Theological Graffiti

Celebrating the Legacy of Clark Pinnock

2010-08-23T16:29:00.000-07:00

Clark Pinnock went on to be with the Lord. He was a tremendously important voice in evangelical theology, and a wonderful man as well. On my independently-hosted blog (BeingTC.com), I have written about 3 Lessons I Learned From Clark Pinnock since his passing, and about his Condition and Convictions when he made public his battle with alzheimer's.

Several others have written about Dr. Pinnock. Here is a short list:

Christianity Today
Greg Boyd
T. J. Oord
James K. A. Smith

Watch Greg Boyd's Address to the University of Rhode Island!

2010-04-10T21:44:00.000-07:00

Greg Boyd's address begins at 1:01:00

The Future of Openness? A Review of Creation Made Free

2010-04-02T22:25:00.000-07:00

In 2007, I was exploring Greg Boyd's newly launched ministry website when I stumbled upon an upcoming conference he was scheduled to attend on the site's calendar page. The event was called the "Open Theology and Science" seminar and it was to take place in mere weeks just outside Boston (where I live) at Eastern Nazarene College. I was ecstatic! I immediately scoured the ENC website for more information. To my delight, the school's website housed a complete description of the event including a schedule of the public debates and lectures that were to be held, along with a complete list of the conference participants. The list read like an Open theology hall of fame! The dream team of the Open View would all be there: Pinnock, Polkinghorne, Sanders, Hasker, Basinger, Rice, Boyd… I could hardly believe my eyes.

I counted down the days like a kid waiting for Christmas and attended every second of every publicly held event with what Joshua Tom calls "nerdy glee." I met and spoke with many of the Openness scholars I'd admired for years at the point, and continue to admire to this day. For a theology geek like me, it was tantamount to meeting rock stars. My wife and friends teased me mercilessly about my giddiness.

While I primarily attended the conference for the theology, I couldn't help but marvel at the presentations given on Open theology's potential to propel forward a deeper, more meaningful dialog with the sciences. That Openness made sense of the Bible was enough for me to affirm the view, but its capacity to bridge the unnecessary cultural divide between biblical Christian faith and serious scientific research only magnified its value for me.

However, I was a bit confused by the presence of Process theists at the conference, and wondered if I had been mistaken in my conviction that Openness was quite distinct from Process. Having vigorously defended Openness from the accusation by classical theists that it is 'Process in disguise', I felt slightly betrayed. Were Open View proponents compromising their distinctiveness? At several points throughout the public events I was assured this was not the case by the Open theists with whom I spoke, but a lingering twinge of suspicion remained.

It was a great privilege to meet the conference organizers Karl Giberson and Thomas Jay Oord, and to witness the miracle of an evangelical denominational college that did not feel threatened by either dialog with science nor theological frameworks often maligned amidst groups like the ETS. I gained a great deal of respect for the Nazarenes as a results and retain it to this day.

Both the 2007 and 2008 Open Theology and Science seminars are what gave birth to this book and have sparked this important dialogue between the theological and scientific communities.

I encourage you to check out my review of this seminal work in this field at my independently-hosted blog (BeingTC.com): bit.ly/cmf-review

The Condition and Convictions of Clark Pinnock

2010-03-24T10:40:00.000-07:00

Today, some very sad news has been made public. Clark Pinnock has permitted friends to share that he is suffering from middle stage Alzheimer’s disease.

Clark Pinnock is a living legend and hero for young theological scholars who seek to have a conversant and relevant theology while modeling Christ-like patience and humility in theological discourse. I am in Dr. Pinnock's debt and pray that I can cultivate the sorts of internal resources of peace he has when I face criticism.

On my independently-hosted blog (BeingTC.com), I discuss what Dr. Pinnock's life and work has meant to me.

The Condition and Convictions of Clark Pinnock - bit.ly/pinnock

4 'Boydisms' to Live By

2010-03-04T19:09:00.000-08:00

Greg Boyd is a fantastic teacher. He is as cerebral as it gets. How many American evangelical pastors do you know who regularly bring up quantum physics in their sermons? And Boyd's vita humbles Christian scholars living in even the highest of ivory towers. Princeton, Yale, over a dozen books (many best-sellers) are just a sampling. In fact, Boyd is so brilliant, he interrupts himself from writing books that will change Christian theology forever to write other books that will change Christian theology forever.

But Boyd's brilliance is not what makes him a fantastic teacher. Brilliance alone never made anyone a fantastic teacher. More often than not, geniuses like Boyd are terrible teachers. They are so 'in their own heads' they can't effectively communicate with us non-geniuses. They lack the capacity to translate complex and esoteric concepts into 'layman's terms'. This is precisely what makes Boyd a fantastic teacher. I've been reading and listening to Boyd for 10 years now, and to this day I am regularly floored by how easy he makes it look to teach a diverse crowd of church-goers and seekers theological truths the best of minds grapple with their entire lives. It is the true mark of a gifted teacher surrendered to the Spirit.

In particular, I find it amazing how pastor Greg (who my wife and I call "GB") can concentrate the most profound and central biblical truths into 'bite-sized' phrases packed with meaning that stick with me years after I first hear them. In this post, I'd like to present just 4 of these 'Boydisms' for your edification. Each one has served to deepen my faith in Jesus and I pray that they will have the same impact on you.

1. "Ascribing Unsurpassable Worth"

Granted, this one is a mouthful. But when you understand all that this phrase encapsulates, it seems a lot more compact. This phrase comes from a common teaching of Boyd's that because we believe Christ laid down his life by allowing himself to be crucified to redeem the world (including every human being), we also believe this act signifies the value God places on our lives collectively and individually. In essence, God thought you and I, Americans and Iraqis, worthy of his own Son's blood. And Jesus, knowing the cost, willingly went to the cross, demonstrating how valuable we are to him.

Boyd takes this truth and applies it in such a practical way, that I can't help but think of it daily. Boyd instructs us to apply this truth to our practice of faith by "ascribing unsurpassable worth" to all those we meet, whether they are friends or enemies.

In sermons, I have heard Boyd describe his practice of this principal in difficult situations. I have heard him describe encounters with belligerent and hateful individuals, and how in the moment he reminded himself that Christ died for that person, ascribing unsurpassable worth to his or her life. In that very moment he committed himself to "agreeing with God" that this person has unsurpassable worth.

I must confess that in the moment I do not always "agree with God" about the unsurpassable worth of individuals who hurt me or make themselves my enemies. I have to admit that Boyd's words haunt me as the Spirit convicts me saying: "As I have loved you, so should you love others."

I challenge you: the next time you are faced with a difficult situation: someone has made themselves your enemy, or hurt you. Zoom out from the intensity of the moment, and remind yourself that Christ ascribed unsurpassable worth to this person, and it is our calling as kingdom-people to "agree with God" about them.

2. "Calvary-like Love"

This phrase is so simple that it's hard to believe I've never heard any other preacher, teacher, author, or speaker use it. Boyd regularly uses this phrase to describe how followers of Christ are called to love others---including our enemies. He teaches that our love is to be self-sacrificial love, just as Christ's love was for us on the cross.

"We know love by this, that Christ laid down his life for us. Hence, we ought to lay down our lives for another."
- I Jn. 3.16

"If anyone is to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me."
- Mt. 16.24; Mk. 8. 34; Lk. 9.23

3. "Power-under"

In 2007, Greg Boyd's book, Myth of a Christian Nation was published. In it, he contrasts the way in which the kingdoms of the world (all empires, governments, nations, territories, etc.) exercise power with the way in which followers of Christ are called to exercise power. Boyd argues that the kingdom of God is altogether distinct from the kingdoms of the world and operates in fundamentally different ways.

Perhaps needless to say, scholars have been thinking, writing, debating this subject for centuries (and millennia). However, I think I'm correct in saying no other scholar has accurately and masterfully reduced their contrast to twin two-word phrases: "Power-over" and "Power-under."

With the phrase "power-over," Boyd teaches that all the kingdoms of the world throughout history and around the globe have all operated under the fundamental belief that justice, peace, order are created and sustained by exerting the kingdom's will over its subjects or its enemies. This is what one could call the power of the sword. Even if someone says, "No, democracies like the US use the rule of law." This too is an exercise of the State's will over that of its citizens.

Boyd contrasts "power-over" with "power-under." With this phrase, he describes the power by which followers of Christ are called to reflect the kingdom of God. By committing to non-participation in the cyclical violence of this world's kingdoms---that only begets more violence, we exercise "power-under." By serving with the love of Christ the least in our society---those rejected, dehumanized, cast out---we expose the evil powers that fuel oppression and exploitation. This is also exercising "power-under." When we are weak, God is strong. God's power is perfected in our weakness.

4. "Get your Life from God"

Like vampires, we emotionally, spiritually feed on something else for our life, our strength. We human beings need something outside ourselves to define us---a source of identity, something that ascribes worth to us. This void in our souls leads us to find all manner of life-sources.

Many people spend their lives trying to amass wealth because they derive their life from the amount of money they have in the bank. Many others spend their lives trying to find someone who will love them romantically because they derive their life from being desirable to another. The list of sources from which human beings derive life is endless. Even Christians can fall victim to this trap when they find themselves getting their life from the rightness of their doctrine or their legalistic adherence to moral codes. These too are meaningless.

With this simple phrase, Boyd reminds us that scripture loudly declares Jesus Christ is the one true source of life. All other sources are poison. He reminds Christians (including me) to guard our hearts against deriving worth, significance, value from the things of this world. The apostle Paul explains it in this way,

"But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead."
- Phil. 3.7-11

All new blog: BeingTC.com - One Blog to Rule them All!!!

2010-03-02T12:41:00.000-08:00

While I intend to continue posting theological thoughts and news here, I have created an independently hosted blog at www.BeingTC.com that will reflect more of my life holistically. I am not only a theological-thinker, or hip hop head. Like you, my life is multi-faceted. This blog is my attempt to chronicle my de-compartmentalized life and thoughts. Check it out!

The Battle for Expression

2010-02-28T13:05:00.000-08:00

This sneak peek at an upcoming documentary captured my attention. I never knew that there was a movement of middle-aged white men zealously devoted to vandalizing vandalism ...but that doesn't mean I'm surprised. The lengths to which humans will go to preserve their delusions of control never cease to amaze me.

Vigilante Vigilante Preview Clip from max good on Vimeo.

The Cat and the Toaster: Living System Ministry

2010-02-09T21:42:00.000-08:00

I haven't posted anything in a while. For that, I apologize. I will do better.

One of the reasons I have been more occupied than usual has been a particularly demanding course I'm taking in my program at the Center for Urban Ministerial Education which deals with Systems Thinking as it relates to urban ministry. Of the courses I've taken in this program, it is perhaps the most practical. I find myself wanting to instantly apply what I'm learning.

The central theme of the course is a concept developed by the teaching team called "Living System Ministry" or LSM for short. LSM is what is taught in Dr. Doug Hall's new book, The Cat and the Toaster: Living System Ministry in a Technological Age. While it is difficult to encapsulate all that Living System Ministry teaches in a single example, the cat and toaster analogy is a good introduction.

Hall uses a cat and a toaster as an illustrative contrast. On the one hand, a toaster is a mechanical and simple system. The parts of the system can be taken apart, examined, and put back together without resistance from the system itself. On the other hand, a cat is a complex, living system. All the parts of a cat work together and are interdependent upon one another. The parts of a cat cannot be easily taken apart and put back together. Not only that, but a cat has defensive, resistive systems.

The point is, cities have long been engaged as if they are simple, mechanical systems---toasters. With the illusion that cause and effect are closely related in time and space, ministries have employed linear thinking and have operated counter-productively. In contrast to this conventional thinking, Hall proposes that cities are complex, living systems---like cats---and must be engaged as such.

I've been very encouraged by what I'm learning in Dr. Hall's class though the teaching team, and I encourage anyone who is thinking about engaging in urban ministry to look into LSM. I also encourage those interested in LSM to check out ToasterCat.org

Good with or without God

2009-11-21T07:59:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-15T20:26:00.000-08:00

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

2009-11-07T01:22:00.000-08:00

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

2009-10-20T08:35:00.000-07:00

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"

2009-09-11T07:48:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-21T18:46:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-06T12:16:00.000-07:00

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

2009-08-02T22:28:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-31T18:58:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-31T10:43:00.001-07:00

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!]

2009-07-12T11:40:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-01T12:37:00.001-07:00

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

2009-06-25T20:41:00.001-07:00

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?"

2009-05-18T20:49:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-09T08:39:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-04T21:18:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-02T05:21:00.000-07:00

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 =)

The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity - Book Review

2009-04-28T10:25:00.000-07:00

Author: Soong-Chan Rah

Paperback: 229 pages

Publisher: IVP Books (2009)

Language: English

ISBN: 9780830833603

Amazon

CBD

About the author:

Dr. Soong-Chan Rah is the Milton B. Engebretson Assistant Professor of Church Growth and Evangelism at North Park Seminary in Chicago, IL. Rah also serves on the board of Sojourners and formerly taught at Gordon-Conwell's Center for Urban Ministerial Education in Roxbury, MA. Before moving to Chicago, Rah pastored Cambridge Christian Fellowship Church in the Central Square neighborhood of Cambridge, MA for over a decade.

Although Rah is frequently a speaker at national conferences, has been published in several journals and magazines, and even contributed to Growing Healthy Asian American Churches (IVP, 2005), the book being reviewed here, The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity (hereafter "TNE"), is his first major, solo published work. Rah brings to TNE his experience as a life-long evangelical, an urban church-planter, pastor, seminary student, and seminary professor. Rah also draws on his experience living and serving in Boston, his academic and ministry mentoring relationships with such notable scholars and ministers as Rev. Dr. Eldin Villafañe and EGC founders Doug and Judy Hall.

Another stream of experience that greatly influences Rah is his involvement with the Evangelical Covenant Church. With a Swedish heritage, the ECC has become one of the most welcoming and affirming fellowships for young, nonwhite, urban ministers. Both authors of The Hip Hop Church (IVP, 2006), Efrem Smith and Phil Jackson are ECC ministers along with pastor Dave Gibbons of California's Newsong church. The ECC has shown Rah that unity among American evangelicals of diverse ethnic and ministry backgrounds is more than just possible but an increasingly frequent reality.

About the book:

Rah's reason for writing TNE

Soong-Chan Rah loves God's church passionately and writes this book to lift the veil exposing what prevents many from seeing what the church is called to be. Rah writes TNE because he has grown up in American evangelicalism and has experienced significant pain resulting from the church's failure to be what God intends it to be. He writes, "...as immersed as I am in evangelicalism, I am oftentimes still seen as an outsider." (p.16) Through research and experience, Rah has identified not only several root causes for the American church's missional drift, but also several strategic action steps needful for recapturing the essence of God's world-wide redemptive mission. Rah also writes TNE as a witness of what he sees God doing amidst the overlooked and undervalued congregations that are transforming communities in every corner of this nation. As the result of these factors, TNE is not primarily a foretelling of American evangelicalism's natural progress or inevitable evolution. Rather it is more accurately a forth-telling of what the American church must do to violently take hold of the Kingdom Scripture reveals is God's dream for it.

TNE's structure

The introduction of the book perfectly lays the ground work for what will follow. By citing not only the remarkable demographic trajectory this nation will travel in the coming years, but also current statistics that are all-to-often overlooked, Rah demonstrates that the future of evangelicalism is now. It gave me great joy to see used in support of Rah's thesis the research of the Emmanuel Gospel Center (EGC), a ministry I have been privileged to serve with several times and by which I have been strongly influenced. It is EGC that has charted Boston's "Quiet Revival" that exposes the general disregard even Christians show ethnic minority and immigrant churches when considering the vitality of American evangelicalism. While the mainstream media and even Christian groups mourn the decline of church-attendance and the closing of thousands of churches, EGC has been studying and proclaiming the explosion of life that is now present in myriad nonwhite, Boston churches.

The excellent introduction of this book is complemented by it's well-proportioned overall structure. The book is divided into three sections of near-equal length. The three sections are: (1) The Western, White Cultural Captivity of the Church; (2) The Pervasiveness of the Western, White Captivity of the Church; and (3) Freedom from the Western, White Captivity of the Church.

In the first section, Rah clarifies the problem he will address by identifying three of the most destructive aspects of Western, white culture: Individualism, Consumerism/Materialism, and Racism. By giving each it's own chapter, Rah is able to present arguments and examples of how these three aspects of Western, white culture are poisoning American evangelicalism and distorting the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In the second section, Rah zooms in on three examples of Western, white culture's pervasiveness by discussing: (1) The Church Growth Movement and Megachurches; (2) The Emerging Church; and (3) Cultural Imperialism. In particular, I was most impressed by Rah's engagement of the emerging church. While many evangelicals see this movement in America as the future, Rah shows that the emerging church is just as captive to the destructive aspects of Western, white culture as the form of evangelicalism from Modernity against which they are reacting. Rah writes, "...nonwhite Christians are not perceived as significant contributors to the evangelical postmodern dialogue." (p.118) Rah also writes, "...the emerging church has shut out nonwhite voices in their ability to engage on the issue of race." (p.119) But the quote that best encapsulates Rah's courageous and frank admonition of the emerging church has to be,

"I believe the real emerging church is the church in Africa, Asia and Latin America that continues to grow by leaps and bounds. I believe the real emerging church is the hip-hop church, the English-speaking Latino congregation, the second-generation Asian American church, the Haitian immigrant church, the Spanish-speaking store-front church and so forth. For a small group of white Americans to usurp the term 'emerging' reflects a significant arrogance." (p.124)

In the third and final section, using another three chapters, Rah confronts the issue of American Christianity's cultural captivity with four powerful lessons from four cultural communities: (1) Suffering and Celebration: Learning from the African American and Native American Communities; (2) Holistic Evangelism: Learning from the Immigrant Church; and (3) A Multicultural Worldview: Learning from the Second Generation.

In each of these three book sections, Rah keeps in clear perspective his experience of the evangelical church in America, his calling as an urban, multiethnic church-planter, and an evangelical theology that recaptures the biblical emphasis on social and racial justice.

TNE's thesis

If the American, evangelical church hopes to realize a shalom peace reflective of that which is spoke of in Micah 4, or if it hopes to become the multi-cultural, throne room worshipping assembly depicted in Revelation 21, it must break free of Western, white cultural captivity and embrace a vision of the Kingdom that celebrates and learns from every nation, tribe, and tongue as equally beautiful expressions of Christ's body.

This reviewer's impressions and recommendation:

When I first read the subtitle of this book, I immediately recalled a lecture Rah delivered in a course I took as his student. It was more simply called "The Western, White Captivity of the Church." Specifically I remembered that he mentioned his reluctance to include "white" in the title of the lecture, but he included it nevertheless. Therefore, the conspicuous absence of the word "white" from this book's subtitle stuck out to me right away. I can only conclude that Rah's publisher advised him against it. I was relieved, however, to see that he did not allow the word to be removed from the chapter titles in the first section of the book nor did he refrain from using the full phrase throughout the work. Rah's insistence on including "white" in the chapter titles is a microcosm of the pull-no-punches overall thrust of this book. In TNE, Rah speaks truth to power unrepentantly. It is my prayer that more authors with Rah's level of insight, from research and experience, will follow in his footsteps and produce more challenging works of this caliber.

Rah's discussion of mobility resonated particularly strongly with me due to my experience of living in New Orleans. Mobility was a major, differentiating factor between the 'haves' and 'have-nots' in that city. Even though every resident I knew was keenly aware of how devastating the 'Big One' would be to the city, being below sea level and shaped like a punch bowl, very few (if any) of our neighbors, in the community were we lived and served, had the financial means nor the out-of-state support network needed to take the 3 to 5-day, impromptu vacation a city-wide, mandatory evacuation requires. Only the upper-middle to upper class of New Orleans were ever truly prepared to leave any and every time the city was warned of an imminent, potentially-disastrous storm. In the case of New Orleans and hurricane Katrina, the power and privilege of mobility proved to be the difference between safety and peril for tens of thousands.

Perhaps it is merely coincidental, but so many of the streams from which Rah draws to fill this exciting work with experiential credence and field-tested wisdom coincide with sources to which I also look. With Rah, I share the experience of being a newcomer to New England from a Christian tradition that feared Boston as a spiritual wasteland. In particular, Rah and I both have experience with the Central Square neighborhood of Cambridge where I also attend an evangelical congregation. In fact, Larry Kim, Rah's successor as pastor of CCFC, continues to be a mentor and friend from whom I have learned a great deal. With Rah, I share a common source of inspiration from the research and ministry of the Emmanuel Gospel Center. And with Rah, I too have witnessed first-hand the incredible ministry New Life Covenant Church is doing in the Humboldt Park neighborhood of Chicago. I visited pastor Choco de Jesus' ministry over 5 years ago and was powerfully impacted by the transformation that community has underwent as a result of one church's commitment and faithful Kingdom witness. With so many common links it may come as no surprise that I felt a personal connection to TNE as I read it.

This reviewer highly recommends TNE. In this reviewer's opinion, TNE should be required reading in evangelical Bible colleges and seminaries where Rah's thesis is the subject matter for an on-going dialog wherein nonwhite voices are given a platform and priority. Like his mentor Eldin Villafañe's The Liberating Spirit, it is clear that TNE will come to be recognized as a seminal work in the field of Christian social ethics. TNE is a challenging, prophetic call to action the American, evangelical church must heed if it ever hopes to resemble the portraits of the Kingdom Scripture paints. White readers in particular are called to a radical divestment of power. For far too long white evangelicals have guarded the status quo as their inheritance. Rah exhorts all evangelicals to celebrate the manifold expression of God's grace in the beauty of diverse cultural and ethnic communities.

The Death of White American Christianity: Boyd recognizes Rah's New Book and Gives Me a Shout Out!

2009-04-19T09:36:00.000-07:00

Greg Boyd is the senior pastor of Woodland Hills church in St. Paul MN, a prolific author, and noted contemporary theologian. Recently, on his popular blog, Boyd discussed a topic that has been widely publicized: the demise of American Christianity. Boyd encouraged Kingdom people not to mourn the decline of the American Christianity for at least 5 reasons: (1) America never has never been a "Christian nation" as too many presume; (2) there will be one less illusion to combat when inviting Americans to the Kingdom; (3) there will be one less distraction from doing the work of the Kingdom; (4) the Kingdom has always thrived when marginalized by mainstream society; (5) will expose the idol of American individualism.

I recommended to Boyd the book of my former professor at CUME and former CCFC pastor, Soong-Chan Rah, who now teaches at North Park Seminary in Chicago and just released The Next Evangelicalism (IVP, 2009; found here). I suggested there may be at least one more reason why Kingdom people should not mourn the demise of Americanized Christianity:

This "demise" seems to only be descriptive of white American Christianity.

While predominately white churches and denominations are shrinking and closing their doors, ethnic minority, immigrant, and multiethnic churches are expanding and thriving. For years (possibly over 20) the Emmanuel Gospel Center has been researching and charting the growth of churches in Boston and discovered that while the perception of the church in Boston was one of decline and stagnation, they found vitality all around them. It was true that white congregations were declining, but church-planting and church growth was exploding in Haitian, Cape Verdean, Portuguese, Brazilian, Korean, Chinesse congregations (to name a few). Boston's "Quiet Revival" has even been discussed in Christianity Today here.

In The Next Evangelicalism, Rah argues that the church in America more accurately reflects the values and characteristics of Western, white culture than those descriptive of the Kingdom of God from Scripture. I am 120 pages into Rah's book and hope to have it finished and a review written soon. Be on the look-out for that!

In Boyd's latest blog-post, he recognizes Dr. Rah's book and gives me a much-appreciated shout out for the suggestion: Only WHITE American Christianity is Dying!

I am excited that I was able to connect these two brilliant and prophetic scholar-pastors. I truly believe their research will be vital to Kingdom people in this century. Greg Boyd's ministry is exposing the theological and political captivity of the American church and Soong-Chan Rah's ministry is exposing it's cultural captivity. Both are advancing a radical return to a Jesus movement that more accurately reflects the Kingdom of God. That's the type of Jesus movement I want to be a part of!

Characteristics of Jesus' Life

2009-04-12T17:17:00.001-07:00

The life of Jesus is many things to me. I made a list of characteristics I would use to describe it. I'm sure it is not exhaustive, but was helpful to me in organizing my thoughts. [These are in no particular order]

(1) Historical
It is important to me that the life of Christ is a historical event, and not merely some mystical parable of how life should be lived. Jesus' life was recordable and was recorded. It is important to me that Jesus lived in history because I live in history. It is important to me that Jesus lived in the 'real world' because I live in the 'real world.'

(2) Revealing
The life of Jesus serves as the primary and chief revelation of God's character and nature. In the life of Christ I find God. Just as my children know me because I dwell with them and they experience me, I know God as Father because in Christ He has dwelt with humanity and we have experienced His life. (Perhaps slightly off-topic, one means by which I continue to experience God as Father is by the indwelling of the Spirit.)

(3) Revolutionary
In the life of Jesus I am confronted with the subversive and counter-cultural nature of God's Kingdom. The life of Jesus revolts against every norm and status quo. Jesus turns on it's head the expectation and presuppositions about the Kingdom and God.

(4) Relational
Jesus' life reveals the relational nature of God and the importance of relationships to the Kingdom and to God. Jesus sups with humanity, fellowships with humanity, and shares in all our pain and ugliness. Jesus cares tenderly for others and is cared for tenderly. Jesus has a mother, father, siblings and friends.

(5) Exemplary
Jesus' life serves for me as the example of the life I am to live. As Jesus loved, so am I to love. As Jesus served, so am I to serve.

(6) In-breaking
Jesus' life is a breaking-in of the Triune God into human history. It interrupts the natural order of human life. Jesus' life marks history profoundly, and demonstrates God's rescuing, intervening, passionate love.

(7) Cultural
Jesus' life must be understood with regard for his Jewish religio-cultural heritage. That Jesus' life included and celebrated his earthly contextual environment. This is important because it affirms God's inspiring presence in cultural formation/development. Culture is not inherently sinful or else Jesus could not and would not have identified with his own culture. Jesus' identification with his culture empowers us and commissions us to celebrate our respective cultures insofar as they do not cause us to sin.

(8) Incarnational
That Jesus' life is the life of God in the flesh is unquestionably important. In Christ, God is with us. John says the Word "dwelt" with us, tabernacled with us---literally "pitched his tent" with us. That Jesus identified with humanity and shared in humanities joys, sorrows, destiny gives us the most profound glimpse into the heart of God.

(9) Inaugurating
The life of Jesus inaugurates God's reign. In Jesus' life we taste a sampling of the marriage supper of the Lamb. In Jesus' life we are given a glimpse of what the Kingdom is currently and will be to the full in the eschaton. Jesus' life begins the end and summons from afar the consummation of all things.

(10) Inclusive
In Jesus' life we see the bringing near of the outcast, the exultation of the downtrodden, the honoring of the oppressed, and praise of the despised. Jesus intentionally turns upside-down all the notions of righteousness and piety held by the religious authorities. Jesus life includes those who were most often excluded from thoughts of Kingdom citizenship.

(11) Intimate
Jesus' life presents us with the story of a friend who had intimate relationships that transcended mere religious affiliation. In contrast to other rabbis, Jesus held unusually close relationships with his disciples. He considered them his friends.

(12) Spirit-filled, -led, -empowered
Jesus' life is characterized by the presence of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is led by the Spirit, filled with the Spirit, empowered by the Spirit. Jesus does signs and wonders in the power of the Spirit and is anointed by the Spirit. In Jesus' life, we can see what our own lives can be when surrendered to, led by, empowered by the Spirit.

(13) Peace-making/Just
Though often controversial, Jesus' life is marked by a peculiar peace. He heals the ear of a soldier who is sent to arrest him. He brings peace to the hearts of those lives he touches. Jesus teaches and models peace throughout his life. It is important to note what Dr. King said, "Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of justice." Jesus is an advocate for the poor and oppressed. Jesus speaks truth to power. Jesus teaches and models justice.

(14) Prophetic/Proclamational
Jesus' life can also be seen as prophetic and proclamational. Jesus' life pointed to the Kingdom and the Father. His first recorded 'sermon' was "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Being very God, Jesus spoke with unique prophetic authority. Like no other prophet, Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom as its King.

(15) Human
The fully human nature of Jesus is important to his life. Jesus is touched by the feeling of humanities infirmities. Jesus is tempted in every way as a man is. Jesus is fully human. Jesus identifies fully with humanity.

(16) Divine
In the life of Jesus, we are confronted with the life of God. Jesus is God in the flesh. Fully and very God, Jesus speaks with God's authority and claims oneness with the Father. Jesus' full divinity is essential.

(17) Self-sacrificial
Jesus' life, not just his crucifixion, is characterized by self-sacrificial love. Jesus' mission was to serve and he modeled servanthood and sacrifice throughout his life.

(18) Trinitarian
In the life of Jesus we can clearly see the life of the triune God revealed. Jesus is sent by the Father and sends the Spirit. Jesus is honored by the Father and empowered by the Spirit. Jesus is led by the Spirit and obeys the Father. Jesus does only what the Father *IS* doing and tells him to do, while doing it in the power and anointing of the Spirit. Jesus prays to the Father by the Spirit.

(19) Victorious
Jesus' life is characterized by victory, not triumphalism. In Jesus' surrender to his Father, he lays claim to authority and victory over demons and Satan. Jesus rebukes Satan with the Word and is victorious over sin and death. Jesus a the Warrior King like David but his victory is cosmic and not merely terrestrial.

Theological Traditions & Photoshop Fun

2009-04-11T14:22:00.000-07:00

When I'm bored, I sometimes indulge in a little Photoshop fun. In this composition, I have represented two theological traditions by a select number of their adherents. For the Theological Determinism tradition, I selected John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Spurgeon, Calvin, Luther, St. Augustine, and Plato. Yes, I included Plato :) For the Free Will Theism tradition, I selected Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, John Sanders, John Polkinghorne, Jürgen Moltmann, Jacobus Arminius, Luis de Molina, and Origen.

I realize that some might object to grouping of Open theists with Arminius and maybe even Molina. While Open theists certainly don't share all the views of these 16th century theologians, Arminius and Molina did pave the way for the view these scholars hold. Open theism could be better thought of as a type of Neo-Arminianism or Neo-Molinism. Moltmann shares in this tradition for the critique of the classical-biblical synthesis he shares with Open theists.

For more on Open theism's relationship to Arminianism, read this article by Dr. Steven Studebaker.

Also, I like to use photos of nebulae to represent the beauty and complexity of this theological subject, and the particular nebula I used in this comp is called the "God's Eye" nebula. I thought that it would be ironically appropriate.

The Peter Event - An Open View Analysis

2009-04-10T19:10:00.000-07:00

Recently, I was asked by a friend who is a classical theist of the Calvinistic variety, how Jesus was able to so accurately predict Peter's denial through the lens of the Open view. He grants that even in the Open view Jesus could know Peter's heart perfectly. But he asks further: How Jesus could have known the number of times Peter would be confronted and thus deny Him?

What follows is my response:

Re: The Peter Event

Without God's infinite intelligence, unlimited wisdom, and omni-resoucefulness in mind, I can see how it could be difficult to imagine how God could orchestrate the circumstances surrounding Peter's denial. But when one considers all that is at God's disposal, it becomes clear that the future needn't be exhaustively settled nor known as exhaustively definite for Jesus to have made such an accurate prediction about the future.

Recall the context in which the Peter event takes place. Jesus and the disciples have been ministering in Judea for 3 years and have caused more than a small commotion. Jesus is what everyone is talking about! He has performed amazing miracles: healed the sick, raised the dead, etc. If you'll permit me a tiny bit of creative license, I'd like to use a somewhat uncomfortable analogy.

Do you remember what it was like in 1994 shortly after the 'low-speed chase' of O. J.'s infamous white bronco? No one talked about anything else! Imagine now that instead of O. J. being the singular person at the center of all the attention, he had a well-know entourage with him during it all. Now, let's stretch the analogy a little further. Imagine members of O. J.'s entourage were outside the courthouse in L. A. during his history-making trial. Would I need omniscience to predict that bystanders would recognize a member of O. J.'s entourage, one like Peter? If O. J. had been accompanied by an entourage throughout his exploits the probability that someone would NOT have recognized those guys during O. J.'s trial would have been on par with Lotto odds--astronomical.

And to make the odds even more astronomical, Galileans had a distinguishable accent, much like different regions of England (which btw people from other regions of England can identify easily after only a few words. I've witnessed this first-hand.) This seems to be precisely what is indicated by verse 73 of Mt. 26.

Now, given that the disciples were famous members of Jesus' entourage, and the talk of Israel (especially Jerusalem), the aspect of Jesus' prediction that Peter would be confronted is not all that remarkable. You are correct, however, to note the remarkable nature of the precise number of times Peter is asked about his relationship to Jesus. This may on the surface appear to be a difficulty for the Open view, but I can easily demonstrate that it isn't.

First, Open theists hold the same view of free will as all other Christians in the Arminian theological family/tradition (the majority of Christians world-wide) including: all Wesleyans (Methodists, Nazarenes, etc.), all Pentecostals, Charismatics (such as the Vineyard), many Baptists, most Roman Catholics, and all Eastern Orthodox traditions. (I'd also like to add, just as a jab at Calvinists, the theological tradition of the Black church in America has always accepted the Libertarian understanding of free will and rejected the deterministic view). The way all these Christian traditions understand free will from Scripture is commonly known as the 'Libertarian' view. This view holds that a person's decisions are free because they have the capacity to choose between options---to choose 'otherwise.'

This view is in contrast to the deterministic theory of free will called 'Compatibilism' that is held by a minority of Christian traditions which includes: "Reformed" traditions, most Presbyterians, some Baptists, and the deliberately Calvinist churches such as 'Sovereign Grace' and Calvary Chapels. The Compatibilist theory holds that a person's decisions are "free" because they want to do what they decide---even if their "wants" are pre-programmed by God and they cannot choose otherwise. (As an aside: Compatibilism does not resolve the contradiction between God being responsible for people's desires, but not for their sin, even though Compatibilism claims we can only choose what we desire and that we are born desiring only sin and can choose nothing else. This is a tremendous flaw in Calvinist theology that is irreconcilable with Scripture: e.g. James 1.13)

Since, with the majority of Christians world-wide and throughout church history, I hold the Libertarian understanding of human freedom, I believe each person who spoke to Peter that day could have chosen not to. Moreover, I also believe that more than three individuals and/or groups of individuals could have chosen to confront Peter. This does not, however, put in jeopardy the accuracy of Jesus' prediction beyond the contingency present in every prophecy of future events God Himself will not be preforming. Therefore, I will now argue that there is at least two ways Jesus (and the Father and Spirit) could have orchestrated the circumstances surrounding Peter's denial without removing the participants freedom. Following that, I will argue that the deterministic understanding Calvinists propose (including an exhaustively settled future) is actually quite damaging to an Evangelical understanding of Scripture's authority and trustworthiness.

Since the future is not exhaustively settled, but is composed instead of many contingencies or possibilities, a Christian who believes in God's omniscience must believe that God knows the future perfectly as it is. Since I am a Christian who believes in God's omniscience, I believe God knows the future perfectly as composed of partly settled events and partly indeterminate (open) events. God's infinite intelligence, unlimited wisdom, and possession of all the resources in the universe gives God the most exalted and transcendent view of the future possible. God alone is able to see every possible outcome that may result from every possible decision that every single person may make. God knows exhaustively every possible future and is prepared for every possible outcome. This does not mean, however, that anything is possible. Some things are not possible or contingent. Put another way, some things are determined either by God or causally by previous decisions made by free agents (human and angelic beings). Where I was born, when I was born, to what family I was born (and as a result my genetic make-up, characteristics) are all examples of parameters for which God is at least partly responsible along with the decisions of other free agents (such as my parents, and their parents, and so on.) We are not free to do or be anything of which we can conceive. Even genuine freedom (Libertarian) is constrained in large part by innumerable parameters at any given point in our lives. Parameters outside of which our freedom does not allow us to venture does not negate the existence of freedom.

Here's an analogy that I think will clear up some confusion about Libertarian free will. Imagine that I am accustomed to shopping for soda at a Super Walmart that has 126 different varieties of soda from which to choose. Unfortunately, for some reason, I am unable to get to the Super Walmart on a particular day and must instead shop for soda at the 7-11 on the corner near my house, which only has 26 different varieties of soda. Have I lost my capacity to freely choose which variety of soda I want to purchase simply because my options are now fewer?

No, the quality of my freedom has not been diminished, only the quantity of my options.

Therefore, one possible scenario in which God could have easily orchestrated the circumstances around Peter's denial is one in which God constrained the options of those with whom Peter had contact. Everyone was well aware of the Galileans who were with Jesus. They were rock stars. God did not have to determine that the bystanders confront Peter---that much was a given. The precise number of times Peter is asked, and thus has to respond negatively, is something that God could have constrained while not removing anyone's genuine freedom (e.g. via Compatibilism). Limiting the number of options from which a genuinely free being has to choose does not remove that being's freedom.

A second possible scenerio in which would have resulted in the circumstances that surrounded Peter's denial is in God's omniscient foreknowledge of all possible future contingencies, no possible future existed in which neither more nor less people/groups would confront Peter rendering Jesus' prediction inaccurate. Open theists do not believe simply because God knows every possible future, that every CONCEIVABLE future actually does exist. Here's another example: It is conceivable that one day I may have the opportunity to speak with President Obama in person. However, only God knows if there are any possible futures in which this is an actual possibility. There very well may not be. Simply because I can conceive of a future in which this is possible, does not mean that a future with this possibility actually exists. Furthermore, it is conceivable to me that one day I may have the opportunity to speak with the Dali Lama in person. Only God knows if a future with this possibility actually exists. And if one did actually exist, only God knows how likely or improbable is that possibility. A future might actually exist in which an in person meeting with the Dali Lama is possible, but it might depend on an astronomical number of choices lining up to produce this event. Perhaps the number of improbable choices that would have to occur for this possible future to become realistic are so astronomical that it is virtually impossible.

To be clear, I am not claiming that either one of these scenarios NECESSARILY HAS to have been THE scenario that allowed for the circumstances surrounding Peter's denial. There may be several additional scenarios that I have not thought of. I am only arguing that these two constitute at least two feasible scenarios that do not require the removal of freedom via determination.

Now, I will argue that if we take the Calvinistic approach to biblical prophecy (that includes the assumption of an exhaustively settled future), we will forced to at least adjust our view of the Bible's trustworthiness and authority, if not replace it altogether.

In Ezekiel 26, God speaks through the prophet and prophesied against Tyre saying He would raise up Nebuchadnezzar against them. Tyre would be made "a bare rock" and will "never be rebuilt." (v.14) First, Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Tyre for 13 years and failed to conquer it. But it was Alexander the Great (nearly 300 years later) who eventually conquered the island city, but even he did not utterly destroy it as was prophesied. Tyre never became a "bare rock," has been "rebuilt" after every conquering, and STILL EXISTS TODAY!!!

This fact is unfortunate for the Calvinistic view. Since history has proven that some biblical prophecies have utterly failed, we will either have to deny history (the same history that confirms the accuracy of other biblical prophecies), making us hypocrites who only seek to affirm history that supports our view. Or, we will have to change our view of the Bible's inspiration, authority, truthfulness. Or, we will have to change our view of the future, and therefore the nature of prophecy itself. As I see it, there is only one honest and reasonable option between these three. We cannot discount only the history that does not support the Bible, while affirming the history that does, making us hypocrites on part with any cult (i.e. Mormonism). And we cannot compromise our view of the Bible's inspiration, authority, or truthfulness. Therefore, we must reconsider our view of the nature of the future and biblical prophecy.

The only way to prevent academic dishonesty/hypocrisy due to the historical evidence, or compromise our shared view of the Bible's divine origin, is to adopt an view of the future (and therefore of biblical prophecy) that includes genuine contingency.

Divine Jujitsu

2008-12-04T00:57:00.000-08:00

Here are some verses of scripture commonly used to teach a deterministic model of divine sovereignty:

"The kings heart is in the hand of the Lord, He turns it wherever He wishes"  

"The Most High rules in the kingdom of men and sets up over it whomever He chooses"

"A sparrow does not fall to the ground and die apart from your Fathers will"

"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord"

Certainly scripture is true when it says: "The kings heart is in the hand of the Lord, He turns it wherever He wishes" But this does not, as the determinist supposes, necessitate a deterministic interpretation. Pharaoh worshipped idols long before God sent plagues upon Egypt. The thorns that Jesus said choke the seed, that is the word, had deep roots in his heart long before God sent Moses to free his people. And God did not cause Pharaoh to be an idolator, nor any of us to sin. Scripture itself says directly, in the same passage, that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Since the same sun that melts butter also hardens clay, one can easily see that the heart of a hardened idolator like Pharaoh would likely only be further hardened by God's judgement.

God certainly does control each of our hearts, but not in the way determinists suppose. Rather, the Sovereign Lord employs a much more sophisticated sovereignty than one of brute force. The Lord maintains control over a universe populated with free agents the way a master of Judo or Jujitsu is in control of a fight against a powerful opponent. In Judo or Jujitsu, the "techniques that relied solely on superior strength [are] discarded or adapted in favour of those that involved redirecting the opponent's force, off-balancing the opponent, or making use of superior leverage." "[Judo] is characterized by the indirect application of force to defeat an opponent. More specifically, it is the principle of using one's opponent's strength against him and adapting well to changing circumstances. For example, if the attacker was to push against his opponent he would find his opponent stepping to the side and allowing his momentum (often with the aid of a foot to trip him up) to throw him forwards". (wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judo) What determinists fail to recognize in scripture is the tremendous freedom God permits angelic and human beings to resist and oppose his will.

Certainly scripture is true when it says: "The Most High rules in the kingdom of men and sets up over it whomever He chooses" But a deterministic interpretation of this verse does not treat with respect the divine jujitsu. Remember that God never intended Israel to have a king. In her sin, Israel longed to be like the nations. God wanted to be Israel's only king. But God conceded. Yes, divine concession! Then, if that weren't enough to unequivocally prove dynamic sovereignty, the man God chose from among his people---God's chosen king---fails to fulfill God's will. And what does God declare in scripture? "I am grieved that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions." (I Sam 15.11)

The Potter whom the Reformed attempt to paint as a meticulous, coercive despot is the Potter whom Jeremiah describes as a responsive, adaptive artist. When the clay is marred, the Potter reacts, compensates, reconsiders. This is how God expresses his sovereignty: "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, 8 and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. 9 And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, 10 and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." (Jer 18.7-10)

Certainly Jesus is telling the truth when he says, "A sparrow does not fall to the ground and die apart from your Fathers will." He is likewise being truthful when he pleads so earnestly that the Father change his plan in Gethsemane that he sweated great drops of blood. Jesus, being very God, treats God's will as contingent and intercedes, as many like Moses did in generations before him, to possibly change the future. So, yes, the Father's will encompasses all life and death, but the Father's will is no blueprint, but an improvisational symphony he conducts with all creation.

And finally, stripped of its context (amidst the many, many proverbs that emphasize our responsibility to act and choose righteousness and trust in the Lord), this one proverb can easily be understood to mean something no singular Christian with any rational faculty believes. Certainly if every cast of the lot was the decision of the Lord this would be the overwhelmingly prescribed methodology for discerning the will of God in the New Testament. In fact, were this the case, the authors of the New Testament who overwhelmingly prescribe submission to, fellowship with, and guidance from the Holy Spirit as the primary means of discerning God's will, did not get the memo.

May the God revealed in scripture, the God who so longs to transport we who were once his enemies into his love, that he took on flesh, suffered and died, reveal to us his dynamic sovereignty of suffering, vulnerability and risk---his divine jujitsu.

Cult of Comfort vs. Kingdom Reflection

2007-05-17T09:15:00.000-07:00

Of the many idols Americans and American Christians worship (money, "success," sex, to name a few) there exists also the reality of the cult of comfort. This doctrine of safety, this assumption of ease, is transmitted almost subliminally into our souls as an entitlement that accompanies American citizenship and participation in a free market economy. It communicates deservedness. It communicates worthiness. We proudly affirm our right to quality service from the restaurant on the corner. We would promptly exit the theater of a film that dissatisfied us and demand our money be reimbursed. We gladly pay exorbitant amounts of money to travel with all the luxuries of modern, Western life. We simply cannot be inconvenienced in any way. Our comfort takes precedence above all else. God forbid we should have to endure, suffer, sacrifice in any way!

It is then no surprise we carry into our churches these attitudes. Consumerism and criticism govern our perception of a church's value. We judge the church as if it were a cruise. What amenities does it provide? Does it have more or less than its competitors? What is the cost/benefit ratio? How is the quality of service? Will i be entertained? Will i be required to do anything?

In particular, i am saddened and disgusted by the impediment our cult of comfort is to our effectiveness at embodying and reflecting the Kingdom of God on earth. While the throne-room of God is filled with an innumerable multitude representing all the diverse, beautiful, cultural expressions of humanity unified in worship of the Lamb, our churches are characterized by the ubiquitous, systemic American racism thats chief end is the securing of comfort for the now minority white, anglo-saxon, Protestant culture.

Churches are now drawn to a model of ministry that divides congregations, often meeting in the same facility, along lines of language and culture. How can we proclaim with integrity that we are the eschatological community of Christ while we reject the cultural unity and diversity depicted in heaven? How can we invite the non-believer to accept the apostle John's vision of heaven along-side our presentation of those who will make up its congregation? Will the various tribes and tongues who make up the great multitude worship the Lamb in different compartments of the throne-room or at different times of eternity? Certainly we dont expect the non-believer to accept that we, who refuse to worship along-side fellow redeemed ones of differing cultures on earth, comprise those who cause that scene to be a reality in God's presence, do we?

It is comfort that drives a wedge between us and those of our like, precious faith from differing cultures. We resist any setting where we will be expected to agree internally with worshipful and prayerful sentiments we cannot audibly understand. Such acts of humility call into service a type of commitment to others that few are willing to make. It requires a heart that will put aside what is familiar to it for what is unfamiliar. It requires a heart that is willing to trust an expression of worship that comes from a different direction than where they are accustomed.

Be sure not to mistake what i am describing as politically correct multiculturalism. Such a misunderstanding is rooted in reactionary Fundamentalism that secretly seeks to preserve the white, Anglo-saxon, Protestant investment in Modernism. I do not propose enforcing equal representation upon an unequal congregation. I do not propose manufactured, artificial multiculturalism. I propose authentic, Christ-like, Spirit-empowered, Kingdom-building, God-honoring, people-valuing!

Reject comfort at the expense of discipleship! Resolve to deliberately reflect Kingdom fruition!

GodGod: Infinitely More Wise Than TomTom

2007-05-16T23:06:00.000-07:00

I am a bit of a techno-geek. OK, im a BIG techno-geek. I once mounted a poster of the original Titanium G4 PowerBook above my desk at work and stared at it, drooling, as if it were a picture of a pin-up girl. I know, sad huh?

Well, one piece of technology that is available for us to use today sprang into my mind today as i pondered the composition of the future, free will, and God's providence: Portable GPS (Global Positioning System) Car Navigation Systems. You might have seen commercials for these devices. They are really cool! They communicate with satellites orbiting the earth and plot the most convenient routes in complex urban areas. In one commercial i saw, they even claim they can warn you when you are approach gridlock and provide you with an alternate route to your original destination!
ISNT THAT AMAZING!?!

You may find the combination of this technological product and theological issue strange, and you'd probably be right. But i hope to show you how the former helps me to understand the latter.

First, lets examine the scriptures. Many of the most profound passages that deal with God's knowledge and control of the future are found in Isaiah. And of those passages, Is. 46:9-11 is one of the more striking.

"remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
[emphasis]declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,[/emphasis]
saying, 'My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,'
calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it."

(emphasis mine)

These are remarkable statements of God's sovereignty over history and control of the future. What are we to make of them? Upon first glance, one can easily read them to mean that God is determining every event in history including the future, free acts of people. And this is probably the way in which most people have understood this passage. However, it is my contention that it is not necessary to conclude from this text that because God has determined the destination of history, he has also determined the route by which we arrive there.

Returning to TomTom, it strikes me as incredibly relevant that the GPS device does not (and even more so COULD not) know in advance the traffic conditions of a particular city on a particular day. Yet, when it is confirmed that a particular city on a particular day is experiencing gridlock due to unforeseen circumstances (such as a 10-car pile up), it has been programmed to provide the user/driver with alternate routes to the original destination.

Those who hold to a Calvinistic/Fatalistic view of God/the future typically claim that these verses teach meticulous providence (the belief that God determines every detail of history without exception). In fact, at times they argue it would NOT be possible for God to determine the end without also determining the means to that end. They scoff at proponents of Open Theism saying "If the future is not determined by God, how then can we trust him to accomplish his will in the eschaton?"

Sidenote: I find this type of reasoning incredibly ironic considering these same types are the ones accusing Open Theists of "limiting" God.

However, i think based on the premise that God is infinitely more wise than a GPS navigation device like TomTom, it is conceivable and even biblically consistent that God could ensure history's arrival at his desired destination without necessarily determining the route by which it arrives.

I would even go so far as to say the scripture makes this picture astoundingly clear in the story of the exodus. In this story, the destination is the promised land---a land flowing with milk and honey. However, due to Israel's sin and stiff-neckedness, the route by which God would lead his people there was significantly altered. (Numbers 14)

In our own lives, we can see clearly in retrospect how the sinful choices we have made led to a significantly altered path back to God's will. But regardless of the detour, God, being Omni-resourceful, can and does provide us a way back to him and to a better future. He will not leave you, nor forsake you. But rather, he is a faithful Helper and Guide.

Just as Paul proclaims, "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it." - 1 Corinthians 10:13, 14