Moving my blogging to...

For anyone still following here I am permanently moving my blog (and plan to regularly post) to davidgheflin.wordpress.com.  I hope you will follow there.

Chiang Mai, Trip

I am going to Chiang Mai, Thailand for two weeks and I will be blogging but from a DIFFERENT blog...just FYI. That blog can be found at www.DavidGlobalKingdom.tumblr.com. I am seriously considering using that blog for all purposes.

A Christian Response to the Death of Osama Bin Laden

My computer was in my lap as I awaited the important announcement from President Obama on Sunday night. Before the president even spoke, news broke that Osama Bin Laden had been killed in a military operation. Given the startling magnitude of the news, I wanted to follow peoples' reaction in the world of Facebook and Twitter. What transpired was like nothing I had ever witnessed in social media. It began with people simply posting the breaking news. Then statements of celebration followed. However, not too much longer came the posts chiding those who were celebrating for failing to love their enemy. Then full fledged debate and the throwing of scriptural hand grenades were underway!

How Christians should respond to such momentous news that involves the death of another human being is a complex matter. I hope here to articulate a Christian response, but am not claiming to have the Christian response. The fact is that there a lot of tensions in Scripture, and the death of Osama Bin Laden seems to fall right into the middle of such a tension. On the one hand, the Bible clearly contains dozens of passages that call on God for the downfall of the violent and those who oppress others. On the other hand, other passages declare that God himself does not delight in the downfall of the wicked and Jesus called on his followers to love their enemies, exemplified most powerfully in Jesus forgiving his executioners from the cross. For example, compare Ps. 58:10 and Ezek. 33:11. These were just two of the passages being used for the scriptural hand grenades I mentioned above!

Those who were adamantly against the celebrations that broke out on television and the celebratory comments made by their fellow Christians on Facebook look to Jesus as the ultimate example of how to respond to our enemies. So, even if dozens of Psalms and other Old Testament passages seem to give the okay to celebrate the demise of the wicked, such passages are trumped by Jesus and the cross. While I agree that we interpret Scripture with the cross at the center, I am not fond of any interpretative method that simply dismisses the value of large portions of Scripture outright. Besides, even the martyred saints of Revelation--living in a post-cross reality--are portrayed as calling for the vengeance of God upon their enemies, “"How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" (Rev. 6:10).

Once I was in a jury pool and was asked by the D.A. if I cared about the defendant who was accused of murder. As a Christian, even if he had been found guilty, I would still care about him as a human being made in the image of God and would hope for his eventual redemption. This I suspect is how Jesus would have us love our enemies like Osama Bin Laden. We don't hope for their destruction, but for repentance and knowledge of the truth. My answer to the D.A. got me dismissed almost immediately, because she assumed that my concern for the defendant was primary. She never considered my concern and love for the victim and his family as well and therefore my value for justice.

In the case of Osama Bin Laden, we cannot lose sight that while his destruction is tragic because of how sin had so badly warped him, his killing also brings justice and closure to the suffering of thousands. A Christian response will both mourn the tragic consequences of sin that made such a killing necessary, but also rejoice at the arrival of long awaited justice for thousands around the world.

P.S. Some have objected to the use of the word 'justice' in connection with the killing of Bin Laden. Their problem is with viewing America as the purveyor of justice when we (speaking as an American) have our own evils to answer for. But I am not claiming America has the moral high ground nor that America is the ultimate bearer of justice. I would have the same feelings about the matter, if Pakistan had killed Bin Laden. The country who actually brought justice to Bin Laden is immaterial to the point of this post. Justice belongs to God and one thing the Old Testament Scriptures make clear is that God can bring justice through many means, including through nations that may be even more evil than the one he is punishing. The book of Habakkuk especially explores this issue. In any case, there is no hesitation on my part at speaking of the demise of Osama Bin Laden as the justice of God, and therefore he gets the glory. His simple death may not convince all that justice has been served, but we leave matters of justice in the afterlife to God as well.

Lost and World-view

I have watched every episode of Lost since the beginning. That makes me a fan. I never seen any episode more than once, so I guess I am not obsessed. Lost is a clever show that shrouds itself in mystery so that fans have to keep coming back for answers. Lost executive producers, Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof deftly offer just enough of a peek behind the curtains to keep viewers craving more, but never achieving satisfaction.

Those that managed to not get entangled with Lost early on never really understand what all the fuss is about. After all, the idea of plane crash victims stuck on an island that inexplicably moves through time and space, combined with characters living out two timelines (one on the island, one in the regular world--depending on what really happened when the atom bomb went off. See that explains everything!) seems preposterous!

To the credit of the show's creators, the show is written in such a way that a regular watcher of the show begins to buy in. The implausible seems plausible, at least in a world where such an island can exist. But I suspect the show's real success is its willingness to explore real-life mysteries. It blurs the lines between life and death, space and time, destiny and free-will, and faith and science. Lost refuses to come down conclusively on either side of any of these metaphysical questions. So, unless you are a person who wants a simple black-and-white answer to every complexity of life, then you are not driven away by the show's philosophical wrangling. The most devoted believer and the most ardent atheist could enjoy watching Lost together.

Personally, I enjoy a little nuance in life. I am always turned-off by answers to complicated issues that seem too simple, hence my disdain for ideological political gibberish on either side of the aisle. But in a recent interview given by the aforementioned producers of the show, I realized the biggest questions remain unanswered, because they do not believe they answerable, including whether or not there really is a God. Here's a telling piece of that interview (Carroll is the interviewer).

Carroll: It’s like purposefulness versus randomness.

Lindelof:. That’s right. It’s order versus chaos, which is what it always was. But first it had to start as science versus faith, because Jack is a doctor and Locke is a guy who got up from his wheelchair and walked. Now the question has been boiled down to its essential root—is there a God or is there nothingness?

Carroll: Presumably, if it is order versus chaos or purpose versus randomness, there is no right answer. It’s not as if in the finale you’re going to say, “Yup, it was order.”

Cuse: I don’t think there’s a right answer.

It is a frightening thought to consider that we can't really answer the question of purpose vs. randomness or even God vs. nothingness. This is why Leslie Newbigin suggests that post-modernism actually leads to nihilism. Well, Lost is the quintessential postmodern experience.

The vestige of modernism that continues to hold sway over post-modernists is the definition of knowledge. Moderns defined knowledge by what could be empirically proven. In this environment, science became king. Faith was okay, if you needed that sort of thing, but don't mistake it for knowledge! Post-modernism rejects the arrogant confidence of scientific empiricism, but still allows their conception of knowledge to be defined by it, which is why when pushed to its extreme, true knowledge becomes unattainable. In other words, post-modernists agree with moderns that knowledge requires empirical proof, but disagree that even science itself has reached that level on life's biggest questions.

The result is that a post-modern world-view will the hold metaphysical questions of life, such as those portrayed in Lost, as unanswerable. Post-modernists will not ascribe to science omnipotence as moderns did, but simply believes attempts at answers to be futile.

A Christian world-view does not counter by insisting that God is empirically provable, but rather suggests all knowledge involves a commitment, which is to walk by faith. It grounds knowledge/wisdom in the being of God himself. Certainly, Christianity needs to show itself to be intellectually viable (which it is), but it does not bear the burden of the "modern" definition of knowledge. Post-modernists are correct that the biggest questions in life cannot be answered with empirical knowledge. It does not follow, however, that there are no answers!

Jealousy and the Love of God

It is trendy to espouse confidence in the "love of God." Many of my friends on Facebook opt for this emphasis in the box where one can list their religious views instead of "Christian" or their specific denomination. On the one hand, this seems to me a good emphasis. After all, doesn't the Bible say "God is love"? On the other hand, I am not fully convinced that everyone jumping on the "God is love" bandwagon understands what that expression means.

I'll back up a little bit before I go any further. I grew up in a situation where we could hardly ever say "God is love" without having to apologize for it. So, we might say, "God is love, but he is also holy." Or we might feel compelled to emphasize his wrath, judgment, or righteousness anytime we mentioned his love. Since we could never just outright say "God is love," the very statement itself was hard to believe. I still struggle with what should be the overwhelming idea of God's unconditional love for me.

So, I have seen the negative consequences of always needing to qualify the love of God. It leads to a sort of paranoia about God's love and what is really a mistrust regarding the nature of God. So, I don't want to qualify God's love at all. He loves you and me unconditionally, with an intensity that we could never imagine.

Having said that, it does not follow that every person who so eagerly endorses and claims the love of God for their "religious views" understands what God's love means. Quite frankly, I happen to know for a fact that several of these folks (not just my Facebook friends, but those I have encountered through the years who eagerly tell me the "love of God" defines their belief about God) are using their "theology" (to use the term rather loosely) as a blank check to live unholy and uncommitted lives. If God is love, then he would never condemn anyone, never hold anyone responsible for their actions, and never demand anything from anyone. I could say these people have never read their Bible, but I happen to know that is not true (in most cases). The self-deception goes much deeper than simple ignorance of the Scriptures. Instead, they have simply chosen a concept from the Bible (God is love) and used it for their slogan to live however they choose, with no regard of reciprocating the love of God they so readily endorse.

I do not need to qualify God's love, but nor can I define it on my own terms. God's love is a jealous love. Jealousy is usually a negative word, because we react with jealousy in want of something that does not rightfully belong to us. However, could I be said to truly love my wife, if she was unfaithful to me and I was not jealous for her love? I belong to my to wife and she belongs to me. Our love is a jealous love in the best sense of the word.

Now, I am not talking about paranoid spouses who become jealous of their mate every time they have a conversation with someone of the opposite sex. That kind of jealousy is born out of the need to control and dominate. I am speaking of the kind of jealousy and love that truly values the other.

Ex. 34:14 says, "Do not worship any other god, for the LORD (Yahweh), who name is Jealous, is a jealous God." Well, there's a name for God we don't use very often! What if I put in my religious views, "God is jealous"? It is just as true as "God is love." It isn't that God is part love and part jealous, but rather that God's love for us is a jealous love. We belong to God and our devotion rightfully belongs to him and to him alone.

Do we really think that God's love for us is so weak that we can live however we want, serve whomever we want, and not arouse the jealousy of God? If this was the case, then God's love for us wouldn't be any stronger than my love for pasta! God is intensely in love with us. When his people are unfaithful to him and serve other gods he likens it to prostitution and adultery (see the book of Hosea and Jeremiah 5:7 just to mention a couple of examples).

The irony is many who claim that God's love is so great that they can live however they like have actually exchanged the immeasurable love of God for something so watered down it can hardly be described as love. I remember reading or hearing that Oprah Winfrey's big 'aha' religious moment happened at a Baptist church where the preacher read that God was a jealous god. She was turned off by that notion, believing that jealousy was too petty of an emotion for God. So began her departure from the Christian faith. Those who reject the jealously of God, do so because it is a love that demands our faithfulness.

There is a reason why Jesus says, "if you love me, you will keep my commandments." Love that is mere words is simply cheap talk (I've always liked the song More Than Words). If you claim God loves you, then you are absolutely right. If you think such love demands nothing of you, then you do not know the love of God. And if you claim you love God, there is a simple test to prove the validity of your claim. Do you keep his commandments? I'm not talking about an unattainable perfection, but a devotion of the heart that anyone could witness and exclaim, "Now there's a man (or woman) who loves God."

The Scandal of Particularity:Can you be a Christian and not believe Jesus is the only way to God?

A recent report from Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion says that 80% of Americans claim to be Christian. This doesn't surprise me. Christianity is sort of the default religion of America. If you are not Buddhist or Muslim, then you must be Christian. Of course, there is a growing number of those claiming no religion or atheism, but it seems the numbers claiming Christianity basically have held steady over the years.

As a side note, this does not mean church attendance has remained steady. Surveys continue to indicate that people (especially the millennial generation) are less willing to associate themselves with "institutions" or "organized religion." It seems for many claiming to be Christians, they have no regard for the body of Christ--the Church. I suppose, however, that's a topic for another blog.

The other interesting--almost bewildering--stat to come out of that report was that 75% of Americans think that many religions lead to eternal life. Now, I'm not very good at math, but you don't have to be to realize that if 75% of folks think many religions lead to eternal life and 80% claim to be Christians then there is a lot of overlap in those two numbers. It appears a sizable majority of those claiming to be Christians believe there are many paths to everlasting bliss.

Now I didn't see how the questions were framed. It may be that some are simply indicating that their "denomination" isn't the only way to heaven. Though I really don't think the Pew folks (they are quite reputable) would be so sloppy in how they worded their questions. So, what does this poll data tell us? Quite frankly, that a lot of those claiming to be Christians don't even know what being a Christian means.

Christianity by definition is to believe and follow Jesus as Lord of all. It necessarily means and is, in fact, a commitment to the tenet that Jesus is the only way to God (and the heaven that comes with it). This doesn't mean that God couldn't save people who were totally ignorant of the gospel. God can save whom he pleases and how that applies to those who have never heard the gospel is a different discussion. To openly profess to be a Christian and then suggest that Christianity is one of many paths to God is a contradiction in terms. It is kind of like saying you love to sail, but hate the water. It doesn't make any sense.

This kind of gap in logical coherence is usually attributed to our post-modern culture and the idolization of tolerance as its chief virtue. Undoubtedly, this is a huge factor. But the scandal of particularity goes further back than then latest cultural phenomenon. God revealed himself particularly to the Jews and then particularly through Jesus. Much of Roman culture characterized early Christians as atheists, because they rejected the Greek/Roman gods in favor of the confession that "Jesus is Lord."

It seems that many in our culture want to have it both ways. They want Jesus as a convenient Savior, but post-modern toleration (pluralism) as Lord. The Christian confession is and always will be that Jesus is Lord. For those that claim to be Christians, but reject the exclusive nature of Christianity's claim, it seems they have a choice to make. Either they will serve the cultural gods of pluralism, relativism, and toleration, or they will serve Jesus as Lord. "But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve...But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD" (Josh. 24:15).

Does it Matter What You Think About God?

Recently, I had a brief exchange on a Yahoo! discussion board about whether or not it really matters what you think about God. It is another manifestation of the old debate regarding the relevance of theology. Those that would argue for a connection between theology and the real world are losing traction in a post-modern age. How can it can really matter what a person thinks about God, if such thoughts are restricted to the thinker's private mind. In our post-modern world, you are supposed to keep such thoughts to yourself, lest they come across as intrusive or offensive to what someone else may privately think.

I opened this discussion, on my group page, by quoting the famed theologian A.W. Tozer. He opens his magnum opus, The Knowledge of the Holy by saying, "What comes into our mind when we think about God is the most important thing about us." Such a statement assaults the post-modern mind, which values a supposed set of shared common values, which cannot possibly be related to something as scandalous as what a person actually thinks about God!

I remember watching a celebration of such "common values" when the networks aired Michael Jackson's memorial service. The celebrity supporters gathered and serenaded the audience with an emotional rendition of "We Are the World." Behind them various religious symbols from all faiths were projected onto screens as they sang. The message was clear. We are the world and it doesn't matter what religion you practice. As human beings we are all united by the fact we share this world.

The problem of such a Utopian ideal is, of course, that it is patently untrue. We are not the world in any unified sense. We usually can't even get along in our own neighborhoods. We are a world living under the threat of constant terrorism, fractured by multiple wars, indifferent to the suffering of so many in our world, unmoved to lift our hands together against poverty and starvation, and holding little regard for justice unless we ourselves are treated unjustly.

Could it be that what we think about God might impact us a little more than many post-modern pundits would have us to believe? In reading through the Old Testament, one cannot help but to be struck by how different (holy) the people of God (Israel) were to live. What they thought about God made all the difference in the world. They were to care about justice, because they served a just God, even one who loved the alien among them. They were to have a compassion on the poor, the orphan, and the widow, because their God was a God abounding in love and compassion.

As the story of Israel goes, they often forgot their theology. They turned and worshiped other gods, including Molech. In doing so, they abandoned compassion and began to sacrifice their children by fire. How could they do such a reprehensible deed? Because they exchanged the holy and loving Yahweh for the unholy and unloving god Molech.

You can't force anyone to think about God the way you do, though it might be good to be verbally and kindly persuasive, if possible. My point is that what you think about God has everything to do with the kind of person you are and the life you live. Nothing about us could be more relevant. We become like what we worship.

The gods of today are not so despicable as Molech (in most cases), so we don't have people sacrificing their children in the fire. I recognize the common human dignity we share with all people on the planet and I do not doubt that people of all religions or no religion can do amazingly good deeds and admirable acts of compassion. There is a sense that a basic set of common values are evident to all regardless of their theology. As a theologian, I would argue that such values are obvious only because we are created in the image of God.

However, in the end, we are still becoming like whom we worship. So, isn't it amazing that in living in such an enlightened culture that so extols the virtues of common values that we have sacrificed untold millions of unborn children to the gods of choice, individualism, and convenience? Is this the world meant by Jackson's "We Are the World"? Are we capable of such capricious elimination of life and at the same time rousing demonstrations of compassion, like we have seen in the aftermath of the Haiti quake?

This is simply the reality of being human beings with our all too common values. As long as we worship humankind as the highest ideal we will never transcend that reality. Maybe Tozer was right: "What comes into our mind when we think about God is the most important thing about us."

Tim Tebow vs. Planned Parenthood

Superbowl advertising's biggest controversy is usually who has the funniest commercial. Surprisingly, this year's Superbowl advertising will not be all fun and games, but instead is a venue for one of culture's greatest divides: pro-life vs. pro-choice. The participants in this heavy-weight bout are the Heisman and national championship icon Tim Tebow with his mother and pro-choice advocate Planned Parenthood.

Tim is the son of missionary parents that served in the Philippines. When Tim's mother, Pam, was pregnant with Tim she had complications, and so a doctor recommended Pam have an abortion for her own safety. Obviously, she disregarded this advice and gave birth to Tim, who has since become of of college football's most celebrated athletes and a very outspoken voice in the Christian community.

So, now enter the Christian advocacy group Focus on the Family who invited Pam and Tim to do the ad, which will emphasize the theme "Celebrate Life, Celebrate Family." CBS, host of the Superbowl, is airing the ad despite policies against showing controversial advocacy ads. Their take seems to be that this is just a positive story about a high profile family and is not intended to condemn abortion or its advocates.

Not surprisingly, Planned Parenthood finds such a position disingenuous on the part of CBS and Focus on the Family. But unable to muster enough public pressure to get CBS to pull the ad, they responded by creating their own ad on You Tube. So, the battle is underway.

I imagine that more controversy would have been caused by pulling the ad than letting it air, since they had already agreed to do so. Tebow is unbelievably popular and if he's got a story to tell, then he will get to tell that story. I, for one, am glad he gets to tell it, along with his mom. Tim Tebow was not just a disposable fetus in his mother's womb, and as living breathing proof of that fact, pro-choice groups feel threatened by him and his mother speaking out for life.

I've seen the Planned Parenthood ad and is respectfully and tastefully done. Yet, this controversy demonstrates this debate is far from over. There has been evidence that a lot of Americans are ready to move past this debate both in the political and religious arena. I am not sure myself that the battle for life has always been fought wisely and effectively. However, there are so many lies that are circulated by the pro-choice community (many of which I am sure they sincerely believe) that I believe there must always be a counter-voice, a voice that will speak up for the most helpless of all humans--the unborn.

Many that have pro-life leanings but are ready to move past the debate do not understand fully what is at stake. I may not be a Catholic, but I always appreciate a good writer. Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, wrote a great book called Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures. It isn't all about abortion, but it contains the best pro-life argument I have ever read. In it he says, "First, there are no 'small murders.' The respect of every human life is an essential condition if a societal life worthy of the name is to be possible. Secondly, when a man's consciousness loses respect for life as something sacred, he inevitably ends by losing his own identity" (60).

What is at stake in a culture that treats unborn life as disposable tissue is the very destruction of the meaning of human life, not just for the unborn, but for the born. Life itself has lost its very sacredness and society becomes a veritable hell on earth where every decision is made in the name of individual convenience and thus ushers in the death of compassion and civility. I am glad for the Tim Tebows of our nation that very well may help us hold back that awful reality foreseen by Ratzinger.

Holy Bothering

Based on my past experience, I am not the greatest candidate to read the entire Bible through in a calendar year. The truth is that I have often questioned the value behind such an approach, which probably contributes to my failure rate (100%) in attempting this endeavor. I feel like if I read three chapters a day over the course of the year that I will not be very good at reading other books that also help me grow spiritually and assist me in ministry. On the other hand, I could certainly gain from developing the habit of daily Bible reading.

However with all that said, it bothers me that I have never read the Bible cover to cover (which is way more important than those other books I like to read). So, I decided on a new strategy; I would read nothing else but the Bible for four months. If I read nine chapters a day, then I will finish the Bible in that time period instead of a year. I started on January 5th and so far so good. I finished the Pentateuch yesterday. It has really been an eye-opening experience to read so much of the Bible at such a rapid pace. You may lose the ability to dwell on details, but you gain something in regards to the connected themes of the Bible.

I read Genesis through Leviticus before taking a break from the Pentateuch to read Mark. It was amazing to experience just how different reading the teachings and actions of Jesus was compared to reading the Pentateuch. Though much more interesting, I could not read Mark as fast. The words of Jesus "give us pause" to quote a good friend.

There is a lot of fascinating material in the Pentateuch, but I confess that there are a lot of things that bother me. Let's be honest; they probably bother you too. I don't feel like men and women are treated equally or even valued equally under the Mosaic Law, but I will leave that topic for another day. I will only add that yes it is true that the Law of Moses was much more considerate of women than other Ancient Near Eastern law codes, but that doesn't necessarily explain away all the inequalities between men and women under the Law of Moses.

Yet, what is truly bothersome is the frequent command to either stone or burn or otherwise cut off from his or her people those foolish enough to transgress God's law. To be sure, God differentiates between those that simply make a mistake (unintentional sin) and those that willingly transgress. Still, there is death for those who blaspheme, takes the name of God in vain, worship idols, practice sorcery, divination, witchcraft, rebels against their parents, desecrates the Sabbath, commits adultery, etc. All of this threat of death reminds me of growing up with the threat of hell constantly proclaimed and seared into our consciousness.

Late we see the flaws in such an approach. We find ourselves far more motivated by grace and the love of God than threat of punishment, and indeed this seems to be a consistent emphasis in the New Testament. It is present in the Old Testament as well (just as the threat of hell is present in the New), but what gives with the extreme threat of punishment in the Old Testament for offenses that many of us (if not all) have committed?!

Well, the truth is that our modern sensitivities, evidenced by the fact that many consider lethal injection to be cruel and unusual punishment, has little chance of truly comprehending life and death in the Ancient Near Eastern world. Also, we elevate individual rights and dignity to such an extreme that is hard for us to understand how stoning an individual (or in some cases his entire family) for the benefit of the entire community (or nation) was more sensible than showing individual compassion.

Yet, what we really don't get is far more important than the differences in modern and Ancient Near Eastern sensitivities. We simply don't understand the holiness of God. I suggest the Pentateuch is really about two related themes. The first is the narrative of God's developing relationship with his people--the call of Abraham, the Patriarchs, the journey to Egypt, his dramatic rescue through Moses, the Wandering, and the preparation for entering the Land. The second theme is God's gracious willingness to dwell amongst his people, evidenced by the manifestation of his glory at the Tabernacle.

All of the sacrifices, the laws, the death penalties, etc. exist so that God's people will not be consumed by the holiness of God. Yes, God values every individual but not so much that he will allow sin in the camp to threaten the entire community. God's holiness cannot abide sin and rebellion. So, the people are to be holy as he is holy. If your actions threaten this tenuous relationship between God and his people, then you are going to be eliminated (a constant refrain is "the sin must be purged from among you").

We take holiness for granted, because we rightly believe that we are made holy by the blood of Jesus. We know that no amount of law keeping could truly make us holy. But with the passage of time, and our general neglect of the Old Testament, we forget just how holy God is. Then we forget just how holy we are supposed to be. Yes, the blood of Jesus is a better motivator for holiness than the threat of being stoned, but there is also an even greater price to pay for making a mockery of that blood and the holiness it brings. It means we are "crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace" (Heb. 6:6). In doing this, we separate ourselves from God forever.

Peter tells his audience, quoting Leviticus, to be holy as God is holy (1 Pet. 1:16). Being holy as God is holy begins with recognizing just how holy God is. I think we had better read the Old Testament with the humility to learn instead of rendering modern day assessments that have no regard for the holiness of God!

Thoughts on Unity

I began my new ministry in Portales with a sermon on unity from John 17, which contains the great prayer of unity offered by Jesus before his crucifixion. Just like many concerned Christians, I have often thought about unity, but have rarely come up with any novel approaches to address the division that is throughout Christendom.

Usually when this topic is addressed to a particular divided group, John 17 is highlighted and an emotional appeal is articulated for Christians to honor the prayer of Jesus and just be united. Complimenting this appeal is usually some proclamation that our differences are for the most part petty and that what we have in common is far more precious than what we don't. This kind of approach usually gets the gathered emotionally committed to unity. There is a spirit of repentance and togetherness. The songs and prayers are accompanied by tears and embrace. Someone will usually say this is a glimpse of heaven.

But then those of the gathered assembly go their separate ways and we have to ask the question: was any real unity accomplished? Christian Church and Churches of Christ had a round of such gatherings in 2006 --marking the hundred year anniversary of their split. They repudiated such a split and affirmed all they had in common, but is that unity?

I have a couple of problems with making unity the end goal of our efforts: one practical and one theological. The practical concern involves trying to decide what unity looks like. Unity becomes an ambiguous ideal, one that no one is ever sure when it is truly accomplished. Speakers that often opine about unity rarely will tell their audience "we will know that we are united when..." Would we all have to worship together on Sundays for this ideal to become reality? Or is unity merely acknowledging we have the same Savior and that we won't throw spiritual stones at each other anymore (this would certainly be an improvement)? The only worthy vision of unity, in my view, is the one in which we can all assemble as one people to praise the Lamb on the throne (cf. Rev. 5). I don't know that we can get there this side of eternity.

My theological concern is that as I read scripture, unity is not something we can accomplish. This has been played out in our own Restoration history. Declaration and Address was signed just over 200 years ago by Thomas Campbell and others with the vision that all denominational lines would simply dissolve into the greater union of believers. Sounds great, but the patternist approach--the idea that we would all be unified by simply following a supposedly obvious New Testament pattern--was ultimately doomed to add more factions than it would ever contribute to the cause of unity.

Rather unity is given and accomplished by God through the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Go back and read John 17. Is there any place in that prayer that calls on the disciples to create unity? Go read Eph. 4:3, "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace." Our role in unity is to maintain what has already been created and given. We do not create unity, though we certainly can and do create division.

So, does this mean we can do nothing regarding the division we see throughout Christendom or even amongst our fellowship and congregations? Absolutely not. We can begin to make strides in enjoying greater unity when we realize that such unity is given by Jesus and not created by us. We can better focus then on being the disciples and the church we are supposed to be and when this begins to happen unity amongst ourselves and others will increase. We don't rally around unity; we rally around the cross. But when you find a whole lot of disciples at the cross, you will find them united!

Obviously, where we have contributed to division and factions we need to repent, be humble, and ask for forgiveness. This will allow the gift of God's unity to wash away the walls of division and hostility that we have erected. We can't solve the division we see all around us and around this world, but perhaps we can start with this humility and seek to enjoy the unity already given to us in Christ Jesus!

Hell on Christmas

What kind of person thinks about the troublesome doctrine of hell during the Christmas season? Hey, I can't control when the thoughts occur. After all, this is "preacher thoughts" and such thoughts are not inclined to follow the liturgical calendar. (For the record, I love Christmas and love to reflect on the birth of Immanuel during this time).

Actually, it was a conversation about Christmas that led to my thoughts on hell. I was watching a news commentator interview a president of some free thought organization that capitalized on the holiday season to spread their message of godlessness and the triumph of reason (we might ask them where does reason come from and how do we know it is indeed reasonable, but that's for another blog). What the woman found most objectionable about faith in the biblical god was--no surprise--the doctrine of hell. She viewed it as a terrifying means of indoctrinating children into staying in the faith.

Hey, I am sympathetic to her concern. I have sat across the table from Buddhists in Japan who could not consider becoming a Christian, because they thought it meant they accepted their deceased loved one was in eternal torment. At that point, it really doesn't matter if your doctrine of hell is eternal conscious torment or annihilation. Hell is the final and complete separation from God and all things good and holy. There is no way to sugarcoat it.

Postmoderns hate the doctrine of hell, because it represents the ultimate exclusion in a world of inclusion (that latter point may be debatable, but this is the way postmoderns see the world or at least how they think the world should be).

But let's be real honest for a moment. It is not possible to be a Christian who relies on the authority of Scripture for the understanding of his/her faith to reject the doctrine of hell. Many Christians claim not to believe in hell. Fair enough, but they have rejected biblical authority. There's simply no way around that.

Biblical Christians should remember that we cannot say with certainty who is consigned to hell, nor has that ever been our job. We can handle this topic of hell with much more humility and sensitivity than we have in the past.

Yet, I imagine if I asked the aforementioned free-thinking lady if she desired justice in this world, she would say yes. Now again there is a problem with reconciling the concept of justice with an atheistic worldview, but leaving that aside, most will agree that justice is desired and found severly lacking in our world.

So, you tell me; is it better for their to be a hell or for those responsible for enslaving 250,000 Haitan children to escape justice in this world and the next? There can be no justice, if injustice is not rectified in the world to come (because I don't see it happening in this world). So, if there is no hell, then there is no justice. But the Christian God is a just God. We may just need to do a better job of remembering and communicating that fundamental aspect of our theology.

Does God care what choice we make all the time?

I finally concluded a 5 and a 1/2 month job search this week. We are moving to Portales, NM where I will be the new pulpit minister at the 3rd and Kilgore Church of Christ (http://www.3kchurch.org/). Of course, we are both relieved and excited, but there were so many lessons learned through the thoroughly exhausting journey.

I applied to 23 churches over five months and, of course, in the end there was only one standing. Along the way I withdrew my candidacy from several, but many took care of that for me! I had two in-person interviews that did not result in an offer, and obviously one that did. I turned down three interviews at the end, because my search was concluded, but there was a touch of irony there. For over three months, I couldn't buy an interview and then in the last few weeks I had back-to-back to interviews and three invitations!

Because there were so many opportunities swirling around me at the end, I thought the decision would be rather complicated. My mother-in-law kept saying that the decision would become clear when it came time to decide. I love her, but I didn't believe her. I thought, how do you know God will make it clear? Is God under any obligation to make it clear? Could he present two (or more) totally acceptable, but not obviously clear choices and be pleased with either choice?

When the church in Portales made their offer it still was not very clear. But then an amazing thing happened ; less than 48 hours from the time of the offer, God made it crystal clear what we were to do. My mother-in-law was right!

Who can say that God always has to work one way or another? I don't know that he always has to get us to a specific location/situation. We are movable parts on a big playing field (the Kingdom), so God is not hamstrung, if someone chooses one place over another. However, in this case, God seemed to want us in Portales. I like the peace that comes with that kind of clarity!

Making Peace with Postmodernism

I can remember when the subject of postmodernism was a trendy topic at every Bible lectureship. In fact, in the mid-to-late nineties you didn't really have a legitimate lectureship without a class on postmodernism. I attended some of these classes until I got tired of hearing the same stuff over and over again.

Looking back on our (speaking from my experience in Churches of Christ) early tone and rhetoric, I would say it was skeptical at best and down-right combative at worst. Postmodernism was viewed as the great cultural threat to the Church or even to the very concept of objective truth in general. It seemed that no matter how many lectureships and articles we produced on postmodernism that we usually always focused on its emphases of pluralism and insistence on subjectivity. If anyone dared to raise a positive element of postmodernism, they were usually eyed with suspicion...maybe they don't believe in objective truth either.

Now keep in mind that this is mainly my subjective recollection. I am sure we produced some fine scholarly work on the relationship between postmodernism and the gospel, but I was either to simplistic to recognize it, or I just never went on a hunt to find it.

Still I bet my recollection isn't too far off. It seems to me that our analysis of postmodern culture is much more sophisticated today. We recognize that both subjectivity and pluralism present challenges for those of the Christian faith. However, I think we eventually began to realize we were critiquing postmodernism from a modern vantage point (which is full of anti-Christian bias as well, but that is the subject of another blog) instead of a biblical/Christian worldview critique.

Now we seem to appreciate that postmoderns place a great emphasis on authentic relationships and spirituality. Postmodernism also keeps us honest in forcing us to own up to the reality that we all have biases. Truth itself may not be subjective, but we cannot evaluate truth claims in a detached and objective manner. Objective truth is still disseminated through the subjective individual. Christians are finally beginning to see the rationale in putting down our combative rhetoric against postmodernism and instead learning to contextualize the gospel for a postmodern audience.

In some ways, we are making peace with postmodernism; not because we think it is thoroughly biblical (and we must know and show where it is not), but because we realize that is no less biblical than the modernism that preceded it. Or maybe its because we finally realized that instead of focusing all of our energy on condemning the prevailing culture, we had better start finding a way to redeem it.

A good read on this subject (especially for preachers, but for all church leaders too) is Chris Altrock's Preaching to Pluralists: How to Proclaim to Christ in a Postmodern age.

Lack of Wisdom in Obama's War on Fox

This is my first non-theological post (though ultimately everything is theological!). We will call this a political post; I guess. I have been quite appalled at the Obama administration's efforts to marginalize Fox News. I think it is very unwise and actually petty.

First a couple of qualifiers. I am not anti-Obama. I never have been. I almost voted for him, but couldn't pull the trigger because of his pro-choice record. Still, when I voted for McCain, it was one of those 51/49 kind of decisions. In the end, I had to vote with my heart (instinct). Regardless, I have never bashed Obama and never cheered for him to fail. I hoped his policies would succeed in getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. I have been directly impacted by this woeful economy. How could I not pray for the success of his economic stimulus?

I am also not all that upset about his health care reform. I despise health insurance companies and it is absurd that there are nearly fifty million Americans without health insurance. The Bush administration had eight years to do address this crippling issue, but apparently found it not politically expedient to lift a finger for reform. I believed that Obama's election victory granted him a mandate to try it his way.

Yet, all of the above demonstrates the foolishness of what Obama is doing in relation to Fox News. If you haven't followed the story, Obama's aides have been lambasting the Fox network to other media outlets, refusing to acknowledge it as new agency, admonishing other media outlets to ignore stories that break on Fox, and refusing interviews to the network while making the rounds with all the rest.

See, I watch Fox News. I don't like all of their commentary programs (Beck andHannity), but I enjoy O'Reilley and the news coverage in general. When the President marginalizes Fox News, they marginalize me (and other folks like me). Guess what Obama administration? I am not a rank and file Republican or right-wing nut-job who likes to get his ideology massaged by watching Fox News. I am an independent swing voter and there are millions out there similar to me.

Furthermore, the paranoia necessary to fuel a war on America's #1 watched cable news channel is downright disconcerting and beneath the dignity of the presidency. Are they so thin-skinned in the White House that they can't tolerate any dissenting voices? Are their egos stroked so frequently by MSNBC and other such media outlets that they are shocked beyond belief when they encounter criticism? Is it really in America's best interest to try to silence your opposition?

Here's hoping President Obama and staff get wise, because their current path concerns me. If they don't, then the swing voters they are alienating will having something to say in the ballot boxes soon enough.

The Lie of Simplicity

I recently shared with an e-mail list that I have been on for over ten years that I had finished my Master's Degree in Theology and Ethics. As I expected most were happy for me and just took the opportunity to express congratulatory sentiments and then went right back to arguing the hot topic of the day. Yet one member in particular used the occasion to proclaim her tired old talking point of simplicity. She did this by questioning whether or not I had or would allow my education with its fancy degrees and titles to corrupt my understanding of the simplicity of the gospel and scriptures.

Those of us who hang out in Restoration Movement circles hear this sort of "reasoning" often. It is understandable, really. Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone believed that the unity of Christian church had been compromised by church councils and their creeds. What was needed--no what was required--was a return to the simplicity of the Scriptures. To whatever degree they were correct about councils and creeds muddying up the waters, so to speak, can you see the problem in their approach? They went to the scriptures assuming simplicity. You usually find what you are looking for. This had a lot to do with the influence of Scottish Common Sense Realism, but that's a blog for another day. I just say it now, so you know I am not making this stuff up out of thin air.

A lot of the focus on simplicity was to blur or even erase the line between clergy and laity. You didn't need a degree in theology to understand the scriptures. Anyone could open the Bible, read it, and grasp its clear presentation of simple facts (the Bible as a collection of facts was distinctively a Campbell emphasis). In many ways they were right, of course. You didn't need a degree to understand the Bible, but it doesn't mean that you read it apart from any sophistication, nuance, or discipline. Yet, as with most well-meaning movements, out went the baby with the bathwater.

So, my list friend who used my recent academic achievement as her latest soap box to proclaim the gospel of simplicity got me to thinking. Is the word even in the Bible? Because if not, there is great irony in the simplicity advocates calling for a return to the simple reading of scripture, if simplicity itself is conspicuously absent from the Bible! I did a quick search on www.biblegateway.com with several versions and could not find even one form of the word simple (there might be synonyms or similar ideas, and I am not saying that the word doesn't exist in any modern English translation or that I know the Greek/Hebrew equivalents. I am just using this search for illustrative purposes).

Your level of education has little to do with your ability to read and comprehend scripture. However, the notion that the Bible is inherently simple is a myth not worthy of the God who inspired it. Discipline, training, practice, and reading in community with other believers are all aspects of successful Bible reading/study. One of the errors of Restoration Movement fathers was that in advocating the correct position that all could read scripture, they also unwittingly proliferated the rampant American individualism that survives today. We don't learn scripture best alone.

I suspect instead fear is part of what upholds this unbiblical notion of the simplicity of scriptures. We are afraid of what we don't understand. God doesn't fit into our box as well, if we can't simplify his revelation. We don't want the tensions produced by the doctrines of the incarnation, trinity, atonement, predestination/free will, etc. The very subject nature of the Bible precludes the very notion of simplicity. Yet, where mystery abounds, it should humble us and leave us in awe of God (cf. Rom. 11:33-36).

A pledge and update

I confess I've been a terrible blogger in terms of consistent posting. The result? No regular readers and a long uphill battle to build up any. But if you do stumble across this blog and find it interesting, then my pledge is to write more often and perhaps be less one dimensional in the variety of topics I cover. Still, expect most of my posts to be theological in nature.

As it turns out, I am currently unemployed and have more time to write. I need to keep myself sharp and this blog will hopefully be therapeutic, even if no one reads.

So, a preacher can get laid off too. No real surprise there, but this is a time where I am having to practice what I preach. I've told the congregation that God is always with them no matter what they go through. Now, do I really believe it for myself? Intellectually, the answer is, of course, yes. Yet, it is a whole other matter to live that intellectual belief out in our everyday lives.

So, perhaps (for my imaginary readership), I will try to keep you posted as we try to discern God's will for our future.

Eschatological Church?

A professor recently remarked in class that true growing churches (i.e. those making conversions) are eschatological churches. If you don't know what that word means, it is a theological word that means end times or study of last things.

He did not mean that growing churches spend all their time reading the "Left Behind" series or obsessing about the antichrist. He meant that churches on the move are churches who really believe they are going somewhere. They are not just churches who offer the latest financial management or marriage enrichment seminar. They are not just sending a message that says,"Hey, we know life is miserable, so come and be a little less miserable with us!" He meant these churches have a sense of purpose and resolve which betrays an authentic belief that the people of God are moving towards a "new heaven and a new earth."

For the record, I am not premillenial, and nor do I believe that a specific antichrist (don't we have a lot of those in the world already?) has to come before the end of time. Jesus could bring time to an end before I finish writing this blog or before you finish reading it! But I do believe in the final consummation of the kingdom of God and the ushering in of the new heave an new earth. I believe every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord (cf. Phil. 2:5ff).

Yet, I was convicted by the professor's words. I am a preacher and I couldn't conclude that my preaching reflected this eschatological urgency he was addressing. Shouldn't every sermon and every lesson at least hint of this final conclusion of history and express confidence in the victory of the Lamb and the people of God?

What a powerful message in a world torn apart by war, poverty, disease, sin, and death! Are we just inviting people along on a journey to nowhere? Or are we offering something utterly transcendent to this world of sin and death? "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away...and he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain..." (Rev. 21:1-4).

Scholarship and Faith

A friend on "Facebook" had this interesting (and convicting?) quote under his favorite quotes. "The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole like will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church's prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament." Soren Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard was never one to mince words, but now he's gone to meddling. I love my theological education (ongoing). But I know the experience about which he writes. Many years ago, in preaching school, I nearly fell into a depression, because the more I studied the Bible the more I felt like a pitiful disciple of Jesus. That wasn't a healthy place to be.

Yet, I am sure at time I have strayed to the other extreme. The more I studied, the more the Bible became an academic exercise, meant to be analyzed, scrutinized, and theologically categorized. Living it? Obeying it? As soon as I get done studying it.

But this is not a problem just in academic settings. This is a problem that infects the Churches of Christ, the Restoration Movement, and other communities who emphasize the study of the Bible as the height of Christian activity. A few times I have tried to reduce the amount of time we spent in communal Bible study, so that we could do some ministry for others together. The result? Well, let's just say we are back to spending all of our time in Bible study.

It is clear to me that we have made Bible study as the height of Christian discipleship. One man in my congregation can hardly forgo a single class without quoting from 2 Tim. 2:15; "Study to show thyself approved..." Studying the Bible is great. It is empowering. But empowering to what? If it is just so I know more answers than the Baptist church down the road, then it is meaningless. It should empower us to live it, to obey it. Let's not be busy studying the Bible that we have no time to carry the cross.

What does God require of you?

Can there be a more important question? Once you determined you believe in God, then this is the next big question. How do I stay on his good side? How do I have a relationship with the Creator of the universe? I think it is interesting how we often define faithfulness and discipleship by what we do during an hour or so a week on Sunday. I am not diminishing that at all, but it is as if we believe if we sing right, do communion right, baptism, prayer, etc. that God will be pleased with us.

The ironic thing is that we love to heap scorn on the ancient Israelites. They thought that if they kept the sacrifices coming, then they were pleasing to God. When confronted with their covenant breaking they responded to Yahweh (and Micah) with this attitude: "With what shall we come before the LORD and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?"

Are we so different than them? Do we not believe that if we offer up thousands of prayers, ten thousands of songs, and perfect ritualistic observation of baptism and communion that he will be pleased? Do we not believe that if we are confronted with unfaithfulness that we must immediately address one of these areas?

Yahweh's response: "He has showed you, O' man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."

There is great grace in that simplicity of that statement. But don't be fooled; it is easier to simply believe correctly performed rituals is the key to pleasing God than to actually try to live the way he has called us. It is a lot easier to come to church than it is to pick up our cross and follow Jesus. Yet true freedom and life is walking humbly with our God.

Will you walk with me? I stumble often. Maybe we can help each other along the way. God, may you grant us the grace to humbly walk with you and honestly examine ourselves when we place confidence in ritual over you.

The nexus between faith and politics

I am sure this is a popular topic these days. We live in an age where a candidate is probably coached to reference God a certain amount of times per speech. Isn't that interesting, when the perception is that God isn't so popular in America any more? Well, most Americans want to believe that their candidate believes in God, but don't want them to allow their faith to influence their public policy. Such a thing is absurd, of course, if faith is real at all, it cannot be tucked away at home.

Still, sometimes the "God talk" unnerves me as well, if not for the same reasons. I get nervous, if a candidate is claiming for themselves or their party to be the voice for God. I get even more nervous when I see Christians believing that a particular party would be the party for Jesus. Both parties have good emphases and both parties have points that would certainly be pleasing to Jesus. However, both parties are defined by their ideologies and their constituents not Jesus of the Bible.

Jesus is abhorred at some of the practices and beliefs of our two major parties. I can never see Jesus going around talking about a woman's right to choose when that choice requires the sacrifice of the most innocent of lives. I cannot imagine Jesus would approve of a party filling their coffers with the likes of the NRA, Big Tobacco, or the ACLU.

Some might suggest that Jesus would just stay out of politics all together. I'm not suggesting that Jesus would run for office, but the teaching of Jesus and the kingdom of God shake the very foundation of all political structures. The question is what would Jesus have his people do in a society where they can literally influence the society at large with kingdom values. Would he have them set on the sidelines, if their involvement would mean more justice to the fringes of society, the very people that Jesus' kingdom message purports to include?

I say Jesus would have us be involved in the political process. It doesn't mean that every person has to be a political activist. We all have different callings. However, a totally passive response might be to neglect justice for those that desperately need it.

Jesus would have us care for the un-born, because they don't have a voice to protect themselves. Jesus would have us care for the poor, because they are always close to his heart. Jesus would have us stand against racism, for he has made a kingdom of all nations and tribes. Jesus has many concerns in this world. I believe our major role in politics is to give voice to the voiceless. I have been heavily influenced by Jim Wallis and John Yoder in this, even though I don't agree with them on all points. They do articulate an exclusive allegiance to Jesus over any party or political system. I couldn't agree more.