment, they are a repudiation of the gospel. Christian marriage, he wrote, is an icon in Scripture of the relationship between Christ and his Church. Paul says husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church, and gave his life for it! Moore states that a woman with Alzheimers can't do anything for her husband. There is no romance, no sex, no companionship but according to Scripture a man loves his wife as his own flesh so he can't sever the relationship just because she is not useful to him anymore.

In fact, there may not be a more powerful way to live out Christ's sacrificial love than by remaining with your spouse and caring for her or him if they do become incapacitated. There surely is no explicitly Christian reason for leaving him or her!

Moore adds that "it's easy to teach couples to put the spark back in their marriages, to put the sizzle back in their sex lives. You can still worship self and do all of that. But that's not what love is. Love is fidelity with a cross on your back. Love is drowning in your own blood. Love is screaming, My God, My God why have you forsaken me."

I remember reading about another public figure. He was the president of a Bible College. His wife got Alzheimer's and he quit his job to stay home and care for her. He gave up his writing, his speaking, his teaching, his life as it was to love and to serve his wife til death do them part. That is the image of Christian love and marriage our -put my self first- culture needs to see. It is a true picture of Christianity. Unlike the thoughtless remarks of a tv Christian this week.

Branded

2011-09-14T15:17:00.000-07:00

I had never heard of Missoni until today. Undoubtedly, you have since I posses not an ounce of fashion sense. I am fine with jeans and a pullover shirt of some kind. I live in a place that has no fashion sense either and I am ok with that. So, I was intrigued to read that Target's online store was shut down yesterday by the overwhelming demand for a new Missoni line specially made for Target shoppers which I think means upscale but cheap, cheap chic, may the be phrase I am looking for. Even celebrities who can afford the real Missoni stuff that sells for thousands are into cheap chic. I looked this stuff up online. Today the Target website is up and running although unfortunately much of the Missoni stuff is out of stock already. Not that I was going to buy any but lots of people other than me must have. It is nice looking stuff. It's mostly women's wear as far as I could tell and if my wife bought a dress or something from there I would be happy with her choice. It didn't seem any more expensive than JC Penney. So I guess I am wondering why pay thousands for expensive Missoni instead of $40. I know it's the name. I know it's the company Missoni keeps. I know about brand identification. Still I can't quite get my mind around paying so much money for an outfit just because of the name, or a pair of sneakers, or a hat or tshirt. Yet, that is what we do. Makes no sense whatsoever. We do it with cars and appliances and restaurants and just about everything. You can't watch a sports event of any kind on tv without being constantly assaulted with brand names and that's not even during the commercials. You can't read the news on any website without being distracted by ads all around the borders, sometimes popping up right in the text and other times blinking in the margin. I guess we need to sell more stuff. The economy, we are told, needs us to buy more stuff. Missoni wants to sell more stuff so they partner with Target. More people hear about their brand like I did. Target wants to upgrade their image so they partner with Missoni. They want to put some space between themselves and Walmart. People who shop at Target wouldn't think of shopping at Walmart, I guess is the thinking. I know we are all affected by this brand business. Hard not to be. As I survey my apparel today I have on: Adidas socks, Levi jeans, Merrell shoes and a Mountain Wear pullover fleece. I probably paid a couple hundred for the whole outfit. I could have paid less shopping at Walmart and buying their brands. I cannot say that I did not think about the brands I was buying and what it said about me, the wearer. Somewhere in my heart of hearts I must want people to know that I am a cool, ex-jock who loves the outdoors. So while I can cast a critical eye at those who go gaga over Missoni and pay for it, I need to ask myself why it is so hard to live an unbranded life?

God in a Brothel

2011-09-06T13:44:00.000-07:00

Just finished a new book published by IVP by Daniel Walker. After Walker became a Christian in college he wanted to work in the area of Christian development in the third world. When he was unable to find the job he was looking for, he followed his other passion, law enforcement, and became a police officer in his native New Zealand. Then a job opened up combining his two main interests as an investigator and Christian work in the third world - for a ministry that tried to rescue sex trafficking victims around the world. Walker's book, God in a Brothel is a hard hitting account of his years as an investigator. His book has two main purposes. First, he provides an overview of the sex trafficking industry which he has seen firsthand and up close. It is not a pretty picture and I am sure he has spared much of the grim details. Children as young as 5 are available in many places in the world for sexual exploitation by adults. This probably does not come as a surprise to most people but it is not something we like to think about. This was Walker's world for many years. So, the second purpose of the book is more confessional. Walker talks candidly about how his experiences as an investigator affected his personal, spiritual and marital life. He was mostly unprepared for what he found in the sex trade, and he had to learn what he needed to know by his own experience. He experienced as many failures as successes it seems. He explains how difficult it is to become part of that world and enlist the help of local law enforcement to extract the victims. He ran into a web of collusion between the sex traffickers and local law enforcement along with government officials. Seems the sex trade is such a lucrative business many people look the other way. When Walker would arrange a bust, somehow the news of the raid was often leaked ahead of time. He was able to save some sex slaves but the ones who were hidden or relocated at the last minute are the ones who haunt his memories to this day.

Obviously, the greatest price he paid was personal. His job was to convince the sex traders that he was a legitimate sex tourist. So, he was put right in the middle of the ugly, glitzy, sexually hyped atmosphere of selling sex, selling bodies of young girls. He details how at first he had the attitude of a hero come to the rescue of these young victims. Plus, he had God on his side so how could he fail. He was filled with disgust and hate for the male perpetrators of these sex crimes. From his high horse, he had a hard time admitting what his experiences were doing to him. When his missions failed at times, he wondered why God let him fail. The faces and stories of the victims he met ( he paid for time with the girls, got to know them, covertly recorded their conversations, and made excuses why he did not want sex with them) haunted him when he failed to save them. He felt personally responsible when he could not rescue them. Sometimes, he was able to rescue them but the aftercare he arranged for them failed and they wound up right back in the same place or a worse one. He felt like he was carrying the burden of rescuing sex trade victims himself and was critical of other Christians who were only interested in personal salvation and whose prayers were solely about personal problems like good weather and curing a bad cold. Gradually, his work came before his marriage. He was not able to discuss with his wife what his work entailed. He and his wife were growing apart during his long absences from home. The ministry he worked for either didn't understand this or didn't see the need for counseling because apparently he never received any.

Walker was alone. He worked alone. Many times he was in dangerous places with no back up. If he was found out, no one ever would have discovered his body. One of the most profound parts of his story is how he bought into the Christian myth that following Christ meant he was supposed to be ready to sacrifice - his life, his marriage, his personal emotional health - and God would be pleased and take care of him. No one helped him see how wrong he was. He had no ministry team to help him find balance when he was getting himself into trouble. Most importantly, he was not able to see the warning signs that he was being pulled deeply into temptation. Rather, he was filled with self righteousness as he compared himself to the men who were abusing girls to satisfy their lust. And he was critical of a church which he saw as too individualistic and too inner directed to care much for the injustices he was experiencing daily.

He details how he had set himself up for a great fall. It's a powerful story and one with a great lesson. Christ put us into a Church for a reason. We are not meant to be long ranger Christians out saving the world by ourselves. We are sinners who are in need of forgiveness and grace, and systems of accountability, and a great deal of honesty and transparency in relationships. We need to learn all these things. Especially, when we are involved in areas of great wickedness and evil -even for the sake of Christ - we need to be part of a team of brothers and sisters in Christ. For we can and will be tempted - even by the sins we deplore. Walker also is right to be critical of the Church. The Church needs to be in the world - right in those places Walker was - and in other places like those. That is where we need to be. Walker has taken what he has learned and begun a ministry to the victims of sex trafficking that churches can become part of. It's called NVader. Check it out.

Strong Women

2011-08-24T12:34:00.000-07:00

Ive been reading Eugene Peterson's memoir, The Pastor, this summer. One of the stories he tells is how his mother planted the seeds for his later decision to become a pastor. Growing up in a small town in Montana there were lots of miners and cowboys and few churches. Peterson's mother was an itinerant Pentecostal preacher. On Sundays, Peterson would accompany his mother as she led worship and preached in makeshift sanctuaries all over the countryside. Often, the meetings were in tents. Peterson describes the excitement of hearing his mother preach the gospel to the largely male audience. Then when Peterson was about ten, his mother stopped preaching. It was only later in life that she told him what happened. Some men approached her after one of the meetings and told her it was unbiblical for a woman to preach. They quoted a couple of New Testament verses to shut her up. It was much later in her life when she had discovered a better hermeneutic and she resumed her ministry.

This summer I have been doing some study in Exodus preparing for an adult Sunday School class on the Life of Moses in the fall. Exodus begins with the stories of several strong women. We are told their names while the name of the most powerful person in all of Egypt goes unmentioned. Clearly, he is not as important as the midwives who resist Pharoah's orders to kill the male babies. Their courageous resistance saves many lives. Pharoah's own daughter and her servant save the baby Moses. John Goldingay comments:"Like Genesis, the women in the Exodus story show that they are not people you can assert too much headship over."

The Bible is full of strong, and faithful women. Their stories are woven throughout the pages of the Bible. One can find verses that seem to indicate women should be silent in church, or should not teach men, or should not become pastors, or preachers. One can find just about whatever one wants when verses in the Bible are taken out of context. But a proper Biblical hermeneutic (principle of interpretation) puts these verses in context, a whole Biblical context. And when that is done, it is hard to justify telling a woman, just because she is a woman, that God did not call her to be a leader ( pastor/preacher/teacher) in his church. Or that God's word says she should shut up.

Cross Controversy

2011-08-24T12:02:00.000-07:00

In the days after 9/11, as workers cleaned up the rubble that had been the Twin Towers, one image that we kept seeing was that of a 17 foot high cross shaped steel Ibeam. It became a symbol of hope amidst the physical and emotional devastation of those tragic days. For the past 5 years that cross has been on display outside a nearby Catholic Church. Late last month it was moved to the National Museum and Memorial Site for 9/11. Not surprisingly, it has aroused controversy. Atheist groups among others are suing to have the cross removed siting a violation of Church and State. Since the cross is not a symbol that means anything to them, they are saying their rights are infringed upon. In addition the inclusion of the cross has caused emotional harm. Their suit alleges that unbelievers have suffered "dyspepsia, depression, headaches, anxiety and mental pain and anguish" from the inclusion of a cross at this national memorial site.

What does the cross mean? That is at the heart of the controversy over the 9/11 memorial site. In the New Testament it is not a symbol of hope. There is no indication it was even a symbol of Christianity for hundreds of years. Who would wear a cross around their necks? At the time of Jesus the cross was a symbol of cruel punishment. The Resurrection was a symbol of hope. Not the cross.

In Matthew 16 when Jesus tells his disciples that there is a cross in his future and in theirs, Peter, for one, tries to talk him out of it. No one thought this was a good idea. Crosses were not good for people. They should be avoided at all costs. Which was the point Jesus was making. The cross is a sign of the cost of following Jesus.

Many major world war battlefields are dotted with small white crosses to mark the sacrifices of those who died. Like the 9/11 cross these crosses are symbolic of the hope that something good will come out of the sacrifices of these lives. In some general sense these crosses say that these people have not died in vain. We mark their deaths this way and honor their sacrifices.

The cross of Jesus marked a sacrificial death as well. Jesus died on the cross for our sins the Christian gospel states. The cross is the means of the forgiveness of our sins and our salvation. More than that, Jesus states in Matthew 16, the cross marks the shape of the ordinary, everyday life of Christians. Daily, we are to take up our cross and follow Jesus.

This was and is a hard saying. Peter certainly had a hard time with it. Later on Paul would write that the cross was a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. Everyone had a hard time seeing how the cross could be good news.

Today we need to ask ourselves, what does the cross mean to us? Is it a political football? Is it a political statement that fires up emotions when questions are raised about whether it should be placed in public places or not? Is it a symbol reserved for special events or cemeteries? Or is it an everyday reality for us followers of Jesus who are trying to heed what he said, and "take up our cross and follow him."

Win Win is a Winner

2011-08-24T11:52:00.000-07:00

Win Win just out on dvd. Good film about a low powered lawyer who can barely make ends meet. He has about two appointments a day and they are not paying much. He and his wife have two small children and she stays home to take care of them. They live in a modest home and drive an older car and dress simply. Paul Giamatti plays the lawyer/husband and he delivers his usual solid performance. Ordinary life forces many choices and some of them involve us in complicated situations. We find it hard to explain our decisions. Some times there are no good explanations. Giamatti's character and his family are trying to do the right things but even then it doesn't always work out the way they planned or hoped. There are second chances to make things right - if people are willing to grant them. Relationships are messy at times but if people care, they can be worked out. Win Win is a winner. Rated R for language with several f bombs. No nudity, sexual situations, or violence (with the exception of several violent take downs on the wrestling mat).

MLB Almost Allstar Game

2011-07-14T12:02:00.000-07:00

I watched half of the MLB allstar game this week. It was like an "almost" allstar game because so many of the real allstars did not show up. Some were injured, although, the fan questions how injured, really. Some were pitchers who pitched the weekend before and so were not available to pitch. If the allstar game really mattered maybe, the fan wonders, if the allstar pitchers should be held back so they could appear in the game this is supposed to be for the fans. Then, there are those allstars who felt like they needed the rest more than the allstar game needed them. Derek Jeter was one of those allstars. He said he was emotionally and physically drained from his pursuit of the milestone of 3000 hits which he reached the weekend before the allstar game. At this halfway point in the season, most of the ballplayers could use a three day rest. Jeter among them. It is a grind to play this game almost every day. But, it is a game. It is not life. It is not as emotionally stressful as serving in Iraq, or in one of our public schools. It is not as tiring as working construction all day. It is not as vital to our communities as fighting fires or keeping the streets safe. And the ballplayers are paid very, very well for their labors. Especially the allstars. On top of Jeter's salary which is mega millions he is autographing baseballs and shirts, and bats commemorating his 3000 hit milestone. An autographed bat will set the fan back $1100. Not blaming Jeter. Fans want the merchandise so there is a market for it. Just saying ballplayers are well compensated for their work.

If the players feel like it is too much to show up for an allstar game and they need rest more showing up for one more game, then why doesn't MLB just have a three day interlude in the season. It's a joke and an insult to the fan to watch an allstar game with "almost" allstars.

The Ten Commandments

2011-07-14T11:30:00.000-07:00

Most of us know what the Ten Commandments are. We may not be able to list all of them. Most people could tell you what one or two of them are. But we know they are a list of God's Rules. We know they must be important. Some of us remember when they were posted in public places to remind people of their importance. We can read them in the Bible in a couple minutes. Do not steal. Do not lie. Don't commit adultery. Do not kill. If we think about them for longer than a few minutes our minds come up with questions and reservations. Is it always wrong to lie? What if a lie saves a life or a relationship? What about killing? In a war? Or in self defense? What is adultery and why is God against it? It seems pretty out of date.

Even though the actual Ten Commandments take up only a few verses in the whole Bible, their ethos is fundamental to understanding what it means to be God's People in the world today. They need interpretation because history changes and the challenges we face today as God's People are not the same ones that Israel faced. But, it's amazing how often the Ten Commandments keep turning up in the Bible. The many nuances of the Ten Commandments are explored in the Books of the Law, and in the prophets and in the New Testament, as well. Jesus spoke about them in the Sermon on the Mount, and Paul references them, too. It is assumed that God's People know them. They are part of our theological foundation. We are meant to build our lives on their foundation. They are a short list on purpose so they can be memorized and passed on to our children. But, to memorize them is only the beginning - that is not all we do with them! As the Bible shows us, we continue to explore them and interpret them in the many changing situations of our lives. They are most certainly not a static list of rules; they are a living, breathing source of inspiration and guidance throughout our lives. They guide our relationship with God and with each other. The first half speaks about our relationship with God and then moves right into our relationship with others and how we treat others, and how we value life, and what kind of life God desires for us. It is a personal manifesto but also a community document. It was given at first, to describe what a community of God looks like. It is our identity as God's People.

We can read the Ten Commandments quickly but this Fall in church we will explore how each commandment is picked up over and over in the Bible and study their many nuances. We will see how they are used to describe and explain what is relevant in our lives right now and how they can be life giving in our community.

A good place to begin would be to memorize them.

The Beechers

2011-07-14T10:44:00.000-07:00

This summer I read Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe for the first time. It has been called one of the most important books in our nation's history. I would agree. President Lincoln himself gave it credit for turning the tide of popular opinion overwhelmingly against slavery. It is one of those books we all know about but few of us have read. Then, I went on to David Reynold's book, Mightier Than the Sword, which tells about the influence of Stowe's book and the pushback from Southern authors. Then, I wanted to know more about Stowe's famous and fascinating family. She was one of 13 children born to the most influential Puritan preacher of his day, Lyman Beecher. Beecher began his ministry in New England and was the leading voice of Puritan theology in the church. Later, he was called to Cincinnati (the "west" at that time) to bring a renewal of Puritan theology out there. He became president of Lane Theological Seminary which became a hotbed of abolitionism. It was there Harriet became a Stowe marrying Calvin Stowe who was a professor at the seminary. Her brother, Henry, was the closest to Harriet of all the siblings both in age and passions. He became a famous preacher and reformer. His antislavery preaching changed the minds of many northerners and inflamed the minds of just as many southerners (and some northerners too). After taking the pastorates of two small churches out "west" (in Ohio, and Indiana) he was called to a prominent pulpit in Brooklyn which at that time was a thriving, growing, 100,000 people, most of whom worked in Manhattan. From a two room house where Henry Beecher and his wife scraped by he suddenly found himself in one of the most influential pulpits in the country. Plymouth Congregational had many of the wealthiest businessmen in the country on its board. As the church prospered under Beecher's preaching so did his financial fortunes. He was a spellbinding orator at a time when public speaking was the main form of entertainment in the city. Nearly all of his sermons were published in a newspaper owned by a friend and trustee of the church. Soon, he was nationally known and famous. He was a counselor to presidents; Lincoln even came to meet him and listen to him during his presidential run. People wanted to hear what Beecher had to say on most topics. He was a strong opponent of slavery and was not afraid to say that one could not be a Christian and own slaves. Beecher found that his father's Puritanism didn't preach well and as he aged his theology changed. He was never much for study although he read widely but you get a sense from his biographer Debby Applegate (The Most Famous Man in America) that he preached what seemed to work the best. In his later years, during the Civil War, remarkably, he seemed to waffle on his antislavery views. Not that he changed them as much as he moderated them. It was almost as if he was hiding something or hiding from something and the confusion in the pulpit masked a confusion in his own life. He had become famous and rich. He had several homes and trips to California and even Europe which were underwritten by his wealthy church members. He was home less and less and as he was in demand as a speaker all over the country. He developed several highly questionable relationships with women in his church which eventually got him into trouble. He had too many irons in the fire and he finally got burned.

To be fair to Henry Beecher he had to deal with a lot of pain and suffering in his life. His mother died when he was young, and he buried several of his young children. His strong antislavery views and the theological battles of the time must have drained his energies. He was vulnerable to the applause and praise of men and women and it seems like he believed it. He got sloppy in his theology and in his personal life. There were not many friends or family who would confront him. If a friend questioned what he was doing, he would simply move on to some other adoring supporter of whom there were many.

Beecher was a flawed man. He was a great preacher but some of his gifts became his greatest curses. God used his vision and his passion - and his talents - to make a strong case against one of the most critical social issues in our history. His was a prophetic voice - one of the most powerful at the time. His life shows us it is never easy to be a prophet and few of us can handle the dangers of wealth and power.

No Uncle Tom

2011-07-01T09:48:00.000-07:00

I was reading an interesting essay in a collection of essays by Marilynne Robinson called, The Death of Adam. This particular essay was about McGuffey (of the McGuffey Readers) and the abolitionists. McGuffey's readers were a staple of American education in the mid-1800s. Some of the readers were used in high schools and colleges. Not too much is known about McGuffey -he was born in Pennsylvania and became a college professor and Presbyterian minister. Although he preached and taught for a long time he left no lectures, sermons or books behind. He settled in Cincinnati where he was president of Cincinnati College and began the public school system in Ohio. Cincinnati in the mid 1800's was a pro-slavery city and yet it was also a hotbed for the abolitionist movement. Lyman Beecher, who produced 13 children with two wives (the first one died when her nine children were still young - many becoming leading social reformers), was a famous pastor in the East but was challenged to come West and lead a new seminary that was attended mostly by students who shared a radical commitment to end slavery. Lyman Beecher was a respected preacher in his own right but one of his sons, Henry, would go back East to the Bronx and become even more famous than his father. One of Beecher's daughters, Catharine, was a leading educational reformer, abolitionist and college president, and she was approached by the benefactor of the McGuffey Readers, William Smith, to be the first editor of the Readers (if she had taken the job would they have been called Beecher Readers?). She turned down the proposal and suggested McGuffey. McGuffey gathered an amazing array of writers for the Readers - most of them with solid reform and abolitionist credentials. Since the Readers became so popular all over the country they had to write with great tact and not show all their radical colors. One of the writers for McGuffey was Harriet Beecher Stowe. She, of course, is best known for her novel Uncle Tom's Cabin which Abraham Lincoln, upon meeting her said, so this is the little woman whose book caused this great war (or something to that effect).

My point is that after reading this essay on McGuffey I realized I had never read Stowe's book. It has been named one of the most important books of American history and yet, how many people today can say they have read it. We all know names and themes from the book, like, Simon Legree the cruel slave holder and, of course, Uncle Tom himself who has become identified with those who were seen as traitors to their race because they did not stand up to the majority white culture. Since I was one of those who thought he knew what Uncle Tom's Cabin meant without ever reading it, I decided to read it. What a surprise! It was not what I thought it was. It is a very well written book, an amazing work. Stowe wrote at a time when much of the country was religious, even the non-religious were reacting to the religion of the day which was Christianity. Most ministers were pro-slavery as an institution. They provided Biblical reasons for slavery or at least did not think they could get away with attacking it. Some who tried to raise questions about it's Biblical basis did not have their jobs very long. Stowe is devastating in her satirical attacks on this majority religious point of view. She is relentless in her ridicule of those Christians who think they are practicing Christianity just because they are mouthing the same untenable beliefs of the majority church. Their practice of gospel Christianity is hopelessly hypocritical. For instance, while speaking about a Bishop who would not question slavery she noted that some of the first Bishops who came before him in the early church were, indeed, Black!). While showing in great detail the unreasonable prejudices of the White culture she was also able to let that culture get inside the skin of Black slaves to feel what they must feel as slaves: when their children were sold out from under them; when marriages were split up; when slave women were sexually exploited; when they were beaten by cruel masters; when they had no freedoms, no rights, no hope. She tells the story about people who are just like "us" for one of the lies that defined slavery was racial: "they are a race that are not like "us". In fact, she shows how the Black slaves were often more Christian than the Christian majority. Her central character is a Christ figure. Uncle Tom is a preacher and a pray-er. He counsels his kin to forgive, to love those who persecute you, to go the second mile, to turn the other cheek, to abhor violence. He is a walking, talking Sermon on the Mount. For what has been perceived as passivity in the face in the justice his name has become synonymous with others who are seen as weak and cowardly in the face of injustice. But, Uncle Tom is no Uncle Tom. There is a strength and power in his life that transformed the way people looked at slavery. His death at the cruel hands of the nasty slavemaster Legree - was a sacrificial death. He died so others might live, freely. His way of non-violence was incorporated later into the civil rights movement and the leadership of Martin Luther King (who was also criticized as an Uncle Tom by some).

Stowe's book may be the most important book in American history that no one reads today.

On Making Excuses Rather Than Giving Help

2011-06-24T10:35:00.000-07:00

Whatever man you meet who needs your aid, you have no reason to refuse to help him. Say, he is a stranger; but the Lord has given him a mark that ought to be familiar to you, by virtue of the fact that he forbids you to despise your own flesh. Say, he is contemptible and worthless; but the Lord shows him to be one to whom he has deigned to give the beauty of his image. Say that you owe nothing for any service of his; but God, as it were, has put him in his own place in order that you may recognize toward him the many and great benefits with which God has bound you to himself. Say that he does not deserve even your least effort for his sake; but the image of God, which recommends him to you, is worthy of your giving yourself and all your possessions. Now, if he has not only deserved no good at your hand, but has also provoked you to unjust acts, and curses, not even this is just reason why you should cease to embrace him in love and to perform the duties of love on his behalf. You will say, he has deserved something far different of me. Yet what has the Lord deserved? While he bids you forgive this man for all sins he has committed against you, he would truly have them charged against himself. Assuredly, there is but one way in which to achieve what is not merely difficult but utterly against human nature; to love those who hate us, to repay their evil deeds with benefits, to return blessings for reproaches. It is that we remember not to consider men's evil intention but to look upon the image of God in them which cancels and effaces their transgressions, and with its beauty and dignity allures us to love and embrace them. (From Institutes of Christian Religion by John Calvin)

Getting Away

2011-06-14T15:03:00.001-07:00

We just got back from driving 3,000 miles from Seattle to Kodiak. Of course, the last 250 miles are not in that count since we were "ferried" across them. We took about ten days to do it spending a couple of extra days in Anchorage and Homer. The first few days we drove about 6 hours covering 250 to 300 miles. Then, we realized this was starting to feel like the trip was going to take forever so we beefed up the mileage to more like 500 to 600 miles a day and 10 to 12 hours of driving. Once you get past Prince George, BC there is not all that much to see. Except, of course, for wildlife and mountains and gorgeous lakes not surrounded by any commercial interests. We kept a tally of the wildlife we saw: bears, bison, moose, elk, caribou and a couple sheep. I thought about Lewis and Clark who noted in their journals fields covered with bison whose thundering hooves could be heard miles away and seeing the sun blotted out for several minutes as flocks of geese flew overhead and rafting through a river of white feathers only to come around the bend and discover hundreds of molting pelicans. There is not that kind of abundant wildlife left in our country today so it is a thrill to count wildlife sightings in the tens even if not the hundreds. It is awesome to drive through mountain passes as a Spring snowstorm makes it look more like January than June and find glacier fed lakes that no one is making a dime off of. They are just there to look at and enjoy. That is the beauty of this trip. Traffic is light. Must see artificial tourist stops are few. In the midst of the blizzard we saw signs announcing the best cinnamon buns on the highway so we stopped and in a shack we joined other fellow travelers who were already eating the buns and drinking the coffee as fast as the owners could make it. We stopped in Watson Lake for the night after a long day of driving. A German man had refurbished a 1940s pilots headquarters into a more modern lodge with 14 clean rooms. And that was about all you got. But, after some other roadhouses clean is a very welcome amenity. This man talked about making big money in Germany and driving his Mercedes in the rat race. He loves his life now in this remote outpost of the Yukon and he could talk about his love for it for hours. As we left the deserted downtowns of Williams Lake and Prince George and the bustling mining towns of Ft St John and Ft Nelson, we were glad to get to what our German friend found he liked so much: space for wilderness and wildlife. Hours spent driving a two lane highway alone with our thoughts and time for conversation with the person in the other seat. There was no connectivity. No Iphone to check. No internet wifi at the next stop. No franchise restaurants or hotels. No restrooms except the occasional pit toilet. There are lots of ways to "get away" and lots of opinions about what vacations are supposed to be but for my money it's hard to beat a trip up the Alcan.

Darwin's Children

2011-05-20T09:53:00.000-07:00

I begin this post by noting that the Neanderthal which plays such an important role in Darwinism was named for the seventeenth century theologian Joachim Neander who was fired from his position for refusing to take Holy Communion. It seems like an appropriate historical reference to the ongoing conflict between religion and science. Neander used to take walks in what became known as Neander's Valley and later on fossils were discovered there. Today a Neanderthal is someone who refuses to see the wisdom of the Darwinian vision of life. They are stuck in the present and cannot learn from the past. They are out of it. They are the ones who would take Holy Communion and think there is something spiritual going on there.

Darwinism does not allow for the spiritual. It's all natural; natural selection explains everything. That's the problem. To Darwinists we are all really just cavemen. In 1871 Darwin published The Descent of Man which presented an entirely naturalistic interpretation of man. There is no difference between human beings and animals. "It's a dog eat dog world" and "it's a jungle out there"- the survival of the fittest, you know. Darwin said that with mankind intellectual faculties were gradually perfected through natural selection so that the more intelligent ruled the less intelligent. This pointed out the problem that the more intelligent were having to support the less intelligent. They were contributing to the well being of society while the less intelligent were just reproducing. Quoting the Scot, William Rathbone Greg with approval, Darwin wrote: "the careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman, fed on potatoes, living in a pigsty, doting on superstition, multiplies like rabbits... while the Scotsman, selfrespecting, frugal, sagacious, self-disciplined in his intelligence, marries late and leaves few behind... so it is the inferior and less favored race that prevails ... prevails not by virtue of its good qualities but by virtue of its faults... Thus, were sowed the seed of eugenics. It was common knowledge that selective breeding was the answer to growing good stock in agriculture. It was Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, who coined the term eugenics which means "born well". He founded the Eugenics Society in London in 1907. His idea was that the corruption of the race by weaker specimens could be corrected by the proper use of eugenic technologies. So impressed was President Calvin Coolidge by this idea that he signed the Immigration Act of 1924 restricting immigration to favored races and nationalities. Indiana in 1907 passed a law permitting the compulsory sterilization of the unfit. In Europe, eugenicist Julian Huxley wrote, " We must be able to pick out the genetically inferior stocks with more certainty and we must set in motion counter forces making for faster reproduction of superior stocks... this is not possible without the alteration of the social system." The eugenics system of helping out the "natural selection" process whenever possible was well underway. With an echo of Darwinism, Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, " positive steps must be taken to encourage the flourishing of the fitter because the system itself often works against them." Hitler's National Socialism party took action on these ideas. In 1933 they passed a law permitting forced sterilization based on the work of American eugenicist, Harry Laughlin, who had written of the need to sterilize the socially inadequate classes, including those of feeble mind. [much of the above is taken from Darwin's Pious Idea by Conor Cunningham, pp 179-189]

Marilynne Robinson (her book is The Death of Adam) notes Darwin's belief that the progressive evolution of mankind through natural selection would be perfected by the struggle for survival. He wrote in The Descent of Man, "at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world." He went on to say in the same book that civilized men should do what we can to insure that the weak do not survive. Just as we do not allow our worst animals to breed so the breeding of weak members of society, ie, the imbecile, the maimed, the poor, and the sick, is injurious to society. Darwin noted that vaccinations preserved thousands of a poor constitution who would formerly have died of smallpox. Most people today ignore this later thinking of Darwin but his earlier work, The Origin of the Species, included this thought in it's title: the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. It makes one wonder how "random" natural selection is and if Darwin did not see a greater purpose in his theory, ie, the survival of the favored races. Darwin's influence is felt today far beyond the sciences. Robinson notes an essay in Time by Robert Wright(commenting on the Bill Moyers PBS series on Genesis) in which Wright stated Science (just another name for Darwinism) has replaced the fables of Genesis. Since Darwin we know Genesis is wrong: human nature is not benign, we have that selfish gene instilled by that other "creator" natural selection. So the main traits driving our lives are selfishness and competition no matter what illusions we might hold of other compassionate qualities. Nietzche, of course, saw where this was going. In his Ecce Homo he wrote that if we look ahead ..."that party of life which takes in hand the greatest of all tasks, the higher breeding of humanity, together with the remorseless destruction of all degenerate and parasitic elements" .... and we saw what that looked like in Nazi Germany. Konrad Lorenz, the biologist whose experiments most of us studied in basic science courses, was a Darwinian and a Nazi who compared the "degenerative types in society to "asocial" cancerous cells that destroy the cellular structure. He wrote that in 1943 and as late as 1973 he was still writing that "our sympathy with the asocial defective whose inferiority might be caused just as well by irreversible injury in early infancy as by hereditary defects, endangers the security of the non defective."

Robinson writes that in place of Biblical Adam Darwinists have substituted a creature who shares essential attributes with whatever beast has recently been observed behaving shabbily in the state of nature. Genesis tries to describe human exceptionalism and Darwinism tries to discount it. From Malthus (an early influencer of Darwin) to Nietzsche to Darwin to Hitler to Freud the impulse has been to desacralize humankind. There is no place in this line of thought for the human soul, for that which makes humans different from animals. The Bible is so little known today that the works of Darwin's latest popularizers like Dennett and Dawkins go largely unchallenged. Similarly, Darwinism is so accepted today as fact that when we hear people talk about natural selection as the answer to everything human, we barely bat an eye. "The modern fable is that science (Darwinism) exposed religion as a delusion and more or less supplanted it." (Death of Adam, 71). "But science cannot serve in the place of religion because it cannot generate an ethics, or a morality... it can give us no grounds for preferring what is excellent to what is sensationalistic ... and that is more or less where we are now." (71)

The End of the World

2011-05-20T09:23:00.000-07:00

According to some Christians, this could be my last post (not that many people would notice) because the rapture is supposed to happen tomorrow. Believing Christians will be taken out of the world as massive earthquakes terrorize those left behind. Over the next five months while Believing Christians enjoy the perks of heaven the rest of the world will endure hell on earth before the earth is destroyed in October. An article in the NY Times today shared the beliefs of a family in Maryland whose parents are committed to be ready for May 21 and the end of the world. The mom quit her job two years ago to go on her mission of spreading the news (good news?). The father kept his job with the federal government at the energy department. They stopped maintaining the house and saving for college for their kids who think their parents have gone slightly loopy. Yet, they go along with it helping their parents pass out tracts in NYC and playing along lightheartedly, like, Mom, do I have to clean my room if the world is going to end.

This doomsday prophecy is the work of self appointed prophet Harold Camping who owns a bunch of radio stations (Family Radio Network) and who has predicted the end of the world a couple other times. Now he says he has it right, exactly 7000 years after the Great Flood in Genesis. Not to spend too much time on Camping's exegesis or theology (dispensational pre-trib rapture which has been around only a short time considering the history of theology), the most interesting phenomenon is the numbers of Christians who are ready to follow Camping's prediction with a radical change of life. Thousands of people across the country according to the Times have spent the past few days making preparations and saying good byes. Tomorrow they will be glued to the tv so they won't miss it.

Now we could begin reflecting on Camping's prophecy and the mini exodus he has created by pointing out Jesus said no one knows when the end will come. Then, we could point out that most Christians throughout history have taught that Jesus is coming back to usher in a new heaven and a new earth, not to destroy the old one and take all the Christians somewhere else. The return of Christ is certain St. Paul said, so we should be ready any time and he exhorted us to be ready by living for Christ daily in the here and now which means you shouldn't have to change what you're doing. There are probably many reasons why some Christians hope to be raptured out of the world tomorrow, high gas prices being one of them, but that is not the way most Christians have read Scripture these past couple thousand years. So, tomorrow, I will be doing some yard work if the rain ever stops and maybe take a bike ride and if the tv is on I will be watching the Yankees - Mets baseball game. If Christ does return, I'll be ready.

House Hunting

2011-05-19T11:03:00.001-07:00

In the vast wasteland of cable tv programming, I still manage to find a few shows on which to waste some time. I rationalize that it is for relaxation before I go to bed (although when I read in bed I am usually asleep in minutes). Or, I tell myself I watch this stuff for the stories they tell. One such show is Househunters on HGTV. Every episode tracks a person, couple or family as they begin their search for a new home. They may be leaving their home and homeland because of a new job or a new relationship or to start a new life somewhere else. You meet these people and hear about their lives - at least a few minutes of their lives- and then you are invited into their search with a savvy realtor who is going to help them find the house that best meets their wish list. Some of the episodes follow Americans who are relocating to some exotic place like Mongolia or some tropical island where they will have to settle for much less than they are used to. Even many European countries offer an opportunity to downsize. Most of the shows however feature Americans who are moving within their own borders. They begin their home search with a wish list: big master bed room, upgraded kitchen with granite counter tops, large master bath, big bedrooms, bonus room, spacious dining and living rooms, and a deck/porch/secluded back yard for entertaining even it's just the pets that are being entertained. The helpful realtor is given the wish list and then he shows them three homes and he and we viewers are allowed to listen in on their critical thinking process. And it is critical, most of what they see they don't like. The kitchen needs upgrades (mostly those granite countertops), the master bathroom needs to be bigger, the closets don't come close to meeting the need for all their clothes, and the back yard is small or lacks privacy. All of the houses shown usually need work which adds on to the asking price which is already at the top of their budget. The impression I get is that these people come with a learned sense of entitlement. The American dream of home owning is one that expects you can own a new home or one with upgrades like a jacuzzi tub, hot tub and granite counter tops - just because you should. How dare some one try to pawn off a home that needs work or has a small bathroom. I feel sorry for the poor realtor who has to listen to their complaints many of which sound pretty petty. "Oh, the colors are awful." What, no double sinks in the bathroom?" I don't know if we can live where we can see the neighbors house from our back yard!" It makes you think that most Americans have a low threshold for suffering. I wonder if most home buyers are like that. It is tv, after all and reality tv is not always what it claims to be. So, I watch it with a grain of salt. Then, I go to bed, happy that I have a bed to go to. First, I turn down the heat, glad I can live in a heated home. When I get up and use the bathroom and take a shower, I am thankful for running water in our house. Then, I make my way to the kitchen which has a coffee maker that runs on electricity and as I sip my first cup it is with gratitude for my Mr. Coffee four cupper. I make my oatmeal on our electric stove and toast a piece of bread in our electric toaster and feel blessed I am not living in a tent. What else do you need? Watching Househunters reminds me what is really important. That's reality.

Dawkins on Life

2011-05-13T10:04:00.000-07:00

I worked on a post for a while yesterday and today I got to work early to finish it - only to discover that Google Blogger had been down and nothing was posted yesterday! It was gone! Bummer! Joys of technology. In the old days I would have had my handwritten draft on my desk and commenced to rewriting with all its crossouts and dangers of wrist injury and cramped hands. I love word processing but technology does come with its own set of frustrations.

I was blogging about a book I'm reading called Darwin's Pious Idea by Conor Cunningham who is the assistant director of the Centre of Theology and Philosophy at the University of Nottingham, England. He has authored other books and wrote the BBC documentary, Did Darwin Kill God? which aired in 2009. He is a smart guy. This book is deep in science and philosophy and theology yet it is accessible to those who are not quite as deep - like me. In this book he takes on Richard Dawkins who wrote The God Delusion and is on a one man mission to make God irrelevant (which he believes He is already anyway - he believes religion is an illusion and the Church is the result of a virus in the human mind). He calls Dawkins and his cohort David Dennett ultra Darwinists who have not only got Darwin wrong but have badly muddled their forays into philosophy and theology as well.

In my lost blog I was quoting Dawkins to reference his beliefs regarding human nature that develop from his firm conviction that there is no god. I have not read The God Delusion but Dawkin's thinking process is quite amazing. Because there is no god, Dawkins substitutes the human gene as the primary cause of human growth and behavior. Actually it was the gene that came up with the idea of you. Our bodies, our lives, are merely vehicles to transport genes which have a life of their own to perpetuate. He wrote about this in his book, The Selfish Gene. So, what is at the "heart" of human behavior is not a heart or a spark of life but information technology (from The Blind Watchmaker). Though this might sound strange it has caught on in the popular imagination so that we readily speak about "how we are wired" to explain why we do the things we do. That is pure Dawkins. In fact, it explains everything, especially sex. For Dawkins men are made to sow their seed. Dawkins says: " a male can never get enough copulations with as many females as possible, the word excess has no meaning for a male." (from The Selfish Gene). So, the casual, recreational sex portrayed in so many movies is "just normal" behavior. It should be noted that Dawkins is not the only proponent of this point of view. It is standard evolutionary psychology doctrine. It is how we are wired and we are wired to perpetuate the species. First and foremost, British biologist Ben Greenstein says, "man is a fertiliser of woman." Interesting take on life and relationships. Keep these guys away from our daughters. Must be a fun group to hang with at the local pub.

And this is life for the Darwinian crowd. Here is Dawkins take on life before Darwin. Dawkins says: Intelligent life on this planet came of age when it first worked out the reason for it's own existence. If superior creatures from space ever visit Earth, their first question will be - in order to assess the level of our civilisation - Have they discovered evolution yet? Dawkins is amazed, as he says, that humans lived on earth for three billion years before the truth finally dawned on one of them. Of course, that one was Charles Darwin. Our savior. Darwin, Dawkins says, was the first human who put together a coherent and tenable account of why we exist. (from The Selfish Gene). Is this guy serious? With that one statement he disposes of Moses, Jesus, St Paul, St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Karl Barth, and so on and on. Who were they, chopped liver? I guess so. George Simpson in an issue of Science in 1966 wrote this stunning sentence when discussing the most important question that can be asked, What is Man? - Simpson said: " the point I want to make now is that all attempts to answer that question before 1859 are worthless and that we will be better off if we ignore them completely." Yikes, doesn't it scare the daylights out of you that these guys are running around out there and being mistaken for signs of intelligent human life! Sadly they are and their form of intelligence does have an impact on the rest of us. If this post gets posted - more from Cunningham's book on Darwin's children, sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. Or pick up the book yourself and make it your summer reading project!

Adult Sunday School

2011-05-11T14:40:00.000-07:00

We were doing a study of Bible translations. It was adult Sunday School. Most Christians think Sunday School is for children so when you graduate from childhood you don't have to go anymore. How did we get this idea? I don't remember ever saying it. Maybe Christians don't think that. I just think they do. Maybe they think the Bible is boring or maybe they are intimidated by the Bible and they think that the adult Christians who do go to Sunday School must know a whole lot more than they do so they don't want to be embarrassed showing how much they don't know. Maybe most of their reading now that they are adults are manuals and forms for work and when they read for pleasure, if they ever do, it is internet reading which is like reading with ADD. Maybe they think they just don't have time, the time you would need if you were going to read God's Word! Now, that's an intimidating thought! What if I don't get it? What if I had to write a paper on God's Word and didn't pass? What if God looked surprised at how bad I did? And said, you can't come up here where I am until you get smarter about My Word? But, what if I did get it? And then left my job and became a missionary or pastor or an adult Sunday School teacher? That's risky stuff. Better off not rocking the boat.

So we are doing this class on Bible translation and as I hinted not too many adults came. Now, some were camping since it was the first nice Spring weekend we have had this year. Some were traveling with school sports teams or music teams. Some were off the island visiting family. This is graduation season from colleges. But even if all that was not going on we still would have had a small group, as I said. I was hoping for more people. It was a good study. The Bible is a cool book and it is fascinating to think about the whole translation process. I think, anyway. I would've thought God would've got the word out to people to be there. But, then I wish He and I were on the same page more often than it appears we are.

There are lots of Bible versions. It seems like there is a new one every year. Why do we need so many of them? I mean isn't the King James Version enough? I used to think so. Back when I didn't read the Bible much. Back when I didn't know why I would want to read the Bible much. Back before I knew it was such a cool book. Now, I read Bible commentaries for pleasure! Is that odd or what? How many Christians do that? Is it just a pastor thing? We have to do it for our work, for preparing sermons but no one else has to! But, I think it would be cool if they did. What if Christians were so excited about the Bible that they bought and read Bible commentaries for pleasure reading! Wouldn't that be something! But, somehow that is related to the question about why adult Christians don't go to Sunday School.

So, there are lots of Bible versions. And they are all pretty good. They fill a purpose. Some are for different audiences. Some try to capture the literal meaning of the words and phrases. Some focus more on communicating the meaning of the words and phrases. Words are pretty dynamic. Like what is the literal meaning of the word, key? Well if I am coaching basketball and I tell a player to get down to the key, he better know what part of the court I am talking about or he will learn the word bench real quick. But, if I tell my wife to remember the key when she leaves the house she will not be dismantling part of the basketball court to take to work. So, what is the literal meaning? There is none. The meaning of the word key depends on the context, the relationship it has with other words in the sentence. In Bible translation so many words are like that. They have a range of meaning. And different Bible versions capture part of that range. But, so often one English word just cannot convey what the original Hebrew or Greek means. So, it's good to use several versions to get the full meaning of Scripture. And there is all kinds of stuff going on in the Bible: puns, riddles, poetry, allusions, similies and metaphors and so on. Like, in John 10, which we call the Good Shepherd chapter in John, Jesus actually starts out by saying he is the gate to the sheepfold. Now, Jesus is not really a gate but good shepherds used to lay down and act like a gate to keep the sheep in at night and keep the bad guys or animals out. So, he is a gate in that sense. Just one little example of the richness of the Bible. Then, you have all the ways the Old Testament is woven into the New Testament. Why is Jesus called the Son of Man, or the Son of David? I mean there's a lot of this stuff you just don't get from reading a small portion of Scripture at the Sunday morning service.

There's a lot more to it. A lot more. And it is cool. So, maybe, just maybe, I will ask adult Christians that question, why don't you come to Sunday School? Then, maybe we will know for sure and maybe we can do something about it.

In the News

2011-05-04T09:40:00.000-07:00

The death of Bin Laden at the hands of an American commando team is the news this week. Trump's birther conspiracy theories have been forgotten. Even gas prices are no longer front page news. People seem to be either jubilant over Bin Laden's death or contemplative. There is a facebook posting gone viral that attributes a quote to Dr. Martin Luther King which is actually the product of a 24 year old English teacher in Japan who used part of a King quote which she added to her own thoughts. In this facebook/twitter age it's a good idea to always check your sources before reposting. There is another posting that links you to photos of a dead Bin Laden. But, this is spammish and if you click on it you have just sent it to all your facebook friends. Under your name which might make people think you would post something you would not. Used to be so much simpler to follow the news. And just talk to people about it.

There is no end to the Bin Laden media frenzy in sight and in addition to the media sources you can read what everyone else thinks of it, too. Thank you facebook/twitter. What did we do before we had access to everyone's instant, earnest thoughts on every subject of the day. Used to be you might talk about the days news with a friend or spouse. Now all your "friends" weigh in.

The weather is still in the news. Tornadoes in the South and flooding in the North. The Army Corp of Engineers blew a huge hole in a levee in Illinois to avert catastrophic flooding. Yet, in parts of Oklahoma they have not had rain in 122 days raising fears of another dust bowl. One town, Boise City, is down to about 1200 people and most of the downtown is boarded up. The funeral director doesn't have enough work so he had to open the town's only cafe. There are few jobs and people have to move to find work. Farms are not producing due to the lack of rain. To make matters worse, the state is completing a bypass that will divert the truck traffic around town further reducing the town's revenues. In the midst of all of this bad news, Huston Hanes, 87, who lived through the dust bowl has no plans to leave town. He told the NY Times, "We have had hard times before, but any place you go, you're going to have some adversity, he said with a shrug, "We don't have that many tornadoes."

Perspective is important in these days of adversity. Reinhold Niebuhr was no optimist but he was a realist like Huston Hanes. He lived at a different time with different challenges but his words ring true to me today.

"Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope. Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in the immediate context of history, therefore we must be saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we must be saved by love. No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as it is from our standpoint. Therefore, we must be saved by the final form of love which is forgiveness." (from The Irony of American History, 1952, and newly re-issued with a new foreward by Andrew Bacevich)

BTW, I double checked the source of the quote and it is 100% Niebuhr and 0% me. The Hanes quote came out of today's NY Times. The reference to the facebook MLK quote gone viral is from www.theatlantic.com and the spam reference was from a personal conversation with my son. Whatever is left is mine.

Good Movie and Bad TV

2011-04-21T11:09:00.000-07:00

The Way Back is out on dvd. It is based on the book The Long Walk by Slavomir Rawicz who was a Polish citizen caught up in the insanity of the Stalin purges in Russia around WW2. Some say Stalin was responsible for 20 million deaths and some put it as high as 40 million! Rawicz tells the story of his imprisonment in the Gulag in Siberia. He escaped along with five others and walked to India! From Siberia, through Mongolia and the Gobi desert, and then over the Himalayas! Amazing, so amazing some critics doubt it ever happened. Few people could do it or would do it today. But what Rawicz and the others had going for them was survival. They had to do it or die. Others have tried to duplicate his journey and even with modern survival gear have found it impossible. Rawicz and the others lived off the land for over 4,000 miles! So, while others debate whether he really made the journey or not, watch the dvd. It's a beautiful story of human survival. Man (and one woman) vs Nature. Nature is shown in it's dramatic majesty but also it's brutal insensitivity. One minute you are marveling at the mountains or taking in the awesome grandeur of the desert and the next moment you are trying to stay alive in a blizzard or a sandstorm. The Way Back is a throwback to the days when epic films were made. The special effects are all natural. There are long silences as there would be on a long walk. There are deeply humanizing touches as the men and one young woman come to know and help each other. One powerful scene has the woman washing the badly damaged feet of one of the men (appropriate for this Maundy Thursday!). Another scene of similar power is a simple funeral with prayers asking for God's mercy for one of their companions who died on the walk. This is one of those "they don't make movies like this anymore" moments.

Greg Mortensen who wrote Three Cups of Tea and Stones Into Schools is all over the news after CBS's 60 Minutes 'exposed' him as a fraud last Sunday night. Author Jon Krakauer who was an early supporter of Mortensen's questioned his work and his integrity. He claimed Mortensen used donations to his charity, Central Asia Institute, as his personal ATM and most of the donations funded his publicity trips where he sold his books. After 60 Minutes was done, Mortensen looked like a fraud who had pulled the wool over everyone's eyes and got rich doing it. His humble, disorganized, demeanor looked fake, as well, a cover up for his dishonest intentions. 60 Minutes in a 20 minute segment undid years of charitable work and ruined a man's reputation as a self sacrificing humanitarian. We are quick to make heroes in this country and just as quick to discard them. All it takes is a hit and run segment on a popular tv show. Nicholas Kristof writing in the NY Times cautions against this rush to judgment. He knows Mortensen well and wonders whether some of his better qualities make for poor management skills. He has personally visited and written about some of the schools Mortensen's charity has built (the only images of Mortensen's schools 60 Minutes showed were empty). He reminds us that what is beyond doubt is that Mortensen has provided educational opportunities for countless numbers of Afghan and Paksitani children, especially girls that they never would have had. He has made a difference in their lives and his work has had a peaceful and positive impact on relations in the Middle East. He has done something and that something amounts to way more than most people have done in their lives to benefit others. The 60 Minutes piece was largely negative. Even when they showed Mortensen what they showed was how he seemed to be avoiding them (who wouldn't knowing the kinds of hatchet jobs they usually do on the people they are after). That is not the whole story. Let's give Mortensen a chance to explain these allegations (which 60 Minutes portrayed as "facts"). He may have made mistakes but there is too much good here to trash his name and his work and move on to the next scandal. You can't document a person's life in a 20 minute video complete with commercials. All you can do is leave them with the impression you want to create. 60 Minutes did this and it was irresponsible and unfortunate.

Rand Again

2011-04-17T10:14:00.000-07:00

The other day I read that Republican congressman Paul Ryan who is leading the Republican budget battle against the Obama side is a devoted disciple of Ayn Rand. Rand's book, Atlas Shrugged, so galvanized his thinking that he had his entire staff read it. He credits Rand's philosophy with the reason he got into politics. Ok. There are lots of reasons people get into politics. Ayn Rand has become something of a hero of the conservative side of the Republican party. Some tea partyers are helping to market a new movie based on her book. It's not a good movie from what I have read so far so I don't know if it will help get the Rand message (and Republican message) out to the voters. Rand's philosophy which she set forth in novel format is a kind of hyper individualism, that creates a pure form of capitalism. She champions an extreme self interest that answers to no one, not even God. Rand was an atheist. The one thing that matters is one's pursuit of personal happiness. She was an early advocate of whatever turns you on. She was totally amoral in sexual matters and an early pro -abortionist. Still, Ryan and other Repubs interest in her have to do with her economic ideas and her warnings about governments that penalize self centered ambition in order to support the welfare of the "collective." They believe Rand would save us from Obama. I am glad to know who Ryan's main mentor is. I don't have a particularly positive opinion of Rand. I have read parts of her books but only because I had to for some course I took. At a Christian school where it was mentioned that Rand's philosophy was about as far from a Christian philosophy of life as one could find. She is also not an especially gifted writer. But then again there are her ideas. I was both puzzled and surprised to read a column by Cal Thomas the day after the movie, Atlas Shrugged, debuted. Cal Thomas is nationally syndicated but he used to be simply a Christian speaker and writer. I have heard him speak about issues from a Christian perspective at Christian gatherings. Thomas ends his column with a rousing call to his readers to see the film if we care about where this country is headed. Used to be Christians cared about things like sexual ethics, and abortion and caring for the poor, and whether or not someone believed in God. Used to be those were some hot topics when we considered where this country is headed. Now, I guess it's all about the economy, stupid, and if Rand's vision gets us to where we think we want to go, the heck with everything else.

Easter, again

2011-04-14T15:06:00.000-07:00

With Easter only a week away it's been on my mind. It's a big deal when you live from Sunday to Sunday like pastors do. It's the biggest Sunday of the year. Not saying it should be or needs to be, just saying it is. It has the biggest music and the biggest attendance is on Easter. People get up real early on Easter for sunrise services. What other Sunday of the year could you get people up for a service at 7am. Most Sundays church people struggle to get to church by 11am. It has the biggest hype. You build up to it for seven weeks of Lent. Even if church people don't make a big deal of Lent still there is a countdown. Then, Good Friday, and finally, Easter.

I confess to real mixed feelings about Easter. I am not supposed to hate but my feelings for the Easter bunny come close. I can kind of tolerate the commercial - sacred tension that surrounds Christmas even though Christmas trees in churches and the whole idea behind giving gifts to each other because Jesus gave his life for us - is a huge stretch. But, at least, Christmas only falls on Sunday once in seven years. Easter is on Sunday every year. So every year is a battle between the colorful bunny and Jesus. And I see Jesus losing.

When our kids were small we did the Easter thing with eggs and baskets on Saturday. To get it out of the way and so as not to confuse them with what Easter was - a celebration of the Resurrection. I have suggested that idea to numerous Christian parents who looked at me like I was starting a cult. So, you' re left with trying to sort out how you teach the Resurrection among egg hunts, and big bunnies, and even chocolate crosses! What would the apostle Paul say to that?

I know the story about the early Christians who tried to trump the spring solstice celebrations of their culture by introducing the celebration of Easter as a Resurrection celebration. But, its not working too well today is my thought. After all how do you celebrate Resurrection. At least with Easter you can buy stuff, and give stuff, and hunt for stuff, and make up stories about easter bunnies (HOP!) and let's face it we love all that stuff! Go to the stores and there are aisles of stuff to make your Easter special. But, what do we do at church? We get people up early, we eat breakfast together, and then we try to have a grander worship service than usual. Not hard to see why we are losing out to the cultural, commercial Easter.

Here is what I will do again this year. I will devote as little time as possible to consuming Easter either in thought or buying stuff. I will buy stuff for the grandkids because they are our grandkids and wouldn't understand my theology if I tried to explain it ! But whatever we do it will be on Saturday (Holy Saturday too! Even that compromise hurts). Easter is Resurrection Sunday when we celebrate Jesus who is risen! That is our faith and we celebrate that faith on every other Sunday of the year, in fact, that faith in the risen Jesus informs every area of our lives. There is a sense in which Easter is not all that special for Christians, every day is Resurrection Sunday. And I will be as counter cultural as I can. No Easter brunches at a restaurant, no baskets or eggs, and inflatable easter bunnies will be shot on sight, and I will neither buy nor give easter candy. I will go to church to worship and I will fellowship over a meal with other brothers and sisters to share our common faith in the Risen Lord Jesus. Amen.

Baseball and Bonds

2011-04-14T14:29:00.000-07:00

Barry Bonds broke the rules. There are other more important matters facing the world right now and this seems like the least of them. It was an expensive trial that ended up with a mixed verdict. He was convicted on only one count of obstruction of justice. He was evasive and determined to not tell the truth. Truth matters. Especially on a stage as big as professional baseball. Performance enhancing drugs is a huge social problem. Kids emulate their sports heroes. If you can cheat at baseball why not cheat in other areas of life, as well. If only those other areas were as clear cut.

Baseball has rules. Clearly defined rules. Everyone can see the boundary lines. A ball hit inside those lines is fair play and one hit outside those lines is foul. Ball four means a batter gets a free pass to first base. There is no funny business. Three strikes means a batter goes back to his seat on the bench. There is no leniency. Pitchers earned run averages and batters hitting averages are exact. No one's era is about 3. It is 3.21, exactly. The team that scores the most runs wins and there is no nonsense about awarding anyone a run for effort or good attitudes. Players that bet on games are thrown out of the game. Players that take drugs to get an advantage are suspended and thrown out if they keep on doing it. Even if they have hall of fame numbers they broke the rules of baseball and should not get in. So far that has been the case, anyway.

Life is not so clear. That's why baseball is an escape from life. The game of baseball makes sense in the way life does not (excepting players salaries and perks, that is, which make no sense in the real world and it is terrifically irritating to hear baseball commentators say things like he is worth every penny of the 3 million he is being paid - they are not living in the real world either - is this the fantasy league people talk about?)

In so called real life, boundaries are not so clear. Not one of the executives of any of the financial institutions that caused the economy to melt down has ever paid a dime or answered for their cheating. Politicians who play outside the lines do not have to account for their foul play. People find creative ways to get ahead any way they can. Their scorecards show they have scored more runs than the rest of us but they don't have to follow the same rules.

That's why I like to watch the game of baseball.

There are second chances in baseball and even if you go 0 for 4 there is always another game tomorrow. You can even go 0 for 20 and you still get another chance. If you hit a home run on your 21st at bat the other 20 at bats are forgiven. But that is about as far as grace goes in baseball. If you went 0 for 40, you might get shipped to the minors and wind up out of baseball. If you get injured and couldn't play, you won't get to remain part of the team. And if you cheat, you are gone. The lines are clear and well defined. Still, I'm glad life is not like that. As messy as real life can be, grace is a good thing. Bonds and Rose and Ramirez will never play the game again and they probably will never have their greatness immortalized in the hall of fame but God's grace is for cheaters and other sinners. They can still go home a winner.

NCAA Tournament Final

2011-04-07T14:00:00.001-07:00

Before the lights go out and the courts are rolled up at the 2011 NCAA basketball tournament, I need to comment on the championship. Not on the game which I thought was as enjoyable to watch as any other tournament final. I am in the minority apparently. The "expert" basketball commentators pretty much put a man to man press on it. It was the "worst" championship game ever; it was "ugly"; it was "pathetic"; it was a "disgrace", and so on, ad nauseum. The CBS lineup of experts tried to out - commentate each other describing how awful the Butler Bulldogs were. More like Butler kittens, they were. True, they shot poorly and could not adjust to their poor shooting. That, they only lost by about ten points was not due to their defense but to UConn's woeful shooting as well. Charles Barkley who was often insightful throughout the tourney bailed out and said it was the worst basketball game he had ever seen (or championship game - I don't remember exactly). Granted I watched the game as an amateur fan who has played a little basketball not as an expert commentator. Maybe that is why I saw a different game than the experts. I just muted them after a while, a short while. I saw two teams playing their hearts out trying to find a way to win when their shots were not falling. Most of us non-experts know what that feels like. I saw two coaches keep their poise and continue to try to find ways and combinations of players to give them the best chance to win. I never saw a coach berate or lose his temper with a player. It was obvious they were playing hard and there were not many mental errors. For Butler playing against a very good defense shots that normally fall did not.

Although UConn was bigger and longer, Butler had beaten such teams in the tournament such as Florida State and Pitt. Butler had a way off night. After the game Dan Wetzel of Yahoo sports reported the glum Butler locker room scene with several players crying and taking the blame for the loss. Ron Norad who had a particularly poor shooting night including missing several free throws began to pick the guys up. He reminded them of what this was, a game, not life. No one player was to blame. They were not there to point fingers but to take care of each other. Soon, the players were supporting each other as the brothers they had become over the year.

Butler is a school with 4,300 students. Their program graduates 90% of their athletes which is one of the highest of all the NCAA schools in the tournament. There has not been a hint of scandal in their program. Their athletic budget is dwarfed by UConn's, Brad Stevens salary is many times less than Jim Calhouns. It was a david vs goliath game. Midmajor vs Big East. Some would say Butler overachieved all year (or for two years!). Hardly, they are a quality program. They played their hearts outs and came out on the losing end. They didn't win any style points and the shots weren't dropping. But, they were a class act in defeat. No one has a good game every game. Sometimes in sports things happen that you can't explain. What is important is how you deal with it and how you respond to it. That's what I was watching. Too bad Charles missed it.

Bell's Book

2011-03-26T16:25:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading Rob Bell's new book called Love Wins. It is supposed to be about hell. It 's supposed to be about Bell's restatement of the traditional Christian view of hell. It's supposed to be Bell's heretical restatement of the traditional Christian doctrine of hell. At least that is what I had heard and read from the barrage of evangelical reviewers and bloggers. Some who never even read the book! Some rather well known evangelical leaders have written Bell out of the evangelical camp for this book. One well known big church pastor and author commented simply, goodbye Rob! Maybe I missed something but I read the book and I am somewhat puzzled by the reactions, or overreactions. Seems to me there might be some other issues at work in some of these critical reviewers. Maybe some professional jealousy, perhaps? Don't know for sure. That doesn't happen among Christians, does it? Just saying. Bell is enormously popular. He is the main pastor of a church that attracts over 10,000 people a week! He writes and does video curriculum. He is an engaging, gifted speaker. He is a brilliant thinker and is able to concisely convey a vast amount of knowledge in a readable style. He has his finger on the pulse of contemporary culture. That is not to say that Bell is original in his thinking ( who is? That's a good thing not a putdown). In this book, he channels many well known theological giants from the past. He could have footnoted more of them. He does give a short list of books to read. There are echoes of C.S. Lewis, Pinnock, Forsyth, Bloesch - and even Barth, just to name a few. What gets lost in this current controversy over Bell's book is that eschatology in general and the idea of hell in particular is a subject that has a long and varied history. You might get the idea from reviewers that Bell is the first to raise the issues he does! Christians have thought and taught a wide spectrum of belief on this topic - in other words, up to today it was ok if you were somewhere in a range of belief - you were still considered orthodox. Maybe not evangelical but at least Christian! Even universalism which Bell has been charged with teaching in this book (but I could not find it) was able to be contained in this wide spectrum of orthodox belief and taught by some of our less well known Christian theologians, ie, Origen, Evagrius, Gregory of Nyssa, Jacques Ellul (at least they considered themselves Christians!). Others have taught a universalism of hope - meaning that Christ's atoning sacrifice was not limited but intended for all humanity. Karl Barth seems to say this at times. So do Hans Urs von Balthasar, Richard Neuhaus and Gabe Fackre. ( I realize most of the above named Christian thinkers would not be called evangelicals but they are still pretty heavy weight Christian thinkers!) Annihilationism was taught by John Stott, Philip Hughes, John Wenham and Michael Green - all who are evangelical thinkers. Annihilationism is the belief that God does not force his grace on anyone and allows some to reject it and thus be excluded from the everlasting kingdom of God but they do not experience everlasting torment in hell since their souls pass out of existence. Additionally, there is a long history in the church of teaching divine perseverance. This is the belief that God in his love never gives up pursuing people even into the pit of hell. After death. Allowing for second and third and as many chances as a person needs to respond to God's love. Teachers of this view expound scriptures like Eph 4:8 and 1 Pet 3:19 and 4:6. Some of the theological heavy weights who have held this view are Cyril of Alexandria, Clement of Alexandria, Ambrose, George MacDonald (a great influence on C.S. Lewis), P.T.Forsyth, and Donald Bloesch. (as far as I can tell Bell doesn't hold to either of those beliefs, but he might, he can be ambiguous at times). So, all of this is to say that there has been a rich history of thinking and teaching about what happens when we die. Bell's book falls well within this tradition. Furthermore, Bell's book is written with an apologetic purpose. He has two groups of people in mind. First, are those who have only a superficial understanding of Christianity. Probably, many of these people show up at his church having been invited by other Christians. Bell is known for having Q&A sessions after he preaches. All a lot of people know about Christianity is what they have seen in the media or heard about third hand. Or maybe picked up from a person at work who claims to be a Christian. And it's pretty negative. Maybe they have seen so called Christians holding up signs saying all gays are going to hell. Do all Christians think that anyone who is not just like them in behavior and belief are going to hell? Bell wants to address this question. The second group of people are Christians who perhaps have been taught there are no other options. Believe in Jesus and go to heaven when you die ( in fact they think that is all there is to Christianity) and if you die without believing in Jesus then you go to hell. Hell is this place of terrible torment that lasts forever. Hell is the place where non-Christians "get theirs" vindicating the Christian life (of sacrifices) Christians have chosen. Bell is very quotable -what he says about this is "a discussion about how to just get into heaven, has no place in the life of a disciple of Jesus, because it's missing the point of it all." For those Christians who think the only or main reason to be a Christian is to escape hell and make it to heaven - Bell's book would be an eye-opener. In my reading of Bell, he does not deny the existence of hell. He does not deny God's just judgment. He does not deny the atoning death of Christ although he reminds us of the many ways the Bible talks about the merits of Christ's death (there has been a wide spectrum of belief in Church history about the atonement of Christ, too). He does want to affirm God's grace and God's love which he believes gets lost too often in our discussion of what happens when people die. He absolutely wants to confront the tendency of some Christians and Christian churches to act like they know what God's thinking is about the eternal destinies of other people. I would say that was his major reason for writing this book. Bell, remember is a pastor, not a trained theologian. He is writing out of the need for pastoral care for his flock and for others who might want to know what he is thinking. Here is what he says," for some the highest form of allegiance to their God is to attack, defame, and slander others who don't articulate matters of faith as they do.... a destructive, violent, understanding of God can easily be institutionalized in churches, systems, and ideas.... some churches are not very life giving places, draining people until there's very little life left... their God is angry, demanding, a slave driver, so that God's religion becomes a system of sin management, constantly working and angling to avoid what surely must be the coming wrath that lurks behind every corner, thought, and sin." Bell knows people who have been in those kinds of churches or who know people who are - and wants to say that this type of Christianity is toxic ( a word he uses a few times). Bell poses a lot of questions in his speaking and writing. He asks questions. He probes. He ponders. He asks us to reconsider, rethink, restudy, go back to the Bible and take another look, go to our teachers and ask questions, read other teachers. This is a good thing I think. Yet, it seems many Christians are afraid to do this. Thus, we see the reaction to Bell's book. Some were quick to label it, (even before reading it!) "controversial, extreme, on the fringes of accepted belief, outside the camp, etc. That's too bad. For another thing Bell writes is, "we shape our God and then God shapes us... our beliefs matter. They matter now, for us and they matter then, for us. They matter for others, now and they matter for others, then. What is God like?" That's doing theology. We swim in a wide stream with many other Christian thinkers and teachers over a long history. Rob Bell reintroduces us to some of them. He asks us to rethink, and to ponder an aspect of the Church's eschatology - what happens to people when they die. Do people have any hope? What sort of hope is it? What about God's judgment and what about hell. What about God's love? How do they relate and why should I care?

The Pastor

2011-03-02T14:26:00.000-08:00

When I started out in this pastor thing I had no idea what I was getting into. I didn't even know a pastor is considered self-employed and so he has to file quarterly income taxes. That was just one of many things I did not know. There were many role models but not many good ones. Most of the pastors who came to speak at the seminary I attended were older and pastoring the kind of large churches that most of us seminarians would only pastor in our imaginations. After a few fits and starts I wound up at my first full time "senior" (I was the "only" pastor) pastor position. It was a struggling small town church which was meeting in another denomination's church in town. Our church building had been condemned being about a thousand years old. So we worked hard and eventually combined the two churches into one (now we were The United Church) and planned an addition. Everyone worked hard again. Then it was done. People relaxed and some stopped attending and I wondered what I was supposed to do now. Keep working hard, keep adding new people, keep planning new programs and keep finding more volunteers and church staff. Pretty soon none of that was working and I had a growing family which I wasn't seeing much of. I was discouraged and pretty well burnt out. What else could I do. I started looking around. About that time I happened onto Eugene Peterson. First, a pastor friend of mine spent a three month sabbatical at his church in Baltimore. Then, my sister and husband who were doing youth ministry at our church went to a conference where they took one of his courses. Both were excited. So, I started reading what he was starting to publish. And I started listening to his courses on tape. He saved my ministerial life. Many times over the years. I have read just about everything he has written and that has been a lot. I have used the Message for years. That's why when his new book, Pastor, came out it did not have much in it I had not read somewhere else. Still it is nice to have all in one place and to see how his thinking and writing developed in his life. It is a good read. Highly recommended.

Peterson tells a similar story about starting out with a new church plant and when the congregation was gathered and the new building built after about four years he was in that same place, asking, now what do I do. He is a great story teller and he tells a story from early in his ministry when he didn't even expect to be a pastor. He was in NYC studying at Union Seminary working toward a PH.D. He planned to be a professor. He took a part time job at a Presbyterian Church working with young adults. Willi Ossa was the church janitor. He was also a serious painter. As Peterson got to know Willi and his wife, Willi asked if he could paint his portrait. Now Willi had grown up in Germany and his pastor supported the Nazis. He saw his church preach hatred for Jews and embrace Hitler as a modern prophet. He didn't know why Peterson or anyone would have anything to do with the church. He warned Peterson about what the church would do to his soul. Pastors were just functionaries in a bureaucracy where labels and rules were all that mattered. Willi and Peterson became friends and he did not want to see his friend hurt. For several Fridays Peterson sat for his portrait but after the session Willi would quickly cover it up. One Friday Willi's wife came into the room and looked at the nearly finished portrait. "Krank, krank", she cried. Peterson knew enough German to understand, "Sick, sick!" Then he caught Willi saying, "no, he's not sick now but that's the way he will look when the compassion is gone, when the mercy gets squeezed out of him." A couple weeks later Peterson got to see his portrait. There he was in a black robe, a red Bible on his lap with his hands folded over it. His face was gaunt and grim, eyes flat and expressionless. Peterson asked Willi why he had painted him like that. He said, I am painting you as you will look in twenty years... no matter how good your intentions, the church will suck the soul out of you... please, my friend, don't be a pastor.

Eventually, Peterson became a pastor but he says he kept that portrait in his closet for 55 years as a warning. Peterson's books functioned something like that for me. His books depict various ways to do this pastor thing; some ways he explains lead to death but some ways lead to life. He has been a good guide, a mentor; he saved my ministerial life.

Finding Our Voice

2011-03-02T11:44:00.000-08:00

As most people know, The King's Speech, won the academy award for best picture. It is the story of King George, a shy man who was thrust onto the world stage at a critical point in world history. The charismatic German leader, Hitler, was mesmerizing crowds of people with his impeccable elocution. King George needed to speak a word to his own people of England but the problem was he could not get those words out without stuttering. The Queen finds an Australian speech therapist who helps King George find his voice so he can address the public reassuringly. It is a great film ( I have heard since I have not seen it yet) with Biblical overtones. God chose spokespersons with similar speech impediments such as Moses. It could be said that anyone who stands before a crowd and espouses to speak a word for God feels like he or she is stuttering. Badly, at times. How do you speak for God? Most of us who have preached have stood before a congregation with butterflies in our stomachs, sweaty palms, and wondering how long until this torment would be over. Most people I have talked to when asked to "fill the pulpit" confess to a lifelong fear of speaking in public. William Willimon, a preacher and teacher of preachers, says, "Walking naked down Main Street while playing a harmonica is nothing compared to the personal exposure required to talk about God for 2o minutes to a group of people who have been, all week long, avoiding even the barest mention of God."

Most of us who preach need someone like Lionel Logue, the King's speech therapist, if we are going to find our voice. Few of us ever find our Logue but hopefully we find our voice. Eugene Peterson in his book, Pastor, tells about a time when his grown son returned home from college where he was pursuing a writing degree. He told Peterson that just as all novelists have one book so all preachers have one sermon. Peterson protested vehemently; each sermon of his was different and carefully crafted. Later, after his son returned to school, he left the church he had been attending because it was too big and he didn't know anyone and tried other churches in the area. Eventually, he came back to the same church he had been at. When Peterson asked why, his son replied, none of those other pastors had found their sermon. Then, Peterson said, he knew what his son was talking about.

I have stuttered and stammered and struggled to get through plenty of sermons. I have listened to many other preachers do the same. In fact, some of the most well known preachers of past and present had all kinds of vocal oddities and bodily tics. Some of their voices were hard to listen to and their trains of thought not easy to follow. Willimon defines finding one's voice as "learning to embrace why God called someone like me to say truth like this to people like these." He reminds us that preachers are not up there to "share what's on their hearts". Who really cares, anyway? Preachers are called to speak a word from the Lord to these people in this place on this day. That's all that is worth talking about.

Paul said that God shows his power through our weaknesses. Good thing. Every week those weaknesses are on display but we trust the power of God is at work as well. May he help us preachers find our voice.

Get Low

2011-02-24T09:21:00.000-08:00

Living in Kodiak sometimes you have to wait to watch movies until they come out on dvd. I have been waiting to see Get Low since I read a review of it last year. Still, it did not get a very wide distribution so many people may not have seen it. The producer and screen writer said it took years to get a company to back them so they could make it. It is a period piece set in small town Georgia in the early 1900s. It has no special effects, no digital backgrounds, no sex scenes and very little violence and most of the actors are old! I did not hear an "f" word in the whole film. It does have terrific acting (Robert Duvall at 80!, Bill Murray and Sissy Spacek). Duvall makes the movie playing an old man ( which he is!) who has been a hermit for over 40 years. Since he has lived his whole life in one place there are lots of stories about him circulating around the country. Few of them good ones. He is hiding out from a secret in his past that very few know about. He is hiding from people and from God. Without spoiling the film, he is unable to forgive himself for an act in his past that he is ashamed of. So, he put himself in his own self made prison for 40 years. No relationships, no wife, no children, no grandchildren. His best friend is a mule (who is a great actor in her own right with the name Gracie!) His other best human friend is a preacher he told his story to but has not talked to in 40 years. Everyday he lived paying for what he did. Finally, the time comes for him to Get Low. He goes into town to talk to a preacher and then a funeral director. He wants to plan his funeral. Not for when he dies but for right now. He wants to hear the stories people will tell about him. He wants to tell his story if he can. As a viewer, you wonder if he is ready to ask for forgiveness - but there are only hints right up to the end.

It's a powerful story of redemption and reconciliation. It goes on my all time favorite list. Duvall is one of my favorite actors. But, as I think about this film I wonder how many people are like his character trapped in the prisons of their own making because they are unable to forgive or ask for forgiveness. I recall Lewis Smedes in his book on forgiveness saying that the person who cannot forgive or ask for forgiveness hurts himself most of all. This film could have been a story based on that theme. By the way, the soundtrack is excellent, too.

Sermon on the Mound

2011-01-28T16:04:00.000-08:00

She scans the small crowd like a pitcher sizing up the next batter at the plate. What are they looking for? Right now she has them in the palm of her hand, expectant. What will she throw at them today? She knows she only has a few minutes. If she is wild she will lose them. Soon, they will be looking out the window or making faces at the baby in the chair in front of them, or responding to a text or checking out the scores on an iphone. She does not want to lose them. Yet, even with all the times she has stood on this mound she knows she has control problems. Some times she winds up throwing a curve when she really wanted a fastball right down the center of the plate. You see, unlike a pitcher she wants the batter to get a solid hit, right out of the park. She wants them to see the ball just as clearly as she does as she delivers it. She does not want to lose this one and give up a walk. It seems to her like she has done that all too often. They move on and she really has no clue how she lost them. Was she too academic? Or, did she rely on a Biblical memory which was not there? Or, did she choose stories and examples that did not connect? She knows the first few minutes are critical. Soon and very soon, she will know whether or not this pitch was in the zone or not. If it was not, there is not much she can do to regain the momentum. She has to finish the game. There is no one warming up in the bullpen. No relief in sight. She prays silently for someone to save this outing. It can be a struggle just to finish. The only good thing sometimes is that she can say it is over. It is always hard to leave behind though. Her mind plays with the pitches she threw, over and over. What could she have done differently she wonders? How did the new batter, the one she has never faced before, what did he think of her offerings? Will she see him again and have another chance? It's a mental thing and it's hard to turn her mind off when it is all over. But, there is another game next week. Fortunately, she can't dwell on this one too long; she has to get ready for her next start. Although she has been doing this a long time, the next one always feels brand new like it's her first. She is excited for another chance. Those first few minutes hold such promise, such expectation. It's a thrill. For now, she wonders, will she have that control, will they like her offerings; maybe she will be pitch perfect (or close) and they will hit it out of the park. All she can do is wait and see, and pray for the conditions to be right. Just Right.

Stuff

2011-01-20T09:50:00.000-08:00

I just read the 100 Thing Challenge by Dave Bruno. Bruno lives in San Diego and works at Point Loma U. overseeing their website. He's about 40 and thinks about being "stuck in stuff" as he puts it. So, in 2008 he came up with the idea to see if he could reduce his stuff to 100 things. Of course, he is married and has kids so this was his personal challenge. They were not buying in. He still lived at home and had the advantage of "using" their stuff, ie, the couch, kitchen, bed, etc. He went through his stuff and got rid of tools, sports equipment, clothes and other assorted personal items. He whittled it all down to 100 things. He made some rules for himself to live by during his year of the 100 Thing Challenge. Like, if he bought something it had to replace something on his list. Some might wonder why would he do this? Why would he impose such suffering on himself? Actually, Bruno does not seem to have suffered much. In fact, he learned a lot about himself and his relationship to things. His challenge came as a response to some reflection he had been doing about the American Consumerist Culture. He chose this challenge as a way of putting some action to his thinking. Here is what he says about contentment: contentment is a virtue we can aspire to, not a state we can achieve.. Who is the satisfied person? The one who has it all, the one who has done it all, the one who has gone further than anyone else, or gotten more than anyone else.... there is no such person. We know that... yet in the heat of the moment it's not easy to remember contentment is an attitudinal choice not a buyable product. We all gravitate to more and more trying to achieve satisfaction. I go after more unless I choose to rest content in what joys can be mine. So, at a certain point, I said stop. Dissatisfaction is built into the fabric of consumerism; we are a country of retail malcontents. No store can sell ultimate contentment - we are always a little disappointed with what we buy/own/have. We never have the best of the best but we continually strive for it.

I liked Bruno's book a lot. I liked that he wasn't preachy or setting himself up as some kind of simple lifestyle icon/saint. He does not advocate this challenge as some kind of new spiritual path, although it certainly had spiritual implications for him. He is honest and funny. It's a good story in which he shares many lessons learned. Whether you agree with his thesis or not it's a good read. It did not inspire me to do my own 100 Thing Challenge but it got my wife and I talking seriously about getting rid of one item a day and if we buy something it has to replace something else.

Fixing Church

2011-01-13T11:03:00.000-08:00

Ok. So it's a new year and there is a new marketing push for a new book and program to revolutionize your church. In the beginning there was Jabez, and then followed Purpose Driven and then.... and now Radical. There is a book ($5 on Kindle) and a website (radicalexperiment.com), and a year long plan for small groups and worship services including suggestions for songs to sing. And a lot of it is very good. The author, a megachurch pastor in AL, was uneasy with his megachurch as he traveled the world and experienced other places and churches struggling with fewer resources and smaller facilities. So, he decided to make some changes and invites others to, as well. I admit I have not read the book carefully although I have read reviews and browsed through it. I know the genre quite well though having read books like it and bought into the programs to "change our church" making it more Biblical and more discipleship oriented and, thus, more vital and relevant and growing. It is a uniquely American tendency to want to "fix" the church. If we apply our acute analysis of the problems facing the church and then come up with a creative plan to meet those problems, we can get the church back on track. And we are creative and entrepreneurial so we can easily march out a new program ( with books, and studies, and resources that all cost money - it is not cheap to get your church where it should be). Then, you marshall the forces: getting people to serve on committees, and coming to small groups and reading the books, and implementing the changes in their lives and in the church. What worked in AL will work in whatever place and whatever church you are in. If it doesn't well maybe you didn't do something right or maybe you are just in one of those churches that cannot be fixed. Been there, done the programs and wound up feeling guilty, discouraged, and out of energy for the other things that come up in church and life. And wondering what is wrong with me, and this church I am at because I failed to fix it.

Maybe churches are not supposed to be fixed, at least, not by us. Maybe that is not our job. Maybe there is no "one program that fits all" for revolutionizing the church and changing the world. Maybe we have got this backwards.

Eugene Peterson ( Practice Resurrection, is the book) says: the American church is understood almost entirely in terms of function (what we can see). We think the church is an instrument that has been given to us to bring about whatever Christ commanded us to do. That the church is a human activity to be measured by human expectations is a way of thinking we pursue unthinkingly. The whole reality of the Trinity already at work in our churches and our world is benched on the sideline while we call timeout, huddle together with heads bowed and work out a strategy by which we can compensate for God's regrettable retreat into invisibility.... we can no more understand the church functionally than we can understand Jesus functionally... we have to submit ourselves to the revelation and receive the church as the gift of Christ as he embodies himself in our world. The church simply is, it is not what it does. It is. We do not create the church. We enter into and participate in what has been given to us. Of course, we do things, and there are jobs to be done, and service to enter into but church is more than us. There is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and most of what the church is is invisible. It cannot be measured, or defined, or evaluated or judged by what we think it ought to be. (that was from Peterson, ch 6 of Practicing Resurrection).

What is the church supposed to be, I am asked? That's right, I say. What? It is to be. What is your vision for the church, I am asked. I don't know but let's find out what God's vision is for our church by entering into the life of the Body of Christ, here, together. Can I join you?

Senior Fitness

2010-12-30T12:06:00.001-08:00

There are more and more articles and books written about health and fitness. All the major media outlets have a special category called Health or Nutrition or Fitness. It is a big topic for our aging population which we all should be interested in because we are all aging. But, truth is most of us don't spend too much time thinking about it until we see ourselves as aging and old. Turning 60 has that effect on a person.

This morning I read an article about a woman who was morbidly obese at 45. Her doctor told her she was a heart attack waiting to happen. That did not make her change her bad habits but when she was unable to get into a boat on a family outing she realized she was electively crippled, as she called it. So, she started to walk and take more precautions about her diet. Then, she began swimming. At first, she could not make it across the pool and felt stupid but her instructor would not let her quit. So today, at 69, she competes in senior swimming competitions. Her husband, 73, is equally fit. We are reading more and more about seniors who are more fit now than they were in their younger days. It seems like it is never too late to change your diet and get more exercise. You will get a lot more out of life should you live into old age.

Our society does not make it easy to do that. Restaurants serve portions that are too large. And there is a lot of unhealthy food and cooking methods out there for our consumption. It is better to prepare your own food with healthy ingredients and downsized portions and if you want to eat out sometimes choose a place that takes healthy eating seriously. Exercise is the same way. You have to take charge of it yourself. Try to walk/run/swim or bike several times a week. Get to a gym to do some weightlifting a couple times a week. You can do pushups and ab work at home, too. The experts say that keeping your core (abs) strong is the key to balance and fewer back problems. Stretching is critical, too, as we age. It is not about winning a contest like it was when you were younger but just being able to take a hike with your kids or lift your 50 lb piece of luggage when you are traveling.

Competition is not bad. Some of us are wired that way. I may be looking for some senior bicycling competitions now that I am eligible to take my reduced senior lunch at the senior center. It may be time to start planning that long dreamed about cross country bike trip, too.

Week Old Bread and Sermons

2010-12-30T11:32:00.000-08:00

Doing some end of the year tasks this week like writing my annual report for the annual business meeting. I wonder about that one. How much time do you put into a report that a small percentage of the congregation ever reads and when it is read it takes a few minutes, and is never discussed, and then filed away for perpetuity. Which means it is never looked at again. Then, there is the task of looking back over the year of preaching. What does one do with preached sermons? This past year I preached over twenty times from the gospels, mostly from Luke which was the lectionary gospel this year. I preached sermons from Habbakuk and Haggai which was fun because many people had never heard a sermon from those Bible books (one person confessed he did not even know Habakkuk was in the Bible but he read it and liked it.). Then, there were about ten other Old Testament sermons, mostly from Jeremiah. The epistles were the source for three sermons, Acts for one, and none from Revelation. I don't remember much from most of those sermons although as I looked through them some of the main points came back to me. As I said, the Biblical texts came from the lectionary this year. I haven't always followed the lectionary but I am finding I like to more and more. The text is already selected and it can be facing me as I get started on sermon work Monday morning. If forces me to consider passages in the Bible I would otherwise never think of like Habakkuk and Haggai. At this stage in my preaching I like not having to come up with a text, or a topic or a series on my own. I know I would probably preach on those themes I like the most. Still, I noticed my preaching is informed by my current reading and experiences both personal and what is going on in the community or the world. That is as it needs to be. Preaching is not a lecture or a course people are taking. It needs to speak to our lives as we live them. That suggests what to do with the past years sermons. I don't read preachers books of sermons. Old sermons are like week old homemade bread - stale and dry. However, there is nothing like a good piece of bread right out of the oven. Sermons are like that. They are best consumed on the day they are preached after a week of preparation. They are the fresh meal of God's word for that day. If you eat it weekly, it will sustain you over time. It is not so good served as leftovers. So, like I often do with my homemade bread that has become stale and dry, I will throw these old sermons out. It is not easy to do that with my bread and I find it just as hard to do that with my sermons.

Some Good Books 2010

2010-12-16T15:01:00.000-08:00

This might seem like a strange place to start but one of the books I read this year was The Art of Dying by Rob Moll. It is a very wise and necessary book. You might think we would talk more about dying because we are all doing it but we don't. We act like we are going to live forever. When you pass a milestone like I did this past year - a 60th birthday - you are bound to get a bit more realistic about life. You have your limits in clearer perspective. Maybe not as clear as they need to be, but you are getting closer. You are not going to accomplish all those things that were options in your 20's. Probably no PH.D, and travel to far flung places, and all the money you were going to save by now - all these things as well as a host of others are out of reach now. You cannot physically do what you could even ten years ago. You stopped playing church softball so long ago it seems like another lifetime. Now, this is not morbid thinking. It is realistic. Limits. Deal with them. Recognizing our creaturely limits seems like a prerequisite for knowing God. We are dependent creatures. No matter what we think when we are younger.

Limits was a theme in many of the books I read this year. Probably that has been a theme in other years as well but I was more attuned to it this year. The Warmth of Other Suns has to be at the top of my list of books this year. Isabel Wilkerson spent years researching this book about the northern migration of Blacks in the Jim Crow years. She follows three main figures in their migration north to find a life that was their own. A life of freedom, and dignity, and opportunity. What they found was too often more of the same kind of limited life they knew in the South. There was job discrimination, housing discrimination, educational discrimination and a whole lot of racism hidden under the surface of life. In New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, they learned to make a life within those limits. As she follows those three lives, she also traces how a whole country changed during the era of increasing awareness of civil rights and greater freedom for all.

Eliza Griswold told a gripping story of religious limits as she traced the fault line between Christians and Muslims in places like Sudan, Nigeria, Indonesia and the Philippines - along the tenth parallel. Most of the Muslim world is not in the Middle East but in these parts of the world. Here, there is an often violent clash of civilizations and cultures. Here, is where Christians and Muslims are fighting out their territorial claims and in some cases trying to see if they can work together for peace and to solve the larger social problems, ie poverty, the growing gap between the rich and poor, religious freedom, and terrorism. Here, is a part of the world that is volatile - and how these conflicts are dealt with will shape our world in the future.

Paul Among the People by Sarah Ruden is one of the most stimulating books of Bible interpretation I have read in years. She is a scholar in the Classics and she takes what she knows and interprets the Bible in the context of Greek and Roman literature and culture. In doing so she sheds much light on Paul's teaching regarding women, slavery, and sex and marriage. In recent times Paul has been criticized for being out of touch with these issues and not having a word to say for more modern times. In giving Paul another look against his culture, Ruden gives us a very different look at how far ahead of his times Paul really was.

History is a favorite subject of mine. I enjoyed reading about the years leading up to our civil war in Daniel Walker Howe's book What God Hath Wrought. Another special historical interest of mine is the early church. Peter Leithart's book Defending Constantine brings alive the fourth century and the impact of Constantine upon the Church and of his policies to Christianize the empire. Much has been written of Constantine and much of it assumes Constantine used the Church for his own purposes. When he made everyone Christian it is said he diluted the faith and vitality of Christianity. He made Christianity too easy and at the same time made it worth less. A shallow, commitment phobic, Christian Church today is the result of his policies or so it is said. Leithart says Not So Fast in many ways in a well researched and well written book that will give the reader many reasons to rethink Constantine and his impact on church and culture.

Jean Edward Smith does much the same for U.S Grant that Leithart does for Constantine. Grant has an unremarkable reputation as a drunk and corrupt politician who happened to be in the right place at the right time in the Civil War. From there he parlayed his fame as a Civil War hero to a two terms in the White House, an office he kept through an unscrupulous use of patronage. Smith takes these charges head on and in a highly readable style restores Grant's reputation as not only a great Civil War general but one of our better presidents, too.

Of course, I read "in my field" too. I enjoyed Ed Dobson's book The Year of Living Like Jesus. Dobson was a cohort of Jerry Falwell one time, long ago. He has since gone on to other pursuits. This one involved reading the Gospels and actually doing what Jesus said to do. Another book about a man learning to live like Jesus is Wisdom Chaser by Nathan Foster. His father is the reluctantly famous Richard Foster who has written several books on spiritual growth and formation. One was called Celebration of Discipline. Foster's son grew up knowing his dad was famous but not what for. He had no aptitude for what his dad was doing or teaching. He felt like his famous father's work took him away from home too much. He grew up rebellious and it took him until his 20's to get it. The way he got to know his dad and what his dad was all about was through climbing mountains with him. Reading this book gives us a chance to get to know Father and Son better too. James Davison Hunter wrote an important book that was reviewed all over the place. It was titled To Change the World. Christians are always about coming up with plans and slogans to change the world. Hunter demonstrates very clearly why this is so hard to do.

I always enjoy fiction for its insights into what makes us tick. This year I especially enjoyed Cutting for Stone by Abraham Verghese and Noah's Compass by Ann Tyler and Olive Kittredge by Elizabeth Strout.

I have a weakness for sports biographies. This year I bypassed one on my boyhood hero Mickey Mantle because it dished out so much trash on his life and I prefer to remain ignorant of the details and remember him as I thought of him as a boy. Willie Mays is arguably the best centerfielder of Mantle's era and his biography sends you to a world when players played for the love of the game and didn't play for the highest bidder. Mays was no A-Rod whose bio also came out. That's a good thing.

Hannah's Child is a memoir written by theologian Stanley Hauerwas who is hard to classify. He is anabaptist, Methodist, pacifist and catholic. He taught at Notre Dame and Duke. He is a prolific writer who bares his personal soul telling about a hard marriage and professional disappointments. He writes well and comes across as someone you would like to meet at the coffee shop and talk theology.

There were other books like Robert Webber's Divine Embrace which I wish I had read years ago and Rediscovering Values by Jim Wallis who was probably trying to figure out who the heck is Glenn Beck and why does he hate me. The Big Short tried to help me figure out what the heck is wrong with the economy but I'm afraid to admit I still don't get it and I sure hope someone does. Custer's Last Stand by Nathan Philbrick convinced we made the wrong man a hero. Too Small to Ignore is a moving memoir by the president of Compassion and a compelling challenge to continue to sponsor children around the world. Something we all can do right from where we live.

There is a limit to the number of books you can read in a year. And a limit to the number you can write about. I have reached mine.

The Bible App

2010-12-16T14:27:00.000-08:00

I was sitting in a local coffee shop with a friend and I heard a familiar song on the sound system. I couldn't bring it up and so I asked my friend if he knew who the artist was. He said no and then wait a minute and pulled out his iphone and held it up to the music. I have this app he told me that matches any music being played to the artist and song title. Of course, you can also purchase it instantly from itunes. Apps are now a noun and a way of life. There are more apps than anyone can possibly even know about. Time, Wall Street Journal, and the NY Times all have apps and they all have articles describing the top 10 apps everyone needs to have, or the 10 coolest apps, or the best apps for whatever you are into. I confess I am app challenged. I only have a few apps and I don't even use most of them. I have an app for the weather and one to check the flight status of Alaska Air flights and other than those two I don't use apps much. Sad, I know. Funny how with all our apps most of us are still time challenged. Seems like the apps that are supposed to free up time end up taking more of our time. But we are into apps. We like applications. Applied life. Tell me something I can use, useful. It needs to be practical, practicable. I don't have time for stuff that does not help me today.

I have heard that before. Preacher, make sure your sermon has an application. People need to be able to know how to apply what you are saying to life. Or else they will not listen. They want to know how to use it. End your sermon with how to put what you said into practice. Preach "how to" sermons. People will love them. How to pray, how to raise good kids, how to keep your marriage alive, how to forgive, etc, you see there are a million of them. These kinds of sermons scratch where people are itching. They will keep them coming back. The worst comment a preacher can here is that she or he is not relevant, contemporary. Not an app.

I imagine you can get the Bible as an app. That's the way a lot of people use it anyway. A text for the day, or the crisis. If you feel this way, look up such and such. The Bible must meet our demand to be practical, too. Problem is there are large chunks of the Bible that are not. Like genealogies, Old Testament laws and lists of stuff and the Bible is filled with stories that don't seem to be getting anywhere, fast. What is the practical lesson we are supposed to derive from the story of David. Just tell me what it is so I can do it. I don't have time to read the whole thing! What about the story of Jesus! Do you mean I have to read the whole gospel, all four of them? Just break it down and tell me what to do. Get to the point, preacher!

Peter Leithart in his book, Deep Exegesis, writes, "God in his infinite wisdom decided to give us a book, a very long book, and not a portrait or an aphorism." "God reveals himself in his image, Jesus, but we come to know that image by reading, and that takes time." Then, Leithart says, "God wants to transform us into the image of his image, and one of the key ways he does that is by leading us through the text. If we short circuit that process by getting to the practical application, we are not going to be transformed into the ways God wants us to be transformed."

Hmm. Maybe the point is that He wants to know us. And He wants us to know Him. And that happens through a long, and deep and ultimately transforming encounter with His Story, the Bible. Through conversation and relationship. Which takes commitment, and lots of time. A lifelong pursuit to live Godly lives. And there is no app for that.

The Randomness of Life

2010-12-03T13:46:00.000-08:00

I was interested in an article by Gina Kolata who writes on health and fitness topics for the NY Times. She told how she fell on a bike ride recently and broke her collarbone. It so unnerved her that she thought she might never ride again. She had had other injuries from exercise before, for instance, a stress fracture from running but she never considered stopping her running. She wondered why. After talking to some other doctors and sports psychologists, she realized we tend to fear what we cannot control. A running injury is explainable. You run too much and you get a stress fracture. You take time off running and you heal. On her bike she was drafting off another cyclist and he swerved and she hit his rear tire and went down. She could not control the other cyclists movement nor what happened when she hit the tire. She was out of control and hurt. I have had that happen to me. When you hit a cyclists rear tire, you are the one who falls. It happens so fast there is no way to prevent it other than not riding so close but then you are not drafting. I was riding one Good Friday afternoon. It was an unusually warm Spring day and I was on my usual route for an hour long bike ride. I was on a main road and a car ran a stop sign at one of the intersections I passed. It happened so fast I could do nothing but choose what part of the car I was going to hit. I was not seriously hurt although I could have been. My bike was bent and my helmet was broke but I preached on Easter. That was many years ago but I am a more cautious rider today because of it. I have thought about that accident many times. If I had left my house a moment or two later or if I had been averaging a mile an hour slower pace or the person who hit me had chosen a different route home. If, If, If,... It's pretty common to second guess yourself after an accident.

Gerald Sittser was involved in a much more serious accident in 1991. Returning from a conference with his mother, wife and three children in their mini-van, they were hit head on by a drunk driver who crossed over into his lane going 85 mph. Gerry's mother, wife and their youngest child were killed in the crash. He wrote about the accident and how it affected his life in a book called A Grace Disguised. In one of the chapters, The Terror of Randomness, Sittser talks about how he fantasized for hour upon hour about all the little things he might have changed that day to avoid that accident. Any minor change to their schedule that day would have prevented the accident. He wrote that we expect life to be orderly because it usually is. There are certain natural laws life depends on. But, then accidents happen. A tornado interrupts the normal pattern of life. A man who watches his health all his life wakes up to find a lump on his neck. A woman who has enjoyed a normal life with a fulfilling career, and family decides to go for a run in a park on vacation and is assaulted by a stranger. Why, do accidents happen. Accident means something unplanned, unwanted happened for no reason. Accidents are random. Accidents, by definition, are out of our control. Sittser says Randomness mandates that we simply live as best we can, but in the end we must realize that what happens is often arbitrary. At such times the universe seems to make as much sense as a little girl who thinks her fleeting grudge against her brother is the reason he got measles.

Suffering, he says, may be at its fiercest when it is random, for we are then stripped of even the cold comfort that comes when events, however cruel, occur for a reason.

One day as Sittser was reliving that day and trying to think of how it might have been different if he changed one thing or another, his brother in law challenged him to reconsider whether he would really want the kind of power he was talking about. He told Sittser that life in this world is an accident waiting to happen and there is not much we can do about it. Common sense tells us to wear seat belts, and quit smoking, and exercise and good habits will minimize accidents but not eliminate them completely. Do you really, Sittser was asked by his brother in law, want to know the future so you could protect yourself from the accidents that inevitably and randomly occur in everyone's life. And he went on, if you could know the future and could alter your life in the present to avoid the accidents that were coming, would you want to know what accidents would befall you in your new altered life. What you want, he told Sittser, is to be God which is impossible. So, given that that option is closed the only other option would be to lock yourself in your house and put yourself in an antiseptic bubble for the rest of your life. But, who really wants to do that. Better, the brother in law said, to brace yourself for accidents and endure them the best you can. Better to give up your quest for control and live in hope.

Sittser went on to say that people who learn to live in hope seem to weather loss better than those who don't. Most of us don't live in absolute terror considering all the terrible accidents that may happen to us. We manage to live reasonably well and when it comes time to face the worst we can accept it as part of the bargain of living in a fallen world. We take our chances, all things considered, life is still worth living.

Sittser says he has been helped by two Biblical stories, Job's and Joseph's. Job learned that behind the apparent randomness of life is the existence of God whose greatness transcended Job but did not nullify the importance of his choices. Job found meaning in the ineffable presence of God which he could not fully comprehend but could experience in the depths of his being. Joseph's story helps us to see that our own tragedies can be a very bad chapter in a very good book. The terror of randomness is enveloped by the mysterious purposes of God. In the end, life turns out to be good, although the journey to get there may be circuitous and difficult.

Truth is we cannot see the bigger picture. But we choose to believe there is one and our lives and losses fit into the Great Story that has God for its author. That is our faith that life is not random, after all.

Constantine Defended

2010-12-02T11:10:00.000-08:00

A common and simple outline of church history says that the purity of the early Church was lost during the era when Constantine was the emperor of Rome. Between the end of the Constantinian era and the Reformation, the Middle Ages muddled through the corruption of the Church with small groups of monks who preserved whatever purity of the early Church that was left. The Reformers recovered the purity of doctrine but not Christian discipleship or conduct because they were too closely allied with a National Church ( the Constantinian problem all over again). In Modern Times the Church is splintered, shallow and in some places serves to prop up a nationalistic idea of the state, ie, American civil religion or Dutch Reformed support of the state in South Africa. There are pockets of the "purer" version of early Christianity in places and some Churches seek to recover that purity but generally the Church today is in a "fallen" shape due to the Constantinian compromise. That compromise allowed the Church to exist freely as long as it supported the state. Before Constantine, Christians were known by their lifestyle because it was risky to be a Christian. After Constantine, there was no risk, everyone was just a Christian. Today, the Church is full of "just Christians" and no one really knows what it means to be a Christian. But, it doesn't mean much. Certain Anabaptists will say that the Reformation did not go far enough - it did not reform discipleship/conduct - and it did not overturn the Constantinian compromise. The purity of the early Church has been lost and so we are members of a "fallen" church today. John Howard Yoder is the main proponent of this view.

Peter Leithart has issues with this common, simple outline of Church history and with Yoder's analysis of the Constantinian problem. His book, Defending Constantine, is a richly researched history of Constantine and his era as well as a study of the theological and political implications of that history. It seems to me Leithart has shown that Constantine was a genuine Christian who had a positive impact on the history of the Church ( the common, simple outline suggests his impact was mostly negative). The generally accepted view of Constantine is cynical. He used the Church to further his political vision of a unified and ever expanding empire. And as he gave the Church privileged status, the Church reciprocated by supporting his vision for empire. That's the cynical view and Leithart has shown it to be wrong.

Leithart shows that Constantine was a man of simple but true faith. He was also a ruler and a military man, an emperor of his times. He tried to practice his Christian faith as best he could. He ended the widespread persecution of Christians which I assume most of them were grateful for. Although his policies favored the Church, he allowed for religious freedom. He did not have a policy of forced conversion and pagans retained high positions in his administration. He built many Church buildings and supported Church ministries of compassion and mercy. He appointed numerous Christians to leadership positions in his government but he did not attempt to Christianize the legal system. One of his acts that had the most far reaching implications was his decision to end the sacrificial system of Rome. As Leithart says, "Roman sacrifice was at the center of Roman civilization." "It was the chief religious act by which Romans communicated and communed with the gods, keeping the gods happy so Romans could be happy." Roman senators sacrificed when they made deals and decisions. Soldiers sacrificed to their gods for success on the battlefields. Citizens were required to show their devotion to the Roman gods and the emperor by sacrifice. Christians refused to sacrifice to Roman gods and so prior to Constantine they were sacrificed. Roman society demanded sacrifice. When Constantine eliminated sacrifice, Leithart says, he unintentionally sowed the seeds of Rome's eventual collapse, "and established that Rome's life now depended on its adherence to another civic center, the Church." The Church is based on Christ's sacrifice for us and he calls us to live a sacrificial lifestyle. Christ's sacrifice started a new city whose citizens live by mutual love and service. What Constantine probably did not see was that he was not just initiating a new religion ( cultus) into the Roman mix of religions, but he was welcoming another city (polis), the city of God, Christ's city, the body of Christ which cannot be co-opted by any human powers.

So in Leithart's view we can be hopeful about the Church's future. In his view, the Church never did "fall" in the Constantinian era. He sees a much more resilient Church than Yoder does. The Church is the model community of justice and peace that other political leaders should imitate. It is God's alternative polis. There never was a pure Church so there is no point trying to find it and get back to it. In every age, as the times and eras change, God has worked by His Spirit in his Church to show the world what a true city looks like and what the City of God will look like some day.

Modern politics does not welcome the Church, the true city. Modern states are happy to use the Church as long as it knows its place. It needs to remain out of the public sphere and focus on piety and personal faith, propping up the state and it's causes when asked. Modern states denounce the Constantinian system. Totalitarian states sacrifice Christians all over again. Democratic states marginalize the Church and only accept it as a cheerleader for its causes. However, all modern states depend on sacrifice too. Unwilling to accept the final sacrifice of Christ, they continue to offer human sacrifices through various pogroms and wars.

Leithart agrees with some of the radicalism of Yoder but he also counsels patience. Just as Rome wasn't built in a day, neither is the city of God. But it is coming and it can be seen and experienced in part, in many places in the world today. The Church is not either pure or apostate which are the only two options Yoder seems to recognize. There are are a number of other points on the spectrum. There have been historically and there are today. Augustine said that in "this middle time" between Christ first advent and the coming kingdom of God we must always pray, forgive us for our sins. Yoder and others don't think we can expect much in this middle time. But, Leithart says, not so. Through reevangelization, and forming a Christ centered politics and a fresh public confession that Jesus's city is the model city, his blood the only expiating blood, his sacrifice the sacrifice that ends sacrifice, we can witness to the City of God amid the cities of earth.

The Strange Story of Arius

2010-11-25T11:54:00.000-08:00

It was a scene very few of us in the Western Church today can imagine. In 325 more than 200 bishops, most from Asia Minor, gathered in Nicea. It was the first church wide council in history and it had been called by the new emperor Constantine who, it was reported, was a Christian or at least had Christian sympathies. From wherever Christianity had spread the bishops came. One was from Persia, one from Crimea and another from Armenia. There were a few who had already become well known for their theological acuity. But most of them were simple pastors. And they had been called together by the new emperor! What had happened to their world? Only a few years earlier they and their churches had been harassed by the empire and some of their brethren had been tortured and even killed. One of the bishops who had come to the council had had his eyes put out during the Great Persecution and when Constantine arrived at the council he made a point of bending low and kissing the pastor's empty eye sockets. What sort of new world was this?

They had come to settle a dispute that had riled up the Church. The Church, not a phrase that has the same meaning today when we have so many independent churches and not one Church as the Church was known then. This Nicean council was Roman, ecumenical and catholic. There was unity in the Church across ethnic and geographic borders. That's not to say there was agreement and harmony among all the churches but there was an attempt to preserve the unity of the Church. This council was an attempt to do that. In Egyptian Alexandria a conflict between the bishop Alexander and a popular leader named Arius had surfaced. By 318 it had spread throughout the Eastern Church. It was the first of many Christological controversies that consumed the Church during the fourth century. Arius, who was a strong leader and a good speaker, had the manner and bearing of a philosopher and was in charge of the devoted virgins in the Alexandrian church. He was a disciple of Origen who taught a subordinationist Christology which made Christ inferior to the Father. Arius took this one step further saying Christ was begotten and before that he did not exist. Arius had been condemned by a synod of Egyptian bishops and banished from the city. But another synod in Bithynia was more sympathetic and reversed the Alexandrian decision. A third synod in Antioch condemned and excommunicated the bishop (Eusebius) who called the Bithynia synod. As tensions escalated, Constantine chose to gather all the bishops at Nicea. This had never been done before. An emperor convening a Church council. There was no precedent to follow. Some historians have found a heavy hand in the proceedings and charged Constantine with rigging the outcome. However, he was invited to attend the meetings, and sat separately from the bishops and he had more than met his match if he thought he as going to railroad the outcome. Athanasius, for one, rebuked the emperor to his face.
True, this was a whole new ballgame for Constantine as well as for the bishops. Some were gunshy about being in the presence of the emperor since it was not so long ago they were being chased down and their churches closed down by the preceeding emperors. Some probably basked in the new freedoms Constantine offered. Many undoubtedly wondered if this was too good to be true and were waiting for a trap to be sprung. But they were not pushovers. They were used to suffering for their faith and managing congregations on very little. They would not be led astray by the new emperor.
At Nicea, the term "one substance" was introduced to describe the critical relationship of Father and Son. Arius was condemned, excommunicated and exiled. Only two bishops out of 250 or so did not sign off on the Nicene Creed. Unfortunately, Arius continued to stir up the pot. Even Constantine helped him do that since he lobbied to have Arius readmitted to the Alexandrian church (can't we just all be friends, you know, for the sake of the unity of the church). Athanasius was the new bishop of Alexandria and he was not having it. Constantine in a snit threatened to have him removed. When Constantine would not let the issue alone, Athanasius traveled secretly to Constantinople to confront the emperor and he successfully persuaded him to take his (Athanasius's) side (Athanasius may have done a little more than argue his position theologcially - he may have threatened to interrupt the transport of grain through his area to Constantinople). But it was not long before Athanasius's enemies met with Constantine and persuaded him to change his mind, again. Constantine exiled Athanasius to Trier. Arius continued to appeal to Constantine to be readmitted to the church faking an orthodox confession of faith which Constantine accepted as valid. However, on his way to church to be readmitted, he died, strangely, perhaps poisoned. Yet, Arianism lives on.

Church of Lepers

2010-11-20T17:02:00.000-08:00

In the Sanctuary of Outcasts is the true story of Neil White who was a successful Louisiana entrepreneur and magazine publisher. He was active in the community and his local church. He was married with two children. Then he was arrested and charged with check kiting and financial fraud. He was convicted and sent to a minimum security prison in Carville, Louisiana. Even though the security precautions were minimal he still lost his freedom, and had to work at a series of menial jobs. He was an inmate and had little privacy and dignity. Additionally, Carville was unique in that the prison shared space and facilities with the only remaining leper colony in the US. At first, White admitted to being afraid of coming into contact with one of the lepers or touching anything they had in common. Prison at the leper colony was nothing like the genteel Southern life he was used to. In the course of his year long imprisonment, his life changed dramatically. His wife divorced him and he had little contact with his children. This was devastating in itself but he also experienced inner changes, too. His pride was challenged as he worked alongside people he would never have associated with on the outside. And he got to know some of the lepers, especially one older woman in a wheelchair named Ella. She had lived at Carville most of her life. When she was younger it was common for a person with leprosy to be uprooted from their home and life and forced to live at Carville. Lepers were lepers and people did not understand the disease and were afraid of catching it. Conversations with Ella helped White face himself and confront the personal issues that landed him in prison in the first place. Since White attended church on the outside, he often attended the Catholic services in the prison chapel. There the lepers and the inmates broke bread together. It was a transforming encounter. For the first time, White experienced true Christian community. When he left prison Ella had some advice for him: find a church. He wanted to find a church like he had known at Carville. This is how he described it: "where the parishioners were broken and chipped and cracked. A place to go when I needed help. A place to ask for forgiveness. A sacred place where people were not consumed with image and money."

He didn't know if a place like that existed outside prison walls but he was determined to find it if it did.

Michael Vick and Second Chances

2010-11-19T09:05:00.000-08:00

I am not sure what to think. As a sports fan it seems like every week I am being asked to cheer for a star player who allegedly sexually assaulted a young woman or was convicted of running a brutal killing farm for dogs or some kind of similar criminal misconduct. Michael Vick had one of the greatest games a quarterback ever had last Monday night. He has had several good games since he began filling in for the injured Kevin Kolb. He has made the Philadelphia Eagles a super bowl contender. He is being mentioned as a MVP candidate. He is also a convicted felon and out of prison for less than two years. Last year he saw limited action as a backup to Donovan McNabb. The Eagles were harshly criticized for giving Vick another chance at football so horrendous were the conditions of the dogs found at his dog fighting kennel. Yet, McNabb and Tony Dungy took him under their wings and advocated for another chance. For his part, Vick said all the right things, and has spoken of behalf of the humane society several times. He has owned his actions and called them wrong and been remorseful for what he has done. He served 18 months in a federal pen. What more can he do? There are many people who feel he has not done enough and cannot forgive him. Still, his football play is turning many of his critics back into his fans. Funny how that happens. Same thing happened with Ben Roethlisberger. And Kobe Bryant and ARod and on and on. The playing field becomes the field of redemption. Salvation through sports.

Or politics. We have seen the same scenario there. We are reminded that we need to keep a persons personal life separate from his public life. Political expertise and athletic prowess are what matters. Not how he or she lives their so-called private lives. But just how do we separate the two. Does that reasoning work with your spouse or children or parents. Would it work for a minister?

There have been some high profile cases of ministers where his personal life became an embarrassment to his family and his church. In some cases he stepped down and went through a process of repentance and counseling. In some cases, a group of advisers pronounced him ready to return to public ministry. That seemed to be a reasonable course of action. But that is the church. Not sports or politics.

When Bill Clinton went through his own personal/public sex scandal,he sought out ministers to help him get his moral bearings again. He has gone on to serve in the public sphere especially with the international rebuilding efforts in Haiti.

The Gospel is not for perfect people. We are sinners who stand in the need of grace. Daily. The public spheres of politics and sports play out the drama of redemption for each of us. Even in those spheres there are usually costly consequences for our sinful choices. Forgiveness and redemption, if they come, come at a price. Some people never forget. The path to redemption may be sloppy but it usually includes the steps of repentance, public remorse, penance and wise counsel or mentoring from elders. Who deserves a second chance? Probably none of us. Do we get second chances? Who wants to throw the first stone? That's called grace.

Constantine

2010-11-12T10:12:00.001-08:00

Constantine is a huge name in history, especially Church history. He lived around 300 AD and depending on who you talk to he was responsible for either: compromising the essentials of the Christian faith or enabling Christianity to grow into an influential world religion. As emperor of the Roman empire, he declared full legal toleration for Christianity in 313 AD in the Edict of Milan. Up to this point, Christianity had been harassed and persecuted by a series of Roman emperors. They belonged to a growing but still minority religious fringe group whose freedoms were severely restricted. Constantine's edict changed all of that. They were able to worship freely and all the former restrictions were removed. Constantine even built churches and clergy (Catholic) were given prestigious offices. In 323, he summoned a Church council to decide the Arian controversy and the Nicene Creed was the outcome. He moved the center of the empire from Rome because of its pagan past to the new city of Constantinople which he hoped to found on Christian principles.

Constantine is a controversial figure to this day and historians continue to debate his accomplishments and motives. One area of controversy is the genuineness of his Christian faith. Was he really a Christian? Why did he convert to Christianity in the first place? He placed his conversion in 312 AD at the battle of Milvian Bridge, north of Rome. Before the battle he claimed to have seen a vision of the cross of Christ that assured him of victory. He wore an emblem of the cross into battle and won. He became the protector of the Church of Christ although he was never baptized until right before he died. Some historians insist he was a megalomaniac who used Christianity for political and military purposes. He kept his distance from the Church but called himself the "servant of God" and the chief bishop of the Church. Yet, many of the decisions he made and the ways he used (and abused) power have raised many questions as to the validity of his faith. Either way, his Edict in 313 virtually made Christianity the faith of the empire.

In contrast to many recent studies that question not only Constantine's reasons for adopting Christianity but also whether it was good for the Church's long term growth and health, Peter Leithart has written a new book in which he defends Constantine from his critics. Called, Defending Constantine, Leithart argues that Constantine was a real Christian, who genuinely tried to apply his faith to life, living in difficult times.

One of Constantines main critics within the Church has been the Anabaptist theologian, John Howard Yoder. Yoder has maintained that Constantinianism changed Christianity from a minority faith that required courage and obedience from its adherents to a faith that was politically and socially privileged so that it was assumed everyone was a Christian. Yoder states that prior to Constantine you knew a Christian by how she lived but after Constantine church membership meant very little. Yoder, as a pacifist, also charges that before Constantine Christians were pacifists but after him, they were not. Christians now believed violence could be justified if history needed a nudge in the right way. Post Constantine the fundamental tension between the world and the church changed and the Church no longer followed a suffering Christ but now saw themselves as the victors.

Leithhart's book is a lively re- presentation of Constantine's life and beliefs and the consequences that we are living right up to this day. Constantine is an important figure for the issues he still raises today. We are very much living his legacy in the church. More on that legacy later as I get further into the book!

Jeter's Gold Glove

2010-11-10T15:39:00.001-08:00

Now is the time for good New York Yankee fans to stand up and cheer. Even if you're not a Yankee fan you can still say a good word for Derek Jeter. Jeter just won another gold glove for his play at shortstop. What an outrage the sports journalists are shouting. According to some arcane, complicated statistical formula that purportedly showed Jeter not getting to groundballs he should have gotten to - the fact that he only had 6 errors while playing nearly every game and then a few in the postseason doesn't count- he oughta give the gold glove back and confess to being the fraud he is. One Yahoo sports commentator ( he really is a yahoo) suggested that Jack Wilson of the Mariners and Andrus of the Rangers ( nearly forgot his name because he had such a forgettable World Series) were much more worthy candidates for a gold glove than Jeter. Ridiculous. Like any GM is going to take Jack Wilson over Jeter if he has the chance. Wilson missed most of the season and when he was healthy he hit about 240 with maybe one home run. Jeter had an off year offensively and still hit 270 with 10 home runs. In the postseason he hit over 300. Now lets see, how many postseasons has Wilson been in? Jeter is a winner. A class act. His off field conduct has never been a distraction. He honors the game and plays it like it was meant to be played. Maybe he has slowed down a tad and doesn't get to a few grounders like someone else might. Still if you have a choice for any shortstop in the league, wouldn't you take Jeter? I would and I am not biased.

Oh Mamma Mia

2010-10-25T12:28:00.001-07:00

So we went to Anchorage over the weekend. Flew out on Thursday night. Our main objective was to see Mamma Mia which was playing on stage for two weeks only. This morning I awoke with the catchy tunes playing in my head. Which was unfortunate. Not that I did not enjoy it - I did not exactly. I enjoyed watching my wife who enjoyed it. And the hundreds of other women who were there. Women in their 40s, 50s and 60s who screamed and sang and danced in their seats like they were at a rock concert. They came in groups of 5, 6, 7 and more. It was a girls thing. Men made about 20% of the audience and like myself were largely clueless. I had seen the movie when it came out on DVD. The 70s music by Abba is bound to get your feet moving but the lyrics will not get your mind moving very far. At least I didn't remember much about them. When I saw the play in person though I got some of the lyrics. The story is simple. Donna's daughter is getting married and she wants her father to give her away. Problem is she has never met her father, her mother has never mentioned him and she may not even know who it was. It could have been one of three men she knew at the time. So daughter invites those three after finding a journal her mother kept at the time which mentions those three men. All three show up unbeknownst to Donna. She is livid. Why are they coming around now. She raised her daughter by herself, she built a business and a life by herself. She does not need any one of the former possible fathers help now. When she stated that fact in the face of one of the possible fathers the audience of women erupted in cheers and applause. I looked for the nearest exit. Was I to be an object of this low grade rage toward men that Mamma Mia had brought to the surface. I looked to my wife. She did not seem to be sharing the rage. I felt safer; she would protect me in case I was made to stand in for all the men who had failed all these women in various ways. The show went on. There was some reflecting on how much better life seemed in the 70s when life was more laid back, love was free and drugs were handy. Before life got complicated and responsibilities intruded especially when you had to raise and support a child by yourself. Donna's daughter did not want to do it like her mother had. It was no fun not having a father so she was going to get married and do it right. Her boyfriend wanted to travel with her - and do the 70s thing for awhile- he was going along with the marriage for her sake. In a twist at the end, daughter and fiance decide they don't need to get married and Donna does. She marries one of the possible fathers. Who is divorced and has two kids who live with his ex. One of the other possible fathers discovered he was gay. And the third is a free spirit who has never settled down and is not ready too. Although he is pursued by one of Donna's friends (Take a Chance). So men don't come off too well in this story. Neither does marriage, faithfulness, or stability. Except in the way Donna has raised and supported her child. There was not much need for a man in this script. I was feeling a little vulnerable on the way back to our hotel. I tried not to look many women in the eyes on the way out. When I did I thought I saw looks of scorn and contempt. You Male, you're nothing but 0ne of Them! What good are you! When I tentatively expressed my thoughts on the play to my wife, she laughed. It was fun, she said. And you know I value you. Whew!

Amazing Grace

2010-10-15T14:36:00.000-07:00

Mickey Mantle, Brett Favre, Ben Roethlisberger.... and now William Wilberforce! After a squeaky clean bio and a movie came out about his life, you might think there was nothing more to say. You might think, ah finally a hero without flaws. You might think any dirt that was going to be found already would have been found. You might be wrong. Wilberforce was a real Evangelical hero. His was a great story of leading the fight in Britain to abolish the slave trade. Along with other members of the Clapham Sect he channeled his Christian faith into social action. His faith made a difference in the world in which he lived. Now a new book out on the Clapham Sect (The Clapham Sect by Stephen Tomkins) brings new information to light that shows us a Wilberforce who was forced to compromise his convictions for political gain. He was a politician, after all, and bringing social change is never a slam dunk. So it seems he looked the other way when the Sierra Leone colony in Africa, which he helped found, was practicing slavery while calling it another name. He knew what was going on but advised his handpicked governor there that there was nothing he could do and when the governor complained Wilberforce had him sent back to Britain. It was not a high point of Wilberforce's career. In fact, it showed an ugly side of this evangelical "superstar".

Should we be surprised? Sometimes we need heroes so badly that we are in denial and not only overlook flaws but pretend there are none. But, who of us does not have any? When we are kids we hear Bible stories in Sunday School and VBS in which the Biblical heroes are held up as role models. It's like the segment on the old Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon show called Reversed History. Someone sanitized those childhood Bible stories thinking it could not be a good thing for children to be exposed to the truth. And because we have a need for heroes. Then, when we get older and we read the real stories (which are so much better than the revised ones, anyway), we feel somehow manipulated - and either reject all the stories out of principle or settle in to rethink how and what we have learned about the Bible. Sadly, some people never outgrow their Sunday School years and never get back to the real reason for those stories in the first place. They hold onto their childhood stories all their lives and never find a faith to navigate the challenges of adulthood.

The only hero of the Old Testament my OT professor said is God. That's the point. He is the only hero we need. He is the only one who will stand up under pressure. Jesus is the only hero of the NT. Paul was a good guy and a brilliant theologian and a self sacrificing missionary - but as one of my NT mentors said, he was clearly a second class citizen when compared to Jesus. We follow Jesus not Paul.

Nor do we follow William Wilberforce. He was one of the saints, as we are, too. A flawed saint, as we are, too. He accomplished a great deal of good but he had his off days too, and so do we. We can learn from him and we can thank God for him. But like the title of the movie about his life he was able to do what he did because of God's Amazing Grace, and so it is with us.

RIghtly Divide the Word

2010-10-07T15:01:00.000-07:00

2 Timothy 2:15 says: Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth (NIV). The KJV has "rightly dividing the word of truth". In another place, the word of truth, God's word, is said to be sharper than any sword. But, this verse in Timothy has been used, swordlike, to skewer preachers who do not handle the word of truth the way their critics deem it rightly handled. In the preceding verse, Timothy is counseled to avoid word fights. The Greek word behind this translation is used only here in the New Testament but it means something like splitting hairs. To not put too fine a point on it, it is talking about fighting over minor things and turning them into the major things. It is dividing Christians over how they are dividing or handling the word of truth. Augustine said the preacher should make the truth plain, pleasing and effective. Chrysostom cautioned preachers to stick to the main thing and cut off whatever words are superfluous to it. In verse 15 Timothy is counseled to study to show himself approved. For Timothy as for all pastors, study has to be an ongoing spiritual discipline. A preacher needs to know the word and how to use his words to communicate the word. Correct handling or rightly dividing is a metaphor for a skilled craftsman building with an accurate plumb line. Rightly dividing is from the Greek word we get our word orthodoxy from. It is a hugely important word. It is outlined in the Apostles Creed. It is the outline for all preaching. It is the plumb line. Preachers holding to this line are not ashamed but proud of their work and have no reservations about showing it to the master for inspection. Still it is a hard and demanding task and one that calls for everything the preacher has and is. For it is not only taught but lived, tested in the daily life of the preacher. Matthew Henry, the great preacher, said the task is not to invent a new gospel but to rightly divide the gospel that is committed to their trust. Not to split hairs, not to focus on the minors, but to preach the great realities of the gospel: the birth, life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for our salvation. To rightly divide or handle the word of truth was never meant to be negative, a criticism, as in she or he does not rightly divide the word of truth but an encouragement, a blueprint, a vision for what the great call to preach is all about.

Grant's Last Battle

2010-10-07T14:33:00.000-07:00

U.S. Grant served the country as president for 8 years during the time called Reconstruction. Much of the South hadn't accepted the results of the civil war. In retrospect, Grant thought there should have been a long period - as long as 20 years - of military government only allowing the southern states back in the Union when they were they were ready to accept the terms of Reconstruction ie, national unity and the end of slavery. Instead, Grant fought a long, protracted battle with the South over the rights of Blacks. He authorized the use of troops to fight the Ku Klux Klan's reign of terror as well as many other terrorist attacks on former slaves. The 15th amendment adopted in 1870 was unenforced in much of the South and proved to be unenforceable. Grant, with all the resources at his disposal basically had run out of energy by the end of his second term. The North had lost the moral strength to keep the battle for civil rights going. By the Panic of 1873 most Americans were focused on the economy. Civil Rights in Congress and the North was a lost cause. Rutherford B. Hayes who followed Grant as president was compromised from the start. Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana were mired in nearly hopeless election fraud. There were reports of widespread election thuggery and violence designed to keep Blacks and pro- Republicans from the polls. In one Louisiana parish there were over 1500 fewer Republican voters than four years before (there was only "one" Republican voter reported in the Hayes race!). Hayes was unofficially one electoral vote behind his opponent, Samuel Tilden, who actually won the popular vote. Grant called for an election commission to try to sort out the election fraud and eventually Hayes was awarded the victory. But it came at a high price for Southern Blacks. Hayes pledged to withdraw the federal troops from the South, end Reconstruction and essentially hand the South back to the White Democrats. It was the presidency for Hayes but the beginning of almost 100 years of Jim Crow Laws for the former slaves who were technically free but wouldn't realize that freedom for years and years.

Grant and the Indians

2010-10-06T11:56:00.000-07:00

Thomas Jefferson wanted to relocate the Indians west of the Mississippi. Monroe wanted them to be removed somewhere even further west near the Rocky Mountains. Congress passed the Indian Removal Act in 1830 to appropriate money for the removal of the Indians to parts of Louisiana Purchase where no one was living. President Jackson pursued Indian Removal with a vengeance. By 1845, at the end of President Tyler's term it looked like the Indian Problem was solved. Most of the Indians had been forcibly moved out west. Indians were west of a boundary line drawn from Lake Superior to the Red River on the Texas border. The Indians were promised this land in poetic treaty language that said, "as long as grass grows and water flows." Trouble was as white settlement kept pushing west, treaties were ignored and Indians had be moved again. Gold was discovered, railroads built, buffalo hunters, farmers and cattleman -all headed to the American Frontier and their rights trumped whatever rights the Indians thought they had. Indians who were losing their land and their way of life fought back. It was a losing battle. Some in the American government and army were looking for a reason to exterminate them. Those who did not want to kill them wanted to "protect" them on a reservation where they could be "civilised" according to the white man's ways. Two large reservations were planned - pretty much all of Oklahoma and South Dakota. Most of the Indians submitted to the plan. Trouble was Congress failed to appropriate the funds. There were more Indian uprisings mainly because they were starving. The former Union Civil War Generals Sherman and Sheridan (who said infamously, "the only good Indian is a dead Indian") were in charge of putting down rebellions. President US Grant took office in the midst of all this unrest (1869). He had commanded Sherman and Sheridan in the Civil War so he was able to control them to a certain extent. Had Grant not been the president during this time his biographer, Jean Edward Smith, wrote, "tens of thousands (Indians) would have perished, and ethnic cleansing would have been the order of the day." Almost singlehandedly Grant changed the direction of Indian affairs in the country. Few others in government shared his conciliatory approach to the Indian Problem. Grant's principal advisor on Indian affairs was Ely Parker who had been his aide during the Civil War. Parker was a Seneca chief and helped Grant administer Indian policy. It was a tumultuous four years as Grant battled those within and outside his government who advocated a much harsher Indian policy. It was finally Custer's Last Stand that almost did his policy in. In the aftermath of the slaughter at Little Big Horn, the public wanted Indian blood. Even though Grant had no regard for Custer, his death made him into a national hero. Government and public opinion was against Grant and his policies toward the Indians. Still all was not lost and after the outcry over the Custer debacle blew over, some of Grant's good work toward the Indian was left to stand. Custer was avenged and what was left of the Sioux were driven to the reservation. Sheridan gloried in his mission to rid the west of the Indian and make it safe for the farmer, prospector, and emigrant. All in all, Jean Smith, concluded "Grant changed the way the United States thought about Native Americans and his decision in 1869 to pursue peace, not war, helped to save the American Indian from extinction."

About Religious Surveys

2010-09-28T14:08:00.000-07:00

So how concerned should we be about the new Pew US Religious Knowledge Survey. In results highlighted in major news media sources, the Pew Survey reported that self proclaimed atheists, Jews and Mormons knew more about Christianity and the Bible than self proclaimed Christians! The Pew Survey interviewed 3200 people and asked them 32 questions about the Bible, Christianity and general Religious Knowledge. Atheists averaged 20 right answers, Christians 16-17 or about half right. 45% of the Catholics did not know their church teaches that the bread and wine of communion actually becomes the body and blood of Jesus. More than 50% of the Protestants did not know who Martin Luther was. Almost no one knew who Jonathan Edwards was. About half those surveyed thought the Golden Rule was one of the ten commandments and only about half knew the names of all four gospels. Overall, Mormons answered more of the questions from the Bible right than Christians did. The full analysis of the survey is at pewforum.org

I took the abbreviated quiz the NY Times had at its website today. Not too tough. But, then I wasn't surprised at the results of the survey. Seems like there is a similar poll about every year and it shows the same results. And I have been a pastor long enough to know Christian Education has fallen on hard times. Another of the survey's findings was this: few people read books about their own faith. While they may read the Bible once a week that's about the extent of their Christian Education. The survey found most people never read anything about other religious points of view. As the detective on Dragnet used to say, those are the facts, just the facts.

American Christians think that they don't need to think. Christianity is a relationship; we are saved by faith, not by thinking. Thinking leads to doubts and questions and life is too complicated as it is. We don't want to complicate our faith. Our minds are made up. What is there to think about, unless we are unsure of what we believe. Christian faith is supposed to make us feel better about ourselves, about life in general. So, if it is doing that, then it is doing its job. It is supposed to be a means of having a hope, a purpose in troubled times. If it is, why fix what ain't broke. So, do we really need to think. How concerned should we be when we hear about polls and surveys such as the one this week by the Pew Forum.

In the NY Times article, the president of the leading atheist organization in the country was asked to comment on how well atheists did on the survey. He said he was not surprised. He had always said atheists knew Christianity better than Christians did. He said he encouraged people to read the Bible, to study Christianity. Only then will they find out why they should not believe it. Interesting point.

Faith does not come by study, by thinking. It is a gift, the Bible says. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) believed that faith was the foundation for Christian thought. "I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand; for this also I believe, that unless I believe I will not understand." He went on to formulate the ontological proof for God's existence which is still useful today and he wrote Cur Deus Homo (why God became man), a seminal work on the atonement.

Knowledge does not save by itself. But faith seeks reasons. So the Church will always have a teaching ministry. The latest Pew Survey confirms what most of us already knew. There is still plenty of work to do.

1 Corinthians 13

2010-09-25T14:41:00.000-07:00

Sarah Ruden has written a new book that opened some new windows for me on Paul and his letters. Ruden with a background in Greek and Roman classics reads Paul against that background. It makes for a fascinating and exciting book. For instance, discussing 1 Corinthians 13 she says it's like he catches himself when he gets to v31 of ch.12. He has been talking about how the body of Christ works together with all its separate parts. He asks a series of questions that betrays some irritability on his part. Then, he catches himself, wait a minute, what's missing here. Its love, agape, in Greek, a selfless love. Ruden notes that Paul shifts to first person (after all the times I have read this chapter and preached on it, why did I never notice it is Paul speaking in the first person after he has just taught about the workings of the body of Christ?). He is writing that " he is worthless in all of his achievements if he does not have love." If he speaks in tongues, or does miracles or has a faith that moves mountains but does not have love, it is all worthless! It is an amazing revelation.

Then Ruden notes Paul shifts to the third person and writes this beautiful description of what love is. In our translations there are lots of adjectives but in Greek there is not a single one. It is all verbs; love is a verb. She says if love is not an ethereal, abstract standard .... could be it is the Living God who loves the ones who are loving others with his love. Suppose this is his love loving us so that we can love with the love that loves us. She says.

Then Paul shifts back to first person again. If we practice this love we grow up into who God wants us to be. If we don't practice this love, we remain children, we don't see ourselves clearly. But, when we get it and practice love, we can see the face of God.

In the church our attention is on so many things: worship music, the sermon, the offering, who is doing what behind the scenes so Sunday morning comes off with some kind of structure, etc. But none of this is worth beans, says Paul, without love. Agape love which is a selfless love. Which is a verb. Talking about love is worthless without loving. Without love being a verb.

It has been said I (we) talk about love too much ( and grace). There is some truth in that. Not that we talk about it too much, but that we need to balance out all our talking about love with much more doing love. In fact, I could stop talking about it altogether and just work on doing it.

Named

2010-09-22T11:59:00.000-07:00

The lectionary readings for this week were from Jeremiah 32 and Luke 16. I decided to go with the Jeremiah passage for preaching. The Luke passage was the story of Lazarus the beggar. I did some early work on that story before I changed course and went with Jeremiah buying the field in Anathoth as the Babylonians were storming the gates of the city. Both powerful stories.

Lazarus is the only named person in any of Jesus' parables. Think of that. A poor, hungry, beggar who was covered with sores and who sat at the gate of a rich man for years. His only friends were the dogs who came and gave him some relief. But of human aid there was none. The rich man knew his name, too, but he never gave him any help. We are supposed to see that the rich man was very rich and Lazarus was very poor. In death, the rich man ended up in Hades and suffering while Lazarus was at Abraham's side. He was carried there by the angels while the rich man was buried. So, the tables are turned.

I think we are to see that God knew Lazarus's name. He meant something to God even when he had little worth to human beings. From many Scripture passages we know God has a special concern for the poor and oppressed. That is what we see here.

People can make a name for themselves but those who no one knows and whose suffering seems to be invisible - are not forgotten by God. Here in Luke 16, Lazarus enjoys a rich afterlife while the rich man suffers.

I was reminded of a story from my early days as a pastor. I met a man who looked homeless but actually lived in an apartment house in one room subsidized by the government. He barely functioned. I don't remember how we met but I know we had him to our home for an occasional meal and even for Thanksgiving one year. He mostly sat in the corner mumbling. I would call on him at his room, sit on his bed, and try to talk to him while he rolled cigarettes with tobacco stained fingers and mostly mumbled. One day I tried his door and it was locked. I came back that same day and it was still locked. Thinking it strange, I got a hold of the building supervisor and he unlocked the door. The man lay face down on his bed, dead. Dead for several days the police figured. He had no family that I knew of. He had no money. Welfare had a paupers allowance to bury him with. I got some people from church and we had a graveside service for Frank. Frank was his name.

I read in the NY Times this week about an isolated tent camp in Haiti set up after the earthquake. Thousands of people have been living there for months. Someone put up a suggestion box for people to communicate with NGO's. The idea has taken off. There are some thank you's written to the many organizations which are still there providing aid. There are also desperate cries for help. "Please, do something! We don't want to die from hunger and also we want to send our children to school. I give glory to God that I am still alive - but I would like to stay that way! Signed, Ms. Saint Hilaire

1.3 million Haitians are homeless now in 1,300 camps which have suggestion boxes. Most of the suggestions are expressions of suffering like the one above. Some say, I can't sleep, or I am discouraged, or I had a baby who died and I have six other children who don't have a father, and my tarp leaks and the rain panics me and I don't have money to feed my family and I would really love it if you would help me. Signed, Marie Jean Jean

Most of the people sign their names. Hoping someone is listening.

President's List part 1

2010-09-16T14:20:00.000-07:00

The so called founding fathers were generally men of stellar character and intellect. Our founding documents were conceived in their minds and written by their hands. Other than John Adams they were all slave owners or believed that slavery could continue to exist in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Since they believed so passionately in freedom it is hard to believe they could have overlooked the freedom of so many people living in their own country. John Adams and John Q. Adams were the only ones to see the moral defect in the thinking of the others.

Andrew Jackson was the war hero of New Orleans and somehow that qualified him to be president. He was notoriously anti-native American and pro-slavery. Certainly the worst of our early presidents and one of the worst of all time. His reign - and it was a reign - he pretty much did what he wanted to do - was followed by several other war heroes - from border wars with Mexico and Indian wars. Van Buren was not but he continued Jackson's Indian Removal policies and sided with Spain on returning the slave ship Amistad. His claim to fame is called "the trail of tears."

Harrison was not able to continue the governments brutal Indian policies because he only lasted in office for 32 days. His main qualification for the post was fighting Indians.

Tyler, Polk, and Taylor were presidents during the war years with Mexico as their governments attempted to annex more territory for the United States. Taylor was a war hero under Polk. Indians continued to be removed, slavery continued to spread (Taylor owned slaves), and many Mexicans were killed in an unprovoked war over territory.

Fillmore was a western New Yorker and I used to go to a state park named after him that included a log cabin he supposedly lived in when he was young. He became very rich later in life. The log cabin was not much of a tourist attraction, it didn't even have a caretaker or charge a fee to visit it. It just stood there, ignored. Much like Fillmore's presidency. He was pro-slavery and anti-Catholic. He did found the University of Buffalo but they don't even have a good football team. He became president when Taylor died in office. He couldn't get re-elected.

Pierce was a northern Whig but his pro-slavery views appealed to the south. He fought in the Mexican war and beat Scott for the presidency who also was a war hero. Polk didn't like Scott and spread rumors that seriously damaged his reputation. By all other accounts he was a pretty decent guy. Almost certainly he would have made a better president than Pierce. Pierce saw slavery extended further west through the Nebraska-Kansas act of 1854. Historians have claimed that Pierce may be our worst president.

Hard to beat out Buchanan though for that dishonor. Another pro-slavery president he presided over the Dred Scott supreme court decision. Not that he decided it but he never said anything against it. Whereas, Lincoln derided it as the worst decision ever. Buchanan, presided over many disasters during his way too long four years - Bleeding Kansas, and the panic of 1857. He vies with Pierce for worst president.

Finally, we get to Lincoln. After such a run of poor presidents it was providential that our country got the right person for the time. Lincoln was elected even though the south was not happy with his anti- slavery views, so he was the first anti-slavery president elected in a long time. Pretty much up until Lincoln presidents needed the support of the South to win. Just how was he elected? Providence. My vote for the best US president.

Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln after his assassination, was another low point in the US presidents list. A southerner, former Governor of Tennessee, he botched up Lincoln's reconstruction plan and made sure emancipated slaves knew they were still very much second class citizens.

U.S Grant, the Union Civil War Hero, has been much maligned for his ineptitude. A Pulitzer prize winning biography by William McFeely portrayed Grant to be a drunk and too tolerant of corruption in his administration. However, other biographers since McFeely believe his portrait to be inaccurate. His administration did elicit charges of corruption and nepotism was rampant, but he stuck to his guns in putting some federal firepower into the enforcement of reconstruction and fighting the Klan. He served two terms, reviving his popularity on a worldwide tour and writing a best selling memoir. One of our better presidents in my view.

Bad Science

2010-09-14T15:33:00.000-07:00

Marilynne Robinson is an important writer. She is a pulitzer award winning novelist ( check out her novels: Gilead and Home). She is a penetrating thinker, as well, on issues of contemporary culture. Her latest book is Absence of Mind. It is not a novel but a serious critique of modern popular science writers who "tend to reduce the person to brains, explaining away the strangeness and mystery of human experience." She calls it bad science, reducing the question of existence to the merely material. In her pointed criticisms of the genre of popular science writers ( ie, Wilson, Dennett, Pinker, Dawkins, etc) she expresses some concerns for people of Christian faith, as well. She says a Christian definition of the mind should be an openness to whatever the individual and collective mind reveals to us. And then this, " we don't know what we are. Nothing humanly wonderful could have been anticipated by us. Our own best moments or achievements surprise us. We know that, individually and collectively, we have never lived up to ourselves. And we know that, at moments, we have surpassed any hope we had of ourselves." She goes on to say, " I think the mind should inspire religious awe in Christians .... for human beings, as such. It saddens me that Christians need to be reminded of the awe that is owed to those who disagree with them, ... I am afraid this hardening toward "enemies", toward those images of God some of them are so ready to view as enemies, indicates the worst aspects of a body of thought they actually think they reject. Consequences follow for all of us when the individual is trivialized."

"Christianity has abandoned its intellectual traditions, ceding that ground to anybody in a white coat. ...we fear science... the more people know we think the less they are inclined toward belief... this is a central assumption of atheism."

"among my estimable students there is no way to distinguish those with a religious background from those whose experiences have been entirely secular, in terms of their sensitivity to allusion, or their familiarity with essential narrative, or with the basic terms in which the faith is articulated and pondered. In the great majority of cases they have been taught little or nothing."
"the assumption seems to be ascendant now that Christians in general have no interest in history or theology... unless they seek them out on their own they are unlikely to have had enough exposure to them to know whether they would find them meaningful..."

"Christians have not remembered our own strength over against the arguments that test it. It has not equipped people to realize that it has been the sponsor of a great intellectual culture. Where have the sciences flourished? where has freedom of thought and inquiry developed so powerfully, as in Christian civilization? These things are not new to us, not alien, not threatening, ... and we should honor and preserve them ... beginning with the local church."

"Christianity should be itself. Christians acting like Christians is the best response to the popular science writers, the new atheists. Living out the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 25 - these hard teachings that run against the impulses to judgmentalism and exclusivism which assert themselves so strongly when Christians feel threatened. If Christians believe what they claim to believe, that the church is the body of Christ, how can they think any "culture wars" are necessary to its survival? Its wars, past and present, are the most telling charge against it".

"Human beings tend to be religious. We must take care to protect the beauty, dignity, and integrity of Christianity so that people are not turned away by experience that makes it seem corrupt, hypocritical, subject to manipulation by other interests, or simply crude."

I will add my two cents. Amen and Amen

Tenth Parallel

2010-08-27T14:26:00.000-07:00

Just finished my non-fiction book of the year (so far!). It is titled The Tenth Parallel and it was written by Eliza Griswold. She is a journalist who has written a book of poetry, too. This book is her story or stories - about her travels along the tenth parallel or ten degrees latitude north of the equator through countries like Sudan, Nigeria, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. She got started on this trek accompanying Franklin Graham's mission, Samaritan Purse, on a trip to Sudan where he wanted to meet with President Omar Hassan al-Bashir who was waging violent jihad against Christians and Muslims in southern Sudan and who would soon begin the genocide in Darfur. Griswold documents the clash of Christianity and Islam along the tenth parallel with research, interviews and stories about people who are caught up in the violence. And it is a violent world but she shows it is not as simple as Christian vs Muslim. It is a religious war but it is also a political one as the powers that be fight over oil, and land and identity. Sometimes it is just a matter of a job. If you have nothing else to do and no means of support, why not join the jihadists.

There is the matter of religious confrontations. Griswold, who was raised Episcopalian and whose father was the highest ranking bishop in the American Episcopal Church ( and who ordained the first openly gay bishop while wearing a bullet proof vest) is not Christian enough for Franklin Graham and other evangelicals, gives a balanced account of the religious warfare along the front lines. There are stories of massacres by Muslims and Christians along with the reasons they give to justify the violence. There are stories of many different kinds of Christians and Muslims, too. Islam is just as fragmented as Christianity. There is no monolithic Muslim movement against the west. Most Muslims in the Global South (and most of the world's Muslims live there and not in the Middle East) are not militant jihadists; they are only trying to survive. These are very poor areas.

There is a lot of confusion among Christians regarding Islam and its intentions toward the Christian world. Are they trying to take over the world and make everyone Muslim? Do they hate all Christians? Does the Koran teach death to all infidels? These are some of the questions Christians have. Christians are suspicious of the motives of Muslims. Few have read the Koran, and few know any Muslims. They know Islam was behind the destruction of lives on 9/11 and they are enraged that Muslim leaders would try to put a mosque on that site. Some even support the Florida pastor who says he is going to burn Korans on the anniversary of 9/11 this year because it is an "evil" religion.

Griswold's book helps us see that real life is not that simple. There are Muslims who are working with Christians to bring peace and reconciliation, teaching the next generation religious tolerance instead of hatred and violence (in some parts of the Global South Muslims and Christians have a history of co-existing peacefully). There are politicians on all sides who have used and are using religion to gain supporters for their positions which means more power for them. And there is oil. Each of the countries along the tenth parallel are oil producers and some of the religious conflict is a veiled fight for oil rights.

The mistrust and religious hatred between Christians and Muslims has a long history in this part of the world. In many of these countries Islam took root first so they see Christians as intruders. Both Christians and Muslims can be aggressively evangelistic and so they are competing for converts. It is a tense situation and violent confrontations are always possible. It has been a way of life for many years. Lately, though, since 9/11 and America's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the conflict has taken on heightened tensions. Militant jihadists are actively recruiting poor Muslims and educating them in a hatred of all things western, especially, American. Christianity is seen as a tool of the West to subjugate Muslims. Some warlords are using jihad as a way to gain land and wealth for themselves. There are religious fundamentalists as well who interpret the Koran any way they want to make it right for them to do whatever they want.

Griswold tells stories of all sorts of Christians, too. There are many motives for Christian mission and there are many ways of doing it. One well known Christian evangelist is quoted saying, you gotta love Muslims but you can't trust them. There are stories of people with good intentions who have only made the situation worse and there are stories about people who are living a simple life following Christ, serving others. She tries not to make judgments or take sides but like a good journalist she lets the stories do the talking.

It is clear that the heightened rhetoric on the Christian right makes it more plausible that the clash of religious cultures may become violent here. When we lump all Muslims together and name them the enemy. When we ramp up the suspicion surrounding their every move. When we continue to remain in the dark about what Muslims really believe and what the Koran really says. When our first impulse toward Muslims is mistrust instead of respect - when these things are true - we are letting the media coverage of the wars of religion shape our attitudes and actions toward Muslims instead of the teaching and example of Jesus Christ.

Is a Christian...

2010-08-19T11:18:00.000-07:00

Some days are harder than others to own the name of Christian. Is a Christian someone who hates gays, and Muslims, and Democrats, and in general seems to hate more than love. Anne Rice thinks so and she publicly renounced Christianity but not her faith in Christ. In some ways, she sounds very much like an evangelical but she has had it with the church. Many of us have days like that. Is a Christian someone who will only have anything to do with people who they trust share the same detailed statement of faith including footnotes. Jim Wallis might think so. A Christian radio station withdrew its financial support of a huge Christian Music Festival in Wisconsin when they found out he was a key note speaker. On the station they are warning parents to keep their impressionable youngsters away from what is called LifeFest in Oshkosh. Wallis according to the station is guilty of fudging the lines between government and the church and preaching a version of humanistic "social justice". Wallis met with the radio people twice and made a public statement of his true beliefs but the station is not buying it. They 'stand by their stand". Wallis might be forgiven for wanting to do a Rice and follow Christ by himself. Then, there is President Obama. In a new poll by the Pew Foundation more people than ever think he is a Muslim. He has stated numerous times he is a practicing Christian but more and more people are not buying that either. Many of them are Republicans, the poll found. Probably some Christians there, too. Obama might consider joining Rice and Wallis. Then there would be a church of 3.

Some days its hard to stick with the church. Christians can do some dumb things, and sound like idiots. You just want to disassociate yourself from them. You find yourself protesting too much: "but that's not what I believe." And even with your own small group of Christians down at your local church, there are those days when you want to throw in the towel. Alright, I've had it. Pull a Rice and start your own church of 1. Simply follow Christ as you see fit. Not have to deal with other nosy and noisy Christians. Trouble is where ever you follow Christ, he is always attracting these other guys and if you are serious about following him seems like you have to try to get along with them.

Small Churches

2010-08-19T10:52:00.001-07:00

I am the pastor of a small church. I have always pastored small churches. I have not intentionally chosen small churches. It's just that there are so many more of them than large churches. Small churches are like families. You can pretty much know everyone. You don't know everyone well but they are not strangers. In a small church the people of the church do most of the work that needs to be done. There are few staff. Maybe a secretary, a youth leader, a custodian, perhaps, but they are all part time. There are always maintenance projects, music ministries, ongoing Christian education and various caring and helping needs. These are filled by the people of the church who are all volunteers. Volunteers may not be a good word because a small church is like a family. You don't volunteer to do the dishes, or take out the trash or paint the bathroom - at your home. You are part of the family so when something needs to be done you chip in and do it. Ideally. Of course, we know there are no ideal families. Nor are there ideal churches. So, things go undone, sometimes important things and people are blamed for leaving things undone. Sometimes families don't communicate with each other very well and neither do churches. Sometimes families have high expectations of one another and so do churches. Sometimes families play all kinds of relational games - power games - with each other and so do churches. One power game that is played is to withhold yourself emotionally or physically from the family. One family member may refuse to talk to another or may refuse to chip in on the housework or even leave the household for awhile. It happens like that in churches, too. People get hurt, frustrated or think they are not being taken seriously and so exert their relational power. They may stay away for a few weeks, or conveniently forget they were assigned to do something, or stop giving financially, or in some cases, they just leave altogether. When that happens in a family, or a church it creates disequilibrium. The family dynamics are out of whack. We try to figure out what happened, what caused the rupture. It helps to explain it and it helps even more if we can find someone to blame. Then we can move on more easily. But, it is never easy. It is a relational breakdown. They happen in all families and in all churches. We should not be surprised when they happen but neither should we be unprepared. They are not fun to deal with but they are part of community. Because there is no perfect community. In large churches relational breakdowns are masked by the size of the community. People can be strangers. But not in a small church. Small churches experience life at its best and worst. We believe God is in the mix though. He brings healing and wisdom. Closure takes awhile. Sometimes it never comes. It helps to be honest and name the acts and feelings for what they are. It helps to pray even when the feelings feel raw. It helps to know God knows and he doesn't demand a perfection from us that we are incapable of. Family and church dysfunction is a necessary reminder of who we are. Sinners saved by grace. Lord, have mercy.

Church Questions

2010-08-12T12:17:00.000-07:00

It helps to be something of an investigator, a private eye, if you are going to be a church leader. You want to be asking, why, a lot. Why isn't so and so coming anymore? Why did so and so leave to go somewhere else? Why did so and so just drop out? Why did Pastor so and so leave and go somewhere else? It's also helpful to investigate why someone joins a church. Why did so and so start coming, and why do they keep coming to the church? Why did so and so join the church? In a church we were part of in NY, one family who joined the church wanted to tell us why they chose to join our church. It was a helpful and affirming experience.

It does not feel like a positive and affirming experience when someone leaves, of their own choice. We are left with feelings of guilt, failure and self doubt. What did we do to cause this? When someone drops out, or leaves of their own choice, the fingers of blame point to us. And there is often a kernel of truth in what is being said although due to the heightened emotions at the time we rarely discover them.

We are a ragged bunch in the church. We are sinners who often have a higher view of ourselves than we ought. We get sanctification confused with justification and wind up thinking we are justified by our sanctification. God chose us, saved us, and created the church to put us into. Its supposed to be the place where we grow up in Christ, to maturity, attaining the full stature of Christ as the Scripture says. But in the meantime, we are often unbalanced, uncertain, and not blessed with perfect vision or understanding. Now, we see through a glass darkly, as Paul wrote. Best, not to act as if we have perfect clarity because we don't. We are very much a work in progress. But, so is every church.

We end up erring on the side of judgment or grace. Better grace than judgment, it seems to me. God is a good sorter of these things out. We can trust him. It seems a lot of the time we are stumbling along and not making much progress. We are making more than we think. It is a long process, this maturity business. It takes a lot of commitment, flexibility, and patience with others and yourself. It takes a body of Christ who is in it for the long haul, as well. Who is there for you when you may not be at your best, and we all have those days, or years. Better remember the words of Paul in Philippians: What I'm getting at friends, is that you should simply keep on doing what you've done from the beginning ... live in responsive obedience... be energetic in your life of salvation, reverent, and sensitive before God. That energy is God's energy, an energy deep within you, God himself willing and working at what will give him the most pleasure. (from Philippians 2, The Message Bible)

Church, warts and all

2010-08-12T11:27:00.000-07:00

"Church is the textured context in which we grow up in Christ to maturity. But church is difficult. Sooner or later though if we are serious about growing up in Christ, we have to deal with church. I say sooner. I want to begin with church. Many Christians find church to be the most difficult aspect of being a Christian. And many drop out - there may be more Christians who don't go to church or who go occasionally than who embrace it, warts and all. And there certainly are plenty of warts. It is no easier for pastors. The attrition rate among pastors leaving their congregations is alarming.

So, why church? The short answer is because the Holy Spirit formed it to become a colony of heaven in the country of death... Church is the core element in the strategy of the Holy Spirit for providing human witness and physical presence to the Jesus inaugurated kingdom of God in this world. It is not the kingdom complete, but it is a witness to the kingdom.

But it takes sustained effort and a determined imagination to understand and embrace church in its entirety. Casual and superficial experience with church often leaves us with an impression of bloody fights, acrimonious arguments, and warring factions. These are more than regrettable, they are scandalous. But they don't define church. There are deep communities that sustain church at all times, everywhere, as primarily and fundamentally God's work, however Christians and others may desecrate and abuse it. C.S. Lewis introduced the term "deep church" to convey the ocean fathoms of tradition that are continuously re-experienced at all times and everywhere.

It is easy to dismiss the church as ineffective and irrelevant. And many do dismiss it. It is easy to be condescending to the church because so many of its members are unimpressive entities. Condescension is widespread. It is common to become disillusioned with the church because expectations formed in the country of death and by the lies of the devil are disappointments. Disillusionment is, as a matter of course, common.

If the church is intended as God's advertisement to the world, a utopian community put on display so that people will flock to it clamoring to get in, it has obviously become a piece of failed strategy. And if the church is intended to be a disciplined company of men and women charged to get rid of corruption in government, to clean up the world's morals, to convince people to live chastely and honestly, to teach them to treat the forests, rivers and the air with reverence and children, the elderly, and the poor and the hungry with dignity and compassion, it hasn't happened. We've been at this for two thousand years now, and people are not clamoring to join us. Obviously, the church is not the ideal community that everyone takes one look at and asks, "how do I get in?" Clearly, the church is not making much headway in eliminating what is wrong in the world and making everything right. So, what's left?

What's left is this: we look at what has been given to us in our Scriptures and in Jesus and try to understand why we have a church in the first place, what the church, as it is given to us, is. We are not a utopian community. We are not God's avenging angels. Look at the church as it is right now and ask , Do you think that maybe this is exactly what God intended when he created the church. Maybe the church as we have it provides the very conditions and proper company congenial for growing us up in Christ, for becoming mature, for arriving at the measure of the stature of Christ. Maybe God knows what he is doing, giving us church, this church. (from Practicing Resurrection by Eugene Peterson, pages 13-14)

Hannah's Child: A Theologians Memoir

2010-07-22T14:45:00.001-07:00

Finished the new Stanley Hauerwas memoir last night called Hannah's Child. Hauerwas was named by Time magazine America's best theologian in 2001 in the September 10th issue. On the next day that honorable mention was all but forgotten. It is an interesting read. Hauerwas's life all by itself, even if he wasn't a controversial theologian, is a compelling story. He grew up in a hardworking, poor family in Texas. His dad was a bricklayer just like his dad and all his 5 brothers. Hauerwas started going to work with his dad before he was a teenager. His early life was defined by hard work, laying brick or peddling vegetables from his garden. This work ethic served him well later in life as people wondered how he managed to read and write so much. It also helped him cope with a difficult first marriage. Hauerwas is probably not known well in evangelical circles unless you have been to seminary or done graduate work in theology or Christian ethics. Only a couple of his books have made it beyond academic and professional circles. He co-authored a couple books with Will Willimon, Methodist preacher and bishop, and those are probably his most popular. He taught scores of students at Notre Dame and Duke Divinity School and was a popular teacher. A good speaker, he was known for colorful speech, and humor and well constructed lectures. He cared deeply about what he was doing. He wanted to think and teach about "what mattered."

His positions were not mainstream. He was criticized by liberals for his Barthian Christology and his high view of the Church. He was criticized by Catholics for being too Protestant and by Protestants for being too Catholic. In many ways, he was a unique blend of Anabaptism and Catholicism who ended up in the Methodist Church. He was influenced by John Howard Yoder, the Mennonite scholar. Yoder was a pacifist and convinced Hauerwas of the truth of that position. That conviction did not set well with most evangelicals and Catholics after 9-11. Hauerwas was not shy about criticizing Bush's response to 9-11 and the war on terror.

Whether you agreed with Hauerwas or not, there was no question where he stood. He said if you tell a Texan what you want he will either give it to you or kill you. Hauerwas pulled no punches. Yet, in his memoir he is gracious to a fault. When conflict or disagreement breaks up a relationship or friendship, he willingly accepts responsibility for his part of the problem. He did not write this story to tell his side so he would look better. It is as honest and transparent as a memoir can be. When a friendship fails, he is contrite and hopeful reconciliation will take place. Sometimes it did. Sometimes not. When he decided someone was dishonest or untrustworthy he told that person the relationship was over.

Even though he often felt like an outsider - not fitting into either the evangelical or liberal camp and not finding a lifelong home in any one denomination - his teaching should be heeded by Christians in all camps. Truth matters, and he thought hard and long about what that meant. It would be good if Christians cared more about what they say they believe. And if you believe it, you had better be ready to go wherever that belief takes you even it causes conflict.

Hauwerwas believed friendships mattered, too. He worked hard at relationships. His first marriage was to a difficult person (although even here he takes more than his share of responsibility), yet he worked at making it as good as it could be.

He valued the Church. Not only what the Church is and stands for ( he said once that it didn't really matter what he thought, what mattered was what the Church taught) but what it means to be a "congregation". One church he belonged to had too many people who did nothing to sustain the life of the congregation - that was a church that liked the idea of church but was not a congregation. Later in life, he and his second wife bought a cabin in the mountains of North Carolina for a getaway place. They discovered they never used it because they were always busy on weekends - at church. How refreshing to find someone - a theologian even - who not only says he believes in the church but is committed to it and actually shows up every week!

Worship is at the heart of Hauwerwas's theology. It is what Christians do. It is important for him to attend a church that takes worship seriously. One that celebrates the eucharist weekly and keeps to the services and vigils of Holy Week. In one church, he was part of, the pastor retired for health reasons and soon died. The new pastor came full of church growth ideas and "what would work" to make the church bigger. She cut back on some of services and the number of times the eucharist was celebrated. Instead of the traditional Holy Week services, she did some drama on Good Friday night. She went to a Willowcreek conference and told the church they were going to have a contemporary service and a traditional service and make some other seeker friendly changes. Hauerwas said "over my dead body", and rather than fight and perhaps split the church, walked away.

Summer Reading So Far

2010-07-16T14:35:00.000-07:00

So the summer is half over (that's a depressing thought when we only yesterday saw some summer weather finally arrive here in Kodiak) and I am way behind in my summer reading plans. I did not get much reading done on my recent summer trip to the lower 48 because I was otherwise occupied (see my earlier blog). But as far as it goes, I have read some good books and I have a stack waiting for my perusal ( and a "stack" lined up vertically on my kindle). Some comment is in in order. I read Hole in Our Gospel by Richard Stearns who is the president of World Vision. It's a good story about how he came to be the current president. He was very successful and a very rich businessman selling homeware to the very rich. God took him out of that business and put him in one that tries to get food to people who have little of it and couldn't care less about the homeware upon which it is served. It's a good story about how he struggled to hear God's call when he was about to buy into another company that would have guaranteed him 25 to 50 million in stock shares. Does the rich young ruler come to mind? Stearns also has plenty to say about the mission of the church to the poor (try these stats on for size: 25,000 children die every day due to hunger and hunger related causes; 2.6 billion people live on less than 2 dollars a day - Americans live on 105 dollars a day; the richest 7 people on earth control more wealth than combined GDP of the 41 poorest nations; 20 percent of the earths people consume 86 percent of the worlds goods; one of four children in developing nations are underweight; 350 to 400 million children are hungry right now; roughly 850 million people do not have enough food to sustain them; 9 million people die every year due to lack of good food. Stearns believes the church needs to do something about the crises the poor face and he offers suggestions for ways we can help.

Marilynne Robinson is a very smart woman. She is a fine novelist having written Gilead, Housekeeping and Home. An Absence of Mind is a very different kind of book. Not a work of fiction, it is piece of cultural criticism in which she tracks the death of the mind today. "Whoever controls the definition of the mind controls the definition of humankind itself, and culture, and history." "if the answer is we are the accidental outcome of the workings of physical laws which themselves are accidental, this is as much a statement of ultimate reality as if we were to find that we are indeed a little lower than the angels..." This is a book to be read and read again.

Why is it that Christians just can't get along? I don't know why I have such trouble getting that, or accepting it. We have a history of fighting over definitions. Definitions of theology, and of practices like baptism, and church symbols, and music, and furnishings, and lifestyle. We split, and split again until we are atoms in the larger church universe. If we are all one in Christ, I hope God can figure it all out and put us together again someday. John Philip Jenkins is a terrific church historian and writer and he has done it again in The Jesus Wars which tells the story of church infighting from the beginning when the church struggled to get the definition of who Jesus Christ was exactly right. The stakes were high and emotions were too. People died in this theological warfare. At least no one lost their lives when we replaced some pews with chairs.

Family life is hard. What would it be like to be a husband with four wives and 28 children! How would you get to all those little league games in one night? Maybe you would just have your own team, or two or three! Brady Udall wrote one of my favorite books, The Miracle Life of Edgar Mint, so I took a chance on his next book, The Lonely Polygamist. You can see where this is going. Some good novels have been written about family dynamics; this is a good story about a man who has to deal with four families and himself all at the same time. Good read.

Stanley Hauerwas was catapulted to fame a few years ago when Time called him the greatest theologian in America. Hauerwas who teaches in the Duke Divinity School was taken aback. He is a hard working theologian who has written some books and is often asked to speak at theology conferences but much of his work is critical of our American culture and the church's captivity to it. He was not looking for this "honor". So he wrote this memoir to answer the question, Who is Stanley Hauerwas? It is not the person so dignified by Time's selection as America's Top Theologian. The name of the book is Hannahs Child. His mother, Hannah, had a child late in life after losing a baby who was stillborn. She prayed to God like Hannah did in the Samuel story in the book of Kings and promised to dedicate her son to God just like Hannah did if God would answer her prayer. He was named Stanley after Stanley who sought after Dr Livingstone in Africa. Stanley's mother Hannah told him when he was six that he was a direct answer to prayer and he was dedicated to God. He says:"I am not sure what possessed my mother to unload her story on me at that time... My fate was set - I would not be if she had not prayed that prayer...whatever it means to be Stanley Hauerwas is the result of that prayer. Was I robbed of my autonomy by my mother's prayer? Probably. But if so, I can only thank God. Autonomy given my energy would have meant going into business and making money. There is nothing wrong with making money but it was just not in my family's habits to know how to do that... I certainly like the work my mother's prayer gave me.

He had me hooked when he told about his conversion. " I was baptized at Pleasant Mound Methodist Church in Pleasant Mound, Texas - a small town outside Dallas... Pleasant Mound Methodist was Methodist but like most folks in that area we were really Baptist which meant that even though you had been baptized and become a member of the church you still had to be "saved". Baptism and membership were Sunday morning events. Saving was for Sunday nights. Sunday night was an hour hymn sing, a time for personal prayer at the altar, a forty five minute to an hour sermon, and then a call to the altar for those convicted of their sin. I was in my early teens and had begun to date a young woman who also went to the church. I was pretty sure I was beginning to sin and I needed to be saved but I didn't think I should force God's hand. Our pastor was Brother Zimmerman. He had actually gone to college but he preferred to be called "Brother" to show that even though he was educated he was not all that different from the rest of us. He was thin as a rail because he gave everything to being a minister. I remember him being a lovely, kind man but he believed we did need to be saved. He put up a tent outside the church every summer so we could have the yearly revival. It was quite an honor for a clergyman from another nearby Methodist Church to be asked to come and preach the revival. Despite the honor, the clergyman had to be from a nearby church because we could not afford to pay travel. It was never clear to me why we needed to be revived but you could always count on some members of the church, and they were often the same people year after year, being saved. I sometimes think they wanted to be saved in order to save the preacher, because it was assumed that the Word had not been rightly preached if no one was saved.

So there I sat Sunday night after Sunday night thinking I should be saved but it did not happen. Meanwhile, some of the youth were "dedicating themselves to the Lord" which usually meant they were going to become a minister or missionary. I am not sure how this development among the youth of Pleasant Mound began but it was not long before several kids older than I was, had so dedicated their lives. So, finally one Sunday night after singing "I Surrender All" for God knows how many times, I went to the altar rail and told Brother Zimmerman that I wanted to dedicate my life to the Lord. I thought that if God was not going to save me, I could at least put God in a bind by being one of his servants in the ministry. When I took that trip to the altar, I assumed I was acting "freely" but in fact I was fated to make that journey by the story my mother had told me."

Good Samaritans in Haiti

2010-07-16T14:06:00.000-07:00

Holding the real print copy of the NY Times in my hands last week at the George Fox library, the front page article on Haiti drew my attention. It was part of their ongoing coverage of the aftermath of the great earthquake ( oh yeah its not over and the country is not back to normal whatever normal means in Haiti). Six months later only 28,000 of the 1.5 million people displaced by the earthquake have moved into what generously might be called houses. The picture on the front page showed a busy Port au Prince street with a median strip that was filled with flimsy shanties, one after the other, as the traffic whizzed by on either side. These "homes" fortified by rubber tires to keep cars from crashing into their shelters as they slept were right in the midst of the nightmare that is Port au Prince traffic. All day long vehicles rumble by, blaring horns, raising dust, belching exhaust; many vehicles have run into the homes, hit pedestrians who have to cross the street to get to the bathrooms, and even killed some people. It is rare that anyone stops to offer help. "Don't they have a heart?" one resident of the median strip homes asked. She was covering her children with a floral shirt because the diesel fumes were intolerable.

The Good Samaritan story. That is what came to mind. People passing by other people who were victims. A victim of a mugging in the story Jesus told. What are the median strip people victims of? Bad luck, inept government, callousness, selfishness, forgetting.... We all pass by. Out of sight, out of mind. The victim in Jesus story is unnamed. So are the median people, just images in a photo. In the crowded city of Port au Prince, most of them are unknown to those who pass by every minute of every day. And what would a person do who stopped. What help would they offer. What would the pastor and Bible scholar do if they stopped? They are not trained EMTs. What if their help made matters worse? What if they were sued when their help left the victim in more serious condition? If they had cell phones, they could have called 911. Maybe they notified the authorities when they got to their destination. Jesus does not say they were bad men. Just that they passed by. They had other things on their minds; they did not want to make matters worse. Jesus does say this: They were not good neighbors. They left the Greatest Commandment unfulfilled.

That was the original question. The religious scholar wanted to know what he had to do to make sure he had eternal life. Jesus asked him how he interpreted the law. The man knew the heart of the law and Jesus said so. Go and do it, Jesus said. But the man lingered. He had a question. Just who is my neighbor he asked. Definitions. The need to be precise. What exactly are the limits of my responsibilities here. Too bad Jesus does not give definitions. So we can know exactly what we are supposed to do. He tells stories. There it is. The story of the Good Samaritan, the one who did not pass by, the one who fulfilled the Greatest Commandment, the one who was a neighbor.

And people keep passing by that median strip. Thousands a day. Worlds away I pass by too. How can I be a neighbor?

Summer Travels

2010-07-15T10:41:00.000-07:00

We just returned from a two and a half week trip down the Alaska Highway to Portland, OR. We drove the AK Highway almost 12 years ago when we moved out to Kodiak. It was mid March then. We remarked several times that we don't know how we did the drive in the winter. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. One of our sons was driving a U-Haul and I was driving our mini-van. Both vehicles were packed to the max. The road in the winter was icy and snow covered much of the way. As we drove it this time, we were amazed at the steep climbs, the hair pin curves and the abundant wildlife near the roadside. My wife said it reminded her of those video games our sons used to play where all kinds of dangers popped out at you while you drove your virtual car down the road. We felt like that sometimes. I had no problem staying awake while I drove! It was almost 3000 miles from here to Portland. We took 7 days which meant long 12 - 13 hour driving days. With few breaks. It is two lane highway most of the way with few services. The road for the first half of the trip is one long frost heave with patches of gravel thrown in from time to time. I don't remember the road being so bad the first time we did the trip. I think the road may actually be better in winter. But the days are much shorter and the road ices up when the sun sets. We stayed in all kinds of places. One roadhouse was so noisy we didn't get any sleep and I was up at 3:30 am ready to hit the road. We also stayed in a Presidential Suite in Whitehorse, Yukon when the person at the check in counter told me it was the only room available and I did not want to return to the car and tell my wife we had to go on - after we had already driven 13 hours that day. We stayed in a beautiful lodge on Muncho Lake - one of most awesome and remote lakes I have ever seen.

After we began the trip we heard that my sister who I had not seen in 3 years was going to be at a conference in Portland. In order to see her before she flew home we had to make time. We got to see her the night before she left. We were glad we did. Then it was onto Portland - Newberg actually - where our son and daughter in law are in school We were bringing our truck to them so they could use it for student teaching and to move back to Kodiak when their year of grad school is done. Before we flew back to Kodiak (how amazing! we covered the same ground in a three and a half hour flight that it took us days to drive!) we were able to spend some days on the Oregon coast and on a farm in the wine country of Yamhill county (with good friends). It was the height of berry season in Oregon so we feasted on fresh fruit, often on ice cream. It was a great trip but as always the best part is the first night back in our own bed in Kodiak.

The Kingdoms of the World

2010-06-10T11:34:00.000-07:00

In the year 800, Pope Leo the third was having trouble in Rome. People did not like him. Historians are not sure why. He may have been immoral and dishonest or he may have been insufficiently aristocratic. He had many critics but little evidence survives today. He ran to Charlemagne to save his position and his power. After much deliberation, Charlemagne marched into Rome with all his armies in a tremendous display of power and support for Leo. Leo swore on the Gospels in St Peters Cathedral that he was innocent of any wrongdoing. With Charlemagne standing nearby, no one contested his re-institution as Pope. On Christmas day, Charlemagne went to morning mass and as he kneeled, Leo came forward and crowned him "imperator et Augustus". The title of the former Roman emperors. In the words of a contemporary, "it seemed to Pope Leo and to the whole Christian people that it would be fitting to give the title of emperor to the King of the Franks, Charles." From Charles on each new Holy Roman Emperor was crowned with the Crown of the Holy Empire. The octagonal bejeweled crown was topped with an imperial cross. It was composed of eight gold plates, each one decorated with pearls and other precious jewels. The Biblical figures of David, Solomon, Hezekiah and Jesus surrounded the crown. Metal workers were said to have embedded in the cross nail shards and wood from the cross of Christ. The wearer of this crown had the right to rule under God. Unfortunately, as history goes, that didn't happen. The crown was used to justify violence, territorial expansion and gaining more glory for the one who wore the crown.

Voltaire, the writer and atheist, commented on this time many years later saying, "the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, Roman nor an empire."

"Greed, slaughter, intolerance, adultery, jealousies, competition, warmongering and other sins permeated the holy millenia." (Judith Couchman)

What a contrast to the kingdom Jesus taught about whose values are not anything like the power grabbing world empires. In Matthew 5:3-10, Jesus describes the values of his kingdom. The citizens of his kingdom are poor, mournful, meek, hungry, thirsty, merciful, pure, peaceful, and persecuted. In our culture we are we are told to: get rich quick if we are poor, buck up if we are mourning, assert ourselves rather than be meek, get what is due us rather than be merciful, not to be so straight laced we come off like a goody two shoes, fight back for what we deserve, and dont appear too fanatical hungering and thirsting after righteousness. Not only is this advice from our culture, it is often what the church hands out as well.

Jesus kingdom was inverted. To live in it, we are called to embrace a lifestyle where the first will be last, our faith must be childlike, and pursuing riches makes it hard to get in at all. He also said, His kingdom was as near as our willingness to repent and allow his kingdom to live within us.

[Portions of the above were taken from The Mystery of the Cross by Judith Couchman and The History of the Medieval World by Susan Wise Bauer]

Gratitude: More Than an Attitude

2010-06-10T10:53:00.000-07:00

Leadership: defining reality and saying thank you (Max DePree).

We are creatures - created beings. Made in the image of God. We are dependent persons. We have limits. We cannot do it all or be good at everything. We have been created for God's glory. We are most glorified when we are grateful to God and give him glory for his creation. C.S. Lewis wrote in The Weight of Glory that the most creaturely of pleasures is the "specific pleasure of the inferior." "When human souls have become as perfect in voluntary obedience as the inanimate creation is in its lifeless obedience, then they will put on its glory, or rather the greater glory of which nature is only the first sketch." Lewis goes on to say: "there are no ordinary people," and "next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses." So, we have the privilege of living with our neighbors and being grateful for them. Saying Thank You.

Gratitude is an energizing, satisfying emotion. It is not possessive but builds up and reaches out. It cannot be purchased, or mimicked or stored. It cant be achieved or accomplished because it is not something that is ever finished or that can be checked off. It is the involuntary response of the heart to all aspects of life and ultimately to God. It is not based primarily on circumstances. Some of the most grateful people are poor while some of the most ungrateful people are rich.

Getting or acquiring is very self-focused. It feeds pride. Receiving feeds humility. To receive we recognize the value of others and what they are giving. This is the fertile soil in which gratitude grows. An attitude of gratitude cannot be forced by saying all the right things; if the soil of humility is not there, gratitude is gratuitous, superficial and phony.

Habits of gratitude can be practiced. Thank God daily for all the individuals you work with and live with.

Gratitude is linked with defining reality (clarity). Good, clear job and role expectations are so desired and necessary ( we really need to hear this in the church where roles and jobs which are often voluntary are so vague and ambiguous. This is the cause of so many hard feelings and resentments. I think we need to take this seriously. Church employees including pastors should have clear job descriptions and so should every person who is serving in the church.)

From The Leadership Ellipse by Robert Fryling

Summer Reading

2010-06-04T12:06:00.000-07:00

Summer is for reading. Hopefully, you get some time away for uninterrupted hours of reading. Beach reading doesn't really happen here. Unless you like to lay on rocks in a driving rain. You can get away to a remote cabin but the bears pawing at the door may be a distraction. If you have a deck that is not in disrepair you may get a chance to lay out on a sunny day and read. But don't count on it - the sunny days. There are not enough of them to finish one book, unless you have a really short book.

You may be scheduled for a plane trip somewhere. If you can get out of Kodiak, you can read on the plane or in the airport during weather delays. This might afford you the best chance to get some reading in. If you finally get to somewhere else, then maybe you can read on the beach.

I have never been a big beach reader or beach goer for that matter. Too hot, too sandy, too windy - generally not good conditions for reading. I like to get up early when it is quiet and read, or go to a coffee shop. Priority number one on vacation is to find a coffee shop. I don't really change my reading habits during the summer. I usually find I have less time to read when I am away from home and my routines. This summer we are planning a driving trip from Kodiak to Oregon. Hard to read and drive at the same time and my wife will only drive for about twenty minutes at a time. Then we will have a few days on the Oregon coast. Beaches there are not ideal for reading but they have good coffee shops. Then we are flying back. So with weather delays always a possibility, I may get some reading in.

I have a huge stack of books I want to read this summer but not too much hope I will get very far. I want to finish a couple of history books I am reading. One is called The War Lovers and the other is What Hath God Wrought. The first has to do with Teddy Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge and William Randolph Hearst (why did people use all three names back then - I have noticed most people do it on facebook now too) and the Spanish-American War. The second is largely about Andrew Jackson and his severe treatment of Native Americans, among many other people he treated severely.

I also want to continue my reading in Karl Barth's theology. I have been reading his works for twenty years or so, on and off. He is probably the most influential theologian of the twentieth century. Barth wrote over 500 works but I am just concentrating on his four hefty volumes called Church Dogmatics. This is what attracts me to Barth: he was a pastor first. He broke with European liberals during WW1 and challenged their liberal theology. He was a student of the Bible. Often, in his writing he will go into long conversations with the Word. He wrote his theology after he was forced to leave Germany by the Nazis. To me that was an act of hope. While the Nazis were overrunning Europe, Barth wrote about the Hope we have in Christ. Eugene Peterson said that Barth was a man who believed in prayer; every page of his Dogmatics was prayed through. I do not find Barth easy to read. I feel like I have been reading him all my life and I have not gotten very far. I need to read him slowly and not be in a hurry. Like the way you eat a good dessert. Good books for the long days of summer in Alaska. Whether you are inside or outside. In an airport, waiting or in a plane going somewhere else.

(Im)Perfect Game

2010-06-03T15:02:00.000-07:00

This one is easy. You are the Commissioner of Baseball. The buck stops with you. Yesterday a pitcher for the Detroit Tigers pitched a perfect game - up to the last out. On the final play of the game the batter hit an infield ground ball and ran to first base. He was out. Replay showed he was out. The umpire said he was out - later. Everyone could see he was out. But he wasn't. The umpire called him safe at the moment of the play. Only hit of the game. Perfect game gone. No hitter gone. Later on the umpire admitted he made a mistake. He hugged the pitcher and told him he was sorry. He cried.

A perfect game is a big deal in baseball. There have only been around 20 of them ever. So, what does baseball do? Admit the umpire made a mistake and award the pitcher a perfect game. Makes perfect sense. Except Commissioner Selig, in another of his bone headed decisions, said No, he would not reverse the call. Why? Was it to preserve some traditional value in the game: umpire's decisions are final. Even if they are wrong. Even if everyone knows it. Even if it costs a pitcher a well earned perfect game. Baseball just lost more credibility. Fantasy leagues have taken over the local ballparks.

Junior's Retirement

2010-06-03T11:51:00.000-07:00

Ken Griffey, Jr, known affectionately as Junior, retired from baseball yesterday. After 20 plus seasons and 600 plus homeruns (5th on the all time home run list), Junior is a sure bet first round hall of famer. He came to Seattle as a 19 year old kid and stayed for 11 years playing at such a high level it is said he saved baseball in Seattle. Safeco Ballpark is the park Junior built. Since playing for Seattle he has been with the Reds and a short stint with the White Sox. Seattle brought him back last year. It was the feel good story of last baseball season. Griffey brought his infectious love for the game and his fun loving style to the Mariners team and they over achieved. But not this year. The pop in Griffey's bat was gone. There was no bounce left in his legs. He put on too much weight. Rumors circulated he needed naps between innings. He got up to bat almost 100 times this year and got 18 hits for a paltry .184 average. He hit only 2 doubles and no home runs. Not hall of fame numbers. He could not play the outfield. First, he dh'd and then he rode the bench nearly grounding into a doubleplay in his last pinch hit attempt. Sports journalists -mostly tactfully- hinted he had stayed one year too long. It was time to retire. So, he did. Yesterday, was the first day in many years he did not show up to a ballpark. His absence spoke volumes. Some players cried. Everyone spoke fondly of the Griffey years.

How do you know when to retire. Most of the great ones stay too long. Babe Ruth did. Bonds did. Griffey mostly embarrassed himself and put the team management in a tight spot this year. How can you fire a hall of famer? Everyone was waiting for him to bow out gracefully. Which he did, finally.

So how do you know when to retire? Ballplayers can look at their stats and they tell the story of diminished abilities. Ballplayers, especially those of Griffey's caliber, have millions to fall back on and a wide range of options for their post baseball careers. Not so for most of us. Some of us hold on until the "retirement age" doing our jobs even when we've lost the joy of working. Griffey had said when the joy was gone he would retire. Most people don't have that option. Many people today don't even have the choice of retiring; their company chooses to lay them off in a move to downsize. Many more people have seen their retirement portfolios considerably downsized, as well, over the past few years so their retirement plans have been put on hold.

Then there are those who retire only to start a second career. And those who retire and are sorry they did because they forgot to plan for something to do. Travel, or golf, or puttering around the house grows old too.

Griffey seems fortunate to have so many choices in retirement. He would never have to work again if he saved some of the mega millions he has made playing baseball. Hard to feel sorry for him. He had his run and it was a good one. He can find his joy again now that he has more time with his family, or if he joins his fellow retired athletes in the broadcast booth.

His retirement is front page news today. Hardly anyone noticed most of the other people who retired yesterday or those who were forced to retire. How do you know when to retire? Other than athletes and politicians, most people in our society don't have the luxury of asking that question.

How To Change the World, or not

2010-05-19T14:24:00.000-07:00

What are we supposed to be doing as Christians? What is the point of our engagement with Culture? Often, we think or have been encouraged to think that we should be "changing" it for the better, to make it more Christian. We should be influencing the world's way of life so that it becomes more Christian. Our Christian leaders exhort us to "change the world in our generation". We are saddened to find out -often by the words of those same leaders - that our generation is having little or no impact on our culture. They then say we need to try harder or repent of our cultural accommodations so that we can affect the world more significantly. We think that that is the purpose of the Church in Culture. Recently, at least in the last 30 years, we have been taught to think of our impact mostly in political terms. We can change the world by voting in the right people. The right people with the right ideas can make a difference, a Christian difference. Usually that Christian difference has been red colored, Republican. This has been the political party of choice for conservative, evangelical Christians. But, lately, and especially in the past election, Christians of more liberal, evangelical persuasion have argued that the Democratic party has the best chance to change the world for the better or more Christianly. Of course, there has always been an Anabaptist alternative that says the best way to influence culture is to opt out it altogether. Any cultural engagement is ultimately corrupting so our best choice is to stay pure by staying out of it. Politics included.

James Davison Hunter takes on these issues in a new book entitled To Change The World which is an odd title for a book that says we can't do it. A sociologist at the University of Virginia he eloquently and forcefully demonstrates that Christians who talk about changing the world don't have a clue what they are talking about. He challenges the idea that ideas shape culture so that if you change the way people think you can change the way they act. Not so, Hunter says. Christians who talk like ideas coupled with individualistic, pietistic behavior are going to change much are simplistic and naive. Culture is too complex to penetrate and change by ideas. Changes in culture if they do occur take many generations and are the work of complicated networks of influential people and institutions. Cultures are highly resistant to change. That's why America even with so many Christians is becoming more and more secular. It is not because we are not trying hard enough but more likely that it is too hard to do. And it is because the Christian contribution to culture has been weak. Much of the Christian engagement with culture is negative. We tend to see engagement with culture as contaminating (even though we consume culture just as avidly as non-Christians do). So, we have created a parallel Christian culture with Christian music, films, books, schools, and trinkets. Usually, it is seen as lower in quality than the culture it imitates. The "social capital" of the culture at large is much greater than this parallel Christian culture (for ex., the NY Times front page is more influential than that of Christianity Today, or a degree from Harvard carries more weight than one from Wheaton, etc). Then, there is the Christian anti-culture bias. Christians, especially, conservative ones just do not place much value in the arts. We do not produce much good and beautiful art, music or literature. If we are going to "change the world" it is going to be through evangelism not creating works of art.

Hunter is not saying Christians cannot make a difference but he is saying we do not - for the most part- because we are so anti culture and we are so politicized. He says the hope conservative Christians place in politics is quite amazing. Politics is the art of getting things done; it will not produce any solutions to the problems we face. The political process is so angry today. Witness the tea party movement. It is a politics of resentment. People feel victimized and they are going to get revenge on those who have "hurt" or "misunderstood" them through the political process. Christians, Hunter asserts, waste a lot of time and energy on trying to witness to their values and ideas through the political process. Plus, they create a lot of ill will against them and reinforce the idea in non-Christians that Christians want to impose their values on others.

I think Hunter's analysis is convincing. If he is right, then where are we at? What is the answer to the questions this blog post began with? What is our purpose? What is the Church supposed to be doing? Well, not to change the world, that's for sure. That is an arrogant and grandiose goal anyway. How are we supposed to know how or what to change the world into? God has made a new creation in Christ that is coming to be but we don't know now what it will look like. We are new creations in Christ being formed as we follow Him. As we follow him together in the body of Christ, we are salt and light in the communities we live in. We need to think less of changing the world and more about what Christ is doing in our churches and communities. Less about changing the political system and more about changing a diaper if it will help out a stressed family or changing a tire if it will help out a single mom, or changing an afternoon for a kid who has nothing to do but several unhealthy options, or changing the way a non-Christian sees us by coming alongside of him or her as a friend instead of seeing them as an enemy. We can change lots of things in our little worlds even if we give up the idea of changing the world.

Naptime

2010-05-13T21:05:00.000-07:00

Future Hall of Famer Ken Griffey Jr is having a rough go of it this baseball season. He is back for a second year after his return to Seattle last year in a glorious renewal of the great early Griffey years as a Seattle superstar. The city clearly loves him. But, this year he is struggling to hit the ball and seems to have lost all his superpowers. He never plays the outfield. He can barely run and he doesn't have to very often because he only has two extra base hits and is hitting around .200. He looks out of shape and overweight; he looks like a middle aged man. And he is old in baseball years, about 40. He should have retired last year to the accolades of the Seattle crowds. But, he said he will know when he is ready to hang up his spikes and Seattle hoped his hanging on would only help a struggling ball club for one more year. It hasn't. Griffey is a shadow of his former self. The latest embarrassment was last week when the Mariners Manager Don Wakamatsu was looking for an eighth inning pinch hitter and Griffey was asleep in the clubhouse, or so the story in a local newspaper went. Apparently, two of the newer players on the team (Mike Sweeney has challenged them to a fight if they come out and say who they are) said they witnessed the sleeping allstar. Manager Wak denied he was looking for Griffey but admitted he did not know where he was earlier in the game. Griffey denied he was napping.

Whether Griffey should have retired or not is moot at this stage of the season. He did not and he is part of the team and you can't very well release a Hall of Famer who played a huge role in keeping baseball in Seattle when it had some very bad years. Some say Griffey built the new Safeco field. So, let's take another look at napping. Many 40 year olds and older do it. It is necessary to make it through the day. Call it a power nap, if you will. A ten or fifteen minute nap after lunch can make one's afternoon much more productive. Given the Mariners power outage this season (some sluggers on other teams already have more home runs than the entire Mariner team), it might be a good idea to give everyone an afternoon nap on a rotating basis. You have a DH in the American League so why not a DN for designated napper. Let each player catch some zzz's during a game and maybe they will catch fire at the plate. It's a long season, and they travel alot, and it's hard to sleep in a new bed every night. Some of those hotels are brutal. I say, Griffey may have another Hall of Fame idea here. Listen to your leader. Give your players permission to snooze. I know how the saying goes - you snooze you lose. But the Mariners are not snoozing and still losing. So,hey,what do they have to lose. It's time for the DN.

The President's Faith

2010-05-13T20:38:00.000-07:00

Our President continues to have problems convincing people he is first of all, an American, and second of all, a Christian. I hear it all the time - do you know Obama is a Muslim? No, I did not know that. How come so many people, so many Christians apparently believe that. They believed Ronald Reagan was a Christian when he said it, even if most evangelicals had to overlook, and forgive, his divorce. They believed George Bush the seconds testimony of conversion and rescue from over drinking. They trusted his father's confession of a private Episcopalian faith. But, Obama who professes to be a Christian is not believed. Perhaps it was his pastor when he lived in Chicago. We heard about his sermons and were asked to consider how any Christian could sit through them. Well, do we believe every person in church always believes everything his or her pastor says, never says to herself, I don't agree with that! I hope we don't believe that a pastor speaks for all his or her church members. I hope we go to church for more than just what the pastor says. Maybe it is his family background. Obama's father was Muslim but now is an atheist. His mother was agnostic and his stepfather an unorthodox Muslim. Like many Christians he has a diverse religious background. Should we hold that against him or trust in God's grace working in his life, as well as ours. Perhaps it is his tepid support of a national day of prayer but he is not the first president to do so. Or, maybe it is his willingness to embrace all faiths as president of a pluralistic society. He attended both a Jewish Passover celebration this Easter season and a Ramadan dinner last fall. Yet, he spoke articulately and passionately about his faith at a post Easter breakfast with church leaders at the White House. At that breakfast he said: "As Christians we believe that redemption can be delivered by faith in Jesus Christ. And the possibility of redemption can make straight the crookedness of a character, make whole the incompleteness of a soul." On Easter Sunday the President and family attended services at an African Methodist Episcopal church in one of Washington's poorest and most violent neighborhoods.

One of his pastoral supporters, Kirbyjon Caldwell from Houston, has said: "Never in modern history has a president said I am a Christian and others said, No, you are not." "It is stupid and an insult to him", Caldwell said.

In a recent Harris poll 57% of those who called themselves Republicans also claimed Obama was a Muslim and 45% said he was not born in America.

What Do You Want?

2010-04-28T11:43:00.001-07:00

At the men's coffee/bible study this morning we were talking about the healing story in Matthew 20:29-34. Two blind men sitting alongside the road shouted out to Jesus, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!". The crowd told them to shut up so that made them shout all the louder. Blind beggars who were probably on that spot day after day were not going to let a Son of David pass by without taking a shot at mercy, and hopefully, money. That's what they were begging for. Jesus stopped and called them over. "What do you want?", he asked.

What do you want? That's a question that will handled in many different ways this graduation season. We are used to graduation speakers challenging us to go for what it is we really want. Reach for your dreams! If you don't do it, no one will do it for you. I often wonder how that plays in other places. Can you tell a Haitian to reach for his or her dreams. How far does her reach go when unemployment is around 70%. Even in our country hard times are predicted for grads this year due to a very challenging job environment. Many people will find work at other than their dream job. Some may go back to school incurring more debt. Some will find the military a good option if not their first choice.

I hear some Christians taking this question from Jesus and turning it into a promise that he will give us what we want if we tell him we truly want it. Since when does he give us what we want? I thought we were seeking after his will which may be exactly what we don't think we want.

A couple years ago, I read a book about a man who was blinded in childhood. He learned to "see" very well without his eyes. He traveled, was CEO of a major company, and did all kinds of outdoor activities including riding a bike! When he learned of a new process that gave him some hope of becoming sighted, he followed up on it. He had the procedure and follow up treatments and counseling. He was able to see again but he found out it was a complicated process to learn again to see. The coordination of seeing with brain development is highly complex. His brain had to learn to process new data from what his eyes were telling it. It was not easy and for a long time he struggled. It was harder for him to see than it had been not to see. If I recall correctly, the procedure eventually failed and he returned to his unsighted life once more.

So the gift of sight does not come without certain limitations, as well. There is no way of knowing how long the blind men in Jesus' story had been blind. No way of knowing what they were going to have to struggle with after they became sighted. But, it was not going to be an easy life. After all, how long had it been since they worked, or what could they do to support themselves other than begging?

The story ends not with them going out to enjoy a sighted life and living happily ever after, but with them following Jesus. When Jesus asked them what they wanted, that was not their first thought - to follow Jesus. It was their second, after they received their sight. Jesus gave them what they wanted but maybe if they had had more time to think about it they would have asked for something else.

Jesus does not often give us what we want. No one does. I don't think we usually get what we want. Good thing. If we did, we might be much worse off than we think we are. Who knows what they really want anyway?

This graduation season there will be many people pondering that question. What do I want to do with my life. If someone asked me what can I do for you? What would I say? There is nothing - not even sight- that will solve all our problems and make us fulfilled. No dream job, or mate, or "fix" for whatever we are challenged by. What Jesus wants is for us to follow him. We might ask for any number of other things, try out any number of different paths, be healed of any number of personal challenges, be involved in any number of relationships - but the best way to go about life is to put following Jesus before everything else, and all these things will be added unto you.

Faith Battles

2010-04-23T14:46:00.000-07:00

I've been reading Susan Wise Bauer's History of the Medieval World. It is volume two of her history of the world! Who undertakes to write a history of the world?! If you read her bio at her website of the same name, you'll see she is one busy woman. Mother, wife, teacher, speaker, author and owner of a working farm! And now author of volume two of a world history. Her book is good for an overview. It is a fast paced read. Not too many details but lots of names and places, and battles. Is that all ancient people did, fight? Looks like it. And since this volume begins with Constantine, it is mostly Christians doing the fighting. They did a lot of theologizing, too. There were important issues to be decided about the incarnation, the two natures of Christ and Christ's equality with God. And then they fought over these issues, as well. One thing you can say is that the early church took its theology seriously. Arianism was a big threat in the church then. That was the belief that Jesus was less than God, and created by God, since God was one. Nestorianism was a big threat, too. Biship Nestorious of Constantinople, taught that there were two separate natures co-exisiting in Christ something like "two different colors of marbles in a jar." The Monophysites believed that there were two natures mystically united in Christ and we cannot split apart those natures in our rational thinking. The Nestorians, somewhat more rationalistic, thought we could. The Monophysites won the battle and Nestorians were branded heretics. They were never wiped out however and reemerged years later as the Syrian Orthodox Church.

There were fights over the nature of the Church, too. In the strong North African church many clergy handed over their Scriptures as a means of recanting their faith under the stress of the Diocletian persecution. Thus, their lives were spared. Not all the clergy did this and some of them lived through the persecution. They were incensed to learn that one of the clergy who did recant his faith was going to be made Bishop of Carthage. They made the point that because of what he did, any official church acts like baptisms, communions,weddings, or ordinations, etc, would be contaminated. His would not be a pure church because he was not pure. Donatus Magnus believed that only holy men could convey the grace of God to the church. His fellow protesters were called Donatists. This set off an important theological debate: how is God's grace mediated to sinful people? Augustine, took the position, that it was impossible for men to purify God's church. "No man can make his neighbor free from sin because he is not God.", Augustine said. God makes his grace available to people because He wills to do so, not because of the character of the man who occupies the official position. The Donatists were the first of many Believers who tried to purge the church of the unrighteous and unworthy. Augustine wrote that the church would always be a "mixed body" of true believers and false and "it was not for man to separate the good from the bad. Only at the end of time, when Christ returned and all things were set right, would the frauds be winnowed out." Bauer points out this was not just arguing about some of the finer points of theology. From this conflict would come Inquisitions, heresy trials, English Puritans and - we might add - all manner of denominations trying to "out righteous" the rest ( from First Baptist to Second Baptist, to Conservative Baptist, to GARB Baptist, to First Fundamentalist Baptist of the King James Version 1612 - don't laugh - I actually pastored in a town with all of those Baptists trying to get purer and purer. Of course, I pastored the least pure!) . Bauer concludes: "the Donatists insisted on creating an identity they could control and a community that was thoroughly well defined - without ambiguity, without uncertainty."

And so it goes, often the debates turned ugly and violent. The emperors became involved. Church and state were a tight mix. Reading Bauer you get the impression Christendom was all a huge battleground. And it was to an extent greater than we realize. Yet, in Bauer, you get hints too of ordinary lay persons living in hard times and hanging onto their faith, and faithful clergy who were trying to hammer out the meaning of the gospel for their turbulent times as well as care for the flock. In 386, the emperor's mother, Justina, who had feuded for years with Bishop Ambrose (of Milan, Italy) over Arianism ordered Ambrose to hand over one of Milan's churches to be used exclusively by Arian Christians. Ambrose refused. On Palm Sunday weekend, she sent a goon squad to take over the church he was serving and make that one Arian. Ambrose was teaching a class of converts getting them ready for an Easter baptism when Justina's troops showed up and starting remaking the church all around him. He ignored them and finished his teaching. In fact, he never left. He began a marathon preaching mission telling the congregants that the emperor did not rule God's church. There were anti-Arian riots in the streets. Large numbers of Christians of all persuasions were arrested. Finally, before things got really ugly, the emperor withdrew the troops but he made it clear the war over Arianism was not over.

Still there was Ambrose in the midst of the turmoil brewing between the state and the church doing what he was called to do: discipling the faithful. And in those violent, turbulent times, there were many others living their lives, keeping their heads down, keeping their prayers going up, keeping the faith, serving the cause of Christ. Has there ever been an easy time to serve Christ faithfully? I doubt it. But good lessons here: God keeps His Church, in spite of it all. And knowing that, we can keep the Faith.

"Character" Studies

2010-04-23T12:27:00.000-07:00

What to make of the Ben Roethelsberger case? Tim Egan wrote an opinion piece in the NY Times this week that exposed (pun intended) the star quarterback's behavior as extreme and unacceptable. More than that, he questioned the NFL, and professional sports for the celebrity-athlete syndrome it has perpetuated. And the advertising community of which Nike is chief supporter and perpetuator. Nike stands by its athletes, including Tiger Woods and Ben R., apparently, sick, socially unacceptable behavior notwithstanding. There are photos from the night of Ben R's latest alleged sexual assault where Ben is posing with the local law enforcement officials at or near the bar where the alleged assault (I use the word alleged although the 500 page plus Georgia investigation report of the incident leaves no doubt what happened - only that the evidence retrieval was so botched no criminal case could be supported). Celebrity-athletes are larger than life and seem to be able to pretty much get away with whatever they want. The world with all its pleasures are there for the picking. Including underage girls, apparently. I have heard commented that the girls knew what they were doing, and they are hardly victims. This line of thought makes about as much sense as saying that a bunch of teens who climb into a car with a drunk driver who then crashes and kills all involved are to blame for what happened. Ben R. is much older, much bigger and was reinforced with bodyguards who apparently came to his aid and not the underage and drunk woman's aid. No doubt who the victim(s) are. And who the predator was.

So the NFL acted by suspending Big Ben for six games which can be reduced to four for "good behavior". What does that mean? What constitutes good behavior for Ben? Holding the door open for women? Ben's problem - as well as professional sports - is one of entitlement. This week is the NFL draft. It is held at Music City Hall in NYC with the seats filled. It is on ESPN in prime time. The first round picks stand to make millions of dollars. They are featured as celebrities already. Who is going to clue them in on what they can have and can't have. Will Ben R's suspension "send a message"? Probably not when the situation is largely our fault. The fan's fault. At the NFL draft, most of the crowd as they cheered and jeered (when Tim Tebow was selected #25 by the Broncos, a chorus of "Tebow sucks" could be heard), sported NFL jerseys, painted faces, and team caps. Fans turn out and make the draft must see tv! Even the NFL combine was SRO! We can't get enough pro sports. Or big time college sports - the NCAA basketball championship just announced an expanded tournament schedule of 68 teams with, of course, an expanded mega million dollar tv contract, as well. Fans buy the sports video games and play the fantasy sports leagues contributing more millions to the professional sports industry. Fans seem more than willing to suspend any reasonable expectations for "character" when it comes to their favorite sports personalities. We have long since passed the era when our sports figures were supposed to be "role models." Charles Barkley pretty much put an end to that.

Tim Tebow was drafted #25 surprising many so-called expert commentators who saw him going much lower due to what had been described as his faulty mechanics. On ESPN's draft show the point made by the so-called experts was for all the talk about Tebow's "character" it isn't worth much if he doesn't get on the field. Point being: you have to be a leader by your field performance before "character" matters. So, "character" only matters if your a winner. Huh? You gotta love Coach Jon Gruden who lends so much sanity to the otherwise unwise cast of so-called experts. He said, guys, any coach would love to have this guy in the locker room, on the team, at practices, in the games, on the bench; whatever, he is a winner who has "character". There is much to love in the games we play and watch. They hold a mirror up to our lives. "Character" matters no matter what you do. You can't win without it.

Servant Leaders

2010-04-23T12:12:00.000-07:00

John Goldingay makes an interesting point in his book on Old Testament interpretation (Old Testament theology, volume 1). Discussing the the times of the Judges, which if you're looking for a text on leadership, you might want to look somewhere else. Unless you want to know how not to lead! He says the stories of Gideon, Jephtah, Samson, etc, generally show how leaders share in and encourage the moral and social disorder they were supposed to restrain. Their failures as leaders are especially striking since they follow good leaders like Moses and Joshua. His point is this: Moses and Joshua are not called leaders in the Bible, but servants. And the Judges are called leaders but not servants. After Joshua there is no "servant of the Lord" again until Samuel. Beware of leadership texts and leadership seminars. We do not need more leaders, Goldingay suggests, we need more servants! Lord, save us from leaders! Especially in the church. Send us servants of God!

Piper's Decision

2010-04-09T13:36:00.000-07:00

[I have been plagued by error messages from Google while trying to blog recently - that's why there was nothing last week. So I will try again and see if the plague is over]

John Piper, the "famous" Bethlehem Church pastor from Minneapolis surprised his large congregation and the wider Evangelical world by announcing an 8 month leave of absence from his ministry last week. It was not only the announcement of the leave but the reasons given for it that turned heads. He talked about needing a spiritual and emotional reality check. He spoke about "sipping from the poisonous cup of fame and notoriety". He said he needed some time to check back into the important relationships in his life. It sounded like his relationship with his wife (of 41 years) had become somewhat perfunctory ( he said he was her "rock" but she needed for him to be more emotionally connected than that). He said more in his sermon on March 28 which you can read in entirety on his website.

Piper is a well known pastor/preacher and author. More so than most of us. Yet, his announcement rings true for many pastors I would guess. Piper spoke of dealing with issues of pride and idolatry. After more than 30 years in the ministry he sounds like he is dealing with issues of burnout too. He told his church he was going to fast from all speaking, writing, blogging, tweeting, facebooking, etc. Total pull back from what had been his life. Not much was said about what he was going to do. But it will be a radical change. And hopefully a refilling. He said he would like to stay in ministry for another four or five years when he returns.

Pastors are in the "public" eye all the time. In a small town it is hard to "not" be the pastor. Whether you are in church or Safeway or the gym, you are Pastor ____. You are "on" 24/7. You are never just you. Few people know who you really are and what is going on in your life. Few really want to. Most people are more comfortable with what they think you should be. And they seem to know that there is nothing wrong in your life. After all, you are the pastor! Sometimes you forget who you are, too, and you fall into the pastoral role with your spouse and family. You are not real. You are not engaged wholly with the significant people in your life. You are used to meeting expectations, even at home. This is not a healthy way to relate and will catch up with you over time. But when do you have time. You are always on call, even on so-called vacations. Often, there is not enough time or money to get away for very long.

You are in a visible role of public leadership. You are expected to be an authority in Biblical and theological matters. You are expected to produce every week and as someone said you are the often the main course of dinner in many homes after the Sunday service.

You are expected to solve problems in the church and in people's lives. You are not expected to rock the boat. You are expected to be a wise advisor for all ages of people who are experiencing all manner of crises. You are not expected to have any problems of your own. If you do, who would you go to?

Your children are expected to be a cut above others just as you are. You are expected to have a model marriage. You are not expected to need much money or spend it on things other people do. You are a humble servant. You and your family live in a fishbowl. Sometimes you live in church provided housing. You are not like other people. You depend on the welfare of the church. If your home needs something maybe a work team will show up to get it done. In the fastest and cheapest way possible. Often, you are not consulted. It's not your home.

Sometimes you get caught up in church fights. You are supposed to take a side but if you do the other side can tear you up. You get worn down.

Then there is your own relationship with God. It is confusing at times. Do you relate to God as a pastor? Is God's love more real when you are having a ministry success ( when you are said to be "anointed by God") Have you somehow let God down when you're experiencing a ministry failure ( is God telling you something about something missing in your life?) Would God still love you if you were not a pastor? Its a scary thing to contemplate who you might be before God if you are not a pastor. Would God be as impressed with you? Or would you be abandoning your call, Jonah like. Look what happened to him! Are you reading God's word for sermon material or is it still a very real conversation between you and Him? Do you have time for long periods of prayer and Scripture meditation or are you grabbing just enough to make it through the week?

I don't know, of course, what Piper's issues are. I think whatever they are - they are probably common to most pastors. I know what he is doing is hard - pulling away from an intense and involved ministry life - but it is absolutely important. Locally, I noticed that the director of the Brother Frances Shelter was awarded a grant for a lengthy sabbatical from the Rasmussen Foundation. Part of the grant was the condition that he have no contact with the Shelter while he is away. That sounds like what Piper has in mind. And it is hard to do. We are replaceable. When we start to think and act like we are not, then it is time to get away. I applaud Piper's decision. Though I don't know what he has planned, I have a suggestion or two. Take enough time so you can get into the rhythm of life outside pastoral ministry. Go somewhere where you can just be who you are. Where no one knows you. Spend time rediscovering things you love to do: a walk on the beach, a long hike, camping, bike riding, reading. Enjoy God again. Worship in churches that are outside your tradition. Read Scripture as conversation with God. Get to know God again without your pastor's hat on. Find different ways to serve. Take care of the house. Build something. Give your wife and kids your undivided attention. In a nutshell, be present to those you really care about. It may be awhile since you have done that.

How Do You Live Here?

2010-03-25T14:14:00.000-07:00

We had a guest speaker this week for our mid - week Lenten series at church. Since I provided transportation for him I had some time to talk with him. It was his first visit to Kodiak and while he was impressed with the beauty of the island, he was even more impressed that so many people live here. Can live here. How do you live here, he wondered out loud. I mean, he said, the remoteness, the isolation... I couldn't do it. I am never sure how that question is to be taken. Is it how do you do it - you moron, as in only a moron could live here. Or is it more like - how do you live here - you exceptionally courageous and adventurous human being. I usually take it the latter way and feel justifiably smug about my outdoorsey creds. Oh, you know I want to say, it takes a special kind of guy to be able to live here, sort of a blend of Teddy Roosevelt and Bear Grylls. I was just born lucky, I guess. I can't confess to feeling like going to bed at 8:30 pm in the winter time and waking up to my SAD light, can I? How could I say I get seasick on the ferry? Or I have moments after 14 days of fog and drizzle and seeing the thermometer stuck at 39 degrees when I want to scream Will Somebody Get Me Out of Here, Please. Would Bear Grylls do that? I don't think so. So, what do you need to survive here - so you can keep secret your times of inner despair.

Well if you live in town you can drive out to Java Flats for coffee or lunch. It is not far but when you can't get far it feels like you are getting away.

You can stop and take pictures of the 49 eagles that are sitting on tree branches across from the canneries and ask yourself, now how many other places can you see so many eagles in one tree at one time?

You can drive out to the rocket launch at the end of the road and daydream about what it would be like going into space. And then be glad you are driving back into town.

You can think about how it is almost spring when the temperature will break through the 40 degree mark and it will be light til 10pm soon and you will feel like doing something again.

You can take your bike to 58 North for a tuneup to get ready for the bike ride from Chiniak during Crabfest (Memorial Day weekend). Then you can hope you can get out on it once or twice to get in shape for the ride.

You can tie some flies and get your rod and reel ready for salmon fishing and if you don't tie flies or fish much - it sounds Bear Grylls like to say that is what you are doing. Bear Grylls would not say he was reading a book or watching the history channel on tv.

And one more thing you can do. Have some people over who just got back from Hawaii and listen to stories about how other people survive living on an island.

Poverty and Justice Bible

2010-03-25T11:22:00.000-07:00

When I was in seminary I took a course called Jesus and the Poor ( not sure about the exact title). In that course we did a survey of the verses in the Bible that spoke about God's concern for the poor and oppressed and what he wanted His People to do about it. I was blown away to discover there were over 2,000 verses on that theme, more than just about any other theme. In fact, 1 in every 16 verses in the New Testament relate to caring for the poor and the requirements of justice. In Luke's gospel, the gospel of the downtrodden, it is more like 1 in 7. So, I was interested to discover now that a new Bible is out that does all that hard work of research for you. The American Bible Society recently published the Poverty and Justice Bible (available through the Bible Society or amazon.com) which highlights every one of those 2000 verses that speak about God's heart for the poor and God's requirements for social justice. I am going to have to get one, and I should send one to Glenn Beck, too.

What's in your wallet?

2010-03-25T10:54:00.000-07:00

So here's the deal. We hear about the rich CEOs and their outrageous compensation. Even post - bailout. The ratio of the average CEO's salary to the average employee was 24 to 1 in 1965. In 2008 it was 319 to 1, down from 434 to 1 in 2004. The CEO of Walmart, Lee Scott made 17 million in 2009 which was 900 times the average wage of his average employee. That means he makes in 2 weeks what it takes one of his average workers a lifetime to make! In 2005 the CEO of bailed out Capital One (whats in your wallet?) was paid 250 million, give or take a few hundred thousand. Steve Jobs made 646 million in 2006 ( how about buying a new IPad to help him out?) Forbes magazine reported that the top 100 CEOs in 2006 made over 18 million each. In 2007, Forbes reported that the top 400 richest individuals together held more wealth than half the country.

Well before we all start whining about how poor we are, what would you say if you found out you, with your fairly average, ordinary salary were one of the richest people in the world, too! That's right - if you make 50,000 a year, you rank right up there with the richest people in the world. You are one of the richest 1% of all the people in the world! Check it out at www.globalrichlist.com. So what are you going to do with your wealth? You could sponsor a child through Compassion, or two or three. You could send relief boxes to Haiti through World Vision. Lots of ways to help the less fortunate 99% than you. One half of the world's population, 3 billion people, live on less than 2$ a day; one billion live on less than 1% a day.

Odds are not good that the richest 1% will give much. The poorest 1/5 of Americans give more than they are able; the next 2/5 who are a bit better off give about what they are able but the top of American society give less than they are able. The poorest 1/5 give 4.3% of their income to charitable causes. The top 1/5 give 2.1%.

So what's in your wallet?

The Church Potluck

2010-03-24T18:05:00.001-07:00

Most everything you need to know in order to survive in these Great Recessionary Times you can learn at a church potluck. I have attended them for years. Here is what you find out. Some people bring a lot to eat, more than they can eat, some people bring a little and some don't bring anything. Everyone is welcome to sit down and eat. There is always enough and no one cares what anyone else brings. There are always some who come early to set up and always some who stay late to take down (often they are the same "some"). No one complains and the work always gets done and people enjoy doing it. No one is counting who helps and who does not. It doesn't matter. Some people bring their best food dishes, some people bring something they threw together at the last minute and some bring a loaf of Safeway bread. No one cares and everyone enjoys the food and the fellowship. There is always enough because everyone shares what they have. You can take the lessons from this and live a long and good life. If we believed God has provided enough for all of us and and if we were content with what we have and if we shared what we have without worrying about who gave what and who got what and whether or not someone had a better deal than we did, the world would be a better place. Oh yeah, I think Jesus thought of this first. See the sermon on the mount.

Social Justice Revisted

2010-03-24T10:13:00.000-07:00

Around 1980 we were living in Philadelphia. I had taken a new job with a new organization called Evangelicals for Social Action. It was supposed to help churches get involved with "social justice" ministries. It was an idea that began with Ron Sider who had written the best seller Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. Many well known evangelical social activists were on the board. We had several meetings with Jim Wallis who was based in Washington DC and who was starting to write about Christians getting involved in social action and he was also founding a magazine and a community called Sojourners. We were part of Jubilee community in the old Germantown part of Philly. Many of the members of that community were publishing a similar social action journal called The Other Side. John and Judy Alexander who started that magazine were part of the community. So, I was very interested in the recent Glenn Beck of Fox news flap. Apparently he has vowed to expose Jim Wallis for the marxist he truly is. He has said any Christian who belongs to a church where social justice is mentioned should flee that church as soon as possible. Who is this guy, anyway? What are his credentials? Why does anyone listen to him? Wallis has served a poor community in Washington for 30 years now. He has lived close to the poor and his efforts have been to make their lives livable. What he thinks has been documented in several books. The latest one is called Rediscovering Values: on Wall Street, Main Street and Your Street.

When I was in seminary there was quite a tension between social justice and evangelism. There was a lot of verbal sparring going on. Christians on both sides mistrusted each other. Those who thought Christians should only be involved in evangelism ministries accused the other side of watering down the faith. And those on the social justice side accused the other side of narrow mindedness. One of the things I did in my new job was speak to groups of Christians trying to show how that was a false dichotomy. Jesus called us to evangelism and social justice. It was both - and not one or the other and not one better than the other. Evangelism and social justice were two sides of the same coin. I did a thorough study of the Old Testament and found a multitude of verses that indicated God's concern for the poor and God's judgment of those who oppress the poor. Jesus talked about money and it's misuse more than any other topic. He was always concerned about the way people were treated. Followers of Jesus were (and are) too. God, the creator of our bodies and our souls, cares about both. We are social beings, we live our lives in a social context. Whether it is health care, or immigration policy, or welfare, we are interested in how people's lives are affected. We are for those things that are life giving.

In an article in Christianity Today online called Glenn Beck, FRC Shift Aim from Social Justice to Jim Wallis, David Gushee offers this partial definition of social justice: "... it consists of human acts to resist social injustice by repairing such distortions of human community (ie, caused by greed, domination, violence, and exclusion = social injustice). We work today for social justice when we seek to create religious and political communities characterized by more economic justice, less domination, less violence, and more inclusive community."

Perhaps the most troubling thing about this is we are letting a radio talk show host's rants divide the Christian community and demonize a brother in Christ. The head of the American Family Association called for prayer (to defeat the health care reform bill) and asserted "we understand there are powerful spiritual forces at work here." There are. I am sure the devil is happy whenever he can get Christians fighting with each other over which is more important: evangelism or social action. Let's argue about it and do neither!

Lenten notes

2010-03-04T15:03:00.000-08:00

Johnny Damon was not re-resigned by the NY Yankees (nor was Hideki Matsui who was the World Series MVP). Damon could easily have gotten many votes as the Yankees MVP this past season. Batting second, he ignited many rallies. He batted above 280 with 24 home runs and over 80 rbi. The Yankees chose not to try to keep him. He signed with Detroit. Damon is a skilled ballplayer, good clubhouse guy, great team player and someone who loves to play the game. He is not a distraction nor a troublemaker. One of the Steinbrenner sons who is now running the ballclub said he would have loved to keep him but baseball is a business. Damon said, I understand, no hard feelings, baseball is a businees. No, baseball is not. Don't you hate it when you hear players and owners say that. Owners are trying their hardest to ruin what is an almost perfect game. A metaphor for life. There is no loyalty to team in the professional game anymore. Free agents go to the highest bidder. Owners let players who were part of the good chemistry of a winning season go and shop for other parts to make the team go. Baseball is a great game. Wanna enjoy one? Head out to your local little league, high school or college field.

One of our country's highest profile pastors went on attack mode over the film Avatar calling it the most demonic film he has ever seen (source: Christianity Today website). He needs to relax and enjoy it for what it is. It is a film, science fiction, and not a theological work. It is the most stunningly beautiful film I have ever seen. Good story, too. I have heard people say it is anti-military, and pro-green and glorifies the innocent native like Dances with Wolves did many years ago ( I like that film, too). Now a noted Christian pastor has said it is evil. I still say it was stunning, very entertaining and worthy of best picture of the year. It is possible to read too much into movies.

Lenten Meditation: we are familiar with Pilate's question to Jesus - are you King of the Jews? To which, Jesus replied, yes, it is as you say. Pilate probably did not believe it, and with a sneer ordered the "titulus cruces" to say Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. It was common to list the crimes of the crucified on his cross. This was Jesus crime: he was King of the Jews. The early Christians, who believed Jesus was not only King of the Jews but King of us all, honored Jesus' title by using the initials INRI (Iesvs Nazarenvs Rex Ivdaeorvm - Latin for Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews). INRI shows up in sculptures and paintings depicting the crucifixion. Today, you can still buy a simple cross with the initials INRI on the titulus. Some communion tables have it, as well. There is a church in Rome that claims to have a piece of the original title from Jesus' cross. It appears ancient but it has never been scientifically tested to know for sure. Since the time of Pilate many have been reluctant to believe that the titulus accurately identified who the man hanging on the cross was. Paul was not one of those people. He wrote: God made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times have reached their fulfillment - to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ ( Eph 1:9-10). He is King, indeed, just like the inscription said.

The Book of Eli

2010-02-14T21:00:00.001-08:00

I saw The Book of Eli over the weekend. When was the last time you saw a Hollywood film about the power of Gods Word, the Bible? That was the most surprising thing about the movie. God's Word helps the blind to see, guides the perplexed, and makes some sense out of chaos. We are talking mega chaos here. Eli, played masterfully by Denzel Washington, has walked 30 years from east coast to west coast in a bleak, barren post apocalyptic world. It's a violent place where there is no law and order except what is established by threats and thuggery. Things we take for granted today are things that are of great value in Eli's world. Shampoo, moist towelettes, and, of course, water are the kinds of things you can lose your life over. Eli walks through this world with his ancient, beat up ipod, his weapons, and his Bible. It is the last Bible in the country. The rest were burned in whatever happened 30 years before. It is implied that Christians were blamed for something and their Bibles confiscated and destroyed. Eli was chosen by God; he heard God's voice telling him to take his big, leather bound King James Bible and head west. Like Abraham, that's all he heard, hit the road. He obeys. He follows God's word. He reads it daily. He prays. Like an Old Testament judge, he metes out a kind of Old Testament justice in a world of callous injustice. This is a violent movie but it is a violent time. God is in the midst of the violence like He is in the Old Testament, another very violent time. But even though the world is in ruins and it appears a great time of judgment has fallen on it - God has not given up on us. He reserves the right to have the last word and it is a word of redemption and hope.

Super Bowl Monday

2010-02-08T08:47:00.000-08:00

Some thoughts on Monday about Super Bowl Sunday. The game was one of the better ones, the ads some of the worst, and the halftime show was pathetic: there are some things old guys should just not do and rock and roll is one of them. What I remember from the ads are half naked men, and way too many beer ads which were pretty bad too. Not good memories. I wonder how anyone under 55 could relate to the ads and halftime show with so many old people in them. The Tim Tebow ad was tasteful and lighthearted so I wonder how all the people feel today who thought this was going to be the end of civilization as we know it. The game was one of the more competitive Super Bowls featuring the two best quarterbacks in the game today. In this one Peyton made a mistake and Drew did not. That was not the whole game but it was one of the turning points. The other one was the onside kick that started the second half. Overall, it seemed like Sean Payton of the Saints played to win and the Colts were too conservative, trusting Manning to win it for them. When does spring training begin?

Super Bowl

2010-02-05T14:05:00.000-08:00

Interesting discussion as Super Bowl Sunday approaches about what should be done about the increasing violence of the game. Football has always been a violent game but with the players getting bigger and stronger and faster, the collisions on the field are getting closer to being impossible to survive without injury. When I played football ( it was not the era of leather helmets but close) there was no strength conditioning or supplements but there was an emphasis on winning at all costs. More than one player on my team came over to the sideline and spit some teeth out before he went back in to play. One tight end I played with played most of a game with a broken arm. A fullback came out after he broke a leg. If you were injured the code of honor said you had to keep playing until they dragged you out. Coaches did not want to hear about your injury. If "your bell was rung" it was part of the game and you were expected to "shake it off" and get back in there. I must not have had my bell rung too many times because I can still remember hot summer practices where we showed toughness by not drinking any water, with the coaches approval.

If you watch any division one or pro football today, you are aware of how many injuries occur in every game. You see several concussions in a season of football and there are many you don't see. You see one or two spinal chord injuries every season. Pro football is just starting to admit what the game's violence is doing to the players longterm health. But, football players seem to live for the moment. Most of them only play for a few years and then they deal with sometimes crippling injuries that make them very old before their time. And pro football players are just a tiny percentage of all the players from Pop Warner leagues up through college programs. No one really knows how many injuries there are those levels, how many have had their "bells rung".

Football has passed baseball as America's favorite spectator sport. Needless to say, the speed and violence is a major reason why. ESPN used to have a segment called Jacked Up where they highlighted the hardest, most spectacular hits from the previous Sunday's games. I think, due to serious injury, they have cancelled that segment. But, that's what fans want to see as the collision is replayed over and over. Hard to remember that those are people out there and no one no matter how conditioned can withstand those kinds of collisions without sustaining longterm negative health effects.

The NFL is undertaking new studies of concussions and mandating new rules such as a player cannot return to a game in which he experienced a concussion. He must have a doctors ok before he can play in the next game. Even, this season a couple of high profile players like Ben Roethlesberger, quarterback for the Pittsburgh Steelers, were called out by their team mates when they did not return to play in the next game after a concussion. To play injured is the way the game is played. You can pay for it later. The NFL is considering other rule changes such as banning the defensive lineman's three point stance to prevent them from firing out with their heads low and sustaining continuous helmet to helmet impacts which may not cause concussions but jar the brain many times during a game. But, if those changes take effect, will it change the nature of the game so much, fans will not like it? Will it still be football?

New equipment is being researched, better shock absorbing helmets are being studied by the NFL. But what about youth leagues and high schools which are not as well funded as the NFL?

Football is America's game. This Sunday the Super Bowl will be the most watched tv show of the year. Commercial time is the most expensive of any broadcast all year. Church services will be modified so as not to miss the game. Some churches cancel their service and just show the game (as an outreach to men, of course).

Our enjoyment of the game comes at what price, however. The Colts and the Saints may not be the two best teams; they are just the ones who are healthiest this time of the year. The Colts defensive end, Dwight Freeny, is injured and may not play and if he is not on the field some say it will be the difference maker as to who wins. Football may have become too successful; the players too good, too strong, too fast. The game may have to be changed too much to make it safer. The winner of the game is often the team with more of its starters left standing when the game winds down. Like a gladiatorial contest.

Facebook Monks

2010-02-03T10:32:00.000-08:00

Gordon College has a university program at a monastery in Orvieto, Italy. John Skillen is the director of that program. One of the problems he faces is how to run a cultural immersion program when the students are immersed in a facebook culture. Many American university programs in Italy, he says, are all reporting their students are measurably less engaged in their local settings than they were even ten years ago. Students, though overseas, are still connected to the internet, cell phones, ipods and social networks. The semester at Orvieto is designed to unplug from this disembodied, multitasking lifestyle. Please put down the cameras and see the thing for itself, and not a thing for what it will look like on your next facebook posting. Skillen is trying to counter the weakening of the will that the addictive clicking of a facebook culture can aggravate. In the monastery, internet time is limited to one hour in late afternoon. Meals are leisurely, eaten together at precise times. Without the interruption of cell phones, or email, one faces long hours of uninterrupted time which each person has to fill, techno gadget -free. It can be a struggle. Community at Orvieto is not cyber but intensely personal. Twenty or so people have to live face to face without relief for four months. It is a training ground for patience, courtesy and love. There are no trite internet conversations ( Thats so cool!, Love your photos, etc) that encourage short, terse responses which short circuit relationships. Instead of "poking" you are forced to give a real hug or sit down and talk with someone for an hour.

Surprisingly, perhaps, Skillen does have a facebook account. He finds it useful to keep up with alumni of the program but it is also an enormous temptation to waste time. "Is time spent on facebook, harmless curiosity, he asks. Hardly, he thinks, "curiosity comes from the Latin curiositas which medieval theologians considered a vice. It was a besetting sin of the pilgrim who lost his focus on the goal of the journey by gawking at all the novelties along the way, lapsing into the titillating but uninvolved gaze of the tourist. Curiositas is the desire for the sort of aimless knowledge that comes with no moral strings attached, no responsibility for caring for the person seen. Such idle curiosity, in the medieval view, was related to acedia or will-less sloth, to which one is more vulnerable precisely during those periods of the day when zeal and fortitude are weakened by lethargy."

I am neither a college student or a monk and I do have time for face to face conversations during the week. I am hardly a facebook junkie, or prone to spending hours on the internet (I admit to checking my email several times daily). I don't own an iphone and ear buds hurt my ears. But, here's the question I was pondering: can I unplug for Lent? I barely get the question out to take a look at and I am already framing excuses. Can I unplug for a day? Umm, I can think of reasons why that would not be such a good idea? Ok, so what about plugging in for only an hour a day? Possibly, but that seems too restrictive, too. What's my problem? I can handle this, can't I? Maybe a monastery would help.

The Year of Living Jesus-ly

2010-02-03T10:14:00.000-08:00

Ed Dobson interviewed A.J.Jacobs last year. Jacobs wrote the book, The Year of Living Biblically, in which he tells about his attempts to live the Old Testament for a year. Christian pastor Dobson decided to live a year "Jesus-ly". He ate kosher, attended synagogue, observed the Sabbath, celebrated feasts and festivals, and tried to think and act like Jesus. His book is, The Year of Living Like Jesus. Some of the things he discovered: Sometimes the church's preoccupation with programs makes it harder to follow Jesus. " I was struck by how much time Jesus spent in relationships with his disciples" Dobson cancelled all programs in his church for one year - everything, that includes youth programs, Easter and Christmas programs, etc. They only had Wednesday night and Sunday services. They read the Bible, shared the faith, and invested time in relationships.

Oh yeah, they lost hundreds of members who needed the programs and found them elsewhere. But, he says, we learned the less you do, the more spiritual you become.

He says, he immersed himself in the gospels, and his church, too. He read a couple chapters from the gospels every Sunday during church, and encouraged the people to read the Sermon on the Mount every day for a month. He said he found great comfort in the fact that a third of each gospel is devoted to the passion of Christ. As an ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) sufferer, he was encouraged to discover Jesus was a suffering Messiah.

Like Jesus he became deliberate making relationships with those outside the faith, including spending time in bars. He says, churches are so busy that Christians are insulated by their own subculture. He found people everywhere are genuinely interested in your personal journey with Jesus.

Living Jesus-ly sounds kinda radical, doesn't it?

Xtreme Fighting - coming to a church near you!

2010-02-02T11:07:00.000-08:00

File this under just when you thought you had seen it all. Article in the NY Times today about evangelical churches getting into mixed martial arts. It is seen as a way to reach troubled young men who are not typically part of the church. It is also seen as a way to correct the mistakes of the recent past where the church has raised a bunch of pansies, ie, men who don't know how to be men and the true leaders of their households. Enough of women taking over men's responsibilities! We need real men and not just women and children in our churches. James Dobson's 39 year old son is a pastor in Seattle who heads up one of these "fight clubs" in his church. Young men are trained in the "blood sport" and then they attend the battles together. Jesus is a fighter! Jesus does not tap out! Well I guess, Jesus can be whatever you want him to be, but I thought that was called an idol. What you make Jesus out to be to reach others will be who they need him to be. What happens if you lose, or get beat up? What happens if you beat someone else senseless? Must be God's will, huh. Geesh, how can we help a world in crisis when the church is in such a mess.