December 30, 2009
Happy New Year!
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 30, 2009 | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 28, 2009
Top 10 Posts of 2009
Alcohol, Video Preaching, Profanity, Patriotism, Communion, and Virtual Church were among the most popular subjects this year.
Biblical Literacy Reaches New Low
Why "John 3:16" being the top Google search isn't something to celebrate.
by Brian Lowery
The Body Broken for Who?
Theologian J. I. Packer on restricting the Lord's Supper
a Leadership interview
The Facebook Fast
The web creates connection but not community.
by Anne Jackson
Video Ur: Perry Noble on Multi-Site Churches
Are church leaders critical of the multi-site movement just insecure?
Ur Video: John Piper Says Video Hurts Preaching
"Nobody is going to go to hell because of this...in the short run."
Preach Dirty to Me
The debate over profanity in the pulpit. Is Mark Driscoll being relevant or reckless?
by Url Scaramanga
Is a Beer just a Beer?
Rethinking drinking.
by Brandon O'Brien
Tony Jones: We Ordain Everyone
Has denominational ordination jumped the shark?
Book Review: The Patriot's Bible
Greg Boyd says the American Patriot's Bible is nothing less than "idolatrous."
by Dr. Gregory A. Boyd
In Defense of Virtual Church
The author of SimChurch, responds to critics of online churches.
by Douglas Estes
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 28, 2009 | Comments (3) | TrackBack
December 24, 2009
Merry Christmas, from Url Scaramanga
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 24, 2009 | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 23, 2009
Ur Video: Rick McKinley on the Christmas Story
Advent Conspiracy offers a different way to engage the season.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 23, 2009 | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 21, 2009
Burger King Health Clinics and Christmas Humbug
Christmas may have pagan roots, but that doesn't mean it can't have redemptive value.
Today's newspaper contained some great news. Nearly $9 million of federal stimulus money is flowing to Portland in the form of a grant to open a health care clinic for the poor in the middle of downtown. And the best part (at least in my mind) is that it's taking an old, abandoned Burger King and transforming it into a one-stop medical center helping Portland's poor, homeless, and mentally ill.
I love the idea of using a place that once dispensed artery-clogging Whoppers and French fries, sugar drinks, and all manner of other greasy, deep fried anti-nutrition (don't get me wrong, I love all of that stuff—too much, in fact), and turning it into a place that does exactly the opposite: dispenses health, medicine, help.
No doubt when you look at the building, you'll still be able to tell it was a Burger King because of its very distinctive design. And yet that building will be making a whole different kind of impact with its presence.
And all that made me think of Christmas.
When I first became aware of the "pagan" origins of Christian celebrations like Christmas and Easter, it came as a bit of a shock. But those who decide that the responsible thing is to eschew celebrating Christmas altogether (or at least the non-Jesusy parts) really miss the point.
Certainly many cultures and religions have holidays around this time of year, mostly started to celebrate the turn from shorter and shorter days to longer and longer ones. The move from darkness to light. And when the early Christians looked at that, it seems they had a really good idea. There's no reason to think that Jesus was born on December 25th. They knew that. He was most likely born sometime in the spring, because the shepherds were out in the fields keeping watch over their flocks, a spring activity. But even though there's no reason to believe he was born in late December, there are great reasons to celebrate at that time.
Whenever we bring the Gospel into a culture, we have a responsibility to contextualize it—to use the language, the symbols and the existing social structure (where it doesn't overtly contradict the Gospel)—to explain the great Good News that God himself has come to rescue and renew all of creation through the work of Jesus Christ on our behalf.
So what should you do when your culture has a winter celebration hard-wired in? Do you fight it? Talk about humbug. Or do you find a way to re-contextualize it?
A celebration about the coming of light into the world after a time of darkness? Hmmm…sounds familiar. Sounds perfect, in fact. Custom made for re-interpretation in light of the narrative of the Gospel of Jesus. Custom made to explain the coming of the Son of Righteousness into our darkness.
Those early followers of Jesus who gave us things like Christmas, far from retreating from their culture, simply repurposed some of the best parts of it. Like the solstice celebrations. And like I said, I love the irony of taking something meant to point to one thing and making it point to a better thing. Like a Burger King becoming a health clinic.
When asked about Christmas, Marie Elena Castle of Minneapolis, the 82-year-old founder of Atheists for Human Rights and an atheist activist for two decades, said, "The Christians stole it.”
Exactly.
We took something that pointed at the sun and pointed it towards the Son—the One who made the seasons, the sun and the moon, the one who came to give us a real reason to celebrate: Jesus.
So if you don't want to celebrate Christmas, that's fine. It’s your choice! But you're not just taking yourself out of a very Christian tradition, but a very human one as well.
And don't tell me celebrating Advent isn't a great way to tell the Gospel story in a hundred different ways: to our kids in our Advent readings, to our neighbors in our hospitality and gift-giving (at a time when they are more open to that than any other time in the year), and especially to ourselves, maybe the ones who need most to hear, "Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people....Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord."
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 21, 2009 | Comments (5) | TrackBack
December 17, 2009
Wrong About Church Buildings: 2
A response to Dan Kimball.
A few weeks ago, pastor and author Dan Kimball posted an interesting entry here about church buildings. In the introduction, he notes that eight years ago he would have said, “Who needs a building? The early church didn’t have buildings, and we don’t need them either!” Today, however, he notes that he was wrong.
I think he still is.
Here is my official response to Dan Kimball.
Dear Dan,
I recently read your post where you say that you were wrong about church buildings. At first, I was glad to see the title. I’m a house church leader. We used to be a traditional Southern Baptist church—building and all. But that all changed in 2005. Since then, we’ve been meeting in homes and living out the call of God without a building. And that’s why your post troubled me so much.
It is not that I hate buildings. Because we have identified our cause as “Leave the Building,” I often get mistaken for a building-hater, but that is not the case. “Leave the Building” is about removing the things that limit us in our service for God or somehow get in the way of what he is trying to accomplish through us. For me and my church, it was our building.
But it will not be that way for everyone. In fact, traditional churches and building-attending Christians can “leave the building” while still attending a traditional, building-based church.
I want to underscore my respect for you, and I believe we share a deep love for the Body of Christ. I see you as a fellow worker; a brother in Christ. And I am thankful that we have the opportunity to sharpen one another as we both occupy positions of leadership within the Church.
I am writing this because the subject of the necessity of buildings is a crucial topic to discuss all across the Church. You do indeed describe good uses for buildings … but what is good, may not be best – either for your church or for the Body of Christ worldwide. Allow me to explain. After you listed good uses of both your church’s building and others’ (i.e. Compassion International), you made this statement:
“These missional opportunities would not be possible without a building.”
There are three reasons why I think you’re mistaken.
First, being missional involves more than just being nice to people. Having a coffeehouse with free internet is great, it is nice, but it is not missional. Panera offers the same thing, but they’re not missional. The same goes for providing shelter – by itself it is not missional, it is just nice. Being missional is the act of making disciples – that is the mission of the Church as found in Matthew 28:18-21.
Second, you confuse convenience as necessity. This is a common problem with the Church in America. But let’s use “need” appropriately: Compassion International doesn’t need a building in order to help orphans. It may be convenient and even better for the time being, but it is not a necessity. And your church doesn’t need a coffee lounge in order to reach out to college students. It may make it easier, but it is not a necessity. The same goes for helping families displaced by fires. Surely, having a building makes it convenient and much easier to respond, but your church didn’t need a building in order to help.
Third, your building may be preventing you from doing what God really wants from you. Let’s take the wildfire situation as an example. Putting people up in your church is great. Really. But imagine what kind of long-term relationships could have been formed were they taken into houses instead. Imagine the opportunity to really be missional! It may very well be that you actually missed an opportunity on that one all because your “mission” is anchored to your building.
You were right the first time. The early church didn’t need buildings, and neither do we. The fact that many churches think they do need a building is not just a 21st century thing, it is an American thing…a rich thing. Churches around the world manage to be missional, make disciples, and spread the good news, without any building whatsoever. Even more, they are doing it better than churches in the West with buildings. You see, it is not buildings that create a consumer-mentality, it is just the opposite. It is our consumer-mentality that causes us to think we need buildings. Buildings can be great tools, but the Church gets by…no, the Church thrives … every day without them.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 17, 2009 | Comments (41) | TrackBack
December 16, 2009
Ur Video: Is Environmentalism a Religion?
Author Michael Crichton on the danger of green dogma.
This week leaders from throughout the world are meeting in Copenhagen to discuss the impact of global warming. The issue is still hotly debated in the US (pun intended), while polls in many other secular Western nations reveal wider agreement with the theory.
Best-selling author Michael Crichton became an outspoken skeptic of man-made global warming before his death in 2008. In this video Crichton uses his background in anthropology to explain why environmentalism is based more on religion than science. Do you agree? And how do you think the church ought to respond to the popular green movement?
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 16, 2009 | Comments (14) | TrackBack
December 15, 2009
Ur Video: December Issue of Catalyst Leadership
Skye Jethani previews the latest issue of the digizine.
Catalyst Leadership is a free digital magazine produced by the editors of Leadership Journal and the organizers of the Catalyst Conference. Sign up for your subscription today.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 15, 2009 | Comments (2) | TrackBack
December 11, 2009
John Calvin on Tradition
A lively conversation with a "Dead Theologian"--second in a series.
‘Tis the season to think about traditions. Every family has its own non-negotiable holiday rituals. If your family’s like mine, you may have competing visions of the perfect holiday under one roof (or tent, or banyan tree—or whatever your family cohabitates under).
In my experience, churches are a lot like families in that way. Each one has its own immutable ways of doing things (and often enough, every member has a different opinion about whether these ways are right or wrong). And this isn’t the case only around the Christmas season. Churches of all types—even the ones that don’t like formal rituals—form all sorts of traditions.
Earlier this fall, I spoke with a pastor who knows a thing or two about the power of tradition—another former theologian—John Calvin. Brother Calvin died in 1564, but given the recent interest in his theology, I thought I’d get his opinion on the role of traditions in the church today.
Url: I just have to ask: did you really outlaw Christmas in Geneva?
No. But I got blamed for the decision. I only wanted people to celebrate Christmas properly—without all the superstition and idolatry that can come with Christmas celebrations.
So, in fact you were not Dr. Seuss's inspiration for the Grinch.
No, I believe the Grinch was a Baptist.
How does the proper celebration of Christmas relate to the Reformation agenda in general?
Well, the Roman Catholic Church back in our day had developed some traditions—not just Christmas traditions, but all sorts—that were not supported by the Bible. Most ordinary people at the time couldn’t read, and they didn’t have access to a Bible anyway. So they believed all sorts of things. Unfortunately, the Church had a few practices that took advantage of these folks.
So we reformers argued that Scripture alone should be the authority for how we practice our faith. If a practice isn’t justified in the Bible, then we aren’t morally obligated to do it. This is especially important when it comes to salvation. We shouldn’t let our traditions distract us from what the Bible teaches.
So are all traditions bad?
Not at all. Traditions are important. There have been a lot of faithful Christians before us who have prayed and studied and thought hard about what it means to live faithfully as believers in the world. And we can learn a lot from them. Believing that “Scripture alone” is our rule of faith means that we acknowledge that humans make mistakes. If we’re not careful, we can let traditions form in our own churches that lead us away from the gospel and from God’s will for us. Before long, we can think that our opinions come from the Bible. When that happens, it becomes really hard for us to change our traditions.
So traditions are fine as long as we remember that they can be changed?
Exactly. We measure all our practices and opinions against the Bible. And when the Bible tells us we must change things, we change them. The Bible is like a pair of eye-glasses: we can’t see the world or God or each other correctly if we don’t let the Bible correct our vision. And if you need glasses, you can’t just wear them once and expect that your eyes will immediately get better. You have to put them on every morning when you wake up. In the same way, we can’t just look at the Bible once and think we understand it—or that we understand God. We have to keep reading and let the Bible correct our vision.
That sounds like a lot of work.
I suppose it is. Another important phrase for the Reformers was semper reformanda—always reforming. We can never stop thinking about our traditions in the light of scripture.
What about the "Reformed tradition"?
Good point. I certainly don’t want people to believe everything I said just because I said it. I expect folks to examine the Scriptures for themselves. Don’t let my understanding of things become a tradition that keeps you from really understanding what the Bible teaches. When you read for yourself, you just might find that I got some things wrong.
Read Url's previous "Dead Theologian" interview with Jonathan Edwards.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 11, 2009 | Comments (8) | TrackBack
December 9, 2009
Wait a Minaret!
How will your church respond to the growing influence of Islam?
The peaceful, neutrality-loving citizens of Switzerland voted last week to ban the construction of minarets in their country-a decision not welcomed by the country’s 400,000 Muslims. For those unfamiliar with Islamic architecture, minarets are the steeple-like towers attached to mosques from which the call to prayer is broadcast.
The referendum was not a matter of preserving the alpine skyline, and some are saying it shouldn’t be interpreted as a restriction upon religious freedom either. Rather it’s the latest battlefront in Western Europe between advocates of traditional European culture and the recent influx of non-European immigrants. This is from The Washington Post:
While many leaders in Switzerland’s government and churches opposed the ban, the measure won with a significant 57.5 percent of the vote.But backers of the measure said from the outset they were not seeking to prevent Muslims from practicing their religion. The goal, they explained, was to prevent what they described as the growing political impact of Switzerland’s Muslim minority, which they said is symbolized by minarets pointing into the sky; women wearing full veils; and observance of sharia, a Koran-based legal system.
“The minaret is the power symbol of political Islam and sharia law,” Walter Wobman, a People’s Party member of parliament, told the Reuters news agency at a rally near Bern, the federal capital.
Is the backlash in relatively liberal Switzerland a glimpse of what may soon happen in the US?
I know there are segments within the church here that would support a ban on the construction of mosques or minarets as well as restraining the public display of any non-Christian religious symbols. At the same time they might argue passionately for the public display of crosses, the Ten Commandments in courthouses, and the prominent positioning of Nativity scenes in the public square.
However, even prominent conservative Christian voices in the US have spoken out against the Swiss on this issue. Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has written a thoughtful response in which he says, “The banning of minarets appears to be a cowardly move that contradicts Swiss commitments to religious freedom and tolerance.” He goes on to say:
Islam now enters the void created by the decline of Christianity and Christian culture in Switzerland, and throughout much of the continent as well. Banning the minaret may serve to hide Muslim influence from view, but it does not address the underlying issues at stake. Surely the Swiss can do better than this.
The case in Switzerland reveals that the issue may not be one of religion but culture. The referendum in predominantly secular Switzerland was not fueled by a desire to keep Christianity central, but to keep Muslims marginalized. The citizens recognized that Islam isn’t simply a set of theological beliefs, but a worldview that carries with it (like all worldviews) cultural implications.
The question for those of us in the American church, particularly in leadership, is how will we interpret the growing population of Muslims in our country? Are they a threat to traditional American values needing to be kept on the margins? Are they spiritual competition in the marketplace of faith needing to be out-marketed? Are they political and cultural enemies to be outlawed? Or are they our neighbors whom Jesus calls us to love?
If your city or town was voting on a referendum to ban minarets in your community, what would you do? If you are a church leader, what would you tell your congregation? If the imam from the local mosque came to you for support against the referendum, what would you say to him? If your city was voting to ban church steeples would your response be any different?
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 9, 2009 | Comments (16) | TrackBack
December 8, 2009
"Friend" Url on Facebook
Friend me on Facebook and we'll be tight, chums, bosom buddies, cohorts, partners, sidekicks, comrades, cronies, pals, I'll be like a brother from another mother...virtually. (We are talking about online community).
Check out my profile.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 8, 2009 | Comments (2) | TrackBack
December 7, 2009
Matt Chandler Discusses his Brain Surgery
His perspective as "a guy who could lose everything."
Last summer I had the opportunity to interview Matt Chandler in Dallas. (Read the interview.) I should confess that I wasn't particularly excited about the interview. I'd never met Matt before, but I held certain assumptions about how the conversation would go. After all, he was a young leader of a rapidly growing church getting loads of media attention and buzz at conferences--a combination that usually meant no depth/fluff interview.
I was wrong.
Matt proved to be a deep thinker, theologically rooted, and humble. I walked away from our 2 hour conversation impressed with his perspective on ministry. I became a fan of Matt Chandler. One thing he said caught my attention in particular. He noted that he regularly takes walks in cemeteries--an unusual habit that I also have. Matt said that it reminded him of his mortality and what really matters. "It's good for my soul," was his remark.
The editorial team here at Leadership Journal is praying for Matt, his family, and The Village Church.
Go to The Village Church website for updates on Matt's recovery.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 7, 2009 | Comments (3) | TrackBack
December 4, 2009
"Deadly Viper" Put to Death
What do you think of Zondervan’s apology and decision to pull the book?
Last month a significant controversy arose around the book Deadly Viper Character Assassins: A Kung Fu Survival Guide for Life and Leadership by Mike Foster and Jud Wilhite. The accusation made by numerous Christian leaders in the Asian-American community was that the book mocked Asian culture by utilizing stereotypes, failing to distinguish between different Asian cultures, and leveraging Asian culture as a marketing gimmick.
Soong-Chan Rah, a professor at North Park College, rallied many Asian-American Christians to address their concerns about Deadly Viper with the authors and with the publisher, Zondervan.
Thankfully, since the controversy arose, Soong Chan Rah, Eugene Cho, Kathy Khang, Chris Heuertz, Jud Wilhite, Mike Foster, and others have had a joint teleconference to discuss concerns about the book. Apologies were offered and a commitment to work together to move forward was reached. You can read a report and summary of these positive events on Prof. Rah’s blog.
On November 20, Zondervan responded to the controversy. A letter from Zondervan’s CEO stated:
This book’s characterizations and visual representations are offensive to many people despite its otherwise solid message.There is no need for debate on this subject. We are pulling the book and the curriculum in their current forms from stores permanently.
Dr. Rah responded to the news on his blog: “It reflects a genuine repentant spirit and a deep willingness to hear and to act. I am moved by Zondervan’s willingness to act in this decisive and dramatic manner.”
(You can read a full rundown of the Deadly Viper controversy and responses on CT’s Liveblog.)
The question for Urbanites is this: Do you believe Zondervan did the right thing? Do you agree that Deadly Viper Character Assassins needed to be pulled from the shelves?
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 4, 2009 | Comments (21) | TrackBack
December 3, 2009
Ur Video: Joel Hunter on Social Justice
Why has social justice become such a hot topic in the church?
Catalyst Voices - Dr. Joel Hunter, "Social Justice" from Catalyst on Vimeo.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 3, 2009 | Comments (4) | TrackBack
December 2, 2009
I Was Wrong About Church Buildings
They can be outposts of mission, not just a drain on resources.
If you had asked me eight years ago what I thought about church buildings, I would have said, "Who needs a building? The early church didn't have buildings, and we don't need them either!" But I was wrong.
My anti-building phase was a reaction to having seen so much money spent on church facilities, often for non-essential, luxury items. I was also reacting to a philosophy of ministry that treated church buildings like Disneyland; a place consumers gather for entertainment. But these abuses had caused me to unfairly dismiss the potential blessing of buildings as well.
Consider the building occupied by Compassion International in Colorado Springs. It has a well-groomed lawn with sprinkler system, an attractive sign, and an expansive parking lot. It's a nice facility. But it's more than just a building—it is the headquarters and training center for a ministry that brings physical and spiritual nourishment to more than one million children in 25 countries. The Compassion building is used for a missional purpose, not simply as a place for Christians to gather and consume religious services.
When we planted our church in 2004, we needed a place to meet. We found a very traditional church building that had a sizable "fellowship hall" originally used only for donuts and coffee on Sundays. Wanting to use the building differently, we converted the fellowship hall into a public coffee lounge featuring music and art from the outside community. The Abbey, as it's now called, is open seven days a week and offers free internet access.
Just yesterday I was in The Abbey and saw about 20 people, not part of our congregation, studying and hanging out. (During finals week I counted 90 students packed into the place.) While there I talked to a brand new Christian who has been coming to our gatherings. He found out about our church from a Buddhist friend. His friend loves coming to The Abbey and recommended our church because he trusted us.
We've also used our building to serve our community in times of crisis. When wildfires forced nearby residents to flee their homes, our building became an overnight refuge for those without a place to stay.
These missional opportunities would not be possible without a building.
What about the sanctuary? When we first got the building, one person said the sanctuary "looked like a funeral parlor." We sought to remake the worship space to express our congregation's values of community, worship, and service.
First, we removed the pews. Looking at the back of peoples' heads simply didn't communicate our values of community and participation.
We also invited local artists to create images during our worship gatherings. These were then displayed in the space.
The only cross in the building was very small, so we brought in a huge iron cross as the visual focus of our worship space. This clearly communicated that Christ was at the center of our mission.
We lowered the large wooden pulpit in order to facilitate more relational teaching, and we added a prayer shawl over the podium to reinforce our frequent talks about the importance of prayer in changing lives.
Little by little the space that had been powerfully missional in the 1930s and '40s was transformed to reflect missional values of the 21st century. In 20 years I'm sure the way these values are expressed will have changed again, and I hope the design of the sanctuary and fellowship hall will change accordingly.
What's important is that our mission drives our aesthetics and our use of space.
Today I am incredibly thankful we have a building. It allows us meet in larger groups for worship, and it allows for training classes that equip people for mission. We also use our space all week and welcome the public into it.
So, I have recanted from my earlier belief that buildings drain resources and create consumer Christians. I was wrong. Now I see them as missionary centers to impact lives for the gospel.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 2, 2009 | Comments (28) | TrackBack
