May 29, 2009
The Publisher Parries
Patriot's Bible editor Richard Lee responds to Greg Boyd
Editor's Note: When we received Greg Boyd's review of The American Patriot's Bible, we sent it to the folks at Thomas Nelson Publishers and asked them if they wanted to respond. The Bible's editor, Richard G. Lee sent us this reply.
Over the past several years it has been my privilege to work together with a wonderful group of scholars and editors developing The American Patriot's Bible. As the general editor of this title, I felt it was important to present a clear and accurate understanding of why The American Patriot's Bible came together as it did, and how it is to be used to enlighten the readers of the undeniable role that the Word of God has played in the formation and continuation of our great nation.
The American Patriot's Bible's clear purpose is to present the "strong cord" of the Bible's influence that runs through the fabric of our nation's past and present. Our great nation has not used the Bible to form some system of "nationalism" and "superior isolationism," but rather our founding fathers learned from its teachings the principles, values, and ethics of law, government and proper social order.
Does this mean that America has any more right to the Bible and its promises than any other nation? Not at all. When the Scripture teaches us, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord," (Psalm 33:12) that means any nation of people who will follow after Him would be blessed by Him. That truth is the reasoning behind sending American Christian missionaries around the world with the Gospel, so that other nations may know the God who has so richly blessed us.
Every nation has some form of religion as a basis for its system of government and social order. The examples are many. China has the religion of Atheism, India has the religion of Hinduism, and many of the Arab nations have Islam. The religion that permeates America is Christianity given to us in the Holy Bible. Are there other religions in America? Should persons of other religious faiths enjoy the same rights of worship and assembly? Certainly they should, and they do, but from our nation's beginnings Christianity has been the one prevailing religious faith. Evidence of this fact abounds.
It is evidenced by countless references from the Bible in our state charters, our founding documents, and state and federal laws. Even the numerous federal buildings and monuments throughout our nation's capital city, Washington, D.C. carry images and quotations from both the Old and the New Testaments of the Bible.
Christianity was overwhelmingly the religion of our founding fathers. So frequent were their references to the Bible and the Christian faith in their speeches, letters and other writings, that during the compiling of The American Patriot's Bible it was a challenge to determine which of the great volume of references to their personal faith to include.
Most of our nation's oldest universities and centers of higher education were started by Christian pastors and churches. Yale is a university of great renown and reputation, but it may surprise many to know that it was established with the stated goal that "every student shall consider the main end of his study to wit to know God in Jesus Christ and answerably to lead a godly and sober life." Harvard University's original "Rules and Precepts" read: "Let every student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life…" In fact, Harvard's original seal contains these words, "Truth for Christ and the Church."
When American citizens go into a court of Law to give testimony they place their left hand on the Holy Bible and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth "so help me God." The God that they speak of is the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible.
Each of the 44 U.S. Presidents have placed one hand upon the Bible and raised their other hand toward God while making their oath of office. The God that they raise their hand before is again the God of the Judeo-Christian faith. If this were not true, placing their hand upon the Bible would be a foolish act.
President Franklin Roosevelt said, "We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic."
President Woodrow Wilson delivered his famous address "The Bible and Progress" in Denver, Colorado telling his listeners, "America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of the Holy Scripture."
Go to any city, any town, or any rural community in America and you will find Christian churches, some old and some new, with their steeples towering over the landscape as a visible sign that Christianity is now, and was in the past, America's foremost religion.
Throughout The American Patriot's Bible such historic documents, statements, photos, biographies, and stories from America's wonderful heritage are presented. Every effort was made to place these historical references in the Bible text where they could reflect real-life examples of the general values and themes being presented in the Scripture. They are not there to fulfill someone's political cause or theological ideology - far from it. They're there to remind us of the rightful place of Judeo-Christian values and the Bible in America's past and present.
The American Patriot's Bible is meant to promote efforts to take seriously the responsibility to put God first, not only in our homes but also in our national affairs. It is a tool with which to learn from the past and be Christian influences in the present and future national life, as well as the world.
America still stands as a beacon of hope and freedom in a hurting world. People, who yearn to be free, regardless of their religion, their differing views, or even their anti-God philosophies can still find the light of freedom and the open door of liberty in our great Land. This is the heart and theme of The American Patriot's Bible from beginning to end.
Let us be reminded that as a people, Americans have sought to follow the God of the Bible and what He has taught us through His Word. And the results are the obvious blessings He has provided, not only for us, but for all who seek "…life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 29, 2009 | Comments (55) | TrackBack
May 28, 2009
Ur Video: The American Patriot's Bible
This video was produced by Thomas Nelson, publisher of The American Patriot's Bible. Be sure to read Greg Boyd's scathing review of the Patriot's Bible, and stay tuned for a response from the editor.
A few excerpts from the video:
"For the first time ever, the history of America’s Christian heritage and the Holy Bible are woven together in a single volume."
"Its pages contain an accurate archive of America’s strong ties to the Holy Bible and the God of the Bible. It highlights people and events which demonstrate the godly qualities that make America what it is today.... It is the one Bible that shows how a light from above shaped our nation."
"If you love America and the Scriptures, you will treasure The American Patriot’s Bible."
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 28, 2009 | Comments (14) | TrackBack
May 26, 2009
Book Review: The Patriot's Bible (part 2)
Does the Patriot's Bible glorify nationalistic violence?
Read part 1 of Greg Boyd's review of The Patriot's Bible.
It's perhaps not coincidental that the Patriot's Bible offers no commentary on any passages related to our instruction to love and do good to our enemies.
But the Revolutionary War is not by any means the only nationalistic violence celebrated in the Patriot's Bible. To the contrary, the glory of nationalistic violence permeates this Bible. For example, every book of the Bible opens with a montage of national monuments, symbols, stars and stripes, etc… which include, with few exceptions, images of armed soldiers, bombers and battleships. Most stunningly, each Gospel opens with a scene that includes soldiers struggling to raise a flag under the words "In God We Trust." All the subsequent books of the New Testament open with a montage that includes a flag waving behind the Statue of Liberty on one side and armed marching troops on the other. It's quite breathtaking - and I don't mean this in a good way.
Similarly, a very high percentage of the commentaries sprinkled throughout this Bible exalt American wars and their heroes. To give but one example, a comment in 2 Samuel about how "the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle" (2 Sam. 1:25) elicits a half page commentary entitled "Duty-Honor-Country." In it the commentators review a famous speech given by General Douglas MacArthur in which he claims that "[t]he solider, above all other men, is required to practice the greatest act of religious training – sacrifice." In facing danger, MacArthur adds, the soldier "discloses those divine attributes which his Maker gave when He created man in His own image."
The soldier on the field, prepared to die and kill for his country, apparently exemplifies the greatest act of religion and the best expression of what it is to be made in the image of God!
(I have to assume MacArthur and the commentators of the Patriot's Bible only intend to refer to American soldiers, though it remains unclear how they could justify such a selective application of the imago dei). The commentary becomes even more amazing as it recounts MacArthur's statement that "…the solider who is called upon to offer and to give his life for his country is the noblest development of mankind." The contributors clearly agree with this theology, for they comment that, "as long as other Americans serve their country courageously and honorably, [MacAthur's] words will live on" (p.341).
Without in any way detracting from the courage of soldiers who lay down their lives for their country, I find myself utterly confounded as to how Christian commentators can agree that a military combatant is "the noblest development of mankind." Since Christ is the perfect illustration of what it means to be "in the image of God," and since he is our Lord and the one we are called to imitate, shouldn't he be the criteria for what constitutes "the noblest development of mankind?" Yet, he refused to buy into the Jewish nationalism of his day (despite the fact that Israel, unlike America, actually had been sanctioned by God in the Old Testament). And he laid down his life for his enemies rather than engage in violence against them (Mt 26:53) or allow his disciples to do so. (Jn 18:10-11, 36).
People who obey the New Testament and follow this example, I submit, should be viewed by Christians as most clearly reflecting the image of God and as constituting "the noblest development of mankind."
Sadly, this intense glorification of national violence constitutes a central theme of this ill-conceived Bible. And, in my opinion, this simply reveals how thoroughly the Gospel of Jesus has been co-opted and redefined by the Gospel of American Patriotism in this Bible.
I have no doubt that those who contributed to the Patriot's Bible are sincere, godly people who genuinely believe they're doing America and the Kingdom a service by publishing this work. And had they published their particular interpretation of American history in a separate volume, I would have had much less trouble with it. What grieves me deeply is that the Patriot's Bible fuses this interpretation with the biblical narrative in an attempt to give it divine authority. As such, this version of the Bible virtually incarnates the nationalistic idolatry that has afflicted the Church for centuries and so thoroughly compromised the beauty of the trans-national, self-sacrificial Kingdom Jesus came to bring.
In the Introduction Dr. Richard Lee promises that, "If you love America and the Scriptures, you will treasure this Bible." I truly love America and deeply love the Scriptures, but for just this reason, I was thoroughly appalled by this Bible.
Dr. Richard Lee's response to Greg Boyd's review of the Patriot's Bible will be posted soon.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 26, 2009 | Comments (18) | TrackBack
May 22, 2009
Book Review: The Patriot's Bible (part 1)
Greg Boyd says the American Patriot's Bible is nothing less than "idolatrous."
Published by Thomas Nelson Publishers, The American Patriot's Bible (henceforth Patriot's Bible) consists of hundreds of commentaries on various patriotic themes, ranging in length from one sentence to four pages, inserted at various points throughout the New King James Version of the Bible. Every special interest Bible imposes a certain agenda that to some degree colors the Word, but the Patriot's Bible takes this "coloring" to a whole new level. There's not a single commentary in this Bible that even attempts to shed light on what the biblical text actually means. To the contrary, the text of the Bible is used merely as an excuse to further the patriotic agenda of the commentators.
There are a multitude of problematic aspects to the Patriot's Bible, including the remarkable way it excludes from consideration almost every aspect of American history that could blemish the image of America or its heroes. For example, on the basis of Zechariah's prophecy that the Messiah would "speak peace to the nations" (Zech. 9:10) we are given a full page eulogy of Christopher Columbus that celebrates how God had destined this "devout Catholic" to bring the good news of salvation to an unreached people group. Absent from the commentary is any discussion of how he and his fellow pioneers deceived, maimed, raped and murdered a large number of these unreached people.
Yet, the selective retelling of American history found in the Patriot's Bible is not what concerns me the most. What disturbs me more is the way the commentators attempt to give their idealized version of American history divine authority by weaving it into the biblical narrative.
The central assumption that undergirds the Patriot's Bible is that America is, in a unique sense, a nation established, governed, blessed and protected by God. Throughout the Patriot's Bible, but especially in the Old Testament, an explicit parallel is drawn between Israel and America.
For example, George Washington is exalted as the "American Moses," about whom the commentators wonder "[h]ow…is it possible for so much greatness to be embodied in one man?" Similarly, as God brought the Israelites out of oppression and led them into the promised land, so God led the brave pioneers of America out of their oppression and brought them to their promised land. As God fought on the side of the Israelites to ensure victory over their foes, so God's providential hand was at work in all of America's military victories. And just as God used the children of Abraham to bless the whole world, so God has used, and wants to continue to use, America to bless the entire world by bringing it freedom.
A question never addressed in the Patriot's Bible is why anyone, American or otherwise, should agree with any of this. The Patriot's Bible never tires of offering the reader quotes from various famous people in American history who believed all of this, but this simply begs the question. Why should we today regard the claims to divine favor found throughout our history as any different than similar claims made by political leaders of countries and tribes throughout history? After all, with very few exceptions, all countries and tribes throughout history have believed they were established, governed, blessed and protected by some god or another. When we read about early American pioneers who claimed it was "manifest destiny" that white Europeans would conquer and rule this continent, we have to ask ourselves why we shouldn't regard such proclamations as simply a new version of a very old pagan mantra. (We're also justified – indeed, required – to wonder what impact the contemporary Christian endorsement of this white European interpretation of providence might have on American Indians, African Americans and others who continue to suffer as a result of the violent European conquest of this land).
The assumption that God is uniquely invested and involved in America should especially concern Christians, since Jesus explicitly taught that the Kingdom he brought had nothing to do with nationalism or violence. His Kingdom was "not of this world," and the proof he offered Pilate in support of this claim is that his followers would not engage in violence, as defenders of worldly kingdoms invariably do (Jn. 18:36).
The Kingdom that Jesus' followers are to be committed to is one that expresses the "one new humanity" Jesus died to create, a humanity for which all dividing walls of nation and race have been abolished (Eph. 2:14). In Christ, we are no longer to relate to each other in terms of nationality, social class or gender (Gal. 3:28-29). The vision of the Kingdom we're to be working toward is one in which people from every nation and tribe come together to worship around the throne (Rev. 7:9-10). And the Kingdom we're to "seek first" is one that is centered on imitating Jesus' loving sacrifice for his enemies (Eph. 5:1-2; cf. Jn 13:5; 1 Pet 2:20-21; Jn 2:6). In this light, it's nothing short of tragic that we now find ourselves with a version of the Bible whose sole purpose is to reinforce the nationalism and celebrate the military victories of a particular country.
The point becomes even more important when we consider the long and sad history of "Christian" nationalism. Whenever the church failed to preserve the unique beauty of God's trans-national Kingdom and allowed itself to be co-opted by the spirit of nationalism, bloodshed "in Jesus' name" soon followed. Beginning in the late Middle Ages, this Christianized nationalism inspired Christians to wage war on other Christians in service to their respective countries. The numerous barbaric intra-Christian wars from the 14th to the 17th centuries significantly undermined the credibility of the Church and were the single greatest influence in the secularization of western culture.
Sadly, the Patriot's Bible is saturated with this nationalistic, "fight-for-God-and -country," mindset. For example, this Bible repeatedly celebrates God's supposed providential hand in the American Revolution, which is simply one of the more recent examples of Christians slaughtering other Christians for nationalistic purposes.
To give but one illustration, on the basis of Paul's encouragement for Christians to be "rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith" (Col. 2:7), the contributors to the Patriot's Bible offer a review of John Quincy Adam's claim that the Fourth of July is "the most joyous and most venerated" holiday after Christmas, claiming that the two are "indissolubly linked." The Declaration of Independence, we are told, "first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth" and thereby "gave to the world the first irrevocable pledge of the fulfillment of the prophecies announced …at the birth of the Savior…" (p. 1352).
Now, one might legitimately wonder what possible connection exists between Paul's admonition to be "rooted and built up in [Christ]," on the one hand, and this patriotic quote from John Quincy Adam, on the other. There is none, and this is sadly typical of the commentaries in the Patriot's Bible. The biblical text has been reduced to nothing more than an artificial pretext to further a particular nationalistic and political agenda. One might also legitimately wonder how the Fourth of July beat out Easter for the second most joyous and venerated holiday. But the more important point concerns what this passage reveals about the vision of America advocated in the Patriot's Bible. The Declaration of Independence, we are told, is nothing less than the pledge that Christ's mission is being fulfilled, which is why American Christians should celebrate our victorious violence over our British brothers and sisters in Christ as the providential working out of Jesus' mission!
This Jesus, remember, is the same one who commanded us to love our enemies, do good to those who hate us, bless those who curse us, pray for those who mistreat us and turn the other cheek so that we might become "children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked" (Lk 6:35, cf. 27-34; cf, Mt. 5:38-48). How the birth of this Jesus could be viewed as "indissolubly linked" to Christian-on-Christian violence is a wonder. But how this idolatrous connection could get inserted into a published Christian Bible leaves me speechless.
Part 2 of Greg Boyd's review of the Patriot's Bible will be posted soon. A response by the Patriot's Bible's editor, Dr. Richard G. Lee, will also be featured on Out of Ur in the coming days.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 22, 2009 | Comments (65) | TrackBack
May 20, 2009
The Moody Conference--Upon Further Reflection
Further reflections on day one.
My post from yesterday elicited a couple of comments asking for further information about the Moody Pastors' Conference going on this week. It wasn't my intention to be unhelpful, but I was. So, thanks, Jarrod and PastorM. You asked good questions. Here are my answers.
I saw no Twittering--in the sessions I was in, there were not even any laptops. A pretty low-tech crowd.
As for diversity, I was actually impressed by the racial makeup. Based on my unscientific observation, I would say the Moody conference was more ethnically diverse that Catalyst and NPC. Significant numbers of Hispanic and black participants. I can't say anything about the international makeup--I met a Canadian. Other than that, I don't know.
The majority of the breakout sessions were issues and/or methods focused--how to grow your church, increase giving, responding to homosexuality, etc.
As for the "hidden curriculum," I'd say the difference in Catalyst and Moody could be described like this: At Catalyst, all the talk was about contextualization and mission. At Moody, it was about doctrine and faithfulness. That observation is based on John Piper's presentation on Tuesday night and the audience's response to him.
As for women, no--there was very little female participation. In fact,
at one point in Piper's presentation, he addressed us as "brothers." Then he said, "I know there are women here, but I'm talking to pastors." The clear assumption is that pastor = male.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 20, 2009 | Comments (15) | TrackBack
May 19, 2009
Live from Moody: First Impressions
Skye and I are at reFOCUS, Moody Bible Institute's pastors' conference, this week. Skye is leading a breakout session, and I'm making the rounds to see what's what.
This is my first time at a Moody event. The last conference I attended was Catalyst (last month), and this is quite a different experience. We haven't made it to a general session, so I can't say much about the difference in content. But this conference is clearly aimed at a different demographic. At Catalyst, I saw more skinny jeans than I'd ever seen in one place before. Here--I've seen no man purses or boy bangs. The standard dress is polos and khakis. And, as the wardrobe might suggest, the crowd skews older.
The breakout sessions offer a little something for everyone. While Skye was talking about his book to one group of pastors, I slipped into to a presentation by Douglas Beaumont. He was talking about his book The Message Behind the Movie, in which he calls Christians to take their brains with them to the movies.
We're looking forward to sessions by Andy Crouch, among others, the afternoon and to John Piper in the general session tonight.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 19, 2009 | Comments (3) | TrackBack
May 15, 2009
Skye Jethani: Tortured Conscience
A new survey shows most churchgoers support torture. What should pastors say?
A political dissident is arrested for leading a movement that threatens the stability of a region. He is ambushed and apprehended by his enemies, detained without a public trail, and tortured by soldiers at the command of their political leaders. No, I'm not describing Kalid Sheikh Mohammad or any other detainee held at the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I'm speaking of Jesus of Nazareth.
The fact that Christians draw their faith, life, and identity from a Messiah who was the victim of political torture seems ironic in light of new research by the Pew Forum that indicates 62 percent of white evangelicals believe torture of suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. The research shows that people who attend church regularly were more likely to rationalize torture than those who do not go to church.
How do we explain these findings? Are Christians being more influenced by Jack Bauer than Jesus Christ?
Lurking behind this passive support of government torture is a utilitarian ethic that believes the ends justify the means - torture is justifiable if the information attained will save innocent lives. But David Neff, editor of Christianity Today, points out a problem with this argument:
Evangelicals have been eager to reject utilitarian ethics when addressing other issues - embryonic stem-cell research, for example. Even if embryonic stem-cell research turned out to be the best way to cure Parkinson's disease, most evangelicals would oppose it, just as we would oppose abortion even if it were shown to reduce, say, food insecurity.
When it comes to defending the lives of the unborn, most evangelicals utterly reject utilitarian ethics. Life is sacred, and all people - even the unborn - are created in the image of God. But this belief is put to the test when the life in question is that of a suspected terrorist. Do we really believe all human life is sacred or only innocent life? Are all people created in God's image or only those not labeled "enemy combatants"?
Perhaps the condemnation of abortion and justification of torture found among our congregants is the result of pastoral teaching that is losing the forest for the trees. We have taught our people to oppose abortion, but have we failed to lift up the larger ethic of life's sanctity which applies far beyond the first, second, or third trimester? Maybe it's time for us to preach an ethic of life that stretches from the womb to the tomb - one that even encompasses the prison camps the lie in between.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 15, 2009 | Comments (61) | TrackBack
May 14, 2009
Last Call: The Alcohol Brew-haha
Our final round on the drinking debate...for now.
The conversation based on Eric Reed's report, "Trouble Brewing," in the latest issue of Leadership has been...stimulating. What should church leaders be modeling for their flocks? Everyone agrees that sobriety is essential, but is enjoying an alcoholic beverage ever okay? Or should we prohibit ourselves and other leaders from drinking out of sensitivity to "the weaker brothers" among us?
We wrap up with two insights. First, a video depicting the era of Prohibition that shows how the church spoke about the issue in decades past.
And finally, a comment posted by "J. Joyce" from our previous post on the subject. Joyce has an interesting perspective on abstinence as it relates to other "sins":
It seems that we do not generalize abstinence in other behaviors. For example, we believe gays and lesbians should not have sex. But that's not because sex is wrong; it's because we believe their use of it is unhealthy. That's why we don't say married heterosexual couples shouldn't have sex.Many Christians who believe gambling is reckless and irresponsible invest in the stock market. Clearly they don't think all gambling is wrong; just certain types for certain people.
I'm not sure how alcohol use is different from these examples. Christians in a loving heterosexual relationship can "cause their brother to stumble" when he wants companionship and finds it in another man; Christian businessmen can "cause their brother to stumble" when they say "we lost it all in the market" and another many says "why not lose it all at the track?"
The issue is personal responsibility. Some people shouldn't drink. Some people can--and perhaps some should.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 14, 2009 | Comments (29) | TrackBack
May 13, 2009
Q&A with Frank Viola
How churches can embrace God's eternal purpose.
Unlike his previous volumes (Pagan Christianity and Reimagining Church), Frank Viola's new book From Eternity to Here is not about church practices and forms. Instead, it tells the story of God's eternal purposes in redemption from Genesis to Revelation. "I wrote the book," Viola explains, "to bring back into view the greatness, the supremacy, the centrality, and the incomparable glory of the Lord Jesus Christ in the face of God's immense purpose." Leadership assistant editor Brandon O'Brien asked Viola a few questions about what his book means for local churches.
Do you think that someone could agree with you completely about what the church is and could be but disagree about the form a local church should take (i.e. traditional, denominational church vs. house or organic church)?
Absolutely. In fact, Christians from a wide variety of church forms and expressions have been encouraged by the book: Ed Stetzer (Baptist), Alan Hirsh and Dan Kimball (Missional), Shane Claiborne (New Monastic), Myles Munroe and James Goll (Charismatic), Brian McLaren (Emergent), Greg Boyd (traditional evangelical church form), Leonard Sweet (Methodist, and who knows what else!), Michael Spencer (New Covenant-Reformation), Ralph Neighbor (Cell Church) are just some of them. In addition, I've received a fair share of enthusiastic mail from Anglicans on the one hand and Reformed folks on the other, both of whom have resonated strongly with the message of the book.
All told, From Eternity to Here is a book written for all of God's people irrespective of which church forms and structures they might embrace.
What's the relationship between the local, visible church and the invisible, universal church?
Traditionally, we have begun the Biblical story with the fall of humans in Genesis 3. The result is that the entire story places the salvation of humans and the redemption of the earth as being God's goal. But those two elements, while part of the story, aren't the beginning point nor the ultimate goal.
Thus when we begin the Biblical story in Genesis 1 and 2 (which occurs before the fall) and in Ephesians 1 and Colossians 1 (which occurs before creation), the Biblical story is reframed from the standpoint of God's ultimate desire rather than with the needs of fallen human beings.
This changes the perspective dramatically, and it makes the story much larger and more God-centered. It moves us from a human-centered gospel to one that's rooted in God's relentless, eternal, and ultimate desire.
And herein lies the chief intention of God: to have a Bride for the Son, a House for the Father, a Body for the Son, and a Family for the Father.
In this light, the Bride, the Body, the House, and the Family have an identity and a reality in the eyes of God. You can call that reality and identity the "universal church," I suppose, but I think that term doesn't do it justice. If we would stand on a new mountain and get behind the eyes of our Lord and see as He sees, it would change how we view God, the church, ourselves, and our brothers and sisters in Christ. (This is what the book attempts to do by tracing the purpose of the ages through Scripture.) However, the true identity and reality of the church can only be visibly expressed and practically fleshed out by local communities of believers.
What is one thing any church could do to take a step into "the ageless purpose of God?"
Moses saw the vision of the tabernacle on the heavenly mount before He could build it on the ground. This establishes a precious principle: Vision must precede building. By vision, I'm not speaking of a physical or mystical vision where a person goes into a trance and literally sees something. I'm speaking of a spiritual seeing, an insight, a "revelation" (as Paul uses the word in 1 Corinthians 14) into God's eternal purpose. It's knowledge that has the power to impact the heart, inspire the soul, and move our beings.
Hence, the first step, I think, is for God's people to receive a vision of God's ageless purpose - His grand and glorious mission (which includes, but goes far beyond the saving of souls and the healing of the planet). Such vision comes by the preaching of the eternal purpose or a written presentation of it along with the Holy Spirit's illumination of it to our hearts. So to my mind, a church must first be acquainted with what the eternal purpose is before it can respond to it accordingly.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 13, 2009 | Comments (17) | TrackBack
May 11, 2009
Tony Jones: We Ordain Everyone
Has denominational ordination jumped the shark?
Do you believe in ordination? Or, more accurately stated, do you believe in denominational structures that regulate who is ordained for ministry based on prerequisites, credentials, and education?
Tony Jones, author and a leading voice of the emergent church, has started a ruckus on his blog about the legitimacy of denominational ordination after watching his friend, Adam Walker-Cleaveland, endure a slow and difficult ordination process. According to Jones, Adam has "suffered abuse" through the ordination process of his denomination. Jones wrote:
Few things piss me off as much as the sinful bureaucratic systems of denominational Christianity. When rules and regulations trump common sense, then the shark has officially been jumped.
But what gets to me even more is that bright, competent, and pastorally experienced persons like Adam continue to submit themselves to these sinful systems. They assure me that it's not for the health insurance or the pension. They do it cuz they feel "called." And if I hear another person tell me that they're sticking with their abusive denomination because, "They're my tribe," I'm gonna go postal.
Jones' frustration led him to launch an online petition calling Adam to circumvent his denomination and accept ordination by "the body of Christ."
The petition states:
Adam Walker-Cleaveland, having watched you be ritually abused by the ordination process?we beseech you to forsake ordination in said bureaucracy.And please accept the following: We, the body of Christ, hereby ordain you as a Minister of Word and Sacrament, and we grant you all of the rights and responsibilities thereto. May God bless your ministry.
In a follow up post, Jones outlines some of his own thinking about ordination. Referring to the practice in his church, Solomon's Porch in Minneapolis, he says:
We ordain everyone. If you want to be ordained to perform a wedding, or to be a lawnmower repairman, we'll ordain you to that ministry.
This is not to vaunt everyone to a high position, but to subvert and deconstruct the very notion of ordination. It is NOT like what John Wesley did (although there are some interesting parallels) or like what the fundamentalists did or the Lutherans or the Calvinists. We ordain everyone, and I started an online petition to ordain Adam, to be ironic. It's to point up what I consider to be the arbitrariness of the bureaucratic systems, and, to be honest, the tax benefits, of ordination. In other words, this is the opposite of a YoungLife leader who writes away to some dude to get ordained for the housing allowance write-off. This is, instead, to show how that entire system leads to such ridiculousness.
I realize that both Jones' style and theology is a lightning rod for some Urbanites. But he is opening the floodgates on a very relevant question. What is ordination? And what makes an ordination legitimate?
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 11, 2009 | Comments (42) | TrackBack
May 10, 2009
The Hansen Report: Community or Bust?
Will the economic downtown bring people to church?
The CNN headline echoed hopeful reflection I've been hearing in churches: "Shaky economy forces Americans to rediscover community." Optimistic Christians suppose the community they will rediscover is a local church that demonstrates how putting your faith in markets or government is a fool's errand compared to the incomparable power that comes from knowing Jesus Christ the Lord.
But the article by John Blake qualified the stark headline. And by qualified, I mean the article proved the headline wrong. It turns out the economic collapse has forced Americans to watch more movies. Blake reported that Netflix profits have increased 45 percent since the beginning of 2009. Gross movie ticket sales have jumped nearly 20 percent.
The headline writer might have avoided this mistake by reading Robert Putnam's comments to Blake. Of course, Blake called the famous Harvard sociologist and author of Bowling Alone by his middle name, David, so you can understand the confusion. Putnam explained that economic crises do not ensure that people will come together.
"Almost everybody believes that during the [Great] Depression that everyone got cuddled up next to each other and said, 'We're all in this together,'" Putnam told CNN. "I'm not denying that some of that occurred, but what's more typical is that people hunker down and pull in."
If the Great Depression didn't promote community, at least World War II did. And during the decades of prosperity that followed, civic pride flourished. So did local churches.
"They had just been exposed to five years of war bond drives, scrap metal drives, and Boy Scouts asking people to give up rubber mats in their car for the war," Putnam explained. "They lived with a sustained notion of we're all in this together."
But while the American economy boomed, European nations were crippled by the second global conflict that century. So were their churches. The wars shook Europeans' confidence in public institutions. Organized religion did not escape their ire. And the churches have never fully regained that trust.
In Blake's modern-day narrative, America's economic struggles might move the country closer to Europe. "Fewer" Americans, he wrote, "are turning to organized religion for support." As evidence, Blake cited the widely discussed American Religious Identification Survey that was released in early March. And he quoted Nancy Dallavalle, chairwoman of the Department of Religious Studies at Fairfield University in Fairfield, Connecticut. Dallavalle told CNN that more people will find solace in pop culture than in a church community. Get-rich-quick infomercials and Extreme Makeover: Home Edition will try to satiate their weary souls. And don't forget Internet websites that promise special spiritual insight.
"Folks might not turn to God as much as they turn to Google," Dallavalle projected.
By this point, the article had thoroughly confused me. Will dejected Americans turn to community or not? Baker cited an increase in applications to volunteer with the Peace Corps and AmericCorps. But other anecdotal evidence indicated that we prefer cheap forms of private entertainment to community-boosting projects. What about America's vaunted religious institutions? Are local churches doomed to second-class status as our neighbors watch Ty Pennington in the comfort of their new Snuggies?
The truth is neither John Blake nor Robert Putnam nor Nancy Dallavalle knows for sure how people will respond. Yet one thing is for sure. We cannot afford to assume that jobless Americans will think of the church in their time of need. Some will, no doubt. Our church buildings retain the respect of sanctuary for many Americans who cannot turn to family and do not trust the government.
But when they do show up in our churches, what will they find? A pastor may agree to meet with them. The church might even offer a little money set aside for just this purpose. Giving alms is a good and godly thing. Even better is a church where the down-and-out can feel like home. Plenty of churches fit that description. Perhaps more do not. As Putnam observes in Bowling Alone, the demands of private piety and church-based service can insulate evangelicals from the needs outside their homes and churches.
"Most evangelical volunteering, however, supports the religious life of the congregation itself - teaching Sunday school, singing in the choir, ushering at worship services - but does not extend to the broader community as much as volunteering by members of other faiths," Putnam writes.
Worshiping God is a worthy priority, of course. The very act can even attract outsiders to investigate what marks our faith communities as unique. But if we depend on this outreach method alone, our churches become safe havens for respectable Christians. We give alms, but we do not give ourselves. And our neighbors will never learn what kind of life-giving community they could find inside.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 10, 2009 | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 8, 2009
Catalyst Leadership: Ministry Mastermind
Why a small church mindset is crucial for ministry innovation.
The following interview was excerpted from the latest issue of Catalyst Leadership--our new free digital magazine created in partnership with the Catalyst Conference. For instructions on reading the full text, see the note at the end.
Any church with a virtual campus in Second Life and an iPhone app used by thousands of people deserves the title "Innovative." The brain behind many of LifeChurch.tv's creative ventures is Bobby Gruenewald.
Bobby Gruenewald's journey into ministry was anything but typical. Like thousands of others, he started attending LifeChurch.tv ten years ago as the church experienced rapid growth. After a stint as a volunteer keyboardist, Gruenewald joined the staff in 2001 as the "computer guy" overseeing IT.
But Gruenewald's earlier career in start-up businesses and venture capital equipped him to help LifeChurch.tv as it moved toward a multiple site strategy. By 2003 the "computer guy" had become the "new campus development guy." Today, Gruenewald combines his entrepreneurial instincts and talent with technology as LifeChurch.tv's "Innovation Leader" - yes, that's his real title.
The editors of Leadership spoke with Gruenewald about the nature of adaptation in ministry, the risks of constant change, and why innovation has less to do with the resources available to a church and more to do with the mindset of leaders.
What is the danger of focusing on technology and innovation in ministry?
One of the biggest dangers for our team is focusing too much on what we do and overlooking why we do it. God was doing amazing things at our church long before we were using a lot of technology. We had 3000 people attending before we had a lick of video. That reminds us that technology isn't what fuels our ministry; it's simply a tool.
You can apply that same lesson to innovation. It's not about innovation for innovation's sake. We innovate because we're really passionate about seeing people connect with God. It becomes dangerous when you trust in how you're pursuing the mission rather than trusting in God.
How do you fight against that danger?
We make sure that every team member understands that technology is not the center of our ministry. We don't believe in change for the sake of change. Our goal is to reach people for Christ, and we're going to do everything short of sin to accomplish that.
Speaking of sin, are there any technologies that you won't engage because they are inconsistent with the gospel?
We see technology as amoral - it's not good or bad. It's a tool that can be used either way. Our desire is to redeem technology and use it to bring people to God.
Some are saying that online social networking and virtual sites like Second Life don't offer "real" relationships and may actually be harming genuine community. What do you think?
A lot of people are predicting what consequences online community is going to have. But that happens with every new technology. When the telephone was new in the early 20th century, there were bold predictions that it would negatively impact how people interact. But very few of those predictions came true. The same thing happened with the VCR. Some thought it would kill movie theaters.
History has shown that these innovations become incorporated into people's lives. They become tools for community and catalysts for relationships, but they don't replace them. Right now we are seeing online connections taking place all over the Internet. Some of these relationships are so powerful that people are leaving their spouses for people they've met online. We are trying to create online environments that are God-centered. We want the church to be present in these environments to redeem this technology and use it for good.
With technology and culture changing so rapidly, how can a church keep pace?
Some organizations take three or five years to change, so to keep pace they would have to predict what things will look like years from now and begin making adjustments now. That's really inefficient. The alternative is to be an adaptive organization and nimble enough to adjust within a few months to what's actually happening.
What does it mean to be nimble at LifeChurch.tv?
First, it means having the right governance structure. Some structures can dramatically affect a church's ability to respond. But we also work hard to recognize how small we are as a church. As churches get larger, they begin to feel large and that changes the way leaders think. They take fewer risks and the focus turns inward.
Once your team believes your church is big you'll start to hear excuses like, "We're like the Titanic, and it takes a long time to adjust our direction." But when we compare the 26,000 people who might walk through our doors any given week with the 6.7 billion people alive today that God has called us to reach, our church is tiny.
The shift in mindset is significant. If you see your church as tiny you'll be more willing to take risks and your focus becomes more outward rather than inward. You'll think less about protecting what you have, and more about what God has called you to do. We try hard to have the mindset of a small church.
You can read the entire article here. Just click on "Mastermind" in the table of contents. And remember to maximize the digizine with the button on the toolbar for optimal viewing.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 8, 2009 | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 7, 2009
Ur Video: Eddie Gibbs & Mike Breen on Post-Christendom
Two Brits discuss mission in a post-Christian culture.
Our partner at Shapevine.com, Lance Ford, interviews Mike Breen and Eddie Gibbs about the blessings and challenges of mission as the world moves beyond the familiar trappings of Western Christianity.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 7, 2009 | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 6, 2009
Is a Beer just a Beer?
Rethinking drinking.
I spent a semester abroad in Edinburgh, Scotland, during college and attended a great church there. On my first visit to the head deacon's house for dinner, he asked me what I'd like to drink. I asked him what my options were. "Well," he said, "we have beer, lager, ale, stout, scotch, sherry, wine - whatever you like."
"I'll have water, please."
It became more obvious the longer I was in Edinburgh that abstinence from alcohol was not a Christian distinctive. Christians decried drunkenness. But the pubs were where they had spiritual conversation and met for small group.
I chalked up the differences between my teetotalling background and Scottish license to cultural differences. A lot changes when you cross the Big Pond. But now a growing number of American pastors are passing the bottle in the name of Christian liberty. As Eric Reed reports, the changes may be leading to a new battle over prohibition.
The excerpt below is from Eric's article, "Trouble Brewing." Follow the link below for the full text.
It's not just Baptists who are wrestling anew with the issue of alcohol. Pastors in a variety of traditions - some teetotaling, some not - are dealing with new issues raised by the drinking debate.
For some, it's whether to go against their denominations when the written policy differs from Christian positions held before Prohibition. For others, it's the conflict felt by pastoring people who officially espouse abstinence but still lift a glass to personal freedom now and again (46 percent of Southern Baptists imbide, according to a survey in the 1990s). For still others, it's reaching a position on alcohol that is biblical, moral, and defensible.
And for everyone there is this question: How do we take a stance on alcohol that does not distance us from the very people we are trying to reach with the gospel, and without compromising the gospel or our personal witness?
These issues may be grouped in a few categories:
Text and context
Mark Driscoll is a lightning rod for controversy, so it's not surprising that his stance on drinking clergy has become central in the renewed debate. His better contribution to the argument is on the larger issue of contextualization of the gospel in a society of drinkers.
Driscoll agrees that the Scripture opposes drunkenness. He says drinking itself is not a sin, as prohibitionists would contend. He argues that it is unreasonable to be captive to others because of the possibility of their weakness, as abstentionists would advocate. Driscoll says moderationists "rightly teach that drinking is not a sin and that each person must let Christian conscience guide them without judging others."
Driscoll's position has been commended, even by some who disagree with his conclusion, as being biblically reasoned and unhindered by his personal baggage: "Driscoll did not come to his conclusions lightly," reports one mission-focused blog. "Sadly many of us proclaim and hold to legalistic positions regarding alcohol use. (Is anybody else tired of the 'My daddy was a drunkard, so every use of alcoholic beverage will lead to people becoming like my daddy.' If so, note that Driscoll came from an entire family of abusive alcoholics, and he does not have the same conclusion.)"
Driscoll outlines three categories of faulty contextualization:
1. Pharasaic separation from culture: creation of laws that keep people from getting too close to sin;
2. Sadducaic syncretism: adopting compromising behaviors for the sake of speaking to the culture;
3. Zealous domination: enforcing moral laws through political means that may inoculate people against the gospel.
In Reformission, Driscoll concludes that these faulty forms of contextualization will lead to either sectarianism or syncretism. "Sectarians love God but fail to love their neighbor. Syncretists love their neighbor but fail to love God. Jesus expects us to love him and our neighbor (including our enemies) and says that if we fail to do so, we are no better than the godless pagans who love their drinking and strip-poker playing buddies (Matt. 5:43-57). To love our neighbors, we must meet them in their culture. To love our neighbors, we must call them to repent of sin and be transformed by Jesus."
But critics may respond, Can we really call people to repentance while nursing a rum and Coke?
Read the full text of "Trouble Brewing" here.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 6, 2009 | Comments (41) | TrackBack
May 4, 2009
Scot McKnight: Spiritual Eroticism
Are we really in love with Jesus, or with the experience of loving Jesus?
A peculiar development occurred in the medieval age regarding love. Behind closed doors and in the rush of brief encounters, there developed what has been called "courtly love" or "romantic love." Married men found themselves emotionally carried away with either another married woman or a single woman. This courtly love, so we are told, remained at the emotional and non-physical level.
The interpretation of many is that the Lover, because of the emotion it generated, preferred the nearly intolerable absence of the Beloved over the presence of the Beloved. The Lover preferred the titillation of fantasy over the toughness of fidelity. The essence of courtly love was to become intoxicated with love, to fall in love with love. It was to prefer the fire of love over the Beloved and delight in the experience of love over the presence of the Beloved. Think Tristan and Isolde. Perhaps even Romeo and Juliet.
Friends of mine today worry about consumerization or commoditization in the church. I offer a slightly different analysis of what might be the same thing: for many, Sunday services have become the experience of courtly love. Some folks love church, and what they mean by "loving church" is that they love the experience they get when they go to church. They prefer to attend churches that foster the titillation of courtly-love worship and courtly-love fellowship and courtly-love feelings.
They say they love worship, and by this they mean they love the courtly-love-like songs that extol the experience of loving Jesus or the experience of adoring God or the experience of a concert-like praise team that can generate the sound of worship intensely enough to vibrate the very soul of the worshiper.
Such folks might like sermons that create powerful contrasts between God's wrath and human sinfulness or between our sinfulness and God's gracious love; or they might like stories told so well as to usher them into the depths of human loves and hates and tragedies and comedies. What they like is the freshness of discovery or the flush of shame or the intoxicating sense of learning something new. They may create such a stir of silence in expectation of some great preacher or some great leader that the sheer presence of that person makes their soul swoon.
But this does not describe worship.
My contention is rather simple: the shaping of a Sunday service or a worship event or a concert in order to generate a profound experience might emerge from a courtly-love sense of worship. The expectation of such an experience on the part of the worshiper might also emerge from a courtly sense of worship. The opening of the Bible to read in search of an experience, or the entrance into a prayer time in order to rediscover some powerful emotion might also emerge from the intrusion of courtly love into how many today understand spirituality.
Let's call this was it is: spiritual eroticism. And those who are good at it can be called spiritual erotics.
So, what can be done? The same thing that good critics of courtly love, like C.S. Lewis, did about that distortion of love. Love, proper love - the love of God and, by extension, the love of others that both Moses and Jesus reveal - is to focus on God as the Sole Beloved worthy of our entire heart. Eros, Lewis argued in The Four Loves, wants to be a god, wants to be an idol. Eros left to itself, will not lead us to Charity. Eros needs to be tamed by Charity. When Eros is tamed by Charity, what happens?
Charity always leads us to the Beloved. Charity skips over the intoxication that comes with the experience of love and leads us straight to the face of the Beloved - Father, Son, Spirit. Those who know the Beloved and desire nothing but the glory of that Beloved may well know the experience, but they are so enthralled with the Face of the Beloved they forget where they are and dwell in the presence of God with but one thought: God deserves praise, God is worthy of praise.
There is a big difference between saying "You are worthy of our praise" and saying "I love praising God." The second, I am suggesting, is courtly love. It is in love with loving God; but it is the first that is in love with God.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 4, 2009 | Comments (26) | TrackBack
