"it's legal" -- legislation and our highest court of appeal

Legal–you here this term referenced all of the time. If it’s legal, it’s okay. If it’s legal it is moral. Somehow the two are often equated. But many legal things are not moral–drunkenness, sexual promiscuity, and dishonesty in relationships come to mind, and not everything that is moral becomes moral simply because someone somewhere wrote a law to that end.

Yet, we live in a culture where it almost seems like the highest court of appeal is legislation. If we can enact new legislation we will overcome discrimination, ward off hatred, ensure fairness, and basically create a better world. And so the lawyers and legislators of the land have somehow become the arbiters of what matters most. You can have your “private” religious or ethical views, but if you are really serious about life, if you really want to affect society and people in a deep and meaningful way, you have to somehow get it written down somewhere. You need legislation.

Please don’t misunderstand. I am not saying that legislation is wrong, for clearly it plays an important role in any civilized society. Nor am I saying that morality and legislation are somehow separate categories that ought not intrude on one another. Yes, you can and must legislate certain (not all) types of morality. You have to say that some things are wrong and that violators of certain moral guidelines will be held accountable. So, I am not in favor of ignoring (good) laws or minimizing the importance of creating and enforcing them.

All I am saying is that there is more to cultural change than what some guys and gals in Washington (or wherever) decree. Indeed, I would suggest that as significant as it is to legislate certain things, it is even more important that we take our cues from a higher source.

I know that making such statement often creates more questions than it answers. After all, whose particular cues should be taken most seriously? Granted, there is a lot of debate that must take place in any type of moral discussion. But, perhaps that is in fact a good thing. If you believe–as I do–that we are made in God’s image, that God is a talking deity, that he has spoken in the past and will continue to speak in the present, then you have to trust that honest discussion will provide an avenue to truth. In other words, God has a way of sneaking into our world and impacting our thoughts and lives. And he can do so not only through legislation, which clearly has its place, but especially through the everyday lives of thinking, praying, wondering, doubting, and (ultimately) believing people.

Allow the law-makers to make their laws. Get involved in helping to shape such legislation, accepting that this is indeed one way in which God works through people in our society. But never limit yourself to human statutes, laws, and the like. We can and should and must appeal to laws when discussing morality–in fact a violation of the law is itself immoral unless that law specifically demands that we violate a higher/divine law–but the greatest form of appeal is that which not only transcends but actually informs the best kind of legislation. Jesus once said it this way: “Set them apart in the truth; Your word is truth.” May this truth guide us in our legislative choices. More so, may it draw us closer to the true originator and supplier of what matters most.

the quest (uncertainty, danger, excitement, and something/Someone more)

Quest–many things in life and theology are a quest, a journey, an on-going effort to better understand, formulate, and most importantly live out the truth that is found in Jesus.

Along the way, however, this quest is necessarily accompanied by uncertainty, danger, and excitement. The uncertainty is a by-the-nature-of-the-case recognition that all of these endeavors are my endeavors. As such they are human, imperfect, and subject to error and miscalculation. The danger comes in recognizing that at least some of these issues are extremely important. They are more than black ink on a white page, for they relate to ultimate matters like God and our relationship to him. The excitement is a by-product of such large thoughts and reflective of the One whom we seek to comprehend, engage, and in some sense know.

All of these things–the uncertainty, the danger, and the excitement–are a regular reality for me, and I fluctuate between them, experiencing the joy and disappointment, the satisfaction and the frustration, that accompanies the effort to make sense of life from a Christian view. Sometimes, frankly, I wonder about it all, and sometimes the uncertainty of it all can result in skepticism, cynicism, and doubt. Other times, I wonder about the dangers that are a part of this effort, fearing that my desire to be thorough will degenerate into the “double-minded man” status that James warns us about; it seems we must constantly resist the temptation to allow the desire to “gain the whole world” theologically/philosophically to lead us to the forfeiture of our soul. Still other times, the excitement of it all breaks in and makes this whole endeavor meaningful and electric.

My hope, I suppose, is that along with the uncertainty, danger, and excitement, there is something more to consider, or rather Someone. My hope is that a “Wind” accompanies me, a Spirit of truth and love walks with me, a merciful Person rubs shoulders with me. Mercy, grace, the constant need for forgiveness and guidance, wisdom, and so many other things are gifts from a higher place, from a higher being, from a Savior who lives among us still. Though my faith can sometimes waver, and while I freely admit my own imperfections and faulty ways, he–at the end of the day, at the end of all days–is my hope. “Lord, increase my faith.”

spirits and the Spirit -- alcohol and faith

Many religious people have a propensity for rule-making. Often, this entails a list of do’s and don’t, designed (in theory) to promote spiritual health and ward off negative influences. In some cases these rules are a means of salvation, a way of actually attaining eternal life. In other cases the prescribed regulations determine religious status and/or promote growth.

Before dismissing the rules mentality, it is important to recognize that there are indeed rules in the Bible, intended to benefit humankind. The ten commandments and the golden rule have served humanity quite well for millennia. Not only is there is nothing inherently wrong with rules, but sometimes the rules actually prompt wisdom and healthy living. The key, I think, is to determine what the precise rules are and whether they are applied properly. So it is when it comes to the matter of drinking alcohol.

Certain segments of the church reject the use of alcohol, decrying its consistent abuse and advocating that believers abstain. Others, while not technically advocating abstinence from alcohol, simply frown upon its regular use. Often the impetus for such decision making is not that alcohol is inherently wrong but that it is safer to avoid. Thus, so the thinking goes, if being drunk is wrong, why not abstain from drinking entirely? That way, there is no chance of ever getting drunk. By avoiding alcohol, we show that we are really serious about our walk with God.

The problem with all such rules, however, is that they are simply arbitrary. While the Bible does oppose drunkenness, there is simply no obvious reason for all believers to abstain from alcohol entirely. Jesus drank alcohol and even created it for others (see John 2). Other biblical characters likewise partook of wine and similar beverages. So, what are we to make of the issue of spirituality and alcohol?

First, it is important to recognize the obvious, which is that alcohol is a potentially harmful product. Being a depressant, alcoholic beverages cause us to relax and tend to lessen our inhibitions. Many people have become addicted to alcohol, and many lives have been ruined through its misuse. As Proverbs comments, “Wine is a mocker and strong drink is for fools.” Second, the bible certainly teaches that it is improper to reach a state of intoxication. Though it is difficult to determine where the line is that separates sobriety from drunkenness, it is quite evident that countless individuals cross that line regularly. If we define drunk as being under the control of, our basic guide is this: “Do not be drunk with wine, but be filled with the Holy Spirit.” That is, rather than allowing alcohol to govern our lives, the chief influence should be God. Third, it is evident within Scripture that the proper use of alcohol is both acceptable and potentially good. Though we should, perhaps, consider that in the ancient world the drinking options were severely limited, thus necessitating a greater prevalence of wine–after all, diet coke was not on the menu–it is nonetheless true that alcohol was considered a regular part of the social environment of that day. Jesus and his disciples drank wine. Indeed, the supper that commemorates his death involves the use (not abuse) of wine. What’s more, Jesus did not think it improper to initiate his miraculous ministry by creating wine at a celebration where alcohol had already been flowing freely. This is not to say that he advocated or facilitated drunkenness but that he evidently lacked the rigid scruples of some of his contemporary followers. Fourth, none of this eliminates the principle that we should avoid anything–be it alcohol or something else–that actually endangers us morally or spiritually. While these are matters of wisdom and individual conscience, they are important to keep in mind. Thus, a person who becomes abusive or who is prone to addiction should obviously avoid alcohol entirely. The point here is neither that alcohol is inherently wrong nor that abstinence is necessarily a better choice. What really matters is that we do whatever is good for our spiritual health and that of others. Jesus uses hyperbolic language to make this very point: “If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off” (Mark 9:43ff).

Some drink because it’s “cool,” while others refrain for the same reason. But the key is not whether or not we drink. The real issue is living for God within the sphere of spiritual liberty. If it hurts you, stay away from it. If it truly hurts someone else, avoid it. Not sure? Pray and seek wisdom. If you can do something responsibly, go for it. 1 Corinthians provides the key: “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (10:31).

the pain of pastoral stereotypes

One of the things I most hate is the stereotypes associated with certain “Christian” terms. Indeed, even the name Christian has many silly and unhealthy ideas associated with it. But one idea has, for me, been perhaps the greatest nuisance, and that is the term pastor. Recently, John Smulo wrote a blog dealing with many of these same things, and so I thought I’d add my own, for my experience as a pastor has often frustrated me to the extreme.

Just to fill you in, right now, we are meeting in my home in a very casual manner, and I probably wouldn’t refer to myself as a pastor. Sometimes, others do, and that’s okay, I guess. But after having experienced some 13 plus years in this role, I have to say that the negatives probably outweigh the positives.

When you are a “pastor” people have all kinds of crazy ideas about you. For example: You are somehow gifted at prayer, a specialist at hospital visitation, a pro at being “holy” and “spiritual” and “religious” and a whole host of other things. Some refer to you as “reverend,” and many are leery of letting their hair down when in your presence. Some don’t want to offend you, thinking that your only life experience is in doing weddings and funerals and appearing appropriately somber when the occasion calls for it. Others think you have some sort of backstage pass that affords you access to things that most people aren’t privileged to see. Still others treat you like a good luck charm, a good guy to have around and have on your side. Generally, you are thought to lack the real-world expertise and to have ears easily offended by four-letter words, the sight of alcohol, and the mere mention of sex.

First of all, let me say that many of the stereotypes mentioned here are true, having been earned by countless individuals who truly measure spirituality by such things and who really do look like many assume they would–rigid, corny, out-of-touch, etc.. Second, let me also add that I am nothing like the stereotypes, at least not when it comes to the supposed magic that flows from the title and position. While I have lead churches in the past and still play a role in some of these matters today, I really struggle with the assumptions that people make when they hear you are a “pastor.”

Though I am not ready to abandon the notion of pastor as taught in the New Testament, and while I certainly desire to fulfill some of the characteristics associated with this usage, I have no desire to be treated as a “pastor” in common, stereotypical fashion. Whether right or wrong, I have to admit that I am sickened by the whole feel of this stereotype.

No, I don’t think I am better than anyone out there, pastor or not, and I don’t intend to demean anyone who is sincerely doing the best he or she can to lead God’s people. God bless them. At the same time, I also can’t pretend that I am anything less than turned off by the traditional pastoral stuff.
Indeed, it saddens me that my perceived role as a pastor has sometimes made me wonder about my own sincerity. When you visit enough hospitals and do enough funerals, you begin to wonder if you’re doing these things because they are right or simply because you are supposed to do them. While duty sometimes demands that we do what’s proper no matter what, it is numbing when the perceptions and expectations of people actually hinder your own spirituality. What I’m saying is that I want to visit hospitals and pray and a whole lot of other things not because someone expects me to do these things but because I feel called and compelled to do so.

In other words I want to be spiritual in the best sense of that term. I want to follow Jesus, whatever that means, to the best of my ability. I want to live the right way, to care, to be kind, to be bold, to be wise, and to exude love. But I want to do these and similar things as a person who lives with others in the real world, and I don’t want some ridiculous stereotype to stand in the way of my (hopefully) honest efforts to be authentic, to be me.

God knows that I get in the way of the truth enough as it is; I don’t need the extra baggage that comes from those determined to make me wear the garb of out-of-touch, meaningless religiosity. Lord, save me (us) from the crazy ideas, the assumptions, the predictable expectations, the enslaving influence of pastoral/Christian/whatever stereotypes. Let me be me . . . for you and for others.

sometimes i wonder

Sometimes, I wonder about it all. What is faith, and do I have faith? Indeed, what if I’m wrong about many of the things on which that I rely? What if my belief system has holes, major holes, in it. Even if my beliefs are generally correct–and I hope they are–what if my faith is, well, something less that faithful?

I don’t say any of these things because I’m going through some spiritual crisis or because I’m particularly worried about this belief or that one. Indeed, the best I can tell, God has blessed me immeasurably and I am aware of that fact.

It’s just that my form of faith is, shall we say, non-traditional. It’s not that I hold to some sort form of heterodoxy, that I worship nature, or that I sit around pondering my navel each day. Rather, I’m non-traditional, I think, in that there is currently no overarching pattern to my life that fits the common paradigm. There is no hymn singing or mid-week Bible study. There is no traditional Sunday service or church program. Indeed, to be honest, I have little interest in being involved in that which is often considered “Christian.” It’s not that I hate Christians or anything along those lines, for some of my best friends are believers, even traditional ones. It’s just that I have no desire to follow some prescribe agenda. I have no inkling to “evangelize” as commonly practiced. I have no inclination to use traditional religious jargon. I have very little affinity for that which many, if not most, Christians in our country would consider the outward expressions of the faith.

Am I a heretic? Again, I hope not, for I do believe in the tenets of orthodoxy, though, perhaps, with a sense of openness to new insights that might cause me to tweak my current views. Am I a liberal? No, for I maintain that there are a number of important things that should be conserved. Thus, while we must remain open to the truth–whatever it is and wherever it is found–the truth, once sufficiently understood, should be upheld and maintained . . . even though our maintaining and holding will always be imperfect. Am I a rebel? Hmm, perhaps to some degree, but I hope that at least some of my rebellion is against that which is wrong or contrary to the truth and purpose of Jesus. Am I disillusioned? Yeah, I think to some degree, for I have indeed experienced a good measure of hypocrisy and arrogance and naivete and just plain goofiness that was integrally connected to various models of faith.

Again, just to be honest, I’m not sure what I am, and some of this is a bit scary. Where am I traveling? What road am I on? In what direction am I headed? What will my faith look like in the future? What should my faith look like? There is a lot of traveling and wondering and pondering going on. And, for the most part, it is not a pressured kind of traveling, wondering, and pondering. Rather, I am bathing in what I hope is a new light of God’s love, still occasionally feeling slightly “guilty” that this is not the path of many, still uncertain about the choices I am making, yet reveling in the blessings that flow my way and the light that at least occasionally seeps into my thick head.

Are any of you in a similar place. Just curious. I’m not currently doing “church” in any formal sense, but I am interested in being a part of the Church of Jesus. I have no motivation to follow some agenda or become anything that is “churchy,” but I do want to love and to see and experience the love of the One who is love incarnate. I don’t really want to play some game of artificial evangelism, the type in which you feel like you must verbalize certain phrases (supposedly) in order to provide a way to God, but I certainly do want others to experience genuine joy and love and to connect with the true Savior. I do not want to join some predictable group of Christian flag wavers, consumed with carrying out their various agendas, but I do want to share the love of God’s Son and, to the best of my ability, give expression to the truth.

Where am I? Only God truly knows. Prayer: “Forgive my foolishness, Lord, and continue to let your light shine in, through, and around me. Let Jesus truly be the author and completer of my faith. Be merciful and gracious, Lord, and let your love and truth guide and shape me and my loved ones. Let it be.”

faith thoughts

When are we most prone to believe? What causes faith? Indeed, what exactly does it mean to be a believer in the first place?

In one sense the answer to these questions is simple. To believe is to place our trust in Jesus, the one-and-only adequate Savior. To believe is to look outside of ourselves to another, One wearing sandals and declaring, “I am the way.” To have faith is to find our starting point in a transcendent reality which, according to Christian tradition, has become one of us.

To back up a little, the Bible tells us what, in our most honest moments, we already know about ourselves, that we have somehow violated our created purpose. When we speak of sin, therefore, we’re talking about being out of sorts spiritually, missing the goals set by our Creator, falling short of our true potential, being disconnected from the One who made us and desires our friendship. Indeed, so screwed are we that we actually delight in rejecting that which is best for us. In other words we rebel.

It is from this vantage point that human beings, needing rescue, sensing a greater purpose, and recognizing their personal incompleteness, foolishness, and inadequacy, turn to the living One. This movement is faith. Of course knowing exactly when faith is present and what elements of truth must be embraced in order to possess genuine faith is, well, it’s often a mystery. Let’s face it, we all stumble regularly. Even on our best days, our faith is fickle and inconsistent. Thus, whatever faith is, it had better include a incredible measure of grace. But isn’t that what it’s all about, grace?

We aren’t rescued by simply memorizing some formula (though some formulas may be useful). God does not save us by virtue of our well-constructed belief systems (though some of these are quite helpful). We don’t come into a relationship with our Maker through the display of an unwavering faith that is impervious to doubt and stupidity. No, as long as we live in this imperfect state, we’ll be drawn to folly and attracted to that which is contrary to our best interests.

So, what can and should we do? Well, faith says, “look outside of yourself. Cast your weaknesses on the One who is strong.” Faith, then, involves regularly admitting that you can’t make it on our own. Why is this okay? Because the One in whose image you were formed made you in such a way that you work best when you are connected to him. This, at least in part, is what it means to believe.

Of course Christians have long maintained that this faith is not merely belief in whatever tickles your fancy. Rather, it is genuine faith to the degree that it finds its resting place in the genuine object of faith. This “object” is in fact a person, and he has already lived and died among us. Indeed, he did this and more when he conquered death on our behalf. I freely admit that I’m not entirely sure what you need to know in order to know him, that is, to know Jesus. He is, after all, with us, and he promises to draw near to any who draw near to him. This, I assume, means that we have to be willing to say that we have a far from complete understanding of who’s "in" or who’s "out" when it comes to the issue of faith. Humility, in other words, along with a deep sense of hope in our gracious God, compels us to be careful in our assessments. That said, though, and as Christians who have at least a small measure of truth available to them, we should remain true to the traditions that have been passed down to us, which are preserved in Scripture.

Where should people turn for purpose and help and rescue and deliverance and healing and whatever else? Not to some guru, not to complicated religious strategies, not to some system of self salvation, not to idols, not to a “god” we make in our image, and certainly not to ourselves . . . but to Jesus, the compassionate and powerful, the lowly (yet) great One, the just-like-us and just-like-God Savior. If we do that, I’m sure that he can and will work out all of the details. “Come to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth.”

modernist bashing?

There is a whole lot that I love about the postmodern moment in which we find ourselves. I love the openness of it all, and the prominence given to various important but sometimes neglected themes, things like community, mystery, and (theoretically, at least) a humbler stance on faith. But I can't help but notice that there is this ongoing tendency among postmodern types to go too far in the other direction and to become, well, predictable. I understand that there is a reactionary phase to anything new, a tendency to overstate matters because they are fresh and have been too long neglected; this is normal. I also realize that there are exceptions to everything; thus, a number of people do not quite match what I am going to say here. Still, that said, there is this postmodern trend (and, by the way, a trend among all people, including your truly) to overstate a case. Here are a handful of examples:

✓ Ironically, some postmoderns are stuck in the past.

By this, I mean that they spend an inordinate amount of time reflecting on the bad things that occurred during the modern era (or in previous church situations). While it will always be necessary to provide critique on that which is prominent in a given culture, it is also important to blaze a new trails ahead. Okay, now that we have identified some of the weaknesses of a modern brand of faith, what do we offer in its place? Unquestionably, some people have done just that. Then again, I have noticed a tendency to use modern illustrations (caricatures?) as a launching pad for postmodern exploration. Some of this is, I think, both good and unavoidable. Some of it borders on one-sided, exaggerated bias.

✓ There is a tendency to be especially critical of conservative proponents of faith.

At least in our day, the trend is to attack the conservative branch of evangelicalism. Certainly, some of this is necessary. However, there seems to be a bit too much of an anti-conservative agenda. This looks suspicious, at least to me, and it makes me wonder what other motives are lurking in the hearts of certain postmoderns. Some seem to enjoy condemning–to the point of persecution?–those who are more modern in orientation.

✓ Related to the previous point, some of the lambasting against the traditional church is a bit over the top.

While I have personally observed a lot of wrong ideas and practices among moderns, some attacks on the traditional church are overstated. Indeed, one gets the impression that most all traditionalists are arrogant, hypocritical fundamentalist types who hate women and gays and only wish to promulgate a rigid control over everything spiritual. The only thing they are good for is to provide examples of what we don’t want to be. Clearly, some of these depictions are all too accurate, and I have encountered quite a bit of this myself. However, if we are to be fair, we had better be careful that we don’t end up becoming that which we decry in others. Have certain traditionalists been the victims of intolerance at the hands of some postmoderns? Hmm . . . I do wonder.

✓ Certain postmodern appear overly “wishing washy” on many things.

Another thing is in vogue among postmoderns is a movement to the liberal side of things. They may say that we should remain open and teachable, but many of them actually look like liberals in religious garb (I know, some will think that’s just fine, but the theological liberalism of history is one which basically denies the essential elements of the faith . . . but that’s another story). Of course each person must decide his or her own political preferences, which is absolutely fine. The problem is when this appears so one-sided. The moderns are bad guys for being too predictably conservative. Our response? Become predictably liberal? Perhaps, this is merely something that I have observed, and I realize that there are many exceptions. Indeed, I’m not even talking about the declared statements of postmoderns so much as I am referring to the predictable agenda. Again, just an observation.

✓ Some are overly legislative in focus, joining those who believe that change comes about in great measure through government involvement.

In keeping with the previous point, there is this legislative mentality among some. Let’s get the government to do our bidding. Let’s promote a moral government. Whenever I hear such things I cringe. Of course we should want morality in government. The leaders should be upstanding and righteous, etc. But I think a good point can be made that it is not government’s role to strengthen its grip on society and to be the providers of everything good. To be honest, I think that too much government involvement might actually lead to immorality, for that’s not what the government is for (in my humble opinion). While I do think that government has roles to play, and though we certainly want government to operate by principles that are consistent with God’s revealed will, it is not axiomatic that government ought to be doing more and more to facilitate right living. A better way, I think, is to have a solid but limited government, which guards our freedoms. This, in the long run, might be what best facilitates the spread of righteousness in every arena. Again, while we certainly should discuss the role and limits of government, we should not automatically assume–as some apparently have–that government intrusion is the best way to encourage positive change.

✓ Many are excessively pluralistic in focus.

We live in a pluralistic world, which challenges us to think through the content and practices of faith. Potentially, this can lead us to a better and more balanced perspective on world religions and the like. On the other hand, we do not have to make quick and unwise concessions to views that might prove incompatible with a Christian worldview. Of course we must exude love and a right-minded and right-hearted tolerance, but we must (as best we can) simultaneously live within the framework of truth. In a pluralistic world there is always the danger of succumbing to error and ending up with a syncretistic version of faith. I have no idea where the lines are drawn here (if we can even speak in such terms), but I do know that some things and ideas and beliefs are right, while others are wrong. In our efforts to truly understand, relate to, and benefit from a pluralistic world, we should not be so naive as to assume that all paths are equal (or, in some cases, even valid at all).

I think one of the healthier trends among certain postmoderns is to turn our attention to ourselves. Instead of spending all of our time looking for the bad guys “out there” (i.e., in the world) it is time that we start looking at what’s bad “in here” (i.e., in the church). This is clearly biblical and healthy. Then again, I also think we need to be careful that we don’t bounce too far in the opposite direction. I hear and read lots of things about how we should remain humble, oppose dogmaticism, protect the disenfranchised, embrace the worst elements of society. This is, I would argue, the way it should be . . . always! However, this does not mean that we should come to the place where we are afraid to be bold, where we fear opposing moral evil (and perhaps being labeled unloving), where we are unable to let the whole truth have its sway in our lives. “Lord, enable us to balance and embrace all of the key elements of genuine spirituality. Let all of your wisdom seep into our souls.”

yeah . . . i'm FICKLE

You know what? I often find myself quite fickle in the way I perceive life. Sometimes, I am of the “defend and declare the truth” mentality, doing my best to stress the need for confidence in a world of uncertainty, determined to maintain what I believe is right in a society that is all too often relativistic. Other times, I am of the opinion that the dogmatists of the world are missing something and that they need to “chill out” and exude much greater humility about many things.

It’s strange how this works in my life. I’ll observe some spiritual wimp, a self-proclaimed do-gooder, who appears never to have lived life in the real world, a person who would try to negotiate with a terrorist or fail to punch out someone who was intent on doing harm to his family, and I’ll revolt against such philosophical perversion and BS. Or, on the other hand, I’ll see some spiritually audacious individual, someone who speaks with too much confidence and acts like all things are easy to understand, and I’ll want to throw up.

So, what’s my problem? Well, without denying the obvious–that I am often an idiot–I think that it comes down to a type of tension that must be sustained in our lives. There are some things within the tradition of the church, some beliefs, practices, whatever, that have to be maintained, upheld, and defended; when these things are violated, we have to stand up and be counted. Then again, there are many things that are labeled “Christian” that are, in my opinion, faulty and contrary to true and healthy spirituality; this stuff must be rejected or, at the very least, reconsidered. Again, there is this tension between the idea that I must actually believe something if I am indeed a believer (After all, I believe something, right?) and the idea that as a believer I must be ever humble and open to change, correction, and new insights (After all, if “Jesus is Lord” means anything, he is likely to teach me some things, right?).

The problem I have is that I haven’t come close to perfecting or living with this tension. You see, in an ideal world, or if I were an ideal person, I’d be able to see all of the truth and allow every aspect of it to have its sway in my life. I’d be able to see the big picture, rightly rejecting error while retaining truth. In fact I’d be dogmatically opposed to that which is wrong and just as dogmatically in favor of that which honors God and helps people. In real life, however, I find myself swinging back and forth. On some occasions I’m drawn to a place where I must–to the best of my ability–stand up against stupidity and foolish thinking. While I know that I know nothing perfectly, I also know that I must contend for that which I know sufficiently. Likewise, while I know I cannot succumb to a relativistic spirit, I also know that it is ludicrous for me not to admit that I have so much to learn. Still, with all of this theory in place, I find it difficult actually maintaining this balance. Indeed, I sometimes wonder why I am more conservative at certain times and more liberal at other times. In other words, I am fickle!

My hope, I suppose, is that the real God will continue to bear with my inconsistencies and fluctuations, and that he will help me to somehow recognize and live consistent with the tensions that he has apparently built into the world.

the MUSIC is playing

Rocky sits in the hospital next to his comatose wife, Adrian. When she finally wakes up, she tells Rocky to come a little closer. Then, she whispers, “I want you to do one thing.” After a short hesitation, she completes her thought, uttering the word that propels Rocky to new heights. “Win,” she says! At that, Mickey, Rocky’s trainer, adds his own words: “What are we waiting for?” From that moment, we see a rejuvenated Rocky. He works hard and is determined. And many of us want live vicariously through him. Indeed, I recall one late evening, years ago, when, after seeing Rocky III, a friend of mine and I went out for a 3 mile jog . . . in about a foot of freshly fallen snow! Rocky does that for you, or at least for me. But, what is it that highlights the touching moments? What draws out the emotion in us? What makes us want to embody the best features of the movies we watch? Well, I would suggest that it’s MUSIC.

Immediately after Adrian gives her okay to Rocky, right after Mickey’s “What are we waiting for?” the music begins, building from moment to moment, carrying us with it, highlighting the emotional features of the scene. It’s the music that turns a nice story into a truly inspiring tale. Indeed, it’s the same in most every movie. What would Jaws be like without the Dun Dun? Sure, we’d have a large shark, lurking in the waters nearby, but it wouldn’t be the same without the music. The same is true for, say, Forest Gump, Titanic, Casablanca, Brian’s Song, and a host of movies/T.V. shows. The music is like an emotional magnifying glass, which brings out the truth and significance of any important scene.

Now, some would argue that this is what makes movies magical or make-believe. The director gets to dub in music at appropriate points. Thus, or so we are told, real life differs from movies. In real life there are no emotion-laden soundtracks . . . or are there? Indeed, I just saw a t-shirt which read: The problem with life is that it lacks the background music. In my opinion, the t-shirt is wrong!

You see, my contention is that there is indeed a type of music that is playing all around us. That’s why, at least on occasion, certain moments in our lives are filled with motivation and zeal. Sometimes, the things we encounter and the people to whom we relate bring out deep feelings and powerful emotions. Though we may go lengthy periods of time in a rather perfunctory fashion, every once in a while ardor fills our souls. At those times, we become much more sensitive to the truly profound nature of life and of the people we encounter in life. Empathy begins to flow, and we see things the way, well, the way they really are. In other words we actually “hear the music.”

My view, therefore, is not that life copies movies so much as movies mirror the best aspects of life. The music is playing every day, and when we hear it, it is difficult to contain our emotions. People truly matter. Relationships matter. Truth matters. Love matters. A lot of things are important; they matter, but–as fallen and imperfect creatures in a fallen and imperfect world–we often fail to recognize this fact. Sometimes, the music is crowded out by the sheer craziness of our schedules or by foolish choices. But, and this is what we must remember, the music is playing. Indeed, the music maker is divine. “Lord, let the music play, and enable us to hear what you are playing each day in our lives.”

if he's alive

If he’s not alive . . .

○ We are just playing games when it comes to Christianity.

○ Any spiritual ideas that we might propose are clearly something other than what we find in Scripture.

○ The grave is the final victor.

○ God is lacking in power.

○ Hope is out the window.

○ The central character of human history is something less than his followers have always claimed.

○ There is no purpose or meaning to anything.

○ And we might as well celebrate . . . for nothing else really matters!

BUT . . . if he IS alive . . .

○ Life has meaning.

○ From him flow the power, motivation, and truth we need to navigate this world.

○ There is a basis for our faith.

○ Death has met its match.

○ Hope lives.

○ God has visited our world.

○ The central character of human history is actually whom he claimed to be, the unique Son of God.

○ And we might as well celebrate . . . for everything really matters!

My hope, and the hope of countless others, is that Jesus did what no onew else has, that he overcame our worst enemy for us. “He’s not here . . . he has risen as he said!” With hope and resurrection love, have a wonderful Easter.

truth--maintained and pursued

For what it’s worth, it seems to me that we all find it difficult knowing where to come down on a myriad of issues. Some liberal types expend great amounts of energy standing for, well, nothing . . . except for “everyone’s right to an opinion.” To be honest, they come across as spineless individuals, who lack conviction and spend a lot of time advocating that everyone else follow suit. Often (though not always) they are proponents of “political correctness,” though they would, no doubt, deny the accusation. Whatever the “talking heads” proclaim, whatever is the “acceptable” thing to do, that’s where their monies and mouths are. They are opposed to anything that sound too much like universal truth, and they seem too often to come down on the opposite side of common sense. When you spend an inordinate amount of time defending the rights of potential terrorists and opposing the freedoms of seemingly good people, something is amiss. These “do-gooders” are the self-proclaimed defenders of the Constitution, who fear that too much of the Christian God is a bad thing for everyone. These liberal types are opposed to dogmatism . . . unless of course it relates to their pseudo-intellectual and elitist agendas.

Then, there are the conservatives. Many of them are convinced, or so it seems, that everything is “black and white” and that they are the final arbiters as to which is which. Conservatives want to conserve, and so they often do so in every moral, spiritual, and cultural way imaginable. Likewise, they approach much of life in a defensive manner, perceiving that nearly everything is a battle to be won. Just the other day, I was observing a conservative commentator who was interviewing a liberal about his (the liberal’s) book. The conservative said that he admired the man’s ability to work through hard times to accomplish many things. But–and this irritated me–he had to state, to clarify for everyone, that he, the conservative, disagreed with the liberal man on almost everything. The conservative said (at least two times) something like this: “Though I disagree with you on just about everything, one thing I do like about your book is that it gives people hope.” It was like the conservative couldn’t just pay the man a compliment. It was his duty, or so he thought, to make sure everyone was clear that he was not about to compromise his conservative principles. Apart from the fact that no semi-normal person would need such clarification, it came across as mean . . . or at least forced and, I guess, weird. You should know, as well, that this man is a conservative host with whom I very often agree, a good man who does a lot of good things. Still, I could not believe that he couldn’t simply say a few nice things about his counterpart without also waving the conservative flag. At any rate, this man portrayed what I sometimes see among conservatives, an agenda of we have it right and we are going to defend it to the end.

Is there a way ahead? Perhaps, but I don’t think it is necessarily in a “middle-of-the-road” agenda, a supposedly unbiased and independent philosophy. While we must be aware of biases, none of us can escape them completely, and while we should have an independent attitude, this does not mean that, at the end of the day, we should avoid everything conservative (or liberal). Indeed, I think one way to look at these matters is to recognize that we would be fools to suppress our intuitive (God given) sense that truth is accessible at some level. That is, there are some things that we simply should believe and defend. Our list may change or may need to be tweaked from time to time, but there is, I think, an inner impulse in human beings, a yearning for some measure of stability and certainty. While we can know nothing perfectly, we can know some things adequately. To the degree that we locate these, we should (humbly!) conserve them. Then again, there are many things about which people disagree. Some of these are philosophical and others practical or even stylistic. At the very least, I think we must be willing to admit that there is a lot that we could know better than we do. Ignorance and partial knowledge are a part of the human fabric. Thus, we simply need to remain open in our quest to understand.

Here, then, are my tentative suggestions. Some things really ought to be protected and conserved, while other things are either debatable or matters of personal preference. So, in any society, there will always be a conservative and a liberal component. The key, however, is to recognize that we have been endowed by our God with a capacity for both knowing and learning, both defending the truth and searching for it, both standing for what is right and yet remaining open to new insights, both resting in what God has spoken and following the One who speaks.

who's a fool? - - - - i am!

Yesterday was April Fools Day, that is, my day! Why is it my day? Because I am all too often just that, a fool! How often have I been blind to the blessings that are right in front of me? How consistently have I spurned God’s good gifts and by-passed opportunities? How inconsistent, indeed hypocritical, have I been? I am truly an unbelievably goofy individual, a fool!

My hope, though, is that God is merciful to fools, that he is patient with my consistent demonstrations of spiritual stupidity. Yes, I am a fool . . . and I’m not merely saying that, I am truly a fool. But he is a fool finder and–most importantly–a fool rescuer. “Lord, rescue this fool, and help me to so perceive your grace that it begins to shape me into a non-fool.” Any other fools out there?

a beautiful day (with a few glitches)

Today is an absolutely beautiful day outside, and I feel free and excited about "the day the Lord has made." Having just returned from a short run–dressed in shorts and a tee shirt–and listening to some tunes (Three Dog Night, The Beatles, Hootie and the Blowfish, among others), I feel the wonder of creation. Indeed, I sense that the music I listen to on my Ipod is but a mere echo of the music the Master Creator is playing today and each day.

How marvelous the eternal state must be, how incredible and mind-boggling an uninterrupted future of bliss! What will it be like to experience what John can only describes as “it has not appeared as yet what we will be”? How will it feel when we are "like Him, because we will see Him just as He is” (1 John 3;2)? Thank God for the samples of this future of never-ending delight! Thank God we can “dip into” a little bit of this even now!

As an additional thought–and as God’s providence would have it–my older son just came home with a poor grade, which is highly unlike him. Then, a few minutes later, we discovered that my younger son did not make little league. He is young, but I am telling you–bias as I may be–he was easily one of the top few most talented kids at the tryout. Amazing, how strange things can happen even on a beautiful day. Oh well, the sun (and the Son) is (and my sons are) still shining! :-)

why i am NOT God

In a previous post, I “thought out loud” about what I would do if I were to take on the role of deity. Here, I simply expand on my thoughts, explaining in part why I am (obviously) not God.

✓ I’m not God because, uhh, I’m not God. That is, despite the views of certain relativists, extreme deconstructionists, and others, we can know enough about reality to state emphatically and with complete confidence that I am not God.

✓ I’m not God because I lack the power necessary to be God. I cannot create, sustain, or do much of anything else. Whatever influence I have (or pretend to have) and however much I’d like to control things, this is a job best left to the only One qualified.

✓ I’m not God because I lack the purity, the cleanness, the perfections, the holiness to be God. Though we should all shoot for holiness, the fact remains that we fall far short.

✓ I’m not God because I do not have the knowledge need to be God. I don’t have access to all of the information necessary for running the universe, nor do I possess the ability to pull that information together and utilize it. God knows everything–what was, what is, what will be, what might have been had certain things been changed, what would be if other things were altered. Everything is, well, it’s a little out of my comfort zone.

✓ I’m not God because I lack the perspective of deity. We see in part, a very small part. He not only knows the facts about people, circumstances, things, etc., but he knows how the parts fit together. How many times have I assumed certain things about individuals or made judgments about them only to find out that I was way off the mark? Not only am I unable to capture the “big picture,” I often don’t even know where the picture is!

✓ I’m not God because I do not exude that type of love. God, we are told, is love. In fact he demonstrated this supremely in sending his Son to rescue us. We are to follow this pattern, of course. It is ours to love him like he loved us. That said, I have to be honest in saying that I barely comprehend what this love looks like. The best I can do is marvel at divine love, aiming to share in a little bit of it.

✓ I’m not God because I don’t have the necessary wisdom for being God. What kind of discernment and wisdom does it take to rule the world? To orchestrate an infinite number of circumstances? To somehow rule without also negating or minimizing the choices of human beings? Again, I am ignorant when it comes to such things.

✓ I’m not God because I have a beginning. In Jesus, there is a life, real life, that never ends. But this eternality is something that is derived from the Eternal One; it’s not something that I intrinsically possess. Similarly, I had a beginning. There was a time (a lot of time!) when I was not around. The same cannot be said for deity. The true God was always around. From everlasting to everlasting, he is God. Sorry, I can’t compete with that.

✓ I’m not God because I am not the first-class (unlimited) creator. I can make a few things, I suppose, but they are small and rather unimpressive things. Indeed, even the good I might create is a gift from the master creator. God is the Maker of everything, and I am not. Therefore, I cannot be God.

The bottom line here is that I lack the qualifications for being God. Despite my own tendency to make-believe, I am simply unable to measure up to these (and other) standards. Therefore–in case you didn’t already know it–I am not God.

The good thing, though, is that God does want me/us to partake of at least some of these traits. When it comes to the communicable attributes of deity, we can share in a measure of these good things. In a limited but still significant sense, God wants me (us) to partake of his wisdom and love and knowledge and holiness and . . . you get the point. At the end of the day, however, he gets the credit, and we do not. Clearly, I am NOT God, which is a good thing for me and everyone! Thankfully, he is God, which is a good thing for all of us, as well.

if I were God . . .

If I were God . . .


○ I’d cure world hunger.

○ I’d wipe out disease.

○ I’d eliminate natural catastrophes.

○ I’d make the world an always exciting, always fulfilling, always joyful place.

○ I’d inject a never-ending amount of love into everyone’s hearts and lives.

○ I’d destroy death.

○ I’d make cemeteries into playgrounds.

○ I’d restore all people to their physical prime . . . and then some.

○ I’d enable all people to be themselves and to feel good about it.

○ I’d make my presence much more obvious to everyone.

○ I’d . . .

Okay, first of all, I am only trying to be provocative and to stimulate some thought. I, of course, am not God. Indeed, to attempt to be God would be blasphemy . . . which is something I’d like to avoid. The point of these statements, really, is to consider that, while we might not state it, we often imply that we’d like to take on the role of deity.

When things don’t go the way we’d hoped, when some terrible crime takes place, when darkness seems a more powerful force than light–we wonder why things have to be this way, and we imagine . . . what it would be like if WE were in charge.

But, we must return to our senses, and we must be very, very clear. We lack the power, the wisdom, the knowledge, the care, the EVERYTHING to play God! It is completely absurd to even want to take on such an incomprehensible role. Our frustrations must not be allowed to so take hold of us that they degenerate into insanity!

Let us then be humble and leave the work of deity with the only One fit to carry out such a monumental task and the only One worthy to receive praise for the same. And let us also remember that–when we are thinking clearly, at least–God apparently wants some of the same things we do. After all, if you look at the list above, I think you’ll find that these things are very much in keeping with what God will one day do in this world and for his children. One day, we are told, hunger, disease, catastrophes, and even death will be gone. One day, love and joy will permeate our very existence. One day, the beatific vision will flood our souls and motivate our wills.

Of course that day has not yet arrived. And that’s the point, isn’t it? We have to walk by faith now, taking in the previews of what is yet to come, appreciating what we have, praying and working for more, and believing that God can even now do things that are way beyond all that we ask or think. What’s more we can still hope for the fullness of these things to come, for completeness to show up, for perfection to arrive.

There’s no good reason to want to be God. The thought is crazy! I believe a better approach would be to simply trust him, recognizing that he really does know what he’s up to . . . even when we are clueless. Let God be God. Yeah, I like the sound of that . . . and I think he does too. :-)

A (Sort of) Different Approach to Postmodernism

For what it's worth, here is an appendix from my first book, Dangerous Blessing: The Emergence of a Postmodern Faith. In this section I briefly grapple with the various ways Christians have approached postmodernism.

A Fifth Way?

A (Sort of) Different Approach to Postmodernism


As history takes a postmodern turn, it is not completely clear how best to respond to today’s cataclysmic cultural shifts. Evangelicals are far from united in the ways they tackle these changes, with various authors proposing different approaches to postmodern trends.

Of course categorizing the various evangelical views is no simple task, for rarely do any two writers completely agree. What I propose here, therefore, is a very generalized perspective on the responses of evangelicals to postmodernism. Clearly, there is overlap in the categories (and among the various adherents), and I claim no special insight into the hearts of those who seek to engage culture.

With these limitations clearly in place, what follows is a basic grouping of evangelical stances to the changes that are taking place in today’s world. Though this analysis is somewhat simplistic, I have detected the following reactions to postmodernism.

1. “Defend and Attack”

Some evangelicals are clearly defenders of the status quo. For whatever legitimate or illegitimate reasons, they are critical of anything that might disturb ministry as they envision it. As such, these Christians are vigilant in their efforts to shield the church from the errors of postmodern thought.

One example of this type of response is found in the writings of David Wells, who sees in postmodernism a threat to the faith. According to Wells, those who get tangled in the web of postmodern philosophy are opening themselves to compromise, or worse apostasy.
While not all evangelicals fit within this rubric, it is a fairly common response among traditional believers. Many Christians see themselves as protectors of the faith and, thus, feel the need to reject anything that, in their opinion, sounds too postmodern.

Benefits: Avoids certain dangers found in culture. Stays away from worldliness as traditionally defined.

Disadvantages: Tends to be overly critical (“Throwing out the baby with the bath water”). Can lead to pride (“We have the answers, and you don’t.”). Misses potential evangelistic opportunities.

2. “When in Rome”

Another branch of Christendom, however, is not so critical of what it taking place in our society. These individuals feel a strong calling to reach non-Christians with the gospel. As a result, they are prone to see postmodernism as little more than a matter of form. If music styles change, then we must adapt to these changes for the sake of those who don’t yet know Jesus. If young people begin to speak a different language, we should learn to speak that language too.

One apparent example of this is found in the so-called seeker sensitive movement. These evangelicals (e.g., Rick Warren?) do what they can to promote an atmosphere that is comfortable for outsiders. Thus, the gospel is presented in a way that is easily accessible to our contemporaries.

This response to postmodernism best fits the “When in Rome” model, for it recognizes that cultural change requires that Christians make appropriate adaptations. When in Rome, or in a postmodern world, you need to do whatever fosters better communication.

Benefits: Makes connection with postmoderns. Picks up on certain positive postmodern tendencies.

Disadvantages: Sometimes underestimates the degree of change (whether good or bad) taking place in society and the implications for theology and life.

3. “Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back”

The third response in some ways resembles the previous model (# 2). The difference is that this type of reply to postmodernism tends to be a bit more critical of (even cynical toward) the negative postmodern tendencies.

D. A. Carson and Millard Erikson seem to fit this mold. On the one hand, they are concerned–like the “When in Rome Approach” advocates–to reach today’s generation with the good news. If we can benefit from postmodern themes and from a proper critique of modernism’s bad points, we ought to do so. On the other hand, there is also a proneness among these evangelicals to be wary of anything that might lead us astray. Thus, in this writer’s opinion at least, there is this tendency to acknowledge some of the potential benefits of postmodernity (“Two Steps Forward”) but to do so with great caution and in such a way that the dangers of postmodernity get more ink than the positive features (“Three Step Back”).

Benefits: Notices at least some of the changes that need to me made in order to reach postmoderns. Quick to point out and caution the church about the dangers of postmodernity.

Disadvantages: Promotes an “us-them” mentality within evangelicalism (“We traditionalists are the experts, and you non-traditionalists could learn something from us.”). Confuses “university driven” postmodernism (e.g., Jacques Derrida) with “street level” versions of the same (e.g., your neighbor). Sounds arrogant to many (both within and outside of the church). Though admitting postmodern benefits, tends to neglect any prolonged discussion of these benefits.

4. “No Looking Back”

Another response to postmodernism takes a different path. Those who follow the “No Looking Back” motto are simply excited about what God is doing in our culture today. Many within the emerging church fit broadly into this category. Of course for some, postmodernism is simply the next “cool” thing to do. For others, however, it has been the impetus for great change and the motivation for a renewed faith commitment.
Leonard Sweet might be one of the more popular representatives of this group, though others are more radical in their approach than he. The idea is that if God is “out there” in our postmodern world, and if he is challenging our beliefs and practices, so be it. Let’s take the postmodern plunge!

Benefits: Cutting edge. Conducive approach for reaching postmoderns with the gospel. Open to what God is doing in society today. Aware of evangelicalism’s “captivity” to modern ideals. Conversant with relevant postmodern themes.

Disadvantages: Too quickly dismisses the past (e.g., modernism), failing to see that God has left his mark in previous eras. Theologically and exegetically shallow at times. Sometimes comes across as “politically correct” and condescending (“Oh, those poor traditional evangelicals just don’t get it.”).

It is quite likely that the previous depictions are less than precise, and it may even be that I have misrepresented an evangelical or two. For this, I apologize. My intent, simply, is to point out some of the ways in which evangelicals have approached postmodernity.

Having said this, I have to admit that I don’t quite fit any of the paradigms listed above. While aspects of each of these proposals resonate with me, I’m still searching for another way, a fifth way.

5. A Fifth Way: “The Best of All Worlds”

The fifth way that I am proposing in not so much a settled view as it is on-going (which I realize is a very postmodern idea). In saying this, I accept, in varying degrees, at least some of what is proposed by each of the above views. “Defend and attack” has its place, though not as much a place, in my opinion, as some people tend to think; it also preserves a theological outlook often lacking in other views. “When in Rome” represents an essential aspect of Christian mission, which must always be concerned with reaching others with the gospel. “Two Steps Forward, Three Steps Back” reminds me of the tension that attends all efforts to be faithful in a fallen world; though this view is too limiting for my liking, it does serve to demonstrate that our journey through this world is a dangerous one. Finally, the “No Looking Back” model, though sometimes naive, is a necessary incentive for anyone desiring, as I do, to connect with what God is doing in our midst.

Of all of these views, I suppose the last two (3 and 4) best fit my current way of thinking. In saying this, though, I am still very much frustrated with the tendency, at least as I perceive it, to miss part of the big picture. Thus, for instance, when I read postmodern types, I often detect an ignorance of theology and exegesis, a proneness to choose the worst examples of modern evangelicalism (often, I suspect, because these individuals were “victims” of such faulty ministries), an amazing naivete when it comes to the greater flow of redemptive history (i.e., one day, we might be considered the “traditionalists,” and surely we are not living in some sort of golden age), a simplistic use of postmodern themes (How many times do I have to read about the demise of the printed word? If you’re writing about it, it hasn’t gone away just yet!), a tendency to give mere lip service to the achievements of previous generations (It is one thing to say that we are not rejecting modernism outright but simply building on it. It is quite another thing to actually make use of, say, reason and logic, “modern” traits that still serve us well in a postmodern world), and an apparent lack of awareness of its own form of pride.

Then again, when I read the better informed traditionalists, I am just as frustrated (if not more so) with their smug attitudes and subtle (or not so subtle) superiority complex. Somehow, traditional evangelicals believe that it’s up to them to keep the faithful on track. Likewise, I see a tendency to model (and so incite) anxiety among evangelicals, who are so afraid of neglecting to cross a theological “T” that they fail to open their eyes to what is taking place all around them. If God is, in some manner, at work via the emergent movement, how “Pharisaic” it is for traditional evangelicals to think that they are the guardians of the faith and protectors of the truth. In my opinion, much of evangelicalism is “out of touch,” corny, silly-looking, defensive, overly theoretical (at the expense of experience), too individualistic, and just plain arrogant. If this is even partially true, why cannot traditional evangelicals humble themselves enough to admit the possibility that postmodernism (in its best forms) may be at least one way among others of achieving greater faithfulness and more balance?

What I see, therefore, is a tendency to go in one direction or the other, and this, as I’ve said, is disconcerting. Can we not at least try to locate a better way? Without appearing arrogant (which I may already be), I’m looking for something different, and I long to find fellow companions who feel the same way. I am tired of the traditional response to postmodernism, and I’m not interested in a half-hearted, fearful approach to today’s trends. I want to wholeheartedly embrace and embody the best kind of postmodern ministry. At the same time, I am not interested in a postmodernism ministry that is intellectually lazy, nor one that comes across as trendy, condescending (toward moderns), acts like it has already arrived at the eschaton, and doesn’t even bother to attract modern types in a more postmodern direction. God save us from postmodern hubris (ironic, isn’t it?)!

Can’t we, in good postmodern fashion, truly seek to embrace the best of all worlds? Is it not possible to hear the concerns of a D. A. Carson, follow the inclinations of a Brian McLaren, and dare set sail with a Len Sweet? To be honest, I don’t know where I am in all this. But I do know that God is governing our lives, including the direction of this and every culture. Therefore, it is clear to me that we need his wisdom if we are going to navigate this strange and wonderful, dangerous and blessed world. As we seek to do ministry in a postmodern context, perhaps the Lord will answer our prayers by enabling us to envision the possibilities of “A Fifth Way.”

Wipf & Stock Publishers
Eugene, Oregon

Dangerous Blessing: The Emergence of a Postmodern Faith
Copyright © 2005 by Carmen C. DiCello
All rights reserved.

the bible and our views

You know the truth. To the best of your ability, you have researched and come to some conclusion about this matter or that. You believe that _____________. Okay, sounds good.

But what is the purpose of this truth discovered? Well, it seems clear from Scripture that we are to bathe in the truth, allowing it to shape our thoughts and lives. Likewise, we are to always remember that any truth we come up with, anything actually revealed by God in Scripture, is intended to connect us with our Maker; thus, truths should intersect with the One who is the Truth.

That being said, we are also to share the truth. To the degree that it is appropriate and fitting, we should convey the truth to others. But how? This is where traditional evangelicals are predictable, for many of their views are encapsulated in propositional statements, doctrinal formulas, announcements of what they stand for.

The reason I’m saying this is because I recently stumbled across a few web sites that do everything in their power to state up-front that they believe the Bible is the inspired Word or God. It almost appears, though I could be wrong, that they do this to pacify the evangelical guardians of the faith, wherever they are. This comes across like there must be someone, somewhere who checks up on these things to make sure that “we, the first church of _______ are remaining faithful.” “We’ve crossed our T’s and dotted our i’s; we’ve stood boldly and uncompromisingly for the faith. Amen!” :-)

Now, I am not at all arguing that it’s wrong to state what we believe about the Bible. Indeed, I maintain that the bible is the inspired Word of our Creator, the special inscripturated revelation of God. That said, how does the Bible itself approach these matters? Does Jesus initiate every conversation with “I believe the Old Testament is the word of God”? When he meets new people, does he always set these matters straight first? Well, there is no doubt that Jesus does indeed verbalize his belief in the veracity and relevance of Scripture. But, is this the primary way he introduces his ministry? No, it’s not. Though Jesus did confront the religious establishment with the true intent of Scripture (those who already theoretically believed in the Bible), though he was clear in unfolding the meaning of God’s Word, and while he believed that he was actually the fulfillment of the Scriptures, he was not compelled to provide some elaborate view of Scripture before addressing his various audiences. He believed in the Bible but did not feel obliged to explain how it should be packaged. (It’s not that formulating a stance on such things would have been wrong, of course, but that he didn’t deem it necessary.) Instead, he thought it more important to unfold, embody, and complete/fulfill Scripture in his own life.

Then, there is Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. When he speaks to the pagans of his day (e.g., Athens), he doesn’t preface his remarks with some philosophical defense of the Bible. He simply assumes (but does not state) certain things about Scripture, meets people where they are, and leads them gradually to Jesus. Simple enough.

Please understand, I am not arguing that it is improper to defend the Scriptures or to elaborate on them in a philosophical manner. I am also not promoting a weak and anti-intellectual view of Scripture, and I am not at all advocating that we refrain from the articulation of a position in our statements of faith. All of these things are good in their place. However, when we feel that we are required (by others, our official church stance, or by logic) to throw a bibliological hypothesis at people, when we treat our verbal affirmations as if they are of first importance, we can hinder people from investigating the very truth we are defending. Yes, we should believe the Bible is God’s special grouping of documents. Yes, it is special revelation from God. Yes, it points to Jesus. Yes, we can and should–humbly yet confidently–live out and share its contents. But, do we really need to make our belief in the infallible, inerrant, verbal, plenary, inspired . . . etc., etc. Word of God the first thing others hear? Must this be the highest priority and the first thing our of our mouths? Should belief in the Bible be put forward as the first principle and primary pathway to the gospel? Cannot we, at least sometimes, simply believe these things are true and then attempt to live them out in much more unforced ways? Cannot we be confident enough in the Scriptures that we don’t have to frantically run around waving flags (our flags!) as if our statements about the Word of God (accurate as they may be) are equivalent to the Word itself unleashed in our lives?

I’m not saying it’s quite this obvious, but I sometimes wonder if we “cage” the word, or at least block people’s access to it, when we make our bibliology the doorway into the truth, the pathway to conversion. Sometimes (not always), I think it is enough that we accept Scripture ourselves and believe in its power without making known our views within the first 5 minutes of our conversations. Sometimes, I wonder if it might be better to share the truth in subtler ways. Sometimes, it may be best to live among those in error (or those who simply lack access to certain facts) without having to incessantly remind them of it. Sometime, it makes more sense to embrace people and share our lives with them than to provide an outline of what they should/must believe. Sometimes, it is healthier to engage others with Spirit-energized concern than to provide an outline of what they must first believe. Then again, that’s just me. :-)

Note: The manuscript pictured above is of what might be the earliest New Testament fragment. It contains John 18:31-33 and 37 and is called the Rylands Papyrus (P52). Dating from about 125-130 A.D., this papyrus, which was discovered in Egypt, forced scholars to place the date of the fourth gospel back to the first century.

reacting . . . but so much more (modern, postmodern, and beyond)

We are living on the boarder between what once was (modernism) and what is yet to come. Many have described this as postmodernism. As with many things, postmodernism is at least in part a reaction against the perceived abuses of modernity. Though some of the claims are exaggerated, it is indeed true that a number of wrong ideas and practices were prevalent during this era. To react can be a good and healthy thing, even a God-initiated thing. But, and this is important, at some point we need to make sure that our reaction doesn’t turn us into one-sided reactionaries, people whose impulses lack wisdom. Likewise, we must be aware of the possibility that our criticism of, say, the hubris and self-assured cockiness of modernity doesn't degenerate into a new version of the same. When I hear such confident criticism of modernity without a concomitant effort to not only critique the past but forge a better way into the future, I sometimes cringe. Part of this is due, of course, to the experiences many of us have had in modern churches. Those who fled from those ministries (often after spiritual abuse) are not apt to put their hurts behind them. Believe me, I understand this completely! Still–and I am NOT putting myself up as a standard on this–I also think that the initial reactionary spirit (which, in God's grace, can be a wonderful thing) must eventually back off a little and take on a more balanced or seasoned perspective.

To illustrate, if my 9 year old throws something at my 13 year old, the impulse of my 13 year old will be to react quickly and forcefully. When this occurs, I understand my 13 year old’s predicament, and I correct my 9 year old for what he has done. But I also try to make sure that I discourage my 13 year old from over-reacting to the situation. When he overstates the case–thinking, for example, that he should take a poke at his little brother–I take that as a sign of immaturity. My point in saying these things is that in the process of reacting against bad stuff (and there is and will always be a lot to oppose), at some point we must learn to temper our reactions a bit. Please understand that I am not opposing reactions against that which is inappropriate and unspiritual. Sometimes, in fact, these reactions ought to be fast and furious! When it comes to modernity, we should be against those aspects that were and are harmful. But, along the way, we must be careful that we don’t become enamored with our reactionary spirit or even proud of it. While we must always be able to identify errors, more time needs to be spent on applying truths. Though arrogance must be stood against, this will ring hollow if we don’t also live our lives humbly (and not merely talk about the hubris of others). As we think about the modernity we left (are leaving), we will need to react against certain abuses. But we will also need to work through our personal issues, and we simply must avoid being trapped in the past, charting new ways into the yet-to-come postmodern and beyond world. I am only beginning to move in this direction. Lord willing, we can travel (and mature) together as we navigate our way ahead.