Good with or without God

I normally don't fuss with nontheists like those at the United Coalition of Reason, because in many ways I can sympathize with their skepticism. In a world like ours today, I can understand why nontheism would be attractive to people who exalt reason to the highest place. In our culture, faith is often associated with extremism, hate, and ignorance.

However, these ads popping up all over the subways here in Boston are obnoxious. So, I felt compelled to respond with an ad of my own.

It's almost as if these nontheists intend to imply that millions of people can't be wrong. But this is not as wise an argument as they might presume. If vast numbers make a solid argument, the billions of religious believers around the world would put the argument for faith far out in front.

E.T. & God

The Vatican is interested in knowing whether it is possible scientists will discover other intelligent life in the universe.

CNN covered the story and asked some interesting questions.

One question this search evokes is: What would the discovery of extra-terrestrial life mean for Christianity?

Gary Bates, of Creation MInistries International, is quoted by CNN as saying,

"My theological perspective is that E.T. life would actually make a mockery of the very reason Christ came to die for our sins, for our redemption."

Likewise, Father Funes, head of the Vatican Observatory, was asked for his thoughts and this is what was reported by the Catholic News Service:

"When asked whether God would have to be incarnated elsewhere if there were intelligent life on another planet, Father Funes recalled the parable of the lost sheep.

God's incarnation in Jesus Christ was a singular and 'unique event not only in human history but in the history of the universe and the cosmos,' he said."

So, what are your thoughts?

What would E.T. mean for your faith?

Would the discovery of other life in the universe adversely affect the message of the Gospel delivered in God's word?

Must humanity be unique in the universe?

FlashForward and the Openness of the Future

My friend Jimi hipped me to the existence of a new TV series called "FlashForward." When he explained the premise, I was so immediately interested that I am now caught up in the season after only one night (which is at episode 7 as of this post).

Here is a summary of the show's premise from Wikipedia:

A mysterious event causes everyone on the planet to simultaneously lose consciousness for 137 seconds, during which people see what appear to be visions of their lives approximately six months in the future - a global “flash forward”. A team of Los Angeles FBI agents, led by Stanford Wedeck (Vance) and spearheaded by Mark Benford (Fiennes), begin the process of determining what happened, why, and whether it will happen again. Benford contributes a unique perspective on the investigation; in his flashforward, he saw the results of six months of investigation that he had done on the flashforward event, and he and his team use those clues to recreate the investigation.

The team investigates a number of events related to the flash forward, including "Suspect Zero," who did not lose consciousness during the event, the sinister "D. Gibbons", and a similar mass loss of consciousness in Somalia in 1991. Meanwhile, personal revelations contained within the flashforwards occupy the personal lives of the principal characters. Mark Benford sees his alcoholism relapsing, his wife sees herself with another man, and other characters grapple with similarly unexpected or surprising revelations in their flashes forward.

Determinism and Freedom are rarely as overtly and prominently featured in a television series as they are on FlashForward. It is also equally (if not more) rare that a philosophical subject such as this is combined with such excellent writing and acting.

So far, while it is clear many of the characters hold a fatalistic view of the future, it is obvious that the openness of the future is a given in the FlashForward universe---as it should be.

In the most recent episode, a character speaks of the future saying this:

"[The future] is no longer going to unfold as I had feared. My gift to you is release from… the feeling that you're no longer in control. The future is unwritten. Make the most of it."

I'll continue to watch and perhaps write more updates of any significant developments.

White Jesus Wrote the Constitution

There is so much wrong with this painting, I hardly know where to begin. To address only a fraction of its mistakes, misrepresentations, and theological inaccuracies would require a blog series I honestly don't have time to write. But I couldn't resist the urge to publicly condemn this painting as the nationalistic idolatry that it is, in contrast to the true faith of Jesus-followers all over the world. Here are just three things I'd like to point out:

1) White Jesus

The artist who painted this painting, answers what he calls "liberal criticism" on the page where the painting is displayed. The first criticism he addresses is the depiction of Jesus as European/Caucasian. He responds,

"I don't pretend to know what Christ looks like. As I stated in my interview, I wanted to create an image that would be instantly recognizable as Jesus. I am not painting an anthropological Jesus. Nobody would recognize him if I painted him that way."

This is so poor an excuse for this categorical fallacy, it does not even deserve to be considered a response. The entire painting is a political statement, complete with crying supreme court justices and "heroic" soldiers. Yet, he claims his reasoning behind intentionally misrepresenting Jesus' human ethnicity is merely for "recognition." He is clearly deluded or deceptive. Furthermore, there is no lack of evidence for Jesus' human ethnicity in the Bible, nor his physical features. Is there really any debate among Christians whether or not Jesus was a Palestinian Jew? Further still, would not a man with darker, more Middle Eastern facial features, dressed in white and gold robes and with a glowing halo REALLY be unrecognizable as Jesus??

2) "Founding Fathers"

Like so many ignorant American Christians, this artist also believes the myth that the United States was founded by Christians. This is patently false and has been so thoroughly refuted it should not need to be brought up again! Right-wing conservative evangelicals in America are among the worst at rewriting history to have them in it. Its like when someone from High School remembers you but you don't remember them, and they say you were good friends. Its sad really.

3) War, Violence and Jesus

Perhaps one of the most disturbing aspects of this painting is congruent with one of the most disturbing aspects of Americanized Christianity. This is its endorsement and advocacy for violence and war, often even invoking Christ's name. The artist here honors several soldiers who represent those who fought and killed in wars ranging from the Revolutionary War against Britain to the Vietnam War. (The absence of a representative for Gulf War and Iraq Veterans is highly conspicuous.) The glorification of war by conservative Christians in America is nothing new nor is it particularly surprising. However, what does strike me as very telling, is the artist depiction of the Civil War soldier crying. The caption explains that this is the only war where "brother fought against brother." This is very telling because, of course, the Revolutionary War was fought against a "Christian nation" …Britain. So, here, the author betrays his deep-seated view that in his mind brotherhood is derived from common citizenship in an earthly kingdom as opposed to the citizenship in God's kingdom that redemption supplies in Christ. The Colonial soldiers who were professing Christians and killed fellow professing Christians from Britain didn't kill their brothers. They just killed enemies. By contrast, white, slave-holding Southerners who did not profess Christ but killed Northern soldiers who also did not profess Christ as Lord, killed their brothers because of their common American-ness. Interesting, isn't it?

Space and time does not permit me to conduct as thorough a refutation of all this painting's errors (both theologically and historically) as I would like. But suffice to say this painting is a clear representation of the Americanized and bastardized "Christianity" that is imagined all too often by conservative evangelicals in this country. It is not based on Scripture and it is nationalistic idolatry.

PS - Shout out to Greg Boyd for exposing this painting on his blog

Peace.

Vince Campbell Further Debunks the Myth of Christianity as "Western Religion"

I was so very proud to see my friend and former CUME comrade Vince Campbell featured on Prof. Soong-Chan Rah's blog recently. Vince flew through the program at CUME and went on to Princeton and is now working toward a PhD at Catholic University. I can't wait to start seeing his writing published!

In this particular post, Vince provides some brief but poignant glimpses of African Christian history. I strongly recommend not only reading this piece but keeping an eye out for Vince in the coming years as a powerful and important emerging voice!

John Piper: Weather Oracle

Wednesday, tornadoes caused a great deal of damage in the Twin Cities (where both John Piper and Greg Boyd pastor churches.) As we have seen in the past, these two pastors often have very different interpretations of events that occur in their proverbial backyard. This event is no different. Informed by either his deterministic theological framework (as is the case for Piper), or by his open theological framework (as is the case for Boyd), each pastor arrives at very different conclusions regarding the tornadoes' destruction-causing touchdowns.

What does make this disaster different (at least for Piper) is the tornadoes' appearance during the conference of the Evangelical Lutheran Churches of America (ELCA). Due to the fact that one of the issues the ELCA was slated to discuss was the denomination's stance on homosexuality, Piper boldly claims the destructive storms are God's work. Calling it "Providence" (with a capital P), Piper "ventures an interpretation."

According to Piper,

"The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin."

Thankfully, Greg Boyd responded to Piper's post today on his blog. Boyd's response brings a much-needed rational, Christ-centered perspective to the incident. Boyd makes several very important points that are important for us to read.

You can read Boyd's response HERE.

Crosswalk.com Apparently Allows Only Ignorant Comments

Dr. Soong-Chan Rah was recently interviewed about his book The Next Evangelicalism by Crosswalk.com. When I read the comments left by "readers," I was amazed by the level of ignorance they display. One commenter's remarks particularly caught my attention. He calls himself "metaphysicalmike," and this is the comment he left:

"This is like our Constitution is a living and breathing document - wrong. The Bible is not either. I have been a member of many churches and have yet to find one that is really directing itself to be a captive white church. Some of the churches have tried to attract non-whites to the church by offering alternative services and Sunday school classes, etc., but without a minority minister it doesn't seem to work. This article misses the mark. It is not the evangelism that misses the target, but the fact that the cultures are different and as in regular life society the two have not yet meshed into one society, but are made up of many small ones each with distinct differences. Further this article only seems to point out that there are differences, but not what can be done to change the system. Without the constructive part of the criticism showing what needs to be done and how it can be done does not offer much other than criticism which detracts further from bringing the groups together."

While the comment by "metaphysicalmike" has been allowed to remain visible for over a week, my comments posted last night were immediately removed.

"@metaphysicalmike: Your comment is alarmingly ignorant and defensive. Why Rah's thesis concerning the church evokes from you the need to share your political bent is beyond odd. And even though it is grossly off-topic, you are flatly wrong about the Bible. Hebrews tells us explicitly that the Scriptures are "living and active." However, what is worse is, when you arrive back at the relevant topic of Rah's book, you clearly demonstrate you are not a bit more informed. You assume you can judge Rah's thesis based on this single interview alone. You obviously have not touched the book, let alone read it, but yet you consider yourself qualified to condemn it. This is a sad mistake.

Moreover, you display a seriously unfortunate lack of understanding of the New Testament. There have been few cultures in recorded history with less in common than the Hebrews and the Hellenists, yet it is the overwhelming testimony of Scripture that God's mission was to unite the disparate peoples of the first-century in Christ. So much so that Paul's journeys and exploits to do this very thing make up the majority of the these 27 books.

Are we any different? Has the mission of God ceased since Acts? Is not God's redemptive purpose still to call out from among all the nations one bride of Christ? Or do you supposed that the scene in heaven which John describes omits the necessary segregating compartments of God's throne-room? Are American Christians exempt from the duty of all believers to reflect the heavenly worshipping reality that it is God's dream to manifest?

One third of _The Next Evangelicalism_ is devoted to strategies for combating the rift between American Christians of diverse ethnicity. Three chapters. Since you have not actually read the book, you wouldn't know that."

I have written to Crosswalk.com and will update this blog post if I get a response:

"Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing regarding comments that have been removed and allowed to remain on a recent interview conducted by and posted on Crosswalk.com. The interview was with Dr. Soong-Chan Rah, author of _The Next Evangelicalism_. Several comments left by readers are ignorant and unhelpful to anyone, yet they are allowed to remain. However, comments I posted addressing and correcting their ignorance were removed.

If Crosswalk.com desires to be a place where people are free to post ridiculous, and unhelpful comments, while also censoring those of us who actually have read Dr. Rah's book, then Crosswalk.com will not be a place that attracts and keeps an intelligent and helpful readership.

Please either remove the ignorance that is currently displayed or repost the comments I left addressing and correcting the ignorance.

T. C. Moore"

The "New Chosen" and Corruption: Calvinism, the C-Street House, and The Family

For 10 years now, I have challenged Calvinists on the unbiblical doctrines they espouse. Many, many times I have expressed my concerns about the psychological affect Calvinistic doctrine can have on a person's thinking and subsequently their choices. Despite all the evidence, Calvinists routinely deny the presence of any danger whatsoever. That is why I find this story coming out of Washington D. C. so incredible fascinating.

The American public at large is only just now becoming fully aware of the influence a small but incredibly powerful "Christian" Fundamentalist group has on conservative politicians in Washington. The group is called "The Family" and they are the group that runs the now-famous "C-Street House."

Author Jeff Sharlet, who is a contributing editor to both Harper's and Rolling Stone, is interviewed in this article for the Las Vegas Sun. The part that interests me the most, due to my habit of carefully examining theological claims, are the Calvinistic doctrines this group and it's members espouse. The Family, and subsequently dozens of powerful conservative politicians, hold Calvinistic "Christian" doctrines that are astonishingly offensive. And never before has the affect of this thinking been as clearly displayed as it has in the conduct of this group's adherents. Almost without exception, the "Christian," Fundamentalist, conservative politicians who have lived at this house, have all been involved in sex scandals recently. Senator John Ensign and Governor Mark Sanford are just two names among a long list.

I pose the question to you readers, "Can Thinking You are Chosen by God Corrupt Your Mind?"

Here are some excerpts from the article:

"The Family began with this idea that God does not work through churches but rather through those whom The Family calls the “New Chosen.” They believe they’re chosen by God. They can’t be expected to pray with the rest of us. They need to pray in private with people of equal status."

"Doug Coe, David Coe’s father and leader of The Family fellowship going back to the mid ’60s, likes to call The Family 'The Christian Mafia.' I knew Coe when I was part of The Family. He explained what it means to be a chosen politician.

Talking to another man, he said, 'Let me explain to you the concept of ‘chosen.’ Suppose I hear you raped three little girls. What would I think of you?'

The man says, 'You would think I was awful, a monster.'

And Doug Coe said, 'No, I would not, because you’re chosen, and when you’re chosen, the normal rules don’t apply.' "

"[The Family is] a group that regularly invokes as leadership models Hitler, Stalin and Mao, whom Doug Coe said are three men who understood the New Testament best in the 20th century.

[David Coe] means that they are evil men, but what they understood is that the New Testament is not about love, mercy, justice, forgiveness. It’s about power."

"Doug Coe in one presentation talked about Nazi Germany and the allegiance many Germans had to the Nazis. He said it was something of a role model for the approach that Family members need to have to their organization."

"The [Family] began during the Great Depression because the founder thought that God came to him and revealed a vision that the New Deal was satanically inspired and that Christianity was getting it wrong for 2000 years by focusing on the poor, the weak, the suffering.

He said God came one night in April 1935 and said, 'I want you to be a minister to not the down and out, but the up and out,' he called them, the powerful. And God’s going to choose a few powerful people, he’ll work through those people, and those people will distribute the blessings to the rest of us."

HERE is the link to the full article.

And please be sure to check out Jeff Sharlet's new book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power - HERE

Response to Tiffany Orr - On Calvinism and Holy Hip Hop

Today, I plugged the keywords "Calvinism" and "Holy Hip Hop" into Google's search engine. To my surprise, in the very first hit I read my name. Who could be writing about me? Tiffany Orr is the answer. Tiffany Orr, who I know nothing about, took it upon herself to critique my Facebook notes on Calvinism and Holy Hip Hop.

Click HERE to read her piece

And here is my response:

Orr,

I stumbled across your critique of my Facebook notes about Calvinism and Holy Hip Hop and let's just say, I'm not impressed.

First, it's important when critiquing someone's writing to *ACTUALLY* read what they've written. Since you have set yourself up as an "examiner," I expected to read a half-way thorough examination. What I read instead was a poorly thought-out and executed internet flame with more mistakes and staw man arguments than I would expect to find in a fifth-grade book report.

Your title, for example, with a question mark following "Ministers of the Gospel" implies someone has made the assertion that Calvinist HHH artists are not ministers of the gospel. Who made such an argument? Did you read a different set of Facebook notes about Calvinism and Holy Hip Hop written by a different T. C. Moore? Because no such argument was ever made. In fact, the *EXACT OPPOSITE* statement was made emphatically!

"Artists like The Ambassador are incredibly gifted by God and I am confident they are having a powerful impact on people through their music and ministries. I do not want anything I am about to write to be misconstrued as an attack on these men and women of God. I have nothing but the utmost respect for Deuce and any of the other artists I will reference in this note or part II."

Did you miss that part? Or did you even read the notes at all? Obviously, if you did in fact read the notes, your comprehension skills need improvement.

Not to mention, you never actually argue that Calvinist HHH artists are in fact ministers of the Gospel. So, I am forced to conclude it is still a open question in your mind.

Second, you say, "Moore said he began to be alarmed by all the Calvinist theology Holy Hip Hoppers were espousing. And gee, even some Holy Hip Hop artists, such as the Ambassador, even have degrees in theology."

Did you read an argument against getting theology degrees in these notes? Can you imagine a reason why a seminary student like myself would be arguing *AGAINST* ministers getting theology degrees? Your lack of coherence here is astounding.

Third, you say, "... those who preach Calvinism are preaching the theology of the oppressed."

I'm not even sure how you got this point so very wrong. I'm genuinely stumped. The note does not say Calvinists are preaching the theology of the oppressed. The note says Calvinism is *NOT* the theology of the oppressed. That is why the heading of that section is: "Calvinism is Not the Theology of the Oppressed." And the point of the section is that Calvinism supports oppression, reinforcing systems of oppression. Again, actually reading the piece you are attempting to critique would prevent most of these amateur errors.

(Another tidbit of advice for a budding "examiner" ...examine the headings of a piece carefully, they are usually important.)

Fourth: "I don’t know why Moore wants to beat down Holy Hip Hop artists for expanding on the scriptures in an informed way."

The word you were looking for is "expounding." Biblical scholars "expound" on the Scriptures, they don't "expand" them. Unless of course you meant to imply that they are adding to the word their own biased opinions. In which case, they should indeed be rebuked. In the future, if, as it appears, you have no concept of what goes into biblical exegesis, it would be more wise to say nothing.

"...the Bible clearly illustrates the idea of Election. Ephesians 1 is just one of the chapters in the Bible that deals with the issue."

Yes, Eph. 1 discusses election, and it is so clear that theologians have only been debating this doctrine for hundreds of years. I'm sure they are all so grateful that you've finally put the entire misunderstanding to rest. Where was *YOUR* theology degree from again?

And finally, the kicker...

"What is so wrong with God electing people to pain, misery, exploitation, and despair?"

Hmmmm, let's see. How about, for starters, God is not evil. Remember that whole thing about the God of the Bible being pure, holy, and righteous? ...thats it.

You might be confusing the God of the Bible with another biblical figure called Satan. You cited Jesus' healing ministry as evidence of God's election of people to pain. Are you sure? Peter disagrees with you. He proclaimed Jesus "healed all that were oppressed of the devil," not God. (Acts 10.38)

"I think Moore has a problem with God’s justice."

Orr, what do you know about God's justice? You claim God want's people to be in poverty. Perhaps you have never experienced true poverty and that is why it is a matter you can treat so callously while ignoring the biblical truth about justice. What follows is a mere sampling of the dozens of passages that teach oppression of the poor is injustice that God abhors!

"I know that the LORD secures justice for the poor and upholds the cause of the needy." - Ps. 140.12

"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern." - Prov. 29.7

"If you see the poor oppressed in a district, and justice and rights denied, do not be surprised at such things; for one official is eyed by a higher one, and over them both are others higher still." - Ecc. 5.8

"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless." - Is. 10.1-2

"This is what the LORD says: "For three sins of Israel, even for four, I will not turn back. They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed. Father and son use the same girl and so profane my holy name." - Amos 2.6-7

"For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins. You oppress the righteous and take bribes and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts." - Amos 5.12

Orr, I am deeply saddened that you have so blindly accepted Calvinism and defend it so very ignorantly. I strongly recommend that in the future, you not weigh in on matters of which you clearly demonstrate you have no grasp.

~T. C.

"Taken" by His love - Guest post by Osheta Moore

So, TC and I are big movie people. Well, more him than me. I use movies as a sleep aid. I'm asleep by the middle and instantly wake up at the credits. It drives TC crazy. So I make it a habit to put on my PJs, drink a glass of milk and cuddle on the couch with a blanket whenever he pops a DVD in. Not really, it's not intentional, it's just we have two very different tastes in movies. He loves a script driven movie with either lots of action or thought provoking plot lines. Combine the two and it will leave an impression on him. The Matrix I would say is one of his favorite movies and our daughter is named Trinity partly because of it. I on the other hand, love a good romance. I love seeing the journey a man and woman take together as they explore their love for one another and how that loves leave an indelible mark on their lives. I love seeing the workaholic wall street tycoon get a second chance at love through an angel's intervention. I love seeing the immature shopaholic find her purpose while learning to discern between love that is reciprocal and nourishing and love that is conditional on receiving the minimum payment due on the line of credit. For me, a movie is a sort of escape. I see so much of the ugliness in the world, that I really want to be reminded that there is beauty, that there is laughter, that there is joy, that there is love. But, two nights ago I chose to watch a movie that wasn't a romance or even a comedy. Two nights ago, I got a 90 minute look at the sex trafficking industry. I saw women objectified. I saw men with callous, evil hearts. I saw families grieve. I saw a father's relentless mission. And I saw my Heavenly Father's passion for his daughters.

To preface this, TC has been gone for 5 days generating support at his home church in IL and spending time with family. So, when he said "Babe, you've got to watch this movie with me!" I was all over it. Anything to sit next to him for a while after being apart for several days! When I saw the trailer for "Taken" I immediately knew that I wanted to see it. But in the trailer it shows a woman alone in her house getting taken by scary black-clad men. So I, knowing my low tolerance for anything too violent or haunting decided to put the movie out of my mind. The movie is about a CIA agent who retires to spend more time with his 16 year old daughter named Kim, whom he had spent little time with as a little girl because of his profession. She talks him into signing a consent form for her to go to Paris under the guise of an educational summer trip. Really the girl was planning on following U2 across Europe! So her dad finds out, make extra rules for her to follow while there (call when she gets there, give him the phone number to where she will be staying etc. )because he knows the underbelly of Paris and wants to protect his daughter. Well, her and her friend meet a charming and sexy-accented hottie at the airport, divulge too much information about their situation they tell him they are alone in an apartment and gives him the apartment number. All the while, the charming hottie is actually bait for beautiful American women. The girls get taken (hence the movie title) by a Ukrainian sex trafficking organization and Kim's father goes on a rampage through Paris to rescue his daughter.

As I was watching the movie it really hit a nerve with me. Not so much because of the despicable sex trade industry. That's horrible and it angers me just thinking about it. I have a friend who is passionate about bringing awareness and being the light of Christ in this dark corner of humanity and I am blown away by her. So I went into this movie with a little bit of preparation for that aspect of the movie. I was not prepared to see the gospel in that movie. I saw a woman's fear of her Heavenly Father, a woman's rejection of her Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Father's plan to redeem his daughter.

Kim, has a general distrust of her dad. He wasn't around very much when she was a child and when he was around she carried a significant fear with her. She says in the beginning of the movie, she always wanted to ask him what he really does that takes him away from her so often. When her dad drew her out on that, she tells him it's because she is afraid she wouldn't like the answer. So there's an element of wanting to know him, but feeling as if he is unknowable that he's maybe too dangerous to know, or that she'll be disappointed with what she finds. She also has a mother and step father that feed her distrust, by making sly comments and by treating him with disdain in her presence. And I immediately thought of all the women in the world that are believing lies about God. That as a young girl looked up at the beauty of the stars and knew there was Someone who made them and she knew that Someone made those stars for her. A love offering from a Daddy to his daughter. And her heart was glad. But as the enemy worked out his plan, the stars were shrouded by the fog of deception. One by one she lost sight of the stars and all she saw was nothingness. Black, empty void and hope was lost. Maybe she still believes the stars are there, but not the Creator. And so, fear and distrust become her new companions. She begins to believe that God doesn't love her because this bad thing happened or this good thing didn't happen. She begins to believe God is angry with her because she once believed but now struggles, and she's too afraid to ask him the truth. She begins to believe that her worth is in her body because that's real, that's tangible, the sensations are physical and really what does a deity that you can't see have to offer in comparison? In Kim I saw a woman completely ignorant to the powerhouse of a father sitting next to her in the car and I wonder how often I forget the ardent love of my Father and the resourcefulness that rests in His hands.

Because of her deep distrust of her dad she pays no attention to his cautions. She doesn't call her dad and she's not truly apologetic when he asks her why she's not following the rules. She pulls the standard, "you're ruining my life and you don't want me to have fun" teen bit. She's self-centered and unaware of how fragile her comfortable reality is. Until she is taken. She is taken into a world where sex sells, where it's not personal it's business, and where her only hope in staying alive is up to the man pumping her body with heroin who hopefully doesn't accidentally give her an overdose. She's turned into an addict and plans are made to violate her innocence and it's all because of her rejection of her father's care. And I think back in my life where I pulled the, " you want ruin my fun God" card and I had fun. Short-lived but costly fun. Fun that sometimes cost me relationships and fun that cost me my innocence. Fun that as I look back was an infection masquerading as a cure. Watching Kim, my mind filled with images of women armed with anger and accusations for the Lord turning away from the Lamb to cuddle with the wolf.

But because of who he is her dad goes to rescue her. Bryan Mills-the father, is a CIA agent with an arsenal of skills, experience, and instinct. He goes through the blackest pit of Paris to find and rescue his daughter. There is a French official who is Bryan's friend, and we later find out that he's working with the Ukrainians. He urges him to be quiet and to better yet leave the country. He asks Bryan to not make a mess. Oh, but make a mess he does. And I thought of Jesus. Jesus who John says was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Jesus, God in the flesh who came to earth to in effect make a mess and get messy. He came to shake up preconceived notions of the Messiah. He came to reveal the Father to a people who had come to view him as only their Judge or their distant Creator. He came to mess up the destructive construct of the world that sin introduced. And he got messy. He comforted the unloved and unlovable. He accepted the pariah. He championed the oppressed. Jesus being fully God. Fully divine and without sin, he made touching the unclean both physically and spiritually the bedrock of his ministry.

Jesus came and He took no heed to social or religious mores. What... talk to a Samaritan woman who is shacking up to show her she has worth to me? I'm there. What... there's a woman caught in the act of adultery and some self righteous dudes want to use her to trap me when all I see when I look at her is the most beautiful work of my hand? I got this. What...a woman wants to spend time with me to learn and let me love on her and you're trying to get her go bake some bread? Let her enjoy the better portion. What...in order to restore mankind to me I must empty myself and subject myself to death- even death on a Roman cross? Not my will by Thine.

Redemption is messy. Bryan Mills ignored his friends plea and made a mess and hugely crippled the sex trade industry in Paris. Jesus ignored the Pharisees, Sadducees, and even his family's' plea to not make a mess and he through his death he overcame sin and through his resurrection he overcame death and his relentless pursuit to reveal the Father to us is crippling the plans of the enemy. Because of Who he is and because of who we are to him he made a mess.

There's a scene at the end where the father gets through the last obstacle to his daughter and she's standing there in her prostitution garb and she says, "daddy? you came for me". And of course Bryan takes Kim into his arms and comforts her. I was a mess inside when I saw that. I was a mess because I know there were times when my Daddy came for me. There were times when he sent someone to remind me of His love or His Holy Spirit reminds me of a scripture or when I get a small glimpse of His passion for me when I interact with my kids and i think, "wow...you came for me? I haven't picked up my Bible in days and... you came for me? I have sinned in my anger and... you came for me? I have carried bitterness in my heart like a talisman and... you came for me? I'm struggling with trusting you when everything in my life tells me you just don't care anymore and today...you came for me"

So, in watching a very action packed 90 minutes I couldn't help but look pass the explosions and the gun fights and see the story of redemption. The driving force behind the movie is a father's love for his daughter which was a very dim reflection of the Heavenly Father's love for us. So where are you? Are you disillusioned because the stars no longer shine bright? Ask God to remove the lies and his Truth will shine forth and light up your sky. Are you rejecting His will for your life that comes from a place of deep, true, pure love? Stop. Ask God for a bigger perspective. Repent and let Him teach you how to live a fulfilling life. Are you standing in the middle of the room and the sin from your past is hanging from you like cheap lace? Run into His arms, cry into His chest and let Him love you back to wholeness. Allow yourself to be taken by His love.

Push, Knowing, and the Future: Determinism and Openness in Two Recent Sci-Fi Films [Warning: Spoilers!]

This summer, Summit Entertainment released two sci-fi thrillers that are similar in many ways, but different in one major respect. Both films are action-packed and laced with impressive CGI. Both films are set in present day among seemingly ordinary people who turn out to either possess remarkable abilities or to have been chosen for a unique purpose. But these two films deal with the nature of the future in diametrically opposing ways. In this brief Note, I'd like to explore the fundamental difference between the way in which the future is depicted in each film and provide commentary on why I believe one film represents the classical view of future determinism and the other represents the biblical view of future openness.

Knowing and Future Determinism

Starring Nick Cage, Knowing is about a professor of astrophysics at MIT who does not believe the future is predetermined. The professor's conviction of the randomness of the universe, and the pain that can often result, stems from the sudden and tragic loss of his wife shortly before we enter the story. Nick Cage's character also has a son, a sister, and religious background he has long-since shunned due to some ambiguous conflict with this preacher father.

The prof's presupposition of randomness is put to the test when a 50 year-old time capsule is unearthed at his son's school housing a cryptic code penned by a gifted and misunderstood schoolgirl. When his son suggests the sequence might be a mathematical puzzle of some kind, Cage's inebriated character cannot resist the temptation to analyze them in search of meaning and purpose. With a few short keystrokes in Google's search field, the prof finds that most of the numbers are the exact dates of major world disasters along with the precise number of casualties. In classic thriller fashion, he reaches out to a close friend who of course thinks he's crazy. (Who saw that coming?) When the prof realizes that three of the dates has not happened yet, he watches the 24-hour cable news cycle for breaking reports of catastrophe on the day when the present disaster is predicted. However, the disaster does not immediately present itself.

Running late picking up his son, the prof finds himself stuck in traffic at the exact coordinates of the disaster predicted for that day. Wondering how a simple traffic accident can produce 81 fatalities, he exits his vehicle just as a plane crash lands in the field next to the highway. Cage's character runs to the wreckage throwing blankets on survivors still in flames and performing CPR on some who are injured.

This brings me to why Knowing represents the motif of future determinism. No matter what the professor does, in the Knowing universe his actions can have no effect on the predetermined dates, coordinates, or number of causalities these disaster will produce. Though he takes desperate measures placing his own life in danger, he is ultimately impotent to prevent even a single person from dying. In the Knowing universe, there is a higher, transcendent power that knows precisely how these events will play out without contingency of any kind. Even though he receives "warning," he is still left to conclude he is powerless. All power of determination is left in the hands of the otherworldly transcendent power(s).

[Sidenote: Knowing goes to great lengths to present biblical faith as phenomenological mythology. Without giving too much away, I will say that biblical imagery/concepts are replaced by science fiction imagery/concepts. Whether or not the writers and/or producers intend to demean biblical faith is unclear, but skeptics and unbelievers will certainly have any preconception that 'Christians are simple' reinforced.]

In summary, the universe of Knowing is a closed one. What will be, will be. There is nothing human beings can do to effect the outcomes of the future. Ultimately, we are powerless and at the mercy of the transcendent power(s) that is/are controlling our lives. This, I submit, is also the conclusion of one prominent branch of Christian theology. Namely, it is that branch of Christian theology that has sought, since Augustine, to synthesize the biblical narrative with Greek (particularly Platonic) metaphysics. Calvin belongs to this tradition as well as the Reformed churches. This theological tradition accepts no future contingencies viewing the future instead as entirely certain, set, determined. Some within this tradition differ on precisely how and by whom the future is determined, but all agree that the future is not alterable nor populated by any real possibilities.

Push and Future Openness

Push stars Chris Evans, who is perhaps most famous for playing Johnny Storm in the 2005 live-action version of Fantastic Four, and Dakota Fanning, who is famous for starring in everything from Man on Fire opposite Denzel to the Charlotte's Web opposite a CGI-enhanced piglet. In the Push universe, there are people hidden among the general population endowed with extraordinary abilities a la X-men, Heroes, etc. etc. And just as in all other "special abilities" sci-fi franchises, there is of course the now obligatory, clandestine agency bent on either eliminating these 'supers' or exploiting their power.

The plot of Push isn't nearly as attention-keeping as Knowing's so I won't bore you with it's details. Suffice to say, while eluding capture by the sinister captain of the shadowy bureau (who is himself a super), the unlikely pair (Evans and Fanning) must find a syringe filled with a double-whammy drug concoction that either magnifies it's recipient's powers or kills them.

What I want to highlight instead of the this film's lackluster plot, is the way in which it depicts the nature of the future. Those supers with the ability to see the future, if only in glimpses, understand the future in a fundamentally different way from Knowing. For example, at the very beginning of the movie, Fanning's character says,

"Right now the future I see is not so great. The good news is, the future is always changing."

The sentiment that the future is composed at least in part of possibilities or contingencies, as opposed to unchangeable certainties, is an on-going theme in the film. As the characters track down the syringe, the choices they make effect the future outcomes "Watchers" see in their predictive visions. Each choice changes the future that could or could not happen.

I submit that the way in which Push depicts the future is more in line with the portrait of the future the bible paints. Scripture teaches that our choices have significance for future outcomes. What we choose today and tomorrow we grow to become. If we pray or not changes the future. If we share our witness with others changes the future. If we exercise faith or not changes the future. Scripture shows us that God has imparted significant responsibility to human beings to co-create the future with him. As his agents and co-laborers in the world, we shape the future for his kingdom purposes with our choices. A person doomed to destruction can be redeemed. There is hope when the future is not set in stone.

Google Found My Father But Can't Make Him My Dad

I grew up without a father. Apparently, I was the love child of a fling my mom had with her married doctor nearly 30 years ago. She told him and he wanted her to abort the pregnancy. She tells me she went to the clinic not knowing what she would do, but could not go through with it. Whether there is any truth to her claim that "Jesus told her not to do it," I don't know. But as hard as life gets sometimes, I am grateful I exist.

When I was young I asked my mom who my father was. She told me his name and that he was married and was her doctor. She also gave me his long-obsolete business card which was of no value to me. In fact, I think i threw it away.

Since becoming a father myself, I have thought again about meeting/talking to guy whose DNA I share. But I have not been able to identify precisely why I want this. I know that meeting him or talking with him will not undue any of the pain his absence caused me as a child. I cannot even tell if I fully expect him to be interested in my life at all. All I know is that I'm curious. What I expect to find out, I don't know.

A few years back, I started Googling the name my mother gave me along with his profession and where I was born. (Google is pretty amazing, isn't it?) With a few choice keywords I had a picture and factoids about what he's been up to all these years. It turns out that he stayed right there in San Diego, in the same neighborhood where I was born. I also found out he has sons only a little older than me.

One disturbing factoid I encountered on my keyword quests was the criminal history of one of my half brothers. A San Francisco newspaper reports that this young man is alleged to have repeatedly coaxed young boys into removing their clothes for him and/or sending him nude photos. Someone in my position has to ask themselves, "Do I even want to know these people?"

Nevertheless, I have continued to research the whereabouts of this "father" sporadically over the years without making any decision on whether I would attempt to contact him. This week, I discovered he is no longer a primary care physician, but has taken a more corporate position which likely has him closer to a desk with a phone. I also obtained a number that could very well connect me to him directly. That is where the journey has led me to now.

Father vs. Dad

Scripture is clear about the fatherhood of God. In the Hebrew Bible, the fatherless are shown to be dear to God, and he himself is described as their father. One of my favorite passages that mentions this role is Psalm 68 verses 5 and 6. It says God is a father to the fatherless and that he "sets the lonely in families." I have indeed experienced this since I began following Christ 10 years ago. Yes, it is true, I have never met the the male who donated his seed to my conception, but I have not been fatherless for 10 years because the Lord has been faithful to his word and has provided me with godly mentors through whom he has demonstrated his father's heart and sacrificial love.

The New Testament adds a great deal to God's self-revelation as Father. Jesus calls God "Abba," an affectionate household term like Papa or Dad (Mk. 14.36). Jesus shows that our relationship to God is intimate and tender. In fact, Paul expounds on this truth teaching us that because believers are indwelled by the Spirit, we are adopted sons and cry out with Jesus, "Abba, Father" (Rom. 8.15, Gal. 4.6).

I count myself incredibly blessed to have had wonderful men in my life these last 10 years and to have known God as my loving Abba. Google may have found my father, but my dad will always be the Lord.

May the Lord reveal himself to you in a deeper way as your Abba, and my you experience his sacrificial love in demonstrable ways through godly mentors!

Freestyle: Hip Hop, Improvisation, and the Praiseworthy Wisdom of God

I'm going to interrupt my own series on mentoring as spiritual warfare to briefly write about something that captured my mind today.

I spent longer than normal on the bus today because I needed to get a haircut in Allston, which is out of the way of my usual trek from Cambridge to Roxbury. This detour gave me time to listen to music and think. I listened to staples like Pac, 100 Portraits, and Jason Morant. But the extended trip gave me the opportunity to indulge in some favorites by Jill Scott and the Roots crew. While Jill and the Roots make music in two separate genres---R & B and hip hop respectively---the two share in common that jazzy Philly sound. This got me thinking about about the many connections hip hop and jazz share. From there, my mind shifted to theology---as it often does.

God and Improvisation

In Openness circles, the analogy of dynamic providence to improvisational jazz is well-known and affirmed. For Open theists, God's relationship to humanity, particularly regarding his salvific economy, is more analogous to the improvisation of jazz musicians than the direct rendering of notes from a musical composition. The brilliance and the artistry of the music is found in it's creativity and spontaneity, not it's ability to follow a pre-programmed routine.

So wide-spread is this analogy, a quick search using the terms "God" and "improvisation" yielded a book called _Theology, Music, and Time_ by Jeremy Begbie. In this book I read this wonderful excerpt:

"...any student of [Romans chapters 9-11] knows that there has been a tendency (especially drawing on chapter 9) to interpret Paul as assuming a predestining divine decree, individual and particular, proceeding from an essentially singular God. It is as if Paul's primary concern were the means by which a (non-trinitarian) God executes a decision which he has made from all eternity with regard to the future of human beings considered as isolated agents -- some for salvation, some for eternal death. Salvation is thus conceived a priori in atomistic and monadic terms, with regard to both human beings and God himself. The musical equivalent would be a composer composing a piece of music, choosing from a list of performers a restricted number of recipients (simultaneously rejecting the rest), and then sending the music out to the chosen for for them to play. We have seen, using musical improvisation in an attempt to allow the text to speak clearly, that Paul's interests are rather different. For he writes of an election to salvation mediated through a process of receiving from, and passing on to others. The orientation of Romans as a whole (including Romans 9) is not towards solitary recipients of a decree but towards communities who already know the interrelatedness basic to salvation and the mission of God's people. Salvation comes, and can only come, within this mutual relatedness. The individual is of course crucially significant, but only within this mutuality. To put it differently, God gives abundantly in order to promote more giving, to generate an overflowing reciprocity, and salvation occurs within this ecology of giving. Moreover--here we move beyond what Paul says explicitly in these chapters--this is a reciprocity which reflects and shares in the eternal relatedness-in-love of the Trinity. This is the momentum which the group improviser learns: to receive music from others, improvise upon it, pass it back and on to others, and all this in such a way that others are drawn in, and they in turn become the new improvisors. The Composer, we might say, comes to be known only in and through the process of passing the music on, and we find that the original music was composed in mutuality, through an infinitely abundant exchange (between Father and Son) in to which we are now being caught up."

- Theology, Music, and Time, Jeremy Begbie p. 262-263

Hip Hop and Freestyling

In hip hop, as in jazz, mastery of the art is not recognized in artists who merely possess the ability to recite or perform pre-written words. Rather, master emcees are praised for their ability to creatively generate skillful rhymes and flows on-the-fly. This talent is called freestyling. In fact, freestyling, like improvisation in jazz and also in hip hop dance, is often performed in a group called a cypher. As Begbie's points out, improvisation has a drawing effect on it's listeners. It is an invitation to participation.

The Praiseworthy Wisdom of God

All this leads me to the conclusion at which I arrived today while riding the bus. The wisdom of God is praiseworthy precisely because God masterfully improvises with his creation the music of life. Just as the lyrical prowess of the emcee is praiseworthy due to his or her artistic creativity, so it is with God. In the Trinity, for all eternity, the divine community has shared in the cypher of mutual loving exchange. In the Gospel, and in the life, ministry, self-sacrifice, and resurrection of Christ, God invites us to join in. When we identify with the Improvisor and begin to receive his music, giving back our own mimicked notes, we share in the triune God's eternal song of love and become improvisors ourselves.

The wisdom of God is praiseworthy precisely because it is truly wise. Wisdom is not required to coerce inferior beings to live out pre-programmed lives towards a pre-programmed fate. Just as in jazz and hip hop, superior praise is due the artist resourceful and creative enough to adapt words perfectly for a particular moment in time.

Join the cypher!

Fighting the Powers: Mentoring as Spiritual Warfare, Part I - "Who are the Powers?"

Intro:

In my next few posts, I will attempt a formidable feat. My plan is to broach several complex and often confusing subjects for the purpose of making one succinct point. (Notice I said "attempt.") I am not entirely sure I will succeed. Should I fall short of my goal however, I am confident that a sufficient number of writers and thinkers read this blog to provide a constructive critique salvaging the heart of the point I wish to make. (Notice I said "constructive.") :-)

As is evident from the title, I intend to discuss the "powers," mentoring, and spiritual warfare. What do these three subjects have in common? Seemingly little, I admit. Nevertheless, I believe there is an important intersection that I hope to shed some light on in this series.

I am not sure just yet how many parts I will need to connect my thoughts into one point. I am only sure that to start, I'd like to briefly survey the New Testament data on the "powers" and discuss them in order to lay a foundation upon which I will build my argument. And the argument I want to make is that Christian mentoring of at-risk/high-risk youth is spiritual warfare.

The Biblical Data and Deductions:

The New Testament refers to the "powers" [edit] six times: Rom. 8.38; Eph. 3.10; Eph. 6.12; Col. 1.16; Col. 2.15; and I Pet. 3.22. Five of the six passages were written by Paul. The sixth passage was written by Peter. Although these passages discuss the powers only briefly, a great deal about who or what are the powers can still be deduced.

The powers are often discussed in very important contexts. For example, they are discussed in the same context as Jesus' work on the cross and also the love of God. If the apostles Peter and Paul believed the powers noteworthy enough to mention them alongside these subjects, I think it is safe to say they should be important to us as well.

Examining each passage, I will now make several deductions about who or what are the powers.

(1) "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,* neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord." - Rom. 8.38-39 NIV (*or heavenly rulers)

In this first passage, the powers are listed among other parts of creation that Paul forcefully teaches cannot separate believers from the love of God in Christ. Regarding the powers, we can deduce at least a couple things from this passage. First, the powers are part of creation, i.e. created by God. After listing the powers, Paul says, "...nor anything else in all creation." So the powers are a part of creation. Second, the powers do control some thing(s). Paul's point here is that whatever the powers are, they cannot separate believers from God's love in Christ. However, it is equally clear that this means whatever the powers are, they do have some power--even if it is not sufficient to separate believers from God's love in Christ.

(2) "His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord." - Eph. 3.10-11 NIV

In this passage, Paul teaches us something else about the powers, this time in relation to the church. Here we see that at least part of the purpose for the church is to reveal God's manifold wisdom to not only all humanity, but even to fallen spirit-beings in the seldom-seen spiritual realm.

(3) "Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand." - Eph. 6.11-13 NIV

Now from this passage we gain a great deal more insight into the identity and purpose of the powers. Paul explicitly states that believers are to fight the powers. The powers are a believer's true enemy--not any other human beings. This is a very important truth. Furthermore, Paul here places the powers alongside several others against which believers are to war including: rulers, authorities, and spiritual forces of evil. Categorized with company like these, it is clear why the powers are one of our true enemies.

(4) "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." - Col. 1.15-17 NIV

In this passage about the preeminence of Christ, the powers are again listed among other parts of creation. In this passage, Paul teaches that not only are the powers a part of creation, Christ created them for himself. The powers were created to serve Christ.

(5) "having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross." - Col. 2.14-16 NIV

Now were getting somewhere! In this passage, we find the powers referenced again. However, this time, they are not just mentioned as a part of creation, even as created to serve Christ. Nor are we merely taught they are our enemies. Here, Paul teaches us that the work of Christ on the cross had an impact on the powers--a profound impact! This passage shows us clearly that at least one reason why Jesus gave his life was to defeat the powers. Jesus' self-sacrifice is here describes as warfare. In his act of dying, his seeming defeat, Jesus actually "triumphed" over these powers. In fact, he robbed them of their power and humiliated them. These are profound and fundamental truths.

It is also important to note that while some passages mention the powers neutrally as part of creation, even created to serve Christ, other passages (like this one) depict the powers as opposing God in rebellion. Regardless of the fact the powers are part of God's creation (which he deemed "very good" - Gen. 1.31), they have gone very wrong. They have rebelled against their purpose--to serve Christ--and instead oppose Christ. Therefore, it can be clearly deduced from their categorization with rulers and authorities (implying deliberative thought), and also from their description as opposing God (implying free will), that the powers are personal beings possessing mind and will. The powers are not impersonal forces, laws, or principles.

(6) "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him." - I Pet. 3.21-22 NIV

We read the last reference to the powers on the tail-end of this dense passage in which Peter brings up several subjects that I won't be discussing. This time, the reference to the powers is eschatological. In the 'already' Kingdom of God, the powers are here depicted as in submission to Jesus Christ though in the 'not yet' kingdom of the world the powers continue to exert tremendous influence. Nevertheless, this is yet another profound teaching that perfectly compliments the Paul's teaching of Christ's victory on the cross in Colossians 2.

Some Conclusions from the Data:

So, by now, we can see that these five passages teach us a great deal about the powers. Here's a summary of some conclusions we can draw:

The powers...

• are a part of creation (Rom. 8.38-39)

• cannot separate believers from the love of God in Christ (Rom. 8.38-39)

• have power/control over some thing(s) (Rom. 8.38-39)

• have God's manifold wisdom revealed to them by the church (Eph. 3.10-11)

• are believers' true enemies (Eph. 6.11-13)

• are categorized with rulers, authorities, and forces of darkness (Eph. 6.11-13)

• were created to serve Christ (Col. 1.15-17)

• are in rebellion against God, oppose God (Col. 2.14-16)

• were defeated by the self-sacrifice of Jesus (Col. 2.14-16)

• were stripped of their power by the self-sacrifice of Jesus (Col. 2.14-16)

• were humiliated by the self-sacrifice of Jesus (Col. 2.14-16)

• are eschatologically in submission to Jesus (I Pet. 3.21-22)

From these conclusions, we can begin to see a plot or story line develop. We know the powers are a part of God's creation which he called "very good." Since the powers are depicted as disarmed and triumphed over by the self-sacrifice of Christ on the cross, it is clear that at some point the powers turned from their original state choosing instead to rebel against God. The powers are also categorized with rulers, authorities, and forces of darkness. Paul exhorts us to war against them as our true enemies. And we also see that in the eschaton the powers will ultimately come into submission to Christ. Because we live in that precarious "already but not yet" reality, the powers are both defeated yet still warring against God. The self-sacrifice of Christ signaled the beginning of the end for the powers' reign of terror, but until all is put to rights in the eschaton, we, God's Kingdom people, are called to wage war on the powers until Christ returns.

Now that a basic understanding of the New Testament's data on the powers has been surveyed even if only briefly, we can now start to entertain strategies for precisely how believers are to engage in warfare against these powers. It is from here that I wish to submit my thesis that one of, if not the most, effective of strategies for waging war on the powers is by serving at-risk/high-risk youth as a mentor. However, before I can make this assertion, I feel I must also establish a connection between the powers and at-risk/high-risk youth. Therefore, in my next post, I will detail much of the biblical data explaining what it is the powers do, and are doing. I will attempt to show that at-risk/high-risk youth in cities of our nation (and the world's) are some of the powers' most impacted victims. From there, I will then have warrant for proposing that mentoring these youth is God-glorifying, Christ-following, Kingdom warfare against the powers.

The "American Patriot's Bible" is a Hot, Steaming, Pile of Blasphemous, Idolatrous Feces

I am ashamed to report that the American evangelical church has fallen to a new and horrific low by producing what can only be described as the most blasphemous, idolatrous publication I could imagine.

Thomas Nelson publishing has released a "study" Bible that interweaves stories from American wars about American soldiers, quotes from American politicians and generals, and editorials about American history into the TEXT OF THE BIBLE!!!

Replacing the nonviolent Kingdom ethic of Jesus is the nationalistic, violent ethic of just about any nation in world history.

Greg Boyd has been blogging a small sampling of the many, many notes he has compiled from his review. You can read them here, here, and here.

Jesus and Justice for My Neighbor Curt

I feel conflicted tonight. A part of me is heart-broken and disappointed at the state of the church in America, particularly in Boston where I live. Another part of me is hopeful, optimistic, even faith-full. I can't see what God has in store, but from my experience with God I can only conclude he's up to something big!

This evening I spoke once again with my neighbor Curt. Curt is a hard-working man who gets up everyday and works long, hard hours at his job to provide for his family. Yet Curt is like the many millions of Americans living paycheck to paycheck. "I'm working just to pay my bills. Then once they are paid, I've got nothing left. So it's right back to work," he said to me. "I can't even afford to get a cold and miss work." Curt feels like a hamster on a stationary wheel just working to make someone else rich. And before I could even begin my inspirational, entrepreneurship pep-talk, he beat me to the punch. "I could start my own moving company, but that work is seasonal," he tells me. Curt already knows that owning his own business rather than working for someone else is a means of personal advancement. But where does a person without business ownership experience start? Where does he get the capital? What can be done to ensure his success?

There are some conversations I have in which a part of me is beside myself, or hovering above somehow, as if in an out-of-body experience. In conversations like this one, it is as if I am role-playing the precise scenario all my social justice, Christian community development research, reading, studies have equipped me to address. It is as if I have just left a class on evangelism only to be approached by someone at the grocery store who says, "Excuse me sir, aren't you a Christian? How can I be saved?" It cannot be merely coincidental that the challenges my neighbor Curt faces are the exact challenges I feel personally called to confront. There must be a purpose in our proximity.

Nearly 8 years ago I realized how captive the gospel I had been sharing was to Western, white individualism. With the help of such visionary leaders and ministries as John Perkins and the CCDA, I discovered the power of holistic ministry and how holistic is the gospel. Since then, I have given myself over to the kind of ministry that is intentionally Incarnational. I have served with ministries that do not merely proclaim the power of the gospel with words, but demonstrate the self-sacrificial love that is at it's heart through service and meeting felt needs. I have witnessed first-hand the power of holistic ministry by seeing it transform entire communities through faithful, prophetic witness.

I said to Curt, "The answer is community! Our culture blinds us to our potential for prosperity together by constantly trying to convince us that we are all on our own. As long as each one of us believes we just have to look out for ourselves, we will continue in this perpetual cycle of helplessness." But Curt is not a question on the midterm exam in my social ethics class in seminary. He is a real person who has been down that road before and been hurt. His response was as true as it was bleak. "Ya, but... even in community, when one person starts to make it, the others get jealous and think 'why ain't I making it?' Even family will stab you in the back over money." Curt isn't just jaded; I can't simply dismiss his apprehensions. There is a lot of truth to Curt's cynicism. Naturally, I want to reassure Curt that a community centered on faith in Christ will offer him the stability and trustworthiness he needs. However, even as optimistic and faith-full as I think I am, I too quickly recall just how treacherous and divisive church communities can be. Even still I said to him, "The community must be rooted in something trustworthy for those in the community to be trustworthy." I almost didn't believe myself as I said the words.

After several more minutes of conversation about IDAs (Individual Development Accounts), homeownership, and an organization that assists Boston residents in purchasing their first home at an affordable cost, we were both called inside our respective homes for dinner.

Still, I couldn't shake the sense of frustration that comes from knowing the Kingdom of God is the answer to Curt's dilemma---and everyone else's for that matter---but that the church that is called to reflect and advance that Kingdom is failing. Or maybe it is not that the church is failing necessarily. Perhaps somewhere in Boston God has prepared for Curt the precise resources and support he needs. Only I have no idea how to connect the two because I am unaware if or where this ministry exists. While I feel above average in being informed of the ministry taking place in Boston, I admit I cannot exhaustively know what is available. It is conceivable that minutes from us both is a ministry that God has purposed to meet Curt's need perfectly. Nevertheless, I felt helpless. So I called my friend Glenn who is much more informed of holistic ministry in Boston than I. But he had no good news. He said, [edit] 'Christian community development in Boston is a huge need.'

Osheta and I lifted Curt and his family up before the Lord and thanked God that we have the opportunity to know them and share in their lives. We prayed that God would use us to lead Curt and his family into his Kingdom freeing them not only from captivity to sin, but also from the oppressive power of injustice.

I do not know how God will meet Curt where he is at, but I am confident that if he can find and deliver me, he can rescue anyone! Please pray with me for Curt and his family that God will glorify himself in Curt's life by miraculously delivering him into his Kingdom.

Yummy Heroes Theology

I'm a sucker for tasty sci-fi goodness. Give me just about anything that combines a martial arts showcase of raw skills with out-of-this-world powers and I'll scarf it down. But if you really want to fill my metaphorical belly, find a way to intelligently work into the sci-fi action some juicy philosophical musings. The Matrix, like a master chef, accomplished this feat ingeniously, and has perhaps become the prototype for this sub-genre. Heroes is the newest dish I've tasted that serves up this delicious combo, only in bite-sized weekly morsels that leave you wanting more.

My wife and I got into Heroes pretty late in the game. I had watched only brief moments from a few random episodes prior to season 3. However, because of our Netflix subscription, we noticed that every episode of seasons 1 and 2 were available for instant viewing via streaming over the interwebs. So, 2 or 3 episodes at a time, we watched the entire first and second seasons---and then the entire third season finishing up the series (thus far) last friday.

Of course the action is enthralling and the special effects impressive, but honestly it has been the characters that have drawn me in. Each story line has it's own unique appeal, it's own fascinating dynamics. There are marriage dynamics, sibling dynamics, friendship dynamics, to name a few. There are teenagers coming of age, men and women in middle-aged crises, and elders in the twilight of their lives clinging to hope.

It's the philosophy of Heroes, however, that holds the show together. Random stories about characters and their relationships is daytime soap territory. Even the super-powers wouldn't stand on their own---Passions proved this. But by adding the philosophical undertones of fate, free will, destiny, God, and the ontological nature of the future, the plot is provided with a stabilizing force that intertwines each of the disparate story lines and gives the series a maturity and credence it would otherwise lack.

I'm of course in love with the portrayal of the future as partially indeterminate in the Heroes universe, but this is now to be expected. It seems that classical theists, like the proverbial ostrich with it's head buried in the sand, are the only group that continues to deny the openness of the future. To everyone else, the future's openness is an obvious and proven fact. Some other examples of this are Minority Report, the Butterfly Effect, Next, etc. etc. In the Heroes universe, the partial openness of the future is illustrated through the relationship of the characters to time travel and predictive visions of the future. When the few characters gifted with the ability to either dream or see or paint the future do in fact predict what is to come, there is an intuitive knowledge that this vision can be altered, prevented. Characters with vested interest in a particular future being actualized tend to speak of it as "inevitable." But this fatalism is almost always met with immediate opposition. For example, in one episode, when a character named Claire is told a dismal future is "inevitable" she vehemently retorts, "the future is not written in stone!"

While I will continue to, and perhaps always, appreciate twin philosophical undertones such as fate/freewill in stories like Heroes, another pair of themes in Heroes has surprisingly grown prominent and caught my attention. Healing and forgiveness have played important roles in this series---moreso than I would have expected. It has been particular intriguing to see the characters portrayed as the villains wrestle with these subjects. "Sylar," who is often portrayed as the character of greatest sinister evil, appears in a scene with another character upon whom he has inflicted tremendous pain. In Sylar's quest for purpose and identity he has, by this point, realized he may not want to be a monster. In this particular scene, Sylar allows the person he has severely hurt to lash out against him in a deeply self-sacrificial way. When she is exhausted from inflicting as much pain on Sylar as possible, she reveals that she too feels like a monster. She feels responsible for transforming Sylar into the monster he has become. Sylar says to her, "I forgive you. Now you must forgive yourself."

Family is another dominate theme that makes Heroes more than ordinary. Throughout the series the viewer discovers more and more surprise familial relationships. Characters discover they were adopted, they have siblings of which they were unaware, etc. Amidst a program about amazing abilities, the bond of family is often shown to be the strongest power of them all.

Heroes is a delicious entertainment snack that I have enjoyed consuming. In future posts, I may take up specific topics, episodes, or characters from the show for discussion. Be on the lookout for Heroes reheated like leftovers with commentary applied liberally like Tony's =)