Abelard's Ghost

Graduation

2006-04-27T00:07:00.000-04:00

I promised when I started this blog that I did not intend to write a whole lot of personal self-therapy stuff but wanted to focus on ideas. But now I'm writing my second personal reflection in a row. Must be the season or something. Thanks for tolerating this.

This weekend I graduate from college...for the sixth time. Yes, this is where I make all of the self-deprecating comments about being a slow learner and needing more time to learn what others learn more quickly, etc. etc. And, Lord knows, there's some truth in that. It's also true that I'm an inveterate academic type who's quite comfortable with school. So I kept on going. And going. And, of course, when being a student wasn't enough, I simply moved to the other side of the lectern and became a prof. And, more recently, an administrator. I guess it's in the blood.

This, however, is my last graduation. One should never say "never" but I think I'm past the stage of my life in which formal education will be one of my primary learning mechanisms. So I'm a tad retrospective on this one. The good news is that this program has been the most useful, in terms of life transformation, of all the ones I've done. I didn't do it for the resume enhancement and it's likely to mean nothing for my career. I went back to school because I knew that I needed to learn some things. And in the process I learned more and differently than I expected. And did so in the company of some of the most interesting, intelligent, funny, and spiritual people I've ever had the privilege to know. And you just can't beat that.

If anyone's looking for a Doctor of Ministry or a doctorate in leadership, try the D.Min. in Leadership in the Emerging Culture at George Fox University. It's nontraditional in delivery, format, and content. Leonard Sweet is the program guru. But be prepared to learn to think cross-culturally, to have ideas challenged and shattered, and to put on a new set of glasses from which to view the world and the church. At least that's what happened to me. And this weekend I will celebrate that experience with my fellow students.

Can't beat that.

Jenni's Gone

2006-04-10T13:40:00.000-04:00

My apologies to those who have checked this site in vain these past two months or so. I've been very busy and, quite frankly, really haven't had anything burning inside of me to say. I do today.

This morning my cousin Jenni died. Let me tell you about Jenni. I have 40+ first cousins on my dad's side of the family, ranging in age from early 60s to early 30s. I have only six cousins on my mom's side of the family, ranging in age from early 30s to early 20s. For the most part I know these better, the family being smaller. Of my cousins, Jenni might have been the most like me, which is maybe why we always connected so well. Of course, she was smarter, beautiful, articulate, giving--just a delight to be with.

She was 10 years younger, so I missed a big portion of her college and early adult years, but we reconnected in a significant way two years ago when she asked me to perform the wedding ceremony for her and David. That was a special time. We spent several long days together doing "premarital counseling," which, yes, included some counseling but also included long conversations on this and that and the opportunity to reconnect as famiy. She was a very beautiful bride one Saturday in July in 2004.

Jenni wanted to be a wife and a mother. God granted both requests. Her daughter, Catharine Grace, was born three weeks ago and she's as cute as they come. One week later, Jenni had a massive heart attack while holding the baby in the kitchen. She survived the heart attack, but she was without blood and oxygen to her brain for nearly 10 minutes until she was revived and suffered irreparable brain damage. On Friday her family her family made the hardest, bravest, lovingest decision possible and pulled her life support. She hung on through the weekend.

I visited Jenni in Pittsburgh this weekend and said goodbye. It broke my heart. But she really left us two weeks ago; what I was visiting was a body with lungs laboring to breathe and a damaged heart still beating, but Jenni was long gone. Whether her soul moved on two weeks ago or lingered until today--or whether even my traditional notions of soul and body are even accurate--I don't know. The truth is that she's gone, and on Friday we'll say nice things about her and put her body in the ground.

All of this is terribly, tragically sad, of course. And it opens up fresh some of those significant questions that are much more easily answered when life is good. Things like:

1. Why her and not me? She was a vegetarian. She jogged 5 miles a way. If someone in our family is going to have a heart attack, why not the older, fatter cousin?
2. Why one week after the birth of the baby? She barely got to know her daughter and little Catherine is going to grow up without knowing her mommy.
3. Did God do this? I assert that He did not--that we live in a lousy world in which young mothers die and He grieves with us. Other Christians disagree. God seems pretty impotent in my version of it, doesn't He?
4. Where is Jenni? I don't know the state of her soul. I had baptized her as a teen but she had wandered a bit while in college. She had connected with a church. I hope she had also connected with God.
5. What do we say to those who loved her most right now? There's going to be a lot of foolishness because people don't like sadness. They want to make the hurt go away. I don't think her parents or husband want the hurt to go away...at least for now.

Please pray for Jenni, her father (for whom she was the great love of his life), her mother, her sister, her husband, and her daughter. They are devestated. And we know all too well why.

Intelligent Design: An Appreciation

2006-02-16T23:26:00.000-05:00

The Dover Area School Board controversy over Intelligent Design has generated an awful lot of written comments....some of them less stupid than the others. The following probably falls into the latter category...but here I go.

I believe in Intelligent Design. I assume all Christians do. We believe that the physical world was designed, in the sense that it was made with intentionality, by our Creator God, and we believe that both He and His design were intelligent--that is, that they had purpose. I assume (and hope) that nothing here is controversial or objectionable to the believer.

This statement of faith has nothing to do with the mechanism by which the design was transformed into physical reality. Scripture tells us that the mechanism was the very voice of God--He spoke the worlds into being. Matter ex nihilo. Vox de Deum. Whether the voice include the explosion of a quantum singularity popularized as the "big bang" or whether the rules of natural selection guided the biological development of terrestrial creatures is beside the point. Personally, I suspect that both of those theories have significant explanatory power, at least for now. Yet, as a sort of scientific agnostic, I cannot with any authority or confidence declare that God's voice precludes the possibility of a young earth, literal six-day creative activity. My personal opinion is rather simple: Whatever.

The Dover School Board (and some intelligent design proponents) got themselves into trouble (appropriately so) by confusing the issue as one of religion vs. science. One cannot win these days if the argument is framed as such, for scientists are our society's most valued priesthood and religious arguments will fall on deaf ears. Judge Jones, who ruled in the case and was lauded by popular scientific publications (I subscribe to such publications, so I know what I'm saying here) unfortunately fell into the same confusion. He, too, saw the issue as one of science vs. religion. He simply chose the other side.

The issue is not religion vs. science. The issue is materialistic naturalism (or naturalistic materialism) vs. supernaturalism. As a tentative postmodern, I am uneasy presenting this as a dichotomy between philosophical systems, as I am inclined to believe that neither dichotomies nor philosophical systems exist as real entities. Nevertheless, for our purposes here we will simplify the argument and use these terms. Philip Johnson, the best-known proponent of Intelligent Design, writes intelligently designed books setting forth this argument with clarity and I refer you to him.

Thus, the argument is one of philosophy, of assumptions that one brings to the task of science, not an argument of science itself....unless (and this is a very big "unless") one believes that the methods of science are inherently and irretrievably linked to naturalism.

No such linkage has been assumed until recently. Newton and Pascal and Copernicus and Galileo and even Einstein and other twentieth century scientists did not make such an assumption. Unfortunately, the heavy hitters of populist science in our era do or did. Richard Dawkins ("Darwin's pit bull"), the late Stephen Jay Gould, the late Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking all committed this mistake. And so science as an enterprise seems about to commit the original sin of all academic disciplines--it is about to declare a particular limiting philosophy as orthodoxy for practice within the discipline. We historians call that Scholasticism. It stifles debate and inquiry and closes paths that could lead to truth.

So here's a call for Intelligent Design to be permitted to enter the marketplace of ideas on a free and equal footing. If its proponents blow it by confusing their own message, so be it. If they make their case with intelligence and wisdom, so much the better. We are all served by open-minded inquiry than by the bromides and inflammatory rhetoric of idealogues on either side. Will someone out there create an intelligent design for an intelligent debate?

Personal Mission

2006-02-16T23:24:00.000-05:00

"God has committed some work to me which has not been committed to another. I have my mission--I may never know it in this life, but I shall be told of it in the next."

--John Henry Cardinal Newman, Meditations and Devotions, 1893

On the Lighter Side

2006-02-16T20:20:00.000-05:00

Knock, knock.
Who's there?
Dwayne.
Dwayne who?
Dwayne the bathtub. I'm dwowning.
Thave me!

This particular piece of sidesplitting humor has been contributed by my youngest daughter...who really is rather cute when she tells it. :)

The Vice President and Aaron Burr

2006-02-15T21:35:00.000-05:00

A word of warning: I expect to be accused of being politically partisan by some readers of this post. Maybe so. But I'm an equal-opportunity basher when it comes to stupid political statements, as my earlier denunications of Pat Robertson illustrate. And if you think Pat Roberton's an easy target, wait to you see who I'm picking on this time. :)

--------------------------------------
Dick Cheney gave a scare to an elderly lawyer last weekend and lots of chuckles to the rest of us with his hunting accident. My favorite: "Last Saturday Vice President Dick Cheney shot a lawyer. His approval ratings are now at 92%."

There have been, of course, the inevitable comparisons with Aaron Burr, the only other sitting VP to shoot a man. But it was what Burr did after murdering Alexander Hamilton that provides the most striking comparison right now. And the comparison is not with Cheney but with his predecessor.

Burr's reputation was already pretty low in 1804. In 1800 he had attempted to steal the election away from Thomas Jefferson using a loophole in the election laws. He did not succeed. In the process his integrity took a hit with both Jefferson's Republicans and Hamilton's Federalists. In 1804, Jefferson was up for re-election and Burr was not desired on the ticket of either party. In frustration and spite, he attempted to do harm to his native country by encouraging foreign parties (the British and the Spanish) to take military advantage of the weakness of the Western frontier. They were all too eager to do so. Burr's dealings were eventually revealed, he was charged with treason and dragged into court, and only the intervention of Chief Justice John Marshall, who was always eager to embarrass Jefferson, saved Burr's skin.

Fast forward to 2006. Last weekend former Vice President Al Gore, who had attempted to circumvent Florida election laws in order to overturn the 2000 election and who was so unpopular with his own party in 2004 that he was not able to raise enough money to even launch a campaign, traveled to Saudi Arabia on a big-money speaking trip. There the apparently still-bitter former veep informed his Arab audience that their relatives in the United States were being "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in confinement in "circumstances that are unforgivable."

Now, even if this were true, it's not the kind of thing one would say in the Middle East at the moment. Things are tense enough right now, wouldn't you think? People are being killed because thousands of militant Muslims are upset over a cartoon depicting their founder as a militant Muslim. Wouldn't one expect a former veep to be a tad more responsible than to stoke the fires? We wish.

What makes this worse is that Al Gore was struggling with the "truth thing" yet again. No, large numbers of Arabs are not being indiscriminately rounded up. Gore explained that he was referring here to those here without green cards or those whose visas had expired or those who had entered the country illegally. That's not "indiscriminate." That's the INS doing its job, a job that most in the U.S. consider very important after the mess-ups prior to 9/11. And what the heck does he mean by "unforgivable circumstances?" No cable TV in the county jail? More importantly, how would Arabs in the Middle East interpret "unforgivable?" What images does that word convey to them? And what will some choose to do about it?

This is not empty rhetoric. Words have consequences and Al Gore's words will bring almost certainly bring harm eventually upon one or more of his countrymen. So why, Al? Maybe he's adopted the Jimmy Carter strategy. (President Carter's increasingly bizarre bouts of nastiness are worth a post all their own.) Or, maybe Gore's adopted the Burr strategy. Feeling rejected and doomed to irrelevance, he tried to inflate his own reputation abroad by pandering to its enemies. He may want to remember that that plan didn't work out real well for our third V.P.

Take away Dick Cheney's hunting rifle and a couple of hunting companions may be a bit safer. Take away Al Gore's microphone and maybe we'll all be a bit safer.

Rap as Congregational Worship?

2006-02-12T13:04:00.000-05:00

Does anyone out there know of churches that are using rap music for congregational worship?

Through the centuries the church has appropriated just about every form of music for worship. And that's not just spectator music, but actual congregational worship. I've been trying to think if there are exceptions. One possibility is jazz. Because of its inherent improvisational character, it would be very difficult to sing jazz in a congregational setting. However, I have heard jazz rhythms being used by instrumentalists to accompany congregational singing and therefore have concluded that it has been appropriated, at least to some degree.

But has rap? Yes, I know that there are a number of Christian rappers and have even been told that one or two might actually be good at it. I know they give concerts. I can imagine that some of these individuals have brought their rap into the sanctuary and performed live in worship settings. But has anyone heard of a congregation using it? Imagine if you will...after the invocation, the words of a Christian rap song are projected on a screen in the front of a small urban sanctuary. The music starts. And then the congregation--old men and women, somber businessmen, giddy teenagers, housewives, and small children--break into song together, rapping unto Jesus the worship of their hearts.

That vision is just a bit weird, I believe. But also just a bit cool. I wouldn't mind being a fairly quiet, invisible, non-rapping presence at such an event.

Olympics

2006-02-12T12:53:00.000-05:00

Been watching the Winter Olympics a bit and am bothered once again by the utter subjectivity of most of the events. Should something be regarded as a sport if it requires subjective judging in order to establish a winner? Is it not art in that case? And should not art be evaluated some place other than in an athletic contest?

If we made that a rule, we'd keep speed skating but lose figure skating. We'd keep downhill skiiing but lose the moguls. We'd lose gymnastics entirely, as well as synchronized swimming and diving. And we'd probably lose college football...since the national championship is still determined by the subjective judgment of the sportwriters, not by a contest on the field.

Since even the more "objective" athletic contests rely on officials to make subjective calls, we will never be entirely free of subjectivity in athletics. Does that mean we should give up the fight? Does any physical event in which individuals or teams can compete against one another now qualify as a sport? "Gee, that mail carrier delivers the mails with more grace than the others. I give her a 6.8 and the gold medal in the 'Women's Mail Carrier Delivery Competition.'"

Way to Go, Steelers!

2006-02-05T23:19:00.000-05:00

One cannot say enough...

Another Good, Controversial Book

2006-02-04T19:15:00.000-05:00

I just finished reading Michael Crichton's latest novel, State of Fear, about an ecoterrorist group that tries to artificially create a number of natural disasters in order to garner public support against global warming.

It's probably his worst book, from a literary point of view. The characters are not well-developed, the plot veers from boringly predictable to absurdly unbelievable, the story ends abruptly, and a number of loose ends are never tied. However, it appears that he was not trying very hard on this stuff anyway. The narrative is merely a loose structure created to hold his arguments against much of the media hype about global warming.

This is where Crichton the scholar shows up. He includes footnotes to scholarly literature. Yes, in a novel. And he has his characters give long-winded arguments so Crichton has the opportunity to say his peace. That's okay. There's some good stuff in there. Enough to make one rub one's head and think. Maybe everything we assume to be true about global warming is not necessary true. At the very least, these are good questions to ask and now he's got me thinking. That makes it a good book.

Probably the best part, however, is when one of the minor characters, an actor who is a combination of Martin Sheen and Tom Cruise, gets eaten alive by cannibals. You just gotta love that. :)

Go Steelers!

2006-02-04T19:13:00.000-05:00

'Nuf said.

Muhammed

2006-02-04T19:10:00.000-05:00

So I'm watching the news and I'm wondering...A Danish newspaper publishes a cartoon of Muhammed that implies that he supported violence. In protest against this sacrilege, Muslims in countries around the world engage in acts of violence. Am I missing something here?

1421: The Year China Discovered America

2006-01-21T22:19:00.000-05:00

In my strange and sordid teaching career I've found myself on occasion in a classroom talking about the incredible collection of fleets sent abroad in 1421, near the end of the Ming dynasty, under the leadership of Admiral Xheng He (who ought to be better remembered in history than he is). We know that those fleets, like others before them, sailed around the southeast Asian peninsula, past what is now Indonesia, through the Strait of Molocca to India, and then past the Arabian Peninsula and down the east coast of Africa.

If the thought of a giraffe in the court of the Ming emperor is surprising, or African potentates traveling to Beijing for the dedication of the Forbidden City, or China traders purchasing ivory and gold in what is now Mombasa, then Gavin Menzies has an even wilder surprise for you. He argues that the fleets reached East Africa...and kept going. All the way around the world. Including South and North America. And, strange as it all sounds, he may be right.

We've known for a long time about the fleets. And we've known that the official records of their journeys were destroyed soon after their return as China's political powers entered in a long period of withdrawal from the outside world. What Menzies does is tease details out of the few surviving records, from monument stones, from legends and stories of people groups from all over the world, from DNA evidence (about which I wish he'd said more).

And from maps. Here is argument is most compelling. The Spanish and Portguese explorers of the late 15th and early 16th century--the people we have for the past 500 years credited with connecting the Old World with the new--had maps. Magellan knew of the strait that bears his name before he got there. Columbus had a map with his Caribbean islands marked on it. Bartolemeo de Dias knew about the Cape of Good Hope before he ever got close to it.

How would they know? Only if someone had been there first. And Menzies, a retired British submariner, makes the case that only the Chinese could have been that "someone."

Does he overstate the case at times? Does he rely on very flimsy evidence? Is he overly confident in his recreation of forgotten journeys from his understanding of tides and currents? Yes and yes and yes. And yet the preponderance of evidence leans in his direction. At the very least, it's started an important conversation. And one that those of us in the West should participate in with honesty and humility. To be honest, I kind of like the idea of Chinese ships sailing up the Delaware River in the 1420s.

It's a book. The author is Gavin Menzies. The title is 1421: The Year China Discovered America. It was published by Harper Perenniel in 2003. It was a NYT bestseller, for whatever that's worth anymore. And I just finally got around to buying a copy and reading it. You should too. :)

Let the Pagans Have the Weddings...

2006-01-19T23:15:00.000-05:00

This is intended as a companion piece to my posting about Christmas ("Let the Pagans Have the Holiday"), in which I argued that Christians should quit trying to maintain the sacred nature of the Christmas holiday and let it be. We can celebrate along with the pagans, but let's not connect it with Christ. We can celebrate Nativity on January 6. (By the way, my pastor--without having even read my posting--offered a fairly persuasive argument against it the very next Sunday!)

There's been a big fight going on in our culture these past couple of years regarding the definition of marriage. Can gays marry? How about more than two people? If so, do those scenarios radically redefine the institution from what God intended? I think part of our confusion arises from the fact that many modern weddings try to blend a ritual of faith with a legal covenant. Which is it in the end?

The sad truth is that modern American weddings are primarily legal contracts, not statements of faith. We see it in the lack of seriousness with which the covenant is treated in subsequent years. We see it in the rampant materialism now inherent in the American wedding. We see it in the nearly universal pattern of sexual intimacy prior to the ceremony that would otherwise mark the beginning of such intimacy. God is invoked but not really invited to such events.

So let's treat them as such. Let's make them public celebrations, a good time to hang out with family and friends, and, for those inclined in such directions, a socially acceptable opportunity to dance stupid dances and maybe get drunk or get laid. Or all of the above. And let's make them legal covenants as well, so that the prenups kick in and the divorce attorneys know when to begin calculating joint assets. But let's not do it in church. And let's keep those of us who are representatives of God out of it.

Christians who do want a meaningful ritual that expresses their faith should probably make it all legal-like. (I'm not even sure anymore how important that is, compared to the promises made before God and His people.) But maybe it's time that they eschew the standard wedding ritual and quietly, very quietly, gather with a few intimate friends and make sacred vows to each other that they truly intend to keep. We won't call it a wedding since that word's taken. Maybe we should take a cue from the RCs and call it a sacrament. And really mean it.

Volunteers?

Shoppers Reward Card

2006-01-19T22:57:00.000-05:00

"Do you have your shopper's reward card?" the chipper young cashier asked me as I approached the register at Staples this evening. "No," I answered and pushed my box of envelopes forward in an attempt to circumvent the obvious follow-up question. "Would you be interested in hearing about how the card can save you money?" "No," I answered again, trying hard to make it sound casual and not grumbly. "Would you like to donate a dollar toward [some charity or another]?" "No," I said for the third time. (For those who care about such things, yes, I do donate a considerable portion of my salary toward various ministries and charities; I simply prefer to be a bit more intentional and strategic about where the money goes.)

This scene is repeated nearly every time I step inside a retail store anymore. I understand why such stores are tempted to use the card system: It is much easier (and cheaper) to get an existing customer to come back than it is to woo a brand new customer. So they entice us with 10% off or bonus points or free back rubs or whatever the bribe is this week. The problem for the consumer, of course, is that one must carry a second wallet just to hold all of the rewards cards and membership cards that seem necessary for transacting business in today's world.

Here's my question to these retail marketers: Why not just give me the best possible price you can? No cards, just a fair deal. I'll come back. I promise. I and millions of people like me will gladly and repeatedly patronize the few establishments that will give good service and good products at fair prices. We don't need the gimmick, the artifical discounts, the badgering. In fact, I have reached the point where I am less likely to patronize the "reward card" stores. I'm tired of being charged 10% more just for the privilege of having a wallet I can actually lift.

If that doesn't work, then I might have to join the enemy. I've got in mind a "Tony Friendship Card." If you carry one, I'll give you 2 extra minutes on every phone call and an extra aphorism in each email message. You simply need to check in once a week to keep your membership active. :)

"God Bless the Whole World. No Exceptions"

2006-01-14T11:40:00.000-05:00

I've been seeing this bumper sticker with a bit more frequency of late and I've been trying to figure out what it means. Or what the people who purchase it and put it on their vehicles want it to mean.

First, why the imperative tone? We're accustomed to saying "May God bless you" or sometimes a shorter version "God bless." Either way, it's something of a prayer in the third person. Maybe that's what the bumper sticker is saying as well; after all, it's hard to be polite in the space of a bumper sticker. But somehow it comes across as more imperious than prayerful.

Second, to whom is this addressed? Apparently, it is believed that there are some people out there who do not want God to bless the whole world. And since most of the time these stickers are side-by-side with a "Kerry Edwards 04" or "Buck Fush" sticker (have you seem those?!), I am beginning to suspect that it's a political statement. Something like, "Hey, you Arab-bombing, homo-hating Republicans, God wants you to change your attitude." If true, it does not make a very good contribution to civil discourse. (Bumper stickers seldom do.) Besides, it would be inherently contradictory, because the "no exceptions" clause would seem to include Arab-bombing, homo-hating Republicans. But perhaps I miss the point.

Then there's the theological issue. Does God really bless everyone, no exceptions? I think we would be hard-pressed to find Scriptural warrant for arguing that God blesses the whole world. There's far too much in there about curses and judgements. The whole sheep and goats thing. There are some people that God seems to view with real distaste, so much so that He wants them out of his sight...for eternity. Doesn't sound like much of a blessing. But, again, bumper stickers don't contribute much to intelligent theological thinking either.

I've created a new sticker for my own car: "God bless the whole world. Except people with bumper stickers."

Okay, okay! Rethinking Pat R....

2006-01-08T17:24:00.000-05:00

Obviously, Pat Robertson did not heed my admonition (on this site) to be quiet on politics for six months. This time he has reportedly said that Ariel Sharon's stroke was God's punishment for his support of a Palestinian state. The outcry has been as one would expect and appropriate. While Pat has every right to say anything foolish thing he wishes, we are particularly concerned that he is not construed by the media or by others as representing US--serious believers in Jesus.WE don't believe God works that way.

Or do we??? As I reflect on the theological assumptions underlying Pat's commments, I begin to wonder if sometimes we find ourselves objecting more to his particular political position rather than to his way of thinking. Maybe he's not all that different from me(!). May I should challenge my own thinking. I come to this dreadful conclusion by articulating what I believe are the two primary theological assumptions underpinning Pat Robertson's inanities:

1. God has a foreign policy. Pat Robertson believes that prefers democratic, capitalistic states like the U.S. over socialist or autocratic states like Cuba or Venezuela. And God prefers Israel to Palestine. But such thinking is not unique to Pat. Christians on the left and right advocate particular policies because they believe them to be appropriate expressions of their faith. The Mennonite Church USA advocates the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The Harlem Abyssinian Baptist Church invited Fidel Castro to preach from their pulpit. Evangelicals in the 80s advocated support of the Contras in Nicaragua (while liberal Christians advocated support of the Sandanistas). I, a closet pacifist, supported the war in Iraq as an act of liberation of the oppressed, due largely to my sense that this was something God viewed positively. So does God have a foreign policy? If so, how can we know what it is...and what it isn't? Can we tell Pat with integrity that he's got it wrong?

2. God rewards or punishes political leaders. If God has a foreign policy, does he intrude himself into human affairs in order to accomplish it? Pat believes so: God expressed his displeasure with Mr. Sharon by incapacitating him. It must be admitted that Pat has strong biblical warrant for such views. Remember Nebuchadnezzar? Saul? David? Josiah? Pharoah? The Bible is replete with examples of political leaders--those who knew him and those who didn't--who were raised up or taken down by God's direct intervention. And many of us believe this to be true in other circumstances, don't we? Many evangelicals claimed that the collapse of Soviet communism was due to the prayers of believers. And Christians of many stripes attributed the fall of the apartheid government in South Africa to the hand of God. Personally, I'd like to think that monsters like Saddam, Pinochet, Noriega, and Arafat are ccasionally taken down by God.

So while I strongly reject Pat's comments about Sharon, I must ask myself honestly whether such resistance is due more to my support of a Palestinian state and less to an rejection of the underlying theological assumptions on which Pat operates. And that question scares me.

Tired of Waiting

2005-12-30T23:34:00.000-05:00

I'm tired of waiting.

I’m tired of waiting for
The page to download
The line to move
The light to change
The elevator to open
The mail to come
The kids to get ready
The commercials to be over
The rain to stop
The check to clear
The aspirin to work
The weight to drop
The call to come
The invitation to arrive
The reaper to visit
The trumpet to sound
The real life to start

How long must we sing this song?
I'm so tired of waiting.

--From my favorite poet, Enrique Salazar

The Necessity of Violence

2005-12-30T23:07:00.000-05:00

I am a pacifist at heart. I would like to imagine that all Christians are...that we merely disagree regarding whether there are exceptions to pacifism as a general rule and how many such exceptions exist.

I am also committed to justice. That, too, is derived from my faith. God has revealed Himself as a just God and has called His people to walk justly with each other before Him. Again, I would like to believe that all Christians are so committed...and that we merely disagree on how justice is to be defined and applied in particular situations.

So there are my (and your?) two ideals--peace and justice. Unfortunately, I can't have them both at the same time. You see, if I am to practice peace, I must end up tolerating some of the injustice of this world. I cannot use force and violence to subdue the oppressor. If, on the other hand, I would seek to justice in this world, I am likely to need the power of the state to accomplish it.

And the power of the state is rooted in violence. P.J. O'Rourke put it well when he applied the "elderly mother" test. Any public policy, any act of societal justice, requires that the state force people into compliance, either to fund the act or to obey it. If people don't comply, the state has the power to use violence against them, even little old ladies on modest incomes. The test question, in short, is this: Is a particular public policy worth shooting his mother to accomplish it?

Is justice worth shooting someone? If not, then we have pacifism but we do not have perfect justice. If so, then we may get closer to justice but we do not have peace. We may choose one or the other, or arrive at some compromise between the two, but we will never in this life enjoy both in full measure at the same time.

It's another reason to live in anticipation of the eternal reign of Christ.

Let the Pagans Have the Holiday

2005-12-21T16:51:00.000-05:00

That was the sentiment expressed some years ago by a short piece in Christianity Today. I agree.

It's Christmas, you see. It's that time of year when artificial stars twinkle on artificial trees, when the spirit of the holidays is manifest in throngs of harried shoppers bumping into one another, when churches cancel services because their people are just too busy for religious stuff, when gas prices go up so the oil companies can make more money on holiday travel, when credit limits are stretched in an orgy of materialism, and when our public schools openly celebrate Hanukkuh, Kwanzaa, and the Winter Solstice.

We Christians may have started this whole mess but do we really want to be associated with it anymore? Santa, who was originally a Christian saint but has since become a geriatric creature from another planet with supernatural abilities far beyond those of mortal men....or something like that, has taken over most of the character qualities originally associated with Jesus. The "season" has taken over the sacred character of the original holiday. And the materialism has taken over the mystery of the incarnation.

And it really ticks us off, doesn't it? Every year at this time we hear the moans, grumbles, and complaints in pulpits and in print about "them" taking Christ out of Christmas. Yes, of course, we participate in the festivities. We're as guilty as Joe Atheist when it comes to the materialism. But we're hot and bothered by what the holiday has become. Appropriately so.

So let's quit. Let's just walk away from it. Some have done so, but it's tough to pull off, particularly if you have kids. So maybe we can choose to just stay in and mix it up with the rest of them when it comes to gifts and trees and stars and reindeer and funny men in red suits. No harm, no foul. But then let's no longer throw Christ in the mix.

Let the pagans have the holiday. Let them call it what they will. Let them give gifts "in the spirit of the season." Let them wish each other "Happy Holidays." Let the Santa dudes do their ho-ing. Let Rudolph's nose shine and the Chipmunks warble and merchants giggle and Grandma get run over by that reindeer yet again. We'll all just sit back, watch, and even enjoy.

And, then, when no one's looking, we'll quietly celebrate Nativity on January 6. It's the Orthodox Christmas, it's the 12th day of Christmas. It was when the Wise Men were said to have made their visit. Whatever. After all the fuss is over, the trees are tossed out for the garbage men to collect, and the cat has eaten all of the foil icicles from the tree, it's simply a good time, with considerable historical precedent,to meaningfully celebrate together the Incarnation of our Lord, with all its mystery and awe.

The trick is that we have to keep it a secret. If the pagans find out, you know what will happen. Next year we'll have to put up with the Nativity Bunny.

Was Jesus Plan B?

2005-12-13T15:26:00.000-05:00

When I was in college, I had a female friend that the guys with whom I shared an apartment nicknamed "Plan B." Whenever the girl I really wanted to go out with wasn't available, she was. I really hope she's not reading this blog because we're still friends and Plan B is not exactly a compliment, as nicknames go. (If you are reading this, it wasn't my fault. You know those guys.)

But was Jesus Plan B? Or even C or D? The way the story is usually presented, Adam and Eve were doing fine with the naked garden thing and would have kept that deal going for eternity except for the slimy talking snake and the fruit. (Not being much of a fruit eater myself, I really have to use my imagination in this story.) So sin entered the world and God's Plan A was destroyed. Back to the drawing board...

So he decides to let the little creatures copulate and populate for a while (Plan B?) but he sees little hope of redemption and washes the face of the earth clean. Literally. But eight are saved and they breed like rabbits and soon there's bunches of them again. So he picks a particularly troublesome bunch and tells them quite explicitly (thunder and fire have a habit of making things explicit) how they should live. I'm talking Mt. Sinai and the Law. Plan C?

But these people can't follow a recipe, much less a moral or social code, and pretty soon he's sending prophets warning of pending death, hell, and destruction if they don't shape up. But, of course, they don't, and he waits like 1400 years or so and then he has to send Jesus as a cosmic janitor to mop up the mess.

Under this, the worst case scenario, Jesus comes in as Plan D. Now, except for our dispensationalist friends, most of us would want to eliminate B and C above as separate plans and regard them instead as "preparation" steps for the Big Guy. Okay, I'll buy that. But even so he's still just Plan B. He's a pinch hitter, the understudy, a free round of play for scoring enough points.

But was he really? Jesus was there at the creation. He was loved by the Father since the beginning. He is the firstfruits. Was, then, the incarnation always part of the plan, even before the Fall? Would Jesus have come anyway, even if Adam and Eve had resisted the shiny banana (I do like bananas) and continue to frolic in their garden? Hmmm....

Or is our problem here the whole idea of time? If God is in time, then there's a before, during, and after the incarnation. But if he is outside of time, then "incarnation" is an eternal reality and "the Word became flesh" is a present condition. That's a really wild idea and I'm not sure I really understand it. But it does make Jesus Plan A, not B. Somewhere, in the mind of God, does the Son of God still inhabit flesh?

Queen Esther Was a Sniveling Coward

2005-12-13T14:47:00.000-05:00

This has nothing to do with Abelard, Johnny Cash, or politics. I'm just feeling contrary today and the character of Queen Esther is one of those Bible misreadings that I've been harping on for 20 years. Yes, I know she's always presented as a heroine who courageously faced down King Artaxerxes and saved her people. I argue instead that she was an immoral, cowardly woman who did the right thing in the end despite herself. Here's the evidence:

1. How did Esther become queen? We teach kids in Sunday School that it was a "beauty contest" of sorts. Well, "of sorts" is relevant here. It was a sexual contest. The king tested out a whole bunch of young virginal women and Esther won--either because of a stunning appearance or because she had been coached in things that virginal young women would not have normally known. In either case, she won her position by commiting an act of sexual immorality. Please note the contrast here with the woman she replaced. Queen Vashti refused to disgrace her self and her position by dancing a lewd dance in front of the king's male friends. She had character; Esther didn't.

2. Whom did Esther marry? When she won the contest, she was invited to marry the King of Persia. Not a bad deal. Unless, of course, you're a good Jewish girl who knows that God's laws do not allow you to marry a foreigner, at least one who does not acknowledge your God as Lord. This was expressly forbidden. But, no, Esther was not one to let such trifles as obedience to God's laws stand in her way, particularly after proving her value in the bed of a total stranger. Here comes the bride...

3. When did Esther act to save her people? When Haman set out to kill all the Jews, Esther was the only person in a position to do something on their behalf. But she didn't. Was she the only person in the country who did not know of Haman's decree? Or was she just insensitive to their plight and/or covering her own butt? It took the intervention of Mordecai before Esther was finally motivated to act. Even then, she wimped out the first time. And the second time. It took three tries before Esther summoned the courage to talk to her husband about possibly letting her people off the hook.

Someone's going to object that Esther had little control over her life--that she was probably coerced into the contest and into marriage. But you do not hear such reluctance in the text. And, even if she were, Esther still had options available to her. Not too many years before, three young Jewish men preferred death in the furnace to disobeying the God they loved. There is nothing of heroic choices in Esther's motives or behaviors. She had accommodated herself quite nicely to the moral climate of the Persian court and only very reluctantly "outed" herself as a Jew.

There are some who will argue that the story of Esther is not historical; it is a myth about God's preservation of His People. Maybe so. God does have a habit of picking unlikely people to accomplish His will and I am willing to acknowledge that He may have chosen Esther for this role for His own unique and inscrutible purposes. Even so, He chose her in spite of her character, not because of it.

It is instructive that she is known to us by her Persian name, Esther. The little Jewish girl named Hadassah must have been left far, far behind. 'Tis a pity. I wonder what she could have become?

Boycott Pat Robertson...and others!

2005-11-19T23:15:00.000-05:00

Pat Robertson opened his mouth again last week to say something stupid. This time it was to inform the residents of Dover, Pennsylvania (a town I know well) to not pray for God's deliverance if (did he really mean "when"?) something bad happens to them because they have kicked God out of their town by electing school board members who do not support the intelligent design movement, as the current board does. Now please don't misunderstand my gripe. I have a fondness for the intelligent design movement, although I think it's been hijacked by well-meaning but not-well-read Christians who are playing into the worst fears of our critics. No, my concern is that Pat is identified by many who don't know better (and some that do) as a spokesperson for evangelical Christians. For me!

And he isn't. I'm not interested in wreaking judgement on Dover. I'm not interesting in assassinating the president of Venezuela (although I do wish that Hugo Chavez would also disappear for a while). I just wish that Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and others on the right wing of evangelical politics would just shut up for six months or so. Give us six months of no stupidity, no embarrassment, no prognostications, no declarations of jihad. We've have six months to focus on that little thing called the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Wouldn't that be great? If you like that, let's do one better. Let's ask the lesser-known but equally guilty representatives of the Christian Left to do the same.

It ain't going to happen. I know that. And, yes, before you write and tell me so, I do know that the Gospel has political implications. But these days the politics outshine the Gospel, and we are hated, despised, ridiculed, and fear as a result. I don't mind those results if they are the consequence of speaking God's love. I do mind them if they're the consequences of bad manners, sloppy thinking, narrow-minded vision, and political partisanship. We haven't got the time for that.

If they aren't going to shut up, then we need to stop listening. Pat Robertson only has an audience because hundreds of thousands of Christians tune him in. Stop doing that. Love Pat enough to quit enabling his bad behavior. Love him enough to isolate him when his politics outweigh his spiritulity. Love him enough to tell him when he's wrong. Quit listening for a while. Boycott Pat...and the rest. Tell them it's time we get back on focus.

In the meantime, I think I'm going to go visit some friends in Dover...

The Original Spirit of the United Brethren

2005-10-16T22:26:00.000-04:00

As the United Brethren (my denomination) enter a period of experimentation and renewal, it is worth asking whether the steps undertaken will help recapture the original spirit of the movement. In asking this question, I am by no means envisioning a reactionary agenda—to somehow recreate the forms and methods of two centuries ago. Rather, I seek to answer the question of identity, from which all other answers derive. Reflecting on the original spirit, which was undoubtedly a movement of the spirit and not a desire to establish a denomination, I note the following characteristics:

The original spirit was ecumenical. The founders represented a number of strains of Protestant Christianity but were united by a common experience of grace. They resolved to follow the precept of Melanchthon: “in essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” Those who agreed not to argue over something as fundamental to Mennonite belief as baptism would have difficulty understanding their descendents’ distractions with holiness, lodge membership, the charismatic movement, alcohol, property, and open theism.

The original spirit was missional. They were able to overlook obvious, even important differences in doctrine and behavior (e.g. pacifism) because they were united in a mission to change their world (defined as German-speaking immigrants to the American colonies). Their mission was to invade their culture with a powerfully transformational message and lifestyle. One can tolerate, even encourage, a great deal of diversity in order to accomplish such a greater end.

The original spirit was linked by relationships, not by structure. I am fascinated by the “accidental” nature of their coming together. They were drawn to each other because of a vibrant recognition of that same spirit. The creation of conferences and constitutions and books of discipline and headquarters buildings and offices all came later, and perhaps to the detriment of those that followed. Revivals and relationships are unwieldy things to organize. They either tame us or we tame them. Either way, something of the wildness of heart is diminished.

The original spirit was incarnational. It was highly mobile. It was incarnate in its representatives, not in its buildings. The greatest maintenance task was that of nurturing the People of God and their leaders, not that of repairing the sanctuary or the organization. As they went, they made disciples. And they seemingly went everywhere, which accounts for the rapid growth of the movement in both numbers and geography. They were not of the world, but they were certainly in it. And their world knew of them.

The original spirit was transformative. Refusing to be caught in the silly tension between individual salvation and social transformation, they brazenly sought to accomplish both. Their understanding of grace, their millennial optimism, and their personal experiences had led them to believe that they could, through the grace of God, be instruments for powerful change on individual, community, societal, and even global levels. Theirs was a proactive agenda.

I hope we are recovering that original spirit with the changes we are now implementing. Otherwise, we will waste a lot of energy becoming just another ho-hum North American denomination.

All Learning is Distance Learning

2005-10-16T22:20:00.000-04:00

Nontraditional learning environments provide opportunities to traverse some distances that are more difficult to cross in traditional classroom setting. Those whose personality or learning style causes them to shrink back from speaking up in a physical classroom may find it easier to express themselves in an environment where a posting does not represent an “interruption” of a professor’s lecture and where one can choose one’s wording carefully rather than risk embarrassment with an impromptu remark.

Those who perceive racial or cultural distances in a classroom may find the relative anonymity of the online classroom, where one does not necessarily know the others’ racial, ethnic, national, or cultural backgrounds unless that information is voluntarily offered, a safer environment for the learning process. Those who float from classroom to classroom in isolation, confronted each time by a fresh crowd of strangers called “classmates,” may find the relational depth and relatively small size of the cohort to be an environment in which one can experience multidirectional learning for the first time.

Those who seek regular interactions with instructors who are on campus only three days a week and are available only during specified office hours may find the accessibility of an online instructor by email to be both convenient and conducive to a more productive learning experience. And those who do not have access to traditional higher education because of physical impairment often reveal in the freedom to learn (and be in relationship with other learners) in an environment in which their impairments are neutralized or even an advantage.

Perhaps those are distances worth traversing.

Change Reality By Changing Language

2005-10-16T22:10:00.000-04:00

Introducing new metaphors into the conversation may be the best way to change realities, either one’s own or those of others. Howard Gardner, the noted educational theorist who introduced the concept of multiple intelligences, has argued that the process of changing minds is that of changing “mental representations." If the language one utilizes is capable of changing one’s reality, then the introduction and appropriation of new language, new symbols, and new metaphors into the conversation may result in a change of perception by the other. This understanding of the role of language is derived from the later thought of Ludwig Wittgenstein, who explored the power of language to organize and articulate ideas. Gardner describes it such: “Later Wittgensteins saw language as creating the cognitive worlds in which we are enmeshed."

Some may dismiss this as simply another manifestation of "the power of positive thinking." But even that movement had its merits, when not overly saddled with the crass, popular versions of it. If language is not merely an articulation of ideas or things but is actually the means by which we organize those ideas or things, then we can choose by our actual words at least a bit what our reality will be. Maybe that's what God did when he spoke the world into existence.

[See Howard Gardner, Changing Minds: The Art and Science of Changing Our Own and Other People’s Minds (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2004). ]

Why Abelard?

2005-10-03T10:38:00.000-04:00

Peter Abelard (c. 1079-1142) was a Breton who began a brilliant academic career as a philosopher and thus discovered rationalism as his first epistemological love. He established a reputation in the cathedral school of Paris as a first-rate thinker and an energetic, dynamic teacher who challenged his students to think and not merely copy. They traveled to Paris in droves to learn from this controversial, entertaining, and attractive scholar. Yet theology was the queen of the sciences in the twelfth century and offered answers beyond those available to the philosophers. So Abelard chose to become a student again, albeit only for a short time, for he tired of the authoritarian pedagogy employed by the theologians. Abelard’s most controversial work, Sic et Non, was a backhanded slap at the scholastic practice of quoting authorities in order to answer questions. He simply posed questions and cited authorities rendering incompatible answers, without attempting synthesis or reconciliation. Yet Abelard was not an Enlightenment rationalist; he did not seek to replace revelation with reason. Rather he, like Aquinas, sought to use reason to make sense of what was revealed.

Abelard was also an emotive or romantic learner and expressed this aspect of his personality by composing bawdy ditties and love songs that his students sang in the streets of Paris. His intuition was most obvious in the relational connections he made with his students, with whom he lived and for whom they had profound admiration. Yet he lacked an experiential knowledge of truth until he was caught up in one of the most notorious sexual scandals of the medieval era. He took on the task of educating a bright teenage girl named Heloise and, despite the difference in their ages (perhaps 18-20 years), they quickly established an intimate relationship. In doing so, he violated both his moral code (to resist sexual temptation), which he had acquired through revelation, and his philosophical code (to remain unentangled), which he had chosen through a rational process.

The affair was discovered and Canon Fulbert, Heloise’s uncle and guardian, had Abelard brutally castrated out of anger for his betrayal and deception. Heloise entered a convent where, despite rising to the position of abbess, she pined for Abelard the rest of her days. She wrote him ardent letters expressing her discontent with the lot dealt to them by God. Abelard likewise entered a monastery but, unlike Heloise, there he found contentment and a greater measure of truth than he had previously known. The dramatic experience of pleasure, joy, pain, grief, and loss had revealed to him aspects of God’s character, particularly aspects of God’s justice, that Abelard had been unable or unwilling to discover through other means. Despite his brilliance, or perhaps because of it, Abelard had never truly known God until experience and reflection taught him what was true.

He begged Heloise to see this as well, to understand that what had happened to them was, ultimately, an act of God’s mercy for it released them from their slavery to temporal passions and permitted them to live lives that had greater meaning. Abelard himself continued to teach within the confines of the monastery. His reputation grew again and soon the young men of western Europe were once again flocking to Abelard to gain knowledge. They wanted to meet and study under the great man who had mastered philosophy and theology but found truth in a humiliating, painful slice of a knife. And now he had something more to teach them. Abelard remained controversial until the end, for his encounter with a fuller truth had energized the activist within. He actively sought new and creative ways to understand God, despite the reproaches of those who clung to revelation as the sole appropriate means of knowing such truth.

One does not need a public scandal and humiliation, nor bodily suffering and reproach to follow the model of Abelard. One lesson for the Christian scholar of today is to remain forever discontented with the limits of truth and to seek all avenues by which those limits may be overcome. Abelard, in the end, utilized multiple epistemologies in his pursuit of truth. A second aspect Abelard models is the passion to guide others through (or, in his case, around) the process by which he himself was transformed. Abelard’s concern for the soul of Heloise and the souls of his students was magnified after his tragedy for he understood the value of what he had learned. He desired that others would come to the same point but without the same grief in arriving there. A third lesson that Abelard teaches the modern Christian scholar is the aim of one’s pursuit is Christ Himself. When Abelard came to know Christ, he also came to know himself and, not incidentally, he came to know better the hearts and minds of those around him.

Why Johnny Matters

2005-10-03T02:52:00.000-04:00

Perhaps Johnny Cash sang of death so much because he understood so well its origins in sin. It has become trite to note that a particular artist or movie explores the theme of redemption. What is usually meant is that there is a message of hope in the midst of despair. When Johnny Cash explored redemption, he dug down deeper than mere despair, which is, after all, a fleeting emotional state, down to the bitterroot reality of personal and societal evil. Johnny Cash was a sinner. He knew it, and wanted us to know it too. And, although he seldom said it explicitly, he wanted us to acknowledge that we are sinners too. He trusted us with his heart; he made himself vulnerable because he believed we’ll see something of ourselves in his self-revelation.

Sin, and its attendant, temptation, is the theme of Cash’s two most popular songs. “I Walk the Line,” a product of the late fifties, before he experienced divorce, drug abuse, and jail time, is an honest man’s confession of temptation and fidelity. I may be far from you, he vows, but I remain faithful. “Ring of Fire,” on the other hand, is a confession of infidelity (emotional if not physical unfaithfulness). Co-written by June Carter in 1962, it is one of the most sensuous recordings ever made. With his deep baritone nearly dripping with lust and regret, and the mariachi trumpets blaring in the background, he sings of falling down, down, down into a burning ring of fire. These two songs address sexual temptation; others in the Cash repertoire, particularly in his “outlaw” days, narrate other universal sins—theft, revenge, and, again, physical violence.

In the end there is almost always regret. In “Folsom Prison Blues,” Cash may have his narrator sound like he’s bragging about shooting that man in Reno, but he acknowledges that when he hears the train whistle sound outside the prison walls, he hangs his head and cries. Cash did prison songs so well because he somehow understood both the pain of isolation and the pain of guilt. He may decry the penal system, as he did in San Quentin, where he boasts of nearly causing a prison riot (San Quentin, you’ve been living hell to me) but he also takes upon himself the guilt of the convict and expresses it in a powerful first person ownership. For three minutes, he is the sacrificial lamb carrying the sins of his audience. Give me your sin, your pain, your guilt, your regret, he offers, and I will express it to the world. And in the confession comes a kind of absolution.

So regret becomes absolution becomes redemption. Johnny Cash knows redemption in a manner that is far from abstract. The emotional vulnerabilities expressed in his music were paralleled in his life, which he chronicled with unerring honesty in Man in Black, his 1975 autobiography and personal testimony. There he related his idolatry of career, the breakup of his marriage, and his descent into dependence upon amphetamines and barbiturates. He told of one-night stands in jail, of wrecked cars and missed days, of a failing voice and canceled concerts, of lost friends and abused relationships. Yet through it all there was a remnant who did not give up on him, a few who steadfastly offered redemption. For Cash, redemption meant liberation from his drug habit, the revival of his career, and, eventually, a public commitment to Jesus Christ, about which he was unabashed ever since.

Fighting About Peace

2005-10-03T02:27:00.000-04:00

The debate among Christians during the past few years over the war on terror has illustrated vividly the need for the admonition the Apostle Paul provided to the Philippians regarding maintaining their unity. Christians are no less prone to nastiness in our arguments with each other than are our secular counterparts; in fact, Christians may even possess a greater propensity toward hostile debate because we recognize the eternal significance of much that we discuss. Of course, sometimes we impose eternal significance on issues that are very much temporal and trivial.

The debate on war is neither temporal nor trivial. War is a deadly, horrible evil, the result of our Fall from grace, and the means by which far too many people enter eternity earlier than necessary. It has significant consequences for our own lives, the lives of our families and loved ones, and the lives of thousands that we do not know but for whom we bear some responsibility. It will carry tremendous political consequences that will affect, perhaps even determine, the fate of nations in the century to come. And it will, fairly or not, influence the way in which American Christians are perceived, primarily because of our (inaccurate) identification, particularly in the Middle East, as a Christian nation.

Therefore, we should not be surprised that the debate over war has grown shrill and heated, even or especially among believers. But we should be saddened. For issues such as this present not only an opportunity to model our virtues in terms of the positions that we hold, but especially an opportunity to display those virtues in terms of how we relate to one another in arriving at those positions. We are hypocritical if we oppose war in the name of peace and yet seemingly cannot disagree peacefully with those who hold another position. We do likewise if we support war in the name of justice yet cannot do justice to the motives and message of those with whom we disagree.

The Problem with Churches

2005-10-03T00:22:00.000-04:00

I am passionate about Church. I am at times, however, not too fond of church. During nearly two decades in the ministry, I have been frequently frustrated by churches, have been beaten up by a couple, and have even been dismissed from one. But I have also found my faith in a church, been called to ministry there, had my calling renewed in another, and developed some of my most precious friendships in churches. My experience is not all that different from other ministers or even laypersons. We love God and His people, but we struggle sometimes because we know our churches are not all that they were intended to be. Sometimes we feel powerless to make them so.

In recent years there has been a spate of literature attempting to define exactly what makes a church spiritually mature (to use a biblical phrase) or healthy (to use the current buzzword). Most of these studies have adopted a behavioral approach, seeking to identify certain behaviors that “healthy” churches have in common. There is a certain logical circuitousness about this approach, as the authors or investigators have usually first identified certain congregations they have subjectively regarded as healthy, have analyzed them, and then have extrapolated from their behavior objective standards for all churches. This approach is thus dependent upon the original subjective selection process, which doubtless reflects the biases of the investigators themselves.

Despite that methodological flaw, there is a value to this approach. Defining what makes a church healthy is difficult, but like the Supreme Court’s definition of obscenity, we know it when we see it. And these churches do seem to have some things in common, although the lists of those essential characteristics differ from study to study. The Natural Church Development philosophy emphasizes eight factors, Dann Spader’s healthy church philosophy recognizes six, and there are critics of both. Quantifying and labeling are difficult.

Yet there is a need to identify what the corporate world calls “best practices.” Perhaps the evangelical community needs to create something akin to the Malcolm Balbridge award, given to a very select few corporations that display the highest standards of quality. Part of the frustration among the passionate and prophetic in many churches is a complacency, a willingness to settle for what is good, rather than attempting to achieve what is better. Identification of best practices, recognition of quality churches, models of healthy ministry—these would help to stretch the imagination, to stir the juices, to instigate a healthy discontent among the brethren. This would be good for us.

I Choose to Believe

2005-10-03T00:19:00.000-04:00

I choose to believe
Because it’s coherent
Consistent
And comprehensive.
Or so I say.

I choose to believe
Because it’s logical
Magical
And practical
And so it is.

I choose to believe
Because I have no other choice
Condemned
No mercy for me
Except in Him.

I choose to believe
Because it’s irrational
Foolish
And hopeless
For someone like me.

I choose to believe
Because it’s unfathomable
Illogical
And incoherent
But it’s true.

I choose to believe.
Because His grace is sufficient
For someone like me.

The Grace of Writing

2005-10-03T00:06:00.000-04:00

Writing isn’t primarily about me. That was one of the hardest things I had to learn as a writer. True, much of my writing—letters, email messages, memos, essays, articles for publication—was completed with the intent to share it with others. But even some of my most private writings—journals and poems—became "public" the moment others saw them. And in those moments I became responsible.

I struggled with this burden of responsibility as a writer. Was not writing primarily an act of self-expression? Sadly, no. In fact, most of the activities we engage in as acts of self-expression are not private, but public. And then they also become media for communicating with others. They tell others about me, yes. And they also tell others about them. And what they say is ultimately my responsibility.

The medium that we employ, the words we choose, the forums we create, the styles we utilize—all of these convey meaning to the audience. And that meaning is not merely the content of our message. Marshall McLuhan became famous for observing that "the medium is the message." How I communicate with you says at least as much as what I communicate with you. You and I are intimate with each other at this very moment.

What I’m communicating, whether I intend it or not, is what I think of you. Yes, I might also be describing the state of affairs in China or the latest Dow Jones numbers or what I ate for dinner last evening. But how I describe that will tell you whether I regard you as largely literate or unread, ethical or amoral, empathetic or cold, mature or childish, approachable or standoffish. And, if I am not careful, I will hurt you.

I know how to hurt you in my writing. It’s usually easier than hurting someone face-to-face. Distance, the cold, flat surface of the paper, and the blips and bleeps of the computer monitor all serve as emotional barriers to separate the sender from the receiver. Sometimes I may even want to hurt you. And then I must repent. But more often than not the hurt is accidental. I have hurried or condescended or patronized or dismissed. I have treated you as less than you are and now you see me as less than I would be.

But I do not want to hurt you. That’s not how my Master taught me nor how He speaks with me. His Word overflows with grace, healing, words of consolation and tenderness and joy. How, then, do I do the same? Can my message and my medium serve as channels for His running-over grace in my soul? Yes. If the sword can be beaten into a plow, then the words of my heart can become a stream of cool water for those who are parched. And they are many. May I offer you a drink?

Our God spoke the worlds into existence. He thundered from the mountain. He whispered by the side of the stream. He sent His Son and called Him the Word. He knows and speaks my name. And somehow, for reasons yet unfathomable, He gave us a book. God is the author of my faith, a literate deity who wrote His love into pages filled with human language. He immersed Himself into our story so He could speak our language and be understood. He is yet present in the Word, even in our words…should we bid Him come.

Come, Lord Jesus, come.