October 31, 2008

What We Evangelicals Do Well

by Scot McKnight

I'm proud to be an evangelical. I think we do many things well.

Some will roll their eyes at those first two statements. Why? Criticizing evangelicalism is fashionable and evangelicals have joined the fashion, sometimes with apocalyptic fervor. I wonder if the relentless critique of (sometimes hardheaded) evangelical pastors, theologians, and authors--not to mention blogs and internet sites--is not the place we ought to urge the beginnings of reform. I'm sure that most critics have their heart in the right place: they want evangelicalism to be more biblical and more robust. (I hope those are my motivations in my own critiques.) But there sure are a lot of critics. This is what I mean:

Some evangelicals think evangelicalism is not Reformed enough because it has lost touch with its Reformed roots. Some think evangelicalism ignores its Wesleyan heritage. Indeed, it would not be hard to find an evangelical survey that omits John Wesley. Some think we have fallen prey to political parties. Others think we need to recover the liturgy and lectionary, while others think we need to re-embrace the lost heritage of the Great Traditions of the classic creeds. Some think evangelicals have forfeited intellectual rigor as a populist movement, while others think evangelicals have become far too theological, creedal, and intellectual. Some think we have failed to preach prophetic texts and have lost enthusiasm for the Second Coming while others disparage every attempt even to suffer such literalism. Some think we'd be much better off if we were all charismatic, while others think charismatics are not real evangelicals. Some think we need to be more socially active while others raise the red flag at the first sign of the social gospel.

Some think evangelicalism is on its deathbed and that the only way forward is the emerging movement, while others think the emerging movement is dancing with the devil. Some think seeker services are the cat's meow, others the end before the end. The worship wars get at least two responses: a hearty, dismissive "Get over it!" and a "Dig in your heels because if we give in here we will slide down the slippery slope!" For some, prohibiting entrance of women into ministry is the litmus test for fidelity, while for others it's so utterly obvious that opposition is Luddite. Some today draw swords to affirm complementarian male-female relationships in the home and the church, while others think of the issue, "Times have changed."

Yes, we can always do better. But I've got a question for you: What do you think (we) evangelicals do well? I will mention a few--more could be listed--but I'm asking you to speak up in the comments section, because this is a post for evangelicalism.

We are good at being properly ecumenical. Evangelicalism is a movement and not a denomination. We align ourselves with others--all others, in fact--who embrace the gospel. Because of this conviction, evangelicals are found working across denominational lines, forming parachurch organizations united around a common gospel theology, and joining hands in public with whoever wants to work with us. A genuine evangelical transcends her or his denomination in the unity only the gospel can bring. Think Christianity Today and John Stott.

We are good at urging everyone to experience the new birth. The irreducible minimum of evangelicalism is the gospel and the need to respond to it and the work of God through the new birth. So, we preach the gospel and we evangelize with that goal in mind. We pray that God will anoint our lives and our words so that others might be born from above. Think Billy Graham and the urgings of youth leaders.

We are good at recognizing the importance of theology. Evangelicals believe the Bible and in the hard-fought conclusions of Christian orthodoxy. And we believe those ideas really do matter. What we believe is more than what we happen to think. We believe the truth of God can be put into living statements for our day. Think Carl Henry and our publishing houses.

We are good at the need for personal transformation. Evangelicals expect Christians to be good and to be holy and to be loving and, if they are not, we know there's something wrong. We stare at the pages of the Bible that call for moral transformation in the power of the Spirit, and we believe it can happen today. Think Dallas Willard and the spiritual formation movement.

Yes, we can do better. I wish a recognizable woman's name would have come to mind for two of those categories. But we are doing well.

What do you think we do well? Here's the test: Can you affirm what we are doing well without saying one critical word? Try it. I think we'd all like to hear what you have to say.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 31, 2008 | Comments (19) | TrackBack

October 30, 2008

The Cult of Mac

by Skye Jethani

Many people feel that the greatest threat to Christianity today is postmodernity. Others zero in on relativism. Some believe the enemy is secular humanism. And others believe Islamic fascism is the boogey man. I disagree. In my view the greatest challenge facing the contemporary church is consumerism. By that I do not mean consumption. It's not wrong to consume things. In fact, as contingent beings we've been designed to consume for survival. The only human that doesn't consume is one that has reached room temperature, in which case they are now being consumed. (Do I hear "The Circle of Life" in the background?)

The consumerism I'm concerned with is the one that functions as a worldview. It forms the uncontested assumptions of our lives, and when it intersects our faith our perception of worship, mission, church, community, belief, and even God is fundamentally altered. These are all subject I tackle in my forthcoming book, The Divine Commodity (Zondervan, 2009).

One aspect of consumerism that is particularly powerful is branding. (Add to it commodification and alienation and you've got the unholy trinity of consumerism.) Douglas Atkins, author of The Culting of Brands: Turn Your Customers Into True Believers, says, "Brands are the new religion...They supply our modern metaphysics, imbuing the world with significance.... Brands function as complete meaning systems."

Without question one of the most potent brands in America today is Apple, and new research has shown that Apple has achieved the same impact on the human brain as religion.

Martin Lindstrom is the author of Buyology. He says:

"Apple is (as we've proven using neuroscience)...a religion. Not only that--it is a religion based on its communities. Without its core communities, Apple would die--it is already facing strong pressure as the brand simply is becoming too broad (losing) its magic. What's holding it all together is the hundreds if not thousands of communities across the world spreading the passion and creating the myths."

Check out this video based on Lindstrom's book:

Adding to the evidence that Apple is actually a religion, psychologist David Levine, a self-identified Mac nut, says:

For many Mac people, I think (the Mac community) has a religious feeling to it. For a lot of people who are not comfortable with religion, it provides a community and a common heritage. I think Mac users have a certain common way of thinking, a way of doing things, a certain mindset. People say they are a Buddhist or a Catholic. We say we're Mac users, and that means we have similar values.

For more about the religions (even cultic) power of Apple, I suggest reading this article by Wired which includes the messianic characteristics of Steve Jobs. There is also a documentary on the subject called Macheads. In the trailer the film declares, "It's more than a computer, it's a way of life."

One question I pose in The Divine Commodity is this: If brands have become religions, is the opposite also true? Have religions been reduced to brands? I believe the evidence suggests they have. Researchers like Barna, Gallop, and others are finding it increasingly difficult to differentiate the behaviors and values of self-identified Christians from non-Christians with one exception-what they buy. Total sales of religious goods in America is nearly $7 billion annually. That is a whole lot of Tommy Hellfighter t-shirts, Jesus is my Homeboy underwear, and Fruit of the Spirit energy drinks. Is Mark Riddle right:

"Conversion in the U.S. seems to mean we've exchanged some of our shopping at Wal-Mart, Blockbuster, and Borders for the Christian Bookstore down the street. We've taken our lack of purchasing control to God's store, where we buy our office supplies in Jesus' name."

What does this mean for the future of the church in America? I hear a lot on Christian radio and see a lot of Christian books fighting against postmodernism, relativism, and secularism. But if people are constructing their identities and lives around consumer brands like Apple, is the church fighting the wrong battle? And perhaps more disturbing, are we unknowingly contributing to the problem by encouraging Christians to construct and express their identities via Christ-branded merchandise rather than through characters transformed to reflect the values of Christ himself?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 30, 2008 | Comments (27) | TrackBack

October 28, 2008

Ur 2.0: Introducing Url & The Urthlings

You may have noticed that the blog has a slightly new look. The revised banner is a simple way for us to celebrate Out of Ur's third anniversary. In October 2005, Leadership embarked on a digital journey of conversation. Since then this blog has grown to become a meeting place for church leaders and a think tank for cultural missionaries.

But that was just the beginning.

The second reason for the new look is to symbolize changes that we're making to Out of Ur as it moves into its fourth year. We'll be unveiling those changes in style, format, and content in the days ahead, so stay tuned. For today we are happy to introduce a new slate of regular voices to the site. We hope you benefit from the wisdom of these Urthlings in the days ahead.

Url Scaramanga is the facilitator of Out or Ur and an adjunct professor of interdisciplinary pseudonymology at the College of Creative Writing in Sheboygan Falls, Wisconsin. He is the son of circus performers but left to pursue ministry. Url nearly earned a seminary degree but was "encouraged to seek another calling" after an unfortunate incident in hermeneutics class involving a pigeon. He retains a keen interest in issues of theology, culture, carnivals, and ministry, and believes blogging is the best use of his gifts for the church.

Dave Gibbons is the pastor of NewSong Church in Irvine, California. NewSong is a multi-ethnic church with locations in Irvine, Los Angeles, Northern Orange County, and Bangkok, Thailand. Gibbons is helping NewSong shift from a megachurch model to a church of smaller congregations called "verges." He first met Url one night in Bangkok.

Collin Hansen is an editor at large for Christianity Today. He is currently a seminary student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School while continuing to report for CT, Out of Ur, and author books. Hanson has also been seen on Fox News discussing issues of faith, politics, and culture. Collin first met Url during a toga party at a Reformed theology conference.

Bob Hyatt is lead pastor of the Evergreen Community - a church that meets at two pubs in Portland, Oregon. Apart from planting churches, helping other church planters, and blogging proficiently, Bob also edits the online e-zine, Next-Wave.org. Bob first met Url in Haiti where Bob was facilitating a water-purification project, and where Url was catching chickens.

Skye Jethani is managing editor of Leadership. He also serves at Blanchard Alliance Church in Wheaton as a teaching pastor, a role he has occupied since 2002 after graduating from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He holds degrees in history and comparative religion, and has spoken and written widely about Christianity and consumerism. Skye first met Url at an ashram near Varanasi, India, where Url served as a short-term missionary/masseuse.

Scot McKnight is the Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University in Chicago. Dr. McKnight has written many books and is a recognized authority on the New Testament, early Christianity, and the historical Jesus. He speaks widely and has been featured on television and radio stations across the country. Scot first encountered Url in 1986 while working on his Ph.D. at the University of Nottingham where Url served as sheriff.

Brandon O'Brien is assistant editor of Leadership. He also contributes to BuildingChurchLeaders.com, and has worked on the PreachingToday.com editorial team. His writing has also been featured in USAToday. Brandon has served in pastoral ministry in Arkansas, and carries degrees in biblical studies, Christian history, and literature. He first met Url at The Slug and Lettuce, a pub in Edinburgh, Scotland, although both deny the veracity of the official police report.

Marshall Shelley is editor of Leadership and an editorial vice-president of Christianity Today International. Marshall joined Leadership Journal in 1982 after developing journalistic skills at Cook Publishing Co. and The Denver Post, and after serving as a pastor in his hometown of Denver, Colorado. Marshall met Url while they both served as understudies to Patrick Swayze in a short-lived musical stage production of the film Ghost.

David Swanson is Community Life Pastor at New Community Covenant Church in Chicago's Logan Square neighborhood. Prior to his gig in the big city, David served on staff at a church in an affluent Chicago suburb. He is the son of missionaries and spent his formative years in Costa Rica, Venezuela, and Ecuador. David first met Url in Peru, where Url worked as a Sherpa leading tours of Machu Picchu.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 28, 2008 | Comments (8)

October 24, 2008

Review: The Blue Parakeet, Part 2

In an earlier post, I outlined the content of Scot McKnight's new book, The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking how you read the Bible. Here are a few reflections on what I consider the book's primary strengths and weaknesses.

First the strengths.

There is much about The Blue Parakeet that is praiseworthy. McKnight's conversation about reading the Bible as story is immensely helpful. I was in college before I learned (in a Bible interpretation class) that the Good Book is really one giant narrative that runs from Genesis to Revelation. That insight changed the way I understood and approached the Scriptures. What McKnight adds to that observation is the idea that each of the 66 books of the canon is a wiki-story - a unique retelling of the metanarrative.

The major benefit of thinking about the Bible in this way is that it forces us to recognize that the later writers (like Paul) are translating and applying the older writers (like Moses). Growing up, I thought of the relationship between the books of the Bible in this way: picture all the authors of the Bible standing on the platform at your church. When Moses finishes his part of the story, he hands the microphone to the writer of Joshua, who talks for a while, passes the mic down the aisle, and so on until Paul takes over the story. If each author is simply giving one part of the whole story, then it gets really confusing when the author's seem to contradict each other. But if we think of each author as retelling the single, major story from his unique context and perspective, then we get a real sense of the way God's relationship with his people has developed over time. So Paul doesn't contradict Moses' teaching on the Law; he interprets it in the first century.

On a practical level, that gives us great biblical examples of how God's people have had to reconsider how to live the Bible message in each generation. If you've had some exegesis classes and have gotten the sneaking suspicion that Paul would have failed Interp 101, you'll probably appreciate McKnight's insights on this point.

The second great aspect of The Blue Parakeet is its consistent emphasis on behavior. McKnight is clearly concerned about how we apply Scripture, and that is evident from the first page to the last. It's refreshing to read a book about the Bible that isn't as concerned with explicating every detail as it is with making sure that Christians are equipped to live Christianly. The overall effect this commitment has on the reader is to demystify the interpretation process so that it doesn't feel like the job of professionals and specialists. McKnight offers a vision of exegesis that makes the Bible accessible to everyone.

I benefited from McKnight's discussion on reading the Bible as story and his insistence that the reason we read the Bible is so that we can live rightly. He also convinced me of the final (and overarching) point of his book - interpreting a story can be messy business. Because the Bible is not full of rules to retrieve, knowing how to apply it requires discernment. Indeed, none of us is consistent in how we choose what to apply and what to ignore.

In this final section on discernment, the book almost communicates this: we all pick and choose what parts and in what ways we apply the Bible, so let's just be honest about it. And this is both a strength and a weakness. On the one hand, the author describes several ways Christians have historically discerned appropriate positions on difficult topics - what he calls "patterns of discernment." And these are helpful. But when all is said and done, I am still unclear about how to apply McKnight's ideas to other controversial issues.

For example, he models his methodology in the extended treatment of women in ministry at the end of the book. But there he also introduces new variables - Greek exegesis and surveys of Roman texts from the first century - that he doesn't address anywhere else in his book. Clearly these resources make up an important part of the discernment process. But to know how to incorporate them into McKnight's overall vision for interpretation on another issue - say, homosexuality in the twenty-first century - I would need to hear him talk more explicitly about them. At the point where his other excellent insights converge, I left needing more to understand exactly how they fit together.

That brings up the issue of audience. Who is this book for? As you might imagine, it is not for people looking for a clear methodology. That's not necessarily a shortcoming of the book. But it's something to consider before you read it. It is also probably not best for a brand-new Christian, someone for whom understanding the Bible may already be a problem. In my opinion, there's not enough here for a new Bible reader to hang her hat on (it might be great, though, if it were paired with another more "how-to" guide on the subject). On other hand, this book would be great for Christians who think they have it all figured out - people who need to have the process problematized. It's an excellent corrective for those who try to lift a passage out of its context and apply it without discernment in the present. It's great for people who are inconsistent in their interpretation but don't recognize it.

We all get lazy in our Bible reading. Scot McKnight holds our feet to the fire and points out our shortcuts, shortcomings, and inconsistencies. That is a much-needed service that makes The Blue Parakeet an excellent contribution to an important conversation.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 24, 2008 | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 23, 2008

Review: The Blue Parakeet, Part 1

by Brandon O'Brien

While the majority of academics won't - or can't - write for a popular audience, Scot McKnight is willing and able. And in The Blue Parakeet (Zondervan, 2008), he opens the complex issue of biblical interpretation to the uninitiated with a great deal of grace.

Because the issue is complex, I'm going to tackle this review in two parts. In this one, I'll just describe the book. Next time I'll identify what I consider its key strengths and weaknesses.

I'll let the author tell you how the blue parakeet became his metaphor for exegesis. For now, suffice it to say that the bird represents biblical passages (and even personal experiences) that "make us think all over again about how we are reading the Bible." For example, evangelicals tend to be fairly lax about resting on the Sabbath (whether we observe the right day is another question). Yet right in the Decalogue God says, "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy." Our task as Bible readers is to decide whether this is a valid command for today or a context-specific regulation that we can more or less ignore. How you answer that question says a lot about your understanding of biblical interpretation.

And that appears to be the primary objective of McKnight's book: to help the reader recognize that all of us pick and choose which of the Bible's commands apply to us and which ones do not. In other words, the book is not a how-to manual for exegesis. Instead, it offers insights into three foundational principles of biblical interpretation.

In the first section, McKnight identifies five approaches or shortcuts that cause Christians to misread the Bible. (Skye described these ably in his post on McKnight from Catalyst) McKnight's solution is reading the Bible as story. By this he means that the Bible as a whole, from Genesis to Revelation, tells a single story. Each of the 66 books in the middle serves as a wiki-story - an individual, unique retelling of this main story. Reading the Bible this way reminds us that God's revelation is dynamic; he spoke "in Moses' day in Moses' way," and "in Jesus' day in Jesus' way," and "in Paul's day in Paul's way." This is a key principle for McKnight, because it helps us understand why some commands apply for all time and others don't (this becomes clearer in the example below).

In his second section, McKnight explores what it means to "listen" to the Bible. He begins by making the excellent point that Christians must have a relationship with the person of God, not with the Bible itself:

Missing the difference between God and the Bible is a bit like the person who reads Jonah and spends hours and hours figuring out if a human can live inside a whale - and what kind of whale it was - but never encounters God. The book is about Jonah's God, not Jonah's whale.

Because the ultimate goal of reading the Bible is to know God, we need to know how to listen to the Bible correctly. So, McKnight explains what the Bible means when it commands us to listen to God's words. The short and long of it is this: the goal of listening is right living. Our behavior is evidence of our methodology. Or as the author says it, "If you are doing good works, you are reading the Bible aright. If you are not doing good works, you are not reading the Bible aright"

In the third section, on "Discerning", McKnight argues that the key phrase for biblical interpretation is "that was then and this is now." Here, again, application is the main goal; the discernment process is when we decide how (or if) a passage of Scripture can be put into practice in the present. There's biblical precedent for this. Regarding circumcision, for example, Paul himself discerned that the commandment was a case of God's speaking "in Moses' day in Moses' way." That was then. But in "Paul's day," physical circumcision was unnecessary. The "this is now" application is spiritual, not physical - it is the Christian's heart that should be circumcised.

He continues by addressing several biblical issues about which discernment is necessary and describes some principles Christians use to determine how to apply the passages that deal with them.

Part 4 is the longest (double the length of the next longest section), and is a case study of discerning the Bible's teaching on "Women in Church Ministries Today." This section uses the principles from the other sections - story, listening, and discerning - and introduces a few tools that go unmentioned for the rest of the book, things like original-language research and extra-biblical resources that help construct historical context.

So you don't lose too much sleep from the excitement of waiting for the full review later this week, let me say this much: The Blue Parakeet is a great introduction to the challenges and pitfalls of Bible interpretation. It raises some difficult and necessary questions, but it leaves a few hard questions unanswered. But more on that in part 2.

Share this:

Posted by Brandon J. O'Brien at October 23, 2008 | Comments (7) | TrackBack

October 22, 2008

Audio Ur: David Swanson on Urban Ministry

A couple of weeks ago, Leadership assistant editor Brandon O'Brien spent a day talking with Out of Ur friends and contributors in Chicago. The result of his efforts is a series of podcasts we'll be releasing on Ur over the coming weeks. Today we present the first of those.

Brandon spoke with a regular contributor to Out of Ur, David Swanson. David writes the monthly Urban Exile column, which chronicles his experiences and reflections as he adapts from suburban ministry to urban ministry. In this session, David discusses what he perceives as the differences in values between the urban and suburban congregations he has served in.

To download this episode of Audio Ur, click here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 22, 2008 | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 20, 2008

Why I am Hopeful

Has the economy got you worried? When pundits are throwing around statements like, "The worst market since the Great Depression," it's natural to get concerned. But Andy Crouch has a different take. He's written a really insightful article for our friends at Books and Culture titled "Why I am Hopeful." Here's an excerpt:

I am not hopeful because I envision an easy way out of the current economic mess. We are entering into the Great Deleveraging, where an entire country of consumers will have to pare back their reliance on cheap mortgages and abundant credit cards. (Remember when your mailbox was stuffed with credit card offers? Seen any lately?) The national savings rate might even rise above 0% - yes, that is zero percent, the proportion Americans have been collectively saving for several years now. But that means that consumption, a major engine of our economy, will have to decline dramatically.

I am not hopeful because I have confidence in whoever will be elected president in 15 days. I have grave concerns, as a Christian and as a citizen, about both candidates and will in all likelihood vote for neither. (Not for the first time - in 2004 I wrote in Colin Powell.)

I am not hopeful because I think we are well prepared for what is ahead of us. We are not. We are a terrifyingly unserious people, our heads buzzing with trivia and noise. This is more true, if anything, of American Christians than the rest of our country. The stark contrast between what I experience among Christians anywhere else in the world - and not just the "Third World," because Canada and Germany and Britain and Singapore come to mind as quickly as Uganda and India - and American Christians is astonishing. We are preoccupied with fads intellectual, theological, technological, and sartorial. Vanishingly few of us have any serious discipline of silence, solitude, study, and fasting. We have, in the short run, very little to offer our culture, because we live in the short run.

I am not hopeful because I think life is going to get easier in America. I am hopeful because I think it is going to get harder, and in a very good way. And I am hopeful because I think this means my children and grandchildren will live in a deeply and truly better world than I would have thought possible a few years ago.

Read Crouch's entire article here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 20, 2008 | Comments (6) | TrackBack

October 17, 2008

Decision '08

by Bob Hyatt

Election time again and, once more, we face a big decision. No, not the decision about our vote. That one is big, but this one is even bigger. It's the decision about our integrity.

I watch in amazement as every four years, well-meaning Christians who are otherwise committed to values of truth and controlling our tongues descend into the pit of partisanship, smears, and tale-bearing. You know how it goes. You have genuine concerns about the other guy (or gal) and so, with few qualms, repeat whatever was told to you by someone in the parking lot or that you heard on the talk radio show or read on that extremely well fact-checked source, the Internet. Of course, all the stuff the other side is saying about your candidate? Yellow journalism and lies.

People who balked at the Left's mention of George Bush's alcoholism repeat at the drop of a hat Obama's admission of drug use in his younger days. And people who on any other day are likely to decry the sexism of American politics suddenly become concerned that Palin went back to work too quickly after giving birth and that she can't be both VP and a mother of a special-needs child.

We believe whatever our side says, refuse to even listen to the other side, and generally put critical thinking aside.

I'm sad to say that over the last few months, I've seen good Christians who genuinely love Jesus repeat tale after tale (many later proven false or exaggerated) about both major tickets in this election--all with the intention of making others think less of the one being talked about.

Didn't we use to call that gossip? And, actually, wouldn't we still call it gossip if someone in our church was saying similar things about someone else in our church? Can anyone tell me how it's any different during an election? I understand these are important decisions about public officials, and character matters. I know. I just think that's all the more reason to be careful, to check the facts before repeating the tale. Character matters in both the ones being voted for and the ones doing the voting.

Read something about Obama on a Republican site? Great. Before you believe it, check out how the Democrats are explaining it. And vice-versa. Or better yet, bookmark an objective site that holds the feet of both candidates to the fire on issue of truth and spin.

Does John McCain really want to apply "Wall Street de-regulation" to health care? No.
Did Obama really vote against funding our troops? No. According to FactCheck.org:

McCain has made multiple false representations of Obama's tax proposals. Obama has made false claims about McCain's stance on Social Security. Both McCain and Obama have traded some whoppers about their energy policies, about Iraq, and about Iran, and about supporting troops.

Politicians lie. It's what they do. Don't make the mistake of thinking your guy is different. And don't make the mistake of thinking that any issue you are passionate about, whether abortion or the poor, is worth your joining them in their half-truths, deceptions, and spin. Shouldn't people who follow the One who called Himself the Truth (John 14:6), who told us that it was in truth that our freedom would be found (John 8:32), be a bit more careful about the "facts" we repeat? Shouldn't we refuse to serve the interests of political parties by refusing to parrot talking point after talking point and, instead, using a bit of discernment?

Here's what I want to see: Christians who can speak as eloquently about the good qualities of the candidate that they aren't supporting as they can about the one they are, and who can speak as candidly about their candidates shortcomings as they do about the other guy's. Christians who make decisions about whom to vote for based on issues, not rumors. Christians who take a stand and refuse to participate in political gossip and character assassination.

After all, what would it profit us to win the whole election and still lose our integrity?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 17, 2008 | Comments (20) | TrackBack

October 16, 2008

Out of Context: Andy Crouch

The Fall 2008 issue of Leadership contains a new feature: The Golden Canon book award. One of our finalists was Andy Crouch's Culture Making: Recovering our creative calling (IVP), the much-praised contribution to the ongoing conversation about the relationship between Christianity and culture. Here's a taste of Andy's prose, a tidbit to spark conversation.

The postures of the artist and the gardener have a lot in common. Both begin with contemplation, paying close attention to what is already there. The gardener looks carefully at the landscape; the existing plants, both flowers and weeds; the way the sun fall on the land. The artist regards her subject, her canvas, her paints with care to discern what she can make with them.

And then, after contemplation, the artist and the gardener both adopt a posture of purposeful work. They bring creativity and effort to their calling...They are creaturely creators, tending and shaping the world that original Creator made.

I wonder what we Christians are known for in the world outside our churches. Are we known as critics, consumers, copiers, condemners of culture? I'm afraid so. Why aren't we known as cultivators--people who tend and nourish what is best in human culture, who do the harsh and painstaking work to preserve the best of what people before us have done? Why aren't we known as creators--people who dare to think and do something that has never been thought or done before, something that makes the world more welcoming and thrilling and beautiful?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 16, 2008 | Comments (7) | TrackBack

October 15, 2008

Professional Mystery Worshipers

by Brandon O'Brien

The Friday (Oct 10) edition of the Wall Street Journal contained an article whose title and deck pretty much say it all: "The Mystery Worshipper: To try to keep their flocks, churches are turning to undercover inspectors, who note water stains, dull sermons and poor hospitality."

The numbers aren't staggering. Alexandra Alter, the article's author, references "at least half a dozen" consulting firms that have sent covert church-goers to between 20 and 50 churches each. So we're talking about somewhere between 120 and 300 documented instances. Not a trend; not yet. But this is just the sort of thing evangelical church staffs seem to love - it's an opportunity to quantify, qualify, and create an action plan for maximizing ministry impact.

And I understand a church's wanting to know a first-timer's impressions upon visiting its services. Just as you don't recognize how weird your own family is until you bring a girlfriend or college buddy home for a holiday, churches can easily become so introspective and insular that they forget how other congregations operate or how they are viewed by "outsiders." For that reason, I see value in outside consultation, if the consultant is helping an otherwise myopic group of folks recognize its own dysfunction. It would be great, for example, for a visitor to tell you that women seemed underrepresented in the service, that the children appeared marginalized in worship, or that the congregation communicated a tangible sense of dissatisfaction.

But what concerns me about the professional mystery worshipers in Alter's article are the types of observations they are making. In one church, consultant Thomas Harrison noted "a water stain on the ceiling, a ?stuffy odor' in the children's area, a stray plastic bucket under the bathroom sink and a sullen greeter who failed to say good morning before the worship service" among that church's chief infractions. One pastor praises Harrison's attention to detail in this way: "Thomas hits you with the faded stripes in the parking lot?If you've got cobwebs, if you've got ceiling panels that leak, he's going to find it."

It's probably not a bad idea to bring these things to the church's attention. But are they the real reasons visitors come once and never return? To be fair, these covert consultants also grade the worship experience - including the preaching and music. And the morning service certainly says a lot about the congregation's values. But when even secular consulting firms are sending mystery shoppers, I have to wonder by what criteria they will judge the sermon and singing: by aesthetics only or with careful attention to both style and content?

I recommend you read Alter's article and draw your own conclusions, but here are a few observations of my own. It's easy to decry this sort of thing as gross consumerism, so I'll try to be a bit more creative.

First, semantics: There is something unsettling about any combination of the three words "professional," "mystery," and "worshiper."

Second, a practical concern: It's odd that a church would be happy to hear the reflections of someone visiting under false pretenses. In one case, Thomas Harrison (the consultant the article spends the most time with) prepared a "cover story" to explain why he was taking photographs of a church facility and grounds. If someone lies about being interested in your church, how sorry should you feel about being a bit cool toward visitors? Along the same lines, if someone comes to your church with the express purpose of finding its flaws, are they really experiencing the church in the same way that a casual visitor would? If everyone was friendly, I doubt they would notice - or remember - that there were weeds growing in the parking lot.

Third, a cultural observation: My initial reaction to this article was fairly intense queasiness. But I'm a twenty-something. And I could name several ministers in their forties or fifties - godly people I respect immensely - who wouldn't see a single thing wrong with it. For them, anything that helps bring people into contact with the gospel is a legitimate asset, even if it's marketing, public relations savvy, and fake undercover church visitors.

Interestingly enough, I would agree with the principle - that there are certain cultural goods that can be used to draw people to the gospel. But I disagree about which ones are appropriate. For example, one minister might think church marketing is legit but that Christians should avoid R-rated movies in order to stand apart from the culture. I might argue that church marketing is cultural syncretism, but that certain media - whatever it's rated - can be used to communicate the gospel. We're both "plundering the Egyptians," but we disagree about what to leave in Egypt and what to take with us when we go. Put negatively, we're both guilty of selectively rejecting and appropriating the culture we live in. That may be a helpful way to begin thinking about the differences between the generations.

Enough from me; I'm curious to hear what you think. Any thoughts?

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 15, 2008 | Comments (20) | TrackBack

Live from REVEAL: Getting the Weekend Right

by Skye Jethani

This morning kicked off with a time of singing led by the worship band from Gateway Church in Southlake, Texas - one of the churches being highlighted at the conference for their strong REVEAL survey results.

One of the often repeated findings from REVEAL is that frequent engagement with church activities does not predict one's spiritual growth. That being the case, I was curious to see how they redefined the purpose of the Sunday/weekend worship gathering. Many churches, especially the seeker-driven variety, have seen the worship event as the center of the church's missional solar system. Would that still be true in a post-REVEAL era?

The answer seems to be, Yes. Robert Morris and David Smith, both pastors from Gateway Church, were interviewed about their worship services. Morris said, "Worship is not about observing God, it's about experiencing God." Both Morris and Smith talked about the importance of giving people the opportunity to respond through a "ministry time" when people can come forward for prayer.

Gateway's church members expressed a high level of satisfaction with their church's worship services in the REVEAL study. REVEAL also showed that people in most churches want to be more challenged and given practical applications.

Toward this end, Morris emphasizes the importance of the Bible and preaching. "The church is a swimming pool. It has to have a deep end and a shallow end. If your church has no deep end, when you win people to Christ you'll lose them in 3-5 years."

Morris emphasized repeatedly the pastor's role to "feed the sheep." If we "feed" the mature sheep they will reproduce through evangelism, and they'll stay in the church. This is also consistent with REVEAL's finding that it's the mature believers in the church that fuel virtually everything else, including outreach. Morris said, "We don't steal sheep, but I'll tell you what - we plant grass."

Both Morris and Smith said that our temptation is to dumb down things in order to make the weekend service appealing to non-Christians. Smith says that's a mistake. The "average Joe" today wants something authentic and genuine, says Smith. They want to see Christians passionately loving and worshipping God.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 15, 2008 | Comments (3) | TrackBack

October 14, 2008

Live from REVEAL: Bill Hybels on Self-Centered Christians

by Skye Jethani

Last week it was Catalyst in Atlanta. This week's it's Willow Creek's REVEAL Conference in South Barrington, Illinois. (At least I'm closer to home.) I'll be here for the next two days with a number of updates from the conference. First up: Bill Hybels.

Greg Hawkins began this morning with a recap of the mission - to move people who are far from God toward being fully devoted followers, which means increasingly loving God and loving their neighbor. In churches we create services, classes, small groups, etc. He said, as people participate in these activities, we assume, they will become disciples - those who love God and their neighbors. REVEAL was designed to measure how effective the church's programs have been in order to refine programs and allocate resources to those that work best.

Willow first conducted the REVEAL survey with its members and attenders in the fall of 2003. The results, says Hawkins, showed that "participation in [church] activities doesn't predict whether people have a heart for God and a heart for other people." Instead, one's maturity was not related to activity but intimacy.

After the opening remarks, Bill Hybels took the stage to talk more about REVEAL's impact from his perspective. He began by noting that this past weekend marked the 33rd anniversary of Willow Creek Community Church, and how one kid reminded him that Jesus lived for 33 years and "then they killed him." The laughs showed Hybel's strength - his amazing ability to connect with an audience.

"Most people go to conferences to get their current way of ministry reinforced," he said. But he promised that the REVEAL conference would screw with our heads and cause disequilibrium.

His focus came from Hebrews 13:17 and the reality that church leaders must give an account to God for their people's souls. Hybels confessed that this verse has haunted him throughout his leadership at Willow.

He asked the pastors, "What is good enough? Seats full enough, offerings big enough, people happy enough?" He said too many of us are unwilling to go after radical change. We may tweak our style, but we don't seriously reconsider our fundamental approach to ministry. Bill choked up when he described his unwillingness to upset the apple cart at times in order to keep the peace. "I'm not proud of that kind of leadership," he said.

But Bill Hybels is very proud of "the REVEAL era" at Willow Creek. "We've challenged things that have gone unchallenged around here for a long, long time."

When the initial study was done in 2003, Hybels says he expected results to be "benign." And it did show some good things. Willow proved to have a sizable number of seekers, a strong evangelistic orientation, and a good number of strong Christ-centered people.

However, Bill also confessed that "Some findings in the survey bothered me at a level so deeply that I wanted to strangle the messengers." He continued, "It was hard for me to admit that I'd poured 30 years of my life in to this thing, and part of the findings showed that we'd fallen short in some ways."

Bill said as he and those around him wrestled with the findings, they had to keep encouraging one another with a mantra: "Facts are your friends. Facts are your friends?" [More laughter.]

Hybels went on to discuss some of the findings relating to the four identified groupings in the REVEAL study: Those Exploring Christ (the seekers), Growing in Christ (beginning believers), Close to Christ, and Christ-Centered. These basic findings shouldn't be new to regular readers of Out of Ur. Let me highlight something that was new. Bill Hybels said the leaders of Willow began to discuss which jump was hardest to make. A "jump" means moving from one of the four segments to the next. For example, is moving from "Exploring Christ" to "Growing in Christ" more or less difficult than moving from "Growing in Christ" to "Close to Christ"?

With palpable passion and intensity, Hybels said that by far the largest, toughest chasm is between those who are "Close to Christ" and those who are "Christ-Centered." He described people who are exploring, growing, or close to Christ as still fundamentally self-centered. They believe, "God is for me, and my plans, and my agenda in this world." Those who are truly Christ-centered, however, are fully surrendered. They've given up their dreams, desires, and agenda and exchanged them for Christ's. Hybel's said, "A big honkin' thing has to happen for a Christian to move from self-centered to Christ-centered."

This movement is essential for every pastor and every church to focus on, says Hybels, because you're not going to change the world with seekers, or immature Christians. It's the Christ-Centered, fully-devoted disciples who are going to change the world.

After this morning's session, Marshall Shelley and I had the opportunity to interview Hybels in his office to talk in more depth. So, you can expect to hear more about Bill Hybel's perspective on REVEAL in a future issue of Leadership.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 14, 2008 | Comments (15) | TrackBack

October 10, 2008

Third Way Faith

by Chad Hall

I've noticed a trend lately among Christian writers, thinkers, and leaders: they are framing their approach to faith as an alternative to left/right categories. Some stake out a via media between two poles, while others critique the very essence of the polarity altogether.

I'm not alone in noticing a growing third way sentiment. Scott McKnight's excellent Christianity Today article, "The Ironic Faith of Emergents", points to the same trend. He notes that McLaren and other emergent Christians offer him hope of a third way of faith - a faith without the strictures of neo-Fundamentalism that also avoids the loss of theological clarity.

I've also spotted third way thinking in the works of N.T. Wright (his approach to eschatology in Surprised by Hope comes to mind), Tim Keller (see his introduction to The Reason for God), and Tony Jones (The New Christians testifies that emerging types don't fit liberal or conservative molds). There's even a British magazine devoted to the Third Way.

Back to McKnight: he not only notices the trend, but his publisher claims him as part of it. The product description for his new book, The Blue Parakeet, reads:

I

n re-examining the Bible, McKnight provides an exciting ?Third Way' that appeals to the millions in today's church who long to be authentic Christians, but don't consider themselves theologically conservative or liberal.

So what is it with this third way thinking? Is it a good thing, or are there problems with such an approach? I think the answer is Yes. Third-way thinking offers both perils and promises.

First, some perils.

For one, third way folks risk taking fire from both the left and the right. Some of the appeal of this approach is the hope of rising above the left/right fray. But instead, such a position puts third way proponents in the cross-fire. For instance, liberals like Marcus Borg and Bert Ehrman debate a theologian like N. T. Wright from one side, while the good bishop also takes much heat from the convinced conservative crowd.

Another peril is that third way thinking can contribute to new but equally dysfunctional systems. I already sense a tension between those who don't subscribe to left/right division and those who do. And even dysfunctional trichotomies can emerge, with third way folks digging their own trenches and getting into a three-way grenade lob-fest with the left and right. As reality TV shows and geopolitics demonstrate, adding a new party to the conversation doesn't necessarily improve the conversation.

But I believe the greatest peril of the third way framework is that the trend could be (perhaps unwittingly) market driven. According to McKnight's publisher, the great thing about his third way of examining the Bible is that it appeals to millions (and it's "exciting" - a word choice I found odd).

New and improved things sell better than tired and retreaded ones. But new doesn't inherently equate with good or true or virtuous. I'm betting that there is a much in McKnight's book that is good and true and virtuous. And, for the record, some folks who've read pre-release versions tell me his book says little directly about this appealing and exciting "third way" the publishers hype on Amazon.com. All of which proves the point here: breaking loose from left/right categories could be a ruse concocted by savvy marketers who recognize left/right as dog market segments (low market share and low market growth rate). Rather than creating an alternative way to think about and practice faith, perhaps they are just creating a new market segment for which they can create products. I may be exercising an overly suspicious mind, but at some caution seems in order.

Even with the perils, I see real promises in third way thinking.

First, such a frame helps us recognize and avoid the constant opportunity for being impaled on the horns of a dilemma. I've long thought that one of the enemy's most subtle and effective tactics is to get Christians to choose between two bad options (think of Christ's temptations in the wilderness as well as the many thorny questions posed to him by the Pharisees). If third way thinking can help us refuse to settle for bad options and to strive for good solutions and positions, then that's a success in my mind.

Third way thinking also holds promise in helping us move beyond stalemates. For a few hundred years now, left and right positions have been defined, refined, and opined ad nauseam. Both sides seem entrenched and unable to move in the trench-scarred theological topography they've helped create. Some of us just want to get on with living the faith regardless of the categories. Believers who've stopped using the left/right compass are finding new directions.

A guy like Rick Warren comes to mind here. He strikes me as a leader who's ceased to be encumbered by left/right categories and is thus agile enough to join God's mission - be that in leading a mega-church, caring for the poor, or creating political conversations. Perhaps the reason he's hard to peg as a conservative or liberal is that he's just moving too fast to care or be constrained. I also sense this trait among the better of the emerging types: those who are on the missional move as opposed to those who merely think and talk fast.

It's the both/and practicality of third way thinking that has me paying attention. I think this is what McKnight meant in his CT article by "ironic faith." The third way approach holds the tension of an unchanging God (and unchanging theologies) who constantly leads us into new ventures, fresh realities, and unfolding understanding of his nature and mission. New revelations that don't contradict the known. At its best, a third way approach to faith represents the church at her best: moving with God into what God is doing. It offers a way to follow the Way, no matter where He leads.

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 10, 2008 | Comments (23) | TrackBack

October 9, 2008

Live from Catalyst: Day 2 Play by Play

by Skye Jethani

6:20pm
Groeschel encouraged us all to believe that there is "more in you." And to focus on a simple prayer: "God stretch me." But, he added: "Before God can stretch you, he's got to heal you. Before he can heal you, he's got to ruin you." Groeschel drew from Joel 2 and the imagery of weeping and brokenness and fasting. We must repent in order to get "it" back in our lives.

6:00pm
Some of Groeschel's puns: "It's about the Holy Spir-IT." "Some people are full of IT." And "IT happens." Irreverent humor, clever communication, or slick product placement? You make the call.

5:52pm
Craig Groeschel is on to talk about "It." (Also the title of his book.) He defines "it" as "that something special of God." Not much definition beyond that. "You know it when you see it."

5:33pm
A plug about a new film, "Call and Response," dealing with the trafficking of sex slaves around the world. Social justice issues are very prominent at Catalyst--even the complementary coffee is attached to a cause. Many of the booths around the arena are plugging global causes, and there are large containers near the front entrance for donations. I'm not sure you would have seen that 10, or even 5 years ago at a conference for evangelical church leaders.

4:55pm
Slide from Godin's PowerPoint:

Leadership = Marketing
Marketing = Leadership

4:49pm
Godin: "I am begging you to become heretics." [Cheering] To be different, new, and innovative is to be heretical. Godin doesn't mean this in a doctrinal sense, but in a cultural one. He says, "A huge problem in your industry is control." Religion tries to control rather than influence and lead.

4:19pm
Back in the arena for session 4. The trampoline slamdunk basketball team just left, and now Seth Godin has taken the stage. He's the #1 business blogger in the world. (And I must confess a mistake from this morning ... Jim Collins is not the only person here in a jacket and tie.)

Godin is Mr. Marketing. He says traditional marketing, like commercials that interrupt people, isn't working anymore. We must go back to the idea of people talking to people. He frames this around the idea of "tribes." Talk to consumers, and they'll spread the idea all over the world themselves. "People want to belong to tribes.... Fitting in, being with people like us, is so important." The goal should be connecting people to each other, and then get out of the way.

1:45pm
I finally got lunch...oh, blessed fried calories. I'm out during the next session for a meeting. I'll trust other Urthlings to fill in some details. (Sitting on the floor of the mezzanine outside the arena, I can hear the band fire up "We built this city on rock and roll." Well, I guess it's sorta like Jesus saying he'd build his church upon this rock. Wait, where am I again?)

12:07pm
What separates a level 5 leader (one able to take an organization from good to great) from a level 4 leader? Collins says according to the research the answer is: Humilty. "If it's about you, you cannot build a great organization."

He says the temptation in the church is to build it around the magnetic personality of one leader. Collins calls this highly "irresponsible."

11:57am
Collins believes the church should not become more like a business. "Most businesses are average, so why would we want to export the ideas of average business to your world [the church]." His focus is becoming great (surprise), and the way to become great according to Collins? Discipline. "That is not a business idea," he says, "but a great idea." Discipline is found in a great symphony, in Lance Armstrong's cycling team, in great public schools, in any great cultural enterprise.

11:39am
Jim Collins is wearing a jacket and tie...probably the only person within 1/2 mile of this arena.

11:37am
A school bus just drove into the arena...literally. On the bus: A mariachi band, a world-champion dodge ball player, a banjo player, and a pig named Rafael. This is the Catalyst way of introducing Jim Collins who taught us the importance of getting the right people on the bus.

11:12am
William P. Young, a.k.a. The Shack dude, is being interviewed on the platform. He wrote the book for his six kids, and it was originally self-published by Young at Office Depot. He describes The Shack as a parable and a metaphor for the damaged heart of a human being. The shack is where we hide all of our secrets and brokenness. But God can be found in our shack, and his desire is to heal us from the inside out.

Young thinks part of the reason the book has taken off is because of word of mouth. He says, "Religion has promised us a relationship [with God] but it hasn't delivered." Young people are particularly fed up with it. They "have the best crap detectors," he says.

What about the heat Young has gotten for his depiction of the Trinity? "It would be helpful if they [the critics] read the book," Young responded. "Some theological paradigms can be just as binding as emotional abuse," he added. Controversy and conversations are good, he believes, it leads to growth.

"God has an affection which is relentless in our direction." That truth took Young fifty years to realize because of wounds he's carried. "God heals us not so he can use us, but because he loves us." Young's passion was evident.

10:54am
Session 2 begins with a brief interview with Mark Batterson from National Community Church in Washington, D.C. I met Mark a few months ago. You can read the full interview at www.LeadershipJournal.net.

9:37am
Andy Stanley takes the stage. A lesson from the life of Nehemiah. "Once we become adults, the people who influence us the most rarely have authority over us." "As leaders, we need an authority beyond positional authority?we need moral authority." "Alignment between our creed and our deed?between what we say and what we do."

After explaining the way Nehemiah used his moral authority to lead the effort to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, Stanley applied moral authority to three areas of our lives: forgiveness, family and finances.

9:17am
Opening welcome by Reggie Joiner focuses on Jesus' words from John 17 about unity. Jesus prayed for unity, and that should be important to us. "There are Democrats and Republicans here together. There are some people from the emerging church and traditional church here together. We are all in the same room together. There is one thing that brings us together: that what is important to God is important to us."

9:02am
The worship band has everyone on their feet. This is definitely the largest ministry conference I've been to. At least 12,000 people in the arena. I'm curious what the arena employees (the concession workers, facility people, and cleaning staff that I've seen around the building) think about all of this?

8:40am
The morning session just kicked off. The center of the stage featured an enormous barrel shaped lcd screen that levitated above the platform to reveal a drummer underneath. His rhythmic pounding sent shockwaves through the arena. I could feel my own internal organs shifting. It then broke into the first song of the event: "We will, we will?rock you!"

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 9, 2008 | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Live from Catalyst: Day 2 Color Commentary

Marshall Shelley

Skye is offering a terrific play by play. Let me offer a word of commentary on one entry he mentioned.

One of the people I was most interested to meet at Catalyst was William Paul Young, the author of "The Shack," the self-published novel that was given a spectacular endorsement by Eugene Peterson, got amazing word-of-mouth distribution and rocked the publishing world, selling millions and sparking a heated blogosphere debate among Christians over whether the book is heretical in its depiction of God or whether it's a helpful and clarifying portrayal of God's three-in-one character.

Today Paul (he goes by his middle name) was interviewed on the main stage. At yesterday's Catalyst lab, Paul explained to a mostly supportive audience the origin of the novel. He said it was NOT written to make a statement about the Trinity. Instead, he said, it was written to be given to family members to help them better grasp issues of God and gender! To work through the pain of earthly fathers who are distant or absent during times of Great Sadness.

Oh, my, I thought. If anything is more volatile than the Trinity, issues of gender would be on a fairly short list of things guaranteed to be impossible to address without offending a whole lot of people. The intricacies of describing the Trinity will offend the theologically trained, but the suggesting God has gender issues will disturb just about everyone.

"God is spirit," Paul reminded us, "not male or female." But to describe God's relationship to people, the Bible describes God with both male and female terms. Paul pointed for example to "El Shaddai," a Hebrew term he explained as "from the same word as ?breast,' referring to God as nurturer and provider and one who would give her life for her child." Instead of "the Lord of Breasts," the King James Bible translates the term "Lord of Hosts," which Paul said he considered a bit ironic.

And I thought the Bible's calling God a "living stone" and "mother hen" were problematic. Silly me. So Paul Young portrays two persons of the Godhead as female and one as male in perfect unity.

Paul explained his primary purpose in "The Shack" was to show that God is not an absent Father, but is in "The Shack" with us, in our Great Sadness, usually showing up in a way we do not expect.

His explanation certainly won't pacify his critics, but it's still helpful to see a novel in its larger context.

Posted by Marshall Shelley at October 9, 2008 | Comments (3) | TrackBack

October 8, 2008

Live From Catalyst: McKnight on Bad Bible Reading

by Skye Jethani

Day 1 at Catalyst in Atlanta is dominated by the Labs. These smaller breakout sessions give conference attendees a more intimate setting to hear from authors, thinkers, and leaders in a more interactive environment. My first stop was Scot McKnight's lab "The Blue Parakeet" based on his new book by the same title. The book advocates a "third way" of reading the Bible. (Scot is a friend and a regular contributor to Out of Ur.)

Next week, Brandon O'Brien will be posting his review of The Blue Parakeet so you should stay tuned for a more in depth discussion of McKnight's ideas. For now, I'll just mention a snippet from his lab I found helpful.

McKnight outlined five flawed ways many people read the Bible:

1. The Morsels of Law Approach
These people search the Bible and extract ever commandment. They see Scripture as fundamentally a book of rules to be obeyed. The problem, says McKnight, is that no one really obeys - or even tries to obey - every commandment. And we're not just talking about some obscure stuff in Leviticus. Scot mentioned a number of New Testament commands that many Christians dismiss as well. We are all selective.

2. The Morsels of Blessing Approach
McKnight says publishers are always sending him daily calendars that have a different promise or blessing from the Bible printed on each day. It's a nice way to start the morning, he notes, but it gives people a skewed view of Scripture. The Bible is a lot more than warm thoughts from our Creator to carry us through our day. Finally fed up with these calendars, McKnight wrote to one of the publishers offering to write a daily calendar with nothing but passage about God's wrath.

3. The Rorschach Approach
Most people are familiar with the Rorschach Ink Blot test often used by psychologists. Patients are asked what they "see" when looking at symmetrical ink patterns. Because the blots don't really resemble anything, the patient's answer tells the therapist more about the patient than the image. Similarly, McKnight notes that many people see in Scripture what they want to see, not what's really there. For example, political conservatives see justification for capitalism. Liberals see justification for a welfare state.

4. The Systematic Theology Approach
Some folks, the particularly left-brained and anal retentive (my perception, not McKnight's), believe that God has scattered facts throughout the Bible. These snippets of truth need to be located, rather like an Easter egg hunt, and categorized into buckets. Finally, the pieces are assembled into a systematic theology without ambiguity or mystery to explain God, humanity, creation, and history. The fatal error in this approach, says McKnight, is that large portions of Scripture are never included because they refuse to fit into our neat systems.

5. The Maestro Approach
McKnight shared about his love of Italian food - particularly risotto. The best risotto he ever had was prepared by a chef in Italy while on vacation. Since then he's compared every other risotto dish with that one. We all have favorites; someone we consider the maestro, the master, we compare all others with. So it is with the Bible. Some people have a master book of the Bible - Exodus for Liberation Theologians, or Romans for Reformed pastors - and then they force every other part of the Bible to fit that book's framework. Some favor the Gospels and Jesus' focus on the Kingdom, but they don't read about the Kingdom in Paul's writing. So they force the Epistles to submit to the Gospels. The opposite also happens when Jesus is only read through Paul.

These five approaches, says McKnight, are all very common, and all very flawed. His solution? We must read the Bible as a story. But it's not just a story that we read, it is a story that we live. "We must let the Bible's story become our story," he said, "so that it becomes us, and we become it."

Intrigued? Me too.

More from Catalyst tomorrow.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 8, 2008 | Comments (9) | TrackBack

October 7, 2008

Urban Exile: Suburban vs. Urban Church Politics

by David Swanson

As on any other Tuesday, my wife and I hosted our weekly small group on Election Day of 2004. A quick scan of the TV stations after the Bible study showed that we'd have to wait until the next day to learn the results. "Just pray that John Kerry doesn't win," said one of the members on his way out that November night. Over early morning coffee a few weeks later another church friend expressed his relief that George Bush would serve a second term as president.

More recently, after a pizza dinner with some volunteers from church, someone asked where Barak Obama's home was. Soon a small caravan was driving through Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood to see the house of what many of these volunteers hoped would be the next president. A few weeks later I watched one of our worship leaders tactfully cover her Obama t-shirt with a jacket before our Sunday service began.

What happened between 2004 and the current election season to account for this shift in the political sensibilities of our community? Maybe the political priorities of some folks have changed. Maybe churchgoers feel taken for granted by the "Grand Old Party." Or perhaps Americans, including those within the Evangelical tradition, are just ready for change.

Or maybe not. What changed was that between these two elections we moved from an established suburban church to a 6-year old-church plant in Chicago. And that, as they say, has made all the difference.

Allow me to generalize for a moment. The mostly-White suburban church I came from is filled with people who think government ought to reflect the "small town values" we've heard so much about from the McCain/Palin ticket. These folks avidly defend the rights of the unborn along with a traditional view of marriage, and generally believe the Iraq war was a necessary evil. In contrast, my ethnically diverse urban congregation is made up of those who believe the government should seek justice for the poor and marginalized in our city. Healthcare for the uninsured, increased spending for public schools, and environmental equity are the issues that lead people to wear their Obama t-shirts to church.

There are also important similarities. Salvation by grace through faith and regular Gospel proclamation are clear theological priorities for both churches. Corporate worship in both is a contemporary mix of new praise songs and old hymns. Both care admirably for the practical needs of the homeless men and women in their neighborhoods.

Despite their theological compatibility, more than just the 25 miles between their sanctuaries separate these two churches. While employed by the suburban church, a member told me she was nervous to admit her liberal leanings to her friends. "I'm afraid they'll question my Christianity," she said, only partly kidding. In my urban church it's more likely a church member will privately confess he's a closet Republican. These two congregations seem to prove congressman Tip O'Neill's point that that "all politics is local." The unique issues and values attached to America's small towns, suburbs, and cities significantly influence a local congregation's political undercurrents. The addition of race and class differences only enlarges these divergent ideologies.

Given the political plurality among theologically similar churches, I have to wonder why some Christian leaders talk as if there is only one way to engage politically. When a candidate is endorsed as the right person for the job, are not entire groups of Christians ignored? When it is said that one of the candidates will uphold and protect "Christian values," should we not ask whose Christian values are being protected? When claims are made that a presidential candidate is "God's man" for the job, does it not follow that Christians who vote differently are at best misguided and at worst outside of God's plan? Do some of us actually have enough confidence in our knowledge of God's will to risk alienating our politically diverse Christian family with these types of claims? Not me; I lack that type of confidence.

Scot McKnight recently wrote on this blog that our hope is not in the political process but "in the gospel of God that creates a kind of people that extends God's gospel to the world." Alongside this bold hope must stand a chastened humility. Our political assertions ought to be made in concert with our diverse Christian family, which is full of brothers and sisters who often sees the world very differently than we do. In the weeks before November 4, I will be asking myself the following questions in an attempt to reflect God's love for the entire Church.

? Would a person of any political persuasion feel welcome in our church?
? Does our teaching and community life reflect both the local values of our neighborhood and the global ethics of the Church?
? Is our church regularly reminded that our hope is in Christ and that our solidarity is with the diverse people of God's Kingdom?

As the election punditry reaches a fever pitch, we have the opportunity to demonstrate hope and humility to a nation that has lately known too little of either.
There are plenty of Christian leaders speaking loudly on God's behalf this election season. I hope others of us will listen carefully to those whose politics may seem odd but whose devotion to Jesus should be very familiar.

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 7, 2008 | Comments (19) | TrackBack

October 6, 2008

Cartoon: Love, Theologically Speaking

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 6, 2008 | Comments (4) | TrackBack

October 3, 2008

If Your Hand Causes You to Sin...

by Url Scaramanga

I would like to thank Mr. Victor T. Cheney for recently sending me a copy of the second edition of his self-published pamphlet titled "Celibacy Guaranteed: For a Safe and Happy Future." Mr. Cheney has asked us to share parts of his pamphlet with you.

From page 3:

There is only one way to be sure of permanently eliminating the sex drive and guaranteeing the purity of our priesthood, and that is to remove the source of the hormone which causes it and the aggressive instinct which is its cohort?. Removal of the testes for the purification of the priesthood is not some new idea or experimental notion; it has been used for millennia. The history of this means of assuring purity is still traceable in spite of the suppression of information on the practice since the First Nicaean Council in 325 A.D.

A cornerstone of Mr. Cheney's argument is Mark 9:42-46:

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.

The pamphlet goes on to trace the history of castration both in Scripture and church history, as well as medical advances ensuring the safe and risk-free removal of the offending organs.

Part II, "The Benefits of Castration," outlines how the prescribed solution would alleviate sexual temptation, crime, disease, pain, anguish, psychoses, degradation, suffering, premature mortality, acne, and baldness. "Castration offers a blessed relief from all of these problems that bedevil us." Full of statistics and citations, "Celibacy Guaranteed" is an insightful, detailed, and frighteningly logical read.

Apart from wrestling with the best way to handle the growing epidemic of sexual immorality within the church, Mr. Cheney's pamphlet should make us stop and think once again about the ramifications of our hermeneutical approach to Scripture. I recommend taking Scot McKnight's very popular Hermeneutics Quiz to determine your own views and possible inconsistencies.

[For the record, Url does not advocate castration as a legitimate method of sin management.]

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 3, 2008 | Comments (15) | TrackBack

October 2, 2008

The Hansen Report: Modern versus Postmodern Politics

by Collin Hansen

You can listen to every stump speech and read every position paper, but nothing compares to evaluating presidential candidates side-by-side during a debate. Their contrasting styles and views emerge in ways you hadn't noticed during the long primary season. The candidates practice their lines and prepare their strategies, but the format allows for precious moments of spontaneity and even humor. The best candidates deftly address issues in ways that lodge them in the public consciousness.

Perhaps the best example of this is President Reagan, who in 1984 famously said, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience." His 56-year-old opponent, Walter Mondale, could only look on in laughter.

The first debate between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama provided no such memorable moments. But it did highlight important distinctions between the Republican and Democratic candidates. Namely, McCain and Obama represent key differences between modern and postmodern cultures. Analyzing their debate through this lens reveals similarities to the church's own debates about how to respond to shifting cultures.

Obama spoke with empathy about the personal effects of the current financial crisis on Main Street America. He advocated greater oversight for Wall Street. McCain, too, said he wants oversight, but he emphasized different reasons for the crisis. He spoke of individual greed and said the government needs to hold the failed executives accountable. As the debate progressed, McCain spoke passionately about members of Congress who perpetuate the "evils of this earmarking and pork-barrel spending." McCain underscored personal morals where Obama accentuated communal values.

Obama consistently drew attention to points of agreement with McCain. He credited McCain for opposing President Bush on torture, for example. By contrast, McCain chided Obama for not understanding the issues and for displaying naïveté. He perpetuated the Right vs. Left dichotomy by describing Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. While Obama sought to build consensus, McCain pointed out their differences.

The debate's most contentious moments came when Obama reiterated his intent to "meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing, if I think it's going to keep America safe." Despite taking a political beating for this view from Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama willingly contrasted himself with McCain:

But we are also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough, direct diplomacy with Iran, and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain. This notion--by not talking to people we are punishing them--has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I'm president of the United States.

"So let me get this right," McCain responded. "We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, 'We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth,' and we say, 'No, you're not'? Oh, please."

McCain is a man of action and frank talk. Obama sees intrinsic value in engagement, which may even produce unexpected tangible consensus. You could plug in certain pastors and see the same differences.

Nationalism is a key reality of the modern world. But postmodernism prioritizes the global community. McCain hammered Obama for advocating precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, which McCain said would result in a host of horrendous consequences for America and the Middle East. He promised to seek American "victory and honor." Obama was more concerned about America's global reputation. Near the end of the debate, he shared a story about his Kenyan father writing letters so he could attend an American college. At the time, Obama said, America offered hope that hard work could pay off. "The ideals and the values of the United States inspired the entire world," Obama said. "I don't think any of us can say that our standing in the world now, the way children around the world look at the United States, is the same."

In their exchanges, Obama called McCain by his first name, drawing attention to his personality. McCain never reciprocated, indicating respect for Obama's office but not necessarily for Obama himself. This difference highlighted Obama's preference to question McCain's judgment and prudence as McCain drew attention to his own experience and record. McCain even mocked intuition and President Bush when explaining his views on Russia.

"I looked into Mr. Putin's eyes, and I saw three letters, a 'K,' a 'G,' and a 'B,'" McCain said. "And their aggression in Georgia is not acceptable behavior."

Not everything in the debate can be framed as the difference between a modern and postmodern worldview. But like our church debates, a little awareness about perspective goes a long way toward understanding. The November election's results may help church leaders gauge the mood of their own constituencies. A tougher challenge is knowing when and how to confront those cultural assumptions for our own good and for the sake of the gospel.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 2, 2008 | Comments (13) | TrackBack