Reading and Listening

Still getting through "Decoding the Universe". Tom Hanks said it best in "A League of Their Own"; "the hard is what makes it great." This is no easy book to grasp.

Finished "Professor and the Madman". Amazing story, all the more so for being a true story. I spent the entire book saying to friends and family "they should make a movie out of this" only to discover, yesterday, that they plan to.

"The Ongoing Moment" has been set down for the moment. I realized that the nature of the book allows for, and even invites, this. So, I'll be picking it up here and there. Very enjoyable.

"Exiles" is excellent. It's time for Christians to stop fighting for their rights and modeling their lives on the one who "being in very nature, God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." Stop trying to be so powerful. Jesus never tried to be. Instead, speak truth to power and live within the power and love of God.

Finished "Miss Lonelyhearts". If you like Fitzgerald and haven't read West, pick this up.

Read "The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner", a collection of short stories by Allan Stillitoe (Sillitoe?). So good, I can't even describe it. I'm recommending this to Wellington as thanks for his recommendations to me.

Reading the advanced reader of the upcoming Michael Chabon novel "The Yiddish Policeman's Union". His best yet. And that's saying something.

Listening to The Arcade Fire and Ted Leo and Magnetic Fields. How did I miss how good "69 Love Songs" is? I'm picking this up asap.

My co-workers are hilarious

This is just one recent example:

Salvador works as our consignment buyer, which means that any book that is self-published has to go through him for approval. Recently, he approved one titled "How To Talk To Christians" and was getting ready to shelve copies of the book. Another co-worker, Paul, asked him "Salvador, what section should these go in?"

Without missing a beat, Salvador smiled and said, "Foreign language."

I don't care who you are or what you believe, that's funny.

A Quick Note on Previous Entries

I have already written a blog on the church and homosexuality and the church and state. I feel the need to make a quick comment concerning the bringing together of all three.

While I don't believe that people should engage in homosexual relationships, I think how much the church has to say about it should stop at the voting booth. If I think racism is wrong (and I do) it doesn't mean I think racists shouldn't be granted a marriage license. Even though that means that they might have kids and raise them to think racism is ok and so on.

The church can make it's own decisions about who it wants to marry. The state should grant equal rights to all its citizens.

Reading more than listening

Yes, I usually make this an every Friday thing, but I've jumped ahead on my reading. Not just because a few of my most recent selections were shorter (though that helps), but because I tripped down the stairs two nights ago and have been convalescing. Reading is about all I can do.

I finished "What Jesus Meant" and found it very rewarding, enjoyable, and enlightening. I look forward to reading Willis' follow up, "What Paul Meant".

I also finished "Envy". I won't say that Sweeney steered me wrong, but I didn't love it. It reminded me of other brilliant writers that I don't enjoy, in particular Henry Miller. The premise works, but quickly turns into a series of fever dreams that may or may not have happened and to no great consequence. Call me old fashioned, but I tend to like a plot, even if it is just a brother and sister having a conversation.

"Decoding The Universe" is slow going, but fascinating.

"Professor and the Madman" is speeding by, and also fascinating.

"The Ongoing Moment" is equally fascinating, and has no particular speed.

I have picked up two more books, both of which I am enjoying a great deal:

"Exiles" is written by Michael Frost, and is a call to Christians to embrace the end of Christendom as an opportunity to live as the rabble rousers Christ called us to be. It is a reminder that we weren't meant to align with the power brokers of this day or any other, but to seek out the marginalized and show them the love of God.

"Miss Lonelyhearts" is written by Nathanael West, the man who might have been F Scott Fitzgerald if he hadn't died so young and written so little. "The Day of the Locust" is his classic work, but "Miss Lonleyhearts" is equally excellent.

Ignore What The Signs Say: The Church and Homosexuality

The church is homophobic.

This may be THE hot issue of the six listed. Given that, I will promise to proceed carefully and thoughtfully, and you will promise to give me the benefit of the doubt in any areas that might be confusing.

First, a definition of “homophobic”. Webster’s defines homophobic as “prejudiced against homosexual people.”

By that definition, I would say that both Jesus Christ and biblical teaching are opposed to prejudice against any group of people. So, there’s a few directions that takes us.

First, an acknowledgement that the church, in small and large part (given the time and place in history), has not always followed Jesus Christ and biblical teaching. The Crusades are an excellent example of something the church got behind that I feel confident in saying Jesus would not have.

What that means is that members of the church (Christians) have harbored (and do harbor) prejudices against people based on ethnicity, religion, etc. This doesn’t mean that they should (in fact, as I’ve just stated, I believe Jesus teaches that they shouldn’t), but that they do.

Second, a realization that the concern in the statement “the church is homophobic” isn’t simply about certain members who might be, but that all members might be required to be. In other words, people may feel that they need to stay away from the church, because the teachings of the church and of the Bible are homophobic.

This is not true. Many churches understand that they are meant to show Jesus’ love to everyone, and live according to that understanding.

Here’s where this gets tricky. Many churches and many Christians (myself included) would make a distinction between a homosexual preference and homosexual activity.

I can already feel this breaking down as I write it, and it makes me want to stop. Instead, we trudge forward and give each other some grace.

I don’t mean to speak in terms that sound detached or cold, but this needs to be nuanced in order to be understood. Stanley Hauerwas once stated that “no normal person can be heterosexual or homosexual for more than 3 or 4 hours a week and still hold down a job.” His point was that our sexuality isn’t meant to define us so completely. I am much more often a husband and a father and an employee and so on, than I am a heterosexual. The conversation can get (and has gotten) confusing when we make our identity about our sexuality.

This is not to say that we are meant to be Gnostics or that sex is bad or that God only created it so that we’d go through the rather dreary work of making babies. If you’ll note a previous blog post of mine, you’ll find that I think sex is rather fantastic, all the more so because I am a Christian. What I am saying is that, practically speaking, sex is about action more than it is about overall identity.

This is important to note, because of a rather unpopular Biblical teaching, that homosexual practice is a sin.

A few things, before we go any further.

1) Not all Christians believe that homosexual practice is a sin or that the Bible teaches that it is. See my former blog for more on the difficulties of Biblical translation.
2) I am one of those Christians who does believe the Bible teaches that homosexual practice is a sin.
3) Many Christians make homosexual practice into a greater sin than greed or pride or even pre-marital or extra-marital heterosexual practice.
4) I am not one of those Christians.
5) Too many Christians make their beliefs about homosexual practice into a prejudice and hatred toward homosexual people.
6) I am not one of those Christians, and believe that hatred toward any people is a sin. If we were ranking sins, I’d certainly rank hate a bigger sin than homosexual practice.

What Jesus did teach (though not using this phrasing exactly) was to “love the sinner and hate the sin.” I hate the sin of lying, but I don’t hate liars. I hate the sin of pride, but I don’t hate the prideful. I hate the sin of greed, but I don’t hate the greedy. I hate sexual sin, but I don't hate those who engage in it.

But too often, too many Christians find that they’d rather not parse that out. So they just hate it all, the sinner and the sin. They carry signs at funerals that read “God hates fags.” Nothing could be less Christian, nothing could be less like Jesus. If you’re wondering “what would Jesus do” that isn’t it.

Some would (and will and do) say that simply naming homosexual practice as a sin IS an act of prejudice and hate, that you can’t love the sinner and hate the sin, because calling this sin IS an act of hate.

Obviously, I don’t agree. And I hope those who know me know that I don’t hate homosexuals. That’s all I’m going to say about that, not because it isn’t important, but because this isn’t meant to be a “but I have gay friends” defense. I do, and I hope they know I love them.

The fact is that the Bible does speak pretty clearly about this. There are other issues (see my next blog post on women in the church) where what the Bible seems to say and actually says can be different (not everyone would agree with me about that), but I don’t believe (after much careful study) that this is one of them (not everyone would agree with me about that either).

What I would say to those who say that the church is homophobic is this:
1) The church isn’t taught to show hatred toward any person. In doing so, they are not acting as the church
2) The church does believe the Bible is a story about who God is and what He is about, about what His desires are and how we can live in better relationship with Him
3) The Bible states clearly that our pursuit of sin makes our pursuit of God more difficult
4) The Bible states that homosexual practice is sin
5) Good, faithful, Christian people have read the same Bible and disagree with me on #4
6) Which means I could be wrong

I don’t say “I could be wrong” as a postmodern cop out or because I am shaky on my beliefs. But to approach an issue as hot as this with any humility is to understand that you could be wrong. To understand that we’ve been wrong before on slavery and on women and on racism. I don’t believe that this is the same, but I’m willing to hear from those who do. Because I could be wrong. And if I am, I don’t want to be.

I hope this sheds some light on a hot topic. Our churches are meant to be places where people can feel a sense of belonging and security. Anyone made to feel less than that because of what they do (even if it is a sin) isn’t experiencing what the church ought to be. We may challenge each other and even call each other’s actions as sin, but we must do so in the same spirit of love that Jesus did. We must do so with a consistent approach to sin (not just sexual sin or homosexual sin) and a consistent love towards sinners (not just the sinners whose particular sin happens to be the same as ours).

When the teachers of the law brought to Jesus a woman who had committed adultery, he had two things to say to her; “I do not condemn you” and “go and sin no more”. He showed her love and called her out of sin. The church can do no less and no more.

Reading and Listening

I finished I Am Legend. It's fantastic. It ends just like it should, a rarer thing than ought to be.

My current stack of reading material is by my bed as I write this. It is:

Decoding The Universe -Charles Seife. This has been on my list for the longest amount of time. It's heady stuff, and not to be cruised through. As accessible as physics gets which, for me, is still difficult to sift through.

What Jesus Meant -Garry Willis. Excellent book of devotional reading, not unlike Shusaku Endo's Life of Jesus. Very accessible, very short, and very good.

Envy -Yuri Olesha. An Adam Sweeney recommendation. He has yet to steer me wrong. This book is great fun, a chance to engage the Russian writers without having to commit to 700 pages.

The Professor and the Madman -Simon Winchester. Winchester's written all sorts of award winning non-fiction. This is about how the Oxford English dictionary was created. It sounds dull. It's not. One of it's main contributers (more than 10,000 entries) was WC Minor, who was also criminally insane.

The Ongoing Moment -Geoff Dyer. Another Wellington recommendation (his have been more recent, but just as consistent as Sweeney's). This is a look at canonical figures of photography. Since I know as much about photography as I do about physics, I look forward to working my way through it.


I am listening to Bruce Springsteen's Devil's and Dust a lot. I'm struck by how amazing this album is. Jesus Was An Only Son is an amazing song, and particularly striking as Good Friday draws near.

Also listening to the new Ted Leo and Andrew Bird. Both excellent. Leo is angrier (lyrically and musically) than he has been of late, Bird is as interesting and pleasant as ever. Both of these are great. I'm also taking in the Robert Pollard (Guided By Voices) solo work. It's great.

That's what I got this week. I'll probably have Envy and What Jesus Meant knocked out by next week. I'll let you know how they were.

"What Is (Literal) Truth?": The Church and The Bible

For part 2 in the six concerns raised by Dan Kimball’s They Like Jesus, But Not The Church, I’m going to go a bit out of order. I do this because concern #2 (the church’s view on homosexuality) and #4 (the church’s view on the role of women) both hinge (hopefully) on the Biblical view. While one can (and many do) disagree as to the Biblical view or whether to follow the Biblical view, is another issue. Those who are Christians, typically, base their beliefs, practices, and conduct on their understanding of the Biblical text. Because of that, I feel that it makes sense to deal with concern #3 (the church’s view of the Bible) before #2.

To begin, it is important to ask whether the book holds up as a trustworthy document. By that, I don’t mean does the story hold up or does one desire to live by it, but are the documents themselves reliable. Because of this, I refer to sources that deal in the historical accuracy of documents and not theologians. To say that the Bible is a reliable document because the Bible says it is, is what we call circular reasoning. So…

In his book, Can I Trust My Bible?, R. Laird Harris concluded, "We can now be sure that copyists worked with great care and accuracy on the Old Testament, even back to 225 B.C. . . . indeed, it would be rash skepticism that would now deny that we have our Old Testament in a form very close to that used by Ezra when he taught the word of the Lord to those who had returned from the Babylonian captivity."

In his book, The Bible and Archaeology, Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, stated about the New Testament, "The interval, then, between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."

To be skeptical of the 27 documents in the New Testament, and to say they are unreliable is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as these in the New Testament.

All that to say that the documents were written at the time we say they were written and by those we believe have written them. Paul, who wrote the oldest parts of the New Testament, lived and wrote and died as the documents show that he did. A man named Jesus existed and had disciples who went on to tell his and their story and, eventually, wrote it down.

Now the question becomes, do we believe their story? For most Christians, the answer is “yes”. The only other options are that they all had multiple shared hallucinations (an unheard of occurrence, psychologists will assure you) or they chose to perpetuate one of the greatest hoaxes in history (also unlikely, given how many of them were killed for telling this story). For these reasons, reasoning Christians believe that the accounts of Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection are accurate and literal accounts. The issue is, of course, one of faith, but it is not a blind or unreasonable faith.

This then gets into whether most Christians take the entire Bible literally. The fact is that I have never met a Christian who takes the entire Bible literally, even if they claim to. If you meet a Christian who says they do, they would have to be telling you so from behind bars, since that’s where they would be after having stoned their children for disobedience.

Others would claim to take the New Testament literally, but not the Old Testament, given that Jesus Christ established a new covenant and set of laws when he came to earth. I would agree and disagree with this. Jesus, quite clearly, reworks laws concerning Sabbath, adultery, dealing with enemies, and so on. But he also calls himself “the fulfillment of the law”. He means to say that the law is his to reinterpret, but that we are still called to live as God’s people, not killing or lying or stealing or so on. Caring for the poor and the widow and the orphan.

So, what parts of the Bible do Christians take literally? I’d say that Christians are meant to take those parts literally that were written to be taken literally. They are meant to discern and allow for different styles of writing. If Solomon writes a love poem (as he does in Song of Solomon) where he says that his love has breasts like towers, we are to understand that this is figurative language and not that his love is horribly deformed. I believe (and many Christians would disagree with me) that we are also meant to read the Creation account this way. The account is written in poetic language and before a 24 hour day had even been established. The idea that the world was created in 6 literal days is not one that I have to believe in order to be a Christian. I believe that the truth meant to be conveyed through this account is that God created the earth and everything in it and created human beings in His image, in order to be in relationship with them. I believe there are important truths in the Creation account, but not all literal truths.

On the other hand, the gospel accounts of Jesus are not written in poetic language, but as literal histories. Exceptions would be (see how tricky this gets?) when Jesus tells stories called parables, which are told sort of like fables, and not meant to be taken as literal accounts. However, the general story is written in the way one might write a history or give personal eyewitness accounts (as most of these writers were). As such, when a writer tells us that Jesus rose from the dead, we are meant to take that literally. The idea that Jesus died and then came back from the dead is one that I have to believe in order to be a Christian.

As you can see, this is no simple task, the Bible wasn't written as a simple handbook for life for a person to digest in one sitting. There are clear truths that appear throughout the Bible (God is good, Jesus is Lord, man should live in obedience to God and was meant for relationship with God) and more difficult to discern truths that take intense study. As Ned Flanders once shouted to God in frustration "I obeyed the Bible, even the parts that contradicted the other parts".

Not only that, but then we approach the Bible with our own history and bias, which is why it is so important to be a Christian within the context of community. We are called to work out our salvation “with fear and trembling” and, I believe, part of that is how we discern what the Bible has to say about who God is and who He calls us to be. We are also called to be led by the Holy Spirit in our discernment. This is also tricky, since the Spirit seems to lead some to certain conclusions and some to others. The important thing is to approach the text with humility and an awareness and acknowledgement of our history. Then we attempt to have Christ be the lens with which we view the Bible, seeking to do what falls into line with his command and example.

This can get tricky and good people can (and do) disagree. We’ll see this in the next two posts. The important thing is to remember that it is not our complete and perfect understanding of the Bible that saves us, but our willingness and desire to accept Jesus as Savior and follow him as Lord.

The Church and The State: Religion and Politics

#1 in the Dan Kimball list:

• The church is just organized religion that is politically motivated.

Not to sound like a weasel, but "yes and no".

It really depends upon the words "just", "religion", and "political". I'm not trying to pull a "that depends on what 'is' is", but these words can be loaded and need to be unpacked.

Let's start with political. Webster's defines political as "of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government". When Jesus spoke the words "the Kingdom of God is at hand", I believe that he meant a new Kingdom was coming and a knew conduct of that Kingdom, a new politics, if you will. That said, I don't believe that Jesus came to overthrow the government. In fact, the three things most Israelites were looking for in a Messiah (overthrow of enemies, reestablishment of land to the Israelite people, and prosperity and riches), were all things that Jesus didn't do. When Jesus' disciple, Peter, pulls Jesus aside and tires to explain that a Messiah isn't supposed to suffer and die, but overthrow and rule, Jesus says "Get behind me, Satan, you do not have in mind the ways of God, but the ways of men."

Many Christians today, unfortunately, still think that Jesus exists to destroy their enemies, give them back their land (America is a "Christian" nation, after all), and make them prosperous and rich (see the best-selling "Prayer of Jabez"). Unfortunately, this isn't what Jesus teaches or talks about when he talks about the Kingdom and the politics of the Kingdom. He talks about healing of hurts, bringing good news to the poor, showing justice and mercy. He blesses those who mourn and calls his followers to bring comfort to them. Theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer states that "when Christ calls a man, he calls him to come and die." This is the politics of Jesus, a politics of sacrifice and mercy, conducting ourselves as Christ did and living as citizens of his Kingdom. Loving our enemies and putting God above all, this is the politics of Jesus. In that sense, the church is political. It is not, however, meant to ally itself with power and position itself in a place of prosperity. We are not called to endorse political parties or even countries. We are meant to live in the world, but not of the world, connected to culture, but not corrupted by it. When the church and state get in bed together, the thing most likely to be produced by their union is the anti-Christ. That doesn't mean that Christians don't have a certain code of conduct of politics, but that it is defined by Christ and cannot be captured by any earthy government or political system.

Religion gets us into equally tricky territory. Webster's defines religion as "the service and worship of God or the supernatural; commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance; a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices; scrupulous conformity; a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

The service of worship of God is absolutely something the church is about. It was something Christ called us to and practiced himself. Likewise for a commitment to faith and a call to certain attitudes, beliefs, and practices (this takes us back to Kingdom conduct and politics) such as "love your neighbor" and "love the Lord your God". Even conformity is something we are called to; Christ sets himself as the cornerstone that all others must be shaped around. We are called to conform to the image of Jesus Christ and to no longer live as our old selves.

I'm not sure any of these things actually concern or turn of non-Christians. They may not agree with everything we believe or even believe in Jesus as Lord, but their objection to "religion" isn't about that. From what I can tell, it has more to do with rules and regulations that have been imposed by us and not by God. Ways of dressing, talking, and behaving that we insist are "Christian" but don't look much like Christ.

A BookPeople anecdote, if I may. When I first started working at BookPeople, there were those who seemed surprised (concerned? baffled? wary?) by the fact that I was a Christian and, even worse, a pastor. However, as they got to know me, one shared sentiment kept coming up. At least five different people said to me "it's weird, you don't seem like a Pat Robertson type."

Any of you that know me know that I could only take this as the highest of compliments. I am not trying to be a Pat Robertson type. I'm trying to be a Jesus type. I fail at it a lot, but I'm trying.

But lots of Christians (Pat Robertson, to name one) insist that being a Christian means being "a Pat Robertson type". And, I am convinced, this is what non-Christians mean when they say that the church is "organized religion that is politically motivated". They've seen too many TV preachers who are.

Finally, there's that word "just". "Just organized religion". Even by the best definition of religion ("belief and practices shaped by God") and of politics ("conduct based upon citizenship in God's Kingdom"), the church isn't meant to be "just" beliefs and practices and conduct. If I am married to Rachel, I live by certain beliefs and practices and conduct ("Rachel is worth marrying", "I share meals with Rachel", "I don't date women besides Rachel") but I do so in order to have a rich and rewarding relationship with her. Without the beliefs, practices, and conduct, the relationship suffers and dies. Without the relationship, the beliefs, practices, and conduct are meaningless.

Jesus came in order to draw us into relationship and in order to restore relationship between us and our Father and our fellow man. He gave us a new citizenship and a new way to live, but he did it all because he loves and cares for us. He calls us to follow him, because he knows where we ought to go.

I hope that makes some sort of sense. Feel free to respond, one way or the other.

They Like Jesus, But Not The Church

I mentioned, in a recent post, that I just finished a fantastic book called "They Like Jesus, But Not The Church" by Dan Kimball. In it, Kimball responds to the increasing number of people who would echo the words of Gandhi "I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ." Kimball then peppers the book with bits from informal interviews between himself and non-Christian friends. He wraps the book up by putting forth 6 reasons that non-Christians are most wary of the church. They are:

• The church is just organized religion that is politically motivated.
• The church is homophobic.
• The church takes the entire Bible literally.
• The church represses women.
• The church is judgmental and negative.
• The church arrogantly think all other religions are wrong.

What I'd like to do is address these in upcoming blogs. I'm bound to have some top ten lists and random comments thrown into the mix, but I hope to share some of what Kimball has to say, what I have to say, and what I believe the Bible has to say about these 6 concerns.

I should add that I plan to add something to the conversation, not that I plan to respond with the end all be all comment that will make such conversation unnecessary.

And that I'll feel free to debate and correct myself.

I'm hoping for some lively discussion. Stay tuned.

Hosea and Gomer, Father and Sons, God and Me and You

Some highlights from this past Sunday. We started off with a brief overview of the story of Hosea and Gomer. Hosea was a prophet, called by God to marry an unfaithful wife. Hosea's story is so earthy and sad and his relationship to Gomer is meant to reveal the relationship between God and humanity. At one point, Gomer goes so far as to become a prostitute and Hosea must do more than take her back, he must buy her back, like any other john. It is a humiliating look at forgiveness. God who sent His Son, Jesus, to pay the price for us.

We listened to a song by Pedro the Lion (Of Minor Prophets and Their Prostitute Wives) as we watched a series of sketches by Anna Grainer. Everyone found the sketches to be very moving. The line that stands out in the song (a love letter from Hosea to Gomer and God to man) is "I treated you as if you were my princess, you treated me like a cop."

Went from there to look at the story of the Prodigal Son. A younger son asks his father for his inheritance, so that he can go live the life he always wanted. The father grants the request.

Interesting to note, the inheritance would have been land, family land, a part of oneself. The son would have had to sell this part of himself for money, just like Gomer does.

The son goes and squanders his money. His party friends disappear. He's starving. He decides to head home to see if he can get hired on as one of his father's workers.

When he is still a long way off, the father comes running to him. Another humiliating act of forgiveness in a culture where fathers would never have shown such disregard for propriety. The son is welcomed back into the family.

We listened to Truman sing the song Wedding Dress, which reflects on Gomer and the young son and acknowledges that we're all whores and prodigals. That we all need to put on Christ like a wedding dress. That we're all still tempted by "lovers less wild" than Jesus.

In the end, we celebrated the Lord's Supper (really celebrated, not just said "and now we celebrate..." in a solemn voice), treating the bread and the wine as the feast they are meant to be. We hugged each other and offered peace to each other and sang Amazing Grace together.

It was a good reminder of who we are as people and who we're called to be. Whores and prodigals, willing to sell ourselves out for the next good time, called home by a loving Father who wants nothing more than to celebrate our return and reinstate our positions as sons and daughters.

Reading and Listening

Finally through many that I've been reading. Finished Blindness and The Brothers K and Any Human Heart. All excellent.

Started a new crop of books yesterday. What Jesus Meant by Gary Willis, which is off to a great start. I Am Legend by Richard Matheson, an obvious influence on Stephen King and the best vampire book I have ever read (so far).

Striking thing from Blindness that I missed the last time through is how often they refer to the situation of the characters as hell. This was fascinating, especially considering my sermon topic of a week back. The book is about an epidemic of contagious blindness and the resulting government internment of those who fall victim to it. One part in particular really stood out. Saramago is describing how the blind travel in packs "like a flock of sheep" living in fear of being left behind. None of them want to be the lost sheep because "they knew no good shepherd was coming."

If that isn't a definition of hell, I don't know what is. And the Kingdom of Heaven is its opposite. The good news that a good shepherd is coming and has come. An unwillingness to leave anyone behind.

OK, I got off topic a little there. Read Blindness. It's fantastic.

This week was my week to meet Truman Jack Williams and a fast friendship was formed. We have bonded over much, including a love for music. When I discovered his intense love for The Police (a band I have always enjoyed in a "greatest hits" kind of way). I gave them a second look.

Ghost in the Machine by The Police is amazing. Each song hangs on those that proceed and follow it. Each song stands alone. It is everything an album should be. I don't know how I missed it.

I'm listening to Big Star and Chris Bell and my good friend, Andrew Rosas, who reminds me of both. Listening to Rosie Thomas (see review from earlier in the week) and The Pixies B-Sides collection. Nothing new, although new stuff is coming this Tuesday. Most excited about Andrew Bird. The tracks I have heard are fantastic.

But the most exciting thing I've been listening to is an advance release of Sky Blue Sky by Wilco. Comes out in May. Nice to not have to wait.

Saw the movie Premonition today. Should have skipped it. Sandra Bullock does really well with a really flimsy film.

That's it kids. Today is Rachel's 31st birthday, and I'm off to take her to dinner.

Peace.

Immanuel: New Friends, Old Friends, Family and So On

Last night was just one of those great nights. A group of 13 people gathered in our living room to pray for awareness of the needs and hurts of others and a conviction to do something about it. Lots of those great "just being together" moments that we call fellowship. An amazing time spent sharing communion with each other. and a spontaneous burst of singing led by Harry ("Jesus Loves Me" really is a great song) that the entire group seemed to really enjoy. As I looked around at our 3 new folks, our frequent members, the two couples who helped get us started and my wife and my son, I gave thanks for this thing called church. When it's done right, it's the best thing on earth.

These Friends of Hers: An Album Review

I've always liked Rosie Thomas. When other reviewers likened her to a third-tier performer at a Lilith Fair festival or called her an only slightly more complex Norah Jones, I have been quick to come to her defense. Her voice is sadder and sweeter and richer. Her lyrics are deeper and fuller. I am, in a word, a fan.

However, I have always felt that what Rosie begins strongly she simply continues doing until the last few tracks on her albums become forgettable. While I own all of these albums, I've been waiting for her to record one that stays consistently interesting.

She did. And it turns out all she needed was a little help from her friends. The title, the title track, and the dedication all serve to remind the listener that Rosie had some assistance on this one. Not that she hasn't had help before. Friends have made appearances on past albums, and Ed Harcourt showed up on her "If Songs Could Be Held" album to sing duet vocals on a cover of "Let It Be Me" (a song that has been covered plenty and did not need to be covered again).

The friends that she alludes to on the album "These Friends of Mine" are Sufjan Stevens, Denison Witmer, Damien Jurado, and David Bazan (just to name a few). The liner notes describe a series of phone calls, dinner table conversations, and living room recordings.

But without the title, the song, or the liner notes, we'd have known something was different. This album is more fun, more alive, more electric in spite of its acoustics. The spirit that anyone who has attended a Sufjan Stevens show can attest to is present all over this album.

And yet, it is still Rosie's album and would be better understood as "Me and These Friends of Mine". While she couldn't have done it without them, they most certainly couldn't have done it without her. Norah Jones or Sarah McLachlan weren't going to gather these guys into one room and record something nearly this good.

Rosie's voice is as charming as ever and her lyrics as heartfelt, but the songs are consistently distinctive in a way that she has never been before. "If This City Never Sleeps" and "All The Way To New York City" offer up a picture of the Big Apple that is sweeter and less seedy than I've always imagined it to be. Standout tracks like "Much Farther To Go" carry a weightiness that is more substantive than burdensome. Even the covers are better. Rosie and Sufjan's reworking of "The One I Love" by R.E.M. aches in places that the original never did.

So, cheers to Rosie. She made the album I always knew she could make and she wasn't afraid to get a little help doing it. "These Friends of Mine" serves as a testimony to her talents as well as the testimony to friendship and community that she means for it to be.

One Last Thought On Hell (For Now...)

It came to me as I was preaching this sermon on hell that, if we preach "the Kingdom of God is at hand", we don't have to preach on hell. While hell alone carries with it only condemnation, the Kingdom of God carries with it a warning as well as an invitation, a choice between being less than human and being fully human. One makes it seem as if our last chance is gone, but the other continues to offer one more chance to accept salvation in Christ and citizenship in His Kingdom. While one seems to focus only on the when we die, the other deals with both the now and the not yet. If we will be people participating in and declaring Christ's Kingdom, we can be about simply loving the hell out of people.

Communion Thoughts

Matt, one of our Immanuel members, said something this week that will stick with me. He was talking about Christ's sacrifice and about the Lord's Supper and said "What Christ knows is that He is the only human being to every be completely whole. Unlike the rest of us, who are God's image, but broken. And so, instead of demanding we become whole like Him, something we are incapable of doing, He was broken for us, so that we might be made whole in Him."

Great stuff. Thanks Matt.

What Makes An Album Great?

I've read reviews about what made particular albums great, but I've never read what the criteria for a great album would be. I'm not looking to turn this into an equation and I get why Robin Williams tore the Pritchard pages out in 'Dead Poet's Society', but I'm curious to hear from you, nonetheless.

Is it a certain number of tracks? How many duds is an album allowed before it can no longer be great? How much does being unique have to do with it? How important is melody vs. lyric?

Or is this really just like the thing about pornography "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it"?

Thoughts?

Hell Pt 2

I realized late last night why this topic had been so hard coming, why it had been so difficult a truth to speak. See, most of the time I preach, I preach truths that I need to hear. It makes it easier to speak hard truths, because I see my own need to hear them and can speak out of empathy. But this week I was seeing things from an “I’m in” vs. “they’re out” perspective.

And therein lies the problem. I was ignoring what Jesus said right before this parable. I forgot who he was talking to.

Jesus chastises the religious folks because they think the fact that they aren’t suffering means that they’re getting things right. They figure they’re in with God simply because they believe in Him and don’t have anything else to worry about, unlike the Gentile outsiders who still risk God’s punishment. Jesus makes clear that this isn’t the case. God isn’t looking for believers, He’s looking for followers. He’s looking for us to produce good fruit.

So this sermon is for me and the church folks as much as it’s for anyone. The Kingdom of God is at hand, it is breaking through into our current reality. And if we’re just sitting around and waiting for the end to come, figuring that our belief is enough, we may have a surprise in store. We are called to be disciples, not believers, we’re called to follow Christ, not just call him “Lord, Lord.”

So, what fruit are we producing? How is the world a better place as a result of our being here? Who, outside of those who are currently a part of this community, would have their world and their lives impacted if we were suddenly gone? How are we going about making sure that the Kingdom is spreading on earth as it is in heaven? What are we doing to combat hell?

Because hell isn’t just about what happens when we die, it’s what results when we try to live without Jesus. It’s what results when we pay his name lip service, but don’t join in his service. Heaven is about the Kingdom and the Kingdom is about mission. It’s about faith the size of a mustard seed that grows into something huge. It’s about the love of God that spreads through a city like yeast in dough. It’s about bearing good fruit, fruit that gives life and hope to those it is offered to. It’s about so much more than simply believing we’re “in” and resting in that hope. It’s about going out and taking the love of Jesus to a world that is broken. It's about feeding people who are hungry and ending slavery and battling addiction and confronting injustice and befriending those who are lost and lonely. It’s about being an outpost and signpost of heaven in a world that is bent on hell.

The Good News of Hell?

The lectionary is a funny thing.

For those not familiar, the lectionary was compiled some time ago as a way for churches to track through the Bible and capture the entire story of what it means to follow Jesus. Those who follow the lectionary (like myself) preach whatever text is given by the common lectionary that week. It's a way to stay connected to the story, to stay connected to the church at large, and to stay free from an agenda that might cause you to focus on certain truths of scripture while avoiding others. It forces "hellfire and brimstone" preachers to speak on love and grace.

And, of course, it forces preachers like me to preach on hell. This week, the common lectionary handed me a passage right out of the "if you died tonight, would you be saved" handbook. And I don't want to preach it. But I can't not. It's in there.

So, what does a preacher do when he doesn't want to preach the truth he's been given. I'm looking for insights. Joe? Adam? What do you guys do?

My college professor of preaching said that all sermons have gospel in them, all of them have good news. I heard once that "the good news of hell is that God gives a damn." I sense the truth of that, yet hesitate to preach it.

And it's Friday. And Sunday's coming.

Thoughts?

Reading and Listening

I don't have much to report on the reading front. Finished a few from last time (Kimball and McKinley), still working on some (Saramago, Duncan, and Boyd) and picked up and am in the middle of one new one (Henri Nouwen readings for Lent). To be fair to myself, most of my reading material is either long or dense or both. All fantastic, though.

The exception is one book that I picked up this week and finished in one sitting. John Sellers "Perfect From Now On: How Indie Rock Saved My Life" is a short and not always sweet take on music. Sellers is opinionated, but it a way that you tend to want from music writers. I prefer Klosterman, but Sellers is a great fix until the next Klosterman offering.

As a result of Sellers' book, I am listening to a lot of Guided By Voices, Pavement, The Smiths, Silver Jews, and so on. This was a week for making mixes, so I've been listening to a lot of stuff, but the repeated highlights have been:

Slanted & Enchanted and Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain by Pavement
Bee Thousand by Guided By Voices
American Water by Silver Jews
The Queen Is Dead by The Smiths
Surfer Rosa by the Pixies

If you're looking for definitive albums by these artists, these are my picks for their best offerings.

Enjoy!

Acting My Age

You Are 31 Years Old

Under 12: You are a kid at heart. You still have an optimistic life view - and you look at the world with awe. 13-19: You are a teenager at heart. You question authority and are still trying to find your place in this world. 20-29: You are a twentysomething at heart. You feel excited about what's to come... love, work, and new experiences. 30-39: You are a thirtysomething at heart. You've had a taste of success and true love, but you want more! 40+: You are a mature adult. You've been through most of the ups and downs of life already. Now you get to sit back and relax.

What Age Do You Act?

Mix Ideas

I'm looking for mix themes and I'm looking to you. Leave me a one word or short phrase theme, and I'll attempt a mix. I will burn you said mix, if it turns out to be any good.

And...go.

Are You My Father?

Harry has a lot of favorite stories. A lot of them would be familiar to you, because they are books you read or had read to you, when you were a kid. Harry likes Curious George, Clifford the big red dog, The Hungry Caterpillar, Dr. Seuss, and so on.

One of the books we read is a story called “Are You My Mother?” In the story, a newly born bird wakes up to find that it is all alone. He begins to move through the world asking various animals, and if they are his mother. Eventually, the bird goes so far as to ask a giant crane (machine, not animal) if it is his mother. The bird gets caught in the crane and finds itself in very real danger.

You may wonder why I would start off a blog with a book report on “Are You My Mother?” But I was reading a Bible passage this week that, for the first time, had the feel of folk tale and fable. But, like most folk tales and fables, the underlying message goes much deeper.

The passage begins with a fox. In many cultures, the fox appears in folklore as a symbol of cunning and trickery, or as a familiar animal possessed of magic powers. In Chinese mythology, fox spirits lure men away from their wives. The Chinese word for fox spirit is synonymous with the mistress in an extramarital affair. In Japanese folklore, the fox-like kitsune is a powerful animal spirit known for its highly mischievous and cunning nature. Wikipedia says of foxes that typically, they are solitary, opportunistic feeders that hunt live prey.

In this story, the fox is Herod.

At that time some Pharisees came to Jesus and said to him, "Leave this place and go somewhere else. Herod wants to kill you." He replied, "Go tell that fox, 'I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.' In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day—for surely no prophet can die outside Jerusalem!

As he shows up throughout Luke’s history of Jesus, he is every bit the fox, always looking for a chance to pounce, to consume, to seize an opportunity for himself. A new teacher and prophet (an possibly more) with a reputation for miracles and wonders would be just the kind of person Herod would want to meet and, quite probably, harm.

But the Hebrew understanding of the word fox would have been two fold. On the one hand, the fox could be a creature that was deceptive and sly. But the Israelites also used the term fox to imply that a person was weak, inept, or a pretender. The Hebrew use of fox was often in opposition with the lion, the lion being strong and brave, the fox being a pompous pretender and upstart.

This double meaning would have been clear to the Pharisees and should be clear to us. Jesus wasn’t simply accusing Herod of being an opportunist, he was accusing him of being a nobody. When Jesus hears that Herod wants him dead he, in essence, says “go tell that fox to keep chasing his tail. I have work to do.”

And the work that Jesus has to do is the other half of the passage, and introduces the character of the mother hen. This is perhaps one of the most unusual and compelling images Christ could have chosen for himself. Why not the eagle? Why not, if we’re talking about foxes, the lion? Isn’t that the obvious choice? But Jesus stops, looks over Jerusalem, and weeps. He knows what is coming and he says these words:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you. And I tell you, you will not see me until the time comes when you say, "Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord."

What a powerful image. A maternal image. A mother hen that wants nothing but to protect her chicks from prowling foxes. But the chicks are scattered and do not recognize their mother. Many have even gone so far as to look for protection from the fox.

Today the world has changed, but humanity’s predicament is still the same. People move through the world in search for something more, not knowing who their Father is. Out of a desire for safety and security they put their trust in themselves, in their relationships, in their stuff, or in the rulers of this world. As long as they promise to protect us, we will give our allegiance to them. But Jesus cries over us and reminds us that it his job to save us and protect us, often from those who we’ve made our protectors.

Jesus says that anything or anyone who promises to save you or protect you is a pretender. Only He can give us the love and protection we need. Only He can save us.

This week I went online to see what it looks like when a hen gathers her chicks to protect them. The image I had imagined was one of a mother hen hunched over a group of chicks, her wings wrapped around them, hunkered down. But the image I found in photos, again and again was of a mother hen, her wings outstretched, with her chicks gathered behind her. She leaves herself exposed, knowing she will die protecting her children.

That is the image we are left with. Jesus with his arms outstretched, dying so that we can live, calling us to get behind him, so that he might save us.

As we move through this season of Lent and towards a remembrance of Jesus’ death on the cross, we are called to put our faith in Him and not in the foxes we might follow. We are called to seek Him as our only source of protection and salvation. And we are called to bring His message of salvation to a world full of people who don’t know who or what to put their trust in, a world of people who’ve forgotten who their Father is.

The Good Examples of Strong Women

Today, Harry and I were wrestling around and rough housing and flexing our muscles and so on and he was pretending to hulk out and acting generally tough.

He then ran out of the room, only to return a second later, running into the room and shouting "I am as big and strong as a woman!"

This threw Rachel and I for a second and then I said, "A woman?"

To which he responded "A woman. Like mommy."

So, today I thank God for the strong women in mine and Harry's life. Especially the example of his mommy.

Reading and Listening

So, I'm one of those guys who has to read 2 or 3 books at a time to appease my ADD tendencies. Usually, this works out great. But, lately, I find myself picking up more books to read without having finished the others. This list will include some old and some new as a result. Currently on my nightstand (where all current reading goes):

Brothers K, Decoding The Universe, and Any Human Heart. All from previous entries. All very good.

Blindness by Jose Saramago. This is a re-read for this month's "New & Noteworthy" bookclub, which I co-host at BookPeople on the last Monday of every month. Blindness is one of my top 10 novels. On the surface, it is about a contagion of blindness that breaks out in an unnamed city. It is about so much more. Pick it up.

This Beautiful Mess by Rick McKinley. For you Donald Miller fans, McKinley is the pastor that Miller is always quoting. Very insightful guy, and just as readable as Miller.

They Like Jesus, But Not The Church by Dan Kimball. If I could put one book in the hands of most of the church leaders, planters, and members that I know, it would be this one. It is a wake up call and a call to arms. It is so much of what I have experienced during the past 2 years in Austin. Ask someone what they think of Jesus and their response will be benign to exceedingly positive. Ask them what they think of the church...let's just say that the most common response from co-workers at BP upon hearing that I was a Christian and a pastor was that I didn't remind them of Pat Robertson. I took this as a compliment (as any sane person would), but when did he become our spokesperson?

That's 6 books, for those that are counting. I'm flying through McKinley and Kimball and have to have Saramago done within a couple of weeks. Should have a whole new crop very soon.


Listening to:

Late For The Sky and The Pretender by Jackson Browne. How did he write these two albums back to back? His two best, in my opinion. They ought to re-release them as one album (16 tracks altogether). If you haven't heard 'Before The Deluge' or 'Sleep's Dark and Silent Gate', you haven't heard Jackson Browne.

Below The Radio by Grandaddy. This isn't actually a Grandaddy album, but a mix compiled by Grandaddy's lead singer. Harry's current favorite album, which I don't mind a bit. Tracks from Fruit Bats, Beck, and even Grandaddy themselves. Harry and I sing 'Nature Anthem' when we go on walks together. People either smile or run.

American Recordings V by Johnny Cash. I don't mean to be maudlin, but this is like listening to Johnny draw his last breaths. It's sad and hopeful and dark and everything else that is Cash. It hurts to listen to, but I love it.

I See A Darkness by Bonnie "Prince" Billy. Speaking of dark. This album is so spare and rich all at once. Billy's best and one of my desert island discs (if I didn't list it, it was an oversight). David Bazan and Will Johnson are still trying to write this album.

Half Right The Whole Time

I got talking with a buddy of mine tonight about Calvin, The Reformed Church, and Calvin's "5 Points" (no light subject matter for us, thank you). While I feel ill equipped to wrestle Calvin, I think it's worth sharing (at the very least, for the sake of discussion) what I think about these 5 points. In a nutshell, I think Calvin is half right the whole time.

Total depravity
Also called "radical depravity" and "total inability", this point means that every person is corrupt and sinful throughout in all of his or her faculties, including the mind and will. Thus, no person is able to do what is truly good in God's eyes, but rather, everyone does evil all the time. As a result of this corruption, man is enslaved to sin, rebellious and hostile toward God, blind to truth, and unable to save himself or even prepare himself for salvation.

While I agree with the second part, I disagree with the first. Man is sinful, he is rebellious and, even if he wasn't, he'd still need God. No man has ever been good enough and that is one of the reasons why it was necessary for Christ to come and die. However, not good enough isn't the same as always bad. Even mostly bad isn't the same as "not capable of ever being good". Calvin doesn't allow for the tension of being created in the image of God and being a fallen creation. We are capable of doing good, but we don't do it near often enough. We get disobedient and hostile and end up falling the same way every human has since Adam and Eve. But we aren't born evil and always evil, or we couldn't claim to be made in God's image. And, even if we did manage to be perfect, in the sense of never sinning, we would still need God. You can keep your lungs perfectly clean, or damage them with cigarettes, but you'll need oxygen to breathe, either way. The idea that we need God simply because we are sinners doesn't hold water for me.

Unconditional election
Election means "choice." God's choice from eternity past, of whom he will bring to himself, is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in the persons he chooses but rather is unconditionally grounded in his own sovereign decision.

Calvin takes the idea of God's choosing us to say that God is choosing very specific ones of us. I don't see it. I believe that God's plan is that all might be saved. Again, Calvin doesn't allow for tension. Yes, God has a plan, is omnipotent and omnipresent. But He builds free will into His plan. So His plan is to share paradise with humanity. But free will allows for the possibility that they might choose not to share it with Him. They can both be true. If I plan for my son to be a Christian and work to make that happen and nurture an environment where it is likely to, but still allow him free will it means that he still might not become a Christian. That doesn't mean it wasn't my plan, it means he didn't go with my plan. I could tie him to a chair and brainwash him into being a Christian, but that would negate his free will. Something I'm not willing to do to my son and that God isn't willing to do to His children. While I believe God may have specific plans for specific ones of us, I believe His plan in regards to all of us is that we might be saved.

Limited atonement
Also called "particular redemption" or "definite atonement", the doctrine of the limited atonement is the teaching that Jesus's atonement was definite and certain in its design and accomplishment. It teaches that the atonement was intended to render complete satisfaction for those and only those whom the Father had chosen before the foundation of the world. Calvinists do not believe that the atonement is limited in its value or power (if the Father had willed it, all the people of all generations could be saved), but rather they believe that the atonement is limited in that it is designed for some and not all.

See previous.

Irresistible grace
Also known as "effectual grace", this doctrine does not hold that every influence of God's Holy Spirit cannot be resisted but that the Holy Spirit is able to overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible and effective. Thus, when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved.

I'm not sure what to make of this one. God can do whatever He wants. He can break down our resistance. He can remove our free will. He can make time go backward and make the Fall never happen. I just don't see that being what He did or will do. Yes, I get confused by passages that talk about God hardening Pharoah's heart and recognize, in my confusion, that God can alter people from within against their will. But I think this is the exception, not the rule (I also think that said passages may not, in fact, be saying that at all). I think God longs to be in relationship with us, to offer salvation to us, and to reveal Himself to us. But I think that the free will He offers us can make that a difficult process. I don't think God is limited except in the ways that He chooses to limit Himself. And I think this is one of the ways.


Perseverance of the saints
Also called the "preservation of the saints" or "eternal security," the fifth point teaches that those whom God has called into communion with himself will continue in faith until the end. Those who apparently fall away either never had true faith to begin with or will return. This is slightly different from the "once saved, always saved" view prevalent in some evangelical churches in which, despite apostasy or unrepentant and habitual sin, the individual is truly saved if he or she had truly accepted Christ in the past; in traditional Calvinist teaching, apostasy by such a person may be proof that they never were saved.

I will say it again...free will. I don't think a man can be good enough to become a Christian and I don't think he can sin enough to stop being one. But I do think he can make the conscious choice to enter into a relationship with God through Jesus Christ and then choose to no longer follow Christ. I have met people who have done it! Just one of those people was a youth minister from the church where I grew up. At the time, he believed (unless he was the world's most talented actor) that Jesus was the Son of God. He now travels the world declaring that he has proof that Jesus was just a good teacher who went on to have a wife and kids and so on. It would be wrong to say that he is a Christian now or to say that he wasn't one then.

Now before my fellow theologians drop on me to heavily, let's remember to speak the truth in love and that a lot of my thinking on a lot of this is a work in progress.

OK. Let's dialogue.