Looking Through Norton's Telescope

The 44 Day Tail That Wags The 4 Year Dog

2008-01-08T18:38:00.000-06:00

For months now, the New Zealand media has bemoaned the World Cup failure in Cardiff. The All Blacks' quarterfinal exit was a shock to the nation. McCaw & Co., just a few months ago, were destined to finally end the drought and bring William Webb Ellis back home. Now all is lost.
As an American, I cannot fully understand the obsession with the World Cup. The only sport that we are as infatuated with, as the Kiwis are with rugby, is American football. Whatever one might say about baseball as the "national pastime," the NFL is the league that gets all the dollars, fans, and viewers. No significant international competition exists for football, and if it did, the Americans would wipe the floor with the opposition. Besides, American passion for international sport is low. Our victories do not mean as much, because we have several hundred million citizens, the best facilities, and the most corporate bucks to help our teams succeed. On that level, I cannot understand the typical All Black fan's angst.
I still think that the Kiwis are going overboard. They put too much stock in the World Cup, given the distortion that occurs with quadrennial competition. A quick comparison with the NFL, shows the problems.
How fair is it to compare rugby and American football? They are interestingly similar. The physicality and attrition rate is significant. (American football seems to be worse on the body. The average NFL career is only 3.5 seasons according the NFL Players Association website.) Both are games that require good coaching and team cohesion. In football and rugby, individuals must fit inside the team and the coach's system. Both sports have a high risk of injury and a high need for coordination and practice. A team takes years to hit on all cylinders. Thus, the need for cohesion is high, as is player turnover rates.
To show the similarities in turnover rates, take a look at New Zealand and the New England Patriots. The All Blacks team that lost in Cardiff had 10 of 22 players in the lineup who were there four years ago to lose in Sydney. If the Pats make the Super Bowl this year, they will start 7 of the 22 who played in Super Bowl XXXVIII against Carolina. The rate of change is similar.
Being so similar, what would it look like if the NFL went to a championship every four years? (The comparison is silly and only good for a hypothetical discussion. Each year the NFL rakes in billions with its season and Super Bowl, and would never go to a different schedule. Rugby could never hold a World Cup every year. The expenses would be huge. Adding up the population of all 10 major rugby nations (Six Nations, Tri Nations, and Argentina), one gets about 290 million people. Italy and Argentina provide a sizable chunk of that number and few of their citizens watch rugby. Those 290 million people support 10 test sides and 60 club/super teams. The United States supports only 32 NFL teams and has a population over 300 million and many more advertising dollars. Travel distances in international rugby can be up to 11,500 miles (Auckland to Paris or London) whereas the biggest NFL plane ride is Seattle to Miami, ca. 2,700 miles (less than a quarter the distance). A yearly World Cup would be too expensive, and demand too much from fans financially. For better or worse, a world champion can only be crowned every four years.)
In a few weeks, the 42nd Super Bowl will take place. Adding up the Super Bowl champions, the picture currently looks like this:
5 Super Bowls-Dallas Cowboys, Pittsburgh Steelers, and San Francisco 49ers.
3 Super Bowls-Green Bay Packers, New England Patriots, Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders, and Washington Redskins.
2 Super Bowls-Denver Broncos, Indianapolis/Baltimore Colts, Miami Dolphins, and New York Giants.
1 Super Bowl-Baltimore Ravens, Chicago Bears, Kansas City Chiefs, New York Jets, St. Louis Rams, and Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
If, however, the NFL were to only hold a Super Bowl every fours years, with Super Bowl I the first, and then Super Bowl V the second, and so on, the results change drastically.
2 Super Bowls-Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts, New York Giants, and Pittsburgh Steelers.
1 Super Bowl-Denver Broncos, Green Bay Packers, San Francisco 49ers, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and Washington Redskins.
The difference is significant. The great Dallas Cowboys of both the 70s and 90s are left out all together. Pittsburgh gets two of its titles, but if the cycle were adjusted by a year or two, they too would get none. Joe Montana wins no rings, but Steve Young gets one with the 49ers. The recent Patriot dynasty disappears and even a win in this year's Super Bowl would do them no good. Green Bay and Washington only get one victory and classic NFL teams like Al Davis' Raiders and Don Shula's Dolphins get nothing. Conversely, some mediocre teams rise in prominence. The New York Giants get to keep both of their championships, as do the Colts. Perennial contenders like the Skins, Niners, and Broncos get as much attention as the one and done Bucs. Think about players and coaches. Peyton Manning is no longer the choker who finally got it done. Brady, Staubach, Favre, Walsh, Montana, Namath, Landry, Allen, Ditka, and on and on all are left with no championships. The greatest Super Bowl QB of all time would be Phil Simms.
The history of the NFL would be vastly different. All of the great dynasties are lessened, and several less important teams look dominant. The very same thing is happening in rugby. If the World Cup happened every year over the last twenty the All Blacks would certainly have at least ten in their trophy cabinet. The successes of South Africa and Australia would be occasional. Just look at the Tri Nations victors over the years. If one took the combined 240 months that have occurred during the World Cup Era, it is unlikely that the All Blacks were not the best team for more than 40 of them.
The four-year cycle distorts history. It amplifies one short period with little reference to other years. The All Blacks are not in a drought. Just ask the Red Sox and White Sox what a real drought is (more than 80 years with annual championships). Rugby is a game that can be greatly affected by injuries, refereeing, and weather conditions. Bookies make money because the best time often loses. When something as important as world championships are decided in the period of 44 days, statistical irregularities are due to happen. That is all the All Blacks' failures are: statistical oddities. Is some choking going on? Sure. Do the players need to just play instead being buried by the weight of the situation? Yes.
This is not likely to happen, however, as long as the fans and media continue to look past repeated success year in and year out and only look myopically on three percent of history (44 days out of four years). The Grand Slams, Lion sweeps, Super Titles, Tri Nations victories, and Bledisloe Cup conquests are significant. They show a New Zealand rugby union that is stronger than any other in the world. Just look at the Irish salivating over a guy like Rua Tipoki, who never made a dent with the All Blacks. He might be the best player of the entire Heineken Cup. If one looks at the grand scale things in New Zealand are going well. The only blight on the record is that little trophy that has put the whole world on its ear.

'72 Dolphins-Shut Up!

2007-12-31T15:57:00.000-06:00

Let's get one thing straight: the Patriots this year have demolished the Dolphins' perfect season. What they have done in '07 is far and away more impressive than what happened in '72. Brady and co. are in a different league.
Before I continue, let's agree to not get into the "who would win if they played and both were in their prime" hypothetical nonsense. We have two different eras, sets of rules, referring standards, etc. No doubt today players are bigger, faster, and better paid than back them. I don't want to go into who would win a magical match up. I just want to look at the cold hard numbers.
Though it is a bit redundant at this point, let's think about the records that have been set. Most consecutive wins in one season and over several seasons, check. Most QB TDs, check. Most TDs by a WR, check. Best QB TD to INT ratio, check. Most points in a season, check. Most TDs in a season, check. Greatest overall margin of victory, check. Not only have the Patriots set these records, but the Fins of days gone by didn't get close to many of these records.
More importantly, the Patriots have played a far more difficult season. The stats show that the Patriots have dominated far better teams. Note, these numbers are all self contained within the '72 and '07 seasons, so I am not comparing across eras. Here's the numbers.

'72 Dolphins:
-Composite Record of Opposition Teams (not factoring division opponents twice): 51-86-3 (.375)
-Composite Record of Opposition Teams (factoring division opponents twice): 70-122-4 (.358)
-Opposition teams with winning records: 2 of 10 opponents
-Played 0 of the 7 other play-off teams.
-Played 2 teams who finished one spot out of the Wild Card

'07 Patriots:
-Composite Record of Opposition Teams (not factoring division opponents twice): 108-100 (.524)
-Composite Record of Opposition Teams (factoring division opponents twice): 120-136 (.469)
-Opposition teams with winning records: 7 of 13 opponents
-Played 6 of the 11 other play-off teams
-Played 2 teams who finished one spot out of the Wild Card

Maybe the most significant stat is this: 6 of the Pat's opponents have a better winning percentage than the best Fins opponent from 1972. In other words, almost half of the Patriot's foes are more successful than the best team that the Fins beat.
The numbers are some what staggering. Miami played a bunch of bottom dwellers. Sure, New England got to play a woeful 1-15 Dolphins side twice, but they also played 6 teams with double digit wins. Only two of the '72 Fins opponents could have reached 10 wins had the season been two games longer!
Many of the old Dolphins have been pretty good about the new perfect season. Some seem to really not care. Even though they are somewhat gracious, you can hear their pride kicking up. They seem to be saying, "New England, welcome to the club!" Sorry, but the Pats are in their own league.
Garo Yepremian is the one who has caught my eye. He said, "I remember Sir Edmund Hillary was the first one to climb Mount Everest. I don’t remember who did it the second time. Do you?" Couple of things, Garo. One, you're a kicker, so shut up. Two, the only reason anyone knows who you are is because you threw the ugliest interception in the history of the NFL because of a boneheaded attempt to be a hero, so shut up. Three, this metaphor is idiotic, so shut up. We don't know the second to Everest because they repeated what someone else did. The Pats topped you, they didn't repeat what you did. Sorry, but 16-0 against teams that win 52% of their games is a lot better than 14-0 against teams that win 38% of their games. A little math lesson, Garo; 16 is bigger than 14 and 52 is bigger than 38.
I think a better metaphor might look something like this: the Dolphins did something equivalent to running a 5K in 12 minutes. The Pats ran a 10K in about 24. Both are significant and deserve praise. I love Shula, Griese, and all those guys and they did something that had never been done. The numbers, however, don't lie. They won less games by a far smaller margin against far weaker opposition. (Remember, all these assertions are made within self contained seasons, not comparing across eras.) Ten bucks is great, but twenty is better. The Pats have done more, plain and simple.
What the Dolphins should do is just be quiet. They did something great, but the gig is up. 35 years later they have been topped. Be quite and respectful. Hank Aaron is a great example. If anyone has lost a record that should still stand it is Hammerin' Hank. You don't see him making a fuss, trying to convince us he is great.
So Garo, be more like Hank, and just shut up!

A New Reason to (Dis)Trust Congress

2007-12-30T18:28:00.000-06:00

Something happened this week that has never happened to me before. Something that I wrote my congressman about actually happened. I voiced my concern to an elected official and something got done. It was quite remarkable.
The whole NFL network thing came to a head this week. As most folks who care anything about sports know, the NFL allowed NBC and CBS to carry last night's Patriots and Giants game that was doomed to NFL Network only coverage. Apparently some folks in Washington dialed up the commissioner, dropped the word "antitrust" and things got fixed pretty quick.
Is this a great win for democracy? No. To be fair, I have over exaggerated a little. I didn't really write my congressman. I got an e-mail one day from www.iwantmynflnetwork.com (a site run by the NFL to help them hock their channel). It asked me if I was annoyed that I didn't get the NFL network on basic cable (I am). It then said to enter my zip code and it would send spam (I'm sure they used a nicer term) to my congressman. Given my desire to have the NFL 24/7, mostly for the dozen games they air every year, I was happy to oblige. I got some spam in return from the congresspeople and I figured that was that.
I've also left the false impression that I know who my congressman is. I don't, though I am pretty sure he is a congressman and not a congresswoman. Even if I did know the chap's name, having moved here less than a year ago I haven't voted for or against him.
Furthermore, I don't know who put the screws to the NFL, but I don't think any of them were from Tennessee. It also should be noted that I actually spamed them about the cable companies being jerks, whereas Washington came down on the NFL in this whole debacle.
So what am I happy about? The fact that Capitol Hill has actually done something that has made my life better. Frankly, I can't tell you much of anything that happens in Washington except name calling and sending people overseas to be blown up or to blow up others. For one wonderful evening, I actually could say that those bozos we pay the big bucks to gesticulate at one another did something to improve something.
It seems Congress is good and sticking their noses into sports. Recently, with some of the pushing of McCain and some others, we got the Mitchell Report. For those who have avoided ESPN in the last month, this is a lovely little document that finally points the finger at some of the cheats that have been lying to us all with their HGH and steroids. Maybe it makes me a bad person, but I enjoy Barry Bonds going to jail and Roger Clemens hiding from the media. For once these millionaires are getting called onto the carpet. Who didn't like McGwire squirming in front of a Senate Committee meeting?
So, if I add up all the ways I think Washington has improved America in the last few years I'm left with the Mitchell Report, last night's game, and a endless fodder for the Daily Show and political cartoons. It really is pathetic. We have wars, epidemics, hunger, an environmental breakdown, and a horrible health care system and the best our elected leaders can do is Brady on the boob-tube and Bonds behind bars. I guess something is better than nothing.

Race and Rugby

2007-06-10T11:47:00.000-06:00

As you may or may not know, the New Zealand national rugby team is called the All Blacks. Fran and are big fans of the All Blacks. They are very good, have a great tradition, and play an entertaining form of rugby. Occasionally I will wear an All Blacks shirt around Memphis and you can tell that some people don't know what to do with it. The team name comes from the all black uniforms the team wears (or a misprint from "they play like they're all backs" depending on who you ask), yet the immediate thought is that I am making some sort of racial statement.
However, race and rugby is still alive. Particularly in South Africa. Like New Zealand, the South Africans are rugby nuts. In many parts of the country it is considered the national sport. The Springboks are the one team that probably deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as the All Blacks. But there have been issues.
South Africa couldn't compete in the first two Rugby World Cups because of apartheid and competition bans. They finally got through that, but questions have persisted. They have suffered through scandals involving players mistreating black players and have had various quota programs to insure black players make the squad.
The latest fiasco involves a guy named Luke Watson. Luke's dad was some sort of anti-apartheid fighter back in the 80s and made quite a few enemies in the rugby world. Luke is a great player, captain of his provincial team, and thought by many to be one of the best in the country at his position. Yet for a long time he got no where near the Springboks. Most folks put two and two together. The coach, Jake White (what a name for a guy in that spot), has claimed over and over that Luke is not selected because he is too small to play international rugby. You can decide whether to believe that or not.
Recently the Boks picked their team of 30 men and submitted the selections to the SA officials. The list came back approved with a 31st man. Luke Watson. The union tried to make it look like they weren't going to put up with any more of the bigotry etc. The most ironic part being that Luke eventually made the squad, but took the place of Kabamba Floors and exciting player who also is undersized. He also is one of the few black players on the team.
Thus I've gone to calling the South African team the "All Whites." (Sorry NZ soccer, I know that is your deal.)
New Zealand is an interesting contrast. They have added a lot of Polynesian talent over the years to the squad. Currently there are 6-8 guys on the squad who were born in Samoa or Fiji. They are a great example of bringing racial harmony to a squad and being the better for it. (This ignores however the problem of rugby rich NZ snapping up so many great players that could be playing for the relatively weaker Samoa and Fiji.)
I write about all of this because the issues of race and sport are interesting to me. What does SA do? Do they play weaker players just so that they have racial balance? From what I understand the black population is more interested in soccer, so there just aren't as many black rugby players as there are white ones. It isn't like NZ where the really talented Pacific islanders are everywhere. But then again, maybe the black kids aren't playing rugby because there aren't any black guys playing it on TV.
What about the US? Does it bother us when we have an all white team (I think ye)? does it bother us when we have an all black team (I don't think so)? I don't think anyone would care if USA basketball took no white guys. Why not? Because maybe the most talented team is all African Americans. However if I said the same of say the USA hockey team being white it would be racist whether it is true or not. Shouldn't we just let the best guys play?
The answer may lie in a society that wants to nit pick. We want to hang someone out to dry, because being critical sells papers and picks up an audience. SA is a case where White and the union have no good option. Include players like Watson and Floors and they are pandering to a political scheme. Don't include them and you are a bigot. It is all a big mess and will be for years to come.

That's too _______ for My Liking

2007-04-28T07:15:00.000-06:00

I think we too often do not allow for overlap in ideas. I recently finished a paper on 1 Peter 3:1-6, instructions to wives. One of the main scholars involved in the discussion of that passage is David Balch. Mr. Balch has set up this framework where the OT and Jesus' movement in Palestine are pictures of egalitarian bliss. On the other side, the Hellenistic philosophers were chauvinistic jerks who preached the domineering of women. The text of 1 Peter suggests that he is adopting the Greek approach.
At first I started to go with Balch, but I now find him very lacking. His view of the Old Testament is significantly skewed. His understanding of Jesus actions is idealized and unrealistic. But the worst part of his approach is his inability to see overlaps. He will say "this code contains this element, which is also Greek, so he is Hellenizing Jesus' message." Well, what if Jesus message and the Hellenistic ideas were not mutually exclusive?
It seems to be a problem for many of us. Ideas are conservative or liberal. Modern or postmodern. If I had a nickel for every time someone said, "that is such a liberal thing to say," or "that's a modern idea." What they mean is "that comes from a perspective I don't like, so its false." However, stating the source of an idea in no way affects the truth of the statement.
Let's take an extreme situation. Surely if anyone is reliably unreliable it is Satan. However, as most Bible readers are aware, the Devil's temptations in Scripture are almost always based in some sort of truth. When he told Eve that she would be like God, he was telling the truth. In a way. People are no different. If someone said, "There is one God," most Christians would agree. Does the truth of the statement change if that comes from the mouth of a Jew or Muslim. No.
The truth is that most things worth believing and holding on to are not unique to the Christian thought world. They may be fuller or more realized, but they are not unique. Resurrection, love, caring for the poor, etc. are found in other places.
Yet we continue to suggest that if someone gets an idea from somewhere other than us then it is wrong. I am often asked why Church of Christers don't celebrate Christmas. Let's be honest with our answer. "It's too Catholic." We don't want to lift holy hands because "It's too Pentecostal." Sometimes I wonder if we would give up acappella music if more of us knew that it was the choice of Orthodox Christianity.
Source and validity are not synonymous. In fact, they are completely unrelated. If we understood that, things would go much better.

Let's Talk About Sex Baby...

2007-04-27T13:14:00.000-06:00

Now that the Mary Winkler trial is about a week in the rear view mirror, I want to discuss a little of what went on there. Obviously, our perspective is very limited. We only know what the media reported from what the lawyers presented. It seems obvious though that something significantly sad was occurring. The marriage had some severe problems. Many of those problems were sexual, based on what we've heard.
First of all, it seems Mr. Winkler had some sort of textual appetites that were a little less than Christian. Like many men (dare I say most?) in the Church the lure of pornography had creeped its way into his life. No doubt this is true of many more preachers who keep that secret in their sock drawers or on their hard drives. Pornographic material is a serious cancer in the Lord's body today. Apparently, it led him to ask for and engage in behavior with which his wife was not alright. This shows a lack of love and understanding for her.
On the other side, it seems that she had a particularly strict view of sexuality and wifely submission. I don't know (nor want to know) what Mr. Winkler wanted to do in bed. The characterization of Mrs. Winkler, however, seems to suggest that she might have been a little more prudish than the average wife. Again this is all conjecture. What seems a little more clear is that the submissive attitudes of the family seemed to fit a patriarchal, oppressive model. She felt that she was incapable of being heard or disagreeing with whatever her husband wanted.
Why do I mention all of this? I think we need to start talking about sex more in church. Christians have sex and enjoy it. Certainly, some of them even enjoy being innovative in the ways that they go about it, within the context of marriage. Why do we feel the need to make it unspeakable? Furthermore, why must Christians approach it in a Victorian, proper, tea and biscuits while watching cricket sort of way? I don't want play by plays on Sunday morning of what the Smiths do on Saturday nights, but I can't see why its so hush-hush. Maybe if our children were allowed to learn about sexuality and its affect on relationships things would be better. Maybe less boys would get hooked on porn. Maybe if we taught engaged couples about how to discuss sexual activity and how to loving and respectively explore sexual activity we wouldn't have domineering husbands demanding activities that sheepish wives detest but can't say no to. And is there no place for counseling and sharing bedroom struggles in Christian contexts? I can't help but wonder if her murder trial was the first time that Mary Winkler ever talked about her sex life with anyone but her husband.
I also have another disturbing, but important question. How did the ancients teach their children about sex? I can't help but wonder if sex within the family was far more open in the ancient world. If you live in a two or three room mud hut how much privacy can parents get? When and how do you think Jesus was introduced to sexuality? You want to see Christians squirm? Just ask them about anything that requires them to understand Jesus as a sexual being in his time as a human.
The way I feel that the Church approaches sex tends to make it a shameful thing. Your parents do it, but they don't want you to know they do. Its in the Bible, but we'll gloss it over with euphemisms. Teen classes my discuss NOT doing it, but any mechanics we largely leave to fifth grade health classes.
Now all this said, I have no interest in discussing anything personal with you nor do I want you asking my wife about our relationship. I am part of the problem, and am not real interested in becoming part of the solution, at least if it requires my own activities to become public.
I don't have answers on how to approach everything. Maybe it needs to start with how we deal with kids. Is it possible that telling children about their "wee-wees" and "mommy and daddy things" need to become discussions of penises (is that the plural?) and sex. "But if I told my child that he might say something in public!" Oh no! Then the world would know that you are trying to teach our kids about a fundamental part of humanity in a responsible way at an early age. At the very least we need to be able to show our children that it is healthy, normal, and godly. Otherwise I fear that the sin and shame that those natural desires turn into can spiral into the marital chaos that is too familiar in our churches.

The Ugly In Us All

2007-04-20T09:27:00.000-06:00

Well, in the face of several things that have really hit home this week, I have been thinking a lot about nonviolence. I find that when I see something really violent happen I have two thoughts:
1-How could anyone hurt someone else like that.
2-If I got my hands on that person, I would hurt him worse than he hurt anyone else.
No matter what I want to think, I am just as capable of violence as anyone else. Now don't go and call some sort of therapist and get me locked up. I'm not saying I enjoy violence. What I am saying is that most of us, in the right circumstance, would be capable of amazing things. If my wife was held for ransom, I would do most anything to get her out. Where I to have a family member killed, I probably could do some pretty nasty things to the guy who killed them. I can say all I want that I believe in "turning the other cheek," but when it comes down to it, in certain emotional situations I don't know how much Christ has really changed me. My gut emotions remain the same. In fact, I still like watching good guys kill bad guys on TV. I can try to kid myself and say "But that is different," but it is still me desiring the death of someone else, fictional or real.
That is about all I'm going to try to explain. I just want to leave you with some lyrics from Derek Webb's Mockingbird album that have really been shaping my thoughts.

My Enemies Are Men Like Me-
i have come to give you life
and to show you how to live it
i have come to make things right
to heal their ears and show you how to forgive them
because i would rather die
i would rather die
i would rather die
than to take your life
how can i kill the ones i’m supposed to love
my enemies are men like me
i will protest the sword if it’s not wielded well
my enemies are men like me
peace by way of war is like purity by way of fornication
it’s like telling someone murder is wrong
and then showing them by way of execution

King and a Kingdom-
but nothing unifies like a common enemy
and we’ve got one, sure as hell
but he may be living in your house
he may be raising up your kids
he may be sleeping with your wife
oh no, he may not look like you think

In God We Trust-
in God we trust
so we fight for peace and He fights for us
in God we trust
even when He fights us for someone else
in God we trust
even when He looks like the enemy

Love Is Not Against The Law-
and it’s giving up your life
for the ones you hate the most
it’s giving them your gown
when they’ve taken your clothes
are we defending life
when we just pick and choose
lives acceptable to lose
and which ones to defend
‘cause you cannot choose your friends
but you choose your enemies
and what if they were one
one and the same
could you find a way
to love them both the same
to give them your name

How Grapes Got Me To Grow Up

2007-04-18T08:05:00.000-06:00

I might have been the biggest kid to ever sit in a preschool and kindergarten class. I was well into first grade, and I had no desire to move on. Yeah, the chairs in the class were a little small, but I didn't care. I wasn't ready for the big time. Some of the older kids, who I thought were mean, were in that class and I just wasn't interested in spending any more time with them than I had to. Besides, at this point I had pretty much mastered the curriculum for the younger class, having been through it a time or two. I was always the smartest in the class.
My mom begged and pleaded with me to move on. Frankly, I think it was a little embarrassing. I wasn't as bad as the kid that threw a fit every time his mom took him to class (and that happened through like middle school), but I was still not advancing as I was supposed to.
I remember the 1st and 2nd grade teacher and my mom trying to convince me. I was pretty sure that I had made the right choice and they were going to get nowhere. And then the teacher said, "Next week we are going to talk about Caleb and Joshua." Suddenly, my interest was tweaked. That sounded good. My next door neighbor was named Joshua. We played together. I felt a little incentive to at least give it a try. (Besides, she gave them in the proper order. Caleb should go first, he stood up first.)
Now this may have seem like a boring, needless story to pass on to you. The reason I wanted to write about it comes from our chapel speaker yesterday. He was asking what is different about believers that grew up in church and unbelievers that did as well. He suggested that it was a matter of those certain experiences that made you feel like you belong and God wanted to use you.
For me that class was probably the first of those moments. Maybe it is silly to feel empowered just because you and your buddy have the same names as some OT spies, but for a first grader that was important. If a Caleb long ago could spy out a land, see giants, and then be such a leader for God, there is no reason I couldn't do the same. (Since then I have become far less interested in spying and giants.) What I'm saying is that for the first time it ceased to be a story time and became a suggestion that I could be involved with God's work. This was a big thing that I could be a part of. I guess you could say that it was my first taste of the Kingdom of God.

The Stepford Church

2007-04-14T07:21:00.000-06:00

This may be the dumbest thing that a youth minister has ever done. Rev. Melody Taylor of the Germantown Unite Methodist Church has been running a 44 hour lock in. For years. For an article see here:
http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/faith_and_values/article/0,2845,M
CA_25342_5483156,00.html
I can't imagine. I've done about 12 hours before, and I was ready to die. This is like 4 of those in a row. I worked with a guy who had a tee-shirt that adequately sum up my feelings: "Lock Ins are of the Devil."
I guess it has been working well for Melody, but I've never seen much out of a lock in. Sure, the teens like them, but they are murder. The planning is difficult. The lack of sleep kills you for the next several days. Then there are all of the safety concerns and the need to make sure that couples are leaving room for the Holy Spirit in whatever dark crevice of the church building they find for making out. I may sound a little over cynical, but teens have actually died in these things. Well, at least that is what Stockstill told us at HU when suggesting that we really need to be "locked in" and not capable in getting out, jumping in a car, and getting in a fatal car accident.
I just can't help but wonder how much spiritual growth can happen when everyone is in hour 36 of a lock in. I also can't help but wonder how much spiritual growth happens in youth ministry at all. The cynic in me is rather strong this morning, so read on only if you can handle it.
Listening to the responses of the teens in the articles I couldn't help but feel like this was a press release. One of the really phony ones. It seemed just too happy and ideal. The teens experienced "wacky games, rockin' Christian music, yummy food, hilarious skits, creative worship, and a party on Saturday night." One teen responded "It's great to be able to fellowship with church members in an exciting environment." I'm sorry, but that sounds like some of the college recruitment stuff that I used to receive where the college looked like a place where students hugged each other and broke out in devotional songs at an given moment in a field of freshly popped flowers. I can't help but feel like I'm being sold something, and that something is not being sold honestly. What teen, that hasn't been taught "church speak," actually says something like that?
If I were a teen that didn't go to church, I can't help but think, "No thanks." It just seems to fake. It stinks of brain washing.
Right below that article was a short interview with a Church of Christ preacher. I couldn't help but think that he might be one who regularly attends "Firm Foundation" lectureships and went to school at the Memphis School of Preaching. I'll let you decide what that means. His answers just seemed really canned. It was like he was on a 60's game show explaining who life as a minister is "really keen."
Randy Harris has suggested that we have a "disgustingly wholesome church." (That was in the title of a sermon I once heard him give, though the wording may be a little off.) I think that it is true. People don't see human beings when they think of church. By reading the Commercial Appeal in Memphis, they get an image of people who like preachers that live in the last 50 years and have kids that can't get enough "fellowship."
Not only do we look fake, but how real is what we give people? The kids this lock in have learned that "God is love" and "I can do all things through Christ." If that is so, why doesn't a woman dying of breast cancer just get rid of it. Somehow when that faithful woman dies God doesn't seem very loving or omnipotent. Surely these teens will learn this, and there is a place for teaching basic Christian ideals. But can't teens understand loss and death by 14 or 15? Why do we feed them truth melted down into sayings that will fit on bracelets and key chains?
The front page of the paper had Mary Winkler's trial and a big headline "My Ugly Came Out." Surely, the death of a minister, his wife's guilt, and the apparent family issues involved give the church (particularly churches of Christ) a black eye. That is ugly and hurts the kingdom. But I'm not sure that we aren't also hurting the kingdom with the Faith and Family section of the newspaper. To the world we look like robots. I am always amazed at the people that get a shocked look when a seminary student tells a sex joke or a preacher describes something as "Hell." We want our preachers to be inhuman. I don't think that is what the world wants.
Most people don't want to be what they imagine Christians as. At the very least they feel that they can't. They don't have a three piece suit, 2.5 children, a minivan, and a Jesus fish on their AIM profile. They certainly don't look forward to "fellowship," whatever that is. They want someone to be incarnate with them. I fear all that they see is a church of androids.
Disclaimer: This blog describes my gut feeling when reading the paper. I don't actually know Melody Taylor, her church, her lock in, the other guy in the paper, or the Winkler family. For all I know, everything that I have said above is totally wrong. I hope that this youth thing really is changing lives and I obviously have no right to judge the heart of any of the individuals involved. Similarly, I don't now where that preacher went to school, what he believes, or if he is an interesting person or not. For all I know he is a flaming liberal that likes to go ballroom dancing in shiny outfits. I do stand by the idea that no matter how much good and Godly things are occurring, the articles still make Christianity look like something very fake, hokey, and campy to those not in a Christian community and many within a Christian community.

The Effect of the Imago Dei On The Fast Food Industry

2007-04-13T20:36:00.000-06:00

"Fast food takes too much of a man's soul for only 6 dollars an hour."
I feel like that phrase my be one of the best I have ever coined. It is very much true. Try working at one of those places and you will see what I'm talking about. I worked at the Burger King at Harding for about 2 weeks, and then I quit. Sure the grease that stuck to my shows, the smell the permeated my clothes, and the task of cleaning the fryers that haunted my dreams were part of it. More then that, it just made me spiritually sick.
Yes, these thoughts may just be a cop out for not wanting to work in any way shape or form, but I think there is a lot of truth to what I'm saying. You see, I have had the same soul emptying feeling since in other jobs, and it happened again today.
I won't go into details, but I am really ticked off at the way that people treat anyone that is serving them. People should not be treated differently just because you pay their salary. I am one for good service. I have no problem leaving 13 cents on the table if I think the waiter really sucked. However, I will still say please and thank you to him, and I will still make requests, not demands. I don't care how lowly the job is, you never bark at someone like they are an animal. There is no call for that. People deserve respect just because they are people.
I remember being in Crete on a tour, and the nazi tour guide that we had was trying to show us some hole in the ground (I am not kidding, it really was nothing more than a hole for some old sewage pipe) and someone came through the side of the group to get at the trash can. Her job was to make sure that the rich Americans would have an empty trash can when they went to throw out their $2.50 Coke can. The guide started screaming at this woman in Greek. I didn't know what she was saying, but I knew that it was inhumane.
Usually we leave the word inhumane for kicking dogs are starving raccoons or some other animal issue. I think we should use it for how we treat people when we raise our voice and say "I wanted this without pickles for crying out loud!" "What do you mean there are no more flights to Dallas. You and your (let's replace it with stupid) airline need to get your (donkey term)s in gear and make sure that I am in (that word doesn't even make sense here) Dallas or so help me..." is similarly inhumane.
That stuff makes me sick inside. Its not really about my own feeling of worth, though undoubtedly some of my own hubris comes into play. What really bothers me is that if they talk to me, who they don't know, this way, how do they talk to their family? If they will scream at someone in public how do they treat the maid who cleans their house in the privacy of that home? I want to let them know that what they are doing is not okay, and not because I want justification, but because I want justice for others.
I won't say I never get angry. I do tend to yell at people driving. Occasionally I have been snippy with people on the phone. But typically I am provoked. I understand that sometimes you lose your cool in a stressful moment or when you feel threatened. That, however, is very different then treating people based on their job in life.
We really don't respect humanity in our world. I know it may be silly, but I think this attitude leads to all of the genocide and war in our world. I mean, if I really convince myself that I am better than that guy with the Hot Dog On A Stick uniform on, it is a small step to think of myself as more worthy than some kid in Africa suffering because of the systematic oppression of the underdeveloped world which gives me cheap produce, and an even smaller step to think of the Islamic extremist who hates my country as some sort of animal. How we order at McDonald's helps explain the way that we go about foreign policy.
Next time you are in line at the airport, and the entire system fails you, don't yell at the girl that can't do anything about it. Just because someone picks up trash, you don't have to treat them like the refuse they pick up. Even septic tank cleaners don't deserve your crap. They are made out of dirt, just like you are, and they have the same divine spark in them.

A Medical Emergency

2007-04-11T16:40:00.000-06:00

When I was little, I hated Hillary Clinton because she wanted to universalize our medical system. Obviously, as a second grader I didn't know exactly what that meant. From my parents I figured out that it would do two things: Make it hard for us to get good health care and make us like the Canadians. Neither of those are too pleasant.
Now that I'm a little older and poorer, I can't help but think its time to change our system. We need a universal health care system for our country, and yes, I do know that the juxtaposition of universal and country is odd. We need to change the rules to try and fix our system that is feeding the health insurance companies millions and millions of dollars.
In our system, health care is available to those who can afford it. The more money you have, the more you can afford. For a country that supposedly values "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" we seem to only want quality of life (and sadly, occasionally quantity) to go to those with big wallets. We have a system that restricts medicine and doctors to those who can afford it.
Recently I have gone to the doctor with no medical insurance. Yes, I know that it is unwise to not have medical insurance, but that will be remedied in a few weeks. Nonetheless, I have gone to the doctor. Went in at 2:00 and left at about 2:30. Cost me 100 bucks. That's right. I paid about 3.33 a minute. I'm sorry, but the overhead, accounting staff, and nursing staff don't cost enough to justify taking about nearly 2,000 dollars an hour (considering they see about 20 people in an hour). That is crazy. Those doctors are taking that cash, paying salaries, and then buying yachts. Fran and I can afford it if we need it, but what about single income, single mother families of four or five? How do they go to the doctor?
Sadly, many of them don't.
I think it is time we become like the other non-barbaric countries in this world and start given everyone free health care (free as in paid for with tax dollars). Places like the UK, Canada, and New Zealand are doing just fine with it. Some say that such a system limits care for severe problems like cancer. Are you telling me that no one in the commenwealth nations get cancer treated? Please.
The fact is, our system works for rich people, so we keep it. Yes, you may have trouble paying for health care if you get some rare, serious disease. But I would rather have upper and middle class people struggle getting help for conditions that they likely won't get, then lower class children not getting medicine for pneumonia or bronchitis because their mom can't afford it.
Others suggest that no one will become a doctor if the money incentive is not there. Frankly, I want a doctor who wants to heal people because it is right and redemptive, not so that he can have a vacation in the Caribbean and a new Lexus.
Medical care and expertise and equipment are a limited service. Most people in our country are okay with our system because they don't feel the pinch of that limit. Their money gets them access to supply. But there are others how can't afford it, and thus go without. It is time to do the right thing and allow everyone an equal chance to the wonder of modern medicine.

Proper Scriptural Interpretation

2007-04-10T11:44:00.000-06:00

For one of my classes we have been spending some time looking at the Psalms. They are a unique portion of scripture. I think that we are often taken by surprise when we read through these very honest discussions of the relationship between God and man. Particularly, I am interested in the idea of Richard Mays that we are interpreted by the Psalms.
Often in the restoration movement, we have turned the microscope on the proper meaning of the text. We want to know what the author meant and how he meant it in his society. When dealing with Psalms the task is difficult because we know little about the actual history of the writing of the Psalms. Even the superscriptions seem to be artificial.
Brugemann suggests that as a result we give the Psalms new superscriptions that apply to the lives of the current church. We reapply the text to modern readers for pastoral purposes. I cannot say I disagree with him. However, if his idea is that we reinterpret the Psalms in the face of modern circumstance, I would suggest a nuanced change. Instead, we reinterpret ourselves in light of the Psalms. The Psalms explicate us, not the reverse.
Some would say that allowing something ambiguous to describe something concrete is silly. I agree. However I think often we are the ones lacking concreteness. How often have you felt (and more often your wife felt) that an emotion is incapable of fitting into words? Often in life we end up feeling like an exploding soda can because we can not put on the tongue what is in the heart. We have an emotion, a response, but that emotion is not concrete. We cannot put it into words. The Psalms interpret those emotions and give them a "limit expression."
These texts give us someone else's words, and those words come into our confusion and create something concrete that we too can say. We cannot interpret our own hearts, but the Psalms can. They peer into us, as the active, living word of God, and as a result give shape to our shapeless thoughts. When we give the Psalms new superscriptions we actual are redefining ourselves. What we are experiencing is at the limit of our understanding, so we need the limit expressions of the Psalms to bring clarity to our hearts.

Random Thoughts...

2007-04-09T11:48:00.000-06:00

A few things real quick before I go to class:
1-The world is a very, very small place. I just started on facebook, and I am amazed at how quickly I can communicate with friends in places like Mexico and China. It is really cool.
2-Read something this weekend about how "globalization" in many ways is a euphemism for increased oppression of underdeveloped societies, and that our shrinking world just allows Americans and other westerners to economically oppress others. The sad side of point 1.
3-HUGSR should really look at our font and margin requirements on term papers in light of the aesthetic nastiness that occurs with Courier New Font and non-symmetrical margins.
4-If you are going to give money to juvenile diabetes, think about how you do it (cough...Ju Go Ju).
5-I am really bad about blogging. I haven't updated since March 22 and this is the best that I've got?
Well, Biblical Preaching is calling.

Quite the Stickey Wicket

2007-03-22T19:39:00.000-06:00

We think we have problem with sports here. You need to take a look at what is going on in Pakistan.
Cricket there is a big, big deal. But recently they have had a lot of problems. Several months ago an umpire suggested that they were illegaly messing with the ball. They forfeited rather than play under his umpireship. There were rumors of match fixing. Then their two best bowlers were caught using some sort of banned substance. They were suspended and on coming back they were dropped from the team. Then, the headed to the Cricket World Cup. The West Indies pulled a mini-upset and beat them. Then, on St. Patrick's Day, the Irish shocked them and kicked them out of the tournament. The upset was called the biggest ever in cricket. Like the USA beating Brasil and kicking them out of the FIFA World Cup. In Pakistan, riots errupt and the fans burn likenesses of the coach, captain, and other players.
Then things got weird. The coach went to bed that night early. The next morning he didn't show up to some meeting, and they went to his room. He was dead in the bathroom. Early reports suggested that he had a heart attack. Some other folks claimed that his diabetic supplies were next to the body, he may have died from that. However, a couple of days later, the death was termed "suspicious."
Meanwhile, it came out that the coach was working on a book. The autobiography was going to detail some issues of match fixing in the country. One of his bowlers made it clear that he tought the coach was murdered by the "matchfixing mafia." Then came some more leaks: the coach was found with a broken bone in his neck. Rumors of posion swirled.
Tonight, it was made official. The coach died by asphyxiation. He was murdered.
This is unbelievable. We go crazy when a cornerback solicits sex before the Super Bowl and gets bailed out by the coach. That is nothing. This event is more important to a world wide audience. And we are talking about some rabid fan or Pakistani bookies enterin the national coach's bedroom and holding down his throat until he stops breathing. This is out of control! I never want to hear about Americans thinking too much about sports or overvaluing them. Very seldomly we have an embarassement (like burning down Reggie Miller's house) but this is crazy.
Some lessons:
1. Don't have events of this magnitude in a place like Jamaica and other Caribbean islands. This is ludicrous! They have had this tournament in Kenya, India, Pakistan, and now the West Indies. I just don't think such countries can handle the saftey issues.
2. Don't think America is so out of bounds with our views on sports.
3. Don't even try to work on the public image if you work for Pakistan's government. Just hide for a couple of decades and hope that people will forget this whole mess.
4. Don't ever, ever coach for Pakistan!

Holy Holidays, Batman!

2007-03-17T07:19:00.000-06:00

I hate being pinched. Particularly for some holiday whose existence I do not understand. I hate feeling like a derelict husband for lack of flowers and candy on that stupid day in February. Thus, I have decided to officially list the holidays that should exist, and those that should not. I was going to create objective categories for this, but then decided that my decisions were completely subjective, so I gave up the appearance of fairness.
Holidays to Keep:
New Year's Day-Almost every society in the world celebrates some sort of lunar or solar based holiday. We should be no different. Besides, it allows us to focus on regeneration and the ability to start over at least once a year. That is positive.
MLK Day-This may seem like a likely one to axe, but I think it is important to have a holiday concerned with the role of minorities, and particularly African Americans in our country. I might keep it on MLK's birthday (or a mondayized version of it) and rename it Civil Rights Day or African American History Day, but I would keep it.
Easter-Again, almost every culture in the history of time has had some sort of fertility ritual day. Even the Israelites gave thanks to God for their crops. Some would object coupling Christ's death and resurrection with pagan rites, but I say rubbish! If pagan thinking leads people to think spiritually, let's capitalize! That's what Paul did at the Areopagus.
Memorial Day-I can't think of how to argue against it and not look like a big...fill in the blank.
4th of July-In general it is hard to vote for patriotism in this age of slobbering on the flag, but based on the "everyone does it" principle, this one is impossible to lose.
Halloween-How boring would childhood be without Halloween?
Thanksgiving-This holiday shows a deep appreciation for the importance of racial harmony and remembering our forefathers...okay, I'll stop trying. This holiday exists for two reasons: food and football.
Christmas-Argue against this one. I dare you!
Boxing Day-A curve ball! Yes, we should include an English holiday. Not because of what Boxing Day means (I have no idea why they have this holiday) but because no one but retail and Ebenezer Scrooge works this day anyway. If they do they shouldn't!
Holidays that have to go:
President's Day-Who cares? Maybe congress had a bet that they couldn't make up enough holidays to give off postal workers every other Monday for the first three months of the year.
Valentine's Day-Many know my position on this. Two entities created this holiday. Hallmark and Satan.
Saint Patrick's Day-This holiday, from what I can tell, is about pinching people and getting as smashed as possible. I can see why some would feel the need to keep it, personally I find it idiotic.
Labor Day-I reject this one based on the irony of it all. Everyone takes labor day off. Congratulations! You are so devoted to coming in every day of the week, that we are going to disallow you from doing that next Monday!
Columbus Day-I would like to similarly strip Columbus of his status as historically important. He wasn't the first to think that the world was round. He wasn't the first to North America, apparently the Norwegians beat him. He did nothing but try to find a short cut, and failed completely. He got lucky and now we praise him for it. Its like having an annual "Caleb found a five dollar bill on the ground picking his nose day." Maybe I should add that to the list...

Being Sensible in March Madness

2007-03-13T15:40:00.000-06:00

I was just thinking about the attack plan for the coaches getting ready for this weekend of basketball. Particularly the one seeds. I think any reasonable coach would completely ignore their first game, if they are a one seed. Maybe they watch a little tape, but basically, I would hope that they were done pondering 16s and getting ready for 8 or 9 by about lunch on Monday. I have a couple of reasons for this:
1-No 16 seed has EVER one. In other words, there is a 0% chance historically that these teams will be out before Saturday night. Why even mess with it?
2-The 8 or 9 seed is much more dangerous. Particularly this year. Do you think that Florida wants to see Arizona with only a day and a half of prep on the road? Or similarly Kansas and Kentucky, or UNC and Michigan State? And if those match ups don't happen, those guys are looking at Purdue, Villanova, and Marquette. Frankly, I wouldn't give half a thought to Eastern Kentucky if I was looking at Tom Izzo on Saturday afternoon. There is no point.
3-Some would counter "that attitude leads to upsets." Well, maybe. However, I think that attitude on Thurs. or Fri. may lead to an upset, but the attitude on Tues. morning will not. In other words, if the team is not focused on playing at game time, they can lose, but that has NOTHING to do with their preparation. Upsets in this tournment, in the earliest stages, are due to lack of focus, lethargic energy, and poor shooting. You don't lose to Central Connecticut State because your X's and O's are messed up. Even if a 1 does go out this year, it won't mean that they could have fixed it with more pick and roll practice earlier in the week. The 1 seeds are so much more athletic that they only need to show up, play hard, and pay attention. None of those things are coaching issues the week before.
If I was Roy WIlliams today, I would have spent a few hours watching Drew Nitzel. In fact, I might even forget who I am playing first up all together. Frankly, it doesn't matter. They can do all the planning they want, but my guys are faster, taller, and stronger. That won't be the case come the weekend.

He Doesn't Have A Prayer

2007-03-11T18:54:00.000-06:00

Mike Huckabee has no chance at becoming president, and here's why

Which is him,

which is a dodgy old President,

and which is a villan from 24?
I rest my case.

Bored At Work

2007-03-11T09:37:00.000-06:00

Some thoughts as I sit here, bored out of my mind.
-TV networks have horrible names. Think about how often they are named incorrectly. For example:
American Movie Classics: They were playing Catwoman last night.
Fox News: How much is news and how much is tired discussions of decade old political ideology disagreement.
MTV, VH1, and CMT: No one plays music videos any more.
ABC Family: I am not kidding, they are releasing Fridays "Duke's of Hazard: The Early Years," an ABC family original, in an Unrated Version on DVD.
BET: I only have qualms with the E.
TLC: I don't know how much learning goes on in make over shows and home improvement shows.
-Found a fun website. Go to http://babynamewizard.com/namevoyager/lnv0105.html. They can track the popularity of your name over the decades. For example, my name was almost non existent in the middle of the last century. Now, it is somewhere in the top 35 with about 2,800 Calebs per million babies in the US. I also looked up Fran. Less than 1 per million according to their statistics. That makes the two of us, given our ages, pretty unique.
-Another AMAZING site that I found last night. It is an index of hundereds of Restoration Movement texts digitized. Check it out at http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/subs/texts.html. There is a larger Restoration History site that this page is a part of. Pretty crazy.
-I started reading some of the Quran last night. So far I am in Surah 2, "The Cow." The title comes from an account of Moses telling the people to sacrifice a cow. What follows is an interesting bit of "I Spy." God tells them to get a cow. They ask "Which one."
"The Yellow One."
"Which yellow one?"
"The yellow one in that field."
"But there are several in that field."
And it goes on and on like that. Don't really understand, but when you have Leviticus in your Holy Book, I guess it is hard to throw stones. I'm not sure if mold laws are better or worse than a discussion of picking out sacrifice cows.
-Last night Portugal beat Uruguay in a play in game for the last spot in this year's rugby world cup. I know that no one else cares, but, like I said, I am bored.

Something Thought Provoking

2007-03-10T20:11:00.000-06:00

Just thought I would put this up.

This sign has been put up in front of some churches in Sydney. Amazing how many people, including Australia's Prime Minister, are outraged.

Do You Really Want Me At Your Church?

2007-03-10T19:33:00.000-06:00

So Fran and I have just finished the whole church shopping thing. We discovered a couple of things that I think people should look out for when trying to make their church "visitor friendly."
1. Make sure your classes are properly labeled! If I show up to a class on "How We Got the Bible" I am not too interested in hearing someone talk about Islam and Jihad. If I go to a "Young Marrieds" class, and no one in that class is under 35 or has less than two elementary school children, your nomenclature could use some revising. Though Colossians and 1st Corinthians are written by the same man, they are not the same book. A side note about all of this, it is great when you include a map in some sort of class document so that the visitor can find the class.
2. Make sure you actually have some discussion of the Bible in your classes. In addition, being competent is a plus. I was amazed at the way some classes lacked biblical content, or butchered it. The rate of biblical illiteracy in churches amongst leadership is alarming.
3. If you are going to be raising millions of dollars for new facilities, do it well. Let the congregation know that the decision has more to do with Jesus philosophies than with those of corporate America. Also, be leery of doing any kind of service that has little spiritual value or value for someone new. I am sort of two faced in my approach to some of this, but frankly, if something belongs in a church business meeting, why are we dealing with it in front of a Sunday morning crowd? I do believe Sunday morning is primarily for members, but at the least we must consider what they sound like to those visiting.
4. Be smart with the notes that you send. A "Thanks for Coming" the Thursday after is pretty much expected. A "Still Thinking About You" three weeks later shows thoughtfulness, particularly when the guy who sends such notes remembers your name when he is introduced to you on a second visit. Whatever you do, let them know what church your from. Not kidding, I got a postcard with a non decrypt church on the front and a note saying "Glad to have you, hope to meet you next time." No church address. No mention of church name. No date of visit. Nothing. I have been to about 10 churches in the last two months and they send a completely anonymous note. That is a waste of church budget if you ask me.
5. Finally, realize that externals really do count. We had a couple of places we visited that just stank (how do you conjugate that?) of suburbia and yuppyness. People do notice when your stage furniture looks more expensive than many people's houses. They do notice when the praise team's hair looks more prepared then their hearts for worship. I don't think many people come to church for productions, they come to see God at work. It is hard to do that through a five dollar bulletin that has little to no reference to a living church.

The Evening Sky on Good Friday

2006-04-14T22:40:00.000-06:00

Looking up at the sky tonight, I couldn't help but think about what it must have been like on the actual good Friday. What did the apostles think as they looked into the sky at the darkness? Just a few days later they must have seen such hope in the sky. The stars were symbols of the heavenly host, watching, waiting for the Messiah to make himself known. And now, he was gone. The moon was no longer the loving eye of God staring at them in joy, but the sly smile of Satan gloating his victory. Jesus was dead. The dream was over.
When you think about it, God left them hanging for about 40 hours. Jesus had left hints, but they didn't get it. So for two nights they sat and stared at the sky. How did they react? Did some cry all three days, overcome by sorrow? Did some think about joining in Judas' fate? Maybe others were numb from the shock. Some may have prayerfully ask for God to carry them through. Maybe one or two shook their fists at the Heavens and vowed that they had had enough of God's empty promises. Maybe others just say and contemplated what had happen in the last few years.
Because we know about Sunday morning, we look over the anguish of Friday night. I had a friend that was headed to a Lutheran Good Friday Service tonight. As he talked about it, I could see that some of my more conservative Church of Christ friends were sort of snickering. Why would you go to a Lutheran church to celebrate Good Friday? They do all sorts of weird stuff this time of year.
What they try to do, from what I can tell, with thier liturgical calendar and services, is help people experience Christ. From what I see in other religious groups, there is a value in living out Christ's reality in our lives. Thus we have lent to remember his forty days in the desert. We cry at his death on Friday. We celebrate when he is raised on Sunday. Every worship experience tries to connect you to the life of Christ. Such an approach may lead to hyper-allegorization, but it does try to immerse the congregants in the life of Christ.
We could learn from that in the Restoration Movement. Jason Ashlock spoke in chapel today. He talked about how we too can stand and look at Christ and scream "Hossana! Save us now!" That cry for salvation is just as necessary in the church as it is in the world. We have lost our connection to what Christ did. Because we fear messing up dates we divorce Christ's death from a day on the calendar. We don't realize that in so doing, we are making him a little farther from reality.
In churches of Christ, we have a heritage of baptism. We talk about how immersion is so important because it is a symbol of the death, burial, and resurection of Christ. In that act, we become one with Christ and our story becomes his story. Similarly, we value the Lord's supper because we want to remember his death. Why don't we take those values further? Why do we divorce Christ's life from any sort of real life holiday, and thus miss out on an oppurtunity to imagine what it was like to live with him.
I suggest that we adopt religious holdiays. Let's celebrate Christmas, Easter, Passover, whatever. In doing so, maybe we will be able to make Christ less a historical figure, which we can debate, pick apart, and analyze, and more a living being in us. Let us realize that we live out his life symbolicaly in many things that we do. We are called to carry his cross. Let's do what ever we can to show that Christ's story is our story and is still being told. It is not some old volume that is stuck on the shelves of history. It is a story that we live out everyday.

Celebrations

2006-04-12T22:18:00.000-06:00

Tonight I celebrated the Passover with some friends. It was an interesting thing. A couple of weeks ago we did something for Ash Wednesday. I really enjoy being around these various types of religious celebrations. For many of us, it is good to see the beliefs of others, and how they reflect God's nature.
In general, I wish that we could add more times of rememberance and celebration. I know that the Lord's Supper is supposed to be that, but we all know that we tend to neither celebrate or remember. It is another thing between us and Dixie Cafe. We really should add more time getting together and remembering our past.
Maybe we could make some new stuff up. What if congregations had a meal once a year where they remembered what God had done to bring them to where they were. Or maybe we should do something with our families. We could sit at Thanksgiving or some other meal and recount what God has done for us. What did he do so that our family knows God?
We need more times to remember God's faithfulness. Maybe our lack of understanding of God's presence in our life comes from not taking time to remember and think. We don't remember because we don't try. Let's not God for not seeing his presence when we aren't looking.

The Internet: Advancing Disunity in Brand New Ways!

2006-04-11T22:38:00.000-06:00

I enjoy getting under peoples' skin. Playing the prophet is something that I get a kick out of. When I get a chance to blow the whistle and expose some sort of Christian cover-up, I go for it. But there is a thin line to walk. When do we cease to be calling people back to God and start calling them to doing what we want them to do?
Let's talk about Michael Moore for a minute. I will not try to include (or necessarily exclude) Mr. Moore in/from the Kingdom of God. Instead, let's talk politics. When Moore jumps into an ice cream truck and drives around the Capitol Building reading the Patriot Act because he believes that most of our legislators have no clue as to what it says, that is funny. Similarly, when he walks up to Senators and tries to get them to sign their sons up to fight in the war they approved, that is humorous. In general, I love Moore, because he tends to never give the guys in control a free pass. He wants to help out the little guy at all costs. We need a fly in the ointment like Moore, especially as more and more media outlets jump in bed with the politicians. However, Moore can be abrasive. I think that he is funny, but many find him disrespectful and rude. Besides, you can only make so many movies attacking the president before you start to look a little self righteous.
Many of us in the church, particularly my restoration heritage folks, could learn a lot from the example of Moore. It seems that a lot of folks have a laundry list of what churches of Christ do wrong. Many of those list are full of really good things. However, when do we cease to prophesy against corruption for the good of the Kingdom, and start sitting on an ideological high horse ridiculing others because they aren't as enlightened us we are. We want respect, but we don't give it out.
I love some of the comments that Scott Adair has made on Romans 14. He suggests that Paul has two messages. Those who are weak should not judge those who are strong. Those who are strong, should not condescend those who are weak. Both must appreciate the views of the other. I feel like we stand up a lot and say, "Don't judge me!" and then we turn around and pat our grandparents on the head and say, "God bless your narrow minded, ridiculous, immature, pea picking heart."
Growing up I got sick when I saw the venom that came from newspapers like "Contending for the Faith" or "Firm Foundation." My grandfather is big into some of that stuff and I don't get it. My image of him and his heart for Christ seem incongruent to stuff like that. I have to realize that in his heart he thinks that he is doing what is best for God's people. That doesn't make him right, but it makes him fallible, just like me. We have a new brand of newspaper in the fellowship. A new place where individuals can unfairly rip on others and treat them like they are idiots and worldly. A new place to rip down the brotherhood instead of build them up. This time, the progressives are doing the mud slinging. These newspapers are called blogs!
Jesus wanted his followers to understand that they should look at the log in their own eye before they start picking at others specks. It seems to me that we are all walking around with logs. I appreciate some of the folks that feel the need to expose balogna that happens in the brotherhood, particularly at Harding. On the other hand, when I read your blog, and I see you ripping everyone else, and there is not a singal confessing post or a post about the goodness of God, I wonder.
My nature leads me to be confrontational. You can scroll through my posts and see different groups, philosiphies, and maybe even people that I have attacked. I just pray that you also see a sinner broken by my own sin and redeemed by Christ. I claim nothing more. I don't get things right all the time, or even most of the time. I am just trying to do what I feel like is right. And as much as I don't understand them, I know that the church paper slanderers and the blogging slanderers are in the same boat. I just hope that we can all be more introspective and humble as we try to please our God.

Toenails and Teaching Stories

2006-04-10T22:41:00.000-06:00

Romans 8:28 is a really abused passage, but I think that it is important for our everyday sanity. I don't think that it means that God makes everything happen. He just takes whatever crap happens, and tuns it into furtilizer. Not the most poetic of thoughts, but it works. Many of us should approach more things in life with that in mind.
For example, today I got my ingrown toenail removed. It sucked. Unfourtunatly, God made me to be resistant to anesthesia. They did as much as they could to numb my toes, but it didn't work out as much as it should have, so it hurt. All day it has been nagging at me. I was really scared as I went. However, as I went, I thought that I maybe should look at it as an adventure. That was kind of stupid, but it worked some. When I looked back at some of the horrible experiences in my life, I realized all of the things that I have learned from those experiences. Much later on they became great stories and examples for future lessons.
When we go through things in life, we should realize the lessons that we might learn from it. In the end all things will pass. We can take from what has happened. Life should be embraced because we never know what we learn. Such a view can help us to really enjoy even bad things. We see life as a gift of God, not as something that just happens.

Call Me Atticus

2006-04-08T21:51:00.000-06:00

Today I was hit with an egg. I was blessed (in a way) by getting pegged with a hard egg, so it smarted some, but it didn't break all over me. It still left me really mad. Fran and I have been hit by water balloons in the past and that really makes me angry. I get very scared about Fran being in danger. I just freak out.
I never know how to react. From time to time I think about carrying around rocks, baseballs, or balloons filled up with paint. If those idiots met my wrath just once they wouldn't do stupid crap like hitting people with eggs. Another part of me wants to trail them in my car and get their license plate number or slash their tires. Anything to get back. But alas, I don't have the guts to do any of that.
In reality, I don't want to do those things. Over my college years I have developed into quite a little passivist, and I don't believe in fighting back. However, it is hard when you are sitting there with an egg bruise. Maybe I just don't have enough courage to step up against those who abuse me.
I know that I am not a courageous person. That really doesn't bother me. Some might find it ironic that Caleb means courageous, and I'm not. However, Caleb actually means dog in Hebrew. A more fitting title given my tendency to run away with my tail in between my legs. I am a coward in many ways. I hate bugs and snakes. I have anxiety over doctors and calling people on the phone. In general I consider the likelihood of dying while engaging in an activity before I actually engage in that activity. Others see adventures, I see useless risk. Never would I join the military or go backbacking across Europe. I enjoy a nice little house and peace and quiet.
Sometimes I feel like I should be more courageous. Going through "Struggles of the Faith Week" in chapel, or "Roll in the Mud Week" as I like to call it, I realized that I couldn't survive a lot of the things that those people went through. Last night I watched The Lion the Witch and the Waredrobe. I love how those kids come of age. Watching Peter scream "For Narnia, and for Aslan" as he charges, I think about Lewis' writings in general. He spends quite a bit of time talking about cowardice as a vice and the general attitude he had towards WWII. I find it disconcerting.
Why do we need to be so brave anyway? Jesus didn't seem all that brave in the Garden. Then again, we cowards tend to remember the Garden but not the resolute march to Calvary the next day. Still, isn't it some sort of macho, chauvenistic, antiquated thing to say "Be a brave man! Show some courage! Don't be afraid!" are the feminists right about the Bible? How much should I take to heart God's pep talks in the beginning of Joshua? Maybe those passages portraying men as the ones who need to buck up and fight on are just cultural reflections, not divine ones.
Yet I know that I am fooling myself. There is something in me that knows that it is good and holy to be courageous. Courage displays some kind of boldness and secureness that shows how real your faith is. If you can be brave in the face of certain disaster, it shows you believe God's promises.
Martin Luther King comes to mind. Think about the constant fear he would be in. Everyone wants to kill you and hurt your family. But still he gets up and speaks the truth. I may not buy the image of a nineteen year old strapping on an M16 and going over to the Middle East and dying for a misguided war, but I do understand King standing on that hotel balcony. That is a courage I can appreciate.
Courage is about doing the right thing at the right time, even when it is hard. Sometimes that means war (Joshua, Peter in Narnia). Sometimes that means saying no to war! When I hold my temper and not engage those idiots with the eggs, I guess I am doing the courageous thing by doing the weak looking thing. Sometimes the greatest sign of courage is the willingness to be meek.
I know that I will never be John Wayne. Frankly, I don't think God needs or wants a lot of John Wayne's. We do need, however, a lot of Jimmy Stewarts and Gregory Pecks. We need people who will do the right thing at the right time. That will look different in different circumstances. Each moment we are faced with the choice to do the right thing or the wrong thing. Sometimes facing Satan and ourselves is all the courage we need to have.

... and You Can't Live Without 'Em!

2006-04-06T20:38:00.000-06:00

Well, as I read more about David, I am continued to be interested in the women in his life. As stated yesterday, Michal, Bathsheba, and Tamar all either cause problems themselves, or their presence caused men to do sinful things. (I don't want to sound like I blame Tamar in anyway. I am just saying that often male sin in the Bible revolves aournd relationships with women.) But as I look at it some more, I see other women. We have Abigal saving David from mistakes. Then there is the woman who comes to show David his errors in the case with Absalom. Later, a woman helps Joab to not destroy a city for no reason. Even Michal and Bathsheba do good things. Michal helps David escape (maybe by choice maybe not), and Bathsheba helps David to put Solomon on the throne.
What does it mean. I think that we often underestimate the role that women play in the Bible. Becuase they are not kings or emperors or warriors (most of the time), we act like they are not there. That isn't true. They are all over the place, and we just don't see them. Women do so many powerful things in scripture, good and bad.
Why does any of this matter? Often we talk about women and women's roles, and we scratch our heads like they are absent in scripture. We discuss Eve, Lydia, and Jezebel, and then we can't think of anymore. Women are much, much more prevelant than I think we realize in the Scriptures. In the future we need to look at their role in the Bible. They are very powerful for good and evil, just like men.
Maybe we need to be more aware of these various characters. We have so many struggles of power in churches, yet peace broker seems to be a prominent role of several women in the Bible. Maybe we should incorporate women in some of these roles. We are having a fight in the leadership, maybe a woman could be a good mediator. Not to say that she would have the authority to declare someone right or wrong, but she may be a bridge that could help two parites to make decisions together. I don't know the implications of this, and I really am thinking of this all as I write, but what if we do help women to be in mediating role. Imagine how much better our world would be if hot headed elders talkded about their decisions with their wives. Not that women would be puppet leaders, but they would give some female counsel and impressions. Another scenario: a "men's meeting" is in a huge controversy over some issue. Side A wants thing A to happen, side B doesn't. We know a woman in the congregation is very good at reconciliation and helping peole with disputes. Would there be an authority issue if she sat down and listened to both sides and empathiticly listened, recounted what she heard, and helped translate what the two sides were saying? Most guys doen't listen well with the other person's perspective in mind. Maybe we need more Abigail's playing important roles in our churches.
I didn't mean to talk about all this, so let me wrap generally. Women are in the Bible a lot more than we realize, and we should pay more attention. I think that their are feminine strengths and roles we underutilize, because we fail to see them. Last night all I could think of was the seductive temptresses, but upon further reflection I see that God has always used both sexes in a dynamic way. That has led to issues at times, and great balance at others. We need to learn to use all of our gifts.

Can't Live With Them...

2006-04-05T20:59:00.000-06:00

Today I have a query more than an answer. I noticed recently, the unbelivable role that women have in much of Scripture. When we read about women in worship, it seems so sexist that Paul would go back to Adam and Eve. Are we really going to blame one woman and hold every other one on the planet responsible! It seems ludicrous! Maybe there is something else going on. Note also the way that Paul does not want to be married because he believes that it would get in the way of his ministry. Is Paul dealing with some cultural issue, or is their some biblical anti-feminism.
Over the pages of the Bible, you start to see that women are not put in all that good of a light. We have Eve decieved first. Then there is Abraham lying because of Sarah. Rebecca loving Jacob more. Rachel stealing the idols. Miriam causing revolt. Delilah wooing Samson. Bathsheba and David. Michal criticizing David. Solomon going after foreign women. Jezebel. Gomer. The prostitutes of Proverbs. It seems like many of the messes that men get into in Scripture happen because of the women. They do something dumb for a girl. David seems particularly to be a case of this. Women seem to just cause him trouble. In fact, he makes it clear that when he goes out to battle the women stay at home. What is this?
I know that God is not against women. He created them and has a special role for them. I am not saying that all of these situations are a woman's fault. What I am saying, is that often a man's sin in the OT comes about because of his relationship with a woman in some way shape or fashion. What do we learn from that? Is there a theological point, or is it merely a case of ancient sexism?
I know one possibility. Something powerful always has the option of going really well, or really bad. The relationship between a man and woman would be one of those things. Our most intense pleasures come from the man and the woman coming together in dating and marriage, but the most pain can come through fights and divorces. God created this sort of chemistry when he made two sexes, which seems to just blow up some times.
It could just be a sexual thing. Maybe God just made men so that their hormones where really strong, and Satan uses that as well as he can.
Maybe it is the connection with pride. Either the pride to have a great looking woman, or the pride to want to be in control of a woman. Maybe all of those men who messed up where just looking out for themselves. It seems like pride comes out really strong in men when it comes to women. We seem to always end up trying to control others instead of living in harmony. Women, the enviroment, God. We just want to call the shots.
In general, I was hoping to say something meaningful tonight about this topic, but alas I feel I have come up short. I think that something significant is going on with the motif of the deadly woman in scripture. I just wish I had a better insight into why.

Reverse Entropy and a Theology of Worship

2006-04-04T20:46:00.000-06:00

It seems to me that the basic tenant of Biblical theology is that God is three and one. I feel a little shaky making that sort of sweeping statement about a doctrine that is not even directly stated in the Scriptures. However, I think that it is important. God makes it clear in the Old Testament that he is one, and that he alone should be obeyed and worshipped. Christ then follows up this teaching by continually talking about he is in the Father and the Father is in him. Those statements are concentrated in Johannine passages, but I think that they are important. Jesus further teaches that we are to be one with the Father and the Son, and that the Spirit lives in us if we remain in Christ. In general, the scope of scripture tends to deal with "withness." God walked with man in the garden, and now he has redeemed us so that we can sit with him in glory. Everything is centered around that community. It is a sort of reverse entropy. While our physical world disperses and spreads and disapates, God is working to make us all one in him. He is drawing all men to him so that in eternity there will be one people in one kingdom with one God.
I think that this plays a lot into worship. Worship I believe is God's way of trying to form that oneness. In fact, everything we do is to work towards that oneness. However, as I have been looking at worship a lot lately, I see it as important. It is sort of corny, but I see three "S's" of worship. Submission, sacrifice, and synagogue-ing.
Worship seems to be first and foremost about submission. If you think about it, whenever you meet with someone, there is some level of submission. If I call a friend and ask him if we can meet, he has to submit to my request. When we talk, if I start in on the weather, he has to submit to my topic and reply. He can refuse to, and switch to sports, but then I have to submit. If I ignore him and talk about school, and so on, we will spend all this time together with no communication or communication. We will be two people making random, unrelated statements. When we worship, we are submitting. We are saying, "God you are above us, so we are going to give up our own desires and interests to focus on you." While we debate how much Scripture has to do with the way we worship and battle hermeneutics, no Christian can help but admit that scripture and submission to it is the foundation of worship. We can sit and sing songs and have no preaching, but even the songs are based on God's word. If they are not, we have ceased to even do something Christian. Few would disagree that the teaching of the word, and the subsquent underlying urging to submit to it, is essential in some way in service. We come together to say, "I give up. I want God's way!" Otherwise, we would want God to come to our house and worship us.
Related to such submission is sacrifice. When we worship we give up our own way, and let God have his way. You can see it throughout Scripture. Note the sacrifice in all of these examples (and the submission):
-Cain and Able. Cain offers up something that God doesn't like, and God tells him that he has to give up to God what God wants in the way God wants, not what Cain wants.
-Abraham and Isaac, the first mention of the word worship in the Bible. God wants Abraham to do what he is told and give up his only son.
-Leviticus and its regulations deal with actual sacrifices. God makes it clear that no one is to come "empty handed." The sacrfices must be what he wants in the way he wants it.
-David refuses to sacrifice something that cost him nothing. He also refers in the Psalms to the sacrifice of praise.
-Ezra and Nehmiah seem to go crazy about giving up what we want to properly worship God. They are calling for divorces left and right so that the people can be pure before God.
-Paul calls our everday life our worship. That life is about sacrificing the way of the flesh for God's way.
Finally, we gather together, or synagogue. Paul actually uses that word to refer to meeting together. In doing this we are literally, verbally, led together. We come together so that Christ's body can be one. In Heaven, that worship will culminate in a great heavenly host full of all kinds of men and women.
What I am trying to say is this. God wants us to be one with him the way the Father, Son, and Spirit are one. This oneness only occurs when individuality, in a sense, goes away. We can't have it God's way and our way. There would be two sets of wills and purpose. Thus he asks us to come and lay it out on the line. We show that we submit to him and that we will sacrifice us to be like him. When that happens, we gain a mutual understanding with one another and with God. In that place we are one again with the Father.
We spend so much time trying to argue about the way we worship. In the end I think that we should use these criteria. When we worship we submit to God. In so doing, we have to sacrifice what we want for what he desires. Our time needs to reflect that we are spending time together and with him. There is a sense of mutuality. We see all of this best in the Lord's Supper. We submit to Christ's request to meet and remember him. We sacrifice our desires by renewing the covenant, and we reflect on God's sacrifice. It is a time to be "led together" into the presence of God. We communion with him.
I don't know if any of this makes sense. What I am trying to say is that our worship is about "what am I giving up" not "what am I getting." It is a fundamentaly opposite idea to American understanding of everything, but it is part of God's universal plan to bring all men into one body with him.

Old Stuff

2006-04-03T22:30:00.001-06:00

I have posted all the stuff off of my old blog-A Broken Table and Torn Curtain. I don't know what all I said, but I felt like I should save it.

The Funeral March of Modernism

2006-04-03T22:30:00.000-06:00

It seems to me that this hurricane should about put an end to the whole period we have known as modernism. After all, we have just seen how wrong we have been. One of the hallmarks of modernism was that man could control his world with enough knowledge and enough technology. Everything is a matter of logic. All that we have to do is just think and work hard enough and we would do alright.
Then our knowledge and technology defeated us. We saw nuclear weapons kill thousands and thousands of innocent people. We saw the very medicines we made create killer bacteria. We saw our airplanes, the pinnacle of our defiance, the device which dared to defeat gravity, used to blow up two towers.
And when that is not enough we see nature flex its muscles. In the face our brightest and best failed miserably. Actually, we are talking about Bush and a couple old UPS workers who he let run FEMA, so at least the most powerful failed. We were shown the power of nature. As AIDS rips continents apart we see that in reality, we have no hope of actually controlling the world around us. All that our science and modern minds have given us is death, failure, and a misplaced sense of pride.
I am amazed, however, at how the church continues to cling to modernism. She does not see what it really is. There is such a fear of postmodern thought, that we really aren't evaluating what is dying. With the death of modernism and the rise of postmodern we see the end of a period in which man tried to replace God. It was after all in the spirit of Modernism that Nietzsche declared that God was dead. He was no longer of consequence. In modernism we flew in the air and into the second heaven (outer space). We split the atom and created electricity. We took the divine mystery of salvation and grace and boiled it down to 5 easy steps. We learned how to take care of ourselves with no help from the metaphysical "myths" of those past idiots who proved that our social Darwinism was so wonderfully correct.
We were a people much like the men of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Adam thought he was so smart and would become like God when he ate that fruit. He would not die and he would be as wise as his creator. God would be obsolete. Or what about those angels in chapter six who decide to sleep with human women and act disgracefully to God's created order? And then there were the most Modern of all of ancient Mesopotamia, those who built that Tower in Babel. They where going to reach God with their magnificent structure.
We all know what happened to all three. Banishment, a flood, and dispersion. At every corner God said "Not so fast, remember who I am (or remember I AM to put it in more personal language)." There are limits.
The Persians make a similar mistake in Daniel. They make a law about worshiping anyone but the emperor. Then, THREE TIMES, the text notes them bragging that the "Law of the Medes and Persians can not be changed." They were so confident that they were unstoppable. The King works all day to change things and can not reverse the law. (Sounds like they had stupid bureaucrats too.) They even put a stone and seal on the lions' den and say that they do it so that Daniel's condition can not be changed. They knew they had them. The king runs in the next morning and says "What your God ABLE to save you." It is God who was able the whole time. HIS law cannot be changed and the conditions HE creates can not be overridden. He shut the mouths of the lions, and that was unstoppable. They thought that they were so able.
The stone brings to mind one more group of people that thought that they had sealed the deal. They made sure no one stole the body of this pseudo-Savior. Guess what, they weren't too smart either. Jesus strolled out of that tomb and defeated death himself.
A modernism will tell you that this is all fake flub from some half crazed zealous Jews. A postmodern will tell you that they aren't sure.
Now there's the rub. We don't want anyone to say that we don't know. If nothing else the church has to hold on to her belief that she knows what is going on. I mean, if we aren't certain that we have our stuff right, we are in trouble. We don't want all of that relativism that would mean that we don't know anything. If we don't know anything about anything than we would be forced to believe!
Paul writes to the Corinthians, a society that thought that they were wise the following thing (my emphasis):
1When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.
If nothing else the new postmodern reality which we face before us is humble. It does not assume to know everything about the world, or about any subject. It is willing to listen. It also seems that our world (pluralism, many new religions, loose morals, sexual immorality, violent entertainment, abortion, terrorism and all) mirrors very well the world of the first century. In Galatians Paul says that Jesus came in the "fullness of time." Something about the world at that point in history made it fertile for the hearing of the Gospel.
Katrina shows us yet again that humans can not do it alone. There are wonders and mysteries that are too far beyond us to handle. In fact, we know very little. We must look to the Heavens and recognize our own petty vanity. The postmodern dawn is growing brighter, and for Christians it might be a welcomed new day.

U2, RNC, and Prophecy

2006-04-03T22:29:00.000-06:00

First of all, if you actually read the first one and missed not having a post last week, I am sorry. But since I think no one has ever seen this, I am going to assume that I am just talking to myself.
So tonight I want to talk about prophecy. It seems to me that we live in a society that really is in need of prophecy. Maybe even a church that is in desperate need of a prophetic voice.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am not talking about predicting the future. The last thing that we need is some more creeps on street corners screaming about Jesus' blood running through the streets and doom coming (actually heard that in London once). What I am referring to is a voice which will stand up and challenge the powers that be. That will demand justice. That will call out for the will of God to be listened to and not ignored. A voice that will take the opposition on and speak what is true and right, no matter what people think.
In America, it would seem that prophets would be welcome. After all, when we rebelled against Britain to become our own nation, wasn't it a somewhat prophetic voice that was coming out of Philadelphia. Our value of the freedom of speech would see to be truly great environment for such speech. Then again, it seems lately that we don't care about those freedoms so much any more.
Look at our world and think about the prophetic voice that is needed. I have to admit right now that I am being influenced by the ideas of Jim Wallis in God's Politics. Wallis argues that in politics we need more prophets to stand up to the governments and church leaders and demand justice. We shouldn't be buying missiles for wars that were never justified when children die of diarrhea in Africa. I know that I am going to sound like a flaming liberal, but if we weren't blowing up someone in the Middle East then we might have saved some of those elderly women in the New Orleans projects that died from heat exhaustion, and who most likely we have failed as a society for decades. With a country like ours in existence there should not be poverty, especially for children, at the levels it now exists. It is nothing short of apathy.
And then there is Africa. The entire civilized world is dropping the ball on that one. There is a continent facing a modern day plague called AIDS. Many don't understand it at all. Then there are all the children who are orphans and infected themselves.
Who hears their cries? The church should. As the body of Christ we should be cupping his ear to the heart of those who are being oppressed by economics and politics and diseases that they can't do anything about. What is our response? "Its their own fault. If they were not so promiscuous then they wouldn't have AIDS. Besides, their government will just waste the aid if we give it to them." What is our government doing? Finding more ways to declare war on countries that aren't attacking us? Maybe we can give Israel a few more bombs so that they can oppress the Palestinians. And as I started this paragraph, before the tirade, what has happened to the church? Were are the men of God who are to raise these issues of justice and righteousness to the fore? Well, frankly we are at the RNC cheering on the war mongers and the idiots.
Make no mistake, the DNC has plenty of idiots in it as well, and its fair share of scum balls. But my point, actually Wallis' that I am stealing, is that as the church we should rise above the dirty politicians and make a call to be a just people that loves mercy and peace. We should go around healing, not causing war.
This is not to say that we don't have our own prophets in this day and age. I love that Martin Luther King is on the side of Westminster Abbey as a 20th Century Martyr. He was a prophet. He stood for justice and righteousness and he was killed for it. King was a man who believed that God had a sense of right and wrong, and he stood for it with all he had. The church, well the white church, largely called him a "trouble maker." Shame on us.
Then there is a more controversial choice. Bono. That's right, the lead singer of U2. The world's greatest rock star. Have you noticed that he actually cares more about the situation in Africa and helping those people than his music. And do you notice the mandate by which he preaches his message of debt relief and medical aid? He says that God expects it from us to care for them. Wow, that seems right. Maybe he swears and drinks from time to time, but he is living out the beatitudes. Have we made things like swearing our mint and cumin and neglected the weightier issues of justice? Doesn't God's criteria for the sheep and the goats seem to put Bono in heaven and us on a south bound train far too often?
What do I mean by this? Let me put it bluntly, mostly because this is a blog that no one reads. The church is the bride of Christ and his voice on earth. We should not be a bunch of tools for a political part or a government. To quote the new Switchfoot album, "I pledge allegiance to the country without borders without politicians, waiting for our sky to fall apart, we are broken, we are bitter, we're the problem we're the politicians, waiting for the sky to be torn apart, come in and break me." We must rise in this world of greedy and self importance, particularly coming from our leaders and declare the message of the gospel. We must represent a savior who said when he started his ministry:
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

Peter Never Used A Lexicon

2006-04-03T22:28:00.000-06:00

Far too often I find that Bible majors are asking themselves this question: Why do I have to learn any of this? I can't say that I totally disagree. After sitting through 20 pages of a book describing the rise and fall of the kings of Judah and Israel and the related kings of Moab, Aram Damascus, Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt, I start to feel overloaded as well.
I feel like their is no better example of the tension between practicality and scholarship than the creation of a sermon. When we teach young preachers we harp about the importance of doing all the proper exegetical work.
The problem is this, we can't imagine Peter and Paul messing with lexicons, commentaries, and journal articles. I mean I don't think that there was 10 hours of study behind the day of Pentecost. I think that he just got up there and let it fly. He knew his message, and he didn't have to sit in an office and mess around with properly contexualizing his message. It just seems like the world of the New Testament was so much more organic in their approach.
Obviously we are at a bit of disadvantage. We don't speak Greek. We don't know Jesus from hanging out with him personally. Then there is that whole inspiration/Holy Spirit thing.
In the end I think that there must be an understanding of the gap between us and Jesus. Make no mistake, it does mean something that I am a 21 year old, suburban, American, English speaking, Church of Christer who is trying to follow a 33 year old, divine, Jewish Carpenter who grew up in Nazareth in the first few decades of this side of the Virgin Birth. I don't care what we say about everyone being able to understand the Bible easily (note I do believe that a knowledge that can lead to salvation is possible for anyone mentally capable enough to get lost in the first place) in the end there is too much that we just can't know with out study. Shouldn't we expect the revelation of the mind of God to man to be complex, especially after the mitigating factors of time, space, and culture?
I was talking with someone about one of the faculty members here at HU the other day, and I caught myself saying that he was a great paradigm for the mixture of faith, ministry, and scholarship. Then I thought, at what point did that become important? I think that the difference really is the contextual gap between us and Jesus.
There is also the issue of having the right tools to reach the world. If I go to underdeveloped nations than I need to be ready to dig wells. When I am in a place where people are dealing with loss I need to bring comfort. In a world that is still in the clutches of modern scientific thought in many ways (we still trust statistics and studies more than even personal experience) we use our brains as the primary weapon and extended hand to a world obsessed with the "facts."
I guess I am saying that I see an elementary need to be a more intelligent Christian, and I really don't know why I find that so important. Following a religion pioneered by average Joes in many ways it is hard to justify sometimes.
Maybe the best I can conjure is this. Christ said that he would expect much from the one who was giving much. I know that we as a society, and particularly I as an individual, have been given a great blessing in the wealth of mental resources we have, be it our brains or previous research. We should take full advantage of that.

The Message of the Christological Bookends

2006-04-03T22:27:00.000-06:00

I have to admit that I don't have too much to say this week. It seems like every Friday night I get ready to write and I get a block in my mind. Then, the next morning I think of about eight things that I should have written about. However, I do have a quick thought.
Wednesday I sat down and watched Newsies for the first time. In some ways it was not exactly my favorite. However, there are many things which I did really like about it. The first and most important is the general idea that ideas can change the world.
In the film, a group of newspaper boys group together to form a union and challenge the power of Hearst and Pulitzer. A newspaper man helps them with their cause. This group of mere boys was able to topple some of the most powerful men in America.
I love that idea. The idea that we can bring change through words and ideas. That we don't need violence and power, but moral supremacy, to win our battles. That is an idea which is at the core of America. It is an idea which governed most of our finest moments. In the last century it was an idea that ended segregation, communism, and apartheid. Then there is also the work of men like Gandhi. Peaceful protest is a concept which we all must learn to understand. I believe it is in the very grain of our society. As Bono put it last night on Conan, "America is an idea, and I fell in love with that idea."
However we have too often lost that idea. We somehow think that we can just muscle change into existence. Diplomacy is replaced with action. Sanctions and moral mandates are made inconsequential by missiles. Why have we resorted to being that type of people?
And why have we done it in the church? Both Randy Harris and Landon Saunders have been at Harding in the last semester, and they both have had a similar issue. Christians have made our mission about power. What political sway we have and how much we can be listened to and agreed with. We fight so that our politicians, media and art (I use the term here loosely), and general worldview is not ignored. "We will not be silenced" we say. People like Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell are seen as our leaders. Christians in America today are people who are screaming so that everyone will here them, not listening with the ears of Christ.
That is not to say that we don't have some sort of important role. I am merely saying that the church does not flex her muscles and use political clout as a weapon. The church is not a mere voting block. It may give us respect now, but it will not always. I would argue that it actually currently is making us more a pawn than anything else.
We are part of a kingdom that is ruled by a king born in a manger and killed on a cross. That should tell us how he made his impact. It wasn't with his might, sway, or popularity. He showed the world who God is by submission, rejection, and pain. We shouldn't expect the whole world to get it and agree with it, instead we should expect the darkness to be unable to comprehend the light.
I think on men like either the Newsies, or better yet Gandhi and MLK Jr., and I think, if only I had lived then. If only I could have been part of that cause and marched with them in their holy battles for the return to righteousness. Then I think, do I live in that time? Is it that we aren't in a time of reform, like the 1960's, or is it just that my eyes are not open. I think a man like Martin Luther King (or even Martin Luther for that matter) is defined by his vision. His ability to see injustice and see the reconciliation that needs to come. Jesus also had that vision. It is my prayer that he will strengthen it in me.

Competition

2006-04-03T22:23:00.000-06:00

If you are looking at this old blog, let me challenge you. If you can figure out the references that I am making in the title of the blog, I will do something that would be hardly rewarding.

Adding A Photo

2006-04-03T22:04:00.000-06:00

This is me and Fran!

First Day of Blog

2006-04-03T21:41:00.000-06:00

Well, here it goes. I have tried the blog thing before, but to little avail. I am going at it for real this time. I want to keep up with this every night. There are a lot of reasons, but I don't think that I need to post them on the internet for the world to see.
Tonight I can't help but think about Paul and his thorn. That was really obnoxious that God would not let him free of it. Sometimes I don't understand our lack of progress and God's aparent refusal to give us a hand. Paul had something that was nagging him and his ministry, and he asked for it to be gone. God said, "Nope." I can think of a million things in my own life that I feel like hold me back. When I expand that to the church in general, I can see another million things that I continually pray that God will help us fix. He could fix so many things with just a wave of his hand. Does he enjoy seeing us struggle?
Well, I don't think so. I think that he actually hates seeing us struggle, but we still do for three reasons. First of all, a lot of things we take out of our hands by not doing what we need to do to let him work. We quench the Spirit. Secondly, we learn from the struggles. We become better, and he knows that some things we are dumb enough to have to learn on our own. Finally, it seems that in general we have to get used to the fact he is God. Sometimes he recieves glory in our weakness. It seems like that is what he told Paul. "My strength is made perfect in weakness." Like the poor blind man in John, often I think that we struggle so that God might be glorified. I don't know what that means, and I don't like it, but I submit to God because he is God. I guess that I just have to get used to it.
I know this doesn't sound too optimistic, but the fact is that we give false hope if we say that things will certainly work out. They don't always. We have to get used to our God. He is not a tame lion. He is good, but he is not safe. That takes a lot of time, but we have no other choice. Christ may look at us in the hard times and say "Will you forsake me too?" I answer with Peter, "Lord, to whom else can we go?"