what pricks my conscience

consumption - back in the day this was the name for a disease
consumption - it is what our "prosperity" is build on - North American prosperity is built not on production but on consumption.

so if you want to prick your conscience i would encourage you to take 20 min and view this video.

storyofstuff

when did work become more important than playing?

When did bed time become a good thing? What ever happened to all those millions of excuses we used to offer for just five more minutes before we’d surrender to the sheets?

When did a stick become just a stick rather than the shining saber that it used to be? How come there are no more dragons to kill, or fair maidens to rescue?

When did the moon stop following our family car at night? Is it following somebody else now?

When did clouds stop forming circus animals and just start blocking the sun?

When did a cup of coffee take preference over a mug of hot chocolate with mounds of whipped cream, and sprinkles on top?

How come I can't have my dessert first and eat the rest only if I have room for it? When was it that I began to like vegetables?

Why do I have to eat chicken with a fork and a knife when I go out to a restaurant? If God had meant that, do you think He would have ever made the drumstick?

How come there are no pictures in grown-up books? Who says the black lines in a coloring book are better art than the colorful scribbles that go outside?

So when did couch cushions become just couch cushions, rather than the fortress they were always meant to be?

And one question I just can't seem to find an answer to: when did work become more important than playing? It used to be that messing up the room was more desirable than picking it up. I wonder what would happen if some day at work we all just decided to play kick-the-can instead of the ridiculous "grown-up"(?!?) games we play at the office.

I can’t tell when it was that I changed, but at some moment I stopped seeing the world through the eyes of a child and started to think like a grown up. At that moment I lost something that I want back, not just innocence or naiveté, something more. I lost a way of looking at things with curiosity and inventiveness. I began to know the answers so I stopped asking the questions. Lately I’ve discovered that asking good questions takes more wisdom than telling good answers.

The artist Henri Matisse said toward the end of his prolific career, “I spent the first thirty years of my life trying to paint like an adult, and the rest of my life trying to paint like a child again.” Perhaps we should rethink this whole grown up thing and try seeing the creation through the eyes of a child once again. In fact, that seems to be the only way that makes sense to me. I can’t even imagine what new things we would learn and create if we did. My three year old has learned more lifelong and life-enhancing content in the last year than I have in the last ten. And I think he enjoyed the last year a whole lot more than I did as well. We can learn a lot from children, if we'd let them be the teachers more often and we became the students again.

“Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”
--Matthew 18:4

Thanks to Neil Cole

24 Talks by Os Guinness - a Veritas audio vault

Os Guinness is a great thinker and communicator - much of the time I agree with him. if you want a place to start, listen to...

Time for Truth: Living Free in a World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

Dallas Willard for the skeptic - audio links

Here is a man who has mentored me from a distance - well worth the listen and his books are well worth the read!!!

Morally Responsible Skeptic (Indiana University, 1995-02-17)
How To Be a Morally Responsible Sceptic (Indiana University, 1995)

The Relativity of Belief and the Absoluteness of Truth (Indiana University, 1995-01-01)
The Christian Voice in the University (Indiana University, 1995-01-01)

What Does It Mean To Be Human? (Ohio State University, 2002-11-15)
The Genius of Jesus (Ohio State University, 2002-01-01)

Why Science and Religion Must Conflict (Stanford University, 2002-03-01)
The Nature and Necessity of Worldviews (UCLA, 2003-04-25)

N.T. Write a following thinker for thinking followers - audio links

N.T Write (aka Bishop Tom)is helping many of us think through our faith, if you want to think with me click on the links below

Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense, Part 1 of 2
Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense, Part 2 of 2
The Jesus of Myth and History
So What?

A Full-Hearted Prayer

O God, I want so to belong
teach me to accept

I want to be close;
teach me to reach out.

I want a place where I am welcome;
teach me to open my arms.

I want mercy;
teach me to forgive

I want beauuty;
teach me honesty.

I want peace;
show me the eye of the storm

I want truth;
show me the way to question
my unquestionable convictions.

I want joy;
show me the way of deeper commitment

I want life;
show me how to die

a prayer drawn from a long time favorite refuge of mine
Guerrillas of Grace: Prayers for the Battle

dust and hope

I was reading in Romans today and came across these words "now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen?" (Romans 8)

It seems to me that we are living in an era short on hope. Our demands for proofs dismisses the unproven and un-provable like dust in the dust pan, gathered up to be sure, but not worth keeping. Aren’t the unproven and the un-provable the stuff hope is made of? I was amused (and disturbed) this Easter by the numbers of sincere Christians who believe that the evidence of the Christian faith makes believing in Jesus inevitable. As a man, we can reasonably marshal significant evidence that he lived and taught. And this evidence has sources that are both Christian, Jewish and pagan. It is much harder to marshal evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin, that the Holy Spirit descended on him in the form of a dove and he was filled with power, or that he rose again. This is the unproven and the un-provable - at least by the measures and means of the scientific method / worldview. Dust for the dustbin, or hope for the seeker?

If we live in an era short on hope - why? have we so embraced the scientific method that we have come to truly believe that everything can be weighed and measured, reduced to its smallest competent part and understood? In a sad way I conclude yes. We even try to measure love. As a parent I read with delight the book "to the moon and back” In the book a mother rabbit and her child out do each other in expressing how much love they have for each other. These two rabbits use the measure of distance as a metaphor for their love, with the funny climax being the mother saying "I love you to the moon" and the child saying "I love you to the moon and back,” We even try to measure love. and if ever there was an un-measurable thing it must be love. We can only ever see how far love has gone, we can never know how far love will go.

So it is with Jesus - we are long on proving - because that is the currency of our day (even if some of us think it is the twilight for the era of "prove it" being a trump card). To my thinking, proving it as very short on hope. It calls for no belief, no faith. Proving it asks for no wonder and no delight. Christians seeking to give evidence proving that Jesus lived and taught is one thing - that could be understood as prompting the search for hope. But an evidence driven faith in a God beyond measurement takes the hope, the wonder and the faith out of what it is to believe. Thanks but no thanks.

As for me - I am content to call my hope dust and sweep it up, not to throw it in the dust bin, but to throw it in the wind and hope it get in my eyes, or maybe in your eyes. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen?

Back after an absence

I am back after an absence - changing jobs sometimes involves more u-turns than expected.

This Easter I have been thinking-musing-praying

Father- what exactly am I participating in?
In the bread and the cup
In the life and the death
In the death and the resurrection
In the people and the mission
Exactly what am I participating in Father?

Father- what exactly are you participating in…
my mission?
my family?
my friendships?
my work?
Exactly what are you participating in Father?

Are you participating in…
My thoughts
My habits
My heart
The work of my hands

Exactly what are you participating in oh Holy One?

In our friendship of Fearful One
Do you lift me up
More than I tear you down
Do you move me forward
More than I hold you back?
Do you open me up more than I shut you down?

Father forgive me for hiding among the baggage
And protect me from believing that I am impressive
Protect me and call strength out of me
To resist
Turning to things that destroy
And serving the destroyer

Father forgive me for I am a man of unclean lips
And I dwell among a people of unclean lips
And my eyes have seen the king, the Lord Almighty

John Dominic Crossan & N.T. Wright on the Resurection

The last few days I have been reading The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan and N. T. Wright in Dialogue these two authors who represent very different theological positions provide us with a generous and spirited discussion of Jesus resurrection.

Without giving away to much i have to tell you, it is well worth the read. Both communicate clearly and with a gentle humour that does much to enliven what could be a challenging read. Theological constructs such as "eschatology" are rendered as "The great divine clean up of the world" (p.24). And lines like "We can dream of the end of the world because we can do it. We can do it atomically, biologically, chemically, demographically and ecologically, and we are only up to the letter E"

Most profound for me, was the renewal of the truth that Jesus announced that the kingdom has arrived BEFORE his crucifixion and resurrection. While I have always known this to be true it is another thing to contemplate this during lent. We are not being saved for the sweet by and by; we have been saved for kingdom work here and now.

Crazy Family Stories - FaithWorks sermon 3/11/06

Someone asked me to post my saturday night sermon so here it is

Do you have any crazy stories in your family history?
The kind of stories that get handed on from generation to generation?
The stories sound so outlandish that they couldn’t be true
But by the same token sane person would make up a story like this and expect people to believe it
What’s more these stories often have so many witnesses that the details that have survived are the details that everyone could testify to

Its both odd and true how these stories define you,
they tell you where you have come from
and they hold a promise of destiny,
they tell you where you are going

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE SERMON

Lent and Universalism

In an earlier post (McLaren & Doctrine 101) I took a look at "What the HELL is McLaren thinking about." This weekend I got his book back from a friend and thought I would dip into it again.

in Ch. 4 Party In the living room, torture in the basement" the protagonist's daughter Jess, describes herself as a universalist. In her rant to some a conservative friend she says "if God is going to send all my friends to hell, then he can send me right along with them, because I love them, and I'd rather be loyal to them than save my own skin... I said I could never be happy in a party upstairs in the heavenly living room knowing that so many people were being tortured in the basement, and I thought it was pretty heartless of her to think that she could be happy under those circumstances. IN fact, I told her I thought God would be disgusted to have people like that at his party and that I thought God himself would go down into the basement to help the people there.

In Christianity, Universalism is the doctrine that all will be saved. The doctrine addresses the problem of Hell (and to a lesser degree seeks to address God's mercy and justice.) Universalists contend that a loving God would not submit anyone, regardless of his or her sins or beliefs, to everlasting torment.

Universalism raises a couple of questions (actually it raises a lot more than 2 questions, but hey, this is a blog not a textbook):
1. What impact does Gods justice have on human depravity? Are there consequences for our sinfulness? Or does some other attribute or act of God Trump God's justice?
2. What Sin(s) would God be addressing with hell (SIN the power, or sins the transgressions? - another way of saying this is SIN is the power we are in bondage to or are loyal to, while sins are the things we do which indicate (symptom) that we are "under the influence" of SIN)
3. What is hell? Universalists seem to take hell very seriously – clearly they believe that hell is a permanent, literal place, probably of permanent physical torment (and burns are the worst kind of torment I am told). So what is (where is?) hell?

Response to #1
So this is my response to universalism - while I can appreciate the desire to place God's love and mercy as paramount to understanding salvation - I can not so easily dismiss God's justice. I also fail to see what the point of Jesus is for universalism. A “Christian universalism” it seems to me has no need of or place for the person of Jesus, the claims of Jesus (or other New Testament claims about Jesus), or the work of Jesus (the effect he has on us). As I read scripture it seems to me that Jesus’ announcing that the Kingdom of God has come is all about God addressing the tension between God’s justice (holiness) and God’s mercy (love). SOOOOOOOO clearly I think there are consequences for sinfulness, and Jesus’ work trumps (addresses) God’s just (appropriate) response to sinfulness.

Response to #2
So what about sin? As I read scripture Sin is BOTH power (the dominating force of death and destruction of God’s creation) and an act (our transgressions that betray the fact that SIN is active as a power in our world. Here I think the resurrection miracle – (the central miracle of scripture) is an expression of Jesus declaration that the kingdom has come (hell’s rules about who belongs to hell no longer apply universally). What is important here is that it is God through Jesus addressing the problem of sin and its effects (one of which could be hell). Universalism is problematic for me because it wants to apply Jesus work to all people even if the do not switch loyalties from the Power of Sin the Power of Christ, and even if they specifically reject switching loyalties. (I will leave the challenging question of “what about those who have never heard of Jesus” for some latter posting)

#3
What is Hell? I think I will address that after I have looked at other positions (conditionalism, inclusivism, and exclusivism).

These musings are a Lenten exercise for me. On Saturday night I preached on lectionary texts (the crossing of the red sea in exodus, and Romans six) and as I prepared I realized that I need to consider more carefully the foundations of my faith including a God who has a project, and that project is to create a people. And the more I read the more I find that while God is the God of second chances, God it seems also plays favorites. To answer Jess’ question (see above). God invites to the party all who will come, and the rest? Well…

N.T. Wright - a man who is making me think

A theologian I have a lot of respect for (even if he is a little dry at times) is N.T. Wright. He has gotten me thinking about a lot of things, and if you are into reading or listening to some of this lectures, check out his website

Known to many as Bishop Tom, (N.T.) Wright is the Bishop of Durham of the Anglican Church and a leading British New Testament scholar. Ordinarily he is known as "Tom Wright", although his academic work has always been published under the name "NT Wright" (Nicholas Thomas). He is generally perceived as coming from a moderately evangelical perspective. He is associated with the so-called Third Quest for the Historical Jesus, and the New Perspective on Paul (a complex movement with many unique positions, originating from the probing works of James Dunn and E. P. Sanders). He argues that the current understanding of Jesus must be connected with what is known to be true about him from the historical perspective of first century Judaism and Christianity. from Wikipedia

The Gospel According To Who?

I have had (and still have) more than my fair share of bibles (if you want one I will happily send one of mine to you if you don't mind my underlining) my first was a children’s bible which for the longest time was held together by orange tape, I have had red letter editions which highlighted the words of Jesus, and study bibles with wide margins which I filled with lots of notes, and I lost my favorite bible in a fire (long story). Looking around my office I have at least 7 different translations. BUT what do I read?

Apparently Thomas Jefferson had a few bibles to (which is impressive given the high cost of printing back in the day). At least 2 of his bibles he cut up, keeping the parts that he could agree with and discarding the rest (the virgin birth, all the miracles—including the most important one, the Resurrection) - sort of a “gospel according to Thomas” and he called it The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth . In recent years the Jesus Seminar (of dubious scholarly worth)has done the same thing by identifying the words of Jesus (not very many by their count), the words he might have said (a few more) and the words he certainly did not say (most of the gospels). This is a kind of editing that creates a scripture text that is agreeable to the editor but also a shadow of the whole scriptures (see N.T. Wright for a more in deapth critique of the Jesus Seminar).

Then there is my bible. You can tell what I read by the coffee stains and the grubby line which marks the edges of the pages of my favorite books. For a while I was proud of the stained pages, and frayed corners which told anyone who cared to notice what my favorite portions of scripture were. It was only after some reflection that I noticed, not how much of my bible was stained and worn but, how little of my bible was stained and worn. As I looked around I became appalled by those without any noticeable wear on their bibles - didn't they read scripture at all?

As a church we have been doing exactly what Thomas Jefferson and the Jesus Seminar has been doing. We are selective readers of the word. There are whole books that most Christians have never even read - nor do they show any interest in reading them. Our intent is not so sinister as Jefferson’s or the Jesus Seminar’s, but the effect is disturbingly similar. We have only half the truth (or less).

Well, so much for the rant. I think I better go and read my bible and see what it really says, not what I think it says or what I want it to say.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. the Gospel of John ch. 1

why does God allow suffering

Last night I was asked “why does God allow all the suffering in the world” Can’t say that I have THE answer. But it got me thinking and it made me go back and look at one of my favorite books Can God Be Trusted?: Faith and the Challenge of Evil

I find that when I have asked the question of human suffering and the presence and roll of God that have been more interested in the problem and less interested in God. But everytime I have asked the question I have had to face what I believe about God, because the question assumes certain things about God.
1. That God is powerful, even all powerful
2. That God shares our values (or our values are derived from God’s values) and could be construed as moral or good
3. That God is interest in humanity (is personal) even to the point of being willing to intervene
4. That God could and should intervene in human choice (which caused much of the suffering in the first) even to the point of negating the negative outcomes of human choice.

Wow – that is a lot to assume. Certainly not all religious traditions share these assumptions about God. My starting point is Christianity, and Christianity does hold that God is all powerful and good (though we must be careful by what we mean when we use the words powerful and good). So I ask the question “why does God permit suffering” with all of the convictions I list above. I also find that I must ask “why should God intervene in suffering?” I believe God does intervene, sometimes dramatically, but more often God does not intervene. So why should God intervene?

I laughed when I watched Bruce Almighty and Bruce ropes the moon and pulls it closer for the benefit of a romantic moment on the balcony. Meanwhile the newscasts are full of reports of disasters caused by the gravitational changes that the moons dislocation has caused.

I often find that my desire to be relieved of suffering – or the desire that someone else not suffer is akin to a desire to rope the moon. It has immediate benefit on my balcony, but is blind to the bigger picture. I am convinced that a God who is capable of creating the cosmos and is also personal is likely to consider a bigger picture than simply my desire.

I need to face the fact that:
1. suffering may serve some purpose
2. that suffering may be the consequence of human choice and God is not in the business of manipulating circumstances to mitigate the damage and suffering caused by human freedom (if he was it wouldn’t be human freedom would it)
3. that God might intervene for reasons of satisfying God’s agenda, not my agenda

well, its late, I’m going to sleep on this and continue the thought tomorrow’s blog

In Praise of Heresy

A friend of mine who happens to be both smarter and wiser than me once did a devotional titled “in praise of heresy” (I may not be capturing his original idea very well so I won’t name him). His point, as I remember it was that if we are unable to frankly discuss our doubts and explore the edges of our beliefs we will have settled with an overly safe (narrow) set of beliefs and we will live with in impoverished view of God.

Now I should tell you that my friend is a very conservative Christian, a man I disagree with in some significant ways (like who won our last racket ball game), even disagreeing on significant interpretations and applications of scripture. But as I am finding out, it is not disagreement that destroys relationship; it is the lack of exploration, and safe conversation that rusts relationships into uselessness. So it is with my convictions: it is not doubt and struggle that destroy my convictions, it is safe and narrow believing that leads to an atrophy of my head and heart.

thinking about the divinity of Jesus

Jesus is God. Is this a problem for you? At times I have fundamentally questioned weather Jesus was God. I have a God concept framed by Isaiah 6.

In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. And they were calling to one another:
"Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty;
the whole earth is full of his glory."
At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke. "Woe to me!" I cried. "I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty."

Jesus as God kind of bends my Isaiah 6 God concept out of shape. How can Almighty God be fully human, fully accessible to me, fully capable of human flaw, failure and temptation? Fully human and not succumb to flaw failure and temptation. Of course there are a host of people who have rejected the idea that Jesus is fully divine. This was the original heresy. And in the fourth century this blew into a huge debate which gave rise to the council of Nicia. At the conclusion of the debates what we the church belived about Jesus was summarized in the nicean creed. The movement that ruffled all the feathers was led by a priest by the name of Arius who basically taught that Jesus was a created being, and that while he was divine, he could not have been equal to God the Father, because as a "created being" he at some point did not exist.

This might sound a little bit "out there" and not very relevant. But I have had these questions - as have many Christian thinkers. The questions are not a problem. In fact the questions are vital. I have struggled to resolve these questions for my self by being serious about theology, and by immersing myself in scripture. And both help (for me scripture was more helpful than theology which is for the most part the "development of thought about God [theos in Greek]"

Personally I found that theology apart from the love of scripture is a doubter’s dead end. And at times I have been caught in that blind alley. However when I have immersed myself in scripture - even during times of dark doubt I have always found that faith was formed, even in my unbelief.

So... Its lent and I am thinking today about Jesus as fully God and I find myself reading in Paul’s letter to the Ephesian church. And this is what I find. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Well, I think this morning God found me. I have the sneaking suspicion that God was looking for me way harder than I was looking for God. The longer I follow Jesus the more convinced that when he steps out of sight, it is probably because he is ducking into dark and blind alleys looking for others who name themselves Thomas.

Thinking about the Humanity of Jesus

This lent thing is a difficult concept to grasp. I have given up coffee for lent(for those of you not so acquainted with me, I am pretty serious about my coffee - dark roast, preferably from Ethiopia or Sumatra and I am a big believer in fair trade coffees - why should the rest of the world subsidize my drinking habit?)Giving things up in our culture is not a popular thing to do. So Jesus giving up the position, power and prerogative of being divine for being human must have been a problem. Most of us have a difficult time getting our heads around Jesus being fully human and fully divine, so we do what has been done for at 2000 years (after all most of us are not very original) ay he was fully God, just masquerading as a human. The most popular or common form of this belief was called Docetism. It is the belief, (considered heretical), that Jesus did not have a physical body; rather, that his body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion. This belief is most commonly attributed to the Gnostics, who believed that matter was evil, and hence that God would not take on a material body. A 21century way of saying this would be that Jesus was just an avatar for God.

I don't buy the avatar thing, but that isn't what I wanted to talk about. I have been trying to get my head around what Jesus must have had to give up in order to become fully human. I am a pretty limited version of the human species, and I suspect you aren’t all bells and whistles either. So what was Jesus like?

One of my favorite books is titled "Leaving Ruin". The protagonist in the book at one point sits at a table in a truck stop and is talking with Jesus - like he is really sitting there in full view. An oddly attractive thought to those of us unused to thinking of Jesus in human terms. Protagonist muses things like "hmmm, small hands for a carpenter" and "Laughs a little loud for being the savior, doesn't he?"

I for one am trying to understand what it was for Jesus to be a fully human, 1st century Jewish carpenter rabbi. I find my own limitations frustrating, what must God have thought about his humanity? did he look down at his hands and say "hmmm, small hands for the creator of the universe"

Jesus' Bottom Line

One day a student came to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what is the greatest commandment?"

You might recall that Jesus included “Love God” and “Love your neighbor” in his response. Do you remember, however, that Jesus answered by quoting a portion of the “Shema” ("Shema" means "Listen" or "Hear"). Shema is found in the Torah of the Hebrew Bible (Deut. 6:4-9). Jesus’ answer to the student's question begins, “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God! The Lord alone!"(Deut. 6:4 (NIV footnote;)

In Jesus' day, reciting Shema meant renewing your relationship with God. This was done regularly, perhaps several times a day. Whenever a person recited the Shema, she celebrated God's covenant or promise of grace. Shema firmly acknowledges allegiance to God alone. To recite Shema is to whole-heartedly accept the Kingdom or Reign of God in life. Again and again and again.

When the student asked Jesus his question, he asked Jesus in the language of their culture, “Rabbi, what is your yoke?” or “Rabbi, what is your interpretation of Torah?” The student wanted to know Jesus' "bottom line," his summary of Torah.

And so the greatest commandment is the answer to questions like, “What is the Bible all about? What is God all about? Who is the Christian, and what is she doing here?”

The greatest commandment also underlines that a loving relationship with God is absolutely essential for God's people! Loving others is meaningless if that love is not in response to a loving, covenantal relationship with Almighty God. A loving relationship with God must be set and nurtured first; only then will love for others flow out in response.

Life itself is all about loving God with all of every part of you in response to God's covenant of grace. And love for God is best expressed in loving others.

The Shema expresses the foundation of Christian living. Jesus obeyed and loved God, and he loved others, perfectly. If we are to be like Jesus, the desperate desire of our hearts is to do the same. Through the power of the Holy Spirit, the community of faith expresses unconditional love of God through obedience and through loving others.

Finally, at a minimum, the Shema included Deuteronomy 6:4-9:

Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them to your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.

God desires believers to live his commandments. The intense and constant meditation on God's Word is the legacy and obvious witness of those who love God and love others. Loving God and loving others springs out of a deep passion for and commitment to the Text.

Laptops and Lent

After a cup of water was spilled on my laptop I realized how dependant i am on my computer. Maybe I should give up technology for lent instead of coffee. I have been able to fire up the antique in our basement so I can get back to posting.

On Tuesday night I had an excellent conversation with RW. The kind of conversation that breaths life into my dying and fire into my fading. I was struck by how lazy I have become. I am physically lazy (anyone want to play racquetball?) and I have become spiritually lazy. I was challenged to be more intentional and disciplined with reading scripture. So part of my Lent resolutions is not what to give up but what to embrace. For the next forty days I am going to post a scripture each day in the box on the side. I will sometimes also post my journaling re. that scripture on the text. Of course the trick will be trying to add another side bar without mucking up the formatting. So today I will just plunk the text in here.

I read the book of Colossians, its not that long only 4 pages, and Chapter three is powerful. I will post part of it, but you can click here to read Colossians from the beginning.

Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.
Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
Colossians ch 3

My thoughts on the scripture –

what do I need to “put to death”?
what do I need to “put on”?

Thanks for the Nickel Creek tune

A reader (I have at least one:) of one of a recent post sent me this song. Some of its lines speak with an honesty that rang true and I loved the music. That said, I find that I am considerably more hopeful than most of this song. Unlike this tune I have no sense of dread about what comes beyond this life. The hope of the resurrection seems firmly planted within me. While Nickel Creek lyrics use the line "I took a promise". I find that "the promise has taken me". I have by now held many a hand of a dying man (and woman), And find my self filled with the hope of life beyond the grave.

NICKEL CREEK LYRICS
Doubting Thomas

What will be left when I've drawn my last breath
Besides the folks I've met and the folks who've known me
Will I discover a soul-saving love
Or just the dirt above and below me

I'm a doubting Thomas
I took a promise
But I do not feel safe
Oh me of little faith

Sometimes I pray for a slap in the face
Then I beg to be spared cause I'm a coward
If there's a master of death
I bet he's holding his breath
As I show the blind and tell the deaf about his power

I'm a doubting Thomas
I can't keep my promises
Cause I don't know what's safe
Oh me of little faith

Can I be used to help others find truth
When I'm scared I'll find proof that it's a lie
Can I be led down a trail dropping bread crumbs
That prove I'm not ready to die

Please give me time to decipher the signs
Please forgive me for time that I've wasted

I'm a doubting Thomas
I'll take your promise
Though I know nothin's safe
Oh me of little faith

So there you have it
My rewrite of their refrain follows

I'm a doubting Thomas
I've seized your promise
and I'm taking it on faith
I’m taking it on faith

Thanks again D.W. for the tune
Others might want to check out the bands website at www.nickelcreek.com

I believe; help my unbelief

This weekend I had a conversation that reminded me of why Thomas is one of my favourite disciples. In 1992, I was a seminary student in a theological consortium that included a very, very wide theological range (from dispensationalist fundamentalists to evangelicals to Anabaptists to Nazarenes to Unitarians. A number of my profs could be described as being professional theologians but professing no faith. (In fact one who taught the gospels claimed to be an atheist and was clearly of the conviction that Jesus was NOT God). The simple fact is, this was the first time that I had been confronted with liberal intellectual challenges to my beliefs that I could not answer with my conservative personal faith. The problem was made worse when I tried to connect my liberal and conservative conversation partners with each other. I thought if I could not adequately communicate what either position believed, probably they would be able to explain their position and the problems that they had with the other. How wrong I was. The conflict between the two fundamentalist versions of the Christian faith I was holding in tension seemed impossible to reconcile. And just as fundamentalist (and often dispensationalist) evangelical Christianity was intolerant of liberal Christianity, so also my fundamentalist liberal friends dismissed and derided my evangelical faith. In that moment a number of things became clear to me. Just as there is fundamentalist conservative Christianity there is also fundamentalist liberal Christianity (as there is a fundamentalist form of any belief position)

The attacks by each where deep and personal (and unchristian by anyone's definition). Essential to both conservative and liberal Christian fundamentalism was (and is) the discrediting of the other. The reasons each hold for discrediting the other is sincere to be sure, but I, and many others, have been caught in the cross fire. Some of us have just been scared or terrorized, others have been wounded but recovered but others have experienced a mortal blow to their faith.

For myself, my wound was severe, and almost fatal. When the night was darkest, I was as scared about believing as I was about unbelief. I found I lacked words, courage and insight. In this dark night of my soul, a light flickered in the words and love of my dad. I poured out my frustration, my feelings of hypocrisy, my questions, my desperate desire to believe in the simple faith of my youth, and the disquiet of my unbelief. My dad listened and offered me two words. The first was the words of a man pleading with Jesus to heal his son.

“if you are able to do anything, have pity on us and help us." 23 Jesus said to him, "If you are able!—All things can be done for the one who believes." 24 Immediately the father of the child cried out, "I believe; help my unbelief!" mark 9

Those where powerful words I believe; help my unbelief. Those words were a glimmer of light in my darkness.

The second thing my dad said to me was “don’t run from your doubts. In your unbelief I will believe on your behalf” (sorry dad, if that’s not what you said, its what I heard – thanks)

Shortly after my dad’s words of wisdom (and no doubt a lot of earnest prayer) the dark night of my soul began to give way to dawn. My conservative friends and my liberal friends would each have had a different expectation of what dawn would have brought for me. And I think they were equally disappointed.

What I found in the dawn was a deeply Christian faith that was unquestionably centered on Christ but uninterested in the isms of fundamentalism (be it conservative or liberal). In the dawn I found that my questions where stronger than ever before and my doubts had not subsided, but I had found my place as a disciple. There was room for Thomas. I could struggle with belief even as I passionately followed Jesus. I could enjoy a rigorous intellectually coherent faith and also a simple trust in God.

As I continue to post, you will see (I hope) how I have been learning to fold together the hands of doubt and belief. Well time for bed. (I will get to the McLaren and the explanation and adequacy of different doctrines some time soon – if you are interested)

faith doubt spirituality christianity

McLaren and Doctrine 101

What is McLaren thinking about? The value of various formulations of doctrine? Or is McLaren thinking about hell? For what its worth I think that the conversation about hell is a doctrinal “straw man” that allows him (through his characters) to walk us through Doctrine 101: exclusivism, universalism, conditionalism, and inclusivism. If the book wasn’t a philosophical narrative (a little to contrived to be a story) it could be retitled Hell: A Case Study Exposing The Weaknesses Of Major Doctrinal Approaches.

I don’t pretend to know where McLaren comes out (judge not, lest you be judged) I think you can figure out the range of his conviction by his protagonists rejection of exclusivism, and his resistance to universalism.

In the introduction (I wonder how many people skip the introduction to books?) McLaren says:

As I see it, more significant than any doctrine of hell itself is the view of God to which one’s doctrine contributes. […] So this book is in the end more about our view of God than it is about our understandings of hell. What kind of God do we believe exists? What kind of life should we live in response? How does our view of God affect the way we see and treat other people? And how does the way we see and treat other people affect our view of God?

I think that McLaren is taking an appropriate swipe at fire insurance salvation that reduces salvation to a way of avoiding hell. Repentance involves transformation, it’s not an insurance policy. Unfortunately I think that McLaren too easily dismisses exclusivism because of its often naive and simplistic proponents. If that was the lens used to evaluate inclusivism or conditionalism then I don’t think they would fare so well either.

In my next few posts I will try to unpack each of these doctrines. In the mean time you might want to check out what Brian and his daughter Jess are talking about in chapter 4"Party in the living room, tourture in the basement"
Brian McLaren exclusivism conditionalism inclusivism universalism doubt

Heaven and Hell

Sitting on too many end tables are copies of Rodin’s The Thinker. Besides the half empty coffee cup, what is he thinking about? (see my previous post) The Thinker is part of a Rodin’s Masterpiece, The Gates of Hell. The Thinker is pondering a massive sculpture depicting the darkest third of Dante’s The Divine Comedy (Dante himself is the model for the thinker).

From time to time thinkers ponder the nature and problem of Hell. Some of them publish, but most of them just drink coffee and talk. Brian McLaren is among those who publish. I think that a frank and open conversation about the nature of hell is vital for those interested in encouraging others to follow Jesus. For to long to many evangelicals have prayed “Thy kingdom come” and thought mostly about heaven (In the Sweet by and by), and not much about earth. One of the points of contention between exclusivist Christianity and the universalism of so much of our culture is eternal destiny; who is going to heaven and who is going to hell? If we are going to be serious about Thy Kingdom Come, we need to think carefully about what and how we communicate about human destiny after death.

I think I am going to pull out McLaren’s book and The Last Word and the Word after That: A Tale of Faith, Doubt, and a New Kind of Christianityreview what he is thinking about.

Priorities

So we are rich - proof of it is that you have access to a computer, you know how to use it, and you seem to have the time to use it. So how do we use the wealth we have? What kinds of consumption do we tacitly affirm by the choices we make every hour of every day? Here are 2 video clips with an agenda. Incidentally, MTV and Much Music refused to air the Sarah McLauclan video - a prophet has no honour in her own country.

Sarah McLauclan - World on fire (4:21)
Urbana on poverty (3:21)

So Micah 6:8 says "He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God"

And check out Matthew 25!!! Thinking about these videos and Jesus words is more than a little unsettling. Do the choices we make every day have eternal significance? What are the implications for North American Churches? What are the implications for North American Christians? What are the implications for me?

Well, Jesus makes some pointed suggestions about the implications. So maybe my next post should be titled “What is Auguste Rodin thinking about?”

What Kind of God?

The more I read Christian devotional writing the less I am interested in the God depicted there. And the more I listen to Christian music, weather it is old hymns, recently published worship music or popular Christian music on the radio the less interested I am in the God described there. I realize I am painting a lot of writing and music with the same brush and I know that is very unfair. But bear with me for a moment. I am weary of a sentimentalized or romanticized God, who is soft to the touch, pleasing to the eye and sweet on the tongue. God, so described, to much resembles an airbrushed surgically enhanced cover girl on a magazine. God, so described, to much resembles a one dimensional action hero in the movies. God, so described, to much resembles the perfect man in a harlequin romance. Each depiction is a manipulated presentation intended to cater to the audiences taste.

I am not interested in a God who is limited to my tastes and curiosities. A God worthy of worship must transcend my consumerist habits. Frankly I am unmoved by a soft presentation of God.

Recently I picked up a book I have read once, leant out at least 6 times and purchased 4 times (if you are reading this blog and have a copy of a book I have leant you, I hope you are keeping it because it is of such value to you and not because you forgot who you borrowed it from). John Stackhouse writes:
“However mysterious God’s work in the world appears to be – indeed, however contradictory and even evil God’s work in the world appears to be – theists affirm that God is only and always good. Theism does not affirm that God is always “nice” or pleasant or kindly. God’s goodness is absolute purity, as much like the purity of the blast furnace (the bible calls God a “consuming fire”)as it is like the indulgence of a sweet grandmother; God always does the right thing; God always wills what is best; God always thinks without error, incompleteness, or prejudice. Such a God may not always be likeable, nor always comfortable. But such a God may well be worthy of worship.” (Can God be Trusted?, Stackhouse p 13. Click to read in context)

This description of God is of much more value than songs and devotionals that suggest that Jesus is my lover, or that Jesus looks like a man with blond flowing hair and a nice clean bathrobe. The more I read the bible, the less I find the North American Jesus of the religious media. Maybe I am grumpy, but I don’t think so. Mostly I think that my understanding of who God is begins with the God of the bible. I guess that is why I am most entranced with, convicted by, and responsive to YWHW as described in Isaiah 6. Maybe the prophet read Stackhouse. Or maybe Stackhouse has read Isaiah. I would suggest that the rest of us read both.