tomb attacks . . . responding to recent claims

To be honest, I think one of the often missing ingredients of Christian spirituality is that of openness–open to new insights, open to truth, open to recent discoveries, open to the possibility that you might be wrong, open to change, open to what God might still teach you. This is a part of the journeying paradigm that has been increasingly emphasized during the shift to a postmodern thought process. And what is it that provides the impetus and motivation, indeed the goal, of our journeying? Well, it’s Jesus and his call to follow him. Many within evangelical circles have minimized or neglected this component, fearing compromise and the like. Thus, everything is viewed with suspicion and our goal is to somewhat shield ourselves from perceived error and protect the truth and God’s people (and perhaps even God himself?) from that which could mislead.

That said, there is clearly an agenda out there, especially in popular cultural circles, to undermine the Christian faith. To be honest, I don’t think that these things typically do as much damage as evangelical gatekeepers seem to assume. Likewise, I’m not convinced that trading blows with the “enemy” is the only or primary apologetic in light of these attacks. Still, I have to admit that I sometimes get fed up with the blatant lies and consistent anti–Christian focus of many groups.

Case in point: The new claims that they have found the tomb of Jesus, Mary, and the rest of the holy family. Never mind that the claims are basically fallacious. Never mind that the tomb itself has been well-known for over 25 years. Never mind that the very name Mary was so common in ancient Palestine that it would be difficult to know, apart from further evidence, whether this tomb actually contains her remains. Never mind that . . . by coincidence the same old agenda is being put forth and given a new face. Already, a documentary is planned. Next, a movie? And you can bet that Hollywood will tout it as a great achievement. And who are we to question the “scholars” of Hollywood? After all, they all have advanced degrees in archeology, right? They know ancient texts, right? They have examined these matters in depth, right? They are philosophers and theologians and historians, right? WRONG! (For some additonal information, look here.)

Now, please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying that it takes expertise to come to faith. Nor I am assuming that scholarship is the cornerstone of faith. I’m not even saying that Hollywood is always wrong! Indeed, I am one of the biggest movie goers around, and I sometimes don’t appreciate the overly critical attitude toward them that is fostered by traditional evangelicals! So, I’m not trying to “diss” everything popular; far from it! But, I do have to question the motives of those who ignore what we do know about this amazing individual from Palestine, who was variously referred to as the Son of David, the Messiah, the Son of Man, the Son of God . . . Jesus. He was not viewed by his contemporaries as a good guy but as a prophet and much more. Indeed, following his death, his depressed followers were ready to give up such high talk, except for one glaring fact: He appeared to them, physically appeared to them, convincing them that the world’s curse had been reversed and hope had sudden dawned.

Now, in light of these recent claims about the discovery of Jesus’ tomb, we must be fair. We cannot explain away or reinterpret the gist of the NT. If this tomb actually holds the remains of Jesus, then it would appear that he has not conquered the grave. If this is true, we must concur with Paul who almost 2000 years ago admitted that “if Christ is not raised our faith is in vein.”

Of course, for some, the discovery of Jesus’ bones would not rattle them in the least. This, I believe, is an error and is inconsistently with the documents that are the basis for our faith. Then again, others will (over?) react to every claim that comes down the pike or across the screen. These, too, are mistaken and lacking faith. The faith once for all delivered to the saints will survive, and Jesus–if he is indeed alive–will not be defeated by conjecture and speculation.

Is this tomb a point of interest? Sure it is. Ought we look at it as objectively as possible? Absolutely. But, at the same time, we need not panic or become overly reactionary in our stance. The truth has survived centuries of misrepresentations and misunderstandings. Clearly, it can take the attacks of the producer of Titanic. The only question is, can we? Attacks and sensationalistic claims will always exist. Will our faith? “We believe Lord. Help our unbelief, and increase our faith.”

what we are NOT saying SAYS a lot

An interesting thing happened to me a little while ago. While talking on the phone with a friend, I noticed the television was on to the Inspirational Channel. Though the station was on mute, I observed this particular man as he walked around the stage, peaching to his audience, holding a Bible in his hand. And it reminded me, once again, how turned off I have been by traditional evangelical paradigms.

Please, don’t get me wrong. This man is probably a wonderful individual, and he is probably way more faithful to God than I am. It wouldn’t surprise me if the things he spoke were true and that they were a blessing to many. It’s just that a number of things seem, well, kind of . . . weird.

Then, I thought, what would an unchurched person think about such things. What thoughts would flow through the minds of most people under the age of, say, 35? Again, I cannot speak with any measure of certainty, but here is what I observed:

An authoritative type–this is the way it is, so fall in line.

A predictable type–this is the way the faithful act, look, and dress.

A sense of “We have the answers.”–this is my Bible, which God gave to me personally, telling me what I should preach to you.

An arrogance–we speak for the Lord, so you had better pay attention–again, look at the Bible that I’m waving around.

A disconnected, formulaic brand of faith–pay attention to the propositions that I lay out before you (I didn’t actually hear the man, but I noticed that immediatley behond was this large sign, which contained a myriad of names for God–e.g., Alpha and Omega, I Am, etc. There is absolutely nothing wrong with names, especially biblical terms that do indeed carry meaning. But this once again reminded me of how often the modern church goes around plucking words or phrases out of the Bible, stringing them together, and then allowing these terms to take on almost a life of their own. Often, the terms are used properly, though not always so. What’s most wrong is that these words are consistently seen in isolation from the texts from which they were derived. This can subtly mislead. And it also fails to allow the words to be seen within the larger, God-given context from which they are taken–Again, too modernistic, abstract, and lacking of the narrative or the personal.)

A well-groomed, “proper” religiosity–the holy ones always get dressed up. (Note: there is nothing wrong with suit coats and ties. But they are not somehow more holy than jeans and a t-shirt.)

An “I’m above you” mentality–this is where I stand, above you on a stage.

An “endorsed” spirituality–the imprimatur is listed nicely at the bottom, right side of the screen (i.e., INSP).

These and many other things stood out, and I have to say they are a real source of frustration for me. Whatever this guy believes or said, he appeared like a stereotypical, Bible-waving, formula-exclaiming, choir-supported, authoritative preacher. Though he may be speaking the truth, he is also “speaking” other things that, in my opinion, will get in the way of his words. Indeed, I have to wonder about the words of someone who appears to out of touch with the cultural realities that are all around him. I really do not think we should be enslaved to anything cultural, doing things just to appease the masses. But I do believe we have to live within a culture, absorbing (or at least being aware of) its ethos, and listening for what God may be saying to us today. Only as we listen to God and to his Word, allowing the two to intersect, will we be able to share the truth in meaningful ways in any era. That’s my opinion, anyway. :-)

P.S. Although a chose a picture that says A Pious Fraud, I am not at all assuming this of the person I observed on television. Indeed, as I've said, he is probably far better than I. This said, he may still appear to be a pious fraud, and this is the point.

words -- we can't live with them . . . or without them

St. Francis of Assisi once said: “Preach the gospel at all times, and if necessary use words.” What a great line. After all, we are nit wits most of the time, and the presumed importance of our words is often just that, presumed. To illustrate, I was observing some television ministry when I noticed these words at the bottom of the screen: IF YOU WANT TO KNOW JESUS CONTACT US AT. What?! Who the _ _ _ _ do you think you are, presuming to be the spokespersons for Jesus? Do you think the living God, the Lord of universe actually needs your help? Are you so arrogant as to assume that you are the mediators between God and man? I thought Jesus already occupied that spot! Then again, I thought, they probably meant well, and I’m guessing that at least some of the people associated with this particular ministry were only trying to be faithful. Indeed, I have to admit that Scripture does teach that the norm for the gospel is that it be spread through human messengers. Remember Paul’s words to the Romans: “How will they hear without a preacher?” Once again, I sense the tension of it all. On the one hand, we are often better of (and people are often better served) if we simply care about them and live faithfully among them rather than spouting off our trite little evangelistic phrases. Sometimes, I just want to scream, “Shut up!” On the other hand, if we are indeed going to be faithful, we have to open our mouths at some point. Indeed, as much as I agree with the sentiments of Assisi, I must also admit that he conveys his thoughts via, you guessed it, words. Indeed, to point out the arrogance of others, to state that words can be dangerous, to decry the overuse of words involves the use of words. What’s more, Jesus expects us to use words in telling others of the love and purposes of God. Indeed, the spread of the gospel in the early church and during all times of revival has been caused, among other things, by the use of words. So, what’s the point? Well, we have to use words, for they are a gift and an avenue of revelation. But as we speak, we had better be sure that our words are right, that they are based in truth and not our traditions, that we speak the truth in love (and not to win an argument), and that we understand that these words–to the degree that they are true–are divinely appointed pointers to the living God, entry points, if you will, into the presence of the One who is the Word made flesh. “Lord, help us to use words, but let us do so wisely, intelligently, lovingly, and with an eye to the one who is both the Author of words and the embodiment of grace and truth.”

Everything I ever really needed to know I learned in (spiritual) kindergarten

Robert Fulghum wrote Everything I ever really needed to know I learned in kindergarten. Though I have never read the book, I’m guessing that’s its premise is not that difficult to figure out. The things that truly matter educationally were learned at a very early age, before the complexity of “higher education” and the debates over academic matters, we learned to read, write, think logically, and so forth.

Well, I was recently thinking that the same might be true when it comes to spiritual matters. Perhaps, the things that matter most are those I learned in spiritual kindergarten. Way back then–before Jesus’ studies and Redaction Criticism, prior to my exposure to liberalism and conservatism, before modernism and postmodernism, before a lot of things–I was told that God sent his only Son to rescue us through his death. He came, lived, died, and conquered the grave. He taught and called us to follow. He left but promised to return one day. He invited us to believe in him, to lean on him, to trust him for everything.

I certainly have no desire to minimize the things that have taken place since “kindergarten.” Some of these are extremely significant. Furthermore, I have to admit that some of the caretakers of education, those who taught me in “grade school,” “middle school,” “high school,” and beyond, make me feel a bit uncomfortable. Their rules and dress code and educational assumptions are sometimes a real turn off. Still, all that said, many of these people started where I did, in “kindergarten.” And, in my better moments at least, I suppose we may be on the same page more than I'd like to admit. More so, whatever else is true (and other things are true!), the things that matter the most, the realities that determine heaven and hell, the things that will last forever, are those I learned at that very early age. Perhaps it’s true: Everything I ever really need to know I learned in (spiritual) kindergarten.

“Who do you say that I am?”

“Who do you say that I am?” It was an important question for Jesus’ first followers, and it is for us, as well.

In a postmodern era many good and uplifting truths have been brought out into the open. One of these is humility. In theory, at least, postmoderns have adopted a humbler stance toward almost everything. This, in general, is a good thing, paralleling Scripture itself which calls for a “humble and contrite” perspective.

Then again, we must not allow humility to be confused with weakness, thinking that a wimpy, gutless perspective on truth and life is what God is after. Neither, I would add, must we allow some supposedly humble attitude to keep us from (humbly but) courageously following the true Jesus.

Here’s what I mean: Jesus clearly expected his followers to come to grips with who and what he was. Indeed, answering his question correctly was an indication of God’s activity in one’s life. It’s not, of course, that the mere verbalization of some theological formula will suffice. Over and over again, Jesus warned us about such hypocrisy. However, it certainly does matter that we understand Jesus’ identity so that we can embrace him.

In response to Jesus’ question, a number of answers had been give. Some thought him to be a pretty good guy, maybe even a prophet. Perhaps, he was a real cool cat, a recyled version of some old-shool cool cat (e.g., John the Baptist). But none of these would suffice. The only proper response, the response that separates belief from unbelief, truth from error, blessing from something less, is that Jesus is in fact the Messiah. And, understand, we are not free to define Messiah in any way that is convenient. No, messiahship to Jesus entailed being God’s chosen Emissary, the divine Son of God. Of course postmoderns are right to question the hubris of a modern faith. Thus, when we act like we know Jesus exhaustively, that we pretty much have him figured out, that our mere formulas are the equivalent of saving faith, that we can tell who’s “in” or “out” based on our statements of faith, that our official doctrines are what please God most, we have set ourselves up for a fall.

Obviously, we must remain humble about all things, both theoretical and personal. But, along the way, we must not allow our obvious imperfections and incompleteness to keep us from this life-shaping question and the confession it calls for. Who do you say that I am? is relevant in any age, and the answer we provide will determine both the direction of our lives and whether or not we are being faithful in this or any age.

One Way, many “paths”

In thinking through issues related to a Christian worldview and the way it might unfold, a number of thoughts come to mind. One of these is that the Christian’s truth claims are tied to the combination of at least two ideas: (1) Jesus is the one and only way to God, and yet (2) there might also be a number of legitimate forms this one way could take. In saying this, however, a number of thoughts are in order.

Regarding “paths”:

First, there are not an infinite number of paths to God. That is, we are not free to create out of whole cloth whatever our hearts desire. Though Christian truth claims are broad in one sense, highlighting the fact that all who want God may have him, these claims must still be conceived or understood within certain, shall we say, Scripturally-driven One Way parameters.

Second, in saying that there are many paths, we mustn’t think that there are various available Saviors from which we might choose. Whatever good things different religious leaders have accomplished, and however admirable and helpful their respective views, Jesus alone is the world’s one true Savior. In saying this, there is no intent to discriminate or to create a party spirit. Rather, the goal is to declare, as Christians have done historically, that Jesus was unique and his words and deeds unmatched.

Third, in saying there are many paths, we are not to embrace some sort of naive soteriology, thinking that just about anything is acceptable in God’s sight. Though the ways God operates in the lives of people is far beyond our ability to grasp, and while we must never think that we can comprehend very much about these matters, the fact remains that some paths cannot be made to fit within the framework of Christianity.

Fourth, there are normative paths and non-normative ones. By this I mean that there are more common ways of coming to faith, and there are also uncommon pathways. A common way would be through the agency of an evangelistic encounter or some such thing. An uncommon one would be if God were to intervene in the life of a person who had never heard the gospel but who nevertheless cried out to the ever-present One. Only God knows what actually transpires in any of these situations, uncommon or common.

Regarding One Way:

First, we intend that the true God is accessible through his Son alone.

Second, we mean that only the Son has the qualifications of Savior and has indeed accomplished what is necessary for our salvation

Third, he is the only Savior because God has so declared this to be the case, not because we have.

Fourth, we do not own or possess the only Savior. Rather, he owns us.

Fifth, the fact that there is one way (through Jesus) does not mean that we know exactly how a person comes into a genuine relationship with him. Even knowing about him is not exactly the same as actually knowing him.

Sixth, as mentioned above, facts about him are sufficiently clear but are never exhaustive. Thus, we know (or can know) enough about him, but we never know everything about him and his ways.

Seventh, this “One Way” about which I speak is a way and not merely an end. The point is not that there are many religions that lead to God (e.g., one person takes Buddha, another seeks to merit God’s favor through philanthropy). Rather, what I mean is that there is one way as in one direction that (obviously) leads to a final telos or goal. This is not to necessarily discount what God might do in the hearts and lives of those who embrace other religions. One might imagine him coming up alongside of someone who is choosing an outwardly wrong and intellectually indefensible approach. Yet, still, God might–in theory, at least–somehow utilize this false or incomplete path in such a way that its adherent actually makes his way onto a legitimate path, moving in the right direction, and coming into a genuine connection with the One Way.

At the end of the day, there are some basic reasons why this One-Many approach makes sense.

The many “paths” idea makes sense because people . . .

- have different psychological makeups

- have different habits

- have different backgrounds

- have different environments

- have different life-experiences

- have different attitudes

- have different hangups

- have different . . . whatever . . .

• Thus, God has different ways to intervene and link up with his needy people. Take a look at the NT, and I think you’ll see a number of these.

On the other hand, the One Way idea also makes sense because . . .

- God is One of a kind

- God is unique

- God is not willing/able to change his character/nature to accommodate literally any “path.”

- God is uncompromisingly who and what he is.

- God is the One depicted in Scripture and seen most profoundly in Jesus.

- God has explicitly told us as much in the Old and New Testaments.

- God, through his one-and-only Son, is actually the only One equipped, able, and willing to actually rescue us from the predicament we find ourselves in.

- God's exclusive, one-of-a-kindness is the avenue by which we are fulfilled and the Source through which genuine love is accessed.

For these and other reasons, he is the One, the Only One, the One who lovingly, patiently, kindly, fairly, creatively, personally, and wisely leads countless people (“more than anyone can number,”according to the book of Revelation) down many “paths” so long as those “paths” are on the/in the direction of/leading to/acceptable to . . . the One Way, who is Jesus.

Note: This is not . . .

An effort to promote universalism, which–while a comforting thought–does not match up to the teachings of Scripture.

An attempt to promote some extreme version of religious pluralism, which wrongly identifies all paths as equally valid ways to God.

Agnosticism, which wrongly assumes that we can know almost nothing with some measure of confidence.

Note: This is . . .

An effort to do justice to the rich biblical data, including the exclusive parts and the inclusive aspects.

An effort to be honest and open yet also committed and willing to bend to the truth, wherever it leads.

An effort to be honest with human experience within the framework of Scripture, and with Scripture in light of human experience.

the Galloping Gourmet

Earlier today, while jogging on the treadmill, I was watching food guru Graham Kerr. As some of you might recall, he is sometimes referred to as the Galloping Gourmet. As I observed the program, my hunger grew, and I was once again reminded of my love for food. Indeed, someone recently asked me if one of my motivations for exercise is to avoid guilt when eating; this is probably the case.

What a marvel it is to consider the many delectable dishes that are possible. Both the maker of these marvelous creations and the food itself remind, once again, of the kind of world in which we live. Indeed, one might consider this the “problem” of taste! How so? Well, let me put it this way: Why do so many things taste so incredibly good? What causes us to salivate in the presence of food? Why do certain aromas seem to draw us in, compelling us to gormandize on the many appetizing options?

I suppose we could blame it all of an evolutionary impulse. Tastebuds are merely a mechanism that came about by chance to assure our survival. Of course I wonder how and why a supposedly mindless process would be so kind! Indeed, are random processes benevolent? I realize, of course, that this argument will not be acceptable to certain philosophers who are hell-bent on noticing and tracing out only the awful aspects of life (see my bog on the “problem” of good). But for those with eyes to see, olfactory organs to smell, and taste buds to . . . well, taste, this may be yet another example of the goodness of our Creator, who made us in such a way that we can enjoy many things and who made many things that we might enjoy. Perhaps, he is the original Galloping Gourmet. Not only the heavens but the hash browns, not only the firmament but the French Bread pizza declare the glory of God . . to the delight of our God-given palates. Bon appétit!

essential stuff

John Smulo, who always gets me thinking, has posted an intriguing series of thoughts called Down to the Core. The idea is to ask others which beliefs are absolutely essential to the faith. With a bit of hesitancy and (hopefully) a measure of openness, here are my thoughts:

I suppose, in one sense, the only thing that matters is that we “believe that he is, and that he rewards those who diligently seek him.” He’s there/here, after all–whatever our formulations and however accurate or inaccurate our thoughts may be.

On the other hand, the followers of Jesus must be able to come to at least some consensus about what we believe, which God we are referring to, and how humans might access him.

Before going down this path, however, I think I should state my basic dual presuppositions. (1) there is indeed, as just mentioned, a true and real and present God–he is, and he’s with us, not only to assist us personally but to guide us as we seek him and try to better comprehend what our “core beliefs” ought to be. (2) the historical basis of it all is Jesus, of course, but we really have no reasonable and reliable way to access these things apart from Scripture.

Thus, the God of truth and the truth of God are somehow joined, penetrating one another and flowing out to all of the other areas of life. Does this make sense? Many have approached God in an almost abstract way–he’s “out there” and we simply need to look to him. To be honest, I agree in some measure with this thought, for God is more than a formula or a doctrinal stance. But, and I do think this is crucial, we still at some level need to articulate something (for ourselves and for those we wish to serve–notice I said serve not hit on top of the head!).

The faith has never been a completely “pick and choose,” theological smorgasbord. There has always been–and we can trace it back to statements like that of Jude–“the faith once for all delivered.”

So, we need, in my view, a philosophical perspective that allows for a present God (a God who guides and is involved in even our “core belief” discussions) and a God who provides an adequate sphere for such discussions. This Sphere is located in the Christian Scriptures. What I’m saying, practically anyway, is that even our exchange of thoughts about core beliefs should take place within, how shall I say it, the parameters provided by God (i.e., Scripture) and with an active and ongoing trust in him. (God and his written revelation must be held together.)

Okay, that said, here are some tentative suggestions. (1) The trinity, as John says, is imperative. This does not mean that we understand it entirely, which of course we do not. Nor does it mean that we have to verbalize Trinitarian formulae in our efforts to point people to God. It’s just that, in my opinion, God wants to be known as a One-Many/One and Three/Triunity. So much of theology and soteriology flows out of this basis understanding of God. (2) I also agree with John that we must have some basic commitment to an orthodoxy of Jesus’ person and personality. He is the divine-human savior, the God-man, the theanthropos. Again, this does not mean that our witness must always include an articulation of these truths or even that we can enter into them completely (again, we cannot!). But it seems evident to me that this is the One depicted in Scripture. Clearly, he is unlike us in certain profound ways–being the Creator and Sustainor of all there is and possessing power that is even greater than Superman! :-) At the same time, he is also just like us in many ways; he feels, weeps, cares, etc. (3) This next one intertwines with the previous thought. Somehow, he died and conquered the grave on our behalf. Whether or not we know it or intellectually embrace it, he did something in his death and resurrection, and that something was Salvific (i.e., for us and our reconciliation with God). (4) To be honest with the New Testament emphasis, I think we need to mention faith as an essential. Now, to be honest, I am often uncertain what this faith entails, that is, what faith “looks and acts” like. Also, I am more convinced than ever that we must be very careful about how we go about identifying who does and does not have faith. Indeed, I think it is quite possible, even likely, that many people in this world who hold to faulty views of salvation, perhaps even assuming that we can earn God’s favor by our works, nevertheless possess genuine faith. Still, that said, the NT does make a big deal of faith–“Without it we cannot please God.” “If righteousness comes through works, Christ dies needlessly.” Etc. I might define faith on paper, and I may even be right about it, but I cannot locate it with precision. Still, though I cannot always understand it or the expression of it, I must proclaim faith as an integral aspect of what it means to connect with Jesus in the first place.

There you have it, some tentative and interrelated thoughts on core beliefs, or–as mentioned above– what Jude referred to as “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.”

Of course there are many other related beliefs, and some of these may warrant the “core belief” label. Whatever the details, there are certainly other important ideas that are tied into the ones I’ve listed here. As an aside, one of the difficult issues for me is to articulate the truth (as I see it) without allowing it to degenerate into either an “anything goes” mentality or a type of rigid fundamentalistic attitude. The “anything goes” view does not, in my view, do justice to the Old or New Testaments; these were people who knew some things and held them in common. Then again, the fundamentalist view leads to rigidity and close mindedness, which is a part of what happened with many of the Pharisees in Jesus’ day. Lord, give us wisdom and balance.

the "problem" of good

There is much talk in philosophical and theological circles, and among people in general, about the problem of evil. That is, how can we believe in or make sense of a good and all-powerful deity who allows so much suffering and evil to transpire in this world? I completely agree that this is a good question and perhaps the most baffling reality that we face. Indeed, I think it is the single greatest argument against God or at least the kind of God depicted in Christian theology. So important is this subject, in fact, that I have written about it numerous times, including a book that tackles this very topic.

That said, I also think it is important to be fair and to do justice to everything that demands an explanation. If there is a problem of evil–and there clearly is, at least in this life from our perspective–it is only right to acknowledge that there is also a problem of good.

What do I mean? Well, how do we explain the presence of those things are generally considered beneficial and healthy and wonderful and, well, good? If evil causes us to doubt God’s existence, or at least to question his ways, what should we make of good? After all, we are instinctively drawn to (even if we do not immediately appreciate) acts of compassion and demonstrations of sacrificial love. How should we react to these things?

Of course it could simply be that we have learned to adapt to life in a meaningless world. Perhaps, even our recognition of good is a part of some undirected evolutionary process that is a part of our survival as a species and nothing more. Maybe, we convince ourselves that there really is such a thing as good, playing “make believe” in order to make it through this life.

Then again, if we are going to be honest, we also have to wonder what instinct causes us to notice the oppositive of good, i.e., evil, when it occurs. If good is something we’ve conjured up in order to make our daily existence a little more enjoyable, what makes us think that the antithesis of good actually exists? Perhaps good is a myth, a figment of our collective imagination. But, if that is the case, why don’t we remain consistent and apply these same standards when evil takes place? Why must we make sense of evil but not good? Hmm.

Could it be that we possess an instinctive awareness that there is both evil and good? And, while evil is difficult to account for, it at least reveals that there must be some higher purpose, some God-like power, a Standard-Creating deity in this universe. And, if we are going to admit this much, why not also acknowledge that we have to do justice not only to the awful and heart wrenching aspects of life but also to the tremendous and joy-producing parts?

Thus, while we cannot conjure up a comprehensive and fully satisfying answer to the problem of evil, neither can we deny that most people have encountered that which seems undeniably good. A hug or a kiss, the camaraderie of friends, the intimacy shared by those in love, expressions of kindness and concern, an unexpected act of mercy, demonstrations of courage, out-of-the-way displays of charity–these are good things. What should we say about the beauty of little children, the smiles that we share along the way, the power of a sunrise or sunset, the sheer beauty of trees and valleys and beaches and other miracles of nature, the smell of flowers or a good steak, the visual display of so many things beautiful? Whatever ugliness and evil there is (and there is!), let us not neglect to give an account of that which is good. Perhaps, amid the mystery and unanswered questions, there is also a reverberation of the divine, an almost every-day reminder of the glory of our Maker. Perhaps, it is time to pay attention–both practically and philosophically–to the problem of good. Of course, seen this way, good is only a “problem” for those who fail to recognize its (God-echoing) existence.

loving like Jesus

John Smulo just posted some great ideas about the love and committment of Jesus. Here, I add a number of my own:

I love you even if you carry out my death sentence.

I love you even if you mock me in my time of greatest need.

I love you even if you twist my words.

I love you even if you’re ashamed of me.

I love you even if you only care about getting ahead.

I love you even if to try to thwart my efforts to love you.

I love you even if you make me cry.

I love you even though I know in advance that you will screw up countless times.

I love you even if the big shots in town frown on my efforts.

I love you even if even it is (supposedly) not the time for love.

I love you even if you think my greatest triumph is defeat.

I love you even if you are a crook.

I love you even if you are a whore.

I love you even if you care more about status than you do about me.

I love you even if you completely miss what I am looking for.

Who can love like this? I do not think I can . . . but he can and does. Perhaps, in him, I will.

Faith in 2057

There’s a pretty cool new show on TV called 2057. This number, of course, represents a time 50 years in the future. The premise of the show is to imagine, based on what various thinkers envision, what the world will be like fifty years from now. Led my theoretical physicist Dr. Michio Kaku (who has written some pretty thought-provoking books, by the way), the show is an effort to imagine all of the changes that might occur in the not-too-distant future.

This led me to wonder what the church might be like at that time. What will the reigning paradigm be is 2057? How will technology affect education, evangelism, and apologetics. Where will societal change take us? Will the church adapt or simply react? What possibilities await us? What dangers? In what ways will discoveries cause theologians to adapt their current perspectives.

While it may be impossible to know many things with certainty, I do think believers must learn to not only predict but actually help shape the future. Many will continue to fight old battles, and others will get stuck in the mud of current debate. But a better way, perhaps, would be to learn from and appreciate the past, while living in the present and anticipating (even creating?) a God-honoring future. “Lord, help us to be a part of a fruit-bearing future, a faith that can thrive in 2057 and beyond.”

i don't get it

There are so many things that I just don’t understand. From my own life and experiences, I am aware of things like . . .

✓ A young man in his prime gets into an automobile accident, experiencing injuries that render him physically and mentally handicapped for the rest of his life.

✓ An inspiring high school history teacher, the father of four, is struck with a disease and dies within months. His youngest child is only a few months old.

✓ A man in his early forties passes away just two days before Christmas, leaving behind three terrific but heartbroken kids.

✓ A young man in his twenties with everything going his way apparently takes his life.

✓ A high school girl, visiting her grandmother, is thrown from a horse and has to deal with various physical injuries.

✓ A kindhearted man discovers that his wife has been running around on him. She calls to brag about her affair.

✓ A young high school girl learns that her mom and dad have been killed in a car accident by a drunk driver.

✓ A high school boy, while messing around with his friends, is thrown to the sidewalk and receives major head trauma.

✓ Three high school students, returning from a night at the movies, are killed when a drunk man decides to make a U-Turn in front of their car.

✓ An energetic and extremely talented teacher is promised a position at the district where she’s been teaching, but the job goes to a less experienced and less talented outsider who happens to be related to one of the members of the hiring team.

✓ A women comes home from work to discover that her husband has been stealing valuable items from their home. A divorce ensues.

✓ A teacher completes her career and manages to live out her dream of retiring to a beautiful shore resort. Suddenly, and without warning, she passes away just a few weeks into her retirement.

✓ A teenager, who is trying to challenge himself and remain active, has a stroke while doing laps around his school’s track. A few days later he passes away.

✓ A man in his twenties is diagnosed with diabetes. First he loses some toes, then his leg. Shortly thereafter, he dies.

✓ A young missionary gets word that his father is dying. On the way to the hospital, a car runs a stop sign, striking the young man’s car and killing his wife and one of his children. The father dies a short time later.

✓ A very active middle aged woman goes to the doctor for help in getting over a sickness. The doctor, who is too busy to notice, prescribes medication that should not be taken in conjunction with the medicine she is already taking. A few days later, she experiences some sort of stroke, and a couple of days after that, the otherwise healthy woman passes away. She experienced the stroke on the very day one of her daughters was scheduled for her wedding rehearsal. She dies on the day her daughter was supposed to be married.

✓ A man who has battled with drug abuse for years begins to turn his life around. He goes back to school and is doing very well. Then, one afternoon, while volunteering to help one of his professors move, he is involved in a car accident and is killed immediately.

✓ A pastor who had spent countless hours attempting to move a group of people in a more missional direction, is verbally attacked during a Sunday morning church gathering.

✓ A pastor, who had many years ago left a particular church group, is scheduled to perform a grave side service for his deceased grandmother at the cemetery owned by that same church. Though the service went forward, the pastor received word–seemingly out of nowhere and for no particular reason– that he had been officially excommunicated!

All of these stories are true, and each one of them involves a case of which I am personally aware. These are people I know and situations with which I am acquainted.

Of course I am not suggesting that we have no clues about any of these things. Indeed, God has allowed a certain amount of light to illumine our paths, to show us, however incompletely, that he is present with us. Still, the darkness remains for now, and we are left to follow the light where we can find it, guided by hope and the shadow of the cross.

a both-and kind of world

You know, I think I’ve always been a both-and kind of guy. I’m not saying that I’m right or that I always follow by best inclinations, but I generally like an integrationist approach to life. But it probably wasn’t until about 12 years or so ago that I began to recognize this tendency.

My point is that I see a lot of things as being in tension. For instance take at a look at the following ideas:

□ dogmatic + humble

□ radical and carefree + semi-cautious

□ printed word + spoken word

□ open-minded + resistant

□ uncertain + confident

□ logic + intuition

□ apologetics as presuppositional + apologetics as evidential

□ (some version of) divine sovereignty + (some version of) free-will

□ God as transcendent + God as immanent

□ sharing the truth by stating facts + sharing the truth by arguing for and demonstrating the beauty those facts

□ historical + a-historical

□ journeying + possessing a sense of being “at home” (perhaps related to what theologians term the now and the not-yet)

□ biblical theology + systematic theology

□ mystery + perspicuity

□ the bible as divine + the bible as human

□ human beings as noble + human beings as depraved

□ (primarily today) postmodern + (the best remnants of) modern + (the sometimes forgotten) pre-modern + (the yet to come) post-postmodern

□ stories + propositions

□ church leaders as, just that, leaders + church leaders as one of the many (and never better)
□ a reality that is independent of our observations and human language + a reality that is only understood and explainable in less than perfect ways (critical realism?)

□ add your own here: _________________________

Please understand; I’m not proposing some sort of complicated system of thought in which a multitude of realties must be simultaneously absorbed. All I’m saying is that an amazing God has created an amazing world in which this both-and idea is common. I think this should humble us, on the one hand, and energize us on the other. We live within a sphere where there are multiple possibilities and numerous avenues of grace. (Just to ease your mind, I am not saying that everything is allowable and that all things should be embraced as a part of this balance. This is not, in other words, a Christianized version of the dark and light sides of “the force,” as if both good and evil are simply two sides of an acceptable reality; sorry Yoda. :-) All I’m saying is that God has revealed many things which demonstrate the richness of his ways and creation.)

I recognize, of course, that some of these things might not be occurring simultaneously; maybe logic works in one case and intuition in another. Hmm. That said, I still sense an intertwining of truths, a mixture of a whole lot of things.

To conclude, my take on this subject (for what it’s worth!) is that many things were, how shall I say it, designed to “rub up against” one another, each penetrating the other. Therefore, I’m not really talking about an attitude in which “a little of this” is combined with “a little of that” (though moderation has its place), but rather I’m saying that we live in an interlocking universe where many things are mixed together. My hope, of course, is that God is stirring the pot.

poised postmodernism

We are all reactionary beings. Something happens and our impulse is to react, to move in the opposite direction. This is true in our relationships and in many of our experiences. And–as my friend John Smulo reminded me recently–a portion of the emergent movement is a reaction (often, rightly so) against modern thought and practices.

This got me to thinking about whether there is a better way to react. That is, in our revolt against some of the faulty assumptions of modernism, is it possible to do so in a manner that is more level-headed and balanced? In our aversion to certain traditional “bath water” is it feasible that we might restrain ourselves enough to be avoid throwing out the “baby”?

You can believe me I say that I have often been anything but a “model”of theological equilibrium, but I do recall a number of situations that challenged me to pursue some sort of balance. When I left a church where I had been a pastor for many years, I struggled with some of its agenda. Thus, for instance, they advocated and preached long and hard on Calvinistic themes. It’s not so much that I disagreed with what they said so much as I thought they were sometimes a bit too overconfident and didn’t give enough weight to other truths. After I had left, it would have been easy to reject these Calvinistic influences entirely and to adopt some radical “other end of the continuum” view. Instead, I recall being very conscious of what the best Calvinists had said and very determined to retain anything that was true. As a result, though I don’t like many of the labels people use, I still retain a strong belief in divine sovereignty. I just can’t escape the fact that Luther, Calvin, and others still have lessons to teach us. To provide another example, I recall growing weary of the extreme confidence of certain modern types, feeling that life and truth are just not as simple as some have led us to believe. In reacting against the hubris of modernity, it became clear that humility is an often neglected commodity. This admitted, however, I don’t think that we should allow a stance of humility to degenerate into a wimpy approach in which pretty much anything goes. Take a look at Jesus, and you’ll quickly see that he could be quite dogmatic at times.

So it is with the postmodern turn. There are plenty of things that are wrong with a modernistic brand of faith, and there are things that, quite frankly, drive me crazy about traditional presuppositions and habits. But this doesn’t mean that we ought to ignore everything that came before us, relegating it to the category of antiquity. How, then, can we pull this off? In what ways might we learn to be discerning postmodern sojourners? To be honest, I have no “set in stone” strategy (Would that be too modern? :-) ). Still, here are a few suggestions:

+ Spend time with lots of people, including modern types.

+ Acquaint yourself with some of the key figures and writers of the modern era. Understand their world and the manner in which they sought to be faithful. You’ll find mistakes, of course, but you’ll also find some impressive statements and stances.

+ Try to spent at least some time “looking in the mirror,” to borrow James’ imagery. Over time, you are likely to notice some tendencies that are troubling and some ideas that are imperfect. When we don’t have all the answers, we hope that others will be patient with us. Likewise, other imperfect types (that’s all of us!) require our patience.

Let’s face it. We are travelers. By God’s grace, we follow “the Way,” but it is also true that we are merely on the way. No one has arrived just yet. Journey is one of our mantras. Thus, even if it is the case that we live in one of those special (and dangerous) times between eras, it is also true that we are not likely the last ones to traverse the landscape of a new world. I want to feel the heat and energy of what God is doing in our age. I want to experience the excitement of it all. But I also want to be–with God’s help and yours–at least occasionally aware of my tendency to exaggerate (if it fits my current theory), neglect others (if they don’t do it just like I do), and treat my own perspective (ironically so, given our supposed postmodern enlightenment) as automatically superior. I want to be postmodern (in the best sense of that term) but also discerning and truth-seeking. I want to embrace and give expression to a wise, balanced, poised postmodernism.

Like Jesus (Again)

To be like Jesus means a lot of things, including . . .

1. Being misunderstood by the people you thought would understand you most.

2. Connecting with those who, according to the religious gatekeepers, are “outsiders.”

3. Taking your cues from an authority that often goes unnoticed by the religious elite.

4. Being so intertwined with truth that it oozes out of you.

5. Realizing that sometimes the things that matter most to the people, matter least to the big shots.

6. Recognizing that sometimes orthodoxy will appear in unorthodox garb, while heterodoxy will ironically appear in orthodox clothing.

7. Running up against dark forces.

8. Experiencing power that is greater than dark forces.

9. Doing and saying things that attract normal folk but frustrate the abnormality of Phariseeism.
10. Knowing that, whatever the current struggle, God is in it with and through you.

11. Being able to look through Golgotha to glory.

Like Jesus

My friend John Smulo has some really fascinating, insightful, and cool things to say about what it might mean to Be Like Jesus. I’ve added a number of my own. Here are some examples:

* Actually care more about what is true and right and good than you do about what the self-proclaimed experts say.

* Have a beer, then a second one.

* Be normal, not religious.

* Be courageously willing to demonstrate your love for others.

* So trust God to rescue people that you don't feel compelled to run around spouting off predictable religious language.

* Accept that God can be at work in the lives of those who do not know the lingo and have not followed the prescribed methods (note: most of the time, Jesus did not say, "Hey, just believe in me!" Rather, he spent time with them, almost expecting that they would be drawn to faith . . . whether they knew it or not!).

* Oppose the status quo.

* Point out the harmful tendencies of the religious (but do so in a way that demonstrates that you are not bitter but rather angry at those whose ways misrepresent God and hurt people).

* Expect, as Jesus did, that living in a fallen world will always make you susceptible to hypocrisy. (What makes him amazing is that he never succumbed to this, but others often did, which is why he warned them/us.)

* Do most of your teaching/leading/caring outside of the prescribed environments (synagogue, church, etc.).

* Reject the secular-religious dichotomy by treating all of life as the place where God works and spiritual things occur.

* Allow everyday experiences to guide your approach to ministry (tell stories, draw from your environment and culture, etc.).

* Be bold on things that matter, but always be driven by genuine love for God and others.

* Allow truth to shape you instead of treating it as an easily understood commodity that you shape. Remember, even Jesus grew in wisdom and stature. Obviously, so can we!

* Honor Scripture by allowing it (and not necessarily our formulations of it) to be God’s voice in your life.

* Be cognizant that God is and that he is here!

* Join Scripture to life and life to Scripture, allowing both what God has said with what he is saying to permeate your thoughts and life.

* Make a point (when it is appropriate) to question many of the church’s sacred cows.

* Challenge those you know to actually defend their views, language, and practices from Scripture. “Hey, where in the bible do you find that idea?” can be a very (initially) frustrating yet (eventually) illuminating challenge.

* Think of creative ways to convey the truth without the use of traditional language.

* Teach a lesson or a series of lessons without referring to any theological terms.

Being, Exuding, Doing, Accompanying

Christian apologetics is typically defined as a rational defense of the faith. Thus, believers are encouraged to use their minds in such a way as to ward off error and prove to others that the Christian faith is indeed true. There is little question that this is a part of what is involved in the apologetics task, and there is certainly a place for such a stance in today’s world.

Too often, however, we have made apologetics a negative thing, and we have often been guilty, I think, of constructing nice sounding arguments that few people care about. Indeed, I am often mystified by the sheer one-dimensionalness and blindness of many believers, who walk around thinking they’ve taken a stance for the gospel when, in some cases at least, they have done nothing or, worse, have even done harm to the cause.

While I have no intention of placing everyone under this rubric, I honestly think that apologetics (along with evangelism and other matters of faith and life) has often taken on a shape that is more related to current evangelical assumptions and paradigms than it is to truth and reality. To that end, I’d like to suggest a handful of different yet overlapping ways of envisioning apologetics.

Being - A good portion of the life of faith has nothing to do with programs, agendas, and the like. Rather, it entails just being, that is, being what God wants us to be. We are to be the conduits, if I might use that term, of the living Spirit. Rather than taking on some artificial persona and adopting a pre-planed agenda, much of what really matters is about just being ourselves. Rather than being simply concerned about having answers and following some prescribed path, wouldn’t it be better to also embrace the real us/me? If God works through human personality, we mustn’t short-circuit the process by embodying something other than who and what we are (and are becoming). So, be!

Exuding - Perhaps, this is almost the same as the previous point, except that exuding provides more “meat” to the idea. It appears that what God wants us to be is greatly tied to great biblical themes that, properly embraced, shine forth–however imperfectly and inconsistently–from our lives. For instance Scripture mentions hope as an important trait, as is faith, which ought to impact and permeate everything else. Likewise, love is something that is to be not merely spoken (though we could use a lot more of that, as well) but lived out and expressed in our many relationships. What a thought . . . an apologetic, indeed a life, in which the power, compassion, and truth of God’s Son can’t help but “leak out” and touch the lives of others. Exuding the truth . . . I like the way that sounds!

Doing - While we connect with God through faith, our faith is shown to be valid and useful when it actually affects the way we live. We are to be doing the will of our Father, which means, among other things, that our lives should parallel (as much as that's possible now) that which is already present in that perfect sphere. Of course apologetics still needs to produce reasonable arguments and intelligent answers. Wouldn’t it be nice, though, if the advocates of such arguments were doers and not just talkers of the Word? It’s fascinating to consider the words of James from an apologetics perspective: “Show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works” (James 2:18). To (sort of) paraphrase: “Show me your arguments through simple argumentation and logic, and I'll show you the validity of my thinking and rationale by means of my active, energetic, caring lifestyle.”

Accompanying - What I mean by this is that we simply have to learn to approach our relationships with others in genuine and meaningful ways. Who the heck do we think we are when we treat people as mere objects of study? What motivates us to be so confident, even defensive, about matters that, sometimes at least, are quite complicated? How is it that we’ve almost treated apologetics as a barrier to faith instead of an avenue to it? Why can’t we stop pretending (or deluding ourselves into thinking) that we have it all figured out, that we never doubt, that our arguments are air-tight, and that any reasonable person simply has to follow our line of reasoning? Wouldn’t it be refreshing to actually understand the objections and the uncertainty of others? How shocking and revolutionary it would be if we were to accompany others, journeying with them, traveling together toward the truth! Imagine what it would be like if we joined others in (some of) their complaints, scratching our heads, as well, when it comes to the harder questions of life? Are we so shallow that we cannot embrace an apologetic that allows for both faith and doubt, confidence and uncertainty, understanding and ignorance? “I believe, Lord. Help my unbelief.”–What a paradigm! Sometimes, of course, we must confront, defend, and be dogmatic. But can’t we also recognize that one of the best ways of reaching others is by (genuinely) “feeling their pain,” acknowledging their better points, and walking along side them. If the Spirit can walk along side fools pitiful fools (i.e., all of us!), can’t we learn to do the same with our equals?

Okay, I’ve said enough . . . for now. Some might argue that what I’m presenting shouldn’t even be categorized as apologetics. But isn’t apologetics ultimately about giving people reasons and encouragement to believe. But, whatever categorizations are chosen, we could all sure use a healthy dose of being, exuding, doing, and accompanying.

a translucent faith

Some Christians are full of overwhelming confidence and certainty in the way they live and present the truth. It’s all about knowing the faith and sharing it with others. For them, the truth is an apparent and undeniable thing, shining brightly like sunlight through a clear window. Faith, for such individuals, is pretty much transparent. Though admitting a minimal amount of uncertainty, this type of person spends most of the time exclaiming and living by the rule that life is pretty much easy to decipher. As a result, he/she is somewhat dogmatic. Faith is transparently obvious.

Others take a different approach. Coming from a much more skeptical perspective, doubt and uncertainty are the fundamental principles of life. Truth, if it exists at all, is handled in a cautious and tentative fashion. Faith, then, is basically opaque, for even if one accepts the possibility of a universal Reality, His/its identity, character, and ways are somehow locked behind an impenetrable wall of reductionistic driven and pluralistic influenced obscurity. Some take this so far as to embody relativism, while others are not quite so radical in outlook. Therefore, dogmaticism is out of the question (except, of course, when it comes to the dogmatic [and contradictory] claims that there are no dogmatic claims . . . but that’s a subject for another day). Faith is opaquely hidden our sight.

But what if there were another way to approach these matters? Maybe, faith is neither completely clear nor absolutely out-of-reach. Perhaps, truth is sufficiently identifiable but also shrouded in mystery. Faith, in other words, might not be transparent or opaque. Instead, it might be translucent. Thus, we can know a lot of things, but there is much that evades our grasp. Likewise, even what we know is a knowing-in-part. Faith, therefore, is neither translucent nor opaque; it is neither completely clear nor absolutely beyond our grasp. Instead, it entails a combination of reasonable confidence and unavoidable enigma. Faith, in this sense, is translucent. Let’s here it for a translucent faith!