Thinking through Christianity

Valentine's Day, Singleness, & The Church

2012-02-09T00:47:00.006-06:00

In honor of Valentine's Day I will post several entries on singleness and the church. Improper Christian thought on singleness is one of the greatest disservices Christians have perpetuated. Even now, with the single adult demographic at 50 percent or more in this country very little is said on the topic. We throw around comments about how Paul was single and Jesus was single. We mention that Paul said a few things on singleness in the New Testament and we sometimes talk that some may have that 'gift'. Beyond that, not only do we not talk or think about singleness in a theological way, the church adamantly promotes marriage as 'the way' for individuals and society to function properly at all. Many Christians don't realize the Bible has any comments on singleness whatsoever.

I'm 32 and unmarried. I've spent most of my life single in every sense of singleness. I've participated for about ten years now in healthy young adult singles ministries in two different churches. I just finished a year co-leading one of those ministries.

My thinking seriously on this topic started about four years ago. My friends and I were talking about how once someone has a boyfriend (or girlfriend) they automatically are moved into a different category. Singles treat the individuals in the newly formed couple differently and couples do also. They are out of one 'club' and into another. What necessitates this change? It seemed more fundamental than just that these two people may now have built-in plans for a Friday night. The change, we realized, has something to do with the beginning of the hope being realized of having a spouse.

At the same time as this conversation my discussion group at church was studying N.T. Wright's Surprised by Hope. Wright addresses the idea of the Christian hope -- what we hope for and what we tend as a church to be missing in the discussion. It struck me as a similar story to what I was experiencing as a single person. Could it be that God gave us singleness to teach us about the present in the same way theologians say God gave us marriage to teach us about the future?

I'll unpack that concept in my future posts. Until then, let me direct you to two very different views on singleness:

Albert Mohler has several entries on his blog regarding singleness.

John Piper takes a very different view. Read or view one of his sermons on the topic or you can download his book, This Momentary Marriage, which has a chapter on singleness.

The Theology of Sport

2012-02-03T16:24:00.020-06:00

In case you haven't heard, the Super Bowl is this weekend. Seems to me like a good time to look at the 'Theology of Sport'. Every year around this time the debate of 'what Christians should do' in regards to the Super Bowl seems to arise. What about churches that have evening or afternoon services on Sundays? Do you cancel them? Manipulate it to be longer, shorter? Incorporate the game into the meeting time? All answers could be valid. Should Christians even watch or participate in sports?

The question I want to touch on here goes a bit beyond those questions to how Christians should think about sports -- about the games played, about watching, about participating and about winning. I have some links to resources and articles I've looked at recently discussing this issue.

A few weeks ago I presented at a missions conference a workshop entitled, 'The Theology of Technology.' Many of the same principles apply for this topic. Logically this makes sense because if you have a true Christian worldview the same principles will inform any thought on any category of human life.

The core of the issue is actually, I believe, the same as what Thomas Ladd posted below in his post entitled, "Misunderstanding Christianity's "Negative" Anthropology". I'd suggest reading the whole post but a poignant excerpt is:

For what we believe humanity can be -- what each human being can be -- is even more than a restoration of the original image we bore. We believe that through the transformational power of the Spirit of God, those who believe in Jesus Christ are being made into His likeness!

I believe that "through the transformational power of the Spirit of God" all things-- humans, nature, technology and sports are being moved from their current state of fallenness into a state of redemption. Sport, as a category, is not evil but because of the current fallenness of all things is as susceptible to evil as anything or anyone else.

The topic is too broad for me to get in-depth in one entry. Hopefully I'll post more going forward. But, for now, to think through many aspects of the theology of sport look at these links:

Another Look: It’s Holy Week in America from internetmonk.com
and two links I appreciated from there are:

Christians, Sports and Compromise from Jesus Creed
and
Sports Fanatics from Christianity Today

I also just looked over Tom Krattenmaker's book, Onward Christian Athletes, which brings up many intriguing thoughts on the link between Christians and sports in this country.

And, Verite Sport has some very interesting articles and papers on the topic.

WHY WE FOLLOW SPORTS

I worked as a sports reporter for several years for Portland's newspaper website. I mainly worked in the area of high school sports. The worst thing I covered was a player dying or having a serious medical issue. I also worked in news for awhile and often covered war and death but when it was related to an athlete, especially high school or college, it took on a whole other meaning. I believe the issue is twofold. One, we believe athletes are in good physical condition and shouldn't have these issues. But two, sport, in some sense, is not real. But death is very real and when the two meet fantasy and reality collide.

Sport mimics real life in a way that only sport can. We build each competition, each season, each race into a battle of good and evil. Just as, as Christians believe, real life is. Sport gives us a chance to either, by participating or being a spectator, see the human body and mind used in exceptional ways. Ways that must reflect, somehow, the image of God. Sport gives us a way to bond as community -- the team, trainers and coaches or the local high school, city or state. Just as in real life we long for community in our families, workplace and with our Creator.

Humans get drawn to things that, whether we know it or not, show us a truer sense of ourselves and of God. I easily see how sport is one of those things on both counts. Sports fans see, that somewhere, at the core, the nature of sport reflects something true to a reality that is hard to see or more often hard to deal with. So, we like sports.

At least in sport, generally, the battle between good vs. evil is pretend. The 'good' team wins and the 'evil' team loses. Sometimes, depending your alliance, the 'evil' team wins and the 'good' loses. This also reflects life as we know it currently. But, the evil of it all really isn't that evil because sports aren't real. It's just a game.

Therefore reporting on the death of an athlete or a sex scandal in a locker room was one of the worst things I had to do. It moves the unreal into the real -- the evil is a true evil not the fabricated evil of a team losing or the wrong team winning. But, just as how there is another season in sports, there is another season in reality. There is a future hope. As Mr. Ladd wrote in his post below, "a future in which sin"...and death... "does not have the last word and in which your flaws and failures don't have the final say when it comes to defining what you are."

My Friend, Jake, and His Big, Wooden Cross

2012-02-02T13:25:00.001-06:00

Jake Bible was my best friend in high school, and together we were the oddest two people anyone in Paris, Texas, ever met. Then, one day, he disappeared and was not really heard from, again.

He was an anomaly. Jake was gifted at computer science (he always finished his work early and went on to program impressive stuff on the side while we were scrambling to finish), he could play any Led Zeppelin song accurately - including guitar solos, and he read the Bible every day. Jake made duct tape clothes long before it was cool, he mastered half-pipe maneuvers on his skateboard, and he played a mean trombone.

The disappearance happened after high school. He was 20 years old, and he joined me at a college ministry saying he wanted to address the group. I gave him a mic and he told us a few things about the importance of Christianity and how much he enjoyed our friendship. It was encouraging, and it was also a bit odd. Then again, Jake lived well outside of society's norms, so it didn't raise any red flags.

But it should have.

A few days later, I discovered he was gone. Where? No one knew. He had no phone, no contact number, and no known friends outside of town. He just vanished. It took a while to notice, because in the country you don't see people as often.

Months later, a pastor I knew received an email from Jake, who was living near Austin. I got the email address, and Jake and I corresponded that way a few times, but he left that place and closed the email account before I was able to really get to know his situation.

And that was the last I heard of him. For ten years.

I talked to everyone about him, and no one had a clue. He had no online presence, no phone listing, and no trace of existence that the internet could track down. (Making things even more obscure is the fact that there's an author named "Jake Bible," and his books are all I could find when searching for my friend online.) I've known a lot of people who wanted to live "off the grid," but Jake was actually doing it.

I talked to his family and made a little progress. They had seen him a few times since his disappearance, but he comes and goes without leaving any contact information. They told me that he was living like a nomad of sorts, but they didn't know much else.

Finally, I got a break on Facebook. One of his old friends sent me a friend request, and I asked him if he had heard from Jake. He had. Sort of. One day, he saw Jake walking down the street with a large wooden cross, saying he had carried it all the way from Oregon.

That was all he knew, but it was all I needed. I started searching the internet specifically for information about a man carrying a cross. My jaw almost hit the floor when I came across a picture of him. In ten years, he hadn't aged, a day.

Jake carries that big cross all over the country. He sleeps in a small tent that he keeps with him (why not - he was an Eagle Scout, after all), and he travels around the states telling people about Jesus. Two years ago, a photographer named Alton Strupp took his picture in South Dakota and asked him a few questions:

"I'm a believer, and I'm sharing the kingdom of heaven and I'm doing it the old fashioned way," Bible said.

Bible has found that the cross often acts as an ice breaker, aiding him in spreading his message and providing opportunities to continue his journey.

While his goals are simple, they are not without struggle. He often sleeps in a tent he carries, drinking from creeks when he must. Then there are the hecklers.

(More of Strupp's excellent photography can be found on his blog. I'm really glad he got this neat picture of my friend.)

That same year, he was in a south Texas newspaper (where I got that picture at the top of the article) where a local reporter had written about him as he passed through. Texas to South Dakota - that's a lot of walking.

Jake's life reminds me of the mendicant monastics; groups like the Franciscans (who inspired Rich Mullen's aesthetic ways of life) that kept with them only life's bare necessities as they traveled the world doing God's work. Jake is one of the nicest people I've ever known and I'm sure he is spreading hope everywhere he goes. (A mutual friend recently said that Jake would, quite literally, give you his last shirt if you needed it - and that's probably true.)

Have you seen Jake? A lot of people have reported meeting someone carrying a cross who fits his description. And he's been a lot of places. Let me know, in the comments, if you have.

Jake, if you ever read this, just know that we remember you and think highly of you. And contact me through this site if you need anything. (I'd give out my number, but I'm sure you don't have a phone.)

The Difficulties of Contextualizing God

2012-02-01T13:25:00.002-06:00

Several major Bible translators in the past few years have toyed with the idea of creating Bibles for use in the Muslim world that do not refer to God as "Father" or Jesus as "Son." The idea is that these labels for God are very offensive to Muslims who would never conceive of God has having physical relations and producing a son, thus the use of "Father" and "Son" may be hindering Muslims from coming to the faith. You can get a brief sense of the controversy by reading this news article here. By the way, as far as I can tell there are Christians from the Muslim world and not from the Muslim world on both sides of the debate.

Who is God? Well, you see, He's kind of like ... Well, I mean He ... Hmmmmmmmm ...

Honestly, my first thought was: "Um, we have the same exact problem in our culture -- in any culture, really." I mean, we have to explain to Christians in America that Jesus isn't the Son of God in the same way that I am my father's son. We have to explain that a Father-Son relationship is an image of the relationship between two members of the Trinity that God decided to use in helping us gain a little understanding into something beyond our comprehension. I can't think of a single culture where you wouldn't have to have some sort of follow up conversation after using the terms Father and Son. Apparently, though, this is a particularly big deal in Muslim contexts? I certainly have no expertise from which to speak on the issue.

If you were Luke Skywalker, you would call all of these men, "Father." Confused yet?

This is hardly the only controversy in recent years revolving around how to contextualize the concept of God. A few years ago William Young started many a conversation inside and outside of the Church with his novel, The Shack. In part because Young wanted to explore his main character's issues with his own father, Young portrayed God the Father as an African-American woman for most of the story. More recently Rob Bell chose to portray God through the prism of love in his book Love Wins, and ended up taking some flack from those who felt his portrayal of a loving God was more of a caricature made at the expense of a more nuanced and robust understanding of God's self-revelation. There are even new fields of theological scholarship challenging us to rethink God within the contexts of feminism, liberation theology, or queer theory.

And, of course, the much more popular "Beer Theory."

Contextualization has to happen, of course. The biggest problem is simply the transcendental "otherness" of God. We can't fully understand God. We have no point of reference, and the limitations of the human experience make it impossible. So God revealed Himself, most notably through His Son Jesus Christ, choosing to grant us a limited understanding of Himself in order for us to have a relationship with Him. The other reason contextualization is necessary is because the human experience is in constant flux. Culture and even language are always changing. "The Lord is my Shepherd" was a beautiful way to express the tender care of God to a rural society. Here in industrial America we can still grasp the general idea, but we have to do some studying on shepherds and sheep (and how shepherding was practiced in ancient times) to fully appreciate this contextualized self-revelation of God.

"The Lord is my ..." Oh, I see what happened here.

The same things that made contextualization so necessary, however, are the same things that should make us exercise extreme caution when doing so. We have to look outside of our own culture to make sure we sufficiently understand the culture to which the original revelation was given so that we can then convey it to a third culture (which we also have to make sure we understand), but we also have to look "upward," if you will, to make sure that we sufficiently understand the intended conveyance of that original revelation!

The translators who have decided to stop using "Father" and "Son" have a difficult task ahead of them. It goes beyond trying to find similar words or concepts in these Muslim cultures that will express the same thing without causing offense. They also have to decide exactly what God intended to convey when He revealed Himself in part as "Father" and "Son" (not to even get at the fact that these are masculine terms and I keep calling God, "He!). Will the new terms not only "make sense" in a Muslim context, but will they also faithfully convey God's limited self-revelation? Are the difficulties that will arise in choosing new terms really less significant than the difficulties in trying to redeem the old terms?

I think we just made things worse ...

Again, I don't know enough about the particular difficulties involved in conveying Christianity to Muslims to have any answers along these lines. But I'm asking myself these questions because, in truth, I face the same task of contextualization. How do I speak of God to the churched vs. the unchurched? How do I choose to interpret and explain various offensive passages which offend various groups of people for various reasons? I've spoken about God with Americans and Chinese. I've shared the gospel in English and in Spanish. Each time I speak about God I have to make sure that I understand the limited revelation given by God, as well as the particular confusions or hang-ups I'm likely to encounter sharing God based on others' own contexts and experiences.

The difficulties faced by these translators are a good reminder to any who speak about the God revealed through Scripture and ultimately through Jesus Christ: be sensitive in how you share, but also make sure you are sharing faithfully.

Misunderstanding Christianity's "Negative" Anthropology

2012-01-25T15:45:00.002-06:00

One of the stumbling blocks to accepting the gospel that I've seen quite frequently is Christianity's anthropology, meaning simply how Christianity understands what it means to be human.

In one sense, I get this. I mean, listen to some of the basic tenets of Christian anthropology:

--everyone is born a sinner, which means that ...

--there is something fundamentally wrong with all of humanity at its core, and thus ...

--people are inherently evil, not good, so that ...

--many of people's natural desires can't be trusted or justified, and what's worse ...

--all people will give account to the God whose moral code they violate daily by their very nature

Plus, your sin makes you smell awful!

Wow. Where do I sign up? No wonder Christianity gets a bad wrap for its view of human nature. Having some issues with self-image, self-esteem, etc? Maybe we want to look somewhere else -- anywhere else? -- for our sense of value, meaning, and purpose.

Here's the problem: that Christian anthropology you've heard? Yeah, that's not the whole picture. In fact you've missed the beginning of the story, not to mention the end!

Honey, let's just go in for the second half. I'm sure we can catch up on the plot as we go.

THE BEGINNING OF THE STORY:

It might surprise you, but actually Christianity has a very high view of what it means to be human -- higher by far than secular humanism or other competing systems. For Christians, what it fundamentally means to be human is to be an image-bearer of the Living God! Now, there's a lot of theological discussion about what exactly it means to be an image-bearer, but we can take away at least two things pretty safely: 1) to be human means to display some of the attributes of God, and 2) to be human means to be given charge over the rest of the created order. So if you're keeping score at home, here's the minimum anthropology we've drawn out so far:

To be human means to share in the likeness of God and to serve as His representative in ruling the rest of the creation.

That's not so negative a view of what it means to be human at all, now is it? So how do we get from here to the whole "sinner" anthropology you're probably more familiar with? The Scriptures teach that human beings weren't all that satisfied. Instead of being to content to be like God in some ways and rule on His behalf as His regents, we aimed for a better gig: we wanted be God. In doing so, the image became cracked, and remains so to this day. We still inherent the image of God as part of our birthright as human beings, but the image if fractured, broken, battered, and twisted. And so are we. And each of us reenacts the original rebellion, rejecting God's rule and our proper place as created beings in a myriad of ways.

THE END OF THE STORY

So Christian anthropology as you've probably encountered it mourns what was lost and tries to be honest about what we human beings have become. And just believing that we started out as much more than we are now doesn't exactly get us off the hook for being negative about humanity.

We could have been contenders!

What unmistakably makes Christian anthropology such an amazingly positive thing is the end of humanity's story. For what we believe humanity can be -- what each human being can be -- is even more than a restoration of the original image we bore. We believe that through the transformational power of the Spirit of God, those who believe in Jesus Christ are being made into His likeness! Humanity can be redeemed and made into something even better than it was at the beginning. Again, this is a very high view of what it means to be human: we will be made like God (but not actually become God, part of God, or gods, mind you! That gets a little tricky for some folks.)

The issue is that part of participating in the future of humanity is to admit humanity's state in the present. The gospel requires us to say that, yes, we are sinners; yes, we are rotten at the core (despite some good things we do); yes, this situation is utterly helpless. When we admit that, we are free to cling to God's provision for humanity's terrible state -- salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ. When we freely admit what we are, we begin to see the beauty and power of who He is. And the encounter slowly changes us, despite the bumps and bruises, the slip ups and failures, until eventually we will be made like Him when He makes all things new.

So, yeah, I really do think I'm a hopeless sinner when it comes to any standard of goodness that matters. I think you are, too. But I see something glorious in your future -- a future in which sin does not have the last word and in which your flaws and failures don't have the final say when it comes to defining what you are.

No One Takes the Bible Literally

2012-01-24T13:15:00.000-06:00

"No one takes the Bible literally," said a certain theology professor. I wasn't sure what he meant. Was he espousing a radical, liberal method of reading the Bible? And, didn't he know just how many Fundamentalists prided themselves on their literal interpretation?

Then, he asked me to hand over my car keys so he could have my car. Was he serious? I wasn't giving him my keys. Then, he reminded me that Jesus taught his followers to let people have things if they ask for them. Am I not bound by the Scriptures to hand over my possessions when asked for them?

Well, of course not. Jesus wasn't asking his followers to give their stuff away to any jerk who asks for it; interpreting the Bible isn't so simple. So, in this little way, Christians have all agreed not to completely take the Bible literally, but, in doing so, are interpreting it as correctly as possible. There are plenty of other examples. Jesus called Herod a "fox," but that doesn't mean that the history books are in error for not describing Herod as a small mammal. Paul tells Timothy to drink wine to help his sick stomach, but we don't dash out and get bottles of cabernet sauvignon whenever a church member has indigestion.

But, where does it stop? Did Jesus really rise from the dead? I've met people in church who didn't think so - that part of the Bible was not to be taken literally, they said. And anyone who disagrees with some point in your theology is likely to simply interpret that section of Scripture as a metaphor in order to get around any thorny moral issues that a literal interpretation could bring about.

So, here's how we can approach our understanding of the Bible (this applies to Believers, and non-Believers, alike) knowing that interpretation is largely a matter of deciding how literal something was intended.

Ask yourself if you know why you do, or don't, take a certain Bible passage literally. Did you decide after much investigation and research? Or are you merely parroting the teachings you grew up with? Search each issue out and decide if your tradition is correct, or if it's just the status quo. Find out what the theologians from different traditions have said and consider their arguments.

Also, are you being fair? Are you interpreting parts of the Bible figuratively only so you can get away with something? Or to sidestep a difficult issue? (Or to win an argument?)

Is proper Bible study a lot of work? You bet it is. But the Bible is a large collection of books from ancient times, and no one should think that understanding a book like that easy.

Interview with a gay Christian

2012-01-16T10:45:00.001-06:00

This week I ran across a blog entry from September (kind of old in blog time, I know) from the blog of Rachel Held Evans, in which a Christian man who happens to be gay answers questions from readers about his life, faith, and sexuality. It's an interesting and challenging discussion, and I encourage you to read it, if for no other reason than to hear a perspective that is frequently missing in our conversations about this topic. It is a long article, but even a cursory perusal provides, I think, some important thinking and talking points. Here's one of the more interesting passages:

I don't believe that the standards for sexual behavior should be any different for gay Christians than they are for straight Christians. I grew up believing that sex is something you save for marriage, so even after I realized I was gay and came to a gay-affirming conclusion from the Bible, I still decided I would wait until I met the right person and got married before having sex. Not all Christians (gay or straight) believe in waiting until marriage, and studies show that even those who do believe in it, usually fail to live up to their own standards. But my point is that the standards ought to be the same.

Read the rest here: http://rachelheldevans.com/ask-a-gay-christian-response

Why I Don't Agree With People Who Have a "Coexist" Bumper Sticker (Probably)

2012-01-11T14:38:00.001-06:00

Most of you probably know what I'm talking about when I mention the "coexist" bumper stickers, but in case you don't, I included a picture on the right. As you can see, the gimmick is that the word coexist has been formed using symbols from major religions or philosophies -- with a call for harmony between the sexes thrown in for good measure. The underlying message is that we shouldn't be fighting over issues of religion (and again sexual equality tossed in, I guess because no religion has embrace the letter "E" sufficiently), but rather should strive to live with each other despite these issues and differences.

AND YOU "PROBABLY" DISAGREE WITH THIS SENTIMENT???
On the one hand, I am all for not fighting or killing people over issues of religion. We are completely on the same page there! What concerns me is not the cry for coexistence, but the potential rationale behind it. If you say to me, "We should tolerate people with different religious views and strive to live alongside them because ..." -- well, you and I are still in complete agreement at that point. The potential disagreement comes from what folks who display this bumper sticker put after the "because." I think the rationale for coexistence is usually one of two things, which I'll discuss below. Since I am generalizing and certainly cannot know what each individual means by the bumper sticker, I included the "probably."

I DISAGREE IF ... YOU MEAN THAT QUESTIONS OF RELIGION AREN'T IMPORTANT
One of the arguments I encounter all the time is that questions of religion just aren't important enough for us to allow them to divide us (you may have noticed I've just given up on trying to include the "E" at all at this point). While I don't think that questions of religion have to divide us, I don't think it's because they are somehow frivolous or maybe just so peripheral to the human experience as to not be worth the time and effort it would take to thoroughly explore them. Let everyone believe whatever they want when it comes to religion, and let's focus on what really matters.

Look, you're saying that "time" is just a big loop of infinitely repeating events, and you're saying that we have ten seconds before the bombs explodes, killing all of us. Are these really the sorts of disagreements that we're going to allow to come between us?

However, in my opinion, the questions that religion raises are of the utmost importance. In fact, there may not be any questions more important. The ramifications for the existence of the Divine are astronomical. If indeed there is a creator deity, then human existence is suddenly defined by such questions as: Why did he/she/it create? What does he/she/it expect of us? What does it mean to be human? If we decide there is no Divine, then that decision also makes us answer some very important questions: Where does human value come? What is the good and how do we best pursue it, since there is no deity answering these questions for us? Of course these are only the tip of the iceberg type questions.

Don't dismiss religious concerns. How you conceive of God and how you understand what it means to be human are probably the things that define you more than anything else. They are questions well worth considering and considering thoughtfully.

I ALSO DISAGREE IF ... YOU MEAN THAT ALL RELIGIONS ARE BASICALLY THE SAME, SO WHY WOULD THEY FIGHT EACH OTHER
I once had a friend define religion as an attempt to approach the Divine. For the sake of a blog entry (and not a philosophical or theological treatise), I think that will do. Certainly if you view religion this way, there are many broad generalizations you can make about how religions are similar. I get that. However, the differences between religious systems become quite clear when we start moving away from generalizations such as "religions are just ways of approaching the Divine" and start defining terms.

For example, let's say we all claim to be friends with a guy named "Bob." We start talking about all the great times we've had with Bob, when suddenly a stranger who doesn't know Bob pops into the room and asks what Bob looks like. See, he's about to go pick up Bob from the airport, but he's never met him. One person says, "Oh Bob, is this tall African-American basketball player. You'll recognize him right away." You say, "Um, no, Bob is actually a short Hispanic woman. Here real name is Roberta, and we call her Bob for fun." Then I say, "What are you talking about? Bob is that magical gnome who lives behind my fridge and tells me that I really am special!" The stranger isn't going to say, "Okay, got it. You're all basically describing the same person. I can figure it out from here.

"Bob is dead." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

When we actually stop to define who or what we are trying to approach, we find that the differences become apparent very quickly. For example, the Christian God

*intentionally created the world

*is actively involved in bringing human history toward a certain end

*chose to reveal Himself specifically through the Scriptures and ultimately through the person of Jesus Christ, who Himself is both fully human and fully divine

*exists eternally as the Triune God

Of course, there are other ways of describing the Christian God, but these four are all essential, non-negotiable aspects of the Christian understanding of the Divine. And even at the end of this short list, Christianity is already distinct from every other religions system in history in how it conceives of the Divine

Now the stranger asks for directions to the airport. You tell him to take a certain highway, then a certain exit, etc. I tell him to take a rocket straight to the moon then spin around in circles until the airport appears. Our means of approaching the airport are not going to lead the stranger to the same place. Similarly, various religions make very different claims about how the Divine wants to be approached. For Christianity, God has made it clear that He only desires to be approached through His Son, Jesus Christ.

Um, we may have missed our exit ...

So, yes, I do agree that we should learn to coexist, but "probably" not for the same reasons that many of the people who have these bumper stickers do. For me, I believe we should coexist because my religion teaches me that every single human being has infinite value as someone who bears the image of God. I believe that God loves my fellow human beings and expects me to display that same love when I interact with them ... regardless of their intentions toward me.

So, what does this all mean? It means that the cry for coexistence is a great start, but it's only a start. It's not a sufficient statement regarding our differences.

It means there's still a lot of dialog to be had.

And that's one of the reasons why this website exists.

What Should We Expect From the Church?

2012-01-10T15:45:00.000-06:00

"If the Church was doing it's job, we wouldn't have [insert world crisis here]!"

Now, I've seen the brackets above filled in with many different things: poverty, sex-trafficking, institutionalized injustice, domestic violence, hunger -- you name it! What is interesting to me, though, is that I am seeing a growing trend of people in my generation (both inside and outside of the church) condemning the Church as having lost its mission based on the continued presence of certain evils in the world. If we're honest, most of these reactions stem from seeing the Church's nose were people think it doesn't belong, such as "The Church needs to get out of politics and get back to feeding the poor!" But it does raise a few important questions worth exploring:

"Has the Church (and we'll just say the American Church for now for the sake of simplicity) failed in its mission?"

Which, of course, raises the even more fundamental question:

"What is the mission of the Church?"

OR

"What should we expect from the Church" -- how and to what extent should the world look different because the Church is active in the world and fulfilling its mission?

I came across a quote recently that I think is helpful in thinking through this issue:

"I imagine some problems are not as bad as they could be because of Christian programs and witness ... Do we assume police officers are worthless because we still have crime or parents are pointless because kids still do stupid things? Not at all. Why then do we assume that the existence of unmet need or ongoing tragedy in the world is unassailable proof of the church's failure?"

-- Kevin DeYoung

This quote makes a very important point: the continued presence of evil in the world is not an indictment against the Church, for the Church's job has never been to solve the problem of evil, but rather to faithfully proclaim that the Solution is coming. Christians are heralds of the coming Kingdom (the full realization of the reign of God on Earth) in which the King Himself will finally put a stop to all evil.

Is this to say that the Church simply twiddles its thumbs and pontificates on eternal things until Christ returns? Absolutely not! Part of proclaiming the coming of the Kingdom is displaying its principles and values before the world as a witness to its power. So, we seek justice as a foretaste of the true justice that is coming. We feed and clothe the poor as a foretaste of the One who meets every need. We free the slaves as a foretaste of the freedom to come. You get the idea.

Hold on, everyone. We sent Jesus out for more bread just a little less than 2,000 years ago.

I'm sure He'll be back soon. No need to ask us for help.

All this is very different, however, from saying that we are building the Kingdom or bringing about the Kingdom on earth (a teaching called post-millennialism, for you nerds out there). And this is where we can get in trouble about our expectations for the Church, if we are not careful. There will always be poverty, famine, and various sorts of evil in the world regardless of how faithful the Church is in her mission. These are the result of fundamental flaws in human nature rather than objective, external problems to the human race that just need to swallow up a few more man hours, dollars, or other resources before they are finally solved.

Pictured: the greatest youth group summer mission trip EVER!

There are plenty of local churches and individual Christians being faithful heralds of the Kingdom in both word and deed ... even if we can all point to some that could be doing much more.

If you are not a Christian, come join us in ministering to the needy, fighting against social injustice, etc, and listen to why we're doing it!

If you are a Christian, how's your heralding going?

Thinking it through

2012-01-06T13:35:00.000-06:00

As my first post I figured a good idea would be addressing why I asked to write on here. First, I find writing enjoyable and cathartic. Second, I believe writing to be one of the most influential forms of teaching and influencing others. So, both reasons tend to be mainly selfish on my part. Hopefully, though, through the grace of God, my selfish endeavors will be turned into a blessing for the readers.

One of my favorite quotes is from C.S. Lewis in “Learning in War-Time”:

Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether.

With that quote he explains my passion for writing and educating both Christians and the 'heathen'. I believe, and also fear, that in our current culture the work of a Christian's 'cool intellect' does not need to be done against 'muddy heathen mysticisms' so much as against 'muddy Christian mysticisms'. In our American culture we can argue till blue in the face regarding how 'Christian' our country is, whatever and however we decide to define that, but wherever one falls on that argument we undeniably exist in a culture that pulls from a Judeo-Christian background and have many mysticisms because of it.

I sat in a presentation once from a missionary to a Muslim country. The missionary opened the room for questions. I don't remember the specific question but I do remember the answer, “That isn't real Islam, that's folk Islam. No serious practicing Muslim believes that as part of their faith.” It struck me how it could be reversed – I could be a Muslim sitting in a room listening to one of my faith brothers talking about his mission work in a Christian country and a very similar question could easily result in the same answer. It then struck me that I'm not sure how many who claim said belief in Christianity actually would know the difference. What part of what we practice of Christianity is 'folk Christianity'? What do we do culturally as Christians and don't even think twice about? What do the faithful in other faiths in other countries think of as 'reasons' for why Christianity must not be true when they see how we practice it?

Thinking Through Christianity, as far as I am concerned, tries to work through many of these issues. This blog tries to separate the culture from the sacred, the folk from the real, the mysticisms from the Truth and this is why I want to write here. Hopefully a word, phrase or even paragraph of what I write will influence someone (and myself) to moving closer toward the Truth.

Science as a Dreamland

2012-01-05T06:00:00.001-06:00

Scientists recently observed neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light. Since nothing is supposed to travel faster than the speed of light, this would be a big deal. Charles Krauthammer says:

". . . . there must be some error. Because otherwise everything changes. We shall need a new physics. A new cosmology. New understandings of past and future, of cause and effect. Then shortly and surely, new theologies."

With all due respect to Krauthammer, who happens to be my favorite political commentator, this is not entirely correct. I think G. K. Chesterton's remark is more to the point:

". . . the world of science and evolution is far more nameless and elusive and like a dream than the world of poetry and religion; since in the latter images and ideas remain themselves eternally, while it is the whole idea of evolution that identities melt into each other as they do in a nightmare."

It is not usually religious orthodoxy that is threatened by scientific discovery, but scientific orthodoxy. Of course, I believe the things I have learned from science; I believe in electrons as strongly as the next man. I believe because I have been told.

Protons and electrons: an article of faith.

But the fact is that scientific discovery shapes relatively little of my worldview. Scientific discoveries can come and go and have little effect on the Christian whose worldview is shaped by Christ, Scripture, the teachings of the Church, and the sacred history of God's people from Abraham to Billy Graham.

The Resurrection: an article of faith.

I am talking about one of the differences between science and religion. Usually when we talk about the differences between science and religion we wander into the idea that science is about hard facts and religion about non-factual "values." That idea is incorrect, and it is not what I am talking about. It is a popular idea these days, but it misrepresents the factual claims made by many religions. Christianity, for one, is about quite a few facts. To take only one of the many statements of fact in the Bible, Christianity's crucial claim of the Resurrection is a statement of fact. As a matter of fact, Abraham Lincoln died and was buried and did not return living from the grave on the third day; as a matter of fact, Christianity says, Jesus died and was buried and did return living from the grave on the third day. If the resurrection is not a hard fact, then, as Paul says, Christianity is simply incorrect.

So I am not saying that science is about hard fact and religion about something else. Here is what I am saying. First, science investigates a region of reality that is subject to less constancy than the region of reality with which at least some religions, Christianity among them, is concerned. Second, the beliefs of science change far more frequently than the beliefs of religion, at least the beliefs of the very old religions like Christianity.

This doesn't mean that science is not to be taken seriously. It just means that scientific discovery makes up a relatively minor part of my worldview; those regions of my worldview which are shaped by science are generally the less important regions, not least because they are the regions which I view as more subject to change and in knowing which there is less certitude.

Learning to Lament

2012-01-03T09:00:00.124-06:00

Do you remember the “bop bags” from when you were a kid? Those air filled punching bags with sand at the bottom. My brothers had one with batman on it. I prefer the clown one. If you ask me, clowns are just asking to be hit.

Hit me! Please!

These kiddy punching bags summarize what 2011 was for a great number of my friends. Where people are the bag and life is the little hyper kid who snuck into the kitchen pantry and ate spoonfuls of sugar. First he punches the bag once and watches in amazement that the little air filled bag picks itself back up – asking for another punch. The kid happily obliges. However, fuelled by the spoonfuls of sugar the kid doesn’t hit the bag – he pummels it – giving the sadistically smiling clown no chance to get up, until finally the kid just jumps on the bag, pinning it down, and wails on it. The clown’s only hope is that the parents will call the kid in for dinner… which of course, the kid won’t eat, because he ruined his dinner with the spoonfuls of sugar.

2011 was a year when many of my friends were pummeled. It was a year full of suffering. Suffering ranging from the loss of one or more close family members to small (but costly) problems that just kept coming and drained patience, pocketbooks and sanity; and every type of suffering in between.

Suffering sucks. We live in a world that is cursed, so sometimes bad things (calamity or &#$!) happen. There is much that can be said about the source of evil and calamity. But that’s for another blog. I want to discuss how Christians should respond to suffering.

In America Christians are tempted - nay, encouraged - to ignore or at least downplay suffering. We slap on a fake smile and sing happy-happy-joy-joy songs.

But the fake smile does not negate our suffering.

Some have left the church because they have seen the fakeness, or were even pressured into living with a fake smile. Today there are many weeping behind their mask.

We need – as the Church – to learn how to lament. Nearly 1/3 of the Psalms are lament psalms. That’s a lot of lamenting. Sadly, lament songs ~~seldom~~ never get updated and put into modern church repertoire. Why? We're afraid to lament. Often our theology is so weak it can't handle it.

Let's take a quick look at lament psalms. Lament psalms have seven typical features (not all lament psalms have each feature). (Ex: Ps 3, 10, 22, 42, 54, 56, 77, 86, 142)

1) Address to God (basically a salutation)

2) Description of suffering

3) Curse called against the one causing the pain

4) Declaration of innocence (or admission of guilt)

5) Petition for God to intervene and stop the suffering

6) Confidence expressed that God will respond

7) Thanksgiving/praise for what God will do

Lamenting does not mean that we wallow in self-pity, or that we pat ourselves on the back for being martyrs. No! Lamenting is honestly acknowledging the suffering and, if known, it's cause (#2-4). Don’t treat it as the “thing-which-must-not-be-named.” No, boldly call it by its proper name!

But don’t stop there. Acceptance is a poor place to end. We are not called to just accept suffering. Learn from the psalmists. They see the God who is bigger than their pain, they ask Him to intervene, and they praise him (#5-7). They praise him after lamenting, and even while lamenting. God is praised because the psalmists have confidence that – even though they don't understand how – God would make all things right. Now, because of the revelation in the New Testament, we know that one day God will return to restore his creation, to recreate it, to remove all sin and suffering. So even though we suffer and lament today we know there will come a day when all things are made right and there will be no more lamenting. Cling to that future hope.

When a spouse dies, when a parent dies, when someone is suffering with a horrible sickness, when everything around you is falling apart – Lament! Wail! Cry out! Be honest with God. Ask the hard questions. But in it all and through it all know that God is bigger. It may not make a lick of sense why such horrible suffering is allowed to happen; but know that God is great. God is compassionate and just. And live with hope, knowing that He has promised that He is coming again and he will make all things right. There will come a time when there will be no more mourning and no more lamenting. Lament and pray for that day to come soon.

On a final note, I'm going to point out something that is so obvious that you may have overlooked it. Lament psalms are in a songbook. These songs were sung by levitical choirs. While one person wrote the song because of a horrible situation they were going through, they were included in an ancient hymnal for the community to sing... together. Can you imagine what a church community would look like that sings lament songs together? When one member of the community is suffering their fellow Believers gather around them on Sunday morning (or whenever) and belt out a mournful lamenting melody; a melody full of grief but under-girded with hope.

We need to learn how to lament and how to lament with those who are lamenting.

---
Here is a short clip from a practical theologian who does a great job describing the need for lament.

Things That Were Supposed to Happen in 2011 - But Didn't

2011-12-29T09:16:00.001-06:00

A little perspective always helps. I get bombarded with doomsday scenarios all year, and none of them come true. Here's a few you'll remember, and a few you may have forgotten.

1 - The Rapture Didn't Happen. Twice.

The world was supposed to end. Once again, someone had Biblical proof that the time had come, and billboards all across the nation heralded this doom-saying. (Here is some background information on that.) Of course, we're still here, and the families who paid for those signs are having financial trouble since they spent all of their money on a sign.

The doomsayers are always wrong, but that sort of habit is not limited to Christians, for example...

2 - Nuclear Fallout From Japan Didn't Hurt Anybody

Japan's tsunami/earthquake earlier this year was very devastating, and I'm not trying to downplay the seriousness of that event. But, a few days later, I was told that the nuclear fallout would travel across the ocean and kill everyone in America. Of course, reasonable scientists told us that nuclear fallout would not harm us, but no one listens to reasonable people, and there was great panic about this.

Homes were evacuated in Japan, and some food shipments were not sent, but that's the most serious effects I've heard concerning those nuclear accidents. It's amazing how everyone becomes an expert in nuclear power when someone scares them.

3 - Sea Life in the Gulf of Mexico is Safe to Eat

I know, I know, the BP oil spill was a 2010 thing, but I was still hearing about it this year. People were so scared, that I was warned by friends not to eat seafood while I traveled in Spain, in March - even though the Spanish don't fish out of the Gulf of Mexico! In some circles, it was believed that this oil spill would destroy sea life all over the globe, and these people always seemed to be around me when I ordered seafood. I don't like littering the sea with oil, but these fears were misplaced, and I enjoyed every bite of paella I had.

4 - The Occupy Wall Street Movement had No Effect on Wall Street

They did manage to shut down a few locally owned businesses by camping out in front of small businesses and keeping customers away, but Wall Street opened and closed each day without batting an eye. If sleeping on the ground in New York was the sort of thing that could affect Wall Street and federal politics, then the homeless people of NY would be the most powerful political lobby in the world.

These protesters have had no effect, but they do have a few valid complaints about government corruption - it's time to find a more useful way to change these things.

5 - Sarah Palin Did Not Run for Office

I don't know (or care) how you feel about this, personally, but everyone I knew was certain she would run for President. She didn't. I know some people who thought nothing would make them happier than seeing her run for office, and others who wanted her to run because they love to hate her. I'm not sure why this meant so much to people, but she's not running. (If you're the sort of person who obsesses about Palin - or some other politician - then make 2012 the year that you find something else to do.)

6 - This Website Didn't Shut Down

I got sick of this site and tried to shut it down. But, I really just needed a break.

It's frustrating to write this site. I beg my fellow Believers to stop being hateful to others for political reasons, but the very people who leave comments agreeing with me will later say that Republicans/Democrats are "stupid" and will continue that hate cycle. We should all be above that sort of petty hatred.

And when I ask people to think about issues and get along with people who disagree with them, well, I just get called names and dismissed by people on both sides of the argument. Christians say I'm watering down the Faith, and non-Christians think I'm a pushy Holy-Roller. It hurts me to see that Christians fighting ideology wars with hatred and politics, rather than showing Christ's Love to their neighbors.

After closing down the site in defeat, I realized that I could try again with a group of writers, and I have. So far, it's been a good change.

So, 2011 turned out very different than some people predicted. What have I left out?

"Will there be another king like this?"

2011-12-19T21:24:00.023-06:00

Andrew Peterson has some great Christmas music, available here. The song "So Long, Moses" has made me weep. It puts Christmas—and life and history—in perspective. "So Long, Moses" summarizes the history of Israel's yearning for a king, for a Messiah who would be a king like David: "Will there be another king like this?"

The author of Judges says that when the people of Israel first came to the Promised Land they had no king; each person considered himself his own lawmaker; instead of a king, sin reigned in the land. As bad as that was, the Israelites sinned when they longed for a king in those days. This longing was a rejection of God as their king; it was a longing to be like the other nations, a longing not to be a people who were set apart for God because they were ruled by God's law only.

They got the trouble they asked for with Saul and a number of their other kings. But Israel was not without good kings. Above all, there was King David.

As the history of Israel unfolded, the Hebrew wish for a king took on a new quality; it became a longing for a Messiah who would occupy David's throne and set things right for God's people. The prophets told of such a Messiah, the heir of David, whose throne would last forever.

When I listen to "So Long, Moses" I feel the weight of Israel's two thousand years of longing for this Messiah.

When I listen I am saddened by the tragedy that when the King came the first time few recognized Him because, as Isaiah had foretold and as Peterson's song reminds us, He came as a suffering servant.

When I listen I feel the continuing longing for the King to set things right for God's people—and, through them, as Abraham was told in Genesis 12, all the world. In fact, every time a Christian longs for things to be set right in the world, he inherits the ancient longing of Israel for the Messiah.

It's Christmastime, and the King has already come once. He himself taught us to pray for the consummation of His work on earth: "Thy Kingdom come."

Where Did Christmas Come From?

2011-12-19T13:22:00.000-06:00

I've written a lot about this topic in the past, so I'll keep this short, and then I'll link to my previous posts.

The early church celebrated mass every Sunday - that was their church service. Sometimes, they took mass for a particular reason, and one of those reason's was the birth of Jesus. This "Christ-mass" took place at different times; some churches celebrated in the summer, and some churches did this more than once a year.

Eventually, a tradition caught on that said Jesus was born on December 25. Since early records of the church were destroyed by Rome, we have no way of knowing if this tradition was based on fact, but it's a tradition, and one day is as good as another for a holiday. It's widely believed that this day was chosen because of pre-existing Roman/Pagan/whatever holidays, but there's no evidence of that. Besides, every day on the calendar was once a holiday celebrated by an older culture. The early medieval scholars who chose December 25th as Christmas were trying to work it out historically and gave no evidence that they were harkening to a pagan festival that no longer existed in their time. (Whether or not their historical efforts were successful is a good question, however.)

Christmas was more of a season than a holiday, in older times. The weeks leading up to Christmas were (and still are) known as "Advent" and sometimes these celebrations began early in November. (Which is why I will listen to Christmas music before Thanksgiving as long as I live.) It was a season, not just a one-day celebration, and we still celebrate "the holidays" in the same way.

So, with that introduction, here's what I've had to say on Christmas in the past, for those of you who are new to this site:

What's the deal with Christmas Trees?

More on the supposed Pagan roots of Christmas.

Why is Christmas on December 25?

Have a good holiday season, and love your neighbor.

Why My Kids Won't Believe in Santa

2011-12-17T07:37:00.005-06:00

Usually an author saves his caveats for the end of an argument, but I thought I would go ahead and make a few now. After all, a Christian blogger just said something about Santa Claus (apparently attacking him?), and it might be hard for everyone itching to comment to get through the whole argument up front at this rate!

So, caveats ...

FIRST, I heartily agree that there is potentially a lot of good in the Santa traditions. Generosity, charity, morality -- who wouldn't want little kids learning these things? So, this post is not about Santa being some evil influence destroying future generations.

I'm here for your So So Sooouuullll

SECOND, I am well aware that some portions of the current Santa Claus traditions find their origins loosely in the life of a Christian saint. I am also aware that the original St. Nick did not have flying reindeer or live at the North Pole. In other words, teaching your child to believe in Santa is not de facto teaching them to be like St. Nick. You can't scream "Origins! Origins!" as a justification when a tradition has clearly unmoored itself from said origins in significant ways.

THIRD, I am not saying it is evil for children to play make-believe, or for parents to have make-believe games they play with their children. When I was growing up, I never believed in Santa Claus, but all my Christmas presents still said from "Santa," and every year it was a big deal who got to play "Santa," the person who handed out the gifts. This is not about avoiding Santa Claus like the plague.

He who must not be named!

So why will my kids not believe in Santa Claus? I don't think it's bad tradition, persay, but as a Christian, I think there is something far better available to me. I will teach my kids from an early age that every good thing we have -- including Christmas presents -- comes from God. Each Christmas, my children will celebrate God as the good Provider -- ultimately proving this through the giving of His Son.

So again, not bashing the Santa tradition. But for those readers who are Christian parents or may be someday, I would urge you not to miss the golden opportunity that the Santa tradition can replace. For parents raising their children in the Christian worldview there is simply no value in teaching children to believe in Santa. Use it as a fun make-believe game, sure! Watch the Christmas claymation specials, sure! Don't have a special Jesus bar of soap ready if your kid accidentally says "elf." Don't fly in panic to the CD player if "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" happens to come on. But why teach your kiddos to truly believe that a a fat, jolly man brings them gifts every year based on how good they've been? Instead, focus them on belief in the God who gives freely out of grace, giving us every good thing we have -- ultimately His Son.

There are good moral lessons to be found in the Santa tradition, but each of these is far better taught through the gospel. If I'm going to intentionally teach my children something wrong about the way the world works -- even if it's a fun lie like Santa Claus -- I need a reason. Given the meaning that Christmas has in my worldview already, I just don't have one. Santa is useless to me.

Besides, my children won't miss out on being around a chubby, bearded man with an awkward laugh during the holiday season, anyway ...

Portrait of the author as a young child

UPDATE: As editor of this simple blog, I encourage my writers to feel free to disagree about certain topics. In this case, I'm going to agree to disagree with Mr. Ladd (and his well-written post) and encourage you to read our previous article - 'Christianity vs. Santa Claus' - in which I take the opposing point of view. As I recall, plenty of people disagreed with me. Santa Claus is a pretty harmless concept, so I'm sure a multitude of opinions won't bother anyone. -Adam D. Jones

5 Christmas Songs You Should Be Singing, but Aren't

2011-12-13T10:47:00.000-06:00

I'm sure that the giant stack of papers I need to grade accounts for my breaking my Thinking Through Christianity silence today, but that's all right -- the joys of Christmas music are worth it. So here goes, amid the shiny pop strains of "All I want for Christmas is You" and the ten-jillionth (yes, "jillionth") rendition of "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas," here are 5 Christmas songs worthy of your attention:

1. Wexford Carol: This Irish/English carol, from the 12th century, is one of the oldest surviving European carols. Its opening lines are a beautiful call to maintaining memory of why we celebrate Christmas: "Good people all, this Christmas time, consider well and bear in mind what our good God for us hath done in sending His beloved Son." Also, the linked recording, by Yo-Yo Ma and Alison Krauss is transcendent.

2. Sussex Carol: Apparently, I really like Christmas songs named after parts of England. You may also know it as "On Christmas Night All Christians Sing." This one is remarkable for its lyrics, which point to the redemptive work of Christ:

Then why should men on earth be so sad
Since our Redeemer made us glad,
When from sin He set us free
All for to gain our liberty.

and:

When sin departs before His grace,
Then life and health come in its place.
Angels and men with joy may sing
All for to see the new-born King.

I haven't been able to find a recording that I really love, but my band and I perform this song each Christmas in an energetic, lilting style that always brings me the joy of Christmas. Maybe some day we'll record it this way.

3. The third verse of "Joy to the World": I know I'm being awfully lyrics-heavy here, but have you seen these wonderful words?

No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make His blessings flow
Far as the curse is found,
Far as the curse is found,
Far as, far as, the curse is found.

When we say "Joy the world," we don't just mean people, we also mean the earth. Christ's coming signals the coming of His Kingdom, which extends to every bit of creation that has been tainted by sin and the fall. His blessings flow to the most wounded individual as well as to the most hurt part of the earth -- and it even extends to horrible, horrible pop music. Yes, one day, we will hear perfect music on a perfectly restored planet, with perfectly restored bodies and souls. This is all part of the promise of redemption.

4. Come On, Everybody! Let's Boogey to the Elf Dance!: As far as I can tell, this Sufjan Stevens song has no deep theological value. But, for me, it captures the sheer joy of Christmastime like nothing else I can think of. Just listen for yourself and see if it doesn't make you smile.

5. Here Comes the Sun: Okay, I know this isn't technically a Christmas song, and some people at your church would look at you really strangely if you started playing this on Sunday morning, but the theme of this song is what Advent is all about -- I mean, people have been using images of light shining in the darkness as metaphors for the Messiah for a long time. Just check out this passage from Isaiah 9:

The people walking in darkness
   have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of deep darkness
   a light has dawned.
You have enlarged the nation
   and increased their joy...

For to us a child is born,
   to us a son is given,
   and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
   Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
   Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace...

To which, I joyously respond, "Sun, sun, sun, here it comes!"

Happy Christmas, everyone!

The Theological Importance of Imagination

2011-12-06T08:00:00.000-06:00

Imagination isessential to Christianity.

Now, I realize mostof us have had it drilled into our hearts and minds that imagination equalsirresponsibility:

“Don’t tell mestories! I want the truth.”

“Stopdaydreaming your life away.”

“Don’t be naive.This is life, not a fairy tale.”

Imagining is forchildren, so the story goes, and perhaps it is exactly the child-like qualityof imagining that makes the practice essential to Christianity. Of course manyof you are familiar with when Jesus said, "TrulyI say to you, unless you repent (change, turn about) and become like littlechildren [trusting, lowly, loving, forgiving], you can never enter the kingdomof heaven [at all]" (Matt 18:3 Amplified).

I submit to youthat imagination is vital to the Christian disciplines of being trusting,lowly, loving, and forgiving. In JK Rowling's 2008 Harvard Commencement speech,the writer of the imaginatively (and christianly) rich Harry Potterseries asserts that,

Imaginationis not only the uniquely human capacity to envision that which is not, andtherefore the fount of all invention and innovation. In its arguably mosttransformative and revelatory capacity, it is the power that enables us toempathise with humans whose experiences we have never shared.
[…]

Unlikeany other creature on this planet, humans can learn and understand, withouthaving experienced. They can think themselves into other people’s places.

Ofcourse, this is a power, like my brand of fictional magic, that is morallyneutral. One might use such an ability to manipulate, or control, just as muchas to understand or sympathise.

Imagination isnot inherently evil in adults; it can be used virtuously or viciously. Usedvirtuously, imagination is the engine of human empathy, which is a sort oflove-induced, love-inspired understanding of another human being. Love-infusedunderstanding is the kind of knowledge we are called to embody as believers. Consider the words of the apostle Paul in yet another familiar passage:

IfI had the gift of prophecy, and if I understood all of God’s secret plans andpossessed all knowledge... but didn’t love others, I would be nothing. (1Cor 13:2 New Living, emphasismine)

In other words,we cannot know another person---not really, not in any way that's constructiveor virtuous, not in any way that really counts for anything---without love. That passage goes on toassert just exactly what Christian love looks like:

Loveis patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It doesnot demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of beingwronged. It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truthwins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and enduresthrough every circumstance. (4-7)

If we are goingto “never give up” on another person, we have to see in them something morethan the flesh and blood standing before us. We have to see their potentialbeyond their failings. We have to see their image-of-God-bearing good will inthe face of their hurtful words and actions. We have to see what is unseen. In other words, wehave to see with eyes of faith.

We cannot, though, seethrough eyes of faith if we lack the "capacity to envision that which isnot;" we cannot see truly if we lack imagination. Caroline J Simon, in her excellent book, The Disciplined Heart: Love, Destiny, and Imagination, puts it this way:

Perhaps,then, love can be a source of insight. In fact, I think that genuine love, inall its forms [neighbor love, romantic love…], provides insight into the lovedone’s true self [the untainted Image-bearing self God created and Christredeemed us to be]. In order for this to occur, however, our hearts must betrained and disciplined… The undisciplined heart is prone to whimsical reactionand wishful, self-interested projection; it confuses love with love’scounterfeits: infatuation, manipulation, and sentimentality. (12-13)

Simon goes on todistinguish between virtuous imagining as “the capacity to see what may not yetappear but should" (emphasis mine)---shouldas in, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven” --- and vicious imagining whichdemands my kingdom come, my will be done. (If I could make a required reading list for Sunday School, this book would be near the top of that list.)

So what does virtuous and vicious imagining look like? Vicious imagining happens when a white woman sees a black man and clutches her purse. It happens when a young man creates an entirely false notion of the young woman he has a crush on in the next cubical, then reacts in bitterness and anger when she does not act like her Invented Self would. It happens anytime anyone puts another person on a pedestal. And it happens anytime we're content to see people by labels instead of names.

Virtuous imagining happens when a teacher believes there's more beneath the surface of the trouble-maker sitting in the fourth row of his classroom; when he values her and thereby expects more of her than anyone ever has before. It also happens when a teacher or parent or friend believes in, encourages, and nurtures their student/child/friend's work and abilities. It happens when friends and lovers bring out the best in us, when they encourage and nurture the beautiful parts of us we are scared to show or didn't even know were there. It happens when we can see beyond the foibles of the church to see Christ in the church. It happens in instances like when this man was mugged. It happens when we see what the Good Samaritan saw: he saw a human when others saw an inconvenience and a social faux pas.

I could go on and on, but here's the point: if we want tobe a song to the world and to one another, rather than unmitigated noise (see 1 Cor 13:1), we must learn tochannel knowledge through love; we must learn to connect to one another's humanness, to empathize. And in order to empathize,we must relearn how to imagine.

Tea Drinking as a Spiritual Practice

2011-11-30T12:22:00.015-06:00

I just had a nice conversation with a student and a colleague who is a specialist in eastern religions. I learned that there is a variety of Japanese Buddhism that uses the preparation and drinking of tea as a meditative practice. I like that. As a lifelong tea-drinker and abstainer from coffee I have long been appreciative of Nietzsche's remarks on the superiority of tea. So Buddhism and materialistic atheism both have their proponents of tea.

"Coffee spreads darkness."

This makes me long for a Christian account of the spiritual significance of tea, or Christian advice for drinking tea as a spiritual practice. Christianity certainly has the theological resources for this sort of thing, and I'm sure someone has written on it. But I don't know where to find it, and it seemed easier to write something myself. So let's start with the Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 4:

"For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer" (1984 NIV).

Tea: God's idea.

From this we learn that God invented tea, and that it is good. So here is my advice for drinking tea Christianly. Prepare your tea carefully and reflectively, remembering the doctrines that God created the world and that God is good. As you drink your tea, be grateful for your tea, and say a prayer of thanks to God for inventing it and letting you share in His good idea.

How to do Christmas in these Modern Times

2011-11-29T17:57:00.000-06:00

When I think of Christmas, the first things that come to mind are images of green, laurel decorations, pumpkin-spiced coffee, and wrapped presents. I know that it's about the Birth of Jesus, but our cultural past has added things to this religious holiday. Wonderful things.

I'm supposed to criticize what Christmas has become, but I can't - I love it. I love the way TV shows encourage us to help the needy during the holidays. I like songs about family and friends enjoying their time together. I like the TV specials, the children waiting on Santa, and seeing my family members open the presents I picked out for them. And, frankly, I like opening presents, too. In fact, I like that part, a lot. I could pretend that I'm above that sort of thing, but I can't help it; I get really excited when I see boxes with my name on them.

Of course, I didn't mention Jesus in that paragraph. Have I allowed the commercial/cultural attachments of Christmas to overcome my religious observance? I don't know. But I do know that the non-Christian things our culture associates with Christmas are fine things.

Think about it.

Charity. Family. Gift-giving. Warm meals and fun decoration. Estranged relatives who show up once a year and try to get along with everyone. These are all good things, and I won't be ashamed of looking forward to them.

Of course, as a Christian, nothing is more important to me than recognizing Jesus' birth. That's the event that started this holiday season, and it's His charity and kindness that we are all trying to show to others.

Festive lights, like this, have nothing to do with Jesus Christ - but there's no reason to whine about it. Don't rain on anyone's parade by playing the Scrooge. Just enjoy the lights.

So, don't hate on modern-day Christmas. Non-Christians say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," but this is probably the only time of year that certain people will say anything to you, so return their kindness. If I wasn't a Christian, then I wouldn't care about the Nativity, and I don't blame my non-Christian friends for not caring about that part of the holiday. But, I can answer their kindness with kindness, and show them how much love and charity I can provide.

Let's not be the Scrooges of our neighborhoods and complain about every modern convention of the holidays. Instead, let's spread Joy. How many clothes can you part with and give to the local homeless shelter? Find out. How much kindness can you show to your family when you get together? It might help them through a tough time. How many friends and neighbors can you encourage in this time of year? It can be depressing during the holidays, so give them something to be happy about.

And, remember, non-Christians think that the Christmas season is a time to celebrate virtues of love and kindness - there's no reason to spoil a party like that.

WHY I DO NOT SUPPORT PULPIT FREEDOM SUNDAY

2011-11-21T15:42:00.013-06:00

Pulpit Freedom Sunday this year was October 2. While that probably disqualifies it as a topic for current event discussion (especially given the fast moving pace of the blogosphere), I decided to write on this topic because I have heard Christian radio programs continuing to speak about it.

For those who might not know, Pulpit Freedom Sunday is a Sunday each year when participating clergy (I'm not sure how many, but I'm pretty sure it's relatively small in relation to the overall number of clergy in the United States) purposely preach sermons that violate an IRS tax code which says that certain charitable organizations cannot explicitly endorse political candidates without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status. There's a bit more to it than that, but that should be enough background for us to launch into the body of this blog entry together.

As you might have gathered from the title, I do not support the Pulpit Freedom Sunday movement, and I want to explain why. But first, a caveat:

Depending on what you have in mind, I think it is perfectly fine for the Church to be involved in politics. True, the Scriptures teach that Christians are citizens of a Kingdom that is not of this world, one that has yet to fully appear. At the same time, the Kingdom has come in part: an established front before the true invasion begins, a seed germinating just below the surface before it suddenly springs into full bloom -- there are a variety of helpful images from which to choose. Christians are to live out the reality of the coming full reign of God and to exhort others to submit to the reign of God now. And it turns out that God has quite a few things to say about what things will look like when the Kingdom finally, fully comes, about how the poor will be treated, about how human dignity and value will be measured, about war and peace, about ethics, morality, sin, and salvation. All kinds of stuff. While it would be naive in the extreme to believe that we can bring about the Kingdom -- make Heaven on Earth, if you will -- preaching the Kingdom, living out the Kingdom, and pleading with others to do the same are all part of the Christian mission.

For current mailing address, just put "Not of This World." For party affiliation, put "Jesus."

That said, here are some thoughts on why I do not support the Pulpit Freedom Sunday movement:

FYI, Churches are not being specially targeted by these tax laws. The laws apply to a wide range of nonprofit organizations that do not have political involvement as their primary purpose.

These tax laws help protect the political process. I think it's a great thing that people can't just funnel money into any ole nonprofit, all the while avoiding being taxed on the funds, turning them into megaphones for particular candidates. Politics in this country is controlled by money and corruption enough as it is.

Whatever their intentions, these tax laws actually protect the Church. I don't have space in this blog entry to give even a cursory review of church history, but let me just say this: in situations where it is suddenly politically advantageous to join the Church, disaster tends to follow. If churches could suddenly start endorsing candidates, the likely scenario in my mind is that churches would soon become enslaved to lobbying interests, political parties, and particular candidates. If pulpits suddenly became free campaign stumps, do you really think that many churches could protect processes like membership, selection of clergy, or tithing/giving for long?

Sorry , everyone, but it looks like we won't be able to finish the new sanctuary until the next important election.

These tax laws DO NOT say churches cannot be involved in politics. As far as I can tell, the restrictions say that churches cannot a) endorse a specific candidate, or b) spend a "substantial" amount of their resources and activities trying to influence legislation. I only gave the IRS tax code a brief look over (and I'm not a lawyer, but I watched alot of Matlock growing up, as well as the movie, My Cousin Vinny), but here are a few things I figured out I could do as a pastor at my church:

*preach an entire sermon on why I think abortion is right/wrong, what I think the Old Testament teaches us about how to treat immigrants, or what the Scriptures say about homosexuality

*preach an entire sermon in which I do nothing but explain to my congregation what an upcoming piece of legislation says and means as long as I don't tell my congregation how to vote on it

*preach an entire sermon on what a godly leader might look like, as long as I don't start saying so-and-so candidate is someone God would want us to vote for, and so-and-so candidate is not.

*use the church building as a voting center

*have copies of certain political materials available for members of my congregation

The prophetic voice of the Church must remain unfettered. Properly understood, the Church is a nation calling other nations to live as all nations ought to in light of the fact that God reigns. Now if indeed God reigns, then of course the Church has quite a bit to say about the sloppy, messy business of life on this earth, even in areas we might deem "political." But if the fundamental message of the Church is "Jesus Christ is Lord" (In other words, God reigns through his Christ), then it is of fundamental importance that we do not point to anyone or anything else but Jesus as the source of hope for mankind. There is nothing to be gained by the Church by endorsing specific politicians or political parties, and there is much to be lost.

Can you seriously think of a politician worth hitching Jesus' wagon to? Is this really a situation where you want to risk the Church's credibility by saying, "Thus, saith the Lord"? I will be the first to admit that I am incredibly cynical when it comes to politics, but just think about the political scene in this country over the last -- well, really whatever time frame you want to use. Given all the corruption, greed, immorality, and incompetence in politics in this country, do you really want to pull the trigger and say, "Yep, now this is a person God would be psyched to see in office! As someone who has the Spirit of God and is in a personal relationship with Him, I am totally comfortable saying this man/woman is His choice from the field of contenders!" I usually just vote for the least worst candidate, personally. So even if churches could endorse specific candidates, would you really want to?

In light of the upcoming Advent season, I would encourage you to vote for whichever candidate you think would be least likely to make Baby Jesus cry ...

Any church that really feels God calling it to primarily exist as a a political machine is more than welcome to become one. They simply are choosing to no longer primarily be a charity that qualifies for tax exemption. No one is going to drag your pastor away in the middle of the night here, okay? And your church is more than welcome to participate in the political process as congregants (no one is saying individual Christians can't champion a candidate as God's choice) and even as a congregation within certain limitations. If you find those limitations restrictive, that's fine. But if you are going to become a lobbyist group for a certain candidate, then that changes the nature of your organization, and you need to be willing to play by new rules.

If you really feel like you have to bring God's ballot down from the mountain top for your congregation (and let's just not worry for now about why you feel you are qualified to do so), then you have much bigger problems as a pastor than the "freedom" of your pulpit. Are the discipleship programs at your church so poor or the training you give your congregation in listening to and following the Spirit so inadequate that you really don't trust your congregation to vote wisely? Is your congregation so insensitive to God, so ignorant of his Word, so anemic in their lives before Him that it is not enough to teach them how to think about politics in a godly manner, but you actually have to hold their hand while they check the right box on the ballot? If that is the state of your church, then quite frankly, fellow pastor, you have far greater concerns to address!

Not trust my fellow Christians to vote their conscience without me looking over their shoulders? How otterly ridiculous!

The pulpit is a powerful symbol of moral and spiritual authority. We would do well to guard what is and is not said by those who stand behind it. But let us make we understand what we are guarding and why.

THE IMPORTANCE OF ADVENT

2011-11-14T20:48:00.008-06:00

I know, I know. It's way to early for a Christmas blog entry. BUT this is an entry about the Advent season, which begins less than two weeks from now (Nov 27), making it both a timely and a relevant topic. So there. Loophole. And there's nothing you can do about it.

For those of you who might not know, Advent is a season of reflection that many Christians set aside in order to meditate upon and celebrate the birth (or advent) of Jesus Christ. There are, of course, a great variety of Advent traditions, but most churches that celebrate Advent center the season's events around a special wreath (pictured right) with five candles, each with a special significance. The white candle always represents Christ, while the other four vary. Some churches use the other four to emphasize some of the important themes of the season (e.g. Hope, Peace, Joy, and Love), while others use the four candles to progress through the Christmas story itself (e.g. Prophecy, Bethlehem, Angels, Shepherds).

Now, most people would see the importance of celebrating Christmas for Christians (notice how "Christ" is part of both words ...), but why set aside five weeks to do so? In reality, Advent is only a small part of the larger Christian calendar. Depending on your branch of Christianity, this calendar gets full pretty fast! So why all feasts, events, remembrances, etc?

The early church understood something very important: how we order our time, plays a large part in orienting our identity. I don't know if "we are what we eat," but I can guarantee that, to a large extent, "we are what we do." The earliest Christians wanted to make sure that throughout the year various holidays and celebrations would keep them focused on who they were: the people of God awaiting their risen Lord. To this day, almost all Christian branches continue to employ some sort of church calendar for this very purpose, even if it's nothing more than a special worship service to mark Easter and Christmas.

Extended seasons of Christian reflection are important because there are so many competing systems trying to order the Christian's time, and thus his or her life and our world. Some systems of timekeeping are imposed upon us. Think about school, for example. As a child my entire year and life revolved around whether or not I was in class. Rather than the four seasons of Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall, my life was "Cold School," "Last Part of School," "No School!!!," and finally "Schoool! Noooooo!" I came to see myself primarily as a student, and the school seasons came to dictate my mood, feelings, actions, and even self-perception for any given part of the year.

While you and your pagan friends were trudging around on January 2, 1987 like it was just another day, my fellow devout students and I were celebrating the Holy Feast of SNOW DAY!!!

Other seasons we choose to organize our time around, such as sports seasons for guys. I love football (college and pro), and its shows. I get a little more spring in my step come August (It's almost Football Christmas!), and I come down from my emotional high fairly soon after the Super Bowl. It's a long, cold, bitter sports winter between February and August for me. It's so bad, I tried out the XFL one time when it was still on. "Football Season" is a very real season of life each year for me, one full of celebrations, meaningful rituals (BBQ!), and unfortunately often mourning, given some of the teams I cheer for.

Pictured: "The time of year the Cleveland Browns are effectively eliminated from playoff relevancy." Also known as early September.

One of the best ways to reinforce a Christian identity is to order the calendar year around Christian events, rituals, and remembrances. Some churches will remember and celebrate Jesus' advent on one Sunday they choose in December (though Christmas does actually fall on a Sunday this year). Our church will remember it for five weeks. Thus, while no Christian ever actually forgets Christmas, for our community, the events and significance of Christ's birth will be at the forefront of our minds for an extended period of time, shaping how we see ourselves, our lives, and our world.

Some branches of the Church will immediately transition into the season of Epiphany. Our congregation will rejoin them on the calendar at Lent/Easter. From there some churches will include other important seasons like Kingdomtime as they await the arrival of Advent once again. Though all of these seasons of church life congregations will be remembering and rehearsing what God has done, what He is doing, and what He will do -- and who they are as a result of all this.

Do you have to celebrate Advent to be a good Christian? I'm definitely not saying that. What I am saying is that seasons of the church calendar, such as Advent, are incredibly powerful tools for ordering time -- and thus a sense of identity and purpose -- year round. Why not take advantage of them, especially with so many other systems for ordering time competing for your attention, some imposed and some by your own choice?

Keeping Christ at the forefront of our lives can start with our calendars!

They Asked Me if I Believed in Demons

2011-11-07T12:19:00.000-06:00

The class was talking about demons. I don't attend an evangelical school, and plenty of teachers and students are quite proud of their "post-Christian" views, but my classmates were not ashamed to admit their paranormal fears.

At least two students mentioned personal experiences with some sort of "dark feelings" they experienced when visiting places where violence had happened. Our professor said that he couldn't think of another explanation for the Holocaust other than something demonic. Neither could anyone else. I was astonished that not a single person said that they didn't believe in demons (or something similar), at all.

But what about me? The conversation was interrupted before I could answer.

Last week, something terrible happened in my hometown. A man went to a party and was attacked by a few men. A broken beer bottle was stabbed into his back, he was punched repeatedly, and then he was thrown into a burning barrel while his attackers laughed and watched him burn. At last, some party-goers intervened and he managed to escape with his life - barely.

And, they did this to him because he is gay.

The men have been arrested, and I hope the law finds them very guilty. I've known people like this all of my life; they know they are strong, and they find weaker people to brutalize. It makes me feel like nothing is right in our world when these things happen.

An old friend of mine said that he hopes these guys get murdered in prison. Normally, I would protest that sort of hatred - we should love our enemies, right? - but, not this time. To my own horror, I agreed. I can't force myself to forgive these sorts of people, and that means that I'm not as enlightened and loving as I pretend to be. And that makes me even more upset about this whole thing. Meanwhile, back home, a man is looking out his window and hoping that no one is coming to kill him.

Do I believe in demons? Do I think that there's something in this world that is working against us, to try and hurt us?

I most certainly do.

Biblical Witchcraft

2011-10-27T09:00:00.126-05:00

Witchcraft is biblical. Well, it's in the Bible, so depending on how you define "biblical" - witchcraft is "biblical." Not surprisingly, though, the Bible condemns any form of witchcraft, or any related thing. But what exactly did the people of the ancient Near East (Israel and their neighbors) consider witchcraft? Well it sure wasn't the modern cultural version of witches and wizards that we picture today.

Putting up a picture of Wendy & Casper instead of

Harry Potter probably gives you a clue as to how old I am.

Witchcraft and related things, as described in the Old Testament, were ways that people tried to find favor with the gods. The gods were finicky. They had to bribe them and cajole them to get things to go their way. Well, that's how it started. Witchcraft soon developed into a way to control the gods. While they did not use wands, or big black cauldrons, they did use potions, incantations, hymns and prayers. It basically boiled down to bribing the gods and stroking their egos; or pulling their puppet strings. There were also branches of spiritualism that that tried to interact with the dead instead of gods.

There is a story about a witch in the Bible, you know her as the Witch of Endor. Only... she wasn’t a witch. If you are not familiar with the story go to 1 Samuel 28 and give it a quick read. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

Strange story right? Let's take a quick look at what's going on in the story.

First, she wasn't a witch, she was a person who practiced necromancy, she talked to the dead.

"I see dead people."

These were usually old women and they are called, “ghost mistresses.” (Now, now...not that kind of mistress. Get your mind out of the gutter.) Ghost mistresses tried to bribe the dead to come back and visit their old earthly stomping grounds. Ghost mistresses are well known in a variety of ancient near east cultures. In those cultures the dead were thought to live in the underworld – literally under your feet. So if you want to talk to them there’s one thing you've got to do…dig a hole! This "witch" didn't have a cauldron, she had a pit. Ghost mistresses did a variety of things to entreat the dead to come visit. How do you bribe the dead? What does a dead person want? Food, of course! The restaurants in the underworld aren't exactly 5 star quality. So ghost mistresses placed food in the pit, along with other things meant to entice the dead to take a little vacation.

Whether or not the ghost mistresses were successful is a whole other topic. Basically, I think it’s possible - in a way. I believe there is a spiritual realm and that for ghost mistresses to thrive in the ancient world they had to have some results of some kind. Maybe they were just charlatans or maybe demonic activity brought them some form of results. Both probably happened.

The great thing about the story of the witch of Endor... she freaked out when Samuel actually appeared. Freaked out! Even though a disguised Saul asked her to bring him up from the dead, the lady was extremely shocked. Why? She wasn't expecting it! So either the lady was a charlatan and didn't expect anything real to happen, or the real Samuel was so different from what the demonic activity usually showed her that she peed her pants.

"A ghost!!"

So did Samuel really come back as a ghost? I don't know. But I think it's great that even though Saul had sinned greatly God had a sense of humor. "Okay, Saul, you want to talk to Samuel. Fine. But you're going to regret it!" Better yet, imagine what Samuel thought. He was hanging with God in the afterlife when God turns to him and says, "Hey Samuel, are you up for a little field trip?" And people think the Old Testament is boring. Ha!

So witches existed in Bible times. But it was all about manipulating or controlling the gods. And God actually used a "witch" to deliver a message to Saul. But remember, just because God used it does not mean it receives his seal of approval.

Investigating the Occult: The Church of Satan!

2011-10-26T13:17:00.001-05:00

Unlike my previous posts, this week I'm investigating something that actually exists. However, the Church of Satan is probably nothing like what you expect.

If you do an internet search for "devil worship" you'll find all kinds of discussions about the Church of Satan and its founder, Anton LeVay. Some of these sites will even tell you that LeVay invented modern Devil worship and connect him with the Satanic Ritual Abuse scare from the early 90s. When I was a kid, everyone was sure that his temple was filled with unholy people bowing down to demons and working to bring about the Apocalypse.

But I found out that I was wrong when I actually talked to a Satanist. He wore an upside-down cross and openly carried a copy of The Satanic Bible wherever he went. My friend and I decided to find out what this Satanism was all about, so we approached him and kindly asked him about worshiping the Devil and how odd that seemed. We were surprised to find out that he didn't believe in the Devil, at all. He opened up his book and showed us passages that describe the Church of Satan as an atheistic organization that had no appreciation for Christianity, and, furthermore, didn't believe in anything spiritual.

That's right - they call themselves the Church of Satan even though they don't believe that Satan exists. If there was an award for giving your religion a confusing name then these guys would win, hands down. Anyone who associates this group with Devil worship can be forgiven, since that's exactly what the name implies.

Here's what the current high priest of the Church of Satan, Peter Gilmore, has to say: "My real feeling is that anybody who believes in supernatural entities on some level is insane. Whether they believe in The Devil or God, they are abdicating reason."

They will go on to say that, to them, Satan represents things like carnality. They teach that a person should live a life of indulgence and seek to please themselves, and that seeking spiritual gratification is waste of time. There's no doubt that these teachings are strongly antithetical to the teachings of Christ, but it's still important to point out that these people do not pray to Satan, cast spells, or do anything else we associate with spooky religions. Being in the Church of Satan will lead a person to a life of hedonism, perhaps, but it's not very different from the worldview of a college fraternity at a party school. In fact, LeVay tried to sue people who associated him with Satanic Ritual Abuse claims, because it was a defamation of his character.

I knew at least one other member of the church of Satan. Just after college I met a lady who had been part of the Temple of the Vampire - an odd group that lives like vampires and is a part of the Church of Satan (depending on who you ask). She had quite a colorful past, as you can imagine, but by the time I met her she had changed her ways, learned a few ancient languages, and started teaching theology at a university; she's probably one of the most unique people I've known. So, there's actually a group of these Satanists who live like vampires (literally drinking each other's blood in dark, Gothic-ly decorated rooms), but it's not a matter of dark mysticism - it's just simple carnality.

So, these Satanists are very real, but not very dangerous to anyone but themselves. I would advise someone against this group for the same reason I don't like to see young people get involved with certain college groups that are known for wild partying - most people grow up to regret those days of reckless indulgence.

Speaking of indulgence, don't you love those candy pumpkins? Why don't they make those all year? Anyway, happy Halloween!

WITCHES, WIZARDS, AND WISE PARENTING

2011-10-25T15:39:00.011-05:00

It's now my second Halloween as a Christian parent. I have yet to get around to forwarding emails about children reading Harry Potter then becoming witches, and I still have yet to pass out my first chocolate-covered New Testament to trick-or-treaters. But my daughter is getting old enough now that I have to start thinking through exactly how I am going to let my daughter interact with alot of themes that Halloween brings to the forefront every year. Will we read books with magic in them as she's growing up? Will we watch movies with wizards, monsters, etc? What sorts of Halloween parties (if any) will we attend as a family? What will I do when I find her playing in her room and she tells me she's pretending to be a witch?

Now these are important questions to me for at least two reasons. First, children process information very differently from adults. So while I can watch a movie about an evil sorcerer or a giant dragon terrorize humanity, my daughter won't be watching those sorts of things until she is much older. Why? Because children have a very hard time processing abstract concepts, symbolism, etc. They also have a hard time distinguishing reality and fiction.

Daddy! That symbolic representation of the

consequences of corporate greed is in my closet again!

But I have a second, larger concern, as well. You see, I believe there really is a spiritual reality, that there are supernatural beings and supernatural power at work in the world. And I believe that how my daughter thinks about these things is important. Now I'm fine with my daughter dressing up as a fairy princess for Halloween, and I have no intention of burning my copies of Lord of the Rings just in case my daughter takes a shining to ole Sauron. But I'm going to expose my daughter to these things in a controlled manner. It's like giving your child a vaccine to protect her against things you don't particularly like. I don't mind my daughter being exposed in controlled doses to false ways of seeing spiritual reality, but I want to be the one administering the vaccine.

Take one overextended metaphor and call me in the morning.

In fact, there are many wonderful stories and movies in our culture that incorporate supernatural or magical themes that can have a very beneficial impact on a child's development. For example, I have no doubt we'll read The Chronicles of Narnia together as my daughter gets older. In addition, there are stories and movies that incorporate supernatural or magical themes in ways that are harmless (maybe even teaching a few life lessons along the way). I've never heard of a child starting to worship Satan after watching Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory or Mary Poppins.

But again, for me it goes beyond making sure my daughter is old enough to distinguish real from fake. It's also a matter of there being a real spiritual reality that is being falsely displayed. I'm not saying there is some vast conspiracy involved in the way we portray supernatural things in our culture. Indeed, I think that much of our literature and films are produced not by those trying to create a counter view of spiritual reality, but by those who think no such reality exists!

Since everyone knows there's no such thing as crocodiles,

let's teach children that they are musical vegetarians who only use their sharp teeth to punish bad vegetables.

However, while I know my daughter isn't going to run into fairies, white wizards, and the like, she still may very well encounter spiritual beings and have spiritual experiences over the course of her life. I want her to think correctly about these things. That doesn't mean that we are going to avoid magic and supernatural themes in books and movies. It just means that we are going to be talking about those things as she watches them, and I will be making sure she understands them in light of the spiritual reality that God has created.

Now, honey, what did we learn about eating creepy people's houses?

This is how my wife and I will navigate raising a child in a culture full of magical and supernatural themes. We're certainly not going to avoid these things and pretend they don't exist. We're also not going to de facto villainize everything we don't 100 percent agree with. What we will do is help our daughter navigate this part of our culture, as with every other part of our culture, in a discerning way as we try to help her understand the world as God has made it.

Jesus, Occupying Wall Street, and Other Things that Have Nothing in Common

2011-10-20T17:36:00.002-05:00

The Guardian has published an article asking us how Jesus would react to the Wall Street Occupation. St. Paul's Cathedral in London has been unable to service its visitors because of the protestors who have taken over the grounds, and some people think this church has the wrong attitude. Lest you think this is an open-ended article that intends to let us decide for ourselves, let me cut to the end of it:

Where would Jesus be this week? Would he be camping outside in this freezing weather, speaking out against inequality, or inside the religious building, worrying about the revenue from tourists?

The Guardian quickly assumes that the clergy of St. Paul's are greedy men who are not unlike the money changers that Jesus dealt with. And the article comes with a picture of a man dressed as Jesus holding a sign that says, "I kicked the money changers out of the temple for a reason!" It's quite a stretch for me to connect the agenda of the Occupy Wall Street movement with Jesus' cleansing of the temple. Jesus said that crooks had turned his Father's house into a den of liars - that's a matter of blasphemy and insult to Him - not an issue of politics and economy. The two are not the same.

And that's assuming I have any idea what the Wall Street protestors are even doing. They have been giving different agendas when asked what they're up to, and whenever we hear from them they are using their iPad to tweet a message about hating corporate greed.

That vagueness allows people to attach all kinds of things to their movement - it's hard to say that Jesus' ministry is not comparable to their movement if they won't tell us what they are doing. Journalists are constantly comparing these demonstrations to the Arab revolutions that took place earlier this year. Do these journalists think that protesting corporate greed (or whatever) is similar to rebelling against violently corrupt world leaders? Did the Arab Spring protesters have gourmet food catered to them like the Wall Street Occupiers? Do the kids sleeping around on Wall Street fear being gunned down by their head of state? Did celebrities mingle with the Arab Spring protestors wearing fashionable clothes? The Wall Street protests may be important to those who are a part of them, but what they are doing is not nearly as courageous and noble as standing up to murderous dictators. These two events are very different.

Every political movement thinks that Jesus would support them. My Democrat friends are certain Jesus would vote as they do, and my Republican friends feel the same way. Of course, they're both wrong - I'm certain He was a Libertarian who hated big government. (Joking.)

St. Paul's Cathedral is an important place for Believers. It's very old and has a rich heritage that pilgrims have enjoyed for a long time. To make this church available for visitors is not an act of greed but of compassion for the dedicated masses who wish to pray there. Unlike the Wall Street Occupation, the church of St. Paul actually is a part of Christianity, and the protestors should not presume to take it over for their own political purposes.

Free Music that You Want to Download

2011-10-20T12:05:00.004-05:00

My wife (who writes here, sometimes) and I have been working on an EP called Girl on a String for a few years. It's tough when you're doing it on your own, but we finally finished and the result is a set of good recordings of her original songs (and one Dylan cover).

Go download the entire thing at her site - www.ChristineHand.com! It's free - we just want to share it with you.

THEY HAVE WITCHES, TOO? WITCHCRAFT IN NON-WESTERN CULTURES

2011-10-19T13:29:00.029-05:00

Adam Jones recently posted an entry on ThinkingThroughChristianity about the historical traditions (or, as he argued, the lack thereof!) for witchcraft in the Western world. You can read it here. Adam and I had an interesting discussion later about the role of witchcraft in non-Western cultures, and he asked me to write a little about it for as part of our October series. NOTE: This brief introductory paragraph was supposed to: 1) explain why in the world someone would write about this topic on this blog, and 2) quickly pass the blame if you find it boring!

WHAT IS ANIMISM?

In particular I want to focus on witchcraft within a non-Western worldview called "animism." Animism is usually found in today's world in tribal cultures in the Americas, Africa, or Asia. Now there is quite a bit of variety within animistic religious systems -- just as you could talk about "monotheism" as a category, but still have great variety between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- but here are some general features of an animistic worldview:

*There is no distinction between the physical world and the spiritual world. They occupy the exact same area. As a result of this, the distinction between the secular and the sacred is a false dichotomy in an animistic worldview. It also often means that there is seldom (if ever) a strictly natural reason for something. The spirit world affects every facet of daily life and permeates the physical world.

You're looking at a busted radiator and potentially a few angry spirits clogging the exhaust system.

*The spirit beings in an animistic system are amoral. What I mean is that there are not really good or evil spirits at work in the world, at least not in the sense Westerners might think about issues of good and evil. That's not to say that there aren't malevolent spirits or ones that cause more harm than good, but in other words, animistic societies aren't worried about choosing the right side (e.g. God vs. Satan in Christianity) or hoping their side wins (e.g. some dualist systems). In fact, there aren't "sides" at all. It's an understanding of the spirit world based on power and pragmatism, more than concepts of right or wrong (Which is not to say that animists aren't moral people! Don't go there!) The problem with amoral beings, of course, is that they're just as likely to be for you as against you ... and much of the spirit world in an animistic system can be quite capricious and fickle in their actions.

Think defense lawyers with [supernatural] power ties!

*The goal of interactions with the spirit world in an animistic worldview, then, is to keep daily life ordered and stable. Please the right spirits through the right actions, convince the right spirits to help you or at least leave you the heck alone, align the community with the world in a proper way -- these are the goal of animistic "religious" life.

UM, DIDN'T YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT WITCHES?

So why is witchcraft such a big deal in animistic cultures? Shouldn't everyone just be painting with the all the colors of the wind or [error: awkward and embarrassing stereotype not found]? Well, let's imagine that you live in a village of a couple hundred people or so. Now just to make things interesting, let's give everyone in the village a sawed-off shotgun and a ski mask, just in case they feel like solving interpersonal conflicts through means other than hugging it out. So now we have a couple of hundred people with the ability to pretty much hurt whoever they want with anonymity and impunity. Got it?

"Rumor has it you think it's funny to eat other people's lunches out of the refrigerator at work!

Now remember how spirit beings are amoral and potentially a bit capricious when it comes to how they interact with humanity? This means you have to make sure you don't tick off the spirit world ... but it also means you have to make sure you don't tick off your neighbor, either! Maybe your neighbor has more spiritual knowledge and power than you. Maybe he decides the best way to handle your conflict is to convince some spirit beings that your crops need to fail, or even that you need to die. In other words, your disgruntled neighbor might turn to manipulation of spiritual power ... or witchcraft! (Finally! A tie-in!) And since sending a spirit after someone is really an anonymous action, you never know who is trying to get you via the spirit world.

Let's see: I think I flipped off ten people on the road yesterday. This could have been Bob, or Joe, or Sally, or ...

Then there are individuals who decide that the whole disgruntled member of the community gig is pretty sweet and decide to do it full-time. This person now becomes a witch. (It's helpful to distinguish between witches and other spiritually powerful individuals in animistic societies, such as shamans, who use their power for the community ... though, don't tick them off, either, and these lines aren't always crystal clear in every society.) A witch in an animistic context, then, is someone who has decided to say, "screw the community!" and accumulates great spiritual power for their own individual purposes and desires.

Imagine someone with tremendous connections and influence in the spirit world who doesn't give a rat's behind if your village survives, and in fact is likely to work against that end in some ways? This is why animistic societies can be just as harsh (or harsher) with those suspected to be witches as their counterparts in medieval peasant society, et al. That is, if they think the witch isn't so powerful as to be not worth messing with. Then you just do your best to not get on the witch's bad side.

BRING IT ON HOME NOW!

What is interesting to me is that, despite the differing ways that witchcraft is understood in Western and non-Western cultures, there are surprising similarities:

*Witchcraft is attractive because it gives access to real power outside of traditional ways of pursuing power within society or other established means (e.g. organized religion in Western cultures). For those who don't want to be part of society or other establishments or feel rejected by society or those establishments, witchcraft becomes a way of making it through the world -- of claiming a sense of belonging, power, and purpose ... and even taking revenge as an outcast.

*Witchcraft is terrifying because it means unimaginable power wielded by someone whose motives you don't know, and which you suspect as not being the best: they sided with the wrong side (e.g. Satan in Western cultures) or they are selfish and not committed to the good of the community (animistic cultures)

Cranky, old scholars still clinging to Marxism as a catch-all interpretive framework: History's witches.

It's fascinating to me that, although various cultures and worldviews can conceive of supernatural power and beings in very different ways, it's very possible that we are all attracted to and repulsed by supernatural power (in this case, witchcraft) for somewhat universal reasons!

Investigating the Occult: Those Devil Worshippers

2011-10-17T08:30:00.000-05:00

Remember when everyone was afraid of Devil worshipers? I remember being told that famous musicians were using songs to recruit for the church of Satan, and talk show hosts were saying that the majority of U.S. towns had local chapters of one massive Satanic cult that spanned the globe and threatened our very safety. Parents ransacked their kids' music collections to set all of the rock albums on fire (which only caused more kids to buy that terrible "devil music"). It was a pandemic.

And it was all false.

There was no global network of Devil worshipers. Bands never back-masked hidden meanings into their records. And children who claimed that they were sexually abused at secret cult meetings turned out to be little liars who faked their infamous "recovered memories."

(Point of order. Some young children have been molested by local cults - I knew a young lady who came from such a horrific background. But the famous cases of this trauma that made the news and landed many people in jail turned out to be false - and those who were put in prison have since been found innocent. This has happened locally, but not as part of a large scale conspiracy as we were being told.)

What this leads us to is a question: was anyone actually worshiping Satan?

How about the Church of Satan? Nope. They don't even believe in a Devil. (Sound odd? I'll tackle those guys, later, this month. They're an odd group.)

I've known a few people who claimed to have insight into "dark powers" or something creepy like that, but they always fall short of actually saying prayers to a devil. These sorts of mystical/religious views were very popular when I was a teen, but worshiping Satan is just never in vogue.

A few groups do pop up, though, who venerate Satan. But, there's a catch - he's not really the Satan we know. These groups claim that Satan is not some evil figure, but a hero, a good guy. The Luciferians do this when they claim Lucifer is a good person and not an enemy, at all. There's no Satan worship here - they've just made up someone new and claimed that we had misunderstood the Devil all this time. They are not worshiping him as an evil creature and opponent of a benevolent God - you'll have to look long and hard to find anyone worshiping that Satan.

Here's the infamous Baphomat. Supposedly, he/she was worshiped by Satanists, but it was actually the creation of King Phillip IV who used him to scare people and would claim that his political enemies worshiped it in order to have them thrown in prison. More politicians would use Baphomet for such purposes before any occult groups (who obviously didn't know what they were doing) associated themselves with him/it.

A few times in history we hear about Devil worship. The Templars admitted to worshiping him, but only a few of them and only after being tortured for a few days. In fact, every historical case of Satan worship that I hear about involves the person admitting to it after being tortured, or is simply a work of fiction that people have taken seriously. (Based on what I hear people say, I'm pretty sure that future generations will read Harry Potter books and say, "This must have been based on something that really happened - I'll bet Hogwarts is around here, somewhere!")

I hate to burst you bubble, again, but the Devil worshipers didn't exist; it was just some public paranoia that got out of hand. But, don't worry, there's a lot more of the occult to investigate, this month.

The Theological Significance of Horror

2011-10-14T15:46:00.005-05:00

While some Christians debate the ethics of celebrating Halloween, I think that, if nothing else, the Halloween season is a good time to reflect on the theological significance of horror. I'm not an expert on the subject, but that probably won't matter since most of you probably didn't know until now that there are any experts. But there are. I know of two, Matt Cardin and Kim Paffenroth.

I only know these gentlemen through cyberspace, although Cardin happens to work for my former part-time employer. I haven't had the chance to read any of his stuff yet, but I've read two works of fiction by Paffenroth. He has some nonfiction on the subject which I also haven't read, but I think I have the gist of this Christianity and horror thing figured out. Here's the main idea: Horror fiction illustrates the sinful human condition. This is usually done allegorically, though it doesn't have to be.

I'll illustrate with a few examples.

Example #1: Robert Louis Stevenson's The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The Christian rock band Petra figured this one out in their 2003 album Jekyll and Hyde. As they say in the title song, "Sometimes I feel like Jekyll and Hyde. Two men are fighting a war inside." Whether Stevenson intended to or not, he created a terrific allegory for the words of the apostle Paul in Romans 7.

Example #2: VeggieTales. This is not your typical horror fiction, but it makes the same point. In Larry-Boy! and the Fib from Outer Space and Larry-Boy and the Rumor Weed, the everyday sins of fibbing and gossiping are personified as hideous monsters with the power to destroy an entire city. At least one of the monsters is capable of eating children; if that's not creepy enough, you should know that it was children who made the monsters grow in the first place. (To be fair to the children, they didn't create them; they just made them grow.) But this is how sin works; we indulge in it for our own interests, and pretty soon it ends up eating us alive. These VeggieTales episodes focus on the sins of lying and spreading rumors. Sin's power to destroy is only more obvious with some other sins: illegal drug use, drunkenness, adultery.

Example #3: Paffenroth's Dying to Live: A Novel of Life Among the Undead, a fascinating book that deserves a fuller review (around to writing which I may get someday). Now I'm not recommending you read this book, not only because I don't know who you are but also because this is a book to be handled with care—for several reasons. But there are some people in the world, most of them zombie enthusiasts, who could profit from reading it.

The spiritually dead

Now I am not saying that the Robert Louis Stevenson and other creators of horror fiction are consciously trying to illustrate the sinful human condition. All I am saying is that they frequently succeed.

Can Christians Participate in Halloween?

2011-10-13T08:11:00.000-05:00

Quoth the raven: "Eat my shorts!"

TTC readers, this format is a bit unusual compared to what you're used to here (it's the most common format of blog posts over at my site, Speak What We Feel); but it seemed rather appropriate considering the topic and the timing. Based on her various questions to me over the last several months, it seems Crystal has some well-meaning Christians in her life who generally rely upon legalistic traditions which can't help her navigate the nuances of her real-life circumstances. As a new Christian, Crystal is trying to think through her faith in the world (and in the church).
________________________________________________________________________

Hi Renea,
Its Crystal again and I had another question. So I've been praying for my husband and for God to let me love him more and I think its been helping so thank you very much for your advice. But my question today is: his family LOVES Halloween especially because they throw a lot of parties and like to dress up, would it be okay if I attended to their parties?
Thanks,
C

Hello again!
Good question. There is nothing inherently evil about Halloween. It can be lots of fun! My friends and I always have a party. It's really a matter of how one participates. For example, anything that dabbles in the occult, such as Ouija boards or seances, are out of bounds; people are messing with spiritual realities they generally don't understand. Also, for lots of people, Halloween is just an excuse to dress in a slutty costume and get plastered. Obviously that's uncool too. But these things actually provide Christians the opportunity to participate in Halloween and be a witness to the world by participating in counter-cultural ways: ie, choosing a costume that's fun and creative rather than one that gives away the whole candy shop, drinking responsibly or not at all, and staying away from parties which dabble in the occult---or at least choosing not to participate in those activities.

I think it's especially important for you to go with your husband to his family's party. It's a way you can bond with him and potentially his family as well; and like I said, be a witness through your actions (though obviously not through judgmental words/attitudes/behaviors) if there are goings-on which are unbecoming of a believer in Christ.

I'm glad my previous advice has been helpful.
Thanks for writing. God's peace,
Renea

Spirituality, Nominalism, and the Complexity of Religious Identity

2011-10-10T16:00:00.012-05:00

Alright, maybe it was the man who told me how worried he was about all the Muslims walking around a local mall, then looked at me like I was a naive fool when I told him that none of them were trying to kill him. Maybe it's the odd conversations about Mitt Romney and Mormonism (which sound incredibly similar to the conversations about Kennedy and Catholicism back in the day). Maybe it's that a certain Dallas pastor is back in the news again. Whatever it is, I've had enough. We're going to have a talk today, boys and girls, about the complexity of religious identity in America.

Warning: I'm proofreading with my angry eyes today ...

Here's the big takeaway for today (I'm telling you early, so you can quit reading but still sound informed): there is very little you can assume about a person's beliefs based on how they label themselves. (See, I even made it bold for you.) I'm not saying this is a good or a bad thing, but rather that it seems to be the reality of religious life in our society.

One reason is that on the whole people seem to be moving from being religious (by which I mean someone who converts to an preexisting, established belief system and worldview) to being spiritual (someone who creates their own belief system and worldview by combining what they find attractive from various established systems with their own opinions, feelings, etc).

Even though I've clearly defined what I mean by religious and spiritual, someone is going to argue with me in the comment section without realizing they're defining religious and spiritual differently from me. Just wait for it.

Another reason is the increasing rise of nominalism among adherents of all religious systems. As the name suggests, more and more people possess a nominal devotion or loyalty to the beliefs and doctrines of their religious system. Religious labels come to serve cultural, social, or even political purposes, but don't necessarily under-gird the way people live. This isn't to say that nominal believers of any given religion are insincere or just "using" a religion. It simply means that how nominal believers see themselves and their world is largely formed by forces other than religious loyalty or identity.

Pictured: a nominal commitment to good nutrition

I could hazard a few guesses at why this trend is happening (Post-modernism? The underlying value of individualism that defines our society? The rise of consumerism? Global warming? Harry Potter novels?), but it's very important for us to recognize it. Between the "spirituals" and the "nominals," it's pretty difficult to impose what might be even the simplest categories upon religious life in America, like "All Christians believe ..." or "Now, your average Muslim ..."

Although, obviously every kid who ever watched this movie is now a practicing witch. I'm not saying the labels never work ...

So what does all this mean?

You are going to have to actually get to know people. I believe Jesus is divine. I think He literally rose from the dead. Yet, I've met people who self-identify as Christian who reject both of those beliefs, beliefs I would consider foundational to being a Christian. I've realized more and more over the years that when someone says they are a Christian, I'm often quite a few personal conversations away from that having any meaning to me whatsoever. The same goes for those who claim other labels.

I see you're wearing a cross around your neck. Thanks, that's all I needed to know.

Stop forwarding youtube videos that start with: "Their holy book tells them to ..." You cannot assume you know how someone approaches sacred literature based on how they label themselves. You will meet people who call themselves Christians because they like Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, but reject the Old Testament as having anything to do with their view of God. I've had more than one conversation with a Mormon that started with me saying, "Doesn't it say in the Book of Mormon" and ending in total confusion on both our parts. And I feel quite certain you can find more Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or Muslims than you might think who have given their sacred texts a cursory reading at best. In addition, people can interpret the same sacred texts very differently, even if they both claim to be devout followers of that sacred text.

For example, the writers at ThinkingThroughChristianity.com and the parents of these children are both groups who self-identify as Christian and consider themselves to be people who take the Bible seriously and try to live as it says people should.

Now I'm certainly not saying there are no more devoutly religious people in America. (Again, by "religious" I mean someone who embraces an established belief system and worldview, rather than cherry picking from it as part of the process of forming their own belief system and worldview). What I am saying is that you can't assume you know much about a person's beliefs at first simply based on how they self-label. Studying Mormon theology and history doesn't mean you will be able to create some sort of template for interacting with and understanding every Mormon you meet or deciding how a Mormon politician will act in office. Conversations about whether or not Islam is a religion of peace or whether or not the 9/11 attacks were a legitimate interpretation of the Koran might have their place, but they aren't going to get you any closer to understanding your Muslim neighbor or what a Muslim politician might do once in office. You'll have to actually talk to them.

Stop assuming.

Start talking.

Crooked Pastor Orders Assault on Homosexuals

2011-10-05T11:35:00.001-05:00

Jerry Pittman, a pastor in Tennessee, will be the focus of a media storm, soon, as details emerge that he ordered an assault on two homosexuals who came to his church. One of them was his son.

If the allegations are true, then I have this to say to that church in Tennessee:

You don't know who Jesus Christ is. You have never understood the compassion and care He had for those around Him, and your life does not glorify God. I can think of nothing more hideous and evil than what you have done. Someone who has understood Christ's teachings could never allow such a thing - and certainly wouldn't order it. Close down your church and hit the road, because you're not one of us. You use Christianity as a weapon to attack your enemies, and, in doing so, will convince millions who read about this story that there is no Hope in Christ. You have done more damage to the Faith than a thousand generations can repair. Ask yourselves, have you been working to show your community that Jesus is the light that shines in the darkness - or do you want to hurt people who disagree with you?

Millions of Christians donated their time to charity work this week, but most people will only hear about the crimes of Jerry Pittman. The Christians I know are currently in an outrage over this unacceptable behavior. We thought that these dark days of hatred were behind us, but we were wrong. There's still much work to do if the church is to learn to love.

Investigating the Occult - Where are all of the Witches?

2011-10-04T10:39:00.001-05:00

For October, I 'll be writing about some of the paranormal and scary things in our world, and this week I'm looking for witches. But I can't find any.

In the 80s, I knew boys who were interested in witchcraft. They bought Ouija boards and tried to cast spells, but got nowhere. And everyone know that one guy who was studying magic and was going to learn how to cast spells. Nothing came of that, either. Then, in the 90s, I knew some older ladies who started calling themselves witches and tried to channel mystical energies. They shrugged off the old "crone with a pointed hat and a broom" notion and claimed that real witches were women who were in tune with nature and had been persecuted by Christianity in the past.

Witchcraft is fascinating, because every generation has a different idea of it. But did it exist in the past? Surely in my studies of church history I should have come across a few stories of witches being burned at the stake, right? Well, I don't. Ever.

Let's walk back through history, together. I'm sure the Salem Witch Trials come to mind, but there was no witchery in that Puritan town; the town's religious fervor made it easy to drum up fear in the locals by claiming that someone was a witch. This tactic was so successful that people in power used it to persecute families in order to take their land and money. Look into for yourself - you'll find that the charges of witchcraft were nothing but hot air.

Heard of the Basque Witch Trials of lade medieval Spain? Sounds spooky, but the judges involved in those cases failed to find any evidence of witchcraft. In the middle ages, sometimes the local Jews were accused of "witchcraft," but it was only a buzzword used by the prosecutors in order to scare the townspeople into fearing them. Once the locals were up in arms, it was easy to force these Jews out of town and take their possessions. (Notice a trend, here?)

According to every armchair historian that I know, the Christians killed witches in the Spanish Inquisition, but that certainly didn't happen. In fact, only Christians were persecuted in the Inquisition - someone who had never believed in Christ actually stood the best chance of avoiding it. No witches harmed, there.

Medieval Christians are known for driving Pagans out of their countries - are these Pagans the same as modern-day witches? No. Unless suburban witches build altars to local gods (like Thor, Pan, or Isis) and pray to them for luck. Today's witches claim to channel "energies" and get in touch with the Universe; that is nothing like any ancient religion. (There are modern "neo-Pagans" who do actually pray to the old gods like this, but it's not a form of witchcraft. Those religions never involved spell casting or magical energies. Just sacrifices.)

How about the Druids? Everyone likes to think of them as a mystical cult, but no one knows anything about them. Literally. Caesar killed all of them and left us no record of their beliefs - except for one story about sacrificing animals to cure infertility. I've heard of modern-day "witches" who claimed to be following the religion of the Druids, but, as far as I can tell, they don't sacrifice animals in festivals, so I don't know what they are doing to be authentic. Unless today's neo-Druids have access to documents that historians have never seen, it would appear that these groups are associating themselves with older religions that they don't understand. (OK, there is another story from Caesar's time about Druids sacrificing babies to their gods, but it's probably not true. And the neo-Druids claim it's a lie.)

I've looked all over the history books for any tradition of witchcraft, but there's no evidence that these groups have any historical tradition. I could give you a hundred more examples, but there's just no way to completely cover the subject in a blog entry. Witches have long been a bed-time story for kids who wouldn't behave and a good excuse for burning the local minority groups at the stake, but nothing more.

(I am aware that some people call themselves "witches" while acknowledging that their practices are modern and have nothing to do with old religions. Since the Western myth of the witch is nothing but Christian propaganda, I don't know why these groups anyone would want to be associated with it.)

Happy October! Next week, I'll be looking for Devil worshipers. Have you seen any?

UPDATE: It's come to my attention that this blog entry is confusing because it only covers the traditions of western witches. It's true that other cultures have traditions that we call "witchcraft," but they are a different sort of tradition (see the comments, below) so I didn't mention them. Sorry for the confusion. The history of witches in Eastern culture is a unique to what I've discussed, here , and its something that deserves of its own study.

Thinking Through Fall Fashion

2011-09-29T10:00:00.003-05:00

It’s officially autumn, so in addition to Pumpkin Spice Lattes and new pens and notebooks, I am currently obsessed with fall fashion. Now, you may well wonder, “Why is this person writing about fashion on a website called ‘Thinking Through Christianity?’ Isn’t that a little shallow? And anyway, what does fashion have to do with Christianity?" These are good questions, and some that have been at the forefront of my mind this fashion season. Here are a few of my own musings in response:

1. Christianity is a worldview, and fashion is part of the world; there must be a Christian view of fashion.

For the Christian, there’s no part of life that is not affected by Christianity. This includes something as “shallow” as fashion -- especially since everyone wears clothes. Even if you think you are not fashionable, you probably care about how you look at a job interview or on a first date; even if you despise fashion and say you don’t care about it, your decision to eschew fashion norms is still a decision about how you present yourself to the world -- which leads me to my next point:

2. Fashion has an ethos

I teach Freshman rhetoric classes, and when I teach about the rhetorical appeal of “ethos,” I tell my students that “ethos” is self presentation. Fashion is one of the ways we distinguish our identities from others’ and present those identities to the world. In presenting ourselves to the world, fashion can be a kindness or a disservice to those around us, depending on aesthetic appeal and on how much of our bodies we choose to reveal or conceal. Consider the classic example of a father’s shock at his teen-aged daughter’s date night attire. Fashion, in such a case, is not neutral, nor is it mere decoration -- fashion says something about the wearer and about the society that produces it. If the notion of fashion as a reflection of society is starting to sound familiar, it should; TTC’s Renea MacKenzie wrote about this very quality in her post on a Christian view of art. This, of course, leads to my next point:

3. Fashion can be art

If fashion is art, then it has great potential as one of the ways we reflect God’s image as Creator by making our own beautiful creations. (Just because these creations are made from the stuff we accumulate in our closets doesn’t make them less worthy to be called art). Even better, the beauty that we make through fashion may enhance our lives and the lives of our friends, neighbors, and colleagues on a daily basis. If art is a mirror of society, we may also want to consider how the daily artwork of our fashion choices both contributes to and reflects our culture -- fashion is one area in which we each have the potential to be culture makers; to not be merely swayed by society’s whims, but to set the new fashion standards through our shopping and styling choices. This is especially true in a world of fashion blogging, where anyone with a camera, a computer, and a good eye can play an influential role in setting trends. (By the way, check out this blog that I just found in my latest bout of fashion blog stalking -- I mean reading -- for some interesting and modest fashion choices.)

These are only the beginnings of my thoughts on this subject, but the big take-away is this: if Christ is Lord of a Christian’s life, He is Lord of all of it, including that person’s fashion life. Monks and nuns understand this when they wear a habit -- a garment that almost literally clothes them in praise.

Readers, what do you think? Am I overthinking this? Is fashion truly a valuable consideration for the Christian? If so, what is a Christan approach to fashion? A few elements I might consider include stewardship, economy, modesty, and beauty. What other elements might you include in a Christian view of fashion?

THINKING "BIBLICALLY" ABOUT POVERTY

2011-09-22T15:32:00.022-05:00

Poverty is kind of a big buzzword in Christian circles these days, although it's usually dressed up with angrier terms like "welfare abuse" or with sexier labels like "social justice."

A gentleman keeps his eyes above the poverty line, sir!

Now on a very general level it seems that the Bible gives two basic reasons for poverty. First, poverty is sometimes due to personal laziness, sloth, ill-gotten wealth, etc. It's not that poverty is necessarily a punishment or curse from God, but rather that poverty is the natural result of certain poor personal choices. Second, poverty is sometimes due to oppression from the prevailing power system, as those with money and authority choose to abuse and misuse those under them for their own ends.

Speaking as an historian (did you catch the shameless appeal to some sort of authority there?), it seems that American Christianity, has never done a very good job of keeping this balanced view of Scripture when looking at poverty in its own backyard. Christians have generally focused on one of these Scriptural explanations of poverty to the exclusion of the other.

Some Christians have bought into the lie that everyone who is poor deserves to be poor because they as immoral, lazy, etc. Charity to the poor is somewhat pointless in this view as the problem of poverty is largely a matter of personal morality and work ethic, or rather lack thereof.

Cause of death was determined as "being too lazy to really want to eat."

Beginning with the Social Gospel, and seemingly reincarnated in the emergent and other "progressive" movements of today, some Christians began to see poverty solely as a systemic issue. Thus, the Christian response to poverty is to "fix to system" -- overcome economic inequality, injustice, etc.

"Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!"

The problem is that both perceptions are skewed. Scripture seems to teach that poverty is definitely a systemic issue (since sin itself is a systemic issue), but also that poverty is due to the sinfulness of individuals at times. Indeed, sometimes both factors may be at work within the same person! So why does it matter how we view poverty? I think that only a balanced view of poverty allows us to respond correctly.

My point here is that neither of these figures represents "the poor." Also, playing with action figures is Biblical ...

When we realize that poverty is partially the result of institutionalized injustice and inequality in society, then we know that we have to respond on a social and ultimately systemic scale. However, when we realize that poverty for some (please note that I am saying for "some." Please don't jump in here screaming about neo-colonialism. Read. The. "Some.") is the result of bad choices exacerbated by the systemic nature of poverty, then it requires a little bit different approach than what I am currently hearing thrown around in most Christian circles. It means not only that we have to change the system, but that people must change, as well. Christians must preach the gospel not only as hope to some in poverty, but as repentance to some in poverty, as well. A balanced, "biblical" view of poverty will lead to action that will enfranchise the poor as member's of a new community, rather than coddle them as mere victims of circumstance or dismiss them as being outside the concern of God.

This cute puppy is supposed to distract you, in case anything I said in the last paragraph made you angry.

Now, I realize that this is far short of a "theology of poverty," a solution to poverty, or anything of the sort. Hopefully, however, it helps provide some perspective both for those who want to use the Bible to inform their views on things like poverty, as well as for those who have heard Christians talking about poverty and walked away scratching your head (or maybe pulling out your hair).

Meet Diego - The Robotic Monk Built in the Middle Ages

2011-09-20T11:57:00.001-05:00

While reading Mental Floss, yesterday, I read about some famous automatons (robots from the old days) and learned about a very impressive 16th century creation - a robotic monk that walked around the Spanish royal palace saying prayers!

It's hard to believe that someone could have made something so sophisticated in 1500s, but by this time clocks already had "second" hands and were working with respectable precision. These late medieval automaton designes seemed to come from Leonardo da Vinci (who had nothing to do with Mary Magdalene, but I digress), who had blueprints for robotic soldiers that were never built (until modern times - that's the thing over to the right). Of course, there were much older automatons, but the design was never as sophisticated as it was after the medieval clock makers took up the craft.

According to the story, Phillip II (who served as the king of Spain, England, Portugal, Ireland, parts of Italy, and serve as the Holy Roman Emperor - all at the same time) asked Saint Diego for a miraculous healing for one of his friends. The friend recovered, and Phillip II had renowned clockmaker Juanelo Turriano come to Toledo and build an robotic version of Saint Diego for his palace. Since Turriano had already made an automaton that could play music, this one wasn't too much of a stretch.

BoingBoing posted this x-ray of the robot's head. My last x-ray wasn't much different.

The little robot is about 15 inches tall. The owner winds him with a key that sticks into its back, and then the monk takes off, wandering around in circles in an imitation of a monk praying. He raises a cross in the air, kisses it, taps his chest, and walks forward with his rosary held aloft. He will go through his actions seven times before being wound down. It's almost beautiful to see this robot goig through the motions of a monk in meditation. Unfortunately, it's not that pretty, because his face looks really creepy and even the designer said it was "unpleasant." But it's still an impressive piece of engineering.

Watch the video (there's no audio to it); you won't believe this thing was made 500 years ago.

Of course, there are more automatons that might be more technically impressive. For example, the duck who digests food, or the other bird-inspired automatons that actually flew. But this one's my favorite.

There's No Need To Be Afraid of Philosophy

2011-09-11T19:46:00.010-05:00

I occasionally hear things like, "How do manage being both a Christian and a philosopher; aren't they incompatible?" A year or two ago my sister-in-law mentioned me to a Christian acquaintance—someone from her church, I believe. As I remember hearing the story, the person replied: "And he's actually a believer?"

The worry that Christian faith and philosophy are mutually exclusive is nothing new. In a book on Augustine, Carol Harrison explains the different attitudes of the Church Fathers towards philosophy (page 16). Some, such as Minucius Felix, embraced philosophy; but there were also those like Tertullian, famous for asking "What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" Many, including Augustine and Ambrose, took a balanced view, treating philosophy as a thing different from Christian piety but not fundamentally opposed to Christianity: something useful to the Church if studied properly.

The reason for this post is to provide TTC readers with a few loosely connected remarks suggesting that there is no need for Christians to be afraid of philosophy, and that there is even reason for Christians to study it.

We have to define philosophy first. I have nothing against the dictionary definition of philosophy, but my favorite definition of philosophy is the oldest: Philosophy is the love of wisdom. As Socrates explains in Plato's Apology and Symposium, this means the seeking of wisdom.

In other words, the story of philosophy is the story of the human quest for wisdom. So naturally it has everything you would find in the story of beings who were created in the image of God, fell into sin and rebellion against God, and then tried to rediscover the wisdom they had rejected. The story of philosophy involves sin and rebellion against God. It also involves the tragic hubris of noble pagans who reached for divine wisdom using the power of their own intellects, finding great and useful insights, but failed to achieve wisdom in the end.

But the story of philosophy also involves not a few philosophers who were, and are, believers in Jesus Christ. Some of my favorite characters in the history of philosophy are those like Anselm, who believe in Christian orthodoxy and, believing, make an effort to understand what they believe. Faith in Christ and the continuing search for wisdom are a harmony for these philosophers. So there need be no conflict between the practice of philosophy and the Christian faith.

In the past there were other Christians besides Felix, Ambrose, Augustine, and Anselm who practiced or at least studied philosophy. To name a few: Lactantius, Boethius, Aquinas, John Calvin, Oswald Chambers, and C. S. Lewis. Nor are Christians and philosophy strangers in our own day. In the past year I have seen a lecture hall packed for a lecture by atheist philosopher Daniel Dennet; I have also seen a much bigger room packed to hear Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga deliver the keynote address at an annual meeting of the Evangelical Philosophical Society.

I know "Lactantius" sounds like a breed of dairy cow. But he's actually a Church Father. He wrote this.

It is also significant that those of us who are Christians like to think we have some answers for the world; well, we might as well know what the questions are! There is no better place to explore those questions than the study of philosophy. For example, Socrates wonders about the health of the soul: What is a healthy soul like? How can I have a healthy soul? Is there an expert somewhere who can tell me how to have a healthy soul—is there a doctor for the soul? Christians know the answer is Jesus Christ; why should we be afraid of the questions?

Art as Mirror & Bridge

2011-09-07T08:30:00.000-05:00

Art is extremely helpful to us as Christians. I see that look of incredulity on your faces. Hear me out. Learning how to understand and engage with art should be important to us because art serves as both a mirror of society and a bridge to the other. As a mirror, art serves as a finger on the pulse of our particular culture or subculture: What do we (as a society) believe? What do we value? What’s happening historically, and how is that affecting what we believe and value? Often, art can even answer the question: Where are we heading? Christians are regularly interested in these questions, but generally ignore art though it is a major informer of the answers Christians are looking for in these regards.

Art as a bridge serves several purposes. As a bridge to other people, art helps us understand and empathize with individuals and people groups we don’t understand, whether because of long distances of time and space or because of long distances between their ideology and ours. This is huge. What we don’t understand we fear. When we act out of fear, we fail to live by faith and to act out of love. Conversely, understanding brings connection and the ability to empathize. Empathy, or compassion, or love-induced understanding, is a pillar of our faith. How can we show Christ’s love to people we choose not to (whether by willful choice or by lazy neglect) connect to and empathize with?

Finally, art also frequently serves as a bridge to the Other, to God. We need imagination to envision the Kingdom of God, a world which Jesus said was here but not yet fully here. We need our God-given imaginations to pray, Father, make it on Earth as it is in heaven. Art helps us go there, helps us engage our imaginations. It can take us to otherworldly places like Narnia and Hogwarts and Middle Earth. In a painting, lovers can float happily above the world of cares and woes, as if in heaven. When art depicts light and life and love through colors and lines and shapes (and cinematography and dialogue and chord progressions), art is, whether we realize it or not, whether the artist intended it or not, pointing us to the Source of light and life and love, to Light and Life and Love himself!

Even when art shows us the shadows, when we’re forced to face all that is dark and dead and ugly in the world (and in our hearts), this too points to God and to Christ. Like the negative of a photograph shows us what should be fully there but isn’t, this kind of art shows us our fallen condition and often even points to the reality that begins to take shape when God is taken out of the picture, when sin has pushed him out of the framework of our lives.

With these concepts in mind—art as mirror and bridge—let’s practice engaging with art with one of my favorite painters. The paintings of Marc Chagall are characterized by his use of rich, vibrant colors; floating, elongated figures; and life-bearing imagery and symbols: such as fruit, flowers, streams, trees, chickens, bulls, lovers... In 1914, Chagall was in his hometown Vitebsk, Russia with his fiancee Bella Rosenfeld, with whom Chagall intended to return to Paris, but was prevented from doing so when the Great War broke out. This war-affected stint in Russia resulted in a major shift in Chagallʼs paintings. Gone are the vibrant colors. Gone are much of the influences of cubism and the life-bearing images and symbols. All these are replaced with browns and greys, downcast figures, and a thematic and stylistic shift toward realism — Paris is exchanged for Russia, peacetime for wartime.

We can see this shift notably by comparing Chagallʼs Paris through the Window of 1913 to his work titled, Father, from 1914. Note in Paris through the Window the rainbow-like reds, greens, yellows, blues, and oranges. Note the fanciful and strange (but wondrous-strange) figures and goings-on: the upside-down train, the man floating down from the Eiffel Tower, the couple floating horizontally in head-to-head conversation, the colorful cat with the human face, the cheerful bouquet of flowers, and finally, the two-faced figure looking out the window into the city (and looking back, presumably to Vitebsk).

Paris through the Window, oil on canvas

All this vibrancy and fancy and glorification of the realm of imagination is abandoned as the weight of war forces Chagall, even Chagall who was so resilient against his contemporaries’ compulsions toward total abstraction, to morph from a bridge between reality and imagination—a soul connecting body and spirit—into a mirror of the reality of Chagallʼs war-burdened world, bringing the everyday and the ordinary into perspective.

Father, tempura on paper

In Father, three somber figures—man, woman, and cat—sit at a flower-less table, their backs to the closed window. Fanciful happenings aren’t happening. Laundry is. The cat and the woman, whose face is rather like the cat’s, look to the larger, principal figure of the father, leading our eyes to the father's own despairing and downcast eyes. Instead of wistful wildflowers, there is a nondescript, white cylinder which might be a plain, ordinary cup, perhaps even an empty cup. Grittiness of tempera on paper replaces the smoothness of the oil on the canvas of Paris through the Window.

When we look at Chagallʼs Father with 21st century eyes, the piece serves as a bridge: the gap is bridged between 21st-century America and early 20th-century Russia as we understand WWI Russia a bit better, as we understand Chagall a bit better (the painting is of his father and grandmother), and most significantly, as we empathize with the double burden of war and poverty. For many it no doubt also serves as mirror: we can see our own present economic struggles in the slumped shoulders, downcast eyes, and barren table. Contextual specifics do not cloud universal translation—that’s good art. Father is the two-faced figure from Paris through the Window looking back to itʼs own wartime context and looking out into our present one.

Creation Myth

2011-09-03T11:00:00.000-05:00

If you ask a random person on the street what they think about Genesis chapter 1 you’re likely to get one of two responses. Either they believe it is an extremely literal historical account of how God created everything in six days, napping on the seventh; or they think it’s all a fanciful myth with no truth to it. I would like to propose another position. One based on genre.

A common misconception with the Bible is that it was written in the genre of a history book. This is believed by many, both Christians and non-Christians. This is not true. It contains history but is not a history book. Rather, the Bible is composed of numerous types of genre. The Old Testament alone contains narrative, lament poetry, pessimistic wisdom literature, parables, and steaming love poetry, to name just a few. Genesis 1 is no exception. It is not written in the genre of a history book, it is written in the genre of a myth.

Now before some of you attempt to lynch me or others start cheering, please hear me out. Myth here is used in the scholarly sense. By myth genre I refer to a story of the god or gods with no implication of whether or not the story is true. Now, as a Christian I firmly believe that Genesis 1 is a true story of the one true God creating all of creation. But even though I believe it is truth it is still written in a specific genre. You must understand the genre to know how to read it. After all you don’t want to take a modern proverb as a medical textbook, otherwise you’d eat apples when your appendix starts to hurt instead of going to the doctor and having him cut the sucker out.

I believe Genesis 1 was written to convey the truth that God created all creation. But it is also presented in such as way as to serve another purpose. And that is to serve as a polemic against the gods that the surrounding nations worshiped (a common use of the myth genre in the ancient Near East). In other words, it’s a way of saying “My God is bigger and better than all of your gods combined! Nah, nah, nah, boo, boo!” (But with much more decorum than that.)

Within this theory of Genesis 1 there are two trains of thought. One is that it is written in a way to say that God is better than the Egyptian gods. For example, the Egyptians viewed creation as a daily occurrence. Each day’s beginning (rising of the sun) and ending (setting of sun) represents creation with the gods continually working to make it happen. It was a never ending cycle, the gods never truly rested.

A depiction of the Egyptian gods holding together creation.

Move along folks. He's just holding up the heavens. Honest!

Genesis 1 shows the God of the Bible as better than the Egyptian gods because he takes his time in creation, merely has to speak for it to occur, and…he stops.

The second train of thought is that it may also be a polemic against the Mesopotamian gods. One of the reasons for this is that the Mesopotamian gods created humanity to be their slaves, to do all the work so the gods could spend their days sunbathing on the beach and drinking fancy drinks with umbrellas in them.

The god Shamash sitting on a beach (notice the water at his feet).

One of his attendants is fetching him a fresh umbrella drink.

Genesis 1 stands in sharp contrast to this because the God of the Bible did not create humanity as slaves, but instead he created them to rule with authority (Gen 1.28).

Now all of these issues are much greater than those two short paragraphs could even begin to explain. I’ve only given you a small taste of what may really be going on in Genesis 1.

So what’s the point? Read the bible with an eye on the genre. You may be surprised how understanding genre explains away a lot of problems and perceived contradictions. (Such as perceived contradictions between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.)

Now, with this information some might be tempted to say, “Ha! Genesis 1 is a myth, which means it’s not true. I now have biblical proof against all those annoying creationist Christians! Booyah!” Um…no. Even if you want to write off Genesis 1 you must deal with Genesis 2. Genesis 2 is written not as a myth genre, but more in lines with the style of a history book, and it clearly states that God created everything.

Some of you may ask if, based on this, God did create in six days. My answer… possibly. God may have created the whole of the universe in six days. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least. But if I find out some day that God created it in an instant or over a length of time greater than six days my faith will not be shaken.

Are Christians Allowed to Cheer for Michael Vick?

2011-08-30T10:22:00.007-05:00

Full disclosure: I will not be cheering for Michael Vick this Fall. I hope he has the worst year statistically of his entire career, and that the Eagles as a whole implode faster than my own dreams of being a professional football player. But that's because I'm a Cowboys fan. It has nothing to do with the dog fighting.

Because I am a glutton for punishment, I still occasionally peruse the comments section on sports articles on the internet. On articles having to do with Michael Vick this is a particularly fascinating (punishing?) thing to do. It's clear that a large segment of the population doesn't think Vick should ever be forgiven for what he has done, has dismissed him as having little to no value as a person, and genuinely resents him his chance at redemption. What is truly saddening is that quite a few of these people seem to be Christians, and that they seem to have reached these stances based on seemingly "Christian" values.

So here are what I think are some genuine Christian values that people should keep in mind when reacting to the Michael Vick situation:

Michael Vick bears the image of God.

Michael Vick has intrinsic value, as all human beings do, as someone who is made in God's image. What exactly that means is a complex question beyond the scope of this particular blog entry, but what is absolutely means is that he cannot be dismissed as having no value. Christians should be cheering for his redemption as loud as for anyone else's. Which brings me to my second point ...

Redemption is always a good thing. Always.

First, Michael Vick isn't getting away with anything. He served his prison time, and he seems to be genuinely repentant and changed by the experience. It's odd, then, to see some Christians resenting his redemption, feeling as if he doesn't deserve the chance to repent, to be changed. This is particularly odd given that the foundation of the entire Christian understanding of reality as we find it is the desperate need for redemption of everyone and everything. Quite simply, we cannot thank God for our own redemption, then resent the work of redemption in the lives of others. I genuinely hope Vick has changed. I'm rooting for him.

The Bible speaks about only one unforgivable sin ... and it's not dog fighting.

Look, I'm a dog person. I really love dogs. And when I think about someone abusing, torturing, and murdering dogs (or any animal for that matter) ... well, my hand gets itchy for a baseball bat. It's sick. It's completely inexcusable. But it's not unforgivable. Christians, as the ones who uphold the intrinsic value of humanity based on the image of God and who strive to share the hope of redemption with all mankind, ought to be screaming this the loudest. Michael Vick can be forgiven. We all can be forgiven. That's how big the redemption of God is.

Fine, you say, he can come out of prison. Heck, he can even have a job and a normal life. But he doesn't deserve a chance to play in the NFL again. He certainly doesn't deserve the chance to make the $100 million dollars his new contract is worth. Granted. You think it doesn't get to me that this guy gets to make $100 million dollars while law-abiding citizens like my family are stuck trying to stay in the black month to month on two-part time jobs in a horrible economy? Sure, it's unfair! But the thing about God's grace is that it is lavish. For those on the outside looking in, lavishness will often seem unfair. And, of course, I believe God will hold Vick responsible for how he handles that $100 million dollars. Let us pray he's a wise steward of the funds.

When I see Vick's story, I see the gospel unfolding before me. Does Vick self-identify as a Christian? If not, will he ever do so? I don't know. But so far his redemption is beautiful to me. Make no mistake, I will be cheering against Vick and the Eagles with all my heart this Fall, but I will also be rooting Vick on as a person. For I am in need of redemption, too. And watching his unfold comforts me in thinking about my own.

Apologizing to the Gay Community

2011-08-22T07:50:00.015-05:00

I saw this at a website called God Hates Protestors; the sign on the bottom right is important - it reads, "I used to be a Bible-Banging homophobe - Sorry."

Some context is required to appreciate this. The photo was taken during a gay pride parade in Chicago. Some Christians (not pictured) decided to show up and yell hateful messages at the homosexual crowd through loudspeakers. That is not the way Jesus ministered to people ("Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" and all that), so another group of Christians decided to go and a non-hateful side of Christianity.

This man is inspiring to me. He doesn't act immature and say that his Christianity is better than that of anyone else. He doesn't get into an argument with the other Believers or the homosexual crowd. Instead, he humbly asked forgiveness for the hatred he had once displayed, and he showed love to his fellow man. No one remembers anything about the mean protestors who were heckling the crowd, but the gay man in this picture will never forget the time that a Christian stopped to say that he cared about him. (Of course, that doesn't explain why he's in his underwear.)

You might be wondering about the theology of that man on the other side of the fence. Does he accept the homosexual lifestyle? Do he disagree with it even though he wants to show that he cares for these people? We'll never know - and it's not the point.

A lot of healing needs to be done between the Christian and the homosexual communities. It's common for people to assume that anyone who goes to church is a hateful person who would attack a gay man. This is because certain people have used Christianity as an excuse for gay bashing (an awful thing to do), and it's going to take a lot of work to overcome this.

The world needs to know that Jesus' followers are not a violent and hateful people who wish to hurt others. We must present the love of God to all men, and we must re-build the bridges that our past mistakes have torn down.

Hand-Tracings Usually End Up Making Turkeys (Pun Intended)

2011-08-18T08:49:00.001-05:00

Sometime during my eternally long journey through graduate school, a professor put the following events on the board, in correct chronological order:

*John Milton got married

*John Milton wrote Paradise Lost

*John Milton's wife died

*John Milton wrote Paradise Regained

I wonder if anyone will notice if I change "Satan" to "The Giant Nag"

Now, the point of this exercise wasn't to rag on the Miltons' marriage, but rather to make an important point: cause and effect relationships aren't always that easy to discern. (By the way, I looked it up: Milton was married three times, and, no, I didn't bother to figure out which wife is referenced above).

Normally, we get this. We understand that events usually have complex explanations. This is why no one goes around claiming that Abraham Lincoln was killed because John Wilkes Booth had unresolved anger problems, then stops as if that is sufficient. One philosopher, David Hume, even went as far as to claim that cause and effect relationships are impossible to prove. (This is one of the things that caused me to hate philosophy in college ... or, well, I think it caused my hatred ... )

You can't prove that Thomas being a giant nerd caused him to include a reference to me

The funny thing is that alot of this caution seems to fly out the window when it comes to explaining what God is up to these days. With 9/11, with Katrina, with Haiti -- each time we saw prominent Christian leaders more than willing to explain to us exactly why God had allowed these things to happen, what their true cause was. I cannot think of a single instance where these "explanations" did not do more harm than good, yet there seems to remain this irresistible urge to offer them.

Another "Planet of the Apes" movie: proof that God's judgement is falling on our nation

Personally, I don't believe that history is without purpose or fully unknowable. Like many Christians, I affirm the providence of God at work in history, and believe that the Scriptures show me where human history is ultimately heading. The Bible claims to explain the start of history, the end of history, and give little glimpses of God at work in history along the way. Where Christians get into trouble is not in insisting that history has purpose, but in claiming the ability to trace God's hand at every step of the way. The Scriptures are full of countries that prospered for reasons you might not expect, people that suffered where judgement was as far from the explanation as you can get, and quite a few ambivalent human and divine actions we're still not sure how to explain fully.

Because a jet ski suddenly appearing in the Mediterranean and carrying Jonah safely and comfortably to shore

wouldn't have driven the point home in quite the same way ...

Recently, Christian historian Mark Noll had this to say on the issue:

"A Christian has to affirm Providence, but a Christian historian should not assume to know the mind of God about most particular events ... For most historians, I think it's wiser to affirm a general sort of Providence and yet not presume that you as an individual can know what God intended for any particular situation in the past." (Interview in August issue of Christianity Today)

I think that's good advice for Christians in general.

Britain's Lost Sense of Self

2011-08-16T07:26:00.003-05:00

I recently read an article in The Economist in which the author states rather plainly that the violence and anarchy of the riots which began in London and have spread across England are the result of "moral malaise." According to the article, British politicians are quick to hand out their ready-made partisan parlance: the Left says it's the government's fault; the Right decries: "criminality, pure and simple." But The Economist calls both sides on the carpet for lazy thinking. The author instead appeals to an "absence of internal, moral restraints" combined with "near-American levels of [economic] inequality," which is, of course, ultimately a moral dilemma as well.

I find this appeal to morals surprising on one level, don't you? I thought we (the West) had moved beyond morality. Talk about "an inherent sense of right and wrong" is so passe. And yet, here we are again. We can never really seem to shake it. Darwinian psychologists, scientists, and philosophers tell us we need a standard set of morals to survive as individuals and thrive as societies but that there is no basis for such a standard, that the future will consist of those individuals who know there is no such thing as absolute morals but will pretend there are in order to survive and reproduce. Is the truth about reality that we know what feels most real and true isn't real or true, but we have to lie to ourselves and pretend that what feels true--but we know isn't--is? Or is it more likely that the 'beneficial lie' is really the truth after all? Did we invent the sun to explain the light and the shadow? Or does the light and shadow prove the sunshine?

The article goes on to say the loss of moral norms and absolutes has resulted in a loss of self:

The widespread assumption that, for all their inequalities and fissures, the country and its capital are fundamentally orderly and harmonious, has been revealed to be complacent. The cracks in British society—economic and moral—have opened up, and they are deeper than they seemed.

The riots have been bad for Britain’s already stuttering economy. They have been ruinous for the people whose homes and businesses have been damaged and destroyed. They have tarnished Britain’s image around the world. But most of all, they have been desperately disorienting for the country’s own sense of itself.

This lostness, this social and individual identity crisis, is felt sincerely, not merely in Britain, but all across the modern world. We realize things aren't the way they're supposed to be and that morals have something to do with it.

Is My Site Still on Your RSS Reader? Good. Because Some Changes are Happening...

2011-08-06T15:53:00.000-05:00

You know those stupid retail stores that "go out of business" every year...only to re-open and go out of business again the next year? Well, that's me. I happily quit writing this site when I thought I had run out of things to say, but this site isn't finished teaching people. And teaching me.

It finally occurred to me that I had not taken the final step in this project. You see, my plan was to create a place for rational discussions about the Christian faith, and a sort of meeting place for all sorts of people who want to know more about Christianity - but I was doing it all by myself. What am I? Some sort of extreme introvert who thinks he can be a community to himself? Don't be ridiculous.

Anyway, I came up with the idea of having numerous other writers contribute to this site. I didn't think anyone would want to take up such a project. I approached a few people I know - all friends who I look up to and have always learned from - and asked them if they would want to contribute articles to this site.

And they all said "yes."

I'm still shocked.

So, Thinking Through Christianity is back. With a team of writers. We don't all agree on everything. We are from different churches, and we even vote differently. But we are passionate about what we're doing, here. Stay tuned.

It's Time to Ramble On (Moving to a new Site)

2011-05-04T15:06:00.000-05:00

I have received some wonderful comments from my readers this week, both in the comments here and in many other messages, and I don't think I've ever been so thoroughly encouraged in my life! I can tell that I made a positive impact on many people, and that's something I really needed to know. I'll always have that.

I had no idea how many people were reading this blog and actually enjoying it. Alas, I think I've said everything I can say about the issues I discuss on this site. I've been basically repeating the same things over and over, and I don't want to spend the rest of my life repeating myself and getting into the same arguments each week. If you've learned anything from this site then you've learned everything I can teach about Thinking Through Christianity. (See what I did there?)

So, it's time for me to ramble on; I'll be blogging at a new site. It's a more personal blog where I'll just be talking about my travels and my thoughts without the expectation of anyone caring about it. I won't be weighing in on important issues that often, and I'll be able to broaden my horizons. I really enjoy expressing myself through writing, and the new blog will be a place for me to do that with more freedom. (Also, a recent email criticized me for listening to Led Zeppelin, which is one of the reasons I named the new site after a Zeppelin song.) I won't be setting up site analytics to see who is visiting, and I won't be making it a serious project. It's just for fun. (Yes, technically I could just start doing that here, but I to use a sight that hasn't already drown an audience expecting a certain sort of writing.) I will keep this site up so it can be referenced.

So, follow me on the new site. Or don't. But don't stop thinking. Don't stop asking the Big Questions. You have a natural inclination to understand Higher things and were born with a brain that is capable of solving problems - so get busy!

(And, the next time you like someone's blog, try telling them before they stop writing it.)

Final Blog Entry

2011-04-29T11:38:00.000-05:00

I don't want to write this blog, anymore.

I started Thinking Through Christianity so I could create a place to have level-headed discussions about Christianity and culture. I've tried to make a website that Christians and non-Christians could read for a well-balanced view of important issues, but this was a terrible idea. No one wants that.

I've tried to clear up many misconceptions about Christianity, but I found that people prefer those misconceptions to the truth (because it fuels their own prejudice). I've asked my fellow Believers to act with love toward non-Christians, but discovered, to my great shame, that many of them prefer to use Christianity as an excuse to be rude to others. I've pleaded with my friends to stop looking down on certain people just because they watch Foxnews or CNN, but I have failed to convince anyone that this sort of bullying is antithetical to God's command to love our neighbor.

Atheists who visit my site criticize me for my faith. Christians who come by tell me that they doubt my salvation and think that my version of Christianity is heretical.

Most of my readers are people I know from college who follow my work the same way they follow my Facebook updates. I appreciate their patronage, but it shows me that the other people who visit my site have no reason to come back. I've had thousands visit in a single day (when my work was linked to from a better site), but it only drew in crowds of people who criticized me and never came back. I've succeeded in making people upset with my writing, and that wasn't my goal.

And why are they upset? Because I won't push their own social-political agendas by calling Obama a secret Muslim terrorist or calling the Tea Party "stupid." I don't think that being a Christian gives me license to speak hatefully toward those who disagree with me, but that's what people want to hear.

Overall, this site has greatly depressed me. I have grown weary of hate mail and accusations of heresy (over the silliest things). While attempting to discuss Faith in a reasonable and mature fashion, I have, instead, attracted the sort of people who don't tolerate that sort of discussion. Writing this blog has reminded me of just how much hatred is out there and how much a rational thinking Christian is unappreciated.

I wish I had never begun this project, because it has only made me more aware of the brokenness of our society. It needs healing, but I have failed to encourage that sort of healing. Sometimes a person can be sick for so long that they no longer care about getting well, and that's how we are. We prefer our social divisions and our mutual distrust of each other, and people are not interested in caring about the other person in order to show them love. People also prefer not to consider difficult questions as they relate to their faith, because these questions challenge them and make them uncomfortable. As such, the things I have been writing have no place.

So, I plan to stop writing this blog. I might find inspiration some day and pick it back up, but I probably won't. Since I enjoy writing, I'll probably start a separate blog to detail my travels and other interesting parts of my life that I want to remember and share with you, but it won't be a place for any serious discussions.

Thanks for reading. Some of you have gone out of your way to encourage me (you know who you are) and you are very appreciated; I almost stopped writing this a long time ago, but many of you have kept it going with your friendly support. I just can't handle the negativity that it brings into my life, anymore. I am encouraged knowing that Jesus Christ has promised to make all things new, because it means that this broken world will one day be fixed. When that happens I'll have a lot to write about.

Bye!

Why We Shouldn't Care About a Politician's Religion

2011-04-18T15:14:00.000-05:00

Countless times I've been asked to speculate on Obama's religion. Do I think he's a real Christian? Or a devout Muslim? I irritate people when I respond with, "That's the President's personal business and none of mine."

Mind you, I didn't vote for President Obama.. It's nothing personal, but I'm a Libertarian and he was the furthest candidate from those ideals in the last election. It had nothing to do with his religion, and I'll never choose one candidate over another because of their faith because I don't think that religious beliefs tell us how a person will act in office.

Let me give you an example. I attend a very small Southern Baptist church in Texas. You're probably picturing a barn full of overweight rednecks driving dirty trucks, wearing overalls, and shooting guns up in the air. And you probably think that these cavemen all line up to vote for the Republican party, but you'd be wrong.

Also, during the service, deacon Big Tex will light a candle for Saint Tom Landry. With a branding iron.

In our tiny congregation there are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and some independent voters - and plenty of folks who just won't tell you their affiliation. If you randomly picked someone from my church to serve as the President of the United States, then you would have no idea which political agendas they would support - there's just too much variety even in a group that small. The fact that all of them are Southern Baptists who agree on almost every theological point does not ensure that they will have the same political outlook.

So, when a candidate promises me that they are a Christian - just like me! - I don't get excited. I want to know thing like, how will they govern our taxes? Will they make new laws or seek to limit federal power? (I can dream, can't I?) What do they intend to do about our very serious unemployment issues? None of these important questions have anything to do with the candidate's faith.

I prefer to allow our leaders to keep their faith to themselves - and I appreciate them extending that same courtesy to me and allowing me to practice my own faith away from their prying eyes. And if they want my support then I don't want them to put on a Christian face and tell me that we share the same faith. I only want to know how they will run a public office.

The Conspiracy Theorist on Campus

2011-04-12T16:04:00.000-05:00

Today, I was approached by a small balding man who handed me a sheet of paper and told me that I needed to know my rights. At first, he seemed legit - as if there was something going on I needed to know about - but it didn't take me long to see that he was not there to tell me about building codes. He quickly informed me that the police have no right to ticket me and that I should not obey their laws. I wanted to know more about what made my new friend tick, so I asked him for more information. Here's what I learned:

The Romans invented capitol letters and used them to take away my rights. I have no rights, today, because of this. (Don't ask me. I didn't make this stuff up.)
Japan's radiation problems will destroy their companies. This will, in turn, destroy the U.S. Stock exchange.
The United States of America will soon collapse completely as a result of losing Wall Street. ("I figure...oh, about July," he told me.) Our country will no longer exist.
I should not obey traffic laws because they are simply illegal and do not actually hold any authority over me. (Of course, if the U.S. is about to come to an end, I'm not sure why petty moving violations should be my concern.)
He told me that he could (at any moment) decide to hold me down and put me in a citizen's arrest and detain me until the police came, because he's just as powerful as the police. (I let him know that I would have no trouble detaining him if he wanted to go that route. He changed the subject.)
He told me that Blackstone's Lawbook includes a loophole that takes away our rights. I told him that Blackwell was not considered gospel in today's courts. He changed the subject.
His handout lists numerous city/state codes and what he thinks are proofs that they are invalid. I'm not convinced.

I had more questions, but he had more propaganda to hand out. Maybe I'll see him in August if the government doesn't collapse.

Blame the Media for 'Burn a Koran' Day and its Aftermath

2011-04-07T11:11:00.001-05:00

Last September, I pleaded with Terry Jones asking him not to burn the Koran in a pointless demonstration. It was a useless waste of time, but I had to try. He did postpone the event for some reason, but this March he decided to light a Koran on fire after all. It sparked protests in the middle east and now people are asking if Terry Jones is responsible for the violence and deaths that have gone on there.

He's not.

Burning a book - any book - is dumb. But I'll bet he's not the first person to set that particular book on fire. So, why was this such a big deal? Because the media wanted it to be. Everyone thinks that Terry Jones is a bit crazy, which may be why he didn't understand how this demonstration would do more harm than good. But what excuse does our media have? Are all of the journalists in our country also slightly insane? (I'm willing to entertain the notion.) It's very irresponsible to make this story so prominent when doing so could lead to violence. Do we really need the story of one nutty preacher burning a book on the nightly news? The media gave him his platform, and now the media thinks that the aftermath of 'Burn a Koran Day' is his fault. It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?

So, stop blaming Terry Jones. Blame the journalists who could have been reporting on real news, but chose to create violence and hatred by telling the story of one crazy man's demonstration. (Currently, the same people are trying to convince you that Charlie Sheen's love life is front page news. It's not.) If we had ignored Jones then no one would have noticed when one angry man set a book on fire in front of a few people. I recommend we start ignoring the media.

'Eat, Pray, Love' - A Film that Acutally Has Something to Say

2011-04-06T09:36:00.000-05:00

Most marriages are strong enough to survive the problems that couples face, but not all of them can withstand the battle over the TV remote control. Will the man keep a tight reign on the remote and use it to check SportsCenter every ten minutes? Or will he become a meek prisoner of Glee and Dancing with the Stars? My wife and I are quite proud of our egalitarian TV watching conduct, and if one of us is sick then that person always gets to choose the program. When she was ill last week I assumed that we would be checking out a Colin Firth film or a British period piece, but this time it was Eat, Pray, Love starring Julia Roberts.

Since I'm a Christian, you probably would expect me to nitpick the theology and complain that it's not compatible with my faith, but I'm not going to do that because I'd rather focus on what we can learn from the story. (However, as I expected, the film tries to respect Eastern and Western religions in order to be Universal, but ends up trying to force the mutually exclusive concepts of pantheism and panentheism into the same worldview in order to meet this goal. I expect no better from Hollywood screenwriters - par for the course, really - but there is still plenty to learn from the movie.)

The main character, Liz, is burned out. She isn't happy with her life, and she tells everyone that she needs a radical change of some sort. Her friends are skeptical and tell her that she just needs a vacation or a new outfit or something to occupy her mind until her depression passes. But Liz knows better - she knows that she is not suffering an affliction of the mind, but one of the soul. It is spiritual renewal that she seeks, and in the first part of the story she learns that she can't find this through a new home and a new boyfriend.

And this is where the film speaks to us. I applaud the movie for admitting that there is more to a human being than just the body; we have a spiritual component that must be seen to, and when that part of us is needy we cannot remedy it through physical things. It is human nature to seek fulfillment in Higher Things, and that is the purpose of Liz's journey.

We don't deny ourselves food when we are hungry - likewise, let us not neglect our souls. That is the lesson to be learned from Eat, Pray, Love. It's also filled with eating montages and a scene where two skinny girls pretend to understand what it's like to gain weight and not fit into their (size zero) jeans. But it also reminds us to look after our spiritual side, and I can respect that.

Charlemagne was a Woman? New Painting Confirms what Historians Have Long Suspected.

2011-04-01T08:00:00.000-05:00

Charlemagne is a name ripe with dignity and admiration and it simply rings of masculinity and alpha-male leadership; there's just one problem - he's a she. A medieval painting from the Spanish archives (only opened in 1975 at Franco's death and still not completely explored) shows us, finally, a contemporary painting of Charles the Great that answers our questions once and for all. I've got a link to the painting and the relevant article at the end of this post.

We medieval historians have long scratched our heads over certain passages in Charlemagne's history. Why, for example, did Charlemagne spend so much time with his daughters rather than his sons (as we learn from his personal historian, Einhard)? And why does Notker the Stammerrer (in a volume sometimes attributed to "The Monk of Gaul") tell us that Charlemagne's visitors were shocked to see him wearing men's hunting clothing when he rode instead of the fancier clothing they had expected him to wear? Was his hunchbacked son imprisoned because he knew the truth? (The details of that imprisonment have been hidden from us.)

There's more. A famous poem in the middle ages ('Floris and Blancheflour') is a romance that comes to us in many different versions. In one particularly interesting one, the hero is a man who looks like a woman. While pursuing the woman he loves, he hides out in an Emir's harem and is able to pass for a woman, and when he lays down with his girl they are mistaken for a pair of ladies by everyone in the company. We are later told that this man is Charlemagne's grandfather (on his mother's side). Did the poet know a secret about Charlemagne that could only be told to us in code?

It's been long suspected that this is so, but I've already said too much and the painting will speak for itself. Click to go to the painting.

Toledo, Spain - The Last Medieval City

2011-03-25T12:17:00.001-05:00

I just returned from a great trip to Spain with my colleagues and professors, and I've the pictures to prove it! We spent most of our time in Toledo which is maybe the most medieval city left in the world. A lot of European cities still look and feel like the Renaissance, but they say that the city of Toledo really fell asleep during that time and now it's still there in all of its medieval glory. (By the way, that applies to the city's wifi connections, as well.)

Also, in medieval Spain the three religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam worked very hard to make peace and live together. It wasn't perfect, but these three groups managed to get along better than in other parts of Europe. Many of the sights in Toledo still preserve the unique culture that came from this blending of cultures and that may come out in some of the pictures.

Here's my mentor, Dr. Adams, showing us the sights in Madrid's Museum of Archaeology.

The average street musician in Madrid is about a million times better than what I'm accustomed to from such performers. This guy got a few Euros from me for his excellent playing outside of the Prado Museum.

People will tell you that the horseshoe arch on these doors is a Muslim design, but they are wrong. The Visigoths made this sort of doorway popular, and the Muslims who moved to Spain would use them in their own buildings (adding their own artistic contributions to them along the way, of course).

Those aren't my bags, no, all of my luggage fit into a single backpack. My fellow travelers were always impressed with this, and they would say that they couldn't figure out how I had fit nine days worth of clothing into an average sized backpack. (Hint: I didn't bring nine changes of clothes. Not even close.)

Toledo is a beautiful city, and my pictures do not do it justice.

The Hotel Cardenal is the best hotel in the world as far as I'm concerned. It's actually built into the medieval walls that surround the city, and it's absolutely breathtaking to step into the courtyard.

Here's more of the hotel courtyard. The heraldry of Cardenal Cisneros (an important late medieval Spanish guy) was on the wall of my room and I thought it was awesome. My professor told me that I'm probably the first person to enter the room and geek out over Cisneros' family crest. I'm achieving new levels of nerd-dom.

Staying in Toledo means walking through beautiful medieval gates like this one to get anywhere. I loved it.

There's me stading on top of one of those awesome gates. (We found a random door and it led up there. Being a tourist in a medieval town often means you make up your own route, because no one's going to tell you that there's a door to the top of the gate. Fortunately, there's also no one around to tell you not to walk into random doors - which is how I found myself accidentally wandering into a city officials' office. No one seemed to mind.)

This is a nightclub that was built out of a medieval church. (We found another club situated in some very old caves.)

Me and the guys explore an old Roman sewer.

The Cafeteria Wamba (named for the medieval Visigothic king of Spain, as you know) has long been the lunch of choice for students on a budget. It may be the cheapest cafeteria in town, but they've got a ham sandwich that will blow your mind. (I know, it doesn't sound like much, but Iberian ham is rather special.)

La Synagoga de Santa Maria la Blanca (The Synagogue of St. Mary the White) is a medieval synagogue built in the shape of a mosque and dedicated to a Christian saint. A very odd building that scholars still don't understand.

Yours truly, delivering a boring lecture about the historiography of La Synagoga de Santa Maria la Blanca. A tall order considering we don't have any primary documents to help understand the building's past. By the end of my discussion they had all learned how to sleep while standing up with their eyes open.

Beautiful cloister within Monasterio de San Juan de los Reyes. One of our group walked in there and took an orange off of the tree and the next day they had a lock on the gate. Oops. (No, it wasn't me...)

The chapel in Lorenzana's palace, which (apparently) few people get to see.

The church of San Roman is amazing. More pictures of it here.

This is a mosque called "El Cristo de la Luz" or, "The Mosque of the Light of Christ." An odd name for a mosque. Legend states that when Christians converted this into a church they found a hidden closet with a painting of Christ inside being lit by candles.

This is Adolfo, who runs one of the most well reviewed restaurants in Europe. After eating there, we all agreed he was amazing.

Sharing a great meal with Dr. Pamela Patton, author of Pictorial Narrative in the Romanesque Cloister (which is in its second printing).

Here's the gang that had to put up with me for whole trip. They're a great group of scholars and friends.

This is the only picture in which she's not making fun of me. Oh, the memories.

What part of "seat's taken" doesn't she understand?

"Lost? No, don't be ridiculous. I just like staring at the map in the dark, that's all..."

It was a great trip, and I hope you enjoyed my recap (more pictures can be found here). There may be another blog entry about this trip if I can recover some lost pictures. I highly recommend visiting Toledo if you get the chance, because it's the closest you'll ever get to going back in time to see the middle ages for yourself.

In Defense of the Monasteries

2011-03-21T11:46:00.000-05:00

In my previous post I asked the question, "Why Aren't There Any Protestant Monasteries" and my readers responded by accusing monks of being closeted Believers who irresponsibly ignored the world. I was horrified, because this is great misunderstanding (though, a very common one).

Here's one comment that summed up many of your responses:

I don't believe God would bless any decision to place yourself in a long-term situation of literally doing no earthly good or good for His kingdom. It's a selfish act and utterly useless for His kingdom.

Is that really common perception of a monk? It's true that there have been a few groups who disappeared into their monasteries never to be seen again, but most ascetics were known for their community work and their interaction with the local church and city authorities. It was the monastics (monks and nuns) who copied the Bible and other important works (both Christian and secular) so that we didn't lose them, ran nearly every school in the middle ages, and worked with the sick and needy. For example, when no one else would tend to the leper population, the Lazarite order was begun under which monks moved in with leper groups to take care of them - even though it meant probably catching the disease themselves. That is truly a noble life.

If you think about it, you already knew this. Remember Mother Teresa? She's probably the only monastic that pop-culture can name, and she's famous for her charity work. Instead of assuming that monasteries are filled with selfish people who are hiding from responsibilities, we should understand that as these men and women meditated on Jesus' teachings they were naturally moved to help those around them. History tells us that this is so, because in many places the local monastics were the only source of charity and learning in a community. John of the Cross is well known for his writings on meditation and solitary living, but his neighbors knew him as a compassionate and generous man.

Of course, there were exceptions. The Carthusians (for some reason) locked themselves in cells and only left once a week. They normally had some other people employed in the monastery who would go out and do normal things, but those few in the cells never left. It's the most strict form of monasticism I can think of in the Christian tradition, and rarely did being a monk or a nun actually mean to live a life of pure isolation.

So, go easy on the monks. When done correctly, the monastic life was enriching for the individual and for the community and local church, as well. It would be very interesting to see how monastics would affect our culture, today.

Why Aren't There Any Protestant Monasteries?

2011-03-14T08:27:00.002-05:00

I don't know why, but the Protestant Reformation found no room for monastics. I understand why Luther fought the selling of indulgences and the notion that sin could be forgiven by anyone other than Jesus. But why did the leaders of the Reformation decry the monasteries?

The purpose of the monastery was to be a place where its members could spend their lives focusing on their spiritual lives. Most of them spent time doing charity work in the community as well, but the core of the experience was studying, working, and praying or meditating. The distractions of the world make it difficult for a Believer to focus their mind on God as a effectively as a monastic could. This made the monastics into spiritual leaders and it gave them very rich internal lives.

So, why didn't the Reformation pick up this tradition? I have no idea. I suppose they didn't see the value in it, but I don't understand how that's possible.

I do understand, however, why we don't care about it, today. The monastic could not have a family, because the ascetic life was simply incompatible with raising children and seeing to a spouse. That's not meant as an insult to families - it's just a fact. The hours a monk could spend in prayer, or pouring over a religious text, are simply unmatchable for a married person with a normal job. It is currently popular in Protestant circles to believe that a person with a big family is somehow very holy because of their progeny.

So, if someone in a Baptist church told everyone that he was going to be a hermit they would probably not take it too well. What if he said that he intended to live on the street so he could pray all day without other responsibilities getting in the way? Would that be a noble thing to do? Or an irresponsible one? Would his parents be proud of his choice?

When St. Augustine found God, he told his mother that he was going to leave the things of the world and devote his life to Christ. His mother, Monica, had been pining away for him to have another grandson (which meant finding him a wife - this had been her favorite hobby since his childhood), but that desire was pushed aside when he told her his news. She energetically supported his monastic efforts and saw this as the highest calling one could have; this meant so much to her that she no longer needed to see more grandchildren. How many parents today would be that supportive if their only child announced their intention to avoid marriage?

Our society doesn't treat non-married adults well. We assume that they are all just pining away for a spouse and few people can imagine that they actually enjoy being single and use their free time wisely. I know single people who get a lot out of their lives, and they are constantly frustrated when someone says, "When are you going to start dating?"

Of course, there are a few radical Protestants out there who are trying to revive the tradition, but it's going to be very challenging in our social climate to get any sort of support.

Rob Bell's New Book, 'Love Wins,' Finally Gets A Real Reivew

2011-03-09T10:53:00.000-06:00

I've been hearing for about a month now that Rob Bell's new book is either a great heresy or the best Christian writing since the works of St. Paul. But none of the people who told me this had actually read the book, so I didn't care.

Today, my friend Brian sent me a link to the first review of 'Love Wins' written by someone who actually read it before writing their opinion. (I know reading is hard, but you still have to do it before you claim to understand a book.)

The review is not encouraging for Bell's supporters. I won't steal thunder from the reviewer, but it seems that Bell has a Universalist message wrapped up in some very vague language. And they've included a lot of quotes from the book in order to let Rob Bell speak for himself as much as possible. But don't take my word for it (since I haven't read it, either), just read the review.

The Texas Baptists and Their Liberal Stance on Abortion

2011-02-24T13:50:00.000-06:00

It can normally be assumed that Baptist churches will oppose abortion, but many Baptists in Texas would be surprised at the stance their leaders have taken on this issue. The Baptist General Convention of Texas (we know it as the BGCT) would have a lot of explaining to do if the members of its churches bothered to read the BGCT website.

In the "What we Believe" section of the BGCT homepage, we see this message:

In the sanctity of human life: Messengers to BGCT Annual Meetings have clearly stated their position regarding the issues involved in the sanctity of human life.

OK. That's not helpful, at all.. Let's dig deeper.

Further investigation brings us to something called the 'Christian Life Commission' which is a group that informs the BGCT on ethical matters. Here's what they have to say:

Aborting a developing life should he regarded as an extreme act undertaken only under extreme circumstances...cases in which abortion might be contemplated include pregnancies which result from rape or incest. When carrying pregnancies resulting from rape and incest to term is so traumatic as to destroy the emotional health of the mother, abortion might he considered as a regrettable alternative. Abortion might also be considered in cases of severe and chronic mental illness in which pregnancy imminently and severely threatens the life of the mother for reasons not related to rape or incest but which are equally devastating to her mental and emotional stability...While we reject the practice of abortion, there may be rare circumstances described above in which Christians prayerfully choose abortion as the least tragic choice.

I'll bet this would shock a lot of Baptists if they knew about it. It's right there on the BGCT website with no disclaimer of any sort.

For record, I think that killing an unborn child because they are the product of rape is nonsense. I know people who were born as products of rape, and I don't think they should have been killed for the convenience of the parent. I understand how horrible rape is, but compounding that problem by killing a baby isn't the answer. And counseling is a fine option for parents who might feel emotionally unstable after giving birth to such a child - and it's something that most churches are well equipped to do.

So, fellow Baptists, help me out. Have I missed something - am I misrepresenting the Texas Baptists? (I don't want to be unfair to a group that does so many other things well.) Or does the BGCT have a skeleton in its closet?

Why Jane Austen is the Greatest Writer Ever

2011-02-14T11:32:00.000-06:00

Happy Valentines Day. Instead of my usual V-day rant (which you can find, here) I'm going to tell you why Jane Austen is the best writer in literature.

I love Michael Crichton intellectual thrillers. And I want everyone (particularly those in government) to read Hugo's Les Miserables and see what I see in those blessed pages. And nothing warms my spirit like reading an installment of Sherlock Holmes. But, as great as those books are, they are not as impressive to me as Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. Here's why.

It was the 90s when I was introduced to Austen. The music of Nirvana was liberating us from the "synthesizer-itis" our generation had succumbed to in the 80s. Megadeth and Mortification were hardcore bands, and anyone who called Metallica a "metal band" was probably a sissy who collected dolls and thought ponies were cute. Films like Natural Born Killers and The Crow (along with the classic horror films), and shows like The X-Files were regulars on my TV, and I had already been reading Stephen King's intense stories since middle school.

Pictured above: Hetfield (from Metallica) being about as hardcore as someone's grandma. [Source]

I dreaded "girl books," and I remember doing a lot of intense eye-rolling on the day Pride and Prejudice was handed out in class. I sat in my seat like a prisoner in cell and waited for the guard to come over to my bunk with my last meal. I would have preferred hard labor.

I scanned the back of the book. The protagonists were named Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy, and I gathered that they would end up together after a few misunderstandings and some red herring suitors. How long was this book? Couldn't I just skip to the end? Wasn't Anna Karinina enough punishment for one year? Shouldn't these boring books be spread out a little more?

So I begin reading. Sort of. I put it off, mostly. I didn't care that Darcy didn't dance at the party (I wouldn't have either). Oh, big surprise, Elizabeth has a few other gentleman callers and her designated boyfriend might not get to marry her! I totally didn't see that one coming.

When I got to the second half of the book I started to notice two things.

First of all, Jane Austen is funny - really funny - but it's not easy to pick up on her subtle humor. (When British people are subtle, it's really subtle.) I started to notice that she was making fun of her own storyline and the entire genre of romance literature with each line. This piqued my interest.

Then, the characters began to unfold. I thought I knew Darcy. I didn't. He turned out to be a very complex person, and one of the most interesting characters in all of literature, to me. And Elizabeth won my respect with her deep thoughts and clever ways. But it took time. The book very slowly sheds light on these two people and their true selves. Just like people in real life, the characters in Pride and Prejudice could not be understood easily.

And I started to root for Mr. Darcy. "Don't do that, Elizabeth!" I would say out loud, "Darcy is the right man for you! Leave that other guy alone! He's a loser!"

Then I would ponder what kind of a sissy I had become. I was rooting for the designated couple in a girly romance book - surely this was an action restricted to lonely old ladies! But, alas, there I was, reading the book into the night to be darned sure that she hooked up with my man, Darcy, and not that other loser. I felt like I understood Mr. Darcy, and could imagine wanting a girl like Elizabeth to fall for me. (And when I married my beautiful wife, this came true! But, I digress.) I went to class and pretended that I had hated the book, but I secretly loved it.

I've read/watched/endured other romance stories and very few (if any) of them are enjoyable to me. Romantic stories are terribly predictable and tend to include the same stock characters (sometimes, the same actors over and over in the same roles with the same other actors...) going through the tired old motions again and again. Without interesting characters such a story has no value, and that's why Jane Austen is the greatest writer ever - because she was the first storyteller to make me care about an old-fashioned love story.

Useless Ministries - Misguided Men's Manuals

2011-02-09T10:31:00.000-06:00

Many men's ministries manage magnificently. Minor men's malapropisms may mistakenly mislight, mayhap. Moreover, misaligned masculinity might make more misogynists. (Meh.)

(Apparently I can't write an entire blog entry where each word starts with the same letter without it turning into nonsense. I'm going to stop trying, now. However, you are welcome to attempt to write a clever comment using some form of alliteration if you think you can. I look forward to reading your efforts while I sip my coffee and watch the snow. Moving on.)

Books directed at men have become very popular in the religious sections of bookstores. It started with Wild at Heart, a book that tells men not to act like sissies and is oddly popular with women (I know ladies who read it over and over again and keep it by their bed like a smutty romance novel), and the movement grew large enough to justify its own section of Christian bookstores.

Of course, there are times when men and women need to be ministered to in different ways. For example, according to TV, every man is a boorish and insensitive slob who can't do anything as well as his graceful and clever wife; it's good for men to be told that they are not limited to such an emasculated existence. But often times I see books directed at men that have no reason to be limited to a male audience.

I first noticed this five years ago when a friend handed me a book and said, "This book is about how to live like a man. You should read it."

I stared at him. Was he questioning my manhood? Did he think I spent my time living like a woman? (You see, these books don't always make good gifts.)

There was only one way to settle it, really.

Anyway, I started reading. According to the authors of the book, men should stand up for what's right and always live by their convictions. Boring. Everyone knows that. But I couldn't figure out why this was a book for men. Are women expected to be lukewarm toward their convictions? Should the ladies just flounder about during moral crises until a man can show up to handle things? And why did such an obvious and simple book require two writers? Did they take turns with one man writing the book while the other man kept track of both of their wives' spiritual agendas?

To be fair, I don't think that the authors ever thought of that. They probably just wondered what kind of literature might help men out, and a call to action and moral vigilance was their response. It's actually a good lesson. But it's a good lesson for everyone, and there's no reason to limit encouragement to one group when it's content is not exclusive to them.

Am I saying that people shouldn't write books directed at specific demographic groups? No. I'm saying we should write better ones.

Useless Ministries - The Creation Museum

2011-01-27T09:00:00.011-06:00

Here's a conversation I'm tired of having.

ME: Hello, I heard you asking about Christianity. I am a Believer, myself, and would be happy to talk to you.

STRANGER: Ah, I see. Yeah, Christianity can be confusing for me.

ME: Believe me, I understand. What's on your mind.

STRANGER: Why does the Bible say that people and dinosaurs lived together? Doesn't that make the entire Bible wrong? How can you trust something that is so obviously scientifically wrong?

ME: .......

A long time ago, someone told me that it was speculated (by someone) that dinosaurs may have lived alongside humans. I pondered this. Perhaps some isolated species did survive the extinction and managed to be seen by people. I'm not a scientist, so I don't know how implausible that is, but it sounded interesting. (And, no, it's not in the Bible.)

Little did I know that what was being speculated was different from what I imagined. Scores of people were trying to rewrite history and claim that ancient people had lived alongside dinosaurs and considered these large beasts to be a normal part of life. They even decided that people may have ridden on dinosaurs and used them for labor! That's not what I had in mind.

People in ancient times left us records about the animals they knew. Aristotle even wrote a book on zoology in which he details every creature he'd ever heard of or read about. How good was this work? It was the first scientific writing to point out that whales were mammals and not fish. But he never mentions a dinosaur.

There are no records to back up these wild claims. But there is a entire silly museum devoted to teaching this nonsense. And when I tell people that I'm a believer, do they ask me about Jesus' life on earth or the theology of redemption? No! They just want to laugh at me because of this:

This makes Christianity into a laughing stock, and it keeps people from seeing the beauty of God's Truth. The Creation Museum is fighting the wrong battle.

Useless Ministries - Annoying Street Preachers

2011-01-25T09:00:00.000-06:00

There are almost 7 million people who live in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas - and almost every one of them has been yelled at by the street preachers in Fort Worth.

It's happened every time I go to the Sundance Square area (an otherwise wonderful place). They gather around the block near the parking garages and yell at people who are waiting for the crosswalk signal to say "walk." (Some of us just start running through traffic to get away from them.) They scream in your face about needing to be prepared for the judgment seat and repenting so you don't go to Hell. And they always mention that those of us who are Believers are not safe and must start repenting, too. But it's not the message that annoys people; what is annoying is the hateful and forceful way they scream at people. It's a form of assault, frankly.

Some street preachers stand behind their laurels and say that they are doing God's work and shouldn't be criticized if people are turned off by the message, but that's not what's happening. There is no one who appreciates being verbally attacked for any cause, and no good message can be effectively conveyed this way.

"JESUS LOVES YOU AND HAS A GREAT PLAN FOR YOU! ARE YOU LISTENING? GRRRRR!"

(Totally effective.)

These people are hurting Christianity - not helping it. They are not suffering persecution when they are dismissed by crowds or asked by police officers to leave. They are being very rude, and they are simply not reflecting God's love.

Remember Jesus' ministry? Talking kindly to the woman at the well, forgiving the woman who was about to be stoned to death and criticizing her legalistic accusers, embracing children, and otherwise acting with compassion toward people were His methods That should also be the model for your ministry.

Violent rhetoric is not noble. It's petty.