Planned Spontaneity

New blog location

2009-05-19T22:11:00.002-05:00

After my last post, I decided that I am tired of Blogger. So I moved all of my stuff to a WordPress blog. All of my future posts will go there now. So change your RSS subscriptions, or subscribe for the first time! Check it out and let me know what you think! Go to http://jaborch99.wordpress.com.

What does living by faith look like?

2009-05-19T20:12:00.005-05:00

So what does it mean to live by faith? And how does living by faith relate to one's level of passivity in life? In other words, does living by faith mean that I stop spending so much time trying to plan for life and "take life into my own hands"?

This is a dilemma for me because I usually associate a greater level of passivity with irresponsibility. Therefore, I usually try to have a plan, to foresee as many possibilities as possible and have a plan of action for as many of those possibilities as possible. This feels like taking responsibility and being proactive. However, when I don't have a clear picture of the possibilities, or when I see the possibilities but can't figure out a plan, I get stressed. Lately, my stress level has been greater than ever.

So this brings me back to my question: what does it really look like to live by faith? Does it mean that we take things one day at a time and really give no thought for tomorrow (Matt. 6:34)? I'll be writing a more extensive post on this in the future, and I'd like to get some feedback before posting. Your thoughts ...

The Foundation -- A Parable

2009-05-15T01:00:00.004-05:00

There once was a young man who stood on a foundation. He was happy on this foundation, even proud. He like to look at people who were not standing on his foundation and point out how flimsy their foundations were.

"Look at my foundation!" he would shout. "It is made of the finest ingredients, unlike yours. If you are happy with your foundation, you must either be ignorant as to the nature of a good foundation, or you don't have the honesty to admit that my foundation is better! After all, everyone with a good and honest heart can see how much better my foundation is!"

There were others standing on the same foundation. The young man often found them to be pleasant. They would laugh and socialize with each other, and they would remind each other of how privileged they were to be standing on their foundation and not any of the others. Occasionally, someone on the foundation voice an opinion about the foundation with which not everyone agreed. "Our foundation is best because it is made out of concrete!" would be countered quickly with "No! Our foundation is best because it is made out of stone!" Each would get on hands and knees inspecting the foundation to find evidence that his theory was correct. At first they would each point out specks in the hardened foundation. When this was not convincing, they would chip small pieces of the foundation off to compare. When this was also not convincing, they would break larger chunks.

For a while the young man got caught up in the excitement of a debate, and argued strongly for which element he believed made the foundation strongest. But one day he stopped debating, investigating, studying, and shouting long enough to separate himself from his surroundings and look once again at the foundation.

What he saw nearly destroyed him. The foundation was cracked and had large craters. Walking around in on the foundation had become a dangerous endeavor, both for the potential of stepping in a pot hole and injuring himself, and because of the constant tendency of his fellow foundation-standers to barrage him with questions and suspicions at every turn.

His foundation was no longer as beautiful to him as it once was. He loved his foundation, but felt it becoming more and more dangerous. So he started asking questions: "Is my foundation really better than the other foundations? How do I know, having never seen the other foundations for myself?" At first, he tried to ponder these questions in his mind, but with time he started voicing them out loud.

"Why are you asking such silly questions?" one of his foundation's leaders would say. "If you are asking those questions, you must not believe that our foundation is truly the best," another leader would add.

The young man had seen these reactions before. Each time, the one who was asking the unacceptable questions was shoved off of the foundation into what he believed was a land of unstable and weak foundations. This fate did not appeal to him. When the foundation's leaders displayed such an attitude, he felt himself being edged more and more slowly to the edge of the foundation.

But, in spite of his best efforts to ignore them, the questions would not go away. So the young man had to make a choice. "Do I stay on the foundation that I love so much, but that is becoming more and more unwelcoming and dangerous for me, or do I step off of that foundation into a world of the unknown with the hope and faith that I will happen upon another foundation that is strong."

With fear, anxiety, and tears, he chose the latter. He walked across the foundation, stepping across cracks and crevices, once tripping on some debris from the investigations that were perpetually taking place. He came to the edge and turned around to look again at the foundation that he had loved standing on so much.

And then he closed his eyes, took a deep breath, braced himself, and stepped off of the edge. ...

U2 Discussion -- Part 4

2008-11-01T00:10:00.003-05:00

This will be the last post. I look forward to our discussion on Sunday!

"I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" is a song that band members have called their "Gospel Song."

I have climbed the highest mountains
I have run through the fields
Only to be with you
Only to be with you.

I have run, I have crawled
I have scaled these city walls
These city walls
Only to be with you.

But I still haven't found
What I'm looking for.
But I still haven't found
What I'm looking for.

I have kissed honey lips
Felt the healing in her finger tips
It burned like fire
(I was) burning inside her.

I have spoke with the tongue of angels
I have held the hand of a devil
It was warm in the night
I was cold as a stone.

But I still haven't found
What I'm looking for.
But I still haven't found
What I'm looking for.

I believe in the Kingdom Come
Then all the colours will bleed into one
Bleed into one.
But yes, I'm still running.

You broke the bonds
And you loosed the chains
Carried the cross of my shame
Oh my shame, you know I believe it.

But I still haven't found
What I'm looking for.
But I still haven't found
What I'm looking for.

But I still haven't found
What I'm looking for.
But I still haven't found
What I'm looking for.

"Love Rescue Me" almost has the sound of an old gospel hymn. I don't think that's a mistake. How many allusions to scripture can you find in this song?

Love rescue me
Come forth and speak to me
Raise me up
And don't let me fall.
No man is my enemy
My own hands imprison me.
Love rescue me.

Many strangers have I met
On the road to my regret
Many lost who seek to find themselves in me.
They ask me to reveal
The very thoughts they would conceal.
Love, rescue me.

And the sun in the sky
Makes a shadow of you and I
Stretching out as the sun sinks in the sea.
I'm here without a name
In the palace of my shame
I said, love, rescue me.

In the cold mirror of a glass
I see my reflection pass
I see the dark shades of what I used to be.
I see the purple of her eyes
The scarlet of my lies.
Love, rescue me.

Yeah, though I walk
In the valley of the shadow
Yet, I will fear no evil.
I have cursed thy rod and staff
They no longer comfort me.
Love, rescue me.

Sha la la la etc.
I said love, love, rescue me.

Yeah, I'm here without a name
In the palace of my shame
I said love, rescue me.

I've conquered my past
The future is here at last
I stand at the entrance to a new world I can see.
The ruins to the right of me
Will soon have lost sight of me.
Love, rescue me.

"Peace On Earth" is reminiscent of many of the Psalms that ask "Why are you allowing these things to happen, God?" and "Where are you in this?"

Heaven on Earth
We need it now
I'm sick of all of this
Hanging around
Sick of sorrow
Sick of pain
Sick of hearing again and again
That there's gonna be
Peace on Earth

Where I grew up
There weren't many trees
Where there was we'd tear them down
And use them on our enemies
They say that what you mock
Will surely overtake you
And you become a monster
So the monster will not break you

It's already gone too far
Who said that if you go in hard
You won't get hurt

Jesus could you take the time
To throw a drowning man a line
Peace on Earth
Tell the ones who hear no sound
Whose sons are living in the ground
Peace on Earth
No whos or whys
No-one cries like a mother cries
For peace on Earth
She never got to say goodbye
To see the colour in his eyes
Now he's in the dirt
Peace on Earth

They're reading names out over the radio
All the folks the rest of us won't get to know
Sean and Julia, Gareth, Ann and Breda
Their lives are bigger, than any big idea

Jesus can you take the time
To throw a drowning man a line
Peace on Earth
To tell the ones who hear no sound
Whose sons are living in the ground
Peace on Earth

Jesus this song you wrote
The words are sticking in my throat
Peace on Earth
Hear it every Christmas time
But hope and history won't rhyme
So what's it worth?
This peace on Earth

Peace on Earth
Peace on Earth
Peace on Earth

"Pride (In The Name Of Love)." The first line of this song kind of gives away what it is about.

One man come in the name of love
One man come and go.
One man come he to justify
One man to overthrow.

In the name of love
What more in the name of love.
In the name of love
What more in the name of love.

One man caught on a barbed wire fence
One man he resist
One man washed up on an empty beach
One man betrayed with a kiss.

In the name of love
What more in the name of love.
In the name of love
What more in the name of love.

Early morning, April four
Shot rings out in the Memphis sky.
Free at last, they took your life
They could not take your pride.

In the name of love
What more in the name of love.
In the name of love
What more in the name of love.

In the name of love
What more in the name of love.
In the name of love
What more in the name of love.

"Where The Streets Have No Name" Where could that be, I wonder.

I wanna run, I want to hide
I wanna tear down the walls
That hold me inside.
I wanna reach out
And touch the flame
Where the streets have no name.

I wanna feel sunlight on my face.
I see the dust-cloud
Disappear without a trace.
I wanna take shelter
From the poison rain
Where the streets have no name
Where the streets have no name
Where the streets have no name.

We're still building and burning down love
Burning down love.
And when I go there
I go there with you
(It's all I can do).

The city's a flood, and our love turns to rust.
We're beaten and blown by the wind
Trampled in dust.
I'll show you a place
High on a desert plain
Where the streets have no name
Where the streets have no name
Where the streets have no name.

We're still building and burning down love
Burning down love.
And when I go there
I go there with you
(It's all I can do).

U2 Discussion -- Part 3

2008-10-30T20:28:00.002-05:00

Today we'll look at some of the more politically themed songs of U2.

"Sunday Bloody Sunday" is a song bemoaning war and violence. Specifically, it was written with the violence in Northern Ireland in view. Just to give you some context, consider the following from Walk On: The Spiritual Journey of U2 by Steve Stockman:

Bloody Sunday was the name give to two of the darkest dates in Ireland's bloody history. One is January 30, 1972 -- the day British troops shot and killed thirteen people during a civil rights march in nationalist Derry in Northern Ireland. The army has said it was a shot at first. The civil rights marchers and the families of the dead have always disputed this, saying the victims were innocent. It fanned the flames of the area's troubles. ...

Bloody Sunday was also the name of another tragic day in Dublin. On November 21, 1921, the British ... entered Croke Park, the headquarters for the Gaelic Athletic Association. The association often was accused of being affiliated with Republicans, and the British shot and killed twelve people.

On November 8, 1987, U2 was on their Rattle and Hum Tour and, before performing in Denver, Colorado that night, received news that another "Bloody Sunday" had occurred in their homeland. The IRA exploded a bomb at the War Memorial in Enniskillen. It killed 13 innocent people. In the middle of performing "Sunday Bloody Sunday," Bono let his emotions be seen and heard. He had a monologue midway through the song about how brave it was to kill children and old men who had just cleaned up their medals for the day. His feelings were summarized in that monologue when he proclaimed "F*** the revolution." That would be the last time they performed the song for almost ten years. The following video is that performance in Denver. (WARNING: Bono doesn't censor himself in the monologue like I did above.)

"Bullet The Blue Sky" is a song rebuking America's support for some military dictatorships in Central America. It has been reworked more recently to rebuke the international arms trade and the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. (WARNING: the video opens with another choice word.)

In the howlin' wind
Comes a stingin' rain
See it drivin' nails
Into the souls on the tree of pain.

From the firefly
A red orange glow
See the face of fear
Runnin' scared in the valley below.

Bullet the blue sky
Bullet the blue sky
Bullet the blue
Bullet the blue.

In the locust wind
Comes a rattle and hum.
Jacob wrestled the angel
And the angel was overcome.

You plant a demon seed
You raise a flower of fire.
We see them burnin' crosses
See the flames, higher and higher.

Woh, woh, bullet the blue sky
Bullet the blue sky
Bullet the blue
Bullet the blue.

Suit and tie comes up to me
His face red like a rose on a thorn bush
Like all the colours of a royal flush
And he's peelin' off those dollar bills
(Slappin' 'em down)
One hundred, two hundred.

And I can see those fighter planes
And I can see those fighter planes
Across the tin huts as children sleep
Through the alleys of a quiet city street.
Up the staircase to the first floor
We turn the key and slowly unlock the door
As a man breathes into his saxophone
And through the walls you hear the city groan.
Outside, is America
Outside, is America
America.

See across the field
See the sky ripped open
See the rain comin' through the gapin' wound
Howlin' the women and children
Who run into the arms
Of America.

"Crumbs From Your Table" is about Bono's passion: Africa and their need for debt relief, medical intervention, and trade reform.

Crumbs From Your Table

From the brightest star
Comes the blackest hole
You had so much to offer
Why did you offer your soul?
I was there for you baby
When you needed my help
Would you deny for others
What you demand for yourself?

Cool down mama, cool off
Cool down mama, cool off

You speak of signs and wonders
I need something other
I would believe if I was able
But I’m waiting on the crumbs from your table

You were pretty as a picture
It was all there to see
Then your face caught up with your psychology
With a mouth full of teeth
You ate all your friends
And you broke every heart thinking every heart mends

You speak of signs and wonders
But I need something other
I would believe if I was able
But I’m waiting on the crumbs from your table

Where you live should not decide
Whether you live or whether you die
Three to a bed
Sister Ann, she said
Dignity passes by

And you speak of signs and wonders
But I need something other
I would believe if I was able
I’m waiting on the crumbs from your table

"In God's Country" is about the tension between wonderful promise of the American Dream and the poisonous materialism and vanity that it often creates.

Desert sky, dream beneath the desert sky.
The rivers run but soon run dry.
We need new dreams tonight.
Desert rose, dreamed I saw a desert rose
Dress torn in ribbons and bows
Like a siren she calls (to me).

Sleep comes like a drug in God's country
Sad eyes, crooked crosses, in God's country

Set me alight, we'll punch a hole right through the night.
Every day the dreamers die to see what's on the other side.
She is liberty, and she comes to rescue me.
Hope, faith, her vanity
The greatest gift is gold.

Sleep comes like a drug in God's country
Sad eyes, crooked crosses, in God's country

Naked flame, she stands with a naked flame
I stand with the sons of Cain
Burned by the fire of love
Burned by the fire of love.

U2 Discussion -- Part 2

2008-10-29T21:15:00.003-05:00

Have you ever wondered what Judas would say to Jesus if he had another chance and the benefit of hindsight? Well, "Until the End of the World" envisions Judas, having realized the error of his ways, greeting Jesus as Jesus descends to Hell during the time between the crucifixion and the resurrection. The lyrics are supposed to be the words of Judas in this situation.

Haven't seen you in quite a while
I was down the hold, just passing time.
Last time we met it was a low-lit room
We were as close together as a bride and groom.
We ate the food, we drank the wine
Everybody having a good time except you.
You were talking about the end of the world.

I took the money, I spiked your drink
You miss too much these days if you stop to think.
You led me on with those innocent eyes
And you know I love the element of surprise.
In the garden I was playing the tart
I kissed your lips and broke your heart.
You, you were acting like it was the end of the world.

In my dream, I was drowning my sorrows
But my sorrows they'd learned to swim
Surrounding me, going down on me
Spilling over the brim
Waves of regret and waves of joy.
I reached out for the one I tried to destroy.
You, you said you'd wait till the end of the world.

Have you ever wondered what Jesus' disciples may have been thinking and praying on that day between His death and resurrection. "Wake Up, Dead Man" imagines one of those prayers. Do you think there are any other intended meanings? (WARNING: this song has a word in it that some may find objectionable. Don't say I didn't warn you.)

Jesus, Jesus help me
I'm alone in this world
And a fucked-up world it is too.

Tell me, tell me the story
The one about eternity
And the way it's all gonna be.

Wake up, wake up dead man
Wake up, wake up dead man.

Jesus, I'm waiting here, boss
I know you're looking out for us
But maybe your hands aren't free.

Your Father, He made the world in seven
He's in charge of heaven.
Will you put a word in for me?

Wake up, wake up dead man
Wake up, wake up dead man.

Listen to the words they'll tell you what to do
Listen over the rhythm that's confusing you
Listen to the reed in the saxophone
Listen over the hum of the radio
Listen over the sound of blades in rotation
Listen through the traffic and circulation
Listen as hope and peace try to rhyme
Listen over marching bands playing out their time.

Wake up, wake up dead man
Wake up, wake up dead man.

Jesus, were you just around the corner?
Did you think to try and warn her?
Were you working on something new?
If there's an order in all of this disorder
Is it like a tape recorder?
Can we rewind it just once more?

Wake up, wake up dead man
Wake up, wake up dead man.
Wake up, wake up dead man.

"All Because of You" is a pretty self-explanatory song of praise.

I was born a child of grace
Nothing else about the place
Everything was ugly but your beautiful face
And it left me no illusion

I saw you in the curve of the moon
In the shadow cast across my room
You heard me in my tune
When I just heard confusion

All because of you
All because of you
All because of you
I am… I am

I like the sound of my own voice
I didn’t give anyone else a choice
An intellectual tortoise
Racing with your bullet train

Some people get squashed crossing the tracks
Some people got high rises on their backs
I’m not broke but you can see the cracks
You can make me perfect again

All because of you
All because of you
All because of you
I am… I am

I’m alive
I’m being born
I just arrived, I’m at the door
Of the place I started out from
And I want back inside

All because of you
All because of you
All because of you
I am

"Grace" is a song about ... well ... grace. Notice how he even distinguishes the idea of grace from that of karma.

Grace, she takes the blame
She covers the shame
Removes the stain
It could be her name

Grace, it's the name for a girl
It's also a thought that changed the world
And when she walks on the street
You can hear the strings
Grace finds goodness in everything

Grace, she's got the walk
Not on a ramp or on chalk
She's got the time to talk
She travels outside of karma
She travels outside of karma
When she goes to work
You can hear her strings
Grace finds beauty in everything

Grace, she carries a world on her hips
No champagne flute for her lips
No twirls or skips between her fingertips
She carries a pearl in perfect condition

What once was hurt
What once was friction
What left a mark
No longer stings
Because Grace makes beauty
Out of ugly things

Grace makes beauty out of ugly things

See if you can find the Trinitarian message in "The First Time."

I have a lover, a lover like no other
She got soul, soul, soul, sweet soul
And she teach me how to sing.

Shows me colours when there's none to see
Gives me hope when I can't believe
That for the first time I feel love.

I have a brother, when I'm a brother in need
I spend my whole time running
He spends his running after me.

I feel myself goin' down
I just call and he comes around.
But for the first time I feel love.

My father is a rich man, he wears a rich man's cloak.
He gave me the keys to his kingdom (coming)
Gave me a cup of gold.

He said "I have many mansions
And there are many rooms to see."
But I left by the back door
And I threw away the key
And I threw away the key.

For the first time, for the first time
For the first time, I feel love.

U2 Discussion -- Part 1

2008-10-28T22:43:00.002-05:00

The next few posts are for the Pond Springs young adults class. As we continue to look at pop culture and think about our interaction with it, we will consider the music of u2 this week. Please check back here every day and watch the selected videos and think about the U2 clips.

The first one is a combination of two songs, a partial version of "40" and "Where the Streets Have No Name" from their Elevation tour, followed by some clips of Bono speaking at the National Prayer Breakfast

Now, listen to the full version of "40." It is a restatement of Psalm 40, with a refrain taken from Psalm 6:3.

I waited patiently for the Lord.
He inclined and heard my cry.
He brought me up out of the pit
Out of the miry clay.

I will sing, sing a new song.
I will sing, sing a new song.
How long to sing this song?
How long to sing this song?
How long, how long, how long
How long to sing this song?

You set my feet upon a rock
And made my footsteps firm.
Many will see, many will see and hear.

I will sing, sing a new song.
I will sing, sing a new song
I will sing, sing a new song.
I will sing, sing a new song
How long to sing this song?
How long to sing this song?
How long to sing this song?
How long to sing this song? .

"Gloria" borrows the first words from Psalms 30, 31, and 51 as Bono asks for God's help in being honest in his songwriting.

I try to sing this song
I, I try to stand up
But I can't find my feet.
I, I try to speak up
But only in you I'm complete.

Gloria
In te domine
Gloria
Exultate
Gloria
Gloria
Oh, Lord, loosen my lips.

I try to sing this song
I, I try to get in
But I can't find the door
The door is open
You're standing there, you let me in.

Gloria
In te domine
Gloria
Exultate
Oh, Lord, if I had anything, anything at all
I'd give it to you.

Gloria
In te domine
Gloria
Gloria

"Yahweh" is a prayer for God to change us and reshape us. Notice the theme of rebirth in the refrain.

Take these shoes
Click clacking down some dead end street
Take these shoes
And make them fit
Take this shirt
Polyester white trash made in nowhere
Take this shirt
And make it clean, clean
Take this soul
Stranded in some skin and bones
Take this soul
And make it sing

Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahweh, Yahweh
Still I’m waiting for the dawn

Take these hands
Teach them what to carry
Take these hands
Don’t make a fist
Take this mouth
So quick to criticise
Take this mouth
Give it a kiss

Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahewh, Yahweh
Still I’m waiting for the dawn

Still waiting for the dawn, the sun is coming up
The sun is coming up on the ocean
This love is like a drop in the ocean
This love is like a drop in the ocean

Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahweh, tell me now
Why the dark before the dawn?

Take this city
A city should be shining on a hill
Take this city
If it be your will
What no man can own, no man can take
Take this heart
Take this heart
Take this heart
And make it break

Spelling Bee Fun

2008-06-04T08:49:00.001-05:00

Back in the Saddle

2007-11-17T17:45:00.000-06:00

My thesis work is virtually finished, so I now have no excuse now and will try to resume blogging. I must confess, I have debated whether I would actually return or not. I enjoy the ability to put some of my thoughts into words and share them and, on rare occasions, get comments back on them. But coming up with regular posts that are insightful and interesting can be difficult. I'll do my best. To begin, a few random thoughts from the past few months.

1. I'm totally on board with the ideas advocated at www.adventconspiracy.org.

2. I have now read the "A New Kind of Christian" trilogy by Brian McLaren. I was blown away by them. While I'm not sure how comfortable with some of the suggestions that are made in the books, I've grown more from reading them than just about any other books I've read.

3. If I'm convinced of anything, its that my Aggies desperately need a new coach. All signs point to this happening. I will be very happy when it does.

4. Ron Paul has gotten a few more headlines recently with his fundraising successes. I still doubt his prospects, but will support him until he's out.

5. I got to spend the day today with Abbie making a kite and then attempting unsuccessfully to get it to fly. We are both sick right now, but it was the best day I've had in a long time.

6. I'm trying to think of topics that I can blog on int he future. Any suggestions?

Wow

2007-10-03T00:31:00.000-05:00

I think this may be the only time I've really been impacted by a skit/drama/interpretive dance kind of thing. Check this out. Stick with it. It gets really good.
Lifehouse's "Everything" skit

Add to My Profile | More Videos

Toddlers at the Table (2)

2007-09-13T12:56:00.000-05:00

If you haven't kept up with this discussion, but would like to catch up now, here's how it developoed:

I posted this article, and also emailed it to Al Maxey seeking his feedback.
Mr. Maxey responded in his weekly Reflections email newsletter. Click here to read it.

Well, I have had some further correspondence with Al regarding the question of children partaking of the Lord's Supper. With his gracious permission, I am posting our correspondence.

First, my response to his article:

Brother Maxey,

Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful treatment of my question about allowing my daughter to partake in communion. The factors which you mentioned are the ones that I have always been taught. You confirmed them sufficiently for me to refrain from allowing my daughter to partake at this time. However, I still have some questions that plague me on this issue.

My difficulty is not with any specific point that you made, but with the general idea that "The rituals of Christianity are only for the mature." You mentioned in your conclusion the passage that says that we will pray and sing with understanding. I'm glad you brought this up because I think it helps explain my continuing difficulty with this question.

We believe that the Bible teaches that all that we do must be more than a mere "going through the motions," but must be done with an understanding of what we are doing. This applies to singing, praying, the Lord's Supper, daily life, etc. However, we don't keep our children from singing in worship even though they don't understand the meaning of the words that they sing. We don't keep them from praying even though they don't understand prayer. We certainly don't forbid them from participating in the offering, although they don't understand any of the theology behind it. And we don't discourage them from adopting Christian morals and values in their daily activity (don't lie, be kind, have good manners, etc.) even though they don't understand the theology behind Christian living. We don't forbid these things because, among other things, there is educational and developmental value to the
experiencing of Christian rituals and activities as they progressively learn more and more about the deeper meanings. I see it as the difference between active/multi-sensory learning and theoretical learning.

I agree that the Bible teaches a deeper meaning behind the Lord's Supper than my Abbie can even come close to comprehending. However, I believe that the Bible teaches a deeper meaning behind singing, praying, offering, Christian living than she is able to comprehend. Why, then, do we forbid the Lord's supper but not the others?

As I said, your article was truly a helpful reminder, as I often allow my exploratory thinking to take over and sometimes lose my grounding in the process. You called me back to a grounded view of the question that I asked. For this I thank you. However, the questioner within me is still not satisfied. I know that you probably receive enough email that an ongoing discussion like this may be something that you don't have time for. However, your further thoughts would be appreciated.

Blessings,
Jeff Borcherding

Now, his reply:

I can certainly appreciate where you are coming from; I've struggled with many of these same questions and feelings over the years, as I'm sure a great many have. One will discover, however, that in most human societies (whether secular or spiritual, primitive or modern) there is a perceived need to reserve some activities for those who have attained a certain level of maturity. For example, consider marriage. Yes, there are indeed some cultures where the very young are allowed, even encouraged, to marry and bear children. I have heard of girls as young as ten having a baby. Most of us, however, regard such an activity as being something that is not truly developmentally appropriate for that age. Are their bodies capable of reproducing? Yes, in many cases. Does a ten-year-old have a rudimentary understanding of marriage? I'm sure they do. Would you encourage your own daughter to "experience" marriage and reproduction firsthand simply because her physical body might be capable of such, thereby giving her experiential, not just theoretical, knowledge of this?! Probably not. Why not? Because we see the wisdom in postponing certain activities until one is more emotionally and/or spiritually capable of appreciating and accepting the responsibilities of said activity. I truly believe some things are important enough in our lives to advise waiting until we are truly ready to embrace them as they should be, and need to be, embraced.
Yes, as we assemble together, we do encourage our children to sing, pray and give. However, these are things we also encourage them to do every day. In reality, these activities are largely inherent. Before an infant can even form words, they are singing. A fetus will respond to music even in the womb. It is part of our nature. So is giving. Watch a baby sometime. They'll suck on a cracker and then offer the soggy morsel to Mom and Dad. They are sharing; giving. It is inherent. Psychologists, and even anthropologists, will tell you that man is a "worshipful animal" -- i.e., we have an inherent need to look to something or someone greater than ourselves. Solomon wrote that God has "set eternity in their heart" [Eccl. 3:11]. In other words, God has placed within man an inherent awareness, however rudimentary, of that which is greater than himself, so that even from the very first there may be this inherent longing to grasp the Infinite One. Seeking to communicate with this One is inherent within us, and this is accomplished in prayer. It is a need even a child can fulfill. We can cry out Abba, Daddy, long before we appreciate the true nature of that eternal Father. Thus, singing, praying and giving all address fundamental, basic, inherent traits of the human species, and are developmentally appropriate to almost any age.
The Lord's Supper, on the other hand, points to a most remarkable moment in time and space, one that is completely outside of and apart from the realm of human nature and experience. It memorializes an event when God Himself stepped shockingly into our physical realm and did the unthinkable -- He died a horrendous death in our place. There is absolutely nothing inherent within our nature to prepare us for this expression of His nature. "Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" [Rom. 5:7-8]. Two verses later we are told that the death of Jesus reconciled us to the Father while we were still His enemies. There is nothing inherent within man that prepares us for this amazing grace! The Lord's Supper commemorates the supreme act of love of our Creator, an event that requires some degree of maturity to even begin to grasp, much less apply to our lives in a meaningful way. Singing, praying and sharing are aspects of our nature; that which the Lord's Supper displays is an aspect of His. It is totally outside of our own human experience, and thus requires some degree of development as disciples of Jesus to appreciate, much less accept, this demonstration of His redeeming love!
Nevertheless, having stated all of the above, it is certainly true that there is no definitive "law" for resolving the issue of precisely when it is "developmentally appropriate" for one to partake of the Lord's Supper. God has largely left that to the exercise of our good judgment. In my previous study I provided what I personally believe the purposes of that event to be, according to my best understanding of the Scriptures, and then simply challenged us all to determine, as best we can, at what point we feel one is capable of truly appreciating this event as it deserves to be appreciated. Since the Lord has not specifically set an age for participation, neither can I. I can only offer the fruit of my study and my insights into the matter. In the end, each person must make that determination for themselves. I have stated my belief -- a four-year-old is not yet ready for this event -- but I will most certainly not condemn those who differ with me on this matter, and who choose to give the bread and wine to their child (although I think it inappropriate to do so). This is, ultimately, between them and their God, and I gladly leave the matter in His merciful, loving and gracious hands. Our Father knows men's hearts and motives far better than I. In conclusion, to this brother from Texas I say: May God richly bless you and your precious daughter. She is truly blessed to have such conscientious parents who want only to raise her to love and appreciate the Lord.
--- Al Maxey

Toddlers at the Table

2007-09-13T00:21:00.000-05:00

Al Maxey has responded to my question about letting Abbie take the Lord's Supper. Click here to read what he has to say. And, if you don't receive his weekly Reflections email, you are truly missing out on a truly enriching read every time.

Also, I hate to do this again, but I will be taking a break from the blog (for the most part) over the next month. I have until October 15 to complete my thesis, and need to dedicate all of my time to it. Its crunch time and I'm still behind. I may post a random video or link in the meantime, so check back on occasion, but I'll have to postpone the rest for a little while.

You've Gotta Be Kidding Me!!

2007-09-07T16:55:00.000-05:00

I thought I'd seen it all.

Gender Roles (8) -- Submission in Ephesians 5

2007-09-06T23:03:00.000-05:00

Read Part 1
Read Part 2
Read Part 3
Read Part 4
Read Part 5
Read Part 6
Read Part 7

We now enter the portion of the study on gender roles that gets quite difficult. As I have said before, I am studying this week-by-week and don’t know what will come of my study. Thus far, I have found the egalitarian arguments more convincing. However, I haven't yet dealt with the passages that are considered definitive by the complimentarians, so it hasn’t been a very fair fight thus far. We shall see where this ends up.

When the concept of submission of wife to husband comes up, I immediately think of one of my classmates in preaching school who made the statement, “If I tell my wife to crawl across the kitchen floor on her hands and knees, she must do so according to Scripture.” This classmate of mine would assure us that he would never do such a thing, and that he believed that he would be violating Scripture by acting in such a way towards his wife. Nevertheless, he believed that the Bible passages mentioning wives submitting/being subject to their husbands meant that his wife would ultimately have to do so if he instructed her in such a way.

While never taking it to this extreme, Alissa and I always believed (because that’s what we had been taught) that the wife was to be submissive to her husband as the ultimate authority in the home. In fact, I made my desire clear that her vows in our wedding would include the word “submit.” She willingly (submissively?) agreed. So now, even though I am leaning egalitarian in my understanding of scripture, I can still be an authority over her on the grounds that she made a vow of submission! And the Bible certainly teaches the importance of keeping your vows!

Just kidding.

The passages most commonly mentioned as supporting the submission of wives to husbands are Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:5, and 1 Peter 3:1. Indeed, on a surface reading of the text, the case seems clear – husbands are in a position of authority over wives, and wives must recognize this authority by submitting to it.

Discovering whether this is the true meaning of the texts is, unfortunately, not so clear cut. In fact, it is downright frustrating. Today, we will start looking at Ephesians 5, for it has the most points of contention between the two positions.

Mutual Submission
Egalitarian position: V. 21 is the interpretive key to the passage, and it refers to mutual submission. The verses that follow give examples of how mutual submission is played out in life. The first example of mutual submission is in marriage. Wives submit to their husbands, and husbands love their wives as Christ loved the church. Christ became a self-sacrificing servant for the church. Slaves submit to their masters (6:5-9), but masters are told to treat their slaves "in the same way" as slaves are to treat their masters. Hence, mutual submission. The parent-child relationship is mutually submissive in that the parents are serving the needs of their child whereas the child is obeying the parent. If these verses are not describing mutual submission, what is the meaning of and purpose of v. 21? The other passages instructing submission of wives to husbands can be independently explained in such a way that makes them consistent with the egalitarian thrust of all scripture up to this point and that does not mistreat the text.

Complimentarian position: It is unnatural to understand these verses as referring to mutual submission. Children submit to parents, but not vice versa. Slaves submit to masters, but not vice versa. Likewise, wives submit to husbands, but not vice versa. In each of these relationships, the authority is regulated to prevent mistreatment. Also, if God's desire was for mutual submission, it would seem that there would be some place in the Bible where it said something that more clearly instructs husbands to submit to their wives? Instead , you have several other verses repeating the instruction directing wives to submit, such as Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:5, and 1 Peter 3:1-6.

My assessment: I'm torn. V. 21 cannot be ignored, and it clearly espouses some kind of mutual submission, although not necessarily the egalitarian brand of it. However, the mutual submission of parents and children seems to be a stretch. On this point, the complimentarian reading of the passage seems to be more natural, although the egalitarian reading is viable.

"Submit"

Complimentarian position: The Greek word for "submit" means to submit to an authority. It carries the idea of authority in its very meaning. Nowhere in ancient Greek writings was that word used to refer to reciprocal submission, whether in the Bible or not.

Egalitarian position: The word "submit" does not appear alone. It is followed by the words "to one another." The addition of that phrase makes it mutual. It like saying, “Treat one another as being an authority over you.” It reminds me of what Paul said in Philippians 2:3-4, that we are supposed to “consider others better than yourselves” and “look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.”

My assessment: The egalitarian position makes good sense on this point. I don't know Greek well enough to know how well the linguistic argument's hold up, but they do seem to make sense within the text.

I'll continue looking at Ephesians 5 next time. Clearly, both egalitarians and complimentarians have solid points related to Ephesians 5. Taking the passage on its own merits, I have to call it a draw thus far. In the case of a draw, I must defer to my understanding of the whole of scripture, which, as I have said above, currently leans egalitarian. But the jury is still out.

Which Theologian Are You?

2007-08-30T23:52:00.000-05:00

Whodathunkit?! I'm a Calvinist after all! I'll have to stop trashing TULIP. OK, maybe not.

You scored as John Calvin, Much of what is now called Calvinism had more to do with his followers than Calvin himself, and so you may or may not be committed to TULIP, though God's sovereignty is all important.

John Calvin

80%

Anselm

80%

Karl Barth

60%

Augustine

60%

Friedrich Schleiermacher

53%

Jonathan Edwards

53%

Martin Luther

53%

Charles Finney

47%

Jürgen Moltmann

47%

Paul Tillich

40%

Which theologian are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

Gender Roles (7) -- Women in the Church

2007-08-29T23:14:00.000-05:00

Read Part 1
Read Part 2
Read Part 3
Read Part 4
Read Part 5
Read Part 6

Women served in many prominent roles that many modern Christians would exclude them from. These roles include:

Prophetess
At the initial convening of the Christian church, Peter mentioned the role of the prophetess as indicative of the arrival of the kingdom prophesied of in Joel 2:28 (see Acts 2:17). It doesn't take long before we find the first recorded example of a prophetess in the church, when Acts 21:9 tells us that Philip's daughters prophesied. Also, the women in Corinth prophesied in the presence of men, and were not rebuked for doing so (1 Cor. 11:5-6). Rather, they were rebuked for their failure to honor their "heads" while prophesying. It is important to notice that prophecy was a PUBLIC ministry and a PUBLIC witness of the Spirit. The role of the prophet was to communicate God's message to his people. This is precisely the kind of role that women are prohibited from holding today.

Missionaries
Many women are presented in the New Testament as being "fellow-workers" with Paul. Label this how you will, but the term "fellow-worker" is typically used by Paul to indicated those who participated in his evangelistic and missionary activities. This number includes Euodia and Syntyche in Philippi (Philippians 4:2-3); Priscilla in Corinth (Rom. 16:3). Many others are mentioned in the New Testament as participating in this kind of work with Paul.

Apostle?
While the 12 were all men (discussed last week), it is interesting that Junia (a feminine name) as "highly respected among the apostles." I'm not sure exactly how to understand this. It could mean that she was viewed as holding an apostolic/ambassadorial role even though not one of the 12 (like Paul??). Or it could mean that she was highly respected BY the apostles. The problem with this latter interpretation is that most ancient and modern writers have always understood the verse to be referring to her as an apostle.

Deacon
We will discuss this passage at a later date, but it should be noted that Phoebe is referred to as a deacon of the church at Cenchrea in Romans 16:1.

While some of these have more ambiguity than others, this overview should show that women certainly had a much greater claim to leadership roles in the early church than they are allowed in many churches today. They led men, had authority over men, taught men, spoke in the presence of men, etc.

Feedback appreciated

2007-08-29T22:06:00.001-05:00

So I have a question that I figured I'd throw out there to see if anyone can help me. I've been pondering the propriety of allowing Abbie to start taking the Lord's Supper.

Now, before the heresy hunters start sending in special forces, let me at least explain my thinking. You see, I want my daughter to learn the meaning behind the rituals that we go through on Sunday. I want them to have meaning for her. I don't want them to be just "adult" things.

I know that the Lord's Supper is a Christian memorial. Therefore, it is inappropriate for non-Christians to partake (although I don't know any church that actively tells them not to when they happen to be present). But does a four year old, who believes in Jesus as much as any four year old possibly can, qualify? I certainly don't think she's a non-Christian, yet she hasn't made a mature decision yet to make Jesus her Lord.

You see, Abbie will never have a "conversion experience." She will be raised to believe and will at some point either choose to adopt that belief personally or to reject it. But she will never be "converted" to Christianity. Therefore, being raised to believe and to be a part of a believing community, would it not be appropriate to teach her the meaning of the rituals of that believing community.

"But you can teach the meaning without letting her partake," you might say. True, I can give her a theoretical understanding of what is going on. However, I believe that there is experiential value to participating. What this experience will mean to a four year old, I have no idea. However, I'm tired of church education and family education be all theoretical/doctrinal/theological and not experiential.

So I picture my wife and I talking to Abbie about the communion and telling her than when the crackers and grape juice go by, we think about Jesus dying on the cross. We can tell her that the juice looks like blood, so we think about his blood, and that the crackers look like skin, so we think about his body. I think she can understand those elementary principles.

So I'm thinking about doing it. What are your thoughts? Would I be cheapening the Lord's Supper by letting her partake? Is there some biblical teaching that would preclude it?

Inter-religious conversations

2007-08-24T23:42:00.000-05:00

Matt Stone is a unique kind of missionary. He specifically does outreach to those usually left untouched by Christians -- pagans, wiccans, satanists, etc. He is truly missional in every sense of the word. I have never met him, but his life and blog reflections are a blessing to me. His most recent post is wonderful, as he gives some good advice on how to have conversations with people who are not Christian.

Read it here.

Gender Roles (6) -- Jesus and Women

2007-08-23T23:43:00.000-05:00

Read Part 1
Read Part 2
Read Part 3
Read Part 4
Read Part 5

Review: God created and egalitarian order that was destroyed in the fall. This egalitarian order remained God’s ideal, however. While patriarchalism took hold quickly after the fall, there are indications in the Old Testament that God still saw women as equal participants in His purposes, using them as leaders of His people. While willing to use the patriarchalism of the world to accomplish his purposes, he did not hesitate to use women counter-culturally when it suited his purposes.

The above assessment was arrived at with some hesitation, as there are strong arguments in favor of the complimentarian perspective as well. However, on balance, I believe that the egalitarian interpretation best explains the texts. The strongest part of the egalitarian argument is their ability to explain Genesis 3 and the fall.

Admitting my own fallibility means that my assessment might be wrong. The Gospels and Epistles have not yet even been considered. The light that they shed on the Old Testament could very well tip the balance in favor of complimentarianism. As I stated at the beginning of this study, I have not yet formed an opinion on this issue. Each week enlightens my perspective so that the overall picture could change from week to week. I am simply looking at bite-sized chunks of Scripture and adding them to the “big picture” one bite at a time (mixed metaphor, I know.)

This brings us to the Gospels and the life of Christ. As the image of God, Jesus’ treatment of women will shed significant light on their role in a fallen world. So what do we see in Jesus’ interaction with women.

Clearly, Jesus had a high view of women; much higher, in fact, than the typical Jewish rabbi in his time. His dealings with specific women reinforce this (i.e. Mary and Martha, the Woman at the Well, etc.). About this there is no debate. Complimentarians and egalitarians both acknowledge that Jesus was counter-cultural in his acceptance and elevation of the place of women. The question of our study is specifically how this relates to leadership roles in the church, society, and home.

This is where the picture becomes murky. While women were disciples, and they were among His traveling entourage (Luke 8:1-3; Mark 15:40-41; Luke 23:49), those appointed to be apostles were men. Romans 16:7 calls Junia an apostle, but this was clearly in a different sense from the twelve. The ones that Jesus hand-selected to lead the church from its inception were men. In fact, when a new apostle was being selected in place of Judas, one of the requirements was that he be a male (In Acts 1:21, the word is the specifically male aner rather than the more general anthropos.).

Did Christ use men because he only approves of men in these positions, or is there another explanation? To answer this involves a certain degree of speculation, since it is not directly revealed WHY Christ chose men. It is simply revealed that He did. However, the following points from the egalitarian viewpoint are worthy of consideration.

The patriarchial culture cannot be dismissed. In our study of the Old Testament, we saw that God worked within the culture as much as possible, but was willing to be counter-cultural when it suited his purposes. It could be the case that Jesus’ assessment of his culture and society indicated to him that limiting the leadership roles to men would enable the establishment of the church to happen more effectively. Truly, a woman being viewed as the leader of this new movement would have created an additional stumbling block for many.
Women weren’t the only class that Jesus excluded in his selection of the twelve. No Gentiles were chosen. No slaves were chosen. Yet we believe that Gentiles and (theoretically) slaves would be acceptable leaders in the church, the home, and society. If Jesus’ exclusion of women from the 12 shows His desire for exclusively male leadership, wouldn’t His exclusion of Gentiles show His desire for exclusively Jewish leadership, and wouldn’t His exclusion of slaves show His desire for exclusively freeman leadership? Perhaps his choice had more to do with using those people that he felt would most effectively accomplish his will at the time.

Jesus' choice of apostles is a significant part of this discussion. However, the above points make it at least plausible that that the selection was not intended to be a statement about Jesus' will for women throughout the Christian age. Rather, it was His statement regarding His will in that place and time.

5 Things I Dislike About the Church of Christ

2007-08-20T13:10:00.000-05:00

Having already discussed some of the things I love about my COC heritage, I now reflect on some of the things that have made me question my association with this group. Please understand that I love and appreciate my heritage. However, my commitment is to Christ, not to a party label.

5. Faulty Hermeneutics. Like most in the COC, I was taught that the way to understand God's will was to search the scriptures for commands, examples, and necessary inferences. If one of these could not be found regarding a certain action, then God had not "authorized" that action and it was, therefore, sinful. My problems with this approach are many. Perhaps a future post will deal with it in more detail. Suffice it to say that this is a legalistic approach to Scripture that was never intended by the authors/Author of the Bible.

4. Exclusivism. My upbringing was not blessed by hearing different perspectives on theology. I was not given the ability to make informed decisions, because exposure to differing viewpoints was blocked. In fact, one was made to feel guilty for reading, listening to, or consulting with someone who was not going to tow the COC party line. The "we're the only ones" mentality that is often associated with the COC is slowly dying out, but it is still very real in certain pockets of the denomination.

3. Heresy Hunting. As a minister, I was taught that the vast majority of believers were not actually Christians. In fact, even most members of the COC were suspect at best. The result was that sermons, classes, books, and articles were often read in order to find error rather than blessing. I have books in my library that were originally bought solely so that I could reference the heresy within them. Unfortunately, as a minister I was also subject to the heresy hunters in my own congregations. A misspoken word or sincerely held difference would trigger church discipline proceedings.

2. Intolerance. A part of the above is a culture of intolerance. Many of my brethren in the COC will say the right things about loving the sinner, hating the sin, etc. However, when suspect in the eyes of another, little love is practiced. Repentance must be immediate. Growth is not a process over time, but a series of conscious decisions that can be made in the moment. Context is meaningless. This intolerance is often extended to both non-members (understood as "nonchristians") as well as members.

1. Manipulation. This sounds more extreme than I intend, but I couldn't think of a more benign term to express my point. When a certain party line is taught as the truth, and when one is socially ostracized for considering other viewpoints, and when all of this is connected with eternal destiny, the mind is manipulated. One accepts without question the party line for fear of losing the relationships in this life that provide meaning, as well as the salvation in eternity that give meaning to this life.

Please read me accurately -- I don't believe that these factors are conscious for most COC members. I believe most members are sincere believers who love God with all of their hearts and being. I believe that these things are the result of a culture that has developed over time in my fellowship. Fortunately, THESE FAULTS ARE DYING OUT!! The COC of today is NOT what it was yesterday. We are evolving as a fellowship. This is growth. This is a fellowship of Christians finding fault within themselves and seeking to correct that fault. For this, my fellowship should be blessed and prayed for by the wider Christian community. I stay because I see these trends and I love my family.

Gender Roles (5) – Old Testament Women

2007-08-17T10:28:00.000-05:00

Read Part 1
Read Part 2
Read Part 3
Read Part 4

Having looked at the creation, the fall, and the Law, we now turn to a brief examination of some of the women who figure prominently into the Old Testament narrative. While the OT certainly presents a patriarchal societal structure within ancient Israel and its neighboring nations, this in no way indicates God’s approval or disapproval of that structure. The patriarchal structure could be understood as a result of God’s leading or of God’s curse. As previous posts will show, I currently favor the latter view. If patriarchalism was the result of God’s leading, then we would not see God using women in leadership roles. Furthermore, when they took leadership roles, we would expect to see evidence of his disapproval.

On the other hand, if the prevailing patriarchalism was the result of the fall, we would expect to see God using women as leaders, as well as approving of their acceptance of such roles. It would not be necessary that we see women leaders as frequently as we see men leaders because, while God certainly had the power to radically overturn culture, he also has the prerogative to work incrementally within culture.

I believe the Old Testament picture reflects the latter. God willingly used women in leadership roles over men and over groups. When they stepped into these roles, there is no indication of divine disapproval with a violation of God’s creative intent. Notice the following examples:

Miriam (Exodus 15:19-21; Micah 6:4) –We are not told a lot about Miriam, but we are told that she was a prophetess (Exodus 15:20), and was listed alongside Moses and Aaron as leaders in Israel (Micah 6:4). While she, like all Israelites, was subject to Moses’ leadership, she is presented as an equal to Aaron, the High Priest.

Deborah (Judges 4) – Deborah was a judge in Israel. She is spoken of as a “prophetess” who was “leading Israel” (Judges 4:4). She was both a military leader (the actual role of the biblical “Judge”) and a court judge (Judges 4:5). During her time, Barak was the general of Israel’s army, yet she held rank over him, being able to give him orders (vv. 6. 14) which he obeys. Although married, she seems to have been the highest ranking person in Israel.

Some have tried to claim that Deborah was put in this position by God simply because no men were willing to lead. There are several problems with this explanation:

There is nothing in the text that would indicate God’s displeasure with his inability to find a male leader. Such an interpretation is classic eisegesis. In fact, the only displeasure shown by God is towards Barak, the MAN, for his failure to follow Deborah’s order!
God has never let been deterred by man’s reluctance to lead. Gideon (Judges 6), Moses (Exodus 4), and Paul (Acts 9, 22) are a few examples of men who did not want to lead, but were used by God to do great things.
There is reason to believe that God DID have a male judge at this same time! Judges 5:6 indicates that Shamgar ruled as judge “after Ehud,” which would make his “term” overlap with Deborahs. (Overlapping judgeships is not abnormal in Judges.) Therefore, God had a male leader available if He wanted to use one. But he chose to use the woman, Deborah.

But it is fair to ask why Deborah was the only female judge. All attempted answers to this are mere speculation, as the text doesn’t reveal the answer. We must simply accept that God used her in this leadership role and look at the broader picture of God to decide whether we think that, by doing so, He acted in a way contrary to his original intent in creation. I don’t believe that he did.

Hulda (2 Kings 22:14-20; 2 Chron. 34:22) – Also a prophetess, Huldah is the unsung hero in the great reformation of Josiah. It was in response to her prophecy that Josiah led the nation in the last great reformation of Israel.

The Virtuous Woman (Prov. 31:10-31) – This familiar passage is a wonderful testimony AGAINST the idea of a woman’s ONLY proper role being relegated to quietly serving her husband and family at home. Notice the following:

vv. 11, 23, 28 – When her husband is mentioned, it is in the context of how his life is blessed socially and financially by his wife. This indicates that she is involved in the community and in business.

vv. 13-14, 16, 18, 24 – She is a career woman, who has business interests in the mercantile and agriculture industries. She is not a “stay at home mom.”

v. 26 – She is a teacher.

v. 15, 21-22, 27 – She is a homemaker.

This woman is an “excellent wife” (v. 10) whose children and husband praise her (v. 28) and who has held up by Bible believers since this chapter was penned. Yet, she is not the type of woman that is held up as the ideal by many modern evangelical leaders who hold patriarchal or complimentarian understandings of the scriptures. While few will absolutely condemn a woman for working out of the home, it is now viewed as a lesser path. When women become successful in business, they are often maligned as doing a man’s work. Yet the excellent wife was excellent precisely because of her work as a homemaker, entrepreneur, teacher, humanitarian, and public figure.

God’s use of women in the OT does not conform with the teaching of patriarchalists and complimentarians, who claim that His creative intent was for women to be in a subservient role in the home, the church, and society. The “ideal” scenario painted by these commentators of a godly woman being a homemaker who leaves all public and leadership roles to her husband would consider all of the above women as, at best, less than ideal in fulfilling their roles. The Bible paints an entirely different picture.

Objections – It is also noteworthy that only men were allowed to be priests and kings in Israel. These two must be dealt with separately:

Priests – I haven’t yet come across a bullet-proof explanation of this exclusion. However, it is helpful to recognize that many people of both genders were excluded from being priests, but in the Christian Age, ALL are priests of God. ALL Christians may now enter the Most Holy Place (1 Pet. 2:5; Heb. 10:19-22). Therefore, while I don’t know WHY God chose to limit the priestly role to males, I do know that, in Jesus, there is NOW no exclusion from priestly duties.

Kings – In this discussion, we are seeking God’s ideal for gender. The role of King was something that God opposed from the beginning, although he accommodated them. He preferred the nation to be led by Judges (which included Deborah). The people wanted a king in order to be like the nations around them. The nations around them would have had kings who passed their reigns down to their first-born sons. It is, therefore, no surprise that the same structure was put in place for Israel.

Next week: Jesus’ ministry to women.

5 Things I Love About The Church of Christ

2007-08-14T23:07:00.000-05:00

I have been critical on this blog of my Church of Christ heritage for various things that I have perceived to be deficient either in theology or practice. Yet I love my heritage. I appreciate where I came from and some of the wonderful blessings I have received from them. While I am now more committed to my Christian identity than my Church of Christ identity, I love the latter nonetheless. The following are some of the things that I truly appreciate about my COC heritage:

5. Relationships. While I believe I could form meaningful relationship with Christians of any stripe, I KNOW that I my deepest friendships have been provided through my association with the Churches of Christ. My greatest spiritual growth has happened as a result of some of these relationships.

4. Music. The a capella heritage of the Churches of Christ is something that I love. I regret the divisiveness that we have perpetuated around this issue, but I absolutely love the music itself. And I think that there are some theologically sound reasons for preserving it. I think a lot about Christianity should be "stripped down" to the simplest forms. This comes close in our musical worship.

3. Respect for Bible Study. My people have always prided themselves on taking Bible study seriously. While we have often done this to the exclusion of other elements of discipleship, and while our hermeneutical method has rendered the results of our study theologically lacking, the value of instilling in me a high view of scripture has been an invaluable fundamental.

2. Communion. The practice of weekly remembrance of the cross has been a tremendous part of creating and building my Christian identity. By rehearsing the story of the cross each week, it has become a constant part of my consciousness. Churches that only participate in occasional observance are missing out on a tremendous part of spiritual development. I understand the risk of and tendency for familiar things to become rote and meaningless, but in the midst of such ritual I believe that genuine meaning can be imparted.

1. Baptism. The dedication to preserving the high place of baptism in soteriological understanding is possibly the greatest contribution that the COC has made to the conversation. I'm not sure how long this has been in place, but I have noticed a lot of writers from other denominational heritages reconsidering the role of baptism in their theology and coming much closer to a position identical with the traditional COC teaching of "baptism for the remission of sins."

Gender Roles (4) -- The Law

2007-08-09T18:25:00.001-05:00

Read Part 1
Read Part 2
Read Part 3

I don’t know if this study continues to interest anyone. My lovely wife tells me my posts are too long in this study. I will try to be as succinct as possible, but I also want to be thorough. I do wish this could become a conversation rather than a lecture, so feel free to offer your thoughts and reflections in the comments section.

Review: Thus far in our study, we have seen that there was no role/authority distinction based on gender in the creation. The tension between male and female and the consequent male domination of woman came as a result of the fall. God pronouncement of male rule in Genesis 3 was not necessarily prescriptive, but can be accurately understood as predictive.

Our study would be woefully incomplete if we stopped at Genesis 3. The rest of the Old Testament presents a mixed picture of gender roles. How can it be understood? We seek to answer this question today.

If our understanding of Genesis 1-3 is correct (and it very well may not be) then one might expect the Law that God gave to be consistent with that egalitarianism. However, the Law is anything but clear on how it views gender roles.

The law was delivered and recorded in the midst of a patriarchal world, as God predicted in Genesis 3. There are many aspects of the Law which fit perfectly well into that patriarchal culture. In fact, there are many things in the law which even the most traditional/patriarchal of modern readers would find objectionable. John Mark Hicks lists the following as examples:

A husband could overrule commitments made by his wife prior to her marriage but there is no indication that the reverse was true (Num. 30:6-15).
The legal status of married women was analogous to that of a daughter. The wife had no greater degree of independence than a child (Num. 30:16)
A husbands could divorce his wife, but there is no indication that a wife could divorce her husband.
Polygamy was acceptable for males, but not for females.
Inheritance is passed through the male line without equal share for females in the line but where there are no male heirs, daughters inherit ahead of the brothers of the male who died (Num. 27:1-11).
A widow did not inherit the property of her husband but she was cared for by the inheritor of the estate (sons, brothers, etc.)

However, there were also elements of the law which ran against that patriarchalism. These elements may not catch the eye modern reader who is accustomed to a much more egalitarian society. However, when considered against the backdrop of the culture of the time, these elements certainly elevated the status of women. Again, John Mark Hicks gives examples:

Adultery … is prohibitive for both male and female. It is viewed as destructive to the home.
Wives are not generally regarded as property and there is an embedded ideal within the text of shared identity (image of God) and shared task (caring for the world).
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 protects women. The law forbids a man from remarrying a woman he had previously divorced. In ancient Near Eastern culture men could remarry women to secure new assets they had acquired through another marriage.
Females were not abandoned at birth as in many cultures.

So we have on the one hand indications that God wanted his people to be patriarchal in their practice and, on the other hand, indications that he wanted them to break free from the patriarchal practices around them. How are we to understand this? I see some possibilities:

(1) God endorsed patriarchalism, but understood that it could go “too far” and fail to recognize the woman as also created in God’s image. However, I still find it difficult to understand some elements of the Law. For instance, in Exodus 21:7-11 actually ALLOWS a father to sell his daughter into slavery. Perhaps my mind is too clouded by American democracy, but regardless of whether you are egalitarian, complimentarian, patriarchal, or feminist, I can’t fathom how this is representative of God’s ideal for society, His people, or families. Yet it is a part of the law which He gave.

(2) God’s ideal is egalitarianism. However, bringing about this ideal among people was something that He chose in His sovereignty to do incrementally. Thus, he accommodated the prevailing culture to some extent while clearly indicating a disagreement with that prevailing culture. This position makes sense to me, but certainly leaves many unanswerable questions. For instance, why would God choose to do this incrementally when He required his people to be radically different from culture in other ways (i.e. circumcision, diet, monotheism, etc.)? I don’t think this question is answerable beyond his divine wisdom and sovereignty. However, it rings truer to me than the previous option.

My plan was to cover the rest of the Old Testament in this post. However, I fear that I have already violated my previously stated desire to be succinct. Therefore, next week we will look at how God actually used women in Israel. Until then, do you see any weaknesses in my assessment of the Scriptures thus far? Would you interpret them differently?

The Presidential Pageant

2007-08-08T15:51:00.000-05:00

I've had a few days to reflect on the Republican "debate" from the other day. Here are my thoughts:

1. What is wrong with asking a question and letting all the candidates answer it, and then allowing all candidates to give a follow up? Ron Paul got something like three questions the entire night. The other so-called "lower tier" candidates didn't fare much better. But every single question led to a follow-up from Rudy McRomney, meaning that those guys got a tremendously imbalanced portion of the time. Isn't the purpose of these debates to inform the voter about the candidates so that he/she can make an choice about who to support? Is this possible when 3 candidates get an overwhelmingly imbalanced portion of the time in the debates?

2. Having said that, Ron Paul needs to assert himself more. The other guys are very good about forcing their way into the discussion. Ron Paul us such a gentleman that he will raise his hand or gesture to the moderator and then wait. Sorry, but the moderators aren't interested in balancing time. They've proven that. If you're going to get your points across, Ron, you've got to speak up!

3. Rudy Giuliani is George Bush (or Dame Edna in the above picture).

4. Mitt Romney is one smooth sucker. If I had to bet right now, I'd say he probably gets the nomination. He's just too polished and well-spoken. Too bad his policies suck. And I'm not entirely convinced he's pro-life.

5. John McCain has the shortest arms ever. It's like his elbows are jointed to his shoulders. And he looks lost in this campaign. John, bow out gracefully. Your ship is sinking.

6. Mike Huckabee is probably my second-favorite of the Republicans, but I'm not sure if I would be able to vote for him or not. He still has a bit too much neocon in his blood, although he's no Bush or Giuliani.

7. Tom Tancredo is crazy. Literally. He actually advocated bombing Mecca and Muslim religious shrines?!?! And followed it up by saying that anyone who isn't willing to do that isn't fit to be president!?!? That's right Tom. Stir up the hornet's nest a little bit more, and invite some wasps, yellow jackets, and killer bees in for the party.

8. Tommy Thompson looks like the farmer at the beginning of Men in Black AFTER the alien takes over his body. I like how he has to give himself a running start into each question with an awkwardly placed, "Thank you, George" before beginning his answer with a bunch of preliminary meaningless comments. Its like he starts spitting out words while his mind is trying to think of his actual answer to the question.

9. Hopefully, after the Iowa Straw Poll, a few will drop out. At this point, I think the race should be between Giuliani, Romney, Paul, and Huckabee.

10. I don't know what else is scheduled in terms of debates, but I really hope that greater attention will be given to equal time by the moderators in the future.

11. What's up with putting a Republican debate at 9:00 on a Sunday morning?

Now for the Democrats:

1. I don't like any of them, what with them being socialists and everything.

2. I don't think Hillary can win because she's too shrill and too polarizing.

3. Dennis Kucinich makes me giggle when I look at him, but I respect him because he seems to be principled. I just think his principles suck.

4. I like the old guy with buck teeth. He's got spunk.

5. Brill girl is quite impressive. I can't figure out why the race isn't between him and Barak. I think it has something to do with Hillary's last name. It seems like his positions would have a much greater appeal to Democrats, and he articulates them pretty well, too.

6. I think Barak is the one that will ultimately get the nomination. Like Romney on the Republican side, he's polished and smooth. (They also both like big gov't.) But Romney's appearance alienates him from many. He looks and acts rich, and everyone hates the rich. Barak has the same smoothness, but comes off much more like the common man.

Ron Paul is the only one I really like. I'll be interested to see how the Straw Poll turns out. What are your thoughts at this point of the race?

On Turning Four

2007-08-07T11:12:00.000-05:00

Abbie,

Age three was a big one for you – and for me! You learned how to go potty all by yourself (finally!). You still want me in the room with you when you go, and I complain about it, but I know that I’ll miss it when you don’t feel like you need me in there anymore.

You have become an amazing little artist. I cherish the day that you wrote your name for the first time while sitting on my lap in the office and the look of accomplishment and joy that beamed forth from your face when you realized that you had done it. That was special. Your pictures now resemble the things you are trying to depict, and your coloring is now almost entirely in the lines. I hope that you will continue to embrace art as an expressive outlet as you grow older and start to face more needs for expression. I also hope that you never lose your love for reading, nor for doing so on my lap!

I watch as you struggle to learn how to live in community with others by sharing, and I wish more adults would work as hard as you do to learn those same lessons. But in the midst of that struggle, I see a beautifully genuine concern for the well-being of others. Your desire to comfort when you hear another kid crying, your eagerness to be a helper when Mommy or Daddy are feeling bad, and the happiness that you receive from being able to help have taught me what it means to love my neighbor as myself.

You are very good about letting me know when I’m not spending enough time with you. It breaks my heart when you proclaim that you don’t want me to be home as I come in the door just before your bedtime. But when I am spending significant time with you, you become a total Daddy’s girl again. I’ve figured out that this is just your way of telling me that I’m not giving enough of my time to you. I’m sorry for that.

You have taught me about God by showing me unconditional love, patience, and concern for others. You are my greatest blessing. I love you.

Happy birthday, my big 4-year old.

Daddy

Quick Hits

2007-08-03T22:55:00.000-05:00

I usually blog during my abundant down time at work. Unfortunately, my employer has decided (for other reasons) to eliminate internet access in the building that I work in. The result: my blogging will have to be done at some other time. Since I try to spend as much of my time at home with my family as possible, I'll have to figure something else out. I will likely still type my blogs while at work, and save them on my flash drive, then post them when I get home in the evenings. Just thought I'd let you know why there might be some irregularities until I get into a new rhythm.

So Abbie is becoming quite the little Bible scholar. She can now say the Lord's Prayer, the Fruit of the Spirit, and the books of the New Testament all by her self. I don't mean to gloat, but ... ok, I do mean to gloat.

Does anyone else now wonder as you cross over a bridge whether it is one of the 170,000 or so bridges rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete?

Why do I get more comments about a guy drinking urine than on matters of theology?

I'm really excited about watching the Republican debate on Sunday and seeing Ron Paul make all of the other candidates look like the partisan self-serving hacks that they are (see Giuliani and Romney specifically).

Gender Roles (3) -- The Fall (Gen. 3)

2007-08-02T19:06:00.001-05:00

"If Eve had persisted in the truth, she would not only not have been subjected to the rule of her husband, but she herself would also have been a partner in the rule which is now entirely the concern of males." ~ Martin Luther, Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 1-8, p. 203

Read part 1.

Read part 2.

In the creation, man and women were created as spiritual equals. Without woman, man is the only part of creation that God calls "not good;" yet woman is made from man. They are jointly given responsibilities over creation. Their only difference is physical.

Then came sin.

Who's Fault?
The common understanding is that Even ate the forbidden fruit, liked how it tasted, went to find Adam and persuaded him to eat it. However, as I read the text, I get an entirely different picture of how events transpired. While it is true that Eve is presented as Satan's target for the initial temptation, her sin was committed with Adam standing right there!! (v. 6). So the picture is more of a conversation with three "people" present: the serpent, Adam, and Eve. The primary conversation is occurring between two, but the third is taking it all in. In this scene, Adam is just as much a part of the initial sin as is Eve. She just happened to take the first bite! The text nowhere says that she seduced or tricked him into eating it. She took a bite and handed it to him, and he took a bite.

I don't know about you, but in my mind that was a significant realization. I had always believed that the woman sinning first was because she "usurped" the authority that was legitimately the man's and that the results serve as proof that she should have kept her proper role. Many other commentators throughout church history have also interpreted the story this way. John Mark Hicks notes several such scholars in his valuable study, found here (look at the bottom of the page for the entire series; go to lesson 2).

Their joint guilt for this sin is bolstered by the presentation of the New Testament. While 1 Tim. 2:14 seems to place the primary responsibility on Eve, Rom. 5:12-14 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22 seem to place it on Adam. This is no contradiction; rather, it is Paul using the aspect of the story that was most fitting for the point that he was making at the time. Blame could legitimately be placed on either party because they were both EQUALLY guilty.

The Curse
As a result of the sin, each party involved receives a "curse." Relevant to this study is Gen. 3:16. "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Whatever this means, it clearly indicates, for the first time, a subordinate relationship.

Jay Guin makes some important observations. First, he point out that "[Eve's curse] was a change. If Adam already had the rule over Eve, then why did God say He was doing this to her because of her sin? Thus, nothing in Genesis 1 or 2 can support an argument for male rule" (p. 37). Also, since complimentarians apply this curse not only to the home, but also to the church
and society, Guin notes, "God states that husbands rule over wives -- under His curse. He does not curse all women with being under the rule of all men" (p. 37). Therefore, even if the subordinate relationship of Genesis 3:16 is viewed as normative, it can only be applied to the home. Denial of female leadership roles in other areas cannot be supported from this passage.

So what is the female "desire" for her husband? In seeking an answer to this question, we must take seriously the similarity of language between Genesis 3:16 and 4:17. In4:17, we read that "[sin] desires to have you, but you must master it." This is almost identical in structure to the clause in 3:16. The meaning in 4:17 seems to be clear -- sin wants to be master (or ruler), but it must be mastered (or ruled). In the same way, while the wife may want to rule her husband, God says that the husband will rule the wife. In other words, marital strife comes as a result of sin.

Normative??
So subordination only came as a result of the Fall and was not a part of the created order. What does that mean for us today? Are we to recognize this as our just punishment and live as Christians under a curse? Or are we to seek to return things to their original created perfection?

One important observation in seeking to answer this question is that 3:16 may not even be a command, as in "I command you to desire your husband, and I command your husband to rule over you." Rather, it may very well be God exercising his divine foreknowledge to "predict" the general course that history would take from that point forward, as in "From now on, you're going to want to rule your husband, but he is going to rule you." History has certainly proven this to be the case, as men have generally run the world ever since.

Also, Christians are never told to accept the results of the fall, whether it be our separation from God, the resulting death, or the corruption of creation. Rather, we are called to escape the results of the fall through Christ (Eph. 4:22-24; 1 Cor. 15:21-26). It can be debated whether this escape is relegated to the afterlife, or is a reality that we are called to bring into the world as much as possible today.

However we interpret Eve’s “curse,” it should be consistent with our interpretation of the other “curses” mentioned. Once again, Jay Guin makes excellent points:

This argument will surely be hard for many readers to accept, but it becomes much clearer when we consider the other curses. The man is cursed to work by the sweat of his brow. Does this mean that air conditioning is a sin, because it is contrary to God’s eternal design? Are antiperspirants wrong? Is it wrong to use herbicides and pre-emergents to prevent the growth of weeds?
Didn’t God intend that we work the fields by hand to rid them of weeds? Mus all men work in the fields? Is office work sin?
Is it a sin to use anesthesia to relieve the pain of childbearing? Or is that also part of God’s eternal plan? For that matter, why should we resist any of the world’s corruption? God corrupted it, who are we to oppose it? (p. 40)

Conclusion
While my examination of Genesis 1-2 resulted in a slight preference for the egalitarian interpretation, the egalitarian case is much stronger in Genesis 3. The picture at this point seems to be fairly clear: God's created order did not involve a subordinate relationship between male and female. This only came as a result of the fall.

Next week: Women in the Old Testament

Misheard Lyrics

2007-08-01T08:48:00.000-05:00

Isn't it funny how much we all love Pearl Jam even though we have no earthly idea what they are saying?

Baptism and the Unity of Christians

2007-07-31T10:02:00.000-05:00

This article was too good not to mention. It should be of special interest to those of us in the Stone-Campbell movement, as it deals with the two things that most defined our movement in its inception: our understanding of baptism and the desire for unity.

Praise & Harmony -- Glorious God

2007-07-30T08:32:00.000-05:00

Keith Lancaster is well-known in COC circles and in the world of a capella recording. His groups have won numerous awards for their tight harmonies and clean sounds. He has done a lot to influence the musical ministries of the Churches of Christ for decades. In fact, like many "born and raised" COCers my age, I have wonderful memories of going to Acapella and AVB concerts. Truly, Acapella played a large part in my early spiritual formation. Their popularity seems to have waned a bit in recent years. In my view, this probably has something to do with the increasing ambivalence towards a capella worship in our fellowship. While our former dogmatism on this issue is regrettable, I would personally also hate to see us lose that as a part of our tradition.

For all of the innovative a capella arrangements that Lancaster's various groups sang through the years, few of them were conducive to congregational use. By design, they were for professional singing groups to perform before an audience. For all of these reasons, I was greatly pleased when I heard in 2005 of plans by Lancaster's The Acapella Company to begin the Praise & Harmony project designed to benefit congregational singing. Upon its release, I purchased the Awesome God album and accompanying songbook. I have now purchased their second album in this series, Glorious God and will likely purchase the songbook for it as well.

I had the same reaction to both albums. Its a little bit hard to get used to the sound of congregational singing through the radio. We're simply not used to that many voices at once. For that reason, it "feels" different when you begin to listen to the album. However, once you get used to the different feel, its actually quite enjoyable. There are 25 tracks on the album, which is a plus. They are mostly contemporary "praise" songs and hymns, many of them rearranged by Lancaster. For someone who loves to sing and harmonize the way I do, it really becomes fun to listen. On several occasions, I know the people in the car next to me have enjoyed the stop-light entertainment of me singing at the top of my lungs inside my car.

Another great feature of these albums is the accompanying CD that teaches the harmonies. While I have personally not used this feature very much, I can see a great benefit to praise teams and groups of untrained singers to learn these arrangements. The training CD has all of the same songs as the regular album. But if you put the speaker balance all the way to the left speakers, you only hear bass and alto; to the right you hear only soprano and tenor (It might be the other way around, I'm not sure). What an innovative tool to put in the hands of worship leaders and song leaders in our churches!

I only have two complaints about the albums. The first is that there are a couple of songs on each that would not work for congregational singing because a good portion of the melody is a Lancaster solo with the "congregation" oooo-ing in the background. I can't picture a congregation actually doing that. I suppose these songs are done with a praise team in mind, and for that purpose they would be much more fitting.

My other complaint is with the seemingly random cranking up of Lancaster's mic in the recordings. He will be singing an alternative, seemingly improvised harmony, but for only a few notes before he can no longer be heard. It makes for an awkward listen at best. At worst, it sounds like an attempt to keep a bit of the spotlight as an ego trip on what is otherwise a wonderful congregational (i.e. equally shared) worship experience.

Overall, I would give the album a B+. While the sound of recorded congregational singing will certainly not have a popular appeal as an entertainment medium, it certainly creates a much more worshipful environment on my morning commute that would, say, CCM or even one of the Acapella albums. I am excited about the potential to introduce some of these songs into the worship repertoire during my worship gatherings, too.

Becoming Missional

2007-07-27T09:36:00.000-05:00

Next Wednesday will begin an adventure unlike any that I have yet experienced. We at Pond Springs will begin the process of becoming missional. Most churches are wonderfully tight-knit families that love the Lord and want to reach the world. However, most churches have also become accustomed thinking of ourselves as a magnet rather than an explosion. We have thought that if we "flavor" things properly (i.e. style of worship, building ambiance, preaching style, programs, etc.) then people will eventually just be attracted to us. We have internalized the "If you build it they will come" mentality as if it were true. When they come, we love and welcome them. The problem: they're not coming!! We're not converting anyone. In fact, we're losing people by the droves.

At Pond Springs, the elders have recognized this deficiency in modern American Christianity, and have committed themselves to stemming the tide. A group of 13 members of the Pond Springs family will begin a month-long period of serious spiritual preparation for the task of becoming missionaries in our own community (i.e. missional). Rather than waiting for the lost to come to us, we will begin to explore ways to heed Jesus' call to "Go" to them. We will not just be looking for new ideas and strategies. We will spend the month of August inviting God to challenge even our fundamental assumptions about what the church is and how it should approach its mission. We will be disciplining ourselves to maintain a posture of submission so that, when God challenges our traditions and assumptions, we won't cave into our gut's inborn desire to preserve comfort. We will accept discomfort for the cause of Christ, as He sought us out through every kind of discomfort.

We will embrace the fact that we, the church, are Christ to the World. We don't merely represent Him or emulate Him. We are His Body; we do His work; we speak His words; we bring His salvation. We are anointed, chosen, called, and declared righteous by the Spirit. And we are told to "Go."

So we will go into the community, where the people are whom we are called to reach. We will go to the mall, the coffee shops, and the grocery stores to meet them on their own ground. We will go bearing an expression of love and acceptance that is discernible and tangible. We will go, leaving our judgmental spirit behind. We will go with patience, realizing that God will draw them in His own time. We will go with strength and direction from the Spirit.

He came to us. We will go to them.

Gender Roles (2) -- The Creation Account (Gen. 1-2)

2007-07-25T23:07:00.000-05:00

Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought has good. Luckily this is not difficult. ~Charlotte Whitton

The different positions on gender roles have been given different labels. I will primarily be considering the egalitarian and complimentarian viewpoints in this study, as they seem to be the most exegetically sound. Radical feminism and Paternalism both seem to draw their conclusions before consulting the text of Scripture (eisegesis). Egalitarians see equal value and equal roles for men and women in the church and in society. Complimentarians see equal value but different roles for men and women.

The Creation account (Gen. 1-3) provides the foundational material for all Christian theology, including gender studies. When we look at the creation account, the following observations seem applicable.

Humanity (both genders, Heb. adam) was made in God's image.

Humanity was given rule over creation.

Humanity was made as male and female.

Humanity was given the responsibility of populating the earth.

God created man from the dust of the ground.

God commanded the man not to eat of the tree prior to the creation of the woman.

God created woman as a response to man's need for companionship.

Man named the animals.

Woman was made from man's rib.

Adam named the woman.

Neither man nor woman felt any shame prior to the Fall.

Satan approached the woman to tempt her.

The Woman is described as being deceived, but it was with the man present.

The eating of the fruit seems to be virtually simultaneous.

Both man and woman were equally ashamed after sinning.

The man was first questioned by God.

The woman's curse includes the "he shall rule over you" clause (3:16)

Once again, these are simply observations from the text. I have purposely tried to leave interpretation out of the above observation. All would agree with the above statements, as they are plainly stated (#14 may be an exception). The way these facts are interpreted is the substance of the debate.

Winning Arguments for Egalitarians

Mutuality. Woman's creation "for" and "from" man is best understood as describing mutuality rather than role differentiation. Woman was created because man was incomplete without her. Men and women complete each other in relationships. In the Garden, man had God's presence in a much more tangible way than we do, even walking with God. But God's companionship is not what man needed, for He is man's Superior. Man also had the companionship of animals, an equally inadequate relationship since man is superior. Man needed an equal to be his companion. In response to this need, God created woman, prompting man to recognize that "she is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh." As we often say at weddings, Eve was not made from Adam's head, as if to rule over him, nor from his feet, as if to be in subjection to him, but from his side, as his equal. This is more than just a cute line that fits well in a wedding; it is actually a significant interpretation of the text.

The creation of woman from man requires the man to recognize his wife as a part of himself. Man could rule all of creation, but the woman was not within his domain, for she was a part of him. In a very real way, she was him. In this way, the "one flesh" relationship can be viewed as a deterrent to male authoritarianism.

In my view, the text makes the best sense theologically when understood as God's provision in response to man's need, not some kind of pre-ordained hierarchy or order which was meant to be normative.

Woman as "helper." In their decision to create woman, God declared "I will make a helper suitable for him." This passage has often been understood as an indication of male authority. This understanding is the unfortunate result of the translation process, for the Hebrew word 'ezer ("helper") did not carry such a meaning. In fact, the same word is used repeatedly in the OT to speak of God's relationship to his people (see Jay Guin, Buried Talents, pp. 32-35). Clearly, this does not mean that the people were authorities over God! Rather, Eve's designation as "helper"indicates that she was to compliment, or complete, the man. There is no indication of subordination inherent in this word.

Winning Arguments for Complimentarians

The complimentarians, however, also make good points. Their best points, in my view, are:

Man names woman. Several scholars have noted that, in the Semitic world, the act of giving a name was a statement of authority (see Mary Kassian, Women, Creation and the Fall, pp. 16-20). Therefore, Adam's naming of Eve would have been viewed by the original readers of Genesis as a clear statement of authority.

Primogeniture. Man was created first. To the Semitic mind that would have originally read the book of Genesis, this was significant. The first born male of a Jewish family was in a position of authority, for on him falls accountability and responsibility for the whole family. He was viewed as "first among equals." In the same way, complimentarians argue, the man is "first among equals" in relation to the woman, due in part to his chronological priority.

I must admit that I have no solid response to either of these arguments, and I have not yet come across one from the egalitarian writings I have consulted. However, it must be taken into account that both of these arguments are based on understandings of authority that developed in later Semitic cultures. Only a week had passed in this account and there were no cultural understandings. Adam and Eve would not have seen his naming of her or his being created first as a necessary indication of authority. Nevertheless, the author and earliest readers of Genesis would have most definitely made these connections. So is the normative value given to the narrative itself, or to the historical context in which it was written? I'm not sure.

Summary: After looking at the creation account, I see a slightly stronger argument coming from the egalitarian camp, although it is certainly not a clear victory. Complimentarianism's arguments are strong, but the difficulties raised in the above paragraph weaken them considerably in my mind. Of course, the consideration of creation is not complete until we look at Paul's appeal to creation in a discussion of male "headship" in 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Tim. 2. We will look at these together in due time.

Next time: The Fall (Genesis 3)

I'm Rich!!

2007-07-25T09:13:00.000-05:00

According to the Global Rich List, I am the 58,252,719th richest person in the world. I'm in the top 0.97% richest people in the world! That's pretty high! Maybe I should complain less and donate more to the 99.03% of the world that is worse off than me. How'd you do?

Monkeys always make a blog more fun!

Study: Multiple Stab Wounds May Be Harmful To Monkeys

Here's a funny spoof of the Nooma videos by Rob Bell. (I love those video's by the way, but this is funny.

The War

2007-07-24T10:17:00.001-05:00

I used to support the war in Iraq. I wasn't for war in general, but I agreed with the rhetoric of the White House and Congress. "If we don't take the battle to them, they'll bring it here." "They hate us and want to destroy us." "9/11 changed everything." "If we leave, then they'll all die." You've heard them all.

While I was never 100% sold on any one of these arguments alone, I felt like they together made a decent case for war.

I no longer feel that way, and the reason isn't some kind of viceral hatred for Bush (although I've been pretty disappointed with him). Rather, I've started thinking about foreign policy and the best approach to it. My conclusion in a nutshell: we need to butt out of things that aren't our business, and pay better attention to the things that are.

Basically, the framers of our constitutional republic never intended for us to go on the OFFENSIVE when it comes to military action. In other words, preemptive war was not a part of what they envisioned. Rather, the military's place was to PROTECT the nation by DEFENDING it against attacks.

Does this mean that we have to wait until we've been hit to hit back? No. It means we have to know that there is an imminent danger of being hit. In that case, we prevent the enemy from hitting us. Knowing that a country hates us and would hit us if they could doesn't justify a war! They have to have three things: capability, desire, and intent.

Our military is not supposed to be used to "spread democracy." If democracy is forced on a conquered people, is it really democracy?

In my view, the military should rarely (if ever) be used in "humanitarian" missions. As much as my heart goes out to the people of Darfur, for instance, and as much as I think our nation can make moves to encourage the violence to end, I do not believe it is within the scope of the military's purpose to solve the problems of other nations, even if those problems are severe. The purpose of the military is strictly to DEFEND the nation. The constitution gives the government no authority to send the military into another country to enforce what we think their policy should be.

So how can we protect our foreign interests and address humanitarian needs in the global community? Diplomacy, trade policies, travel etc. can do wonders. Will those things fix the problems in places like Darfur? Maybe, maybe not. But we must come to the realization in this country that just because we have the ability to force people into submission at the end of a gun doesn't mean we should. When seeing tragdy in the world, our first reaction should NOT be, "Well, let's send our military in there to fix it." It's that kind of thinking that leads to quagmires like Vietnam and Iraq.

Most Americans don't realize that we currently have our military stationed in 130 different countries! And military leaders complain that we don't have enough troops to do everything they have been tasked to do. What if we were only asking the military to do what the military is supposed to do? We would have more than enough troops and we would probably do a better job of defending this nation.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Latest Addiction: Man vs. Wild

2007-07-23T19:57:00.000-05:00

So Alissa and I have suddenly become strangely addicted to the Discovery channel's show Man vs. Wild. If you've never watched it, it stars a guy named Bear (ironic) Grylls who is a UK Special Forces trained uber-outdoorsman. The premise of the show is that they abandon him in remote uninhabited (and uninhabitable) areas with nothing but a canteen, knife (sometimes) and flint (sometimes). He has five days to find his way to civilization. He's been in the Rockies, Andes, Alps, several rain forests, the Mojave desert, etc. The dude is amazing! He literally does everything possible in the name of survival. Really ... everything. Think of the most horrendous thing you can imagine doing in the interest of your own survival. He's probably done worse on this show.

Need proof? Prepare yourself and then watch this ...

Did you think that was bad? Try this:

I now have a new way of imagining hell.

Another interesting tidbit from his bio: he seems to have a Christian faith as a driving force in his life, too, although I'm not sure I should advertise that after posting the above clips.

I'm now anti-independence

2007-07-20T08:15:00.000-05:00

We have a pool in our new neighborhood that Abbie has gone to several times. Prior to our move, she rarely went swimming because there was no convenient place to take her. But now its more frequent. The first time I took her to the pool, she clung to me tightly the entire time, even when we were in a place where she could touch. If I tried to loosen her grip on me, she would freak out. She loved being in the water, but she had to have me as her security.

Well, after taking her swimming a couple of times, we went and bought her some floaties and a little boogie board with the Disney princesses (her latest fave) on it. Our next trip to the pool was drastically difference. She wouldn't let me get anywhere near her. In face, anytime I tried, she would say in an insistent and perturbed voice, "I CAN DO IT MYSELF." So I would stand away from her watching as she kicked herself around the pool. The fact that her swimming took her from one place to another at a pace that makes glacial movement seem like warp speed didn't matter to her. The above water portion of her would look over at me with a huge smile and bright eyes and proudly proclaim, "Look, Daddy! I'm doing it! I'm swimming!" while the underwater portion of her was kicking frantically.

I say all of that to say that I'm not too crazy about my daughter getting more independence. I know, she's only four (almost), but swimming is now just one more thing for which I am not needed (at least not in the way I was previously). When she was latched to me in the water, I kept wishing she would let go. Now that she has, I want it back. Those were just long, wet, hugs.

Before long, she'll be riding a bike, spending the night at friends' houses, driving, and ... gulp ... dating. Pardon me while I go cry uncontrollably ...

... Ok, I'm back. My conclusion: independence is bad. I'm not in favor of it. It means that my baby will grow up and need me less. So I tried to set a rule in my house the other day. I said, "Abbie, you cannot grow up any more." She just laughed and said, "Daddy, I'm going to grow up." See, I can't even instruct her anymore. ~sigh~

Does what's in your pants determine who wears the pants?

2007-07-19T14:13:00.000-05:00

Today begins a study of gender roles and the Bible that will continue for several weeks.

Why do I feel the need to re-examine this very sensitive issue? Several reasons:

Beliefs should always be subject to challenge and re-examination. That's the only way growth happens.
I have come to the realization over the past few years that many of the things I was taught about the Bible were either wrong or grossly oversimplified.
I see this a an issue of utmost importance for Christianity in modern times.

What makes this issue so important?

If the Scriptures do, in fact, place limitations on the role of women in the life of the church, then Christians need to prepare for an increasingly intense reaction to standing by this teaching. To be sure, this reaction has been growing in intensity since the advent of the women's rights movement and will continue to do so. Fear of the reaction should never determine our conclusions, but when our conclusions will elicit intense reactions, we must prepare ourselves.
If the Scriptures do NOT place limitations on the role of women, or if we place stricter limits on women than do the Scriptures, then we are crippling God's work in the world. Women have always been more involved than men in church-going. Yet we only allow the men to have full participation, thereby only using less than half of God's workforce to do God's work!
Our world, including professed believers, is increasingly uninterested in participating in church life. If our restriction of women is biblically unnecessary, then we place an unnecessary hurdle before those who may otherwise entertain the idea of participating in church life,
Women are leaving the COC over this issue.
Women in the COC feel unable to answer God's call if it is not a call homemaking, women's ministry, or children's ministry.

Let me be clear that reasons 2-5 are irrelevant if the Bible clearly imposes limitations on women. Let me also be clear that I have NOT yet reached a conclusion on the issue. Therefore, this series will be unlike most posts, as I will be reflecting on my study even when that study has not been concluded. Hopefully your comments will add to the discussion.

Where I'm Coming From

Also, in the interest of full disclosure, allow me to place my comments in a fuller context. I was raised to believe that women were to have no part in leading the church. They certainly could not be ministers, elders, or deacons. The only sound made by women in public worship was in congregational singing. I even remember one church debating whether women should be allowed to speak up from their seat in order to correct or update an announcement! Even in private settings, women could not start songs or lead prayers in the presence of men. Women could not baptize. It was debatable whether Christian women could teach non-Christian men in an evangelistic study. Even chain prayers in youth groups would skip over the women. Women were welcome to teach other women and children. However, the definition of children became ambiguous when 10-12 year olds were baptized. In those situations, the church's male leadership would usually simply either ask a male to teach the class or send the baptized students into a class with a male teacher. Of course, we just wanted to "be safe." But when a more "liberal" church down the would hire a woman to serve as a "Children's Minister," we felt uneasy. We would never do that; it just didn't SOUND right. And, of course, we wanted to "be safe."

I see inconsistencies with our practice, though. A woman could read a scripture in Bible class if the male teacher called on her, but couldn't read a scripture in the service even if a male asked her to. A woman could stand up, walk down her pew to hand a communion tray to someone at the other end of the pew, but she could not stand up and walk down the aisles to hand the tray to someone on a different pew. In a small church with no men capable of leading singing, a man would stand at the front and inaudibly mumble the lyrics to a hymn while a woman sat in the pew and carried the congregation, but if that woman dared stand and face the congregation, she was viewed as stepping out of her role.

Clearly, even if our biblical position was correct, our practice was illogical and inconsistent. So either our position needs to change or our practice needs to. What will it be?

The Plan

I plan to discuss this issue in 6 posts. However, more may be added if there is a specific passage or area of research that I think warrants an individual post.

The Creation Account
The Old Testament
Jesus's teachings
Paul and the restof the New Testament
The Voice of Church History
Conclusions and Suggestions

As always, I hope that you will join me in this discussion. I will simply be starting the conversation. This study will be most effective when many of us are willing to comment.

So, to begin the discussion, what are your experiences both positive and negative with women's roles in the church. Also, for any female readers, how do you feel about your role in church life?

Great Websites You May Not Have Heard Of

2007-07-18T08:39:00.000-05:00

There are a few websites that I never hear any buzz about but that are truly enjoyable because they offer something unique. Today, I list some of my favorite non-blog websites that you may not have heard of before. I'll be posting some of my favorite blogs in the future (although you can look at my blogroll to see many of them.) Keep in mind, as much as I like YouTube, Drudge Report, etc. I am not including them because everyone knows about them.

Digg.com -- Digg is a website that brings together a bunch of links to news and videos. Sure, there are a million of those sites available, but what makes Digg so interesting is that the links are listed as they are ranked by users. In other words, the stories/videos that show up first are the ones that other people like you have found interesting. There are always some stories that never show up on the more generic sites.

Pandora.com -- Pandora is a web radio website that lets you determine your own content. Say you're a big fan of Sarah McLachlan. You type her name in, and Pandora plays songs by Sarah and other with a similar musical sound. They do this by using what they call the "Music Genome Project," wherein millions of songs are given labels. The artists with similar labels to Sarah McLachlan get put in the playlist. If a song gets played that you don't like, you just click a button to remove it from the list.

Texags.com -- OK, this one might not interest everyone, but its MY blog. Texags is the definitive site for all things A&M, especially athletics. It is a daily stop for me, if for nothing else than to brouse the headlines on the homepage. During football season, the trash talking can get fun in the forums, and the moderators do a good job of keeping it clean.

TV Links -- Watch all kinds of recent movies and TV shows online. I suspect there's probably some kind of copywright violation in the things they offer, including some movies still in theaters. But you're not downloading them, they stream to you.

Stage 6 -- This is an interesting alternative toYouTube. The big difference is that the videos are MUCH higher quality.

The Man Who Should Be President

2007-07-17T08:39:00.000-05:00

I was raised to be a Republican. It was just a part of who we were. I remember in 5th grade giving a speech in front of my school endorsing George Bush, Sr. over Michael Dukakis. Being a Republican was part of my DNA.

In my adult life, I no longer see in the Republican party the things that I was taught to love about them. Small government, lower taxes, emphasis on personal responsibility, financial responsibility, etc. None of these exist in today's Republican Party.

I have also discovered some issues which I have only considered important as an adult. Non-interventionist foreign policy and maintaining national sovereignty are two more conservative principles that the Republicans utterly fail on.

But the problem isn't one of political philosophy. The politicians and the talking heads on TV try to explain it as such, but its not. I'm convinced that neither party sets policies or introduces legislation based on a core political philosophy. Rather, both parties operate based entirely on two things.

First, the Republicrats operate according to the desires of the special interests which fund them. The Dems are owned by socialist-leaning environmental, human rights, unions, etc. The Republicans are owned by corporate interests and fundamentalist Christian interests, among others.

The second factor that determines the activities of the Republicans and Democrats is the Republicans and Democrats. No matter the issue, if one party makes a proposal or takes a position on an issue, it is without exception opposed by the other party. It would stand to reason that, if these groups that were divided only along philosophical grounds, there would be occasional overlapping of conclusions, since different philosophies overlap on occasion. But agreement is NEVER present, thus indicating that political philosophy has nothing at all t0 do with American politics.

In the midst of this jaded cynicism, I see a ray of hope. Although Ron Paul is running for President as a Republican, he doesn't resemble one -- and for all the right reasons! He opposes the war and has from the beginning, opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, wants to eliminate the current tax and monetary systems and drastically shrink the size of government. He also holds membership int he Libertarian Party and was their nominee for President in 1988. He is rarely even approached by special interest lobbyists because he has proven that he can't be bought. He actually operates according to a philosophy which is never compromised -- constitutionalism. In other words, he operates by principle, making him unique in Washington. His approach to legislation is to take the proposed legislation and actually consult the Constitution to see if it allows the federal government to act in such a way. If the Constitution gives permission, he votes Yes; if it doesn't, he votes No. What a novel idea!

I'll probably have more to say about him as time goes by, but for now let me just leave a few points from his website.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.

He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

He has never voted to raise congressional pay.

He has never taken a government-paid junket.

He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.

He voted against regulating the Internet.

He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S.
treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each
year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

So what do you think? Who's your pick for Pres and why?

Feel Good Music

2007-07-16T18:54:00.000-05:00

Ever had one of those days where you just feel like crap for no reason? If you're like me, those days call for a special blend of music that reminds me that life is actually good. Here are a few songs from some of my favorite artists that will help lift you up on bad days. They'll also make a good day even better!

Brett Dennen -- "Blessed" (Click here to listen). Listen to this song twice. I defy you to not sing along the second time.

U2 -- "Beautiful Day." One of the greatest songs from the greatest rock band ever.

Patty Griffin -- "Heavenly Day" No one sings like this woman. No one writes songs like this woman. No one.

Now don't you feel better? I know I do.

The Storm that Brought A Family

2007-07-13T08:22:00.000-05:00

Life is good when you have it all figured out, and I did. I understood God and His desires both for myself and for others. I understood the Bible and the intricate method that God expected everyone to go through in order to interpret it properly. While I would occasionally feel an uneasiness about some of my conclusions, I dismissed that uneasiness as Satan's effort to draw me away from the Truth which I possessed. So I didn't doubt or question, and I saw no need to do so since doubting the truth was irrational.

But then my "truth" started falling in on me. I started to realize the validity of viewpoints that differed from what I considered to be "truth." I met people who disagreed with my understanding of "truth" who were not dishonest. In fact, they were just as honest, studious, faithful, and devout as was I, if not more so. Eventually, my study and meditation led me away from the "truth" that I formerly held to. This caused me to wonder, "Have I become irrational or, worse yet, heretical?" On top of all that, I began seeing failures of character in those who were supposed to be my spiritual mentors, guides, and shepherds.

Before long, a monumental storm had arisen in my life of faith. The safety that I formerly felt in previous storms was no longer there. My faith, while ever present, was being tossed about by the wind and waves around me.

I now realize that He created that storm as a way to make my need for his increasing presence known. In times past, He whispered and I often ignored. He nudged and I resisted. So He sent a storm. He sent a storm in order to bring a previously unknown calm. In the midst of the storm, I looked up and out to see his calm, confident presence walking towards me. He invited me to leave my vessel of perceived safety, as it was also doomed to destruction in the storm. Having been brought to a point of desperation, I took a step towards him.

In taking that step, discovered that He wanted me to have an opportunity to re-examine my theology. He wanted me to minister with a congregation of grace-centered, unity-motivated Christians. He wanted me to minister with my long-time friend, supporter, and brother. I had plans for myself, but in the storm, He made it clear that He had other plans for me.

In looking to and following Him, the storm around me was no longer threatening. He wanted us to step back and get a broader view of His world than was possible in the over-protective, stifling little fish bowl that had been our home for most of our lives, so He took us out of that fish-bowl. He wanted to remove the self-doubt and heal the wounds that had been suffered in the storm, so He provided us a family that loved, accepted, and affirmed us from the beginning. He wanted us to re-examine our theology, thereby re-discovering grace and freedom, so he placed us in a family that gave us room to grow. He wanted me to see a different side of the world, the side most in need of seeing God's grace extended, so he put me to work with underprivileged and disadvantaged kids in Austin and Central Texas.

Having given us a chance to see Him and His world more broadly and accurately, He called us back into ministry by opening two doors almost simultaneously. One position would enable us to reclaim our autonomy as a family. The other would enable us to reclaim our autonomy autonomy in faith.

So here we stand, doing our best to simply follow His lead. He has brought us to a new family at the Pond Springs church, reuniting us with our friends who have traveled with us on our faith's journey for many years. He has put us in a community of people who is truly like-minded in their pursuit of unity and in their enjoyment of the freedom that Christ offers.

This Sunday we officially become a part of the Pond Springs family. In many ways, we feel like we have already been adopted. Their support extends all the way back to our difficulties in San Marcos. At that time one of their shepherds, motivated by his pastoral heart, called to offer support and prayers to a young minister that he hardly knew, an offer that I had never received from my own elders. How blessed we are to have found such a unique and special group of Christ-followers to grow with!

God sent a storm and it brought us a family! Only in Him ...

Theology Thursday

2007-07-12T14:14:00.000-05:00

I want to start a theological series. The problem is, I haven't decided what I want to discuss. It will be a sort of on-going virtual Bible study/discussion involving anyone who is willing to comment and engage the discussion. I want feedback on subjects/issues/passages that would benefit you. Here are a few possibilities. They are topics that have been on my mind lately that I would like to study (in no particular order):

Gender roles -- I have this feeling in my gut that Christianity has for many years crippled itself by limiting the ministry opportunities of at least half of its members. In a very real way, we have been trying win the battle for the world with one hand tied behind our backs. But are there legitimate gender roles mandated by God? Is there a limit to how much more involved God would want women to be in the life of the church?
Eternal punishment -- Is Hell really a place of eternal torture with no hope of relief? How is this consistent with a loving, gracious God?
Worship -- I have heard much discussion over the years about the pros and cons of traditional and contemporary worship styles. I believe legitimate points can be made on either side. However, I want to look deeper in to the battle between those churches who follow a well-thought-out and strictly-adhered-to liturgy and those who opt for a more extemporaneous approach. What value can be found in each method? What can Christians learn about worship from those on the other side? What dangers are there in each method?
Outreach -- This word means a lot of different things to different people. Since Christianity seems to be doing a poor job of "turn[ing] the world upside down," something must be wrong with our approach to outreach. I would like to look at some of the factors involved in modern views of outreach and propose some alternatives ways of looking at outreach.

These are just a few that come to mind. Any suggestions? What topic(s) have been on your mind lately?

Re-entering the Blogosphere

2007-07-11T10:59:00.001-05:00

Well, I'm back!

Having taken the past 2 1/2 months or so to transition into a new job, a new house, a new town, and a new ministry, I am ready to re-enter the Land of Blog. If I have retained any readers in my absence, I thank you for your patience!

I re-enter with a new approach to this blog. As before, I will attempt to be thought-provoking, entertaining, and informative. But my greatest desire is simply to be the catalyst for discussion that can benefit everyone that visits here. In other words, I want you to comment! I will interact with the comments. I envision the comments being just as thought-provoking, entertaining, and informative as the posts themselves, if not moreso.

I am also going to try to blog in a generally organized way. I repeat ... I will TRY. I will try to post according to the following general pattern:

Mondays -- Media (Music, Movies, TV, Books, etc.)
Tuesdays -- Politics/Current Events (Politics and I have a love/hate relationship. I hate it, but I'm fascinated by it. I'll probably do a lot of venting on Tuesdays)
Wednesdays -- The Web (I think I'm addicted to web surfing. So until I conquer that addiction, I will try to prevent others from becoming addicts like me. I will do this by pointing you only to the best that I have come across in my surfing. I weed out all the crap, you just enjoy the gold.)
Thursdays -- Theology & Churchy Things. I admit it, this subject will probably be the most frequent encroacher on the appointed topics of other days. But come on, its pretty much my life, so what do you expect.

Fridays -- Family (Stuff about my two families: the one I sleep with and the one I worship with)

Remember, this is a GENERAL pattern. I don't want to go on an extended hiatus again, and I though predetermining the content areas like this would help guide me in thinking about what I want to post. I will from time to time talk about Theology on a Monday, or post a funny video on a Friday. But, you see, I can do that because its my blog!

So welcome back, me! And thanks for sticking around, you! Tell your friends, proclaim it from on high, Planned Spontaneity is back! We can all smile again!

Now, let me catch you up with ten random things from my hiatus:

10. Remember the baby on the cover of Nirvana's Nevermind album? He's 17 now. Yep, you're THAT old.

9. I have now been working for three weeks in Customer Service at the Wells Branch MUD.8. I now live in Leander.

8. This guy should be the next President. You'll be hearing more about him in the future. 7. Still working on my thesis. You may notice a preoccupation with Walter Scott and the Stone-Campbell movement.

6. I bought a piano! That might not mean much to you, but its a big deal for me.

5. I'm late to get on the bandwagon, but I'm now a big fan of Craigslist. So far I have a piano and an entertainment center courtesy of Mr. Craig and his list.

4. I am about to begin a new ministry and join a new family at the Pond Springs Church of Christ in Northwest Austin. I will be handling a lot of their outreach efforts. I have never been more excited about joining a church before!

3. During my hiatus, I experienced my first instrumental worship services and my first liturgical service (Episcopal). Both services were a blessing in their own ways. I hate it that I was alienated from the good that they have to offer for so long.

2. I'm famous now ... kinda. I got quoted!

1. I honestly believe that, in spite of myself, I have the best family that anyone could dream of.

Sectarianism

2007-04-25T00:16:00.000-05:00

I know its been a while since I last blogged. I've been lazy and preoccupied. I recently came across the following article by Robert H. Forrester, who co-edited The Protestant Unionist with Walter Scott in the 1840s. Theirs was a call to unity. They rightly despised the sectarian spirit that existed then and still lives today, although less widespread. Although written 163 years ago, it is probably the best article I have read on the subject. It gives a disturbingly familiar description of a sectarian. I have scaled the article down quite a bit. I have also retained the old style of spelling and punctuation.

SECTARIANISM
. . . A man is usually so identified with his party, that it becomes an appendage of himself, a portion of his own individuality, and therefore, this party spirit is but an enlarged selfishness; his breast swells with pride when he contemplates the greatness of his favorite sect, because his own consequence is thereby enhanced, and he labors for its aggrandizement, from the same motive which prompts him to toil for his own. Party spirit, then, being but a modification of selfishness, has exhibited all the evils which flow from the latter: it has been equally fruitful of injustice, cruelty and all unrighteousness. It has torn society with animosities, strifes and crimes; it has ravaged the earth with merciless wars and persecutions; it has devastated cities and provinces, and drenched the world with human gore.
. . .

'Sectarianism,' like vice, has"only to be seen, to be abhorred!" -- to be seen in its true colors, and native deformity.

The Sectarian is inflated with inordinate conceit in reference to his sect. His church is pure perfect, infallible! She is "rich wanting nothing," has attained the "measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." Surely he thinks, "wisdom must die with her." He is also blind to the defects, the errors and delinquencies of his sect. No breath of censure may sully the brightness of her escutcheon. "Touch not the Ark of God," is ever upon his lips. In his view, improvement is impossible -- reformation an obsolete word. And he,that even hints at such monstrous desecration, incurs his uncompromising hostility -- is a heretic. If such instruments are at his command, the dungeon, the rack or the faggot must check his daring, and quench his imprudent zeal: or, if such means be unfashionable, partizan excommunication, contempt and calumny must overwhelm and crush him.

The Sectarian is equally blind to the merits of all other sects, than his own. He can see nothing in them, that is true or good. Even that, which is in his own creed he has admitted to be truth -- most sacred and saving truth -- is no longer truth when found in theirs. Any truth not contained in his own creed, is allready marked as base coin, is rejected as spurious without examination. In science, different, and even opposing schools avail themselves of each others discoveries: one is glad to learn of another, to examine, and test any new fact, or principle which is propounded, and if satisfied of its truth, to adopt it. Thus is science constantly advanced and enriched by the conjoint labors of all its professors. But religion is denied the benefit of such an interchange of sentiment between different parties, which might result in the removal of errors, and the restoration of truths formerly overlooked. The spirit of Sectarianism imposes an interdict upon all such inter-communications, and presents so insuparable bar to all advancement.

But,while the Sectarian, closes his eyes to the merits of all rivals, he detects with eagle glance, their slightest defects. To his morbid vision, even the truths which they hold are tinged with heresy; he sees heterodoxy, peeping out of every part of their systems; "can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" is a question he is allways asking, and as a constantly answering in the negative. Justice to opponents is a virtue, repudiated by him. He exaggerates, misrepresents and distorts their doctrines and practices. To him, the ninth canon of the Decalogue, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor," is as a rope of sand. This sectarian injustice often aggravates those prejudices too apt to be excited by differences of religious sentiment; and causes parties only separated by a very slight diversity of doctrine or practice, to regard each other with detestation, as "lands divided by a narrow frith, abhor each other.

To complete this picture of a Sectarian, as its last touch: -- he is filled with unsanctified ambition. Convinced, that his own personal consequence is enhanced by the increased greatness of his church, he is fired with the ambition to augment her numbers, her wealth and worldly grandeur and influence. His proselyting zeal, his efforts to make converts, are untiring, but in all this, there is no real desire for the salvation of men -- no love for souls, for if converts do not swell the ranks of his sect, there may be "joy amongst the Angels over sinners that repent," but, in his breast there is none. His mental powers are constantly taxed in forming schemes to increase the power of his sect, and render her more imposing in the view of the world. Measures, utterly without foundation in Primitive Christianity, and destructive of its simplicity, are adopted: the pride and pomp of the world are transferred into the church, that she may be arrayed in meretricious splendor; but, in all this scheming, and restless effort, there is not a single aspiration to promote the glory of God.

In this portrait of a Sectarian, imperfectly drawn as it is, every man, of every sect must recognize some of his own features: the shades may be lighter or darker, but some of these are lineaments of his own character. For Sectarianism is not the sin of any particular sect, but of all sects.

But the question may be asked -- Are we to abandon all associations, to cease to be members of Churches, in order that the evils of Sectarianism may be avoided! Not at all. The Church, the association of christians in congregations;is a Divine institution; one the importance and necessity of which, cannot be overrated. Every christian is bound by the authority of Christ, and by the highest considerations of his own spiritual welfare, to associate himself with a Christian Church,and having done so, to discharge the obligations which he owes to it, with all fidelity and zeal. But it by no means follow, that in doing this, he must become a Sectarian -- imbued with the vain, the arrogant, the vindictive and ambitious spirit of sect. ...
. . .
by Robert H. Forrester, The Protestant Unionist. Vol. 1, No. 4. November 20, 1844, p. 13. Walter Scott and Robert H. Forrester, eds.

I Wish I Wrote This

2007-03-30T22:41:00.000-05:00

Please read My Secret Life of Discipleship. It truly expresses my heart.

Writer's Block

2007-03-30T00:29:00.000-05:00

So I've been wanting to post something for the past several days, but I apparently have nothing in my brain that is interesting right now. So, for the 8 people per day that look at this blog per day, I present to you some random stuff! Why? Because everyone likes stuff, and random is exciting!

First, another classic from our friends at Barats & Beretta:

This just made me giggle.

Allow me to recommend a blog to you. One in Jesus has some great posts dealing with some of the internal squabbles and theological mistakes that we have made in the COC. There's even some free downloadable books that are worth every penny! Give it a read

Random question: Am I the only one in America that is NOT watching American Idol? I find it appalling that a karaoke competition has become a culturally defining phenomenon. What does that say about us? Oh well, I take peace knowing that someone is trying to sabotage the process on that show. Check out Votefortheworst.com. They've become very powerful, even claiming to have contributed to Taylor Hicks' win last time. I love mischievous culture-wreckers!

That's all for now. Maybe soon my brain will turn on again and I can enlighten all 8 of you on my latest profound musings.

Responding to an Atheist

2007-03-20T22:43:00.000-05:00

Today, a new reader (Welcome, Uriel!) posted a comment on one of my older posts, The Blasphemy Challenge. Uriel took what will, on this blog, be an unpopular position advocating an atheistic/agnostic approach. While I disagree with this position, I welcome his comments, as they force us to think. Below, I will respond to his post paragraph by paragraph.

"If there is no God, then we have no basis on which to declare the Nazi's guilty of moral wrong!"

Um... NO. Right and wrong are in fact relative to culture, cultures change over time. Christianity has changed its views over time. Morality is a function of social contract. Society decides what behaviors it will punish or accept. If you grew up in a world were slavery was the norm, you wouldn't consider it wrong, or you would be less likely to question it.

Uriel has advocated cultural relativism, a position which maintains that an individual, by agreeing to live within a certain culture, is agreeing to live according to the norms of that culture (social contract). When this social contract is fulfilled, the individual has acted morally. In other words, culture determines morality or, as uriel said, morality is relative to culture. This approach may seem to be a well-reasoned response to a theistic approach. However, it fails when the following factors are considered.

First, which culture? Each culture has within it sub-cultures which have their own moral understandings. If one operates according to the morals of his sub-culture, he may be acting in opposition to popular culture.

Furthermore, in global matters, cultures are often diametrically opposed to one another. As I pointed out in my original post, cultural relativism was the defense that the Nazi's used in their war crimes trial at Nuremburg following WWII. In essence, they argued, "Whose law did we violate? America's? Britain's? We were not amenable to either of those laws, because we are not a part of those societies! Within German society, what we did was perfectly lawful. Since we are amenable to German law, we are innocent!" The verdict at Nuremburg was that this cultural relativism defense failed, not because it was poor logic, but because it failed to recognize a law that transcends the provincial and the transient!

In other words, the Nazis operated within the acceptable moral norms of their culture. In order to be consistent, Uriel and other cultural relativists have conclude that they therefore were guilty of no moral wrong. Otherwise, they would have to abandon their cultural relativism and admit that there is a "higher" source of morality. But that admission would equate to theism!

Uriel writes, "If you grew up in a world were slavery was the norm, you wouldn't consider it wrong, or you would be less likely to question it." The question isn't whether I or anyone else would CONSIDER it wrong. The question is whether slavery is, in fact, wrong. I say YES! It is wrong REGARDLESS of what the prevailing cultural view is. Why? Because there is a higher source of morality than culture! Cultural relativists would have to say that slavery is potentially morally acceptable.

The Nazis were evil bastards because western culture said so. It had NOTHING to do with invisible silent wizards in the sky. The Nazis thought your god was on THEIR side. Osama thinks god is on his side. George Bush thinks god is on his side. They can't both be right. You'll say that god is on your side of course, and require no proof other than your faith. How convenient.

Why was western culture the norm? And how do we determine what western culture said? Certainly the governments of western nations were opposed to the Nazis, but do governments necessarily serve as the voice of culture? Does that mean that governments determine morality. And if we're going to expand the discussion beyond German culture to include western culture, why not expand it all the way to include global culture? Good luck determining what the global culture was!

What if western culture had determined that their actions were morally acceptable? Would that make it so, or would western culture have been wrong? I believe that the actions of the Nazis were wrong ABSOLUTELY, regardless of whether the culture approved or disapproved of their actions!

I agree that it had nothing to do with "invisible silent wizards in the sky." However, it does have to do with a power higher than the individual or the culture or the nation. If you say that the Nazis were ABSOLUTELY wrong, and that there is no scenario in which their actions would be morally acceptable, then you must ask where that absolute morality comes from. The existence of absolute morality demands the existence of a "higher power." That's theism!

i wish i had a book that would justify doing anything i want and feel righteous about it. As an atheist, i have no such luxury. My moral compass comes from reality, my own experiences, what i feel to be right or wrong, but i am accountable to the law, to the morals of those around me. You decide what is right or wrong based on your feelings too, but you have a book written in the bronze age to back you up. Have you ever actually read Leviticus? It's horrible.

This illustrates the difference in Uriel's worldview and mine. I would run from any book that would justify doing anything I want and guaranteeing that I would feel good about it. I recognize my fallibility. I have no delusions of grandeur. I don't feign perfection. I find great relief in the fact that I have someone higher than myself to appeal to that directs me.

Uriel's implication is that the Bible justifies doing anything I want. This is a curious claim because one of the objections that many atheists make is that the Bible somehow inhibits human freedom. Uriel seems to view the bible as giving too much freedom to people. Perhaps this is Uriel's way of repeating the common and accurate criticism that people have through history used (or, misused) the Bible to justify virtually any atrocity. This shows a great deal about man's sinfulness, but it proves nothing about whether absolute morality, and the implicit Source of that absolute morality, exists.

Do I assume too much when I conclude that Uriel is just looking for a thinly veiled insult as he pretends to be intellectually superior? After all, Uriel's moral compass comes from "reality," implying that we poor, ignorant, superstitious, aboriginal nitwits live in wonderland because of our theism.

Uriel, I believe your moral compass is based on a flawed view of reality. Your reality consists of your feelings, experiences, society's laws, and society's morals. I find it interesting that each of these change. Your feelings, experiences, society's laws, and society's morals could potentially all approve at one point in history of the holocaust and disapprove it in another. So, based on your "reality" the holocaust is not absolutely immoral!

You're wrong when you say that I determine right and wrong based on my feelings. In fact, I don't determine right and wrong at all. I determine my actions. Sometimes those actions are right. Sometimes those actions are wrong. The morality of my actions depends entirely on how they measure up to the higher standard. And the bronze age book to which you refer condemns my actions at least as often as it backs them up (probably more often)!

Yes, I've read Leviticus. I assume from your comments that you have read it, too. I wonder if you've tried to understand it, though. Since you didn't elaborate, I can't really respond.

You're also presuming the existence of this god. You and i have something in common. We are both agnostic, the difference is that you are in denial about it. You don't know that there is a god, or that there aren't several. It is a hope, a wish, an assumption on your part that there is.

I do not PRESUME God's existence. I have CONCLUDED His existence. One of the most convincing evidences upon which this conclusion is based is the moral argument that we have been discussing.

I find it interesting that you refer to yourself in one paragraph as an atheist and in another paragraph as an agnostic. Which are you? An atheist claims, "I KNOW there is no God." An agnostic claims, "It is unknowable whether there is or is not a god." I am neither. I know there is a God, and I have already given you one strong reason why.

When a terrorist kills an infidel, he does so with faith that if they were innocent, their soul will go to heaven anyway. i believe that if i killed someone, that's it. They cease to exist, forever. Which is a bigger crime: sending someone to eternity in heaven early or utterly destroying a consciousness forever?

Note that i say 'i believe', i say that because i can admit that i don't know.

I'm sorry. I don't understand the point of this paragraph. I agree that mankind is incredibly sinful, but I somehow don't think that's the point you were trying to make.

Since you already invoke Godwin's law, this is fair game: The Nazis and Al Qaeda believe(d) in moral absolutes. We don't need moral absolutes. Humanity is better served with compassion and reason, with adapting to changes in reality.

I've never heard of Godwin's law, but I did read the Wikipedia entry on it, and found it quite interesting. Ironically, I grow weary of Nazi comparisons, too. In my original post, I was simply making a historical reference to the fact that the Nuremburg Trials reached a verdict that denied the cultural relativism defense of the Nazi's and adopted a theistic view of morality.

The fact is that without moral absolutes of some sort, Nazis and slave owners and KKK members and pedophiles and any other practitioner of the vile and grotesque may, in an approving culture, act with complete moral impunity and, in fact, innocence.

In fact, the Nazis did NOT believe in moral absolutes, as their Nuremburg defense shows. Al Qaeda does. But the terrorist actions of Al Qaeda are done with the approval of their culture. According to your moral standard, that means that their terrorist actions are morally right! According to mine, they are morally wrong.

The issue is not whether bad people have acted in bad ways while also believing in absolute morality. Certainly they have! But the existence of moral absolutes is what declares their actions immoral! Relativism cannot do that!

Uriel, I welcome your comments and dialogue any time on this blog. It is only by having our thinking challenged that any of us can grow. So, please, come back and help us grow!

Sweet 16, Baby!

2007-03-20T19:39:00.000-05:00

As an Aggie fan, I've never been able to be a fan of college hoops. But I must admit, I'm pretty psyched about my boys! Gig 'Em!

Can I Live? by Nick Cannon

2007-03-13T22:04:00.000-05:00

Here's another song proving that rap can have tremendous redeeming value.

This song is called Can I Live? and is supposedly the true story of the circumstances of his birth. It is told from the perspective of an unborn child pleading with his mother to let him live. Pretty powerful!
The lyrics:

Talking Ma
I know the situation is personal
But it's something that has to be told
As I was making this beat
You was all I could think about
You heard my voice...

Verse 1:

Just think just think
What if you could just
Just blink your self away
Just just wait just pause for a second
Let me plead my case
It's the late 70's, huh
You seventeen, huh
And having me that will ruin everything, huh
It's a lot of angels waiting on they wings
You see me in your sleep so you can't kill your dreams
Three hundred dollars that's the price of living, what?
Mommy I don't like this clinic
Hopefully you'll make the right decision
And don't go through with the knife decision
But it's hard to make the right move
When you in high school
How you gotta work all day and take night school
Hopping off the bus when the rain is pouring
What you want:
Morning sickness or the sickness of mourning?

Chorus:

I'll always be a part of you
Trust your soul Know it's always true
If I could talk I'd say to you
Can I live? Can I live?

I'll always be a part of you
Trust your soul Know it's always true
If I could talk I'd say to you
Can I live? Can I live?

Verse 2:

I'm a child of the king
Ain't no need to go fear me
And I see them flowing tears so I know that you hear me
When I move in your womb that's me being scary
Cause who knows what my future holds
Yo the truth be told you ain't told a soul
Yo you ain't even showing I'm just 2 months old
Through your clothes try to hide me deny me
Went up 3 sizes
Your pride got you lying saying ain't nothing but a migraine
It ain't surprising you not trying to be in WIC food lines
Your friends will look at you funny but look at you mommy
That's a life inside take a look at your tummy
What is becoming ma I'm Oprah bound
You can tell he's a star from the ultrasound
Our spirits connected doors open now
Nothing but love and respect
Thanks for holding me down
She let me live

(Chorus)

It's uplifting fo’real y’all
I ain't passing no judgement
Ain't making no decisions
I am just telling ya'll my story
I love life
I love my mother for giving me life
We all need to appreciate life
A strong woman that had to make a sacrifice
Thanks for listening
Thanks for listening
Mama thanks for listening

Happy Birthday by Flipsyde

2007-03-13T21:13:00.000-05:00

I'm not exactly a rap enthusiast, but this song proves that it is a genre that can certainly have tremendous redeeming value when they carry a positive message. It is a compelling song called Happy Birthday by Flipsyde. It is a message from a dad to the child that he paid to have aborted. It explores an often overlooked part of the abortion debate -- its emotional toll on the fathers. Enjoy!

Here are the lyrics, just in case you didn't catch them:

Happy Birthday. So make a wish.

Please accept my apologies, I wonder what would have been.
Would you have been a little angel or an angel of sin?
Tom-boy running around, hanging with all the guys.
Or a little tough boy with beautiful brown eyes.
I paid for the murder before they determined the sex,
choosing our life over your life meant your death.
And you never got a chance to even open your eyes,
sometimes I wonder as a fetus if you fought for your life.
Would you have been a little genius? In love with math?
Would you have played in your school clothes and made me mad?
Would you have been a little rapper like your poppa The Piper?
Would you have made me quit smoking by finding one of my lighters?
I wonder about your skin tone and shape of your nose,
and the way you would've laughed and talked fast or slow.
I think about it every year, so I picked up a pen.
Happy birthday, I love you whoever you would've been.

Happy Birthday
What I thought was a dream
Make a wish
Was as real as it seemed

I made a mistake

I got a million excuses, as to why you died.
And other people got their own reasons for homicide.
Who's to say it would've worked and who's to say it wouldn't have
I was young and struggling, but old enough to be a dad.
The fear of being my father has never disappeared,
I ponder it frequently while I'm sippin' on my beer.
My vision of a family was artificial and fake
so when it came time to create, I made a mistake.
But now you got a little brother, maybe it's really you.
Maybe you really forgave us knowing we were confused.
Maybe, every time that he smiles it's you proudly knowing
that your father's doing the right thing now.
I'll never tell a woman what to do with her body,
but if she don't love children, then we can't party.
I think about it every year, so I picked up a pen.
Happy birthday, I love you whoever you would've been.

Happy Birthday
What I thought was a dream
Make a wish
Was as real as it seemed

I made a mistake

And from the Heavens to the womb to the Heavens again.
From the ending to the ending, never got to begin.
Maybe one day we can meet face to face,
in a place without time and space. Happy birthday.

What I thought was a dream
Make a wish
Was as real as it seemed

I made a mistake

2007-03-09T20:08:00.000-06:00

*WARNING!! This is a very long blog (for me). But, since I've been so infrequent lately, I figured a long one might help me catch up. I'd appreciate any comments you may have!

Being raised in an ultra-conservative wing of the Churches of Christ, I quickly learned that one of the most cherished doctrines of my church was that "We are not a denomination." I was taught it and, for my first few years in ministry, I taught it as well. In fact the segment of the Churches of Christ with which I was associated taught that those who considered the Church of Christ to be a denomination were false teachers.

I even wrote an article in the local newspaper at one point condemning many denominations for their status as denominations, while encouraging people to come and be a part of the Churches of Christ since we, of course, could not be characterized in that way. A gentleman in the community who had a background in the Churches of Christ called and requested a Bible study dealing with the things I brought up in that article

When I sat down at this man's dining room table, he placed in front of me a dictionary opened up to the word "denomination." The entry read very similar to the following, which I quote from here:

de·nom·i·na·tion [di-nom-uh-ney-shuhn]
–noun

1. a religious group, usually including many local churches, often larger than a sect: the Lutheran denomination.

2. one of the grades or degrees in a series of designations of quantity, value, measure, weight, etc.: He paid $500 in bills of small denomination.

3. a name or designation, esp. one for a class of things.

4. a class or kind of persons or things distinguished by a specific name.

5. the act of naming or designating a person or thing.

"denomination." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 09 Mar. 2007. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denomination>.

The man I was studying with focused on a definition that resembled both #3 and #5 above. In his dictionary, it read something like: "a group that takes an exclusive name for itself." He accused my beloved Churches of Christ of fitting this definition.

But I was prepared! I confidently responded, "Well, we just call ourselves 'Church of Christ' as a matter of simplicity. We would be just as happy being called the 'household of God' or the 'body of Christ' or the 'bride of Christ' or any other name that can be found in the Bible."

His response utterly defeated my claim that the Church of Christ is not a denomination. He said, "Jeff, what would happen if you told your congregation next Sunday that you were going to go and worship with a new church in town called the 'Main St. Family of God' or the 'Main St. Body of Christ,' etc.?" I sat silently because I could see where he was going with that and I had no response. He said, "Your church would draw the conclusion that you were planning on worshiping with a group that was NOT really Christian. You would be 'fellowship with darkness.' And it would be based not on the teachings or practices of the group, but on the fact that the sign in front of their building said something OTHER THAN 'Church of Christ.'"

He had me! He could not have been more correct. The conclusion from was that my fellowship had DENOMINATED itself by choosing to take a name EXCLUSIVELY for itself. When we draw conclusions about someone else's degree of faithfulness based on whether or not they wear the same name as us, we are, by definition, a denomination!

This realization forced me to do some reexamination of the name "Church of Christ." My earlier thought processes defended its use based on the following arguments, to which I will respond.

Argument #1: Names are important to God. In fact, names were so important to Him that He often CHANGED the names of people (i.e. Abram & Sarai to Abraham & Sarah; Saul to Paul). etc.) Furthermore, Colossians 3:17 says that everything we do should be done "in the name of the Lord."
Response: Indeed, God changed names. However, it wasn't because the NAME ITSELF had any special value, but because the CHANGE that the name SIGNIFIED was important! The name change signified a spiritual change! Certainly, God has given us a new identity (1 Peter 2:9-10), which He signified with a new name -- Christian (Is. 62:2; Acts 11:26). CHRISTIAN is the only name given to followers of Christ, and it isn't even bound on us in the sense that we can go by NO OTHER name! I can call myself a "follower of Christ" just as biblically as I can call myself a "Christian." The Col. 3:17 argument is just a terrible misunderstanding of the meaning of the phrase "in the name of" as used in the Scriptures.

Argument #2: Romans 16:16 uses the name "Church of Christ." Therefore, we should use it, too.
Response: I have no objection to a group referring to itself as the "Church of Christ." However, by claiming this name EXCLUSIVELY, and by using the NAME as a way to CONDEMN/JUDGE others, we have taken a perfectly good description of Christ's people and turned it into an instrument of division, which is contrary to Christ's desires (John 17). Furthermore, if we choose this SINGLE reference as our proof-text for our exclusive name, we must decide how to explain why we didn't choose the MULTIPLE references to the church as "the body of Christ" or any other reference that appears more than ONCE. Finally, I believe this argument is based on a legalistic reading of scripture which insists that it is not just the theology of Scripture is binding upon us, but also the EXACT WORDING of Scripture. (Then you have problems with which version and whether English is even the "exact wording" after all!)

Argument #3: The name "Church of Christ" gives glory to Whom it belongs -- Christ! While other "scriptural names" of the church do the same thing, most of the names that denominational groups claim do not. They give glory to a distinctive doctrine of that denomination (i.e. Baptist, Methodist) or the group's founder (i.e. Lutheran, Wesleyan). When people see the name "Church OF CHRIST" they know up front Whom we serve. For a well-written defense of this argument, see the tangat blog.
Response: I actually find a lot of merit in this argument. I certainly believe that the way we refer to ourselves should reflect our devotion to our Master. If we have to choose a name (and I don't believe we do) I would much rather it explicitly give glory to God. Unfortunately, in many communities in this nation, people no longer see the "Christ" in our name because they are focused on their perceptions of and experiences with the "Church of Christ." So, while well-intentioned, the whole of our name often communicates something altogether different than the sum of its parts. Many people see "Church of Christ" on our signs and, rather than thinking, "There is a people devoted to Christ," they often think "There's that group that thinks they're the only one's going to heaven, condemn everyone that doesn't agree with them, and think instruments send you to Hell." Can their be anything more opposed to the message that SHOULD be communicated by the words "Church of Christ?"

AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH
Why must we have a sign with a name on it? I believe it is a direct reflection on the capitalism surrounding us. We must have, popularize, and sell our "brand," and what's a brand without a name? I can't imagine Paul traveling to Corinth for the first time and looking around for a "brand name." I certainly can't imagine him making judgments about other Christians based on their use or non-use of any particular description of followers of Christ!

If we have to have signs, why not something like "Christians meet here" or "All are welcome" or "Praise God with Us!" Or better yet, lets start drawing conclusions about others based on what they TEACH and PRACTICE rather than what their SIGN says!

Mmmmm ... Tasty!

2007-03-03T00:01:00.000-06:00

Theology of Interior Design

2007-02-28T23:41:00.000-06:00

What is the relationship between a church's theology and its interior design. (I wonder if that sentence was as weird to read as it was to type!) Stick with me for a while while I explain. I believe that such things as the arrangement of a church's worship space make statements about the way that church views worship itself.

Most churches that I have been in have the typical arrangement of a podium on a stage with a Lord's supper in front of it, usually a step or two down from the podium. There is a comfortable distance between the stage and the pews. The pews themselves are simply in rows.

I believe that such an arrangement makes the following statements about our worship:

The preaching has the central place in worship, for the preaching area is placed in the most visible, prestigious place.
The Lord's Supper has slightly less importance since the communion table is usually placed at a lower level from the podium.
Congregational worship is more about a bunch of individuals coming together to offer individual worship than it is about a family to come together to offer praise to god as one voice and one mind. It is difficult to interact with those with whom you worship when looking at the backs of their heads. While others are present, the individual, in many ways, worships alone.

Perhaps the congregations with these arrangements don't hold these views. Nevertheless, these views are communicated by the arrangement of their worship space. Furthermore, I believe that this communication will, with time, influence the way worshipers view their own worship.

On the other hand, consider an arrangement like the one that I enjoyed when worshiping with the Dayspring Church of Christ in Edmond, Oklahoma. In the center of their worship space was the Lord's Supper table. A comfortable space separated the table from the seats on each side. The seats were on all four sides of the table, no more than four rows deep. A small podium was in one corner for the use of the speaker.

In contrast to the traditional arrangement, consider what this arrangement communicates about worship:

The Lord's Supper is the focal point of the gathering, since the table is at the most visible, prestigious place in the room. The congregation, like a family, is gathered around the table together to remember.
The worship and praise that is offered is done while the congregation's members are looking each other in the eye, seeing the expressions on one another's faces, etc. This fosters a view of congregational worship which is not based on individual, but joint praise.

I don't believe that building architecture, interior design, and decoration are theologically neutral. To be sure, they are not the most theologically significant parts of a congregation's life. But neither are they unworthy of consideration. After all, church facilities often provide the first communication from a congregation to its community.

Imagine a situation thousands of years in the future. Archaeologists discover your community, which was destroyed along with all historical records and literature when global warming virtually wiped out all forms of human civilization. (Remember, this scenario, much like the hype surrounding global warming, is fiction being used to make a point! But that's for another post!) When these archaeologists discover your church building, what conclusions will they come to about your congregation's theology based solely on the facilities that they investigate? Would their conclusions be consistent with biblical teachings of who we are supposed to be and what our worship is supposed to be about?

Food for thought.

Gender Roles

2007-02-23T00:11:00.000-06:00

One subject on my "issues I desperately want to re-examine" list is gender roles in the church.

I was taught that, in mixed assemblies, women are allowed to sing, but nothing else. I remember as a child a church deciding that it was inappropriate for women to speak up during the announcements to give an update on a sick family member! I was also taught that a woman can teach children and other women, but not men. More specifically, not baptized males, even if they are 12 years old. There was considerable controversy in the circle in which I was raised over whether this extended to a woman teaching a non-Christian male. I was taught that, in Bible classes, women can be called on to read Scriptures and answer questions, but they cannot lead a discussion or a prayer.

As my thinking and my approach to the Scriptures have changed, I have come to see the blindingly obvious -- that these arbitrary rules developed my men. With much clarity, I see the spirit of the Pharisees in this thinking. Rules were created to enforce what was believed to be a biblical teaching. These rules are are then made into spiritual law. Violations of the law put one's soul in jeopardy and will certainly bring condemnation without repentance.

While I have at this point rejected my previous APPROACH to the issue, I have not entirely rejected my CONCLUSIONS. To be sure, I have also not endorsed my previous conclusions. At this point in my spiritual journey, I am unsure of where I stand. (Hence, my desire to re-examine the issue in more detail.)

Here are the pertinent questions as I see them:

Does the Bible teach male spiritual leadership in the church? I believe it does. The question is whether this teaching is simply factual or if it is normative. That brings me to the next question:
Is that teaching to be viewed as normative teaching for the church in all ages, or is it to be seen as a cultural expedient in the biblical times? Clearly, the 1st century was a patriarchal time. In fact, the biblical teaching on women, while considered by modern American culture to be unfairly limiting to women, was actually quite liberating for women in that time. It was within this male-dominated culture that the passages dealing with male leadership were written. So do we view the male leadership that is endorsed in the Biblical passages as normative in a culture that is much more gender inclusive? Or, should we see these passages as illustrations of a different binding principle altogether -- namely, that cultural norms and expectations can be accommodated in Christian ministry when those norms and expectations don't violate any other clear principles of God? I really don't know the answer to this! What do you think?
If male spiritual leadership is the biblical norm for today's church, how is that leadership maintained while allowing women the greatest possible opportunity to use their spiritual gifts? Would it simply mean that those in the pastoral roles are to be men, and they can delegate responsibility to anyone? More simply put, if a woman is asked by a male elder to lead a prayer in the assembly, would male spiritual leadership be sacrificed by her doing so?
What light is shed on the issue by the great leadership shown by the women heroes of the Bible: Esther, Ruth, Deborah, Phoebe, etc.? I think we have been guilty of much eisegesis in our treatment of these stories (i.e. we read into the passages what we've already determined is the answer).
Once the biblical teaching is discovered, what is the most expedient way to implement it into church life? There are problems with either position. With the traditional position of male leadership, one has to seriously grapple with the question of how to reach the culture which is increasingly gender inclusive. If the traditional position is rejected in favor of one allowing expanded roles for women, one must wrestle with how to allow women the freedom that God allows them while being sensitive to the sincere objections of many in the church.

As you can see, I have a lot of questions and not many answers. But the first step to discovery is asking the right questions! What do you think? Am I asking the right questions? Have I missed any? What conclusions have you reached on this issue?

Finetune

2007-02-20T02:14:00.000-06:00

Sorry for the infrequent posts lately. Life seems to have gotten in the way of my all-important blogging duties.

Until I get back on track, I figured everyone could benefit from some good music! So enjoy my latest discovery -- Finetune. This is my playlist of a bunch of songs/artists that I like. Some of the songs will be familiar to you; others wont. Let me know what you think! Or put together your own playlist.

My Valentine

2007-02-14T22:37:00.000-06:00

Most of you may want to just skip this post, because it just might make you gag. I know guys aren't supposed to talk about feelings and stuff, but today is Valentines day and I didn't get my wife anything. (Don't worry, she told me not to and meant it -- yet another cool thing about her.) So I thought I'd be very un-guy-like in my blog. So if you want to see me as a man's man of the most macho variety, then just stop reading now.

I dont' think she believes me when I tell her this, but I am still amazed by Alissa's beauty. You know how fire is so fascinating that you can just get lost staring at it. Her eyes are the same way to me. But after over 11 years with this woman, including almost 8 years of wedded bliss, I have grown to love her in ways that I couldn't possibly have imagined back on December 26, 1995 when I asked her out for the first time. (Yes, I know the date without even having to ask. If ever competing for a best husband award, that's going to be the first thing I bring up!)

I never could have imagined that my love for someone would increase because of someone else's love for that same person. But when I see how much my little girl loves her Mommy, I can't help but fall in love with her a little bit more.

I never could have imagined how much I would NEED her in my life. When my frustrations with ministry and my changing views on theology start to wreak havoc on my emotional peace, she can unfailingly calm. Sometimes its just by listening to a bunch of incredibly boring (to her) things that I need to get off of my chest. Sometimes its by joining me on the journey to discovery. Sometimes its by forcing me to go play with my daughter so that I'll regain my perspective. (Yes, sometimes I have to be forced, I'm ashamed to say.) Whichever tactic she chooses, I don't think I could get through some of my frustrations while maintaining my sanity without her.

I love how she loves her family.

I love how she has learned to embrace being a minister's wife, even though it has always been more my calling than hers. It hasn't been fair to her, but she has never wavered in her support of me. I can't possibly tell you how touching that is to me.

I love watching TV with her. Shows are SO much better when she's watching them with me.

I love how she will be brutally honest with me. When I've preached a sermon and everyone else is shaking my hand and complimenting me and she walks by and just says "Eh," I know the truth. And I love it that she does that! It just makes me better!

I love to hear her sing. She reminds me why the human voice is the greatest instrument on earth.

I love to hear her laugh, especially that adoring laugh that comes when Abbie does something cute.

So there you go. I'm still in love.

My next post will be of a more manly variety. I promise.

Toad Sky-High

2007-02-11T23:32:00.000-06:00

In some of my thesis research, I cam across this funny story about Walter Scott, one of the fathers of the Stone-Campbell Movement. It comes from an article by D. Newell Williams out of Discipliana (Vol. 56, No. 3; Fall 1996)entitled "Bringing A Vision to Life: Walter Scott and the Restored Church."

... though never an extemporaneous preacher, Scott was attentive to his audience, and could respond to particular circumstances. The story has often been told how once, when preaching on the atonement, Scott noticed that his audience was going to sleep. thus, he abruptly addressed himself to the young boys on the front row. Discovering that they were familiar with a game called "toad sky-high" (a game in which one leans a plank on a stone, places a toad on the lower end of the plank, then pounds the elevated end of the plank with a stick), he proceeded to happily tell the children about playing this game when he was a boy in Scotland. The boys laughed. Changing his demeanor, Scott informed the boys that toad sky-high was really a bad game, since the toad often died. He continued with a description of a toad's death so vivid that some to [sic] the boys began to cry. Turning to their parents he declared, your children are weeping over the death of a toad, while you have been sleeping through the story of the death of your Lord!

An Analogy

2007-02-08T00:30:00.000-06:00

The most frustrating part of writing a thesis is choosing a topic. At least, I think that's the most frustrating part. My last attempt at a thesis ended out of frustration with that step, so I really don't know about the frustrations that follow. At any rate, I am currently at that frustrating point in my thesis work.

Today, I spent about four hours researching a possible topic before deciding that it was not going to be possible to do. So I went on to another possible topic and spent the next four hours researching it. While I realize that those first four hours were progress because, without them, I would not have been able to narrow my topic. But it still felt like four wasted hours.

As I reflect on my life's spiritual journey, I see the same dynamic playing out on a larger scale. I spent the first 25 or so years of my life aggressively pursuing a spiritual path that was increasingly restrictive, judgmental, and legalistic. I mistook an increasing tendency to condemn others with a stronger faith. I went to school so that I could more effectively teach others this poor theology. I pursued a career in converting people to this invalid way of thinking. I am now growing in my understanding of God's grace and its implications for Christian liberty. I am connecting in greater ways with the unity emphasis of my denomination's heritage. I see my former path as unfruitful and in conflict with Christ at its very core. So I have abandoned it.

While I understand that many positive lessons were learned during the first 25 years of my life, and that those years were used by God in my spiritual formation. In spite of this realization, I can't help from time to time but feel like I have wasted time and energy on false theology.

Rich Young Ruler by Derek Webb

2007-02-05T23:21:00.000-06:00

Have you ever listened to a song that you have heard many times before and suddenly realize the meaning behind it? That happened to me today as I was driving and listening to the Mockingbird album by Derek Webb. The song "Rich Young Ruler" struck me deeply as I listened to it. Read the lyrics below:

(vs. 1)
poverty is so hard to see
when it’s only on your tv and twenty miles across town
where we’re all living so good
that we moved out of Jesus’ neighborhood
where he’s hungry and not feeling so good
from going through our trash
he says, more than just your cash and coin
i want your time, i want your voice
i want the things you just can’t give me

(vs. 2)
so what must we do
here in the west we want to follow you
we speak the language and we keep all the rules
even a few we made up
come on and follow me
but sell your house, sell your suv
sell your stocks, sell your security
and give it to the poor
what is this, hey what’s the deal
i don’t sleep around and i don’t steal
i want the things you just can’t give me

(bridge)
because what you do to the least of these
my brother’s, you have done it to me
because i want the things you just can’t give me

Now give it a listen:

I don't know about you, but THAT is what I consider Christian music. It communicates the message of Jesus in such a way as to teach us His way, remind us of our duty to Him, and motivate us to action.

My friend Dana has been introducing me to some Christian artists. One thing I've noticed is that the songs are overwhelmingly praise songs. Very few of them deal with life issues. Even fewer of them deal with social issues.

While I enjoy and appreciate a good praise song as much as the next guy, I want my music library to resemble the Scriptures in its make-up. A healthy dose of praise combined with reflections on church, society, morality, personal struggles, and even politics -- all from the perspective of faith.

That's why I so appreciate this album by Derek Webb. I think that's why I've always been drawn to groups like U2 more than CCM, too. U2's catalog exhibits an honest struggle with the issues of life from the perspective of faith. Even artists like Sarah McLachlan have impressed me with their ability to express honesty in their struggles with faith.

I guess I find much of CCM to resemble much of Christianity. It tries to use praise to avoid dealing with the difficult aspects of living as light in a dark world. Many Christians, rather than seeking ways to bring peace, feed the hungry, help the needy, care for the homeless, and reach the lost are content to "worship with the saints."

So we raise our hands in praise, we lift our eyes to the heavens, we lift our voices to Him. Good for us! But do you think that God would be disappointed if, from time to time, we lowered our hands so that we could reach out to assist someone in need? Do you think He would be hurt if we occasionally lowered our gaze so that we could see the reality of suffering around us that we are called to ease? Do you think He would be offended if we periodically lowered the direction our voices toward our fellow man with a word of encouragement or a shout of advocacy?

What am I saying? That Christians should focus LESS on praise? If our definition of Christian service is limited to or dominated by corporate praise, then absolutely! Honestly, I believe that these acts of service ARE acts of praise of the holiest nature!

The Blasphemy Challenge

2007-01-30T22:50:00.000-06:00

I just saw a report on Nightline about a group of atheists issuing the "Blasphemy Challenge." Basically, they are trying to get as many people as they can to post videos of themselves saying "I deny the existence of God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit." One clip that the report showed had a girl end her video clip by waving at the camera and sarcastically saying "See you in Hell!" Read the story here.

I can't say that I'm surprised by this, but I am tremendously saddened. They reported that 9% of Americans identify themselves as atheist. Apparently, their blasphemy is compelling enough to warrant a major network news magazine to do a feature story on them.

The man and his wife who issued the "challenge" angered me, not because of their atheism, but because of their brash, dismissive, angry, and elitist attitude. Even if I am irrational in my belief (as the atheist claims), there is a civil way to correct me, and this couple's way is is not it. Then again, if there is no God, what basis do I have for demanding civility? I imagine a conversation with this couple may go something like this:

Why be civil/kind to others? Because it is the right thing to do.
Why is it the right thing to do? Because it is how I would want to be treated.
Why should I treat others the way I want to be treated? Because a peaceful world is created by practicing the golden rule.
Why should I be concerned about a peaceful world? Because life is more enjoyable/comfortable when there is peace.
Why is enjoyment/comfort in life important? Come on ... why?

My point: If there is no God, there is no end to the argument. There is no standard of morality that people can rationally be held to. Everyone's understanding of morality is just as valid as the next guy's.

I remember learning once about the war crimes trials after World War II in Nuremberg. If I remember correctly, the Nazis' defense was that they committed no wrong. They did not violate any law, for their actions were in perfect accord with the law to which they were accountable. Their actions may have violated American or British law, but they were not under American or British law. Therefore they did something wrong. This is cultural relativism; (culture determines morality). They were found guilty and sentenced. But the court didn't even try to convict them of violating a law of MAN. The verdict was that they were guilty of violating a law that transcends geographical and political boundaries. A higher law. What law was that? No international law existed at the time that would have condemned them! Friends, the Nazis were convicted based on the fact that they violated the moral law of GOD! The court was careful not to name or attempt to define God. But do not be fooled, the Nazis were condemned because the court recognized that, at the foundation of all morals is something/someone transcendent.

If there is no God, then we have no basis on which to declare the Nazi's guilty of moral wrong! We have no basis on which to declare the thief, the liar, the murderer, or the rapist guilty of moral wrong either. They simply operate on the basis of individual relativism (aka moral subjectivism), which says that each individual determines his own morality. Moral subjectivism and cultural relativism are just different expressions of the same old, irrational argument which the Nazis used in a failed attempt to defend themselves at Nuremberg.

Post of the Week

2007-01-28T00:35:00.000-06:00

This post came from Mike Cope's blog on January 23. It was my favorite piece of reading this week. I highly recommend his blog.

Is There Any Hope For Western Christianity?

“Can the West be re-evangelized? Only if we unlearn our default ethnocentric assumptions about “real” Christianity (our own) and unlearn our blindness to the ways Western Christianity is infected by cultural idolatry. It may be more blessed to give than to receive, but it is often harder to receive than to give. That reverses the polarity of patron and client and makes us uncomfortably aware that what Jesus said to the Laodicean church might apply to us in the West: “You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked” (Rev. 3:17).”

Want to read more? You can find it here. This excellent piece by Christopher Wright would be an excellent discussion starter for any Bible class, small group, or leaders’ retreat. (Thanks, Jim, for telling me about it!)

Here’s another paragraph to whet your appetite:

“So another piece of unlearning we must do is breaking the habit of using the term mission field to refer to everywhere else in the world except our home country in the West. The language of home and mission field is still used by many churches and agencies, but it fundamentally misrepresents reality. Not only does it perpetuate a patronizing view of the rest of the world as always being on the receiving end of our missionary largesse, but it also fails to recognize the maturity of churches in many other lands.”

My Spiritual History

2007-01-27T13:50:00.000-06:00

I wrote this a while back to accompany resumes that I send out in search of my next full-time ministry.

The best way I can summarize my spiritual history is “continuing.” I am a work in progress (aren’t we all?) and I’m curious to see how the story unfolds. God began working on me on September 15, 1977, when I was born into a Christian home. My parents taught me to love and serve God above all else. They taught me, both by example and instruction, to be actively involved in the life of a local church. They encouraged me to live according to my faith, regardless of the consequences. The spiritual strengths I possess today are largely the result of parents that raised me “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.”

In the course of my upbringing, my family served in congregations from varying ends of the philosophical/theological spectrum. My earliest years were spent in churches that were progressive. In these churches I learned the importance of relationships and grace in Christian living. My high school and college years were spent in churches that were more traditional. I learned from these brethren the importance of conviction and Bible study.

As a child, I was immersed following a week of church camp when I was on a “spiritual high.” However, I had very little understanding of what I was doing. Later in my life, just prior to my senior year in high school, I went through a period of reflection on some of the moral departures that my life had taken. I also began to reflect on my earlier decision to be immersed. After much prayer, study, meditation, and counsel, I made for the first time a conscious decision to make Christ my Lord. Now with an understanding of baptism’s significance, I was immersed by my father. God did another wonderful thing in my life later that same year, when I finally summoned the nerve to ask on a date the woman who would become my wife 3 years later, Alissa.

As I survey the past, it is clear to me that God used a youth minister in my earlier years and several aspiring preachers in my high school years to lead me to full-time vocational ministry. Following the advice of church leaders, I enrolled at Brown Trail School of Preaching in 1996 to prepare myself for ministry. At Brown Trail, I learned a lot about the Bible and Bible study, but the meat of my education in ministry would come later, when I was “in the field.” Many of the convictions which I developed during my study at Brown Trail were based more on the status and rhetorical skills of my instructors than on personal study and reflection. Nevertheless, I graduated from Brown Trail with the confidence that I was now prepared for ministry.

After preaching school, I decided to begin work on my bachelor’s degree. So I returned home and began studies at Southwest Texas State University (now Texas State University) in San Marcos, Texas. During that time, God blessed me with an opportunity to work as a ministry intern with the campus ministry there.

This work as an intern fueled my desire to enter into full-time ministry, so after one semester I accepted a position working with the youth at a church in Tyler, Texas. Just a few months later, I started an entirely new and exciting chapter in my life as Alissa and I were married. With all the changes happening so fast it didn’t take long for me to realize how much more effective I could be with some more ministry instruction. So while filling that position, I completed a bachelor’s degree in Bible/Ministry through a distance learning program offered by Southern Christian University. Even while recognizing the need to sharpen my ministry skills, I welcomed this time as a way for me to gain invaluable practical experience in the field while I worked diligently to expand my professional ministry skills in class.

After graduating from SCU, I decided I wanted to do graduate work in Fort Worth at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. I found a small church of about 30-35 people who were mostly senior citizens in Joshua, a town about 30 minutes south of Fort Worth that was looking for a preacher. I was able to serve at the Joshua congregation while completing 63 hours of graduate study. My three years in Joshua were a significant turning point for me. It was during this time that our daughter, Abbie, was born. It was also during this time that I began to really think through Biblical principles on my own. I was forced to look at things from a different perspective by going to a Baptist school. I had never even considered other perspectives, and doing so opened up a whole new world of possibilities to me. Bible study became an adventure in self-discovery and, for the first time ever, an intimate conversation with God.

Unable to finish my degree because of a tragedy that ended in the death of my brother, I returned home to the campus ministry that I had been an intern at several years previously. Unfortunately, the ministry had been weakened significantly. I came to lead the ministry through a revitalization. Having reached the point where the ministry was stable and healthy, and having evolved in my understanding of Scripture, I felt it best to leave that beloved ministry.

Various considerations related to my family combined with a desire to reflect on and clarify my calling to vocational ministry have prompted me to take a brief sabbatical from full-time ministry. During this time, God has blessed me with the opportunity to work with troubled and neglected teens through a non-profit organization in Austin. This exposure has given me a valuable reminder of the struggles that many in the world face – struggles that often go unnoticed in the sheltered environment of church work. Shortly after beginning this work, I was approached by a group of elders at the church that my family and I attend. They were interested in using me on a part-time, temporary basis to supplement the work of their full-time minister.
This opportunity to work in ministry part-time has increasingly rekindled the fire in my soul to make vocational ministry my life’s work.

My spiritual growth has been the result of a supportive family, strong church families that molded me, a wife that supports me and encourages me to continue moving with spiritual vigor on the journey of faith, and a daughter that puts it all in perspective. But above of all else, I owe my spiritual growth to God. Working through events and relationships in my life, His providential hand has led me on the most exciting and fruitful endeavor that I could have ever imagined.

Politics, Politics, Politics

2007-01-25T21:55:00.000-06:00

I am more jaded about politics than about anything else I can think of. I have no confidence and no trust in any politician.

I used to have slightly more trust in the Republicans than the Democrats, but Dubya and his cronies have ruined that for me by utterly failing at virtually everything that has traditionally been considered Republican -- small government, fiscal responsibility, strong defense. They succeeded at none of those. Spend, spend, spend used to be the Democrat's motto. Looks like it caught on! And if anyone would have stood on principle and actually done something of substance to curb illegal immigration, you would think it would have been the Republicans. But nope! No one seems want to deal with that either -- except the American people! The only thing that the Republicans seem to have done a decent job at is pro-life issues (although we won't know for sure until we can look back on his court nominees). And I won't even start on the war!

How nice it would be if I could turn to the Democrats! Unfortunately, they are socialists in sheep's clothing who, while emphasizing tolerance for every intolerable class under the sun, will institutionalize more and more intolerance for the public expression of Christian ideas! While I appreciate their stated concern for the marginalized of society, I disagree with the entitlement/hand-out policies that come from them (and more recently from the Republicans, too). The one thing I think they would do a pretty good job on is environmental issues. While they are often manipulated by radical environmental groups, any policy changes that could come about would probably be things that good stewards should do any way. But the party that champions all things anti-life and pro-alternative lifestyle (translation: immoral lifestyle) is a party that I'm not very comfortable supporting.

So how will I vote? Who knows. I am intrigued by the Libertarian Party, although their pro-abortion stance bothers me greatly. But this sounds pretty good:

"Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you don’t violate the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle the economy and control people’s personal choices" (from www.lp.org)

And I think that, since they are not in power, they probably haven't lost their integrity and they still actually operate on principle. Maybe that's just wishful thinking.

Assault & Social Politics

2007-01-22T23:57:00.000-06:00

An incident happened today at work that made me think. In the middle of my class, one of the kids had a disagreement with another adult in the class. Within about two minutes it went from the kid asking to go use the restroom to the kid literally attacking the adult, tackling her on top of two other students. Thirty minutes later, five other adults finally got the kid to let go of the adult's hair and escorted her out of the room. As I drove home, I reflected on what had happened. Two themes kept recurring:

Personal responsibility. What a poorly behaved kid! She needs to learn how to control those emotions! There is no excuse for that kind of behavior!
Empathy. How sad! What combination of horrible events could have happened in that kid's life to prompt such reactions to things? What could have happened to make someone so fragile that a denied trip to the bathroom is enough to break him/her?

I think there's some truth in each of these ways of looking at an event like this one.

As I continued to let my mind wander about these things, my thoughts shifted to politics. Don't these two views typify the conflict between conservatives and liberals in politics? While conservatives typically emphasize the personal responsibility line of thought, liberals tend to view societal issues empathetically. That's why, when talking about the poor and disadvantaged, conservatives tend to encourage them to pick themselves up by their boot straps while liberals typically look for problems within society that explain why these individuals are disadvantaged.

Maybe that's why they can't ever agree. Because, like my experience at work today, the truth upon which social policy should be based is not found in either viewpoint alone. To borrow from Rich Atchley, this is a both/and issue, not an either/or one.

Truth is often found in the joining of ideas rather than in their division. The failure of modern politics to realize this is a big part of why I find myself increasingly jaded about modern politics.
*****************************************************************************
That reminds me, I got my DVDs of Rick Atchley's "The Both/And Church" in the mail today! I look forward to viewing them again. If anyone wants to borrow them, let me know.

From Movement to Institution: Can We Rekindle the Zeal?

2007-01-20T23:23:00.000-06:00

Below is an interesting excerpt from The Quest for Understandable Hermeneutics by Hal Hougey (Manna Books, 1997, pp. 11-13), a wonderful book written a decade ago.

Movements usually begin as revolutionary attempts to abolish the traditions and correct the mistakes of the past. First generation revolutionaries generally have strong convictions and are committed to their task. Their zeal provides the impetus that results in effecting the changes they believe need to take place.

However, it is the nature of movements to change over time. The sons of the revolutionaries are more complacent. After all, their parents solved the problems and effected the changes; not to worry -- all is well in Zion. So the movement settles into comfortable complacency. New customs and traditions develop, and become resistant to change. The movement becomes a tradition-bound Institution again.

At this point one or both of two reactions usually occur: (1) The descendants of the revolutionaries continue to sink into passivity and complacency until the original fervor is gone, or (2) A new generation of revolutionaries arises, determined to overthrow the entrenched and stifling traditions of their fathers. Thus, the process repeats itself.

The Restoration Movement was just such a religious revolution when it began. Today, however, the grandchildren are restive and feel the need for change. Old issues must be reexamined. New issues have arisen which previous generations did not address, because there had been no perceived need. Out of this will ultimately come a new orthodoxy. What it will be is too early to tell.

Both the older and the younger generations are committed to the authority of the Scriptures. Customs may be changed; truth may not. But the younger generation, quite properly, cannot uncritically accept the conclusion of the past; the Bible needs to be studied and applied by every generation. What new issues are stressed will be determined by those who follow us.

Perhaps our greatest danger in such a crisis is pride and stubbornness. On the one hand some may rigidly resist change in areas of customs and expediency. This would probably lead to a stubborn and demanding call for change, even in areas where the Scriptures have plainly spoken. Stubbornness begets stubbornness. But patience, forbearance, understanding, generosity, and flexibility are needed in times like these. If we refuse to adjust, the children will leave for friendlier fellowships and their parents will be left to attend the wake and bury the remains.

Churches of Christ are at such a crisis point as we have described. The "Boston movement" churches should serve as a warning. They see mainline churches of Christ as lacking in evangelistic zeal and headed into oblivion. We admire their evangelistic zeal, but deeply deplore the cultic mind-control and life-control they maintain over their members.

On the other hand, the classic protest against change is, "Well, maybe the change you propose is OK, but I am afraid of where it may lead." If this statement has any validity, we would have to give up eating, since it might lead to gluttony. Dignifying this argument by giving it any weight whatever will change the church into a Museum of the Status Quo. The response to this objection is this: If we are committed to the authority of the Bible, change will lead only to following the Bible more closely; if we are not committed to the authority of the Bible, it will make little difference anyway.

We believe the most serious mistake we can make is to fail to respond positively to the cries for reform. If we refuse to accommodate in customs and traditions, and to reexamine carefully our hermeneutical framework, we are destined to sink into the quicksand of complacency, and die. Or, we can experience a new birth of freedom and zeal to proclaim the Good News of the Risen Savior to a dying world. The natural tendency to resist change can be our worst enemy.

Funny Friday!

2007-01-19T23:37:00.000-06:00

OK. I don't know how many of you are fans of Scrubs, but last night they had an episode that was a musical. I probably laughed harder at that episode than I have at any single episode of TV ever! It was sheer greatness. So, for those of you who missed it, I present two little numbers. I'm sorry. I'm so very sorry.

First, "Everything Come Down To Poo"

Second, "Guy Love."

Fear in Soul-Winning

2007-01-17T23:04:00.000-06:00

Is the idea of evangelism/soul-winning scary to you? It is to most, and I have often wondered why. For starters, it involves stepping out of our comfort zones and being intentional about things, but many things in life have those same requirements that we don't get scared about the way we do about evangelism! Is it a weak faith? Is it a lack of knowledge and, therefore, confidence? Is it our politically correct culture making us shrink back from anything that might make someone else uncomfortable? To all of these I anser Yes! We fear evangelism for all of these reasons! But it goes deeper, often to the core of our theology. At least it did with me. Let me illustrate how I was taught to "do" evangelism.

Christian meets Generic Person (GP). Christian's first task is to determine whether GP is going to Heaven or Hell. If Christian determines that GP is going to Heaven, Christian then make sure that GP is going there the "right" way. If Christian determines that GP is going to Hell, then Christian must convince Generic Person of his/her condemned state. Once GP is convinced that he/she is going to Hell, Christian tells him/her how to get to Heaven. Christian doesn't waste too much time talking about Jesus, because the important thing is that GP understand the 5 steps to salvation: hear, believe, repent, confess, and be baptized. Christian will need to be prepared to convince GP that what (s)he heard at that "other" church wasn't really the gospel, that his/her faith was not genuine, that his/her repentance didn't actually take place, that his/her confession was meaningless, and that his/her baptism was ineffective. How does Christian know these things? Because Christian knows the name of that "other" church, and it's not the same as Christian's church. That means that, in spite of GP's previous belief that (s)he loved Jesus and wanted to serve Him only, (s)he stood at the doorway to Hell while God watched to see if (s)he could figure it all out in time!

I was not taught this method using that language, but I was certainly taught this method! While many errors can be found in this approach, it is really not that internally inconsistent. Where it fails, however, is at the beginning:

"Christian's first task is to determine whether Generic Person is going to Heaven or Hell."

I have come to realize that this is NEVER Christian's task! It is God's and God's alone! When I find myself sitting on the throne of judgment, I am playing God. Needless to say, this is a role that I am both unworthy and incapable of filling.

Could it be that the fear many feel in living evangelistic lives comes from an internal discomfort with taking this Divine role? This discomfort is rarely perceived because we are surrounded by others placing themselves in that role. So we THINK we are afraid of living evangelistic lives when we are ACTUALLY afraid of playing a role that we are wholly unequipped to play and that is rightfully and singularly God's!

So how do we live evangelistic lives that will win souls as the Great Commission tasks us? By treating everyone equally. By entering EVERY relationship committed to both help and be helped by it. Commit to helping each person you know ONE STEP closer to Christ. Commit to finding something in them to bless your own life. If the person is an atheist, agnostic, pagan, universalist, legalist, liberal, or faithful Christian, he/she STILL needs to take ONE STEP closer to Christ! Growth in/towards Christ has no end in this life.

In approaching life this way, ALL relationships become INTENTIONAL; souls WILL naturally be won in the process; and both sides of the relationship are growing closer to Him! And God stays on His throne of judgment, complete with His eternal love, grace, and justice.

Back to School & Christian Music

2007-01-16T20:05:00.000-06:00

Back in 2004, I took a leave of absence from my master's level studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary so that I could begin my work with college students in San Marcos. When I took the leave of absence, I had the full intention of returning to school the following semester. Fast forward a couple of years and I still haven't finished. I've taken 63 hours of graduate level classes and have nothing to show for it. And all I lack is my thesis.

Until Friday, I thought for various reasons that finishing that degree was not possible. But then Friday I heard back from the dean's office. Not only are they going to let me finish my master's degree, but they are going to let me simply pick up where I left off! In other words -- all I need to do is finish my thesis! I have a second chance that I didn't think I would get!

So I'm officially a grad student again! And, to be honest, that terrifies me! One of the reasons that I put off finishing so long was because I lost a lot of the passion I once had for the academic/scholarly side of Bible study. I was more interested in my family and my ministry to devote the time necessary to scholarly study. None of that has changed. So I can't help but wonder -- will I have the commitment and dedication necessary to finish this thing once and for all?

On the other hand, I realize that there are tremendous benefits to finishing this degree. It will open doors to me that would not otherwise be available. It would no longer be on the top five list of things I regret in life. And, quite frankly, I would be proud of it.

So there you have it. I'm a student again. If you can't find me, you might try one of the theological libraries in Austin.`

In all seriousness, keep this in your prayers, as it will require some sacrifices for me and my family. I'm dreadfully excited!
********************************************************************************
On another note, I am interested in exploring the Christian music scene. I have never really given this genre a chance, due in large part to a legalistic view of instrumental praise. However, I now want to see if there are some Christian artists out there that I could add to my music library. I recently discovered Derek Webb's album, Mockingbird, which I loved. Before you make recommendations, let me tell you what I'm NOT interested in.

Shallow songs about skipping through fields with Jesus, or anything similar.
Songs that simply repeat a variation of "Praise God" a million times.

I AM interested in artists that are honest about the struggles and triumphs of life, but express them from a faith perspective.

So let me have it ... what suggestions do you have? I'll leave you with a sampling of some of the greatness that is Derek Webb. This is a song called "A New Law." I liked the summary accompanying this video on YouTube:

Many Christians are more comfortable following artificial religious laws rather than enjoying the freedom that Christ provided in his resurrection. Christ came to give us freedom, yet many of us live as slaves, blinded to the beauty of our Christian liberty, unable to see past our 'new laws'. Music by Derek Webb.

The Jeffys

2007-01-14T00:30:00.000-06:00

In the spirit of the approaching Emmy awards, I present a random collection of awards that i will humbly call The Jeffys. They cannot be denied because the results have been tabulated based on the infallible standard of my personal opinion.

Most Meaningful Series of Lessons: Rick Atchley's three part series on "The Both/And Church." Alissa and I are both still feeling absolutely liberated after hearing these lessons. If you haven't viewed them yet and have grown up in the Churches of Christ, you owe it to yourself to view them.
Best Single Night of Prime-Time Television: Thursday nights on NBC. My Name Is Earl gets funnier with each episode. The Office is on the way to being possibly the greatest sitcom ever. Scrubs is a historical top five sitcom, and ER is still high quality TV, although its not what it used to be, and the blatant and forced political preaching gets annoying. I mean, come on! That's just not fair to the rest of the TV world!
Most Frustrating Football Team Loyalties: Tie between Aggies and Cowboys. Unfortunately, I am a fan of both.
Best Movie That I've Seen This Year: Apocalypto. I don't get to see many movies anymore (having a 3 year old kind of affects your pop culture awareness). However, once again I found myself blown away by every aspect of a Mel Gibson film. Gory, yes. Distasteful, absolutely not.
Most Ironic Celebrity Duel: Donald Trump vs. Rosie O'Donnell. These two arguing over who is a better moral authority is the definition of the pot calling the kettle black. Its almost like when Republicans and Democrats argue over who is more honest!
Most Difficult Decision: Following your passion vs. Standing by a commitment. I've been struggling seriously with this recently. I believe its the most difficult decision I've ever made. How do you discern God's voice in the midst of that?
Best of the Best: Alissa. A wife that supports me when I offer what turns out to be a chaotic existence; who is open to my growth and eager to participate in it; who is willing to sacrifice herself for the good of our family. How can you adequately show gratitude for that?

There you have it -- the first edition of the Jeffys.

The Both/And Church

2007-01-11T15:46:00.000-06:00

I have never cried as the result of a Bible class or sermon, but then again, it is only on a very rare occasion that I cry at all. However, I am closer to crying right now than I ever have been at the end of a Bible lesson. The cause: three lessons by Rick Atchley that were powerful, biblical, and most of all for me, CONVICTING. Each lesson is just under an hour, so you'll need to set aside some time for them. But it will be time well spent!

Visit the following link and you'll see audio and video links at the bottom of the page.
http://www.rhchurch.org/praise/Both-And_Church.html

The Ideal Church? (3)

2007-01-10T00:15:00.000-06:00

Anglican made some thoughtful comments that I would like to reflect on ...

I don't pretend to have anywhere near as much knowledge of church history as Anglican does. However, I wonder if sometimes we notice the uniformity in the Catholic traditions and ignore their diversity while noticing the diversity within the "Bible only" traditions and ignore their uniformity.

As I see it, the Catholic traditions are certainly more uniform in the areas that are most readily apparent (i.e. liturgy, worship, etc.), but there are still many differences in such areas that are not as quickly noticeable (i.e. church polity, the definition and role of saints, clergy eligibility, etc.)

Are there as many differences in the Catholic churches as there are in Bible churches? I don't know. Probably not. However, I think the "Bible church" traditions may SEEM more divided because the areas wherein they are divergent are the most readily apparent areas (i.e. worship, liturgy, etc.) But we must keep in mind that most of these Bible churches view these areas as being matters of preference rather than matters of doctrine(COCs notwithstanding).

So the apparent uniformity of the Catholic churches does not necessarily indicate unity and the apparent differneces in the Bible churches don't necessarily indicate division.

Perhaps God uses each "brand" of Christianity to appeal to the various personalities and sensitivities within humanity. After all, some are individualistic. They find the Bible church emphasis on personal conviction derived from personal Bible study appealing, so they latch on to that emphasis and the churches wherein it is most readily found.

On the other hand, some have personalities that are more drawn to the idea of community. They are drawn to the Catholic churches' emphasis on community understanding of scripture. This is made even more appealing when the community that they are drawn to includes the historical community.

There is a beautiful tension between the equally valid biblical principles of personal and community understanding of scripture. While not mutually exclusive, they compliment each other in such a way that people with a variety of different personal preferences are able to find a community with like values.

Am I advocating unity in diversity? I think I am! I don't know how far to take these thoughts. Is each hermeneutical approach equally valid? I'm not sure, but I believe there is some truth behind each approach. Perhaps the unifying truth that should be focused on more is the Lordship of Christ.

On a lighter note...

2007-01-08T19:06:00.000-06:00

Hilarious!

The Ideal Church? (2)

2007-01-07T22:55:00.000-06:00

What if the New Testament church is not to be viewed as the ideal to be restored, but the immature foundation in whom God would continue to work through history? What are the implications if this is true?

It seems to me that our view of church history would no longer be merely informative and educational. Rather, it would now have some normative effect. I have always been taught that the writings and development of historical Christianity can be understood as interesting academic exercises. But those developments and writings are not to be considered as having any normative value.

You see, the hermeneutics of my heritage begin with the assumption of restorationism's validity. If we see historical developments in Christianity that are inconsistent with our restoration hermeneutics, we conclude that those developments are departures from God's way. But we never question our starting point. Is restorationism, in fact, valid?

Could the New Testament be the record of the laying of a sure foundation upon which the Christian movement was built? And then the record of history tells of the continued development of that movement? Perhaps, but at least difficulties arise in my mind related to this possibility:

History tells the story not of a unified voice within the Christian movement, but of vastly divergent voices. So it would seem that an effort to understand the life, practice, and teaching of Christianity in the light of church history would just as much an interpretive process as is restoration hermeneutics. Some traditions which place a higher normative value on the historical record attempt to determine either majority or consensus historical views as a way to find God's voice amidst the divergent historical voices. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that discerning a majority or consensus voice is a task that can be often accomplished. In fact, I wonder if it can be done at all.
Furthermore, God has never limited himself to working only through majority or consensus. How do we know if the minimal voices of history are God's voice instead of the dominant ones?
Finally, if history is to be viewed as God's continued work and thus carrying normative value, how are we to view reform movements within history. As a part of history, it would seem that they may be God's prophetic voices at that time in history calling his people back to faithfulness. However, their messages were often contrary to historical developments. This would seem to equate to God's prophetic voice rebuking God's historical voice! We can't have that, now can we?

Give me your feedback. Are my points valid? Am I missing something? How do you reconcile these things in your mind? I'll eagerly await your comments.

The Ideal Church?

2007-01-04T00:59:00.000-06:00

How do we know that the New Testament church is the ideal for which we should strive? This is the restoration plea upon which the Stone-Campbell movement was based. However, I have lately been questioning (NOT denying, just questioning) it. My thinking goes something like this:

If God is sovereign over history, and if He has been/is active in his church, then wouldn't the development of Christianity over time be t the result of His divine guidance rather than a departure from it? Seems to make sense to me.

Once again, I do not denying the validity of the Restoration plea. I do, however, questioning it. I have been raised a restorationist and my theology is still framed by restoration ideas. I see in the church of the New Testament much purity and unity (although far from perfect in both of those areas) which is absent in modern-day Christianity. I see much strength in the argument that the New Testament church was being guided directly by the divine inspiration of the apostles.

But much of the New Testament is written in generalities. There is a beautiful vagueness to Scripture that opens its teachings to a certain degree of interpretation. There are some specifics described in the Scriptures about the New Testament church's practice, liturgy, etc. However, there are far fewer of these specifics than one would think if a blueprint were intended. And these specifics mostly speak only of one congregation without implying or stating universal application in the apostolic church.

Once again, I do NOT deny the validity of restorationism, at least not yet. But I'm free to question it, aren't I? I guess that probably depends on who you ask.

Your feedback is coveted. Also, please refer this blog to as many others as you think might be interested. The more feedback we share together, the more we will be able to grow together.

Prayer and Shekinah

2006-12-30T01:32:00.000-06:00

WARNING: SERMON SPOILER FOR THOSE WHO WILL BE AT SOUTHERN HILLS SUNDAY EVENING!!

I'm preaching this coming Sunday night. My sermon will coincide with the end of our congregation's "40 days of prayer." To be honest, this makes for a difficult subject for me to preach on. My prayer life is ... well ... not as strong as it should be.

So I started to examine the factors that had weakened my prayer life. While there are many contributing factors, one factor was intellectual. While I understood that the Bible taught that prayer was important and that it claimed that prayer was powerful, there was something that just didn't add up to me. Why would God require me to pray about things that he already knows? Wouldn't those be wasted words? It seemed to be against his proactive and loving nature to require that I tell him things that he knows even better that I do before he would respond. For example: why pray for an ailing friend? God already knows their ailment. He already knows that they need help. He loves them and doesn't want them to suffer. So why would he require that I pray about it?

In the midst of this quandary, my brother-in-law introduced me to the word Shekinah. Its a Hebrew word that isn't found in the Bible, but that the Jews used to describe a very real Biblical teaching. It describes the VISIBLE presence of God. It was present in the exodus, at the giving of the Law, at the dedication of the tabernacle, at the dedication of the temple, at the birth, baptism, and transfiguration of Christ. The Shekinah dwelled permanently on the mercy seat (the place between the two cherubim on the top of the Ark of the Covenant). The ark was kept in the Holy of Holies, which was inaccessible to anyone but the hight priest, and that once a year.

What does all this mean? No one could live in God's presence! God could only be seen from a distance and through the veil of a cloud! His glory was permanently kept separate from man by a veil/curtain in the temple!

When God came to live with us in the form of the Messiah, it seemed like everything was solved. God could now be approached! But then the Messiah died. Was all hope lost? No, because at the death of Christ, something special happened. Until recently, I never realized the importance of it. The curtain which separated the Holy of Holies from the people was ripped!

That curtain kept the holy inaccessible. That curtain kept the Shekinah invisible. That curtain illustrated the separation between God and us. That curtain was destroyed when Christ died!

I can now approach God in all of his glory! I don't have to go through anyone (save Christ). I can approach anytime I want to, about any topic I please, wherever I may be. I have complete, unhindered, open access to God!

My question ("Why do I have to pray?") was simply the wrong question. The real question is, "Why wouldn't I WANT to?" I no longer think of prayer as something I HAVE to do for some inexplicable reason. Rather, through prayer I GET to walk right up to God and spend glorious time in God's presence! Why would I pass that up? If offered the opportunity to spend time with the president (all politics aside), I wouldn't hesitate! If I was able to go spend some time with Bono or Sarah McLachlan, I wouldn't even have to think! How much greater should I view the opportunity to approach God?

Santa Clause Is Watching You

2006-12-26T22:19:00.000-06:00

Greatest Christmas song ever, or just a childhood memory that makes me chuckle?

Why blog?

2006-12-23T22:44:00.000-06:00

I have debated for a while now whether or not I should start blogging. Why would anyone care about the random and meandering thoughts I have on religion (my passion), the latest episodes of "The Office" (on the road to becoming the best sitcom EVER) or "ER" (way past its prime but I'm still hooked), or the best of Austin cuisine (can't beat Posado's, Hao Hao, or Amy's)? While these thoughts might be interesting to those who share an enjoyment of those topics, I'm not sure that my views on them are significant enough to merit a regular posting. In order for me to embark on this voyage, I needed more reason that just the rather arrogant notion that "I have thoughts that, to me, seem interesting. Others should have the blessing of those thoughts as well." So after thinking about it, I came up with a few reasons why I decided to get my nerd card officially stamped and become a blogger.

Community. One of the blogs that I regularly read is Caritas, by Greg Stevenson. In explaining his reasons for blogging, he mentioned the virtual community that the internet has created. He wrote on March 18, 2006:
For all of the criticism of the Internet, one of the things it does well is the creation of a virtual community. Now virtual community should not be a replacement for real community any more than the Kroger generic brand of Lucky Charms should replace the real, glorious thing.
I agree with this assessment. I hope that by becoming a more active part of the online community, I will be in a small way connected with some who are not a part of my regular circle of association. I will also have one more way to interact with those that are a regular part of my life.
Therapy. I spent many years learning how not to questioning things. When questions about cherished traditions and understandings developed, I learned to ignore those questions in favor of towing the party line. In other words, I learned how to say what I was supposed to say, even if it wasn't what I actually believed. I have come to realize that this approach has caused me to sacrifice honesty. Over the past couple of years, I have been trying to re-teach myself how to be open and honest about my beliefs. My (re?)discovery of God's grace and the meaning of freedom in Christ have shown me how much more important openness and honesty are than any tradition, no matter how cherished it may be. I feel that blogging will help me take a step towards this openness. So in a way, this blog will be therapeutic for me.
Paying it forward. I have enjoyed and benefited from reading a few blogs, including Scott Freeman, Caritas, and PreacherMike. I am admittedly suspicious of my own ability to express my thoughts in as thought-provoking and entertaining a manner as these gentlemen. However, I am compelled to give it a try.

So what can you expect from this blog? Probably a wide variety of rants on whatever happens to be on my mind at the time. There will probably be a significant amount of musing on theology and ministry-related topics. You'll probably get an occasional opinion on sports, movies, music, TV, and politics. And you'll probably get some riveting and inspiring stories from the daily happenings of my life. To be honest, I'm curious to see what shows up on this blog, too! So read and comment.

For now, I'm off to get my nerd card laminated!