On the Road to Easter

Mark 8:27–30 (GNB)

²⁷ Then Jesus and his disciples went away to the villages near Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Tell me, who do people say I am?” ²⁸ “Some say that you are John the Baptist,” they answered; “others say that you are Elijah, while others say that you are one of the prophets.” ²⁹ “What about you?” he asked them. “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.” ³⁰ Then Jesus ordered them, “Do not tell anyone about me.”

Ash Wednesday was celebrated last week, which traditionally marks the beginning of the Lenten season, the 40 days to Easter and the Passion of the Christ. Often times Protestant do not participate in the ceremony, and they do not usually contemplate the meaning of the event.

The aim of Ash Wednesday is said to be threefold:

• to meditate on our mortality, sinfulness, and need for a savior;
• to renew our commitment to daily repentance in all of life;
• and to remember with confidence and gratitude that Jesus has conquered sin and death.

Our daily worship should be filled with the impact of this gospel truth. In order to truly understand and appreciate the impact of these three statements above, we have to start by answering the question that Jesus posed to Peter: “Who do you say I am?” If we can answer whole heartedly to Jesus, as Peter did, “you are the Messiah,” we can then rejoice with the Apostle Paul when he says,

“Consider yourself dead to sin and alive in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:11).

To Reflect:

Spend some time being still before God, and ask the Spirit to search yourself:

Psalm 139:23–24 (GNB)

²³ Examine me, O God, and know my mind; test me, and discover my thoughts. ²⁴ Find out if there is any evil in me and guide me in the everlasting way.

Picture Credit: The White Crucifixion by Marc Chagall, 1938

Jacques Ellul on Social Justice

...Jesus Christ has not come to establish social justice any more than he has come to establish the power of the state or the reign of money or art. Jesus Christ has come to save men, and all that matters is that men may come to know him. We are adept at finding reasons-good theological, political, or practical reasons, for camouflaging this. But the real reason is that we let ourselves be impressed and dominated by the forces of the world, by the press, by public opinion, by the political game, by appeals to justice, liberty, peace, the poverty of the third world, and the Christian civilization of the west, all of which play on our inclinations and weaknesses. Modern protestants are in the main prepared to be all things to all men, like St. Paul, but unfortunately this is not in order that they may save some but in order that they may be like all men.  The Ethics of Freedom (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company), 254-255

How to Live as a Christian, Post-Election

A Christian Response to the 2008 Presidential Election
I have to admit to a bit of sadness over the response of Christians to the election of Barack Obama. I consider myself an independent, and more often than not during my political experience I have voted against a candidate rather than for. That too makes me sad.

I have a couple of observations that I want to comment on.
1. Election Rhetoric.
It struck me that much of what republicans and democrats are saying about this election is much the same as what came out of the mouths of republicans and democrats in 2000 and 2004. Only this time, the remarks have switched parties. For example, republican friends say that a large majority of the country do not agree with the views of the new president (The democrats said this in 2000 and 2004), while on the other hand, democratic friends are saying that the election returns give Obama a mandate for change; again, something that the republicans said in 2000 and 2004.

2. Many of my Christian friends prayed fervently for this election.
Obama won. Did God not answer their prayers?

Or, did God answer their prayers?

God is known to work out his will despite his people. If God did answer these prayers, what does that do to our theology? Still more, what does this say about our support for Barack Obama? I don't want to be put into the situation of second guessing God. My guess is that there is a lot of change in the air, and we have to decide for whom the church will be a handmaid. What if Obama is the gate through which we need to walk in order to bring change to this country and stave off judgment?

3. Election Issues.
There are a lot more issues in this presidential election that are as important as abortion and homosexuality, but evangelicals are shy to address. For example, approximately 30,000 people die of starvation, waterborne diseases and AIDS each day, deaths which are viewed as preventable, yet I am only now beginning to see organizations such as Feed My Starving Children gain visibility. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we better be certain that we don't react to what God is doing when Rhoda comes to tell us that Peter is at the door (Acts 12:12-17).

4. I am astonished at the amount of negativity coming from the mouths of Christians!

Come on people, we are people of hope. The elections are important, but let's focus, okay?

Having said all this, the point of this post is this: We need to stop moaning and beefing about who won the presidency, and pray just as hard for the success of this man in God's will as we did for the whom we thought God wanted as president during this election campaign.

Here are two parts of a post by by Mark Roberts that speaks to the issue of how to pray for the election and the new president (here and here). I like what he says in his first point:

We Should Act Upon the Call of Jesus to Peacemaking in the Way We Relate to Our Fellow Citizens.

There are other blogs that have shown up today (see this one by Randy Alcorn), which encourages me to believe that we will ultimately do the right thing, as soon as we stop focusing on why it was wrong to trust in Obama/McCain and not Jesus.

(Posted using ShareThis)

And Then There Is This...

There are times that I am embarrassed to be a follower of Christ. It is NOT that I am embarrassed of my LORD, but because of some of the people with whom I am on the journey.  And that's too bad, it saddens me. Before anyone picks up cudgels to bludgeon me, please read through to the end of the article to see what I have to say.

From the "As if we don't shoot ourselves in the foot enough" department comes this: a group of Christians gathering to pray for the economy in a public spectacle. Notice the focus-point for their time of prayer --a giant golden bull on Wall Street.

The response is not surprising. One blog was a bit sympathetic (and to the point), but most were less sympathetic and understanding.

Paul wrote to the church in Corinth and told them that "...not many of you were wise by human standards," but I don't think that this is the kind of thing that he had in mind, any more than acting stupid for gospel insures that God will descend deus ex machina to answer our prayers.

I believe in the prayer, but I guess I don't get the point of this time of prayer. Yes, I know that they weren't worshiping this gilded statue, but the metaphor of the wall street icon shows the irony of this situation. What are they asking God to do? Restore our culture so we can continue to consume and spend mindlessly? The problem with the Israelites of the original story was that their stomachs were their god. What does this gathering tell people? Somehow it seems to point to all the evil and greed that got us into this mess to begin with (see this article).

I endorse praying for the economy, especially since the people on the lower rungs of society get hit the hardest. I loved the comment to an article that I found on a blog that said that "as Christians we should be giving MORE in a recession rather than less."  It is a matter of compassion and a realization that our source for wealth and giving is not linked to the vagaries of markets and such. Yet in financial turn-arounds like now we turn inward and clutch our wealth tightly to our chests to prevent it from slipping out of our grasp.

What is our agenda for praying for the economy? That I don't become poor? Or, that God will have room to work out his perfect will for our country?

I found this article that I think has a couple of valid points. An important question is:

Is it right to pray for the economy?

I think it is appropriate to pray for the economy. After all, God said to Jeremiah,

"Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare" (Jeremiah 29:7).

When the economy is strong, people are able to work and support their families, believers have greater opportunities for generosity, and many benefit from this common grace.

This fits in well with Paul's idea of living in peace with everyone and other sentiments in Romans 13, among other things.

We can pray for integrity and wisdom for government officials who are faced with the incredibly complex task of regulating investment securities and banks in a way that is transparent and serves all of the varied stakeholders. We can pray that those who are willing to work will be able to find gainful employment. We can pray that greed would be restrained at all levels, from the leaders on Wall Street to individual families tempted to live beyond their means. We can pray for ourselves that we will participate in the national economy that keeps in mind the time is short and the present form of this world is passing away (1 Corinthians 7:29-31).

In addition, Matthew shares a bit of wisdom from Jesus in his gospel about the best way to pray?

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him (Matt 6:5-8).

I think this says that public spectacles may not necessarily be the best way to pray about an issue.

And then, what to pray about?

25 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life. Or single cubit to his height
28 “And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31 So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own (Matt. 6:25-34).

It seems that praying for the economy isn't about praying for our daily bread. It is about praying for Righteousness AND Justice. Righteousness is about our relationship with God; Justice is about our society's relationship with God.

And, this point:

"I guess as a Christian I can't help but think of the bigger picture beyond just my own nation. And sometimes I wonder if God orchestrates these things to show us things. Like if Ireland and America and other well to do countries don't change their ways with regards to consumption and waste would we not end up in a situation where the poor are suffering as a result, or that they will never have the opportunity to live like we do?"

Finally, a nice video by Max Lucado that's worth a look.

An interesting video

Found this video on a website called Connaitre Dieu. It is a great metaphor for the love of God.

Great Prayers

Found this on another blog. I love this. Not only a great prayer, it's great theology.

Praying with Walter Brueggemann.

We are your people and mostly we don't mind,
     except that you do not fit any of our categories.

We keep pushing
               and pulling
               and twisting
               and turning,
trying to make you fit the God we would rather have,
               and every time we distort you that way
                    we end up with an idol more congenial to us.

In our more honest moments of grief and pain
     we are very glad that you are who you are,
     and that you are toward us in all your freedom
     what you have been toward us.

So be your faithful self
     and by your very engagement in the suffering of the world,
     transform the world even as you are being change

We pray in the name of Jesus,
     who is the sign of your suffering love.  Amen.

Technorati Tags: kingdom,spiritual formation,theology

Missions? Missional? (revised 14 July)

I recently had a discussion with a friend about missions in the church.  Granted, he was talking about a specific church, but his comments reflect a common thought process and approach to missions in the emerging church. 

My friend told me that there were several parameters for the missions focus of the church, such as:

1. The mission field had to be accessible.
For my friend, that means that anyone who wants to go to a specific field can access it without a long flight or paying a lot of money for a ticket. Wouldn't that eliminate most of Europe, the Middle East, and much of Asia? Is accessibility to the field a major specification for missions?

When the Holy Spirit said to separate out Paul and Barnabas for a mission, was it based on accessibility of the mission field to Paul and others? Did the HS only send them to places where they found it easy to go?  Mission history abounds in stories of people such as Hudson Taylor, Adoniram Judson, David Brainerd and others who gave up family, friends, and secure lives to go to proclaim the gospel, at great personal cost to them. Judson, for example, spent months traveling to Burma, a country closed to the west, only to be thrown into prison by a government that was suspicious to him and reasons for being in Burma.

As for Paul, there were times when he wanted to go somewhere, and the HS did not allow him to go at first (Acts 16:6-10), in addition, the times Paul suffered for the sake of the gospel (2 Corinthians 11:23-33) would seem to have an impact on the accessibility of the field.

For whom is the mission field to be accessible? Everyone in the church? A few chosen individuals?

I don't believe that accessibility be a primary specification for mission.

2. Biggest bang for the buck?
I will be the first to say that we are to use good stewardship, but does that dictate the shape of missions, and where we are to go?

Again, cost was not the dictating factor for Paul and Barnabas. The Holy Spirit sends and provides the means to do so.  It is not that we should obsess over the money, but how we follow the leading of the Spirit. I don't think we do this by setting up parameters and hurdles to force the Spirit to do and work as we want, based on budget considerations.


3. Is it Mission Field or Missionary?
When the Holy Spirit was preparing for the outward expansion of the church, he spoke through the prophets in Antioch saying, "Separate Paul and Barnabas for the work to which I have called them (Acts 13)."

As for Jesus, he told his followers, “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you” (John 20:21). When we look at the the various forms of the great commission, the focus for mission is obedience, The specific area mentioned is the world, not one geographical location.

The Spirit did not ask the church in Antioch to separate out a mission field, but a missionary.  Is our emphasis on a field backwards? Or do we send people out to the field whom God has called?  I think so.


4. The French, the .... (fill in the blank) had their chance.
The idea is that a specific area has been evangelized and had the gospel, but they rejected it, so we will go someplace where they will accept the gospel.  I have had this said to me about France, and Europe in general.  Yet is the place where the stirrings of the Spirit are evident.

First, who gives anyone the right to pass judgment by saying they had their chance, now it's too late? I was under the impression that God does not want anyone to be lost, but to have the fullness of life, and have it abundantly?

And where will you go? Somewhere (like Nigeria, for example...??) where they will receive the gospel? Nigeria is over 55% Christian (by their profession), but it is also a very materialistic church that is submerged in the culture and compromised by it, not unlike the United States.

There are other places to go, China is a large potential area for the gospel, but there are issues of accessibility for these areas. China, Burma, Vietnam, and other areas are closed to missionaries.

5. Go Make Disciples

I have been told that the mission of the church needs to start where the church is located (i.e., Jerusalem), and then move to Judea and Samaria (outside your community), and finally into Europe, Asia, Africa, or where ever.

The problem is that the various passages tagged as part of the Great Commission are often seen as a linear process, i.e., start where you are, then go out from there.  Unfortunately, the result of this is that this is taken to mean that we need to plant ourselves and be fruitful and successful at one level before we progress to the next.  So, we need to fully evangelize, preach, teach, feed, clothe, etc. in one place before we move to the next.

I doubt we can build a case for this either theologically or linguistically. The Greek text behind Acts 1:8 does not support a progressive or "step by step" plan for evangelism.  There are several good ways of understanding the conjunction καὶ (usually translated as "and"), but the best way to understand the use of καὶ in this passage is as a coordinating conjunction with an ascensive function, a point of focus, as Wallace comments (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p 761).  The focus of the passage is the whole world, as Matthew 28:19 points out.

Theologically, Matthew 28 states that we are to make disciples of all nations. The command is holistic, not fragmented into parts or agendas.  That is modern management practice.

Another story that illustrates this very nicely is the persecution in Acts 8. The church was busy hunkering down in Jerusalem when a persecution breaks out and pushes them out of Jerusalem into Judea and Samaria, and by implication, Antioch in Syria. It was the intent of the Holy Spirit that they move out into the world. Left to their own devices, the church would probably only be reaching Greece today.

I am also impressed by the fact that Jesus chose to go throughout all the villages and towns of Galilee, not picking out one town and set up a ministry there. Paul was sent out by the Spirit, first to Asia Minor, then to Greece and finally to Rome.  Did he evangelize all the areas in between, therefore he needed to move on to the next mission field?

So, I don't think we can build a case that we have to set down a base in one place, overwhelm it with the gospel, then move on to the next area.  

So, being sent, being missional, or whatever we choose to call it, is not what we often make of it.

Final Notes:

Please don't think that I am against serving the poor, oppressed, marginalized, or social justice.  Anyone who knows me will testify to my vision of the rule of the Kingdom in our lives. I believe in righteousness and justice. Righteousness in the individual axis of our relationship with God, and justice is the community or social aspect of our relationship with God.

I don't know quite how to verbalize the disconnect I mentioned above, but I think the issue of the focus of missions/missional breaks down into call and vocation (what we do?), which focuses on making disciples of all nations, and life in the kingdom (what we are?).

The intersection of these two trajectories are summarized in this petition from the Lord's prayer, which says:

10 your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.  (Matt. 6:10)

I think that drives our desire to reach out to the poor and marginalized is because we want to do something significant, to make a difference. My response to this can be best illustrated by something I heard Jim Plueddemann once say, which goes something like this:

We can do something SIGNIFICANT! for God, or
we can do something significant for GOD!

Significance comes in obedience to God, as we seek to serve him. But the answer to how is yes.
Finally, to run missions through a grid like this pretty much pre-defines what the will of God would look like.  It take the worry of faith as well, because you see by sight...

Technorati Tags: missions,missional,culture,great commission,Spirit

Pew Forum Report

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has recently released a report, U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. The report is worth a read for the info that it supplies about the American religious landscape. A lot of it is surprising, and as the report states,

...The Landscape Survey confirms the close link between Americans' religious affiliation, beliefs and practices, on the one hand, and their social and political attitudes, on the other. Indeed, the survey demonstrates that the social and political fault lines in American society run through, as well as alongside, religious traditions.

One section is worth pulling out for consideration:

Most Americans agree with the statement that many religions – not just their own – can lead to eternal life. Among those who are affiliated with a religious tradition, seven-in-ten say many religions can lead to eternal life. This view is shared by a majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including more than half of members of evangelical Protestant churches (57%). Only among Mormons (57%) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (80%) do majorities say that their own religion is the one true faith leading to eternal life.

Most Americans also have a non-dogmatic approach when it comes to interpreting the tenets of their own religion. For instance, more than two-thirds of adults affiliated with a religious tradition agree that there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their faith, a pattern that occurs in nearly all traditions. The exceptions are Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, 54% and 77% of whom, respectively, say there is only one true way to interpret the teachings of their religion.

I can imagine evangelicals and Christians of all stripes bending over this report, concerned about the direction and focus of religion in American (which is basically dropping dogma for spirituality).

There will undoubtedly be many initiatives to stave off and reverse this trend of faith in this country. Lack of faith on one side, and apathy and weak theology on the other is destroying our country, culture, ...(fill in the blank).

The problem is, of course that we see it as our battle, our problem, and probably our fault because Christianity is losing ground. If we can be more faithful, preach and witness more, proclaim the word, people will hear and turn and be saved.

Unfortunately, the problem is that all of this is simply getting in the way of the the work of the Spirit. I see more and more that Christianity in the US is more "Jesus lite."

The battle is not ours, it belongs to the Lord. We do not fight against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers (Ephesians 6:12).

What we have is managerialism imposed on the church, enthralled by systems thinking and programs that do not rest on faith, but reason and intentionality.

Image source:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/images/200708/20070828BizReligion_dm_500.jpg

Technorati Tags: Pew Report,Spiritual Formation

Missionary Conquest

Just about the time you think it's safe to tell someone you are a follower of Christ. I found this game on a website advertising board games, card games, puzzles, and other useful paraphernalia.

The blurb by the company says:

Missionary Conquest

Don't miss this exciting game of laughter and strategy! Travel around the world as a missionary and learn to finance your trips with wise investments. Good decisions and risks are major factors in this wonderful game. No Bible knowledge is required to play, win or to enjoy this game.

I especially like where it says, "learn to finance your trips with wise investments." Of course, "no bible knowledge is required to play, win, or enjoy this game." Just like real life.

On another, more serious note, David Bosch wrote in Transforming Mission,

If the "missionary text" of Greek Patristic period was John 3:16, and that of medieval Catholicism Luke 14:23, then one may perhaps claim that Romans 1:16f is the "missionary text" of the Protestant theological paradigm in all its many forms.

My question is, what is the "missionary text " of the emerging/Postmodern era? I'm not sure what I'd say, but John 10:10 isn't too bad:

"I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full."

Let me know what you think.

Nothing New Under the Sun?

Interesting news article that I found on Yahoo. It seems that the director of the movie Basic Instinct is writing a book.

"Basic Instinct" director Paul Verhoeven will publish a revisionist biography of Jesus in September, following more than 20 years of research.

The Dutch filmmaker, who has had a lifelong ambition to make a film about Jesus based on scientific research, claims that Jesus' father was probably a Roman soldier who raped Mary during the Jewish uprising in Galilee. He also claims that Christ was not betrayed by Judas Iscariot.

Verhoeven decided to write the book to raise interest in his film project. Verhoeven, who turns 70 in July, has been a regular attendee of U.S. scholar Robert W. Funk's Jesus seminars, which question miracles and statements attributed to Jesus.

There are a couple of interesting points here.

First, the qualifications of this person to do this kind of work is...?

1. He is a film maker. Oh yes, that gives him a lot of credibility. What I like especially is that he decided to write the book to raise interest in his film project.
2. He is a follower of Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar.

Please forgive my cynicism, I have seen people with excellent investigative skills whose work is overlooked because they lacked the necessary pedigree, but this is a bit much. This kind of expertise is a Monty Python exercise in logic.

But the part I find interesting is the premise of his book, that is, Jesus was the bastard child of Mary, who was raped by a Roman soldier by the name of Panthera.

According to the discussion, for example, in Mary in the New Testament, By Raymond E. Brown and Paul J. Achtemeier (p262), there may some concurrence with or familiarity with biblical traditions, but these polemics contain little history.

Verhoeven's claim that the Roman soldier named Panthera is probably based on a corruption of the Greek word for virgin (parqenoß), an accusation found in Celsius, and quoted in Origen:

"But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother of Jesus, and saying that “when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;”

But, the book will probably receive it's 30 seconds of fame for its bold and daring premise, and will put Verhoeven along that other great biblical scholar, James Cameron.

Why Architecture Matters

Chapel at Ronchamp, France

I borrowed this title from a couple of articles that I found at the Clapham Institute website, which you can find here and here.

I think the articles are worth a read for several reasons, since architecture reflects the same philosophical and intellectual processes that produce the literature, music, cinema, and the rest of our contemporary culture.

There is also the persistence of modernism with its philosophical underpinnings in architecture, which result in buildings that exhibit an extreme abstraction, that pander to the fetish of technology, marking humanity as alienated, and portray a utopian view of society that sees prior wisdom and tradition as something to be discarded or swept away.

A question posed in the articles is "how, specifically, does architecture fulfill the creation mandate?" The author, David Greusel, states that Genesis gives us the mandate to cultivate and subdue the earth. He says that...

our cultivation of the earth includes not just planting, tending and harvesting crops, but also the creation of our shelter, our garments, and our various arts and sciences. So architecture, the design of space for human habitation, certainly fits this broad range of activities mandated by God.

Greusel says that God is a designer, and design is important to him. God placed Bezalel, a skilled craftsman in wood, metal and precious stones, in charge of the making of the tabernacle, and that he also taught other workers, and Oholiab to assist Bezalel in the design and construction of the tabernacle, its furniture and furnishings. This was after he filled them with his Spirit. To quote Greusel, "So God is not only concerned with our structures, and wit their specific details, but he has given the Holy Spirit to men to create artistic designs." As a result we need to pay attention to how architecture impacts and affects the way people live.

How do designers reflect God as a designer? "The work of the French architect Le Corbusier gives us a case in point. For example, the photo to the right is Le Corbusier's plan for Paris. The Île-de-la-Cité is in the lower right. Notice that the place where Nôtre-Dame sits is empty in his model. Le Corbusier wanted to demolish Nôtre-Dame.

In fact, Le Corbusier wanted to tear down all of Paris and replace it with his Bauhaus-School architecture. He was able to convince the French government to use his designs for public housing in Marseilles. This "stacked ice cube tray" design became the model France used for public housing in the suburbs. What was the impact of this architecture?

Along with torched cars and Molotov cocktails, France's grim housing projects have come to symbolize the discontent that erupted in recent riots across depressed, mostly immigrant neighborhoods (CBS News).

On a more spiritual note, Le Corbusier was asked to rebuild a chapel in the mountain village of Ronchamp, France (see photo above). Charles Downey writes that...

Le Corbusier, a staunch atheist, at first had refused to accept the commission to rebuild the chapel, destroyed during World War II. But a visit to the site and the promise of total artistic freedom in designing the building ultimately convinced him... It was controversial, since a petition against Le Corbusier's chapel went all the way to the Vatican. The work began four years later, with the architect hoping to calm the polemical battle.

In a region with a fairly traditional mindset, Le Corbusier's chapel was received rather poorly. But the residents of Ronchamp today understand that they have a treasure high up on their hill," says Stéphane Potelle, a historian specializing in Le Corbusier, whom he calls "an agnostic architect who was steeped in spirituality.

The key phrase here, of course, is that he was "steeped in spirituality." How does this relate to the issue of God as designer, or how one reflects the idea of God as designer in their work? Is the spirituality of the designer or architect the issue, or is the spirituality that the building design elicits from visitors the point of all this?

Does God give his spirit to men to create artistic designs? Is anything that is done as art have a spiritual quality? Is it assumed that they are done in God's name? Greusel also points out that architects honor God and imitate him by bringing order to their designs. Are we to assume that anything creative is spiritual, reflecting the glory of God? Or is it more that the creative process reflects the divine mandate to create, subdue, and cultivate the earth? Bezalel and Oholiab aside, I don't know too many architects who would own up to this, or theologians for that matter.

Greusel is right, most acts of architecture are substantial public acts, and they impact shared environments as well as the lives of thousands of people. We shape our buildings, but they shape us as well. How do we infuse a witness into our creativity without making it a Sunday morning worship service? There are many cathedrals and churches in Europe built with this thought in mind, and today most sit empty (including Sunday morning) except when the tours march by.

Read Greusel's articles and think about them. It's a good take on the role of architecture, but for me, how do we address this task? How does architecture have a biblical witness?

Life at 60

This cartoon used to be funny.

As you may be able to discern, this is the day of my 60th birthday.
There is supposed to be a party tonight with family, friends, and few others, which will be nice.

Quite frankly, other than a painfully sore back from picking up my grandson, I don't feel much that tells me I'm sixty.


Gerd Lüdemann has published a review of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict's book, Jesus of Nazareth. I know Ratzinger more as a theologian than as a Pope, and although I am not a Roman Catholic, I have respect for his writing and thinking. I wish I could say the same for Lüdemann. He is a prime example of a good scholar who has enshrined Reason as the mirror and filter for his thinking, so much so that his scholarship ends up as a procrustean bed for religion, especially Christianity.

The reason I mention it is that the spring 2007 (34) issue of the Karl Barth Society Newsletter has a discussion on the theology of German theologian Wolf Krötke, who spoke about the "inarticulate, amorphous and diffusely vague" atheism that marks the situation of the church in eastern Germany, a kind of atheism that offers no arguments against God, for it is simply assumed that God is not there. This is the impression that I get when I read Lüdemann.


Anyway, having said all that, just as a way to celebrate another boundary marker, here is a song from my younger days that I enjoyed/enjoy, so take a look and listen.

The Trouble Is...

This cartoon by david hayward (who by his own confession is an artist trapped in a pastor’s body) says what's been on my mind lately. I have been doing my monthly cruise of blogs, and I am somewhat disappointed by the battle that is being waged in the name of Christ.

Way back when, when I was a wee one in Christ, the battle lines were clear: It was the Fundies against the Liberals, we knew who the enemy was, and what they believed, and how they were a threat to those of us who took the bible seriously.

Well, I've gotten over a lot of that nonsense, but the battle still goes on, and only the names of the guilty have been changed so that we know who to gnash our teeth at and bash.

One is either a target or looking for a target. Take for example, this web page from the blog Critical Issues Commentary. The purpose (oops, sorry) raison d'etre for this blog came about because the writer of the blog...

"...met regularly with a group of local pastors, often presenting position papers on timely doctrinal issues. When he found that the messages were accepted by only a few of the attendees and rarely reached the pews, he chose to speak directly to the people by initiating a bimonthly newletter."

The writer of this blog took the scriptures from the various bibles that Rick Warren uses in the Purpose Driven Life and laid them out alongside the same scriptures from NAS Bible. I'm not sure why he did this. Maybe it was to show that even with all the different versions, the word of God still says the same thing?

Or, how about this one from Extreme Theology, where they write

"Those of you familiar with Rick Warren’s writings are aware that this man is a scripture twister. He constantly rips passages out of context, exegetes bad paraphrases and generally proof texts his own ‘made up’ doctrines."

Then there is this article from USA Today that points out that

...Warren is part of the ultra-conservative Southern Baptist Convention, and all his senior staff sign on to the SBC's doctrines, such as the literal and infallible Bible and exclusion of women as senior pastors. Yet Warren's pastor-training programs welcome Catholics, Methodists, Mormons, Jews and ordained women (emphasis added).

Critics of Warren have latched onto this article as ammunition for their assault on Warren, especially the line about welcoming Mormons and Jews. I find it interesting that they lump Catholics, Methodists, and ordained women in with Jews and Mormons. The last I checked, Warren does not offer a special session for Catholic, Jews, or Mormons, everyone goes to the same sessions. So, if Mormons, Jews, and other are attending this training, they are hearing the gospel, no punches pulled. So what is so terrible about that?

I have some issues with Rick Warren, but I think it comes out of my own arrogance, believing that I am more on track with the truth than Warren. I forget that I can at best impact 15 or 20 people a month for Christ, and he has the attention of 10's of thousands. So, how would you present the gospel to that many people? If I did it, the fire marshal would close the place down because of the fire hazard from all the dry material in the place, or at the worst, a repeat of Acts 20v9.

And just so Rick doesn't feel alone, here is a blog that does a take on the theology of Rob Bell in his book Velvet Elvis, or this one about what Rob believes about hell.

Actually, I've read the book, and I am impressed with his handling of scripture, and the insights that he shares, but that doesn't seem to be the view of his commentators.

Then of course, we can't let the day pass without taking out our theological rulers and rapping Brian McLaren's knuckles. Truth War Central has a list of quotes by McLaren, including this sample of "outright heresy":

"I don't think we've got the gospel right yet. What does it mean to be 'saved'?.... I don't think the liberals have it right. But I don't think we have it right either. None of us has arrived at orthodoxy."

As a voracious reader (when my attentions spans allows it), I've seen a lot of this material in it's original context. And I am disappointed by what I read on these posts and blogs. I have no doubt about the sincerity of the writers, but there are some things that bother me. Let me list a few things that I think writers and bloggers need to be aware.

1. Guys (and gals), try to be a little more discerning as you read. Take for example this quote from McLaren that is put forth as unorthodox:

"What if Jesus' secret message reveals a secret plan?".... What if he didn't come to start a new religion--but rather came to start a political, social, religious, artistic, economic, intellectual, and spiritual revolution that would give birth to a new world?"

––Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus, p. 4

I've read the book, and I remember this quote quite vividly, because I thought McLaren was right on target. The way it is presented in the blog makes is look like McLaren is saying something completely different from what he says in the book.

So, try to be a little more discerning. Make sure that you are reporting what the writer/speaker is actually saying, not what you think you hear through your filters and presuppositions.

2. This brings me to the next point. Let's try a little more charity when we discuss things that someone has said or written. Isaiah reports God as saying "Come, let us reason together." God had brought a charge against his people, and now he was calling them to discuss and defend themselves before him. He was calling them TO judgment, not pronouncing it. Don't we owe the targets of our posts the same courtesy?

3. Related to this is the reality that we are our own worse enemies. These attacks do more to debilitate the cause of Christ than any broadside we get from our adversaries. Muslim apologists, for example, take these attacks and arguments as illustrations of the unworthiness of Christianity, and that so much disagreement must prove that it is not true. Let's not give them ammunition for their Dawa.

4. I am also appalled by the ad hominem arguments used in many of these articles. Attacking the person never has a place in the life of the Christ follower, so please, stick to the issue.

5. There is also the practice of impugning motives for the subjects of our posts. It is easy to paint with a broad brush, and it is a good way to vilify someone as well. Be more careful in this area.

6. Finally, a professor once told me (a LONG time ago) that it is easy to attack and tear down, but how will you rebuild it so that it is more viable? I think we need to look at the issue in this context, in order to sort out what really needs to be done. Instead of shelling and bombarding indiscriminately, how do we work to reach out to those whom you think are being lead astray. What about those who have not heard the message of the gospel, or not taken the step of faith that turns them to follow Christ?

Throwing out punches through a blog is not going to be taken seriously by those who do not follow Christ. I use bloglines to track my favorite blogs, and quite frankly, based on the subscriber numbers given when I add a blog, most of us don't have much of a following inside the camp either. So perhaps a little perspective is in line?

We also seem to forget that the Roman Empire was not transformed by a long list of bloggers and writers, but by people, one by one, who lived the Christ life and witnessed to others through their lives the reality of the one they followed and served. Open proselytizing was frowned on, and criticizing the Emperor wasn't the best idea either.

John says that "Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written (John 21v25)." Well, we are still writing about what (we think) Jesus did or didn't do, but we've move out of the libraries and now piling it up on the internet.

Let me finish with another cartoon by david hayward. I once had an old saint tell me that we Christians not only shoot our wounded, we often bury them as well.

I have no doubt that I will get some feedback and flack about this post, but that's okay. I like a good discussion as much as the next person (after all, I've been to bible school, right?).

But don't come after me waving the bible in my face saying how we are supposed to do this or that to defend the faith. I agree, we are to be ready to give a defense of the hope that lies within us, but we are not called to bludgeon others based on some general command Paul gave to Timothy or whomever.

So do your homework, and come, let us reason together.

Management in the Church

In my struggle with modern management theory in the church, I've come across another aspect of the struggle. Interestingly it comes from Max Weber (pronounced Vay-bear), the German sociologist of the 19th century. I want to sketch this out and try to work through the various issues over the next few posts. Herr Professor Weber doesn't get it all quite right, but there are aspects of his analysis of conventional management that I find intriguing.

The first aspect of conventional management, Weber says, is the emphasis on Individualism. This had its start in the Reformation. We are called (beruf) to do a specific work, but we are also called to work hard on our jobs, and to fulfill the obligations imposed on us by our work and place in the world. The upshot of all this, according to Weber, is that the more we are pushed into individualism, the more isolated we become.

The second aspect of conventional management is materialism. The goal of Christianity, according to John Wesley, is to produce industry and frugality. With the movement of management away from its Christian roots, we find the emphasis is now on maximizing productivity (industry) and efficiency (frugality). The end goal is to produce profitability.

This movement toward materialism in conventional management has lead to rationality. Rationality involves calculation and efficiency in order to make the results predictable. Relationships within conventional management are all the means to an ends, i.e., the final bookkeeping entry.

I think the issues are apparent. We want our churches to be significant for the kingdom, but we run them like a business. And we know what the goal of a business is.

There is another tension I find in the church that comes from an analysis of conventional management theory. This deals with the issue of authority. Weber describes three kinds of management categories:

• Charismatic authority—This is belief in the intrinsic gifts of the individual. People respond to this kind of authority because they believe that the individual has a special calling. (Examples of this type of authority include Martin Luther King Jr., Adolf Hitler, John F. Kennedy, Golda Meir, and Jesus. It is people’s belief in the charisma that matters; thus, we can have Hitler and Jesus on the same list.)

• Traditional authority—Belief in time and custom. People respond to this kind of authority because they honor the past and they believe that time-proven methods are the best. (Good examples of this type of authority are your parents and grandparents, the Pope, and monarchies.)

• Rational-legal authority—The belief in procedure or routine. People respond to this kind of authority because they believe that the requirements or laws have been enacted in the proper manner. People see leaders as having the right to act when they obtain positions in the procedurally correct way. (A good example of this type is your professor—it does not matter who the professor is, as long as he or she fulfills the requirements of the job.

The irony is this: Most churches reflect a Traditional style of authority, because this is the way that churches have always been run and managed. However, people look for Charismatic style of authority, because they believe that God will raise up gifted individuals to run his church and lead it deeper into his will.

The final aspect of this tensions is that most churches, while appearing to be Traditional in its view of authority, because of the emphasis on conventional management practice, are actually very Rational-legal in its use of authority. Programs are set up, rationalized so that they are predictable and calculable. No surprises.

What happens is that the Charismatic leader is almost always sublimated and assumed into the process, taking the edge or surprise out of his leadership.

It would be interesting to see what Mr. Hybels or Mr. Warren would say about this.