"I do not believe one can settle how much we ought to give. I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare." -- C.S. Lewis
I have been rereading C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity over the last two weeks and have found it to be just as wonderful as the first time I read it...and a bit challenging. The theological challenges I will save for some later blog, but I will share a few timely thoughts that challenged me on a personal level.
In discussing Charity, Lewis speaks of Love as a force that drives us to meet others' needs - which is why the older English word "charity" now means giving aid to the poor almost exclusively instead of meaning love in a broader sense like it once did.
So here is my question for me (and you, since you are reading this), can I truly be thankful if I am not also charitable? Is it truly thanksgiving to say, thanks, now give me more or must there be an element of thank you Lord, for your overflowing grace and goodness, I am compelled to share some of it with those who are less fortunate. I believe the latter is what is required...
In connection with that (loosely), tomorrow is Black Friday, a day dedicated to a shopping orgy in worship of consumerism. Olivia Zaleski wrote a wonderful blog about her commitment to family over shopping this year. You can check it out here.
Also in the news is an interesting piece about crucifixes that are being made in china by under-aged women who work seven days a week for less than $.30 an hour. I have always hated the cheesy crap sold at Christian book stores next to incredibly valuable books (like the invaluable witnessing tool, the Test-a-Mint)...and have often suspected we should avoid them not just because they were trashy...but also because they were likely being produced in a country like China where human rights violations are the order of the day and by buying this stuff we were in fact violating the Scriptural mandate to stand for social justice over consumeristic value.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Perfectly Timed Photos
If you haven't seen these photos yet, take the time and visit this link. This blog lists 25 perfectly timed photos - it was a very cool waste of time. Some of them are very artistic, some a bit disturbing, and a bunch of them quite funny.
Enjoy!
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Find out who to vote for with Glassbooth
I visited a site called Glassbooth.org and after giving different issues different weights of importance and taking a brief quiz, I was told which candidate matched most closely with my views. I was expecting Huckabee...what I got was Obama (78%)! Huckabee came in a lowly 64%.
Whoda guessed it?
Why not find out which candidate most closely matches your views?
Click here to go to the quick quiz (they do not collect any personal information to take the quiz).
Whoda guessed it?
Why not find out which candidate most closely matches your views?
Click here to go to the quick quiz (they do not collect any personal information to take the quiz).
Friday, November 02, 2007
Islamic Cleric Plays Dr. Phil on Arabic TV
Wow. I picked this story up over at Foxnews and found it ... weird and disturbing. These Saudi guys know how to put the fun into fundamentalism.
Here's the deal: A Cleric goes on Arabic TV and dispenses some great (cough cough) marriage advice. He advocates everything from not talking to your wife (so that she will know you are mad at her - you know, it would be way too obvious to actually say something like, "Can we talk about that - that bothers me..." all the way to beating your wife with a toothpick (or your hand) though not in the face or on the hands, cause you wouldn't even hit a donkey in the face.
Maybe they should get together and trade insider secrets with the folks over at Westboro Baptist Church.
Click here to see the video clip.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Westboro Baptist Church Stupid Again
Westboro Baptist Church is in the news again (surprise, surprise)...these guys love the press. They like to play the suffering victim (we are just doing what God told us, whoa is us), but it is pretty clear they love the national notoriety they have achieved. It likely feeds an institutional power idol where the more attention they receive, the more significant and important they feel.
If you haven't heard yet (surely you have), the church was found guilty of violating a father's rights when the protested his son's private funeral (they were protesting with signs like above because he was a soldier). I am all for free speech, but I was glad to hear that they were found guilty. Maybe the legal fees will sap some of the money out of their traveling budget and keep them from continuing to make a public mockery of Christ with their misrepresentation of the holiness of God.
Ironically, the papers they submitted to the court showed them as almost completely broke (the pastors daughter, a practicing lawyer, claims to have less than $400 to her name).
Is it any wonder that we see the theological error of universalism on the rise when you have ijits like this trying to become the public face of hell? It is a shame that the radical fundies of our noble faith continue to misrepresent Truth. Their misrepresentations of the Truth are then ingrained in the public mind as if it were the truth... what a shame.
Monday, October 29, 2007
This is great: Backflips (or close) Galore
I saw this on an Outside Magazine blog - and it cracked me up ... I wonder how many times over the years I looked like this when I messed up a goof-ball trick!
{NOTE: after watching this again and paying more attention to the music, I just want to put a disclaimer warning that about 1/3 of the way in the singer drops the f-bomb...you are now forewarned}
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Another Church in the News for Beer and Bible
Here is a link to the story
Brooks Hanes, an all around good guy and stud church planter in Cedar Valley, Iowa, was written up in his local paper for his event: Grab a Brew, Share your View (where you have to be 18 to think and 21 to drink). I am thrilled to see young guys taking risks, stepping outside the traditional religious (American) boxes, and being used by God to create relationships with people simply not reached by traditional church models.
Take a look at the article and check out Kaio, Brooks' church plant.
Brooks Hanes, an all around good guy and stud church planter in Cedar Valley, Iowa, was written up in his local paper for his event: Grab a Brew, Share your View (where you have to be 18 to think and 21 to drink). I am thrilled to see young guys taking risks, stepping outside the traditional religious (American) boxes, and being used by God to create relationships with people simply not reached by traditional church models.
Take a look at the article and check out Kaio, Brooks' church plant.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
The Journey in Post Dispatch Again
Below is the link to the story.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/keepthefaith/story/4341DF38A15E053186257380008103A7?OpenDocument
Here is the story.
It's always a bit of a thrill to associate with something scary.
That might have explained the large turnout at Covenant Seminary last
weekend for the Rev. Darrin Patrick's three lectures on the emerging
church.
The term "emerging" has come to define a movement that uses alternative
ways of attracting younger people by tapping into secular culture.
Patrick's St. Louis-based church, The Journey, is affiliated with the
Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the
country with 16 million members.
The leadership of the Missouri Baptist Convention — the state arm of the
Southern Baptists — has campaigned against the emerging church, though it
has a working relationship with The Journey. It says Patrick's methods of
evangelizing to young people conflict with what the Bible teaches.
But some scholars say those Baptists are afraid. Afraid because the
emerging church is reaching a generation they've been unable to reach
themselves. And without the young, how will a denomination survive?
The seminarians attending Covenant's Frances A. Schaeffer lectures last
weekend seemed more curious than bent on destroying denominational
Christianity. That Patrick delivered the three lectures within the walls of
a denominational institution (Covenant is run by the Presbyterian Church in
America, a conservative evangelical church) put to bed any conspiracy
theories about the emerging church stomping all traditional denominations
into the ground.
But there were signs that some seminarians at the lectures were there to
scope out the emerging church movement to see how it might fit into their
plans for their own ministries.
Bo Kyle, a 23-year-old Covenant student from Louisiana, said he was brought
up in a "traditional church" but "grew a lot" when he began worshipping at
emerging churches. He said he could see himself eventually practicing his
ministry in the emerging church.
Dawn Salyer, 25, and her husband are students at Covenant. "We came from a
small, traditional church in Nebraska," she said. "But we got here and we
found we have a real heart for what Darrin Patrick is doing in St. Louis."
Patrick, the lead pastor of The Journey, founded the church in 2002 with 30
people. It now has 1,800 members on campuses in St. Louis' Tower Grove
neighborhood, Clayton and west St. Louis County. A fourth campus will open
in south St. Louis County in February. The Journey also has started two
more churches — one in St. Charles called The Refuge, and another called
The Mission that just opened in Edwardsville.
It's that kind of rapid growth and energy that worries church leaders
across the denominational spectrum who look down from the pulpit and see
only white hair. Many would give anything to tap into the fleece jackets,
jeans and hip, bed-head hairstyles that populate Patrick's church.
Patrick said The Journey also is starting to attract more people in their
50s who are looking to find a church that would be palatable for their
young-adult kids who lead very secular lives.
Despite its enviable 18- to 34-year-old demographic, not all is going
swimmingly for the emerging church.
In his lectures, Patrick described the ideological and theological shifts
that led to a splintering of the movement.
Patrick's branch, which is the most theologically conservative, coalesces
around a national network of 125 churches called Acts 29, of which Patrick
is the vice president. Then there's a less conservative branch. And the
most theologically liberal branch is organized around another network
called Emergent Village.
Patrick was educated in Southern Baptist seminaries and believes that the
Bible is the literal word of God. He took issue during one lecture with his
more liberal emerging church cohorts, saying many of them question
orthodoxy. "When God has clearly spoken, we don't converse, we obey," he
said.
The annual meeting of the Missouri Baptist Convention begins Monday at the
Tan-Tar-A Resort in Osage Beach, and the emerging church is sure to be a
hot topic of conversation. Patrick, and many of those involved with Acts 29
in the state, will be there. The meeting is scheduled to end, appropriately
enough for those scared by the emerging church, on Halloween.
http://www.stltoday.com
Here is the story.
It's always a bit of a thrill to associate with something scary.
That might have explained the large turnout at Covenant Seminary last
weekend for the Rev. Darrin Patrick's three lectures on the emerging
church.
The term "emerging" has come to define a movement that uses alternative
ways of attracting younger people by tapping into secular culture.
Patrick's St. Louis-based church, The Journey, is affiliated with the
Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the
country with 16 million members.
The leadership of the Missouri Baptist Convention — the state arm of the
Southern Baptists — has campaigned against the emerging church, though it
has a working relationship with The Journey. It says Patrick's methods of
evangelizing to young people conflict with what the Bible teaches.
But some scholars say those Baptists are afraid. Afraid because the
emerging church is reaching a generation they've been unable to reach
themselves. And without the young, how will a denomination survive?
The seminarians attending Covenant's Frances A. Schaeffer lectures last
weekend seemed more curious than bent on destroying denominational
Christianity. That Patrick delivered the three lectures within the walls of
a denominational institution (Covenant is run by the Presbyterian Church in
America, a conservative evangelical church) put to bed any conspiracy
theories about the emerging church stomping all traditional denominations
into the ground.
But there were signs that some seminarians at the lectures were there to
scope out the emerging church movement to see how it might fit into their
plans for their own ministries.
Bo Kyle, a 23-year-old Covenant student from Louisiana, said he was brought
up in a "traditional church" but "grew a lot" when he began worshipping at
emerging churches. He said he could see himself eventually practicing his
ministry in the emerging church.
Dawn Salyer, 25, and her husband are students at Covenant. "We came from a
small, traditional church in Nebraska," she said. "But we got here and we
found we have a real heart for what Darrin Patrick is doing in St. Louis."
Patrick, the lead pastor of The Journey, founded the church in 2002 with 30
people. It now has 1,800 members on campuses in St. Louis' Tower Grove
neighborhood, Clayton and west St. Louis County. A fourth campus will open
in south St. Louis County in February. The Journey also has started two
more churches — one in St. Charles called The Refuge, and another called
The Mission that just opened in Edwardsville.
It's that kind of rapid growth and energy that worries church leaders
across the denominational spectrum who look down from the pulpit and see
only white hair. Many would give anything to tap into the fleece jackets,
jeans and hip, bed-head hairstyles that populate Patrick's church.
Patrick said The Journey also is starting to attract more people in their
50s who are looking to find a church that would be palatable for their
young-adult kids who lead very secular lives.
Despite its enviable 18- to 34-year-old demographic, not all is going
swimmingly for the emerging church.
In his lectures, Patrick described the ideological and theological shifts
that led to a splintering of the movement.
Patrick's branch, which is the most theologically conservative, coalesces
around a national network of 125 churches called Acts 29, of which Patrick
is the vice president. Then there's a less conservative branch. And the
most theologically liberal branch is organized around another network
called Emergent Village.
Patrick was educated in Southern Baptist seminaries and believes that the
Bible is the literal word of God. He took issue during one lecture with his
more liberal emerging church cohorts, saying many of them question
orthodoxy. "When God has clearly spoken, we don't converse, we obey," he
said.
The annual meeting of the Missouri Baptist Convention begins Monday at the
Tan-Tar-A Resort in Osage Beach, and the emerging church is sure to be a
hot topic of conversation. Patrick, and many of those involved with Acts 29
in the state, will be there. The meeting is scheduled to end, appropriately
enough for those scared by the emerging church, on Halloween.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Liberia, the IMF, and ONE
I just sent a message urging the IMF to fulfill a promise they made to cancel Liberia's debt. Right now they are saddled with $4.5 billion of debt that was accumulated under corrupt dictator Samuel Doe. If the IMF were to fulfill its promise to cancel this debt the democratic government could dedicate resources to fighting poverty and rebuilding their country after 14 years of civil war.
You can send an email to the IMF here: http://www.one.org/liberia/
Thanks for taking action with me.
You can send an email to the IMF here: http://www.one.org/liberia/
Thanks for taking action with me.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The Spread of Religions in 90 seconds
This is a pretty fascinating look at the spread of the major world religions (from Justin Taylor's blog "Between Two Worlds")- in only 90 seconds! With the recent rapid expansion of Islam, I wonder what this map will look like in the next 100 years.
Click here to go to the link or cut and paste the URL below:
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2007/10/spread-of-religion-in-90-seconds.html
Click here to go to the link or cut and paste the URL below:
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2007/10/spread-of-religion-in-90-seconds.html
Saturday, October 20, 2007
"Live with Regis and Kelly" provides some real entertainment this week!
I happened across a truly creepy piece of TV footage this week. I don't think I have ever seen Live with Regis and Kelly (I thought her name was Cathy or something - I seem to remember something about third world sweat shops...maybe she got canned), and if this is the kind of stuff they have on there, I can see why. It is truly creepy, until it becomes funny at the end.
Two muscular guys, dressed in tights and pastel colors, doing some kind of strange (disturbing) acrobatics until...
Well, I will let you take a look.
Click Here to go the video or just cut and paste the URL below.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1243777197/bctid1250621569
Friday, October 19, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Are Christians Anti-gay and Judgmental?
The USA Today is running an article about how our nation's youth see Christianity as anti-gay, judgmental, and hypocritical. Here is an excerpt:
USA Today Article
I can't say that I am surprised, because I think the same thing. The church in America has become over politicized and as a result has come to define itself by what it isn't (we aren't gay and we aren't for gay rights or gay marriage, we aren't pro-choice / pro-abortion, we aren't pro-democrat for the most part, and we sure aren't pro-outsiders...or even pro-insiders who hold varying viewpoints from us). We are what we aren't.
The real challenge for the church is to learn how to be known once again for love - love for one another and love for the outsider (the biblical word for hospitality - a requirement for church leaders - literally means "a love for the stranger") while at the same time not abandoning the biblical absolutes that the Bible lays out clearly.
There is a movement today that is part of the emerging movement that is trying to rectify the sin of the church (defining ourselves by what we are not) by redefining biblical morality. These guys give the church a softer public face, but at the cost of biblical truth and the nature of God's character. That error will prove to be just as deadly to the cause of Jesus as the first - it is just the pendulum swinging the opposite extreme...but it is the same pendulum, and really the same sin. It is the church trying to redefine Christian morality in a way that suits its personal tastes - it is a recasting of God in our own image.
I firmly believe we need to redefine ourselves by what we are instead of by what we are not. We need to be known for love. Love for those like us, and even more importantly, love for those unlike us, because it is only in loving our neighbors as ourselves that we can truly love God with all our hearts, souls, and minds. I love my neighbor (gay, straight, democrat, fundamentalist, pro-choice, or pro-life) because Jesus loves them, and while they are all messed up, they are no more so than I am or could be without the grace of God.
Fundamentalism, with its disdain for outsiders, completely misrepresents the nature and work of Jesus. But so does this neo-liberal wing of the church (I am speaking of liberal theology, not liberal politics). Loving our neighbors while redefining the character, nature, and revelation of God isn't loving God either - it is simply a recast (and renamed) religion in the form of secular humanism.
"The vast majority of non-Christians — 91% — said Christianity had an anti-gay image, followed by 87% who said it was judgmental and 85% who said it was hypocritical.
Such views were held by smaller percentages of the active churchgoers, but the faith still did not fare well: 80% agreed with the anti-gay label, 52% said Christianity is judgmental, and 47% declared it hypocritical.
Kinnaman said one of the biggest surprises for researchers was the extent to which respondents — one in four non-Christians — said that modern-day Christianity was no longer like Jesus."
The full article can be viewed here:USA Today Article
I can't say that I am surprised, because I think the same thing. The church in America has become over politicized and as a result has come to define itself by what it isn't (we aren't gay and we aren't for gay rights or gay marriage, we aren't pro-choice / pro-abortion, we aren't pro-democrat for the most part, and we sure aren't pro-outsiders...or even pro-insiders who hold varying viewpoints from us). We are what we aren't.
The real challenge for the church is to learn how to be known once again for love - love for one another and love for the outsider (the biblical word for hospitality - a requirement for church leaders - literally means "a love for the stranger") while at the same time not abandoning the biblical absolutes that the Bible lays out clearly.
There is a movement today that is part of the emerging movement that is trying to rectify the sin of the church (defining ourselves by what we are not) by redefining biblical morality. These guys give the church a softer public face, but at the cost of biblical truth and the nature of God's character. That error will prove to be just as deadly to the cause of Jesus as the first - it is just the pendulum swinging the opposite extreme...but it is the same pendulum, and really the same sin. It is the church trying to redefine Christian morality in a way that suits its personal tastes - it is a recasting of God in our own image.
I firmly believe we need to redefine ourselves by what we are instead of by what we are not. We need to be known for love. Love for those like us, and even more importantly, love for those unlike us, because it is only in loving our neighbors as ourselves that we can truly love God with all our hearts, souls, and minds. I love my neighbor (gay, straight, democrat, fundamentalist, pro-choice, or pro-life) because Jesus loves them, and while they are all messed up, they are no more so than I am or could be without the grace of God.
Fundamentalism, with its disdain for outsiders, completely misrepresents the nature and work of Jesus. But so does this neo-liberal wing of the church (I am speaking of liberal theology, not liberal politics). Loving our neighbors while redefining the character, nature, and revelation of God isn't loving God either - it is simply a recast (and renamed) religion in the form of secular humanism.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Interesting Statistics
For someone in Family Ministry, these stats are pretty mind-blowing. These quotes come from Barna's Raising Spiritual Champions:
“We discovered that the probability of someone embracing Jesus as his or her Savior was 32 percent for those between the ages of 5 and 12; 4 percent for those in the 13 to 18 age range; and 6 percent for people 19 or older. In other words, if people do not embrace Jesus Christ as their Savior before they reach their teenage years, the chance of their doing so at all is slim.”
It makes Deuteronomy 6 that much more significant. We need to take every opportunity to live, share, explain, and apply the gospel to our kids.
I guess this also makes Children's Ministry potentially the most successful missional ministry in the church!
Saturday, September 22, 2007
God Got Himself a Lawyer
I posted a week or so ago about Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers' lawsuit of God for "terrorizing" humanity with threats of death, destruction, and eternal discomfort. I jokingly suggested that God needed a cheap lawyer to represent him.
Low and behold, my call has been answered. Eric Perkins, an attorney from Texas, has answered the challenging lawsuit with a responding defense. He said was an exercise akin to "What Would Jesus Do" because he just wondered what he thought God would say in his defense. His legal filing rejects Chamber's claims that God should be brought under jurisdiction in Davis County because he is omnipresent. Perkins contends that God cannot be held under authority by any human court any more that the wind, rain, or sun could. He also stated that God cannot be blamed for "terroristic" actions because mankind has brought calamity on themselves by ignoring clearly posted warnings.
A second defense brief appeared on the court's desk, but no one knows where it came from. It seemed to just "drop out of heaven" and it claims to be filed by God and has Michael the Arch angle as the witness.
Only in America.
Low and behold, my call has been answered. Eric Perkins, an attorney from Texas, has answered the challenging lawsuit with a responding defense. He said was an exercise akin to "What Would Jesus Do" because he just wondered what he thought God would say in his defense. His legal filing rejects Chamber's claims that God should be brought under jurisdiction in Davis County because he is omnipresent. Perkins contends that God cannot be held under authority by any human court any more that the wind, rain, or sun could. He also stated that God cannot be blamed for "terroristic" actions because mankind has brought calamity on themselves by ignoring clearly posted warnings.
A second defense brief appeared on the court's desk, but no one knows where it came from. It seemed to just "drop out of heaven" and it claims to be filed by God and has Michael the Arch angle as the witness.
Only in America.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
I love Google - one more reason why
OK, I admit it. I love Google...
Picassa. Blogger. Gmail. Maps. Google. It all rocks...
I just found a new Google applications that I like and you need to try. It is called iGoogle. I didn't know what those little orange "feed" buttons were on web pages until I started using iGoogle as my home page. Now, when I open my browser, I can look quickly through my favorite blogs and see who has updated their pages (and who is a slacker). I also have a leadership quote of the day, the CNN news headlines, local weather, and to do list.
Also, Blogger also came out with a nifty waste of time. It is called Play and can be found at: play.blogger.com -- it is a random slide show of the latest images uploaded to Blogger. It is strangely mesmerizing. I liked it best with the speed turned all the way up to just let the images blur by... Be warned, though, even with Google's robust algorithms, an occasional inappropriate picture can get in the loop.
Picassa. Blogger. Gmail. Maps. Google. It all rocks...
I just found a new Google applications that I like and you need to try. It is called iGoogle. I didn't know what those little orange "feed" buttons were on web pages until I started using iGoogle as my home page. Now, when I open my browser, I can look quickly through my favorite blogs and see who has updated their pages (and who is a slacker). I also have a leadership quote of the day, the CNN news headlines, local weather, and to do list.
Also, Blogger also came out with a nifty waste of time. It is called Play and can be found at: play.blogger.com -- it is a random slide show of the latest images uploaded to Blogger. It is strangely mesmerizing. I liked it best with the speed turned all the way up to just let the images blur by... Be warned, though, even with Google's robust algorithms, an occasional inappropriate picture can get in the loop.
Monday, September 17, 2007
God Seeks Good Lawyer at Resonable Price
Ernie Chambers, a member of the Nebraska House of Representatives, is suing God. He filed his injunction in the District court of Douglas County, Nebraska, on September 14, 2007.
In an effort to protect the people of Nebraska's right to frivolous lawsuits, Representative Chambers is calling God out on the carpet because he "has made and continues to make terroristic threats of grave harm to innumerable persons" and "directly and proximately has caused, inter alia, fearsome floods, egregious earthquakes, horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornados, pestilential plagues, ferocious famines, devastating drouths [sic], genocidal wars, birth defects, and the like."
Chambers, ironically an avowed agnostic, has no problem suing a God he is not sure is there and does not live on earth. God claims to exist and to be omnipresent - therefore if he exists, he is personally present in Douglas County.
Chambers bases his accusation on the fact that God "has made admissions against Defendant's own interests to various, hand-picked chroniclers of yore regarding the making of terroristic threats and the causing of calamitous catastrophes resulting in widespread death, destruction, and terrorization [sic] of millions and millions of earth's inhabitants...without mercy or distinction." Further, Chambers claims that God has "directed said chroniclers to assemble and disseminate in written form, said admissions, throughout the earth in order to inspire fear, dread, anxiety, terror and uncertainty, in order to coerce obedience to Defendant's will."
In response to this public challenge, God said nothing.
An unauthorized insider, though, responded to this legal challenge by saying, "What can I say? I can see where someone would say God is a terrorist, especially when you only look at the parts of the story where he is killing people and stuff. I mean, what kind of God would terrorize his own Son and kill him? Sure Jesus rose again on the third day, but I am sure those three days were hell."
Thursday, September 13, 2007
A Geo Metro and Asnwered Prayer
I blogged earlier about my truck dying in a puddle. That left us with only one car, which doesn't work real well when you have two adults with schedules and three kids, each in a different school. We were able to make it work for about a month and a half, but it was becoming clear that we needed a car number two if we were going to be able to live the life God has called us to.
So, we started praying. What -- I wasn't praying before? Well, yes I was....but it wasn't until we got to this point that I really just came to God and asked him to provide us what we needed to do what he was calling us to do.
It was pretty incredible. The next day my Mom sent us a gift that covered the cost of an engine from a wrecking yard and a 1997 Geo Metro off Craigslist (and, yes, for less than any running car should sell for). The Metro was pretty rough, but a couple hours and a little more money and it should be road worthy until the truck is back on its tires and under its own power. My kids call my new car the bubble car...so that makes me the boy in the bubble.
It's Moors, you idiot! Moops -- it says Moops!
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Some Rambling 9/11 Reflections
I was standing at the front door of our school when news came to me about the first plane hitting the World Trade Center. I have to admit, I was a bit baffled. I had seen pictures of the building, but having grown up on the West Coast and then relocating to the midwest, I had never had the experience of standing downtown Manhatten and staring up at those incredible towers...so I have to admit I didn't have a strong reaction when I heard.
Then news came of the second plane. I had a strange feeling that something significant was happening (Duh) and that I better pay attention.
I pulled a TV into my office and watched as the towers collapsed. I heard the rumors of the pentagon being hit and for the first time in my life I felt the vulnerability of, "We are under attack." We put the school on high alert for the next six months (as if a small Christian school buried in the southern burbs of St. Louis would make a good target) and everyone (I mean everyone) flew flags.
It was suddenly popular to be patriotic. The flag, previously the property of country-western loving guys in large pickup trucks, was reclaimed by latte-drinking, Volvo-driving Americans.
I remember being so impressed with President Bush. He commanded our attention and our respect. He was strong and we felt stronger because of it. He told us we were going to go kick the Talliban's asses and we were ready and eager and ready. Sometimes the best defense is to show the world a strong offense.
Then we went into Iraq. I was supportive of the war. I believed our president and Colin Powell when they told us there was absolute evidence of WMD...but I was also nervous. I remember saying to my wife during Powell's momentous press conference, "I trust them, but if they are wrong, both Bush and Blair should be impeached."
Now we hear about the surge, and how it is helping (though everyone has already admitted there is no way a miliary solution will be the solution)...
Evolution says that all you need to produce life and order is the building blocks of life and time. The statistical odds may be astronomical, but given enough time, they say, even the impossible can happen. All you need is lots and lots of time.
I have no doubt our president rejects evolutionary theory. I am sure he is a creationist -- and every creationist knows you need not just time and building the building blocks: you also need intelligent design.
That is the problem. I see requests for more and more time, but hear very little in the way of an intelligent design.
Then news came of the second plane. I had a strange feeling that something significant was happening (Duh) and that I better pay attention.
I pulled a TV into my office and watched as the towers collapsed. I heard the rumors of the pentagon being hit and for the first time in my life I felt the vulnerability of, "We are under attack." We put the school on high alert for the next six months (as if a small Christian school buried in the southern burbs of St. Louis would make a good target) and everyone (I mean everyone) flew flags.
It was suddenly popular to be patriotic. The flag, previously the property of country-western loving guys in large pickup trucks, was reclaimed by latte-drinking, Volvo-driving Americans.
I remember being so impressed with President Bush. He commanded our attention and our respect. He was strong and we felt stronger because of it. He told us we were going to go kick the Talliban's asses and we were ready and eager and ready. Sometimes the best defense is to show the world a strong offense.
Then we went into Iraq. I was supportive of the war. I believed our president and Colin Powell when they told us there was absolute evidence of WMD...but I was also nervous. I remember saying to my wife during Powell's momentous press conference, "I trust them, but if they are wrong, both Bush and Blair should be impeached."
Now we hear about the surge, and how it is helping (though everyone has already admitted there is no way a miliary solution will be the solution)...
Evolution says that all you need to produce life and order is the building blocks of life and time. The statistical odds may be astronomical, but given enough time, they say, even the impossible can happen. All you need is lots and lots of time.
I have no doubt our president rejects evolutionary theory. I am sure he is a creationist -- and every creationist knows you need not just time and building the building blocks: you also need intelligent design.
That is the problem. I see requests for more and more time, but hear very little in the way of an intelligent design.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
50 Worst Cars of All Time?
Time Magazine published an article about the 50 worst cars every built. I was surprised by some of their choices (and disagree with some)...but if you like cars, this is an interesting browse.
I agree that the 1961 Corvair needed engineering improvements, but the rear engine set up was not a flaw as the article says. If rear engine cars were inherantly flawed, how has the Porsche retained its place as a leader in performance cars? Secondly, I was not thrilled with the inclusion of cars just because they are politcally incorrect (like the Ford Explorer and Expedition).
Friday, August 31, 2007
How Larry Craig Shows us the Hypocrisy of our Morality
We all know the story by now. Senator Larry Craig, a conservative republican from the quiet state of Idaho, attempted to solicit a male prostitute in a Minnesota bathroom. The problem was that the "male prostitute" was actually Sgt. Dave Karsnia, an outstanding and honorable undercover police officer (in the released tapes, Karsnia only gets riled with Craig for continuing to deny he sent the signals that Karsnia had recorded in his report -- which at one point led Karsnia to say, "I guess I am just saying that I am disappointed in you, sir." Karsnia kept his word and did not call the media and still refuses to become part of the fracas).
Sadly, Karsnia seems to be the only one with some honor in this situation. Craig has shown a incredible lack of honor, good judgment, and personal integrity. He was caught in a dirty bathroom soliciting sex from a man sitting on a toilet next to him. He tried to use his position to intimidate the police officer into letting him go. He lied about his behavior, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, and is now trying to blame his behavior on the liberal media.
There is no doubt: this is a shameful episode of personal and political hypocrisy -- and if there is one thing our electorate seems slow to forgive, it is hypocrisy.
But what about the hypocrisy of the GOP, the press, and the public in this mess? It seems at this point like Craig is going to be fried for his infraction. The calls for his resignation are increasing from his GOP ex-friends and the media attention continues to focus on every minor detail of the ongoing saga. In fact, from the first break of this news story, the republicans as a whole completely distanced themselves from Craig to allow him to twist in the wind by himself.
The liberal bloggers are having a field day with this, but they have a good point. Is the reason that Craig is being vilified from every side because (a) he solicited a prostitute in a bathroom stall instead of calling an upscale "escort service," or (b) because he was soliciting a man instead of a woman, or (c) all of the above?
What if he had been caught calling a service for a highly attractive, well-paid escort instead of rubbing some poor guy's foot in a bathroom? I am not saying one is better than the other (if fact, I personally hold that both are sinful deviations from God's design for sex), but it seems that our political leaders do, our press does, and we as a public do. And that hypocrisy is just as wrong -- a poor prostitute is not more evil than a rich one. A man who sells himself for money for his drug fix is not more "defiling" than a woman who does the same. An immoral sexual affair is not worse for taking place in a bathroom than in a bedroom.
My complaint isn't that we see some things as wrong -- it is that we see some things as wrong, and self-righteously assume they are more wrong. The double standards in our morality is simply a reflection of our own hypocrisy.
Sadly, Karsnia seems to be the only one with some honor in this situation. Craig has shown a incredible lack of honor, good judgment, and personal integrity. He was caught in a dirty bathroom soliciting sex from a man sitting on a toilet next to him. He tried to use his position to intimidate the police officer into letting him go. He lied about his behavior, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, and is now trying to blame his behavior on the liberal media.
There is no doubt: this is a shameful episode of personal and political hypocrisy -- and if there is one thing our electorate seems slow to forgive, it is hypocrisy.
But what about the hypocrisy of the GOP, the press, and the public in this mess? It seems at this point like Craig is going to be fried for his infraction. The calls for his resignation are increasing from his GOP ex-friends and the media attention continues to focus on every minor detail of the ongoing saga. In fact, from the first break of this news story, the republicans as a whole completely distanced themselves from Craig to allow him to twist in the wind by himself.
The liberal bloggers are having a field day with this, but they have a good point. Is the reason that Craig is being vilified from every side because (a) he solicited a prostitute in a bathroom stall instead of calling an upscale "escort service," or (b) because he was soliciting a man instead of a woman, or (c) all of the above?
What if he had been caught calling a service for a highly attractive, well-paid escort instead of rubbing some poor guy's foot in a bathroom? I am not saying one is better than the other (if fact, I personally hold that both are sinful deviations from God's design for sex), but it seems that our political leaders do, our press does, and we as a public do. And that hypocrisy is just as wrong -- a poor prostitute is not more evil than a rich one. A man who sells himself for money for his drug fix is not more "defiling" than a woman who does the same. An immoral sexual affair is not worse for taking place in a bathroom than in a bedroom.
My complaint isn't that we see some things as wrong -- it is that we see some things as wrong, and self-righteously assume they are more wrong. The double standards in our morality is simply a reflection of our own hypocrisy.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Ted Gets More Media with Appeal for Money
Ted Haggard, the recently un-closeted gay anti-homosexual political powerhouse, needs you. Haggard sent out an email this week to his one-time supporters pleading for money so that he could get educated.
Haggard says he needs support so that he can go back to college full time to get a masters in counseling and his wife can get study psychology. He fails to mention in his letter that he was paid $115,000 for his 10 months of work in 2006. He also fails to mention that he received a $85,000 bonus before being fired. He also fails to mention that he lives in a house that appraises for more than $700,000.
I just read tonight on Colorado Confidential that even the non-profit he is recommending people give through (for tax purposes) lost its 501c3 and is lead by a formerly convicted sex offender.
Enough is enough. Please!
I am a Christ-follower. I recently started working for my church and even more recently accepted the title of pastor. I am deeply honored to serve my church and my Lord in this capacity...but the title of "Pastor" is a weird thing. I used to not like it because I was a bit too "organic" and got hung up about calling someone "pastor" when pastoring is really a function not a title. I have identified and repented of my former ignorance and arrogance, but now find myself reluctant to take the title for other reasons.
Try this conversation on for size. I meet someone, strike up an initial conversation, find a bit of normalcy and pretty soon the question comes:
"So what do you do for a living?"
"For a living? I am, well, a ... pastor."
"Oh -- a pastor? Oh, yeah, interesting..." as he guards his wallet and slowly moves away.
There is just too much baggage...too many scandals...too much hypocrisy. I don't like to define myself by what I am not, but feel compelled to say, "I am a pastor, but not like that. I am not a radical conservative republican. I do not think the former moral majority has the corner on the ethical market. I do not steal money from the sick and old. I was not raised in a Christian home and did not spend my entire adulthood getting paid by the church. I do not think I have to be stuffy, legalistic, or separatist in order to follow Jesus. And, no, I do not do drugs and sleep with men while publicly vilifying people who do."
The Apostle Paul got ticked at the religious leaders of his day because they preached one thing and did another. They had one standard for some people and another standard for themselves. In a great twist of irony, he said that the unbelievers watching them would blaspheme the God they claimed to serve because of their behavior.
Not much has changed in 2000 years.
I do not hate Ted Haggard (or others who have fallen before him). I am angry at the way they misrepresent Jesus and those who follow him, but know that the same grace that could redeem a broken person like me can also bring healing and wholeness to him.
I do wish he would just go out and get a job, though, and quit trying to live off the labor of others... I expect it would be good for him to have to put in an honest day's work for awhile.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Baptsim -- A Dunking Good Time
As a Christ-follower and an educator, I guess it was natural that I would be called upon to perform certain ceremonies for former students. In fact, I have officiated a half-dozen weddings -- and sadly, about the same number of funerals. I thoroughly enjoyed the weddings (nothing like a front seat view of the expressions of the bride and groom!). The funerals not so much, but I was still glad that I was able to be a voice of comfort and eternal perspective to the families and friends. Funerals are particularly hard. My wife has reminded me many times that no one remembers what you say at a wedding, but they always remember what you say at a funeral!
This last Sunday, though, was my first opportunity to "officiate" a baptism (I doubt that is the right word, but you get the drift). Our church held an outdoor baptism on a local river. It was an incredibly cool setting for a baptism. The weather was threatening rain in the distance, the air was warm and humid, and the river was muddy. A group of very athletic, muscle-bound guys played Frisbee on the beach next to us while another group sat in the water on lawn chairs drinking beer. Another guy floated in the water behind us with his dog (who was wearing a flotation device). It was perfect.
Our church has been growing and we are serious about engaging the culture around us with the truth of the gospel. God has done some incredible things, and we had around 50 people getting baptized at this event. Even though we baptized a lot of people and there was a crowd of several hundred standing on the shore watching, each baptism was incredibly personal...at least from my perspective.
I didn't have to say much -- not like a funeral or wedding. An introduction, a quick question (Do you have faith in Jesus as the leader of your life and forgiver of your sins?), and a pronouncement (I baptize you then in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). The whole thing was easy and joyful...
But it was still stirring, and a bit strange. Have you ever dunked someone in a pool and held them under water? I have -- my brother and I would get into a dunking fight every time we got in the water together. Every time I tried to get his head under water (or visa versa), he has fought me, punched, kicked, and exploded out of the water like a wild animal fighting for life. Even if I never got my brother's head under the water, there was a fight.
It struck me how the whole baptism thing is different. These people walked joyfully out and willingly allowed me to shove their heads under water. I stood there above them, watching them under water, their hair waving with the current, as they waited with anticipation for the moment when I would pull them back up.
What an incredible picture of what it means to follow Christ. Everyone knows Jesus died for sinners, but I don't know how many have really thought about what that means. Jesus was, in a sense, baptized into our sin, submerged in our moral and spiritual corruption so he could take our place in punishment. 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, "He who did not know sin became sin for us." He willingly became our sin-bearer, our substitute on the cross in order to suffer the full, undiluted wrath of the Father in our place -- a punishment we deserved and could not avoid. He was baptized under God's wrath...and in that mirky water of judgment, He willingly died to set us free. When he rose from the grave on the third day, he proved that the penalty was paid, the payment was complete and there was no judgment left for those who would follow him.
As I pulled each person out of the water on Sunday and saw them wipe their eyes, take deep breaths, and smile in joy, I saw in them a picture of Jesus. They were entering into his death and resurrection in a public, symbolic way to announce to me and the guys playing Frisbee and the guys drinking beer in their lawn chairs and the guy with the flotation-protected dog (and to the entire world of unseen beings) that they were followers of Jesus, that they believed and were entering into the work Jesus had done for them. They were receiving, not giving. They were resting, not working. In the end, their baptisms weren't even about them -- they were about the One who had gone before them in order to win for them what they could not win for themselves.
It was very cool.
This last Sunday, though, was my first opportunity to "officiate" a baptism (I doubt that is the right word, but you get the drift). Our church held an outdoor baptism on a local river. It was an incredibly cool setting for a baptism. The weather was threatening rain in the distance, the air was warm and humid, and the river was muddy. A group of very athletic, muscle-bound guys played Frisbee on the beach next to us while another group sat in the water on lawn chairs drinking beer. Another guy floated in the water behind us with his dog (who was wearing a flotation device). It was perfect.
Our church has been growing and we are serious about engaging the culture around us with the truth of the gospel. God has done some incredible things, and we had around 50 people getting baptized at this event. Even though we baptized a lot of people and there was a crowd of several hundred standing on the shore watching, each baptism was incredibly personal...at least from my perspective.
I didn't have to say much -- not like a funeral or wedding. An introduction, a quick question (Do you have faith in Jesus as the leader of your life and forgiver of your sins?), and a pronouncement (I baptize you then in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). The whole thing was easy and joyful...
But it was still stirring, and a bit strange. Have you ever dunked someone in a pool and held them under water? I have -- my brother and I would get into a dunking fight every time we got in the water together. Every time I tried to get his head under water (or visa versa), he has fought me, punched, kicked, and exploded out of the water like a wild animal fighting for life. Even if I never got my brother's head under the water, there was a fight.
It struck me how the whole baptism thing is different. These people walked joyfully out and willingly allowed me to shove their heads under water. I stood there above them, watching them under water, their hair waving with the current, as they waited with anticipation for the moment when I would pull them back up.
What an incredible picture of what it means to follow Christ. Everyone knows Jesus died for sinners, but I don't know how many have really thought about what that means. Jesus was, in a sense, baptized into our sin, submerged in our moral and spiritual corruption so he could take our place in punishment. 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, "He who did not know sin became sin for us." He willingly became our sin-bearer, our substitute on the cross in order to suffer the full, undiluted wrath of the Father in our place -- a punishment we deserved and could not avoid. He was baptized under God's wrath...and in that mirky water of judgment, He willingly died to set us free. When he rose from the grave on the third day, he proved that the penalty was paid, the payment was complete and there was no judgment left for those who would follow him.
As I pulled each person out of the water on Sunday and saw them wipe their eyes, take deep breaths, and smile in joy, I saw in them a picture of Jesus. They were entering into his death and resurrection in a public, symbolic way to announce to me and the guys playing Frisbee and the guys drinking beer in their lawn chairs and the guy with the flotation-protected dog (and to the entire world of unseen beings) that they were followers of Jesus, that they believed and were entering into the work Jesus had done for them. They were receiving, not giving. They were resting, not working. In the end, their baptisms weren't even about them -- they were about the One who had gone before them in order to win for them what they could not win for themselves.
It was very cool.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Virginia's New Campaign to Attract Gang Members
Virginia announced today a change to their publicity campaign. While they are not changing their official state slogan, "Virginia is for Lovers," the tourism board has decided that they will be using a new slogan in certain states: "Virginia is for Gang Members." The state of Virginia, in a desperate bid for more tourist dollars, recently started a campaign to attract the violent gang members of the Gangster Disciples and their discretionary income from the sale of crack-cocain. "These young people have more money than they know what to do with and they have to spend it somewhere," Virginia Tourism Corp.'s Alisa Wheatly said in a statement Saturday, "so this will only be good for business here. Well, as long as they keep making their money in Chicago."
The controversial ad campaign, which features an attractive model flashing a well-known gang sign, is designed to draw gangsters who are ready for a break from the violence and the mundane urban landscape to the more rural, settling scenery of Virgina. "Everyone needs a break sometimes," Wheatly continued, "even gang members. We want to show them that they will be accepted here and valued for what they bring -- as long as they bring a lot of it. Oh, and we want to be sure they know that we have hotties too."
Not everyone is thrilled about this new ad campaign, though. The group known as Mothers against Gansters, MAG, released a statement recently condemning the campaing as reckless and inconsistent with the states broader goals. "This simply does not make sense. Why would we bring in gangsters from another state? Who cares if they bring their money -- they will also bring their drugs. It will only be a matter of time before this activity cuts into our own kids' markets adn incomes," said Martha Stew, a spokeswoman of MAG.
Disclaimer: None of this is true...well, almost. This is an actual Virginia ad campaign...but they changed all teh posters to remove the offensive hand sign. I thought it was funny.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Another incredible photo
My dad sent me a link to a slide show at webshots.com -- I looked around the site and found some incredible photos!
The photo above is one from a series that showed a sequence of how they pulled off this maneuver. Pretty impressive....both the pilots and the photographer.
If I did this right, you should be able to click the picture above and see the photo album.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Watch out for puddles
I remember a story from when I was a kid and my family lived in Oakland, CA. There was fire and mom stopped to watch it only to find me sitting in a huge puddle filled with (and covered by) black soot. Someone else noticed and said something like, "Whose kid is that, anyway?" My mom just said, "I wonder."
I have always loved puddles. I like water. The Pacific Ocean is like a big puddle, just with lots of waves, dangerous fish, and dead and rotting things.
So when I was driving my truck in a rain storm three weeks ago and saw a large puddle in the middle of the road, I simply could not resist. My middle daughter was with me, and I am not one to disappoint them with boredom, so I shouted, "Here we go!"
The wall of water was impressive. We were blinded and I am sure would have soaked someone 10 feet away if it were not already raining like crazy.
But that is when it happened. My truck died. A little sputter, a little kick, and then it died. Never one to let my daughter know I made a mistake, I announced that it was surely just the coil that got wet and shorted out. It wouldn't be long before we were back on our way.
After a few minutes I kicked it back on. Took some cranking, but it started. But that is when I first noticed something seriously abnormal. There was a knock, knock, knock coming from under the hood and an incredible cloud of white smoke coming from the tailpipe.
It ran roughly, so I drove it home (just another block) and parked it. I was still convinced it had to be something minor...how could it be otherwise? It was just a puddle!
I tested everything electical. No problems there. So, at the prompting of a friend, I tested the cylinder compression. On the driver's side, the first tested at 80 pounds...way too low, but still workable. but the last one on that bank tested at zero. Yes, zero. If you have ever done a compression test, you know a zero is awefully hard to come by. Usually there is *some* kind of pressure in there...I mean, it is supposed to have around 150 foot pounds of pressure...to go to zero is pretty significant.
Well, after taking half the engine apart to remove the head, I found the problem. W'hen I started scraping the top of the piston, it simply slid down the cylinder with no resistance. I had broken the piston rod...not an easy thing to do, but I had done it.
How, you might ask, did a puddle break your engine? Well, as absurd as it sounds, the water traveled through about 6 feet of air intake tubing, through the air cleaner, through the air intake manifold, and into the cylinders. Air and gas are normally the only things in there...they both compress to make an explosive atomized gas that makes the car go. Problem: water does not compress. So, piston comes up, something has to give.
So, what is the result?
I need a new engine. Or a new car. If you have either you would like to give me, just let me know.
Moral: Play in puddles, just drive slowly through them.
I have always loved puddles. I like water. The Pacific Ocean is like a big puddle, just with lots of waves, dangerous fish, and dead and rotting things.
So when I was driving my truck in a rain storm three weeks ago and saw a large puddle in the middle of the road, I simply could not resist. My middle daughter was with me, and I am not one to disappoint them with boredom, so I shouted, "Here we go!"
The wall of water was impressive. We were blinded and I am sure would have soaked someone 10 feet away if it were not already raining like crazy.
But that is when it happened. My truck died. A little sputter, a little kick, and then it died. Never one to let my daughter know I made a mistake, I announced that it was surely just the coil that got wet and shorted out. It wouldn't be long before we were back on our way.
After a few minutes I kicked it back on. Took some cranking, but it started. But that is when I first noticed something seriously abnormal. There was a knock, knock, knock coming from under the hood and an incredible cloud of white smoke coming from the tailpipe.
It ran roughly, so I drove it home (just another block) and parked it. I was still convinced it had to be something minor...how could it be otherwise? It was just a puddle!
I tested everything electical. No problems there. So, at the prompting of a friend, I tested the cylinder compression. On the driver's side, the first tested at 80 pounds...way too low, but still workable. but the last one on that bank tested at zero. Yes, zero. If you have ever done a compression test, you know a zero is awefully hard to come by. Usually there is *some* kind of pressure in there...I mean, it is supposed to have around 150 foot pounds of pressure...to go to zero is pretty significant.
Well, after taking half the engine apart to remove the head, I found the problem. W'hen I started scraping the top of the piston, it simply slid down the cylinder with no resistance. I had broken the piston rod...not an easy thing to do, but I had done it.
How, you might ask, did a puddle break your engine? Well, as absurd as it sounds, the water traveled through about 6 feet of air intake tubing, through the air cleaner, through the air intake manifold, and into the cylinders. Air and gas are normally the only things in there...they both compress to make an explosive atomized gas that makes the car go. Problem: water does not compress. So, piston comes up, something has to give.
So, what is the result?
I need a new engine. Or a new car. If you have either you would like to give me, just let me know.
Moral: Play in puddles, just drive slowly through them.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Gospel Coalition
Last spring a group from our church traveled up to Trinity College outside of Chicago for the first Gospel Coalition conference. It was small, intentionally I think. But it was pretty incredible. D. A. Carson, Tim Keller, and others led some pretty thought provoking messages about how the gospel should impact our churches today, and where some of us may be getting off course.
Here is a link to some interviews from some of the leaders.
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/interviews.html
Here is a link to some interviews from some of the leaders.
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/interviews.html
Friday, July 20, 2007
New Link: Outdoor Photos
I just added a new link to my list -- it is a site of random landscape photographs. If you are feeling stressed and want to "get away" for a minute, you might want to check it out. Enjoy!
Max Blumenthal
This was brilliant. I loved it...all the way to the interpretive dance at the end. I do not agree with Blumenthal's implied point -- that anyone who doesn't go to (or isn't willing to go to) war can't be a "supporter" of the war. But he does a great job highlighting how hypocritical many of the war-hawk's position is. He also does a good job highlighting how much this debate is rooted in class and economic privilege.
Enjoy the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/generation-chickenhawk-t_b_56676.html
Enjoy the link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/generation-chickenhawk-t_b_56676.html
Monday, June 11, 2007
Reaction to Dr. Dixon Representation of Emerging Churches
The Journey Magazine (a publication of Emmaus Bible College) ran an article in its Spring 2007 edition by Dr. Larry Dixon called "The Challenge of the Emergent Church." As I began reading the article, I had no doubt the direction it would take. The clip art had a wet floor sign showing a man falling down with the caption "Danger: Another Gospel?" The pages following had a background of caution tape behind the print. The message was clear: you were about to consider ideas that were dangerous and could hurt you like a wet, soapy floor or a falling brick. The clip are said, "Read on, dear reader, but only with your safety helmet!"
OK, I am sure Dr. Dixon didn't pick the clip art. In fact, Dixon didn't write the article: it was an edited transcript of a lecture given by Dixon at the 2006 Iron Sharpens Iron conference held at Emmaus Bible College. So, I thought, ignore the sensational visuals, and let's see if what this guy has to say.
Sorry to say, while there were some good things in Dr. Dixon's article, I was left with a strong disappointment in his representation of the emerging church movement. Here is the crux of my disappointment:Dr. Dixon rightfully says that "proponents like to speak of the emerging 'conversation' to emphasize its developing nature with contributions from many people and no explicitly defined leadership or direction" (page 10-11). He then goes on to almost exclusively associate the leadership of the Emergent / emerging movement with Brian McLaren and to summarize the entire movement's basic beliefs into four short paragraphs. Can you say, "Oversimplification?"
There is a reason it is called the "emerging" church movement -- it is in formation and is being influenced by many voices. There is commonality in the conversation, but there is also diversity, and even strong disagreement. In fact, I think it is essential to an intelligent examination to make a distinction between the Emergent church (associated with the Emergent Village) and the emerging church movement. They are both parts of the conversation, but they are definitely not all saying the same thing. Dr. Dixon doesn't even hint that any such diversity exists. This oversimplification misrepresents the complexity of the many voices that are part of the emerging conversation.
Dr. Dixon's oversimplification seems to be aided by his over-reliance on limited and dated sources. Almost every quote in the first part of his article (and I assume in his previous lecture) comes from an article out of 2004 issue of Christianity Today. First of all, there is always a danger in making a second hand source your primary source. This problem is compounded by the fact that the article was already 2 years old at the time of the Iron Sharpens Iron conference where Dr. Dixon gave his original lecture. I am not criticizing the original article. I am simply saying there needed to be much more thorough research into the thoughts, trends, arguments, developments, failures and successes of the emerging church. Anyone who speaks for (and then against) a movement must do their homework to understand that movement if there is to be any kind of intelligent, profitable interchange of ideas. I really think he would have been on more solid ground to entitle his address as, "The dangers and lessons of Brian McLaren."
Maybe this is closer to the heart of it. It is easy to draw simplistic generalizations. It is much harder to seek to understand. It doesn't threaten me in any way to assume the high ground before I assay the battle. It is much more dangerous to come humbly, to walk unarmed into the fracas, truly seeking to understand and possibly be forced into some hard change as a result of the encounter. I know this from personal experience -- I spent years throwing stones from a distance, defining myself (and my group) by what we were not instead of by what we were. When I let that guard down and actually engaged the ideas instead of condemning them, I was changed with some painfully wonderful results. I cannot say whether Dr. Dixon's research took him to the original thoughts of emergent thinkers beyond Brian McLaren, but if it did, it sadly doesn't show. The article surely could have benefited from a representation of a wider reading of those actually associated with the emerging church instead of just referencing an editorial, summary, second-hand description of the movement.
I need to mention that the second part of his article seems to come almost completely from D. A. Carson's critique of the Emergent Church. He picked a good source there, but fails to reference that Carson, while critical of the "Emergent Church," is currently working closely with many who lead churches that are part of the "emerging" church culture, becoming another voice in the emerging conversation.There are other, more minor points, with which I could take exception in the article, but this one is huge. Oversimplification is the same as misrepresentation. I can't help but think that many of the readers of Journey will come away with the expectation that everyone associated with the emerging church will subscribe to some kind of dangerous false gospel that might cause them to slip or will hit them in the head like brick. This just isn't the case. And worse, it cuts off honest dialogue by alienating those who are frustrated by this oversimplification and by strengthening the walls of those who consider the emerging conversation as "something out there."
It is easy to tear down an oversimplified representation of a complex series of thoughts. It is much more difficult to actually enter into the conversation. That requires actually listening to what the divergent voices are saying with both openness and a critical ear. It is much easier to just say we are listening while our hearts are guarded and our thoughts and practices go unchallenged.God is clearly doing something in this movement at this time. He is moving hearts, changing culture, and transforming lives. Some of the movement has been taken off course, no doubt, but we cannot simply stand back self-protectively with our hard hats firmly in place glad to watch them make a wreck of themselves. We need to be critical, but we also need to be vulnerable, honest, inquisitive, challenging and challenged, humble and bold. Authenticity isn't just a buzz word -- it is a way of approaching life, culture, God, and ourselves that requires nothing less than an absolute abandonment of our personal agendas and cultural comfort zones.
OK, I am sure Dr. Dixon didn't pick the clip art. In fact, Dixon didn't write the article: it was an edited transcript of a lecture given by Dixon at the 2006 Iron Sharpens Iron conference held at Emmaus Bible College. So, I thought, ignore the sensational visuals, and let's see if what this guy has to say.
Sorry to say, while there were some good things in Dr. Dixon's article, I was left with a strong disappointment in his representation of the emerging church movement. Here is the crux of my disappointment:Dr. Dixon rightfully says that "proponents like to speak of the emerging 'conversation' to emphasize its developing nature with contributions from many people and no explicitly defined leadership or direction" (page 10-11). He then goes on to almost exclusively associate the leadership of the Emergent / emerging movement with Brian McLaren and to summarize the entire movement's basic beliefs into four short paragraphs. Can you say, "Oversimplification?"
There is a reason it is called the "emerging" church movement -- it is in formation and is being influenced by many voices. There is commonality in the conversation, but there is also diversity, and even strong disagreement. In fact, I think it is essential to an intelligent examination to make a distinction between the Emergent church (associated with the Emergent Village) and the emerging church movement. They are both parts of the conversation, but they are definitely not all saying the same thing. Dr. Dixon doesn't even hint that any such diversity exists. This oversimplification misrepresents the complexity of the many voices that are part of the emerging conversation.
Dr. Dixon's oversimplification seems to be aided by his over-reliance on limited and dated sources. Almost every quote in the first part of his article (and I assume in his previous lecture) comes from an article out of 2004 issue of Christianity Today. First of all, there is always a danger in making a second hand source your primary source. This problem is compounded by the fact that the article was already 2 years old at the time of the Iron Sharpens Iron conference where Dr. Dixon gave his original lecture. I am not criticizing the original article. I am simply saying there needed to be much more thorough research into the thoughts, trends, arguments, developments, failures and successes of the emerging church. Anyone who speaks for (and then against) a movement must do their homework to understand that movement if there is to be any kind of intelligent, profitable interchange of ideas. I really think he would have been on more solid ground to entitle his address as, "The dangers and lessons of Brian McLaren."
Maybe this is closer to the heart of it. It is easy to draw simplistic generalizations. It is much harder to seek to understand. It doesn't threaten me in any way to assume the high ground before I assay the battle. It is much more dangerous to come humbly, to walk unarmed into the fracas, truly seeking to understand and possibly be forced into some hard change as a result of the encounter. I know this from personal experience -- I spent years throwing stones from a distance, defining myself (and my group) by what we were not instead of by what we were. When I let that guard down and actually engaged the ideas instead of condemning them, I was changed with some painfully wonderful results. I cannot say whether Dr. Dixon's research took him to the original thoughts of emergent thinkers beyond Brian McLaren, but if it did, it sadly doesn't show. The article surely could have benefited from a representation of a wider reading of those actually associated with the emerging church instead of just referencing an editorial, summary, second-hand description of the movement.
I need to mention that the second part of his article seems to come almost completely from D. A. Carson's critique of the Emergent Church. He picked a good source there, but fails to reference that Carson, while critical of the "Emergent Church," is currently working closely with many who lead churches that are part of the "emerging" church culture, becoming another voice in the emerging conversation.There are other, more minor points, with which I could take exception in the article, but this one is huge. Oversimplification is the same as misrepresentation. I can't help but think that many of the readers of Journey will come away with the expectation that everyone associated with the emerging church will subscribe to some kind of dangerous false gospel that might cause them to slip or will hit them in the head like brick. This just isn't the case. And worse, it cuts off honest dialogue by alienating those who are frustrated by this oversimplification and by strengthening the walls of those who consider the emerging conversation as "something out there."
It is easy to tear down an oversimplified representation of a complex series of thoughts. It is much more difficult to actually enter into the conversation. That requires actually listening to what the divergent voices are saying with both openness and a critical ear. It is much easier to just say we are listening while our hearts are guarded and our thoughts and practices go unchallenged.God is clearly doing something in this movement at this time. He is moving hearts, changing culture, and transforming lives. Some of the movement has been taken off course, no doubt, but we cannot simply stand back self-protectively with our hard hats firmly in place glad to watch them make a wreck of themselves. We need to be critical, but we also need to be vulnerable, honest, inquisitive, challenging and challenged, humble and bold. Authenticity isn't just a buzz word -- it is a way of approaching life, culture, God, and ourselves that requires nothing less than an absolute abandonment of our personal agendas and cultural comfort zones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
