« March 2006 | Main | May 2006 »
April 29, 2006
blog...
Check out Wayne Bowerman's blog. I am greatly enjoying what he has to say and the perspective he offers.
Posted by rhett at 02:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Congrats to the Quest Band...
Congrats to The Quest Worship Band who won the "Best Band" category last night at the UCLA Spring Sing.
I'm very proud of all of you....
Posted by rhett at 02:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The full gestation of our thoughts....
What would this thought mean for our blogging? Blogging often seems like writing that has not fully gestated, but is rather thoughts and writing that is often hurried and in progress. Something for me to ponder.
Leave to your opinions their own quiet undisturbed development, which, like all progress, must come from deep within and cannot be pressed or hurried by anything. Everything is gestation and then bringing forth. To let each impression and each germ of a feeling come to completion wholly in itself, in the dark, in the inexpressible, the unconscious, beyond the reach of one's own intelligence, and await with deep humility and patience the birth-hour of a new clarity: tha alone is living the artist's life: in understanding as in creating.
Rainer Maria Rilke from Letters to a Young Poet
Posted by rhett at 02:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Thanking those who have fostered our faith, but who we now disagree with...
Mike Devries made a very good comment on my last blog posting and reminded me of something very important. He said, (speaking of these men who just recently signed this Confession and Articles at the Together for the Gospel Conference: J. Ligon Duncan III, Mark E. Dever, C.J. Mahaney, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., John MacArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul):
Obviously these gentlemen are great scholars and thinkers, yet we must admit that there are great scholars and thinkers who foundationally disagree with them. Both love Jesus dearly. The part that seems to hurt is the divisive language of exclusion [i.e. "we have the right perspective and everything else is destructive to the true interpretation of the gospel, which we have."] that permeates the articles. [But perhaps that is my own take on them.]
When I was in college I used to listen to John MacArthur on the radio every night, and one of my favorite books was Reason To Believe by R. C. Sproul. These guys and some others helped me foster my early faith, but as I have gotten older I have moved away from their perspectives and been fostered by others.
I don't know what it should look like, but there must be a place where we acknowledge and thank those who played a role in our faith journey even though we may now disagree with them partially or completely. We all learn something from the various church communities, denominations, etc. that we are a part of, and though we may drift from them they are still a part of our history. And though we may disagree, all of us as Christians still must find a way to work together.
So at the same time, I believe that I can both be thankful for the roles that Sproul, MacArthur and others played in the development of my early faith, but I can also disagree with them and the stances they take.
I believe that as Christians we often use very exclusionary language the helps us determine whether or not someone is in the same "camp" or "circle" as us. If they are not, then they become "those" people over there, or those "pagan" or "non-Christians" over there. And most often we use our fine pointed theological doctrine to exclude multitudes of people that I believe Christ wants us to embrace. There are many excluded and marginalized people in our church communities, such as women, the poor, handicapped, minority groups, etc., etc.
I reject exclusion because the prophets, evangelists, and apostles tell me that this is a wrong way to treat human beings, any human being, anywhere, and I am persuaded to have good reasons to believe them.
Miroslav Volf in Exclusion and Embrace
Posted by rhett at 01:17 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
April 28, 2006
I know, stop beating a dead horse. But stuff like this really, really burns me. Maybe it's just me!
I suppose I should stop beating a dead horse, but I saw this site today regarding the Together for the Gospel Conference. From the best that I can understand from the various blogs, these four guys, J. Ligon Duncan III, Mark E. Dever, C. J. Mahaney and R. Albert Mohler, Jr. developed a statement of faith. And according to Jeremy Haywood's blog, it was signed by these men: Signed: J. Ligon Duncan III, Mark E. Dever, C.J. Mahaney, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., John MacArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul. You can read the entire confession and its 18 articles on Jeremy Haywood's site.
Here's what I am confused about: Article 16 and 17. In article 16 they state that only men can be called to the Biblical office of teaching and then they say this, "We deny that the distinction of roles between men and women revealed in the Bible is evidence of mere cultural conditioning or a manifestation of male oppression or prejudice against women." And then in Article 17, speaking mainly on the oppression that African-Americans have experienced in the name of the gospel they say this, "We deny that any church can accept racial prejudice, discrimination, or division without betraying the Gospel."
How is it that in Article 16 they can discriminate against women, but then in Article 17 say that any discrimination is betraying the gospel. It's just ironic to me that these articles are back to back as well. Of course they didn't say gender discrimination. And if women in ministry is not culturally conditioned or oppressive, then how come they don't say that slavery is not culturally conditioned or oppressive. Doesn't Paul in Colossians 3:18-4:1 tell not only women to submit and obey their husbands, but also for slaves to submit and obey their masters. Same text. But somehow in this confession they have seen fit to think slavery was culturally conditioned and oppressive and completely wrong, but they can't go that far with women. The continued oppression and discrimination of women is okay.
You can read these two articles below as well as persuing Jeremey Haywood's blog for the entire confession. But I think that the Biblical message is that all oppression, both of gender and of race and color and economics and so on and so on is wrong. And as Christians, we should be against that type of oppression. And as Christians we can not fight against one type of discrimination while affirming another.
Article XVI
We affirm that the Scripture reveals a pattern of complementary order between men and women, and that this order is itself a testimony to the Gospel, even as it is the gift of our Creator and Redeemer. We also affirm that all Christians are called to service within the body of Christ, and that God has given to both men and women important and strategic roles within the home, the chuhrch, and the society. We further affirm that the teaching office of the church is assigned only to those men who are called of God in fulfillment of the biblical teachings and that men are to lead in their homes as husbands and fathers who fear and love God.
We deny that the distinction of roles between men and women revealed in the Bible is evidence of mere cultural conditioning or a manifestation of male oppression or prejudice against women. We also deny that this biblical dinstinction of roles excludes women from meaningful minstry in Christ's kingdom. We further deny that any church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel.
Article XVII
We affirm that God calls his people to display his glory in the reconciliation of the nations within the Church, and that God's pleasure in this reconciliation is evident in the gathering of believers from every tongue and tribe and people and nation. We acknowledge that the staggering magnitude of injustice against African-Americans in the name of the Gospel presents a special opportunity for displaying the repentence, forgiveness, and restoration promised in the Gospel. We further affirm that evangelical Christianity in America bears a unique responsbility to demonstrate this reconciliation with our African-American brothers and sisters.
We deny that any church can accept racial prejudice, discrimination, or division without betraying the Gospel.
Posted by rhett at 02:38 PM | Comments (17) | TrackBack
Prayer....
Julien D'Avanzo was a friend to many of the college students in our ministry and was active at various times in our Bible studies. He passed away last night at UCLA when he fell from his balcony. I did not know him well, but remember him as just a very down to earth person, and someone who was a good friend to many. I ask that you keep his family in prayer and please pray for our students and those who knew him as this is a difficult time.
Posted by rhett at 09:43 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 27, 2006
Amen!
From Eugene Peterson's second-volume of five books on "spiritual theology", Eat This Book: A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading....not to be confused with Eat This Book: A Year of Gorging and Glory on the Competitive Eating Circuit.
This is his reflection on reading the Bible and Revelation 10:9-10:
God's word is written, handed down, and translated for us so that we can enter the plot. We hold these Bibles in our hands and read them so that we can listen and respond to these creating and saving words and get in, firsthand, on the creating and saving.
The act of eating the book means that reading is not a merely objective act, looking at the words and ascertaining their meaning. Eating the book is in contrast with how most of us are trained to read books--develop a cool objectivity that attempts to preserve scientific or theological truth by eliminating as far as possible any personal participation that might contaminate the meaning. But none of us starts out reading that way. I have a grandaughter right now who eats books. When I am reading a story to her brother, she picks another off a of a stack and chews on it. She is trying to get the book inside her the quickest way she knows, not through her ears, but through her mouth--any opening will do to get it inside her. But soon she'll go to school and be taught that that's not the way to go about it. She'll be taught to get answers out of her book. She'll learn to read books in order to pass examinations, and having passed the exams, put the book on the shelf and buy another.
But the reading that John is experiencing is not of the kind that equips us to pass an examination. Eating a book takes it all in, assimilating it into the tissues of our lives. Readers become what they read. If Holy Scripture is to be something other than mere gossip about God, it must be internalized. Most of us have opinions about God that we are not hesitant to voice. But just because a conversation (or sermon or lecture) has the word "God" in it, does not qualify it as true. The angel does not instruct St. John to pass on information about God; he commands him to assimilate the word of God so that when he does speak it will express itself artlessly in his syntax just as the food we eat, when we are healthy, is unconsciously assimilated into our nerves and muscles and put to work in speech and action.
Words--spoken and listened to, written and read--are intended to do something in us, give health and wholeness, vitality and holiness, wisdom and hope. Yes, eat this book.
Posted by rhett at 11:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 25, 2006
Job opening at Bel Air...
There is a very exciting new job opportunity at Bel Air, and if I didn't love college students so much and love working with my group, I might have considered applying for the job myself.
The opening is for a full-time young adult pastor of our group The Foundry. The group is an amazing, dynamic group, made up of about 300-400 young adults (ages 25-35). They meet on Tuesday nights from 8:00-9:30, as well as consisting of many small groups, etc, etc. It is a great group of young adults who live and work in Los Angeles and in the surrounding communities and who are really invovled in the life of the entertainment and business world of LA.
I am attaching a very short job description. If you are interested, or know anyone who is, please contact Cassie Boyd at cassie@belairpres.org
Or if you have any questions, let me know.
Posted by rhett at 07:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
a few more thoughts on feminization....
The article I posted on Sunday, feminization of the church has been receiving more than the normal amount of comments, and I have been exchanging more than a number of emails, and the topic is being posted quite a lot around the blogosphere. So I'm going to sit on this another night before I post another long article (whether it is on this or something else).
But what is fascinating to me is that the issue isn't necessarily dividing "complementarians" and "egalatarians" in regards to way it usually does with the issue of women in ministry. I thought that there might be more of a point of contention. But people on both sides of the fence can agree that the diagnosis and treatment of this issue might be going in the wrong direction, i.e. inserting military language; making things more adventerous; stereotyping roles.
My position of women in ministry and women in life in general is "egalatarian" so I understand that I might have a different opinion than others. But my main concern as I stated before is the hard and fast stereotyping. And though stereotypes are sometimes indicative of behavior, I think we do a disservice to people when we feel that we have to peg them into a role based upon their gender. I am also concerned that to simply look at more women in church as evidence of men being bored in church, etc., is not really taking into consideration a wholistic view of theology, ecclesiology, sexuality, etc, etc. More women in church can be indicative of many other things. I am also concered that we do not honor the imago Dei in our churches if we do not equally honor both men and women in ministry and in the life of the church. If we exclude one over the other or feel that one gender is being favored, then I think we exclude both the maternal and paternal image of God in the Bible, as well as Paul's words in Galatians regarding neither male nor female.
This is a tough issue, I agree. But I don't think it is to be solved by men getting together in kilts and with swords drawn; nor by adding more adventerous, risk taking mission trips, or by speaking a more warrior like language. That in itself would exclude many men who are not cut from that mold or who are not comfortable with that imagery.
I think that when we honor both the gifting of male and female in ministry and in the life of the church, then we honor God and the image He has created us in. This pairing of male and female will always make way for an exciting, tension filled relationship, and the church will be better served with both present in its life.
Posted by rhett at 07:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 23, 2006
feminization of the church? hmmmmmm.....
To be completely honest again. There are some things that I think are worth note, worth a comment, but not worth me spending a lot of time in debate over. One, it might be because I just don't have enough knowledge in an area, and though I think the topic is interesting, I probably don't know enough to post too much stuff on it (but then again, I guess that hasn't stopped me much before). Second, some things are worth note and a comment because I see or have taken notice of the issue, but it's not an issue that I think is the pressing issue at the moment. I think this issue is reflective of both of those things. I am no expert in this area, and I don't see this as the pressing issue in the churc either. What issue? What some are calling the "feminization of the church."
Now, let me first state that I like Biola a lot. I almost went to undergrad there. I have good friends there. And I have particpated in some events there. So this is not a knock on Biola, as much as some of my awe over some of the conclusions in the article I am linking below.
Over the weekend my father-in-law handed me a copy of one of Biola's magazines. I don't remember the name, but I think it might have been "Connections." I don't have the magazine in my possession anymore since my sister-in-law is in possession of it (she is an alumni), but the article was titled, The Feminization of the Church
Why Its Music, Messages and Ministries Are Driving Men Away. And though I don't have the hardcopy of what I read, I found this article online which appears to be exactly the same thing.
This is an interesting topic to me because I often wonder why the majority of people in church are women. Is it because our population consists of more men than women? Is there something in the church culture driving men away? Or is it just part of the ebb and flow that we find ourselves in at times? I don't have any really good answers, and the ones that I have heard, aren't that great either. All I know is that I appreciate any help or leadership I get in my college ministry, whether it be more men or more women. And sometimes it just depends on the year.
But because of this predicament that many see in the church certain ministries have risen up like Wild at Heart, Promise Keepers, etc., etc. I have even been too several Promise Keeper events in the mid-90's.
But what bothers me about this discussion is the "hyper-masculine" language, that seems to state that unless the metaphors of "war" and "battle" and "fighting" are used, than men are not being reached and any other message is irrelevant. Now I am painting with broad strokes here, but you know what I mean.
Let me give some examples from the article:
Feminized music concerns Steve Craig ('05), a graduate of Biola's degree completion program and the director of a men's ministry of over 400 men at Yorba Linda Friends Church in Yorba Linda, Calif.
"In our men's ministry, we're beginning to take out the flowery songs and replace them with the warrior-type lyrics and more masculine things that men identify with," Craig said.
Mike Erre (M.A. '04)-- the director of a men's ministry of over 400 men at Rock Harbor Church in Costa Mesa, Calif. -- said feminine expressions of spirituality are more validated than masculine expressions.
"The classic example is the worship pose of the eyes shut and the arms raised in this tender embrace, singing a song that says, 'I'm desperate for you. You're the air I breathe.' Guys don't talk to guys like that," Erre said.
Now, I'm not saying that there doesn't need to be a balance of lyrical content, but is it unmasculine for a man to shut his eyes and raise his hands in the air in worship to God? And if worship music begins to be replaced by certain imagery, than is this movement of masculinity going to be all about warriors and fighting?
Then there is this comment:
Also, many church service opportunities are geared for women -- like working in the nursery, teaching children, cooking and hospitality. So, many men feel their options are limited to ushering, directing parking, or sitting on a committee -- activities that might not allow them to use their skills or challenge them.
Wow! The author may not mean it that way, but that seems like a sexist comment. And yeah, I know the author is a woman. But I didn't know that cooking, teaching children, working in the nursery and hospitality were only gifts given to women.
What seems to underlie a lot of the article is that men...not all, but some...are uncomfortable with some of the shifting of roles in society, and they aren't quite sure what to do about it. Maybe it's not the lyrics or the music or the preaching. Maybe it is something larger. And it's not only men that are uncomfortable with some of this role-shifting in culture, but many women as well.
Then there is this comment:
Even professionals who join church committees, like a building or finance committee, often complain that the skills they contribute to the corporate world --like taking risks, making hard decisions, and thinking outside the box --aren't welcome in many churches, whose governing boards tend to play it safe, according to Murrow. As a result, less gets accomplished, which can be frustrating to men who are results-driven, he said.
For example, some businessmen might suggest that a church cut an ineffective program that is costing time and money and replace it with a more effective one. But inefficient programs often remain because a more feminine value--of not hurting people's feelings-- wins out.
Wow! The impication seems to be that women run more inefficient programs because of their feminine value of not wanting to hurt other people's feelings. As opposed to men I supppose who don't care about the feelings of others at all. Oh, and maybe the church isn't supposed run like the corportations men work in during the week. Maybe part of the problem of the church is that it has succumbed to the American corporate business model for its operation.
Here comes more:
Girly-Men Pastors
Touchy-feely sermons come from touchy-feely pastors. A feminized church tends to attract more "gentle, sensitive, nurturing" leadership," according to Pearcey.
Now here comes my own bias, because I tend to see myself as senstive and nurturing as a leader. But I guess I didn't know that leadership wasn't supposed to be nurturing. My bad. I admit, I have my own flaws as a leader and I'm not always as well-rounded as I should be, but Jesus seemed to be a nurturing leader. And he seemed to be sensitive enough that one of his disciples was comfortable enough to recline up against him at the last supper (John 13:25).
Now here comes Pearcey's knock on youth pastors:
Pearcey said to consider a typical youth pastor.
"He's really into relationships, very motivating, but is he teaching good apologetics? Is he teaching youth to use their minds and to understand deeper theological truths? At least the ones I've known haven't," she said. "Today, the common trajectory is for youth pastors to become senior pastors," she added.
There you have it. Ministry and the church and the pastorate is not about relationships, but it is about teaching good apologetics.
Here is the final killer quote:
Yet, much of the church is seeking further feminization, through attempts to increase female clergy and to create gender-neutral Bibles and hymns. Many liberal seminaries now graduate equal numbers of women and men, or more women than men, like Yale Divinity School and Harvard Divinity School.
Well, they didn't mention Fuller Seminary where I went. But I thought Fuller promoted women in ministry because of the calling of God upon their lives and the work of the Holy Spirit for full-time ministry, not because it was a coup to further feminize the Church. And maybe the church isn't seeking feminization as much as it is cathing up to a history and a church that has been mostly masculinzed for so long.
The one thought that I really appreciated in the article was from one of Biola's professors:
But Dr. Gary Strauss, a professor in Biola's Rosemead School of Psychology, warns that Murrow may be promoting a "hypermasculinity"--the idea that all men should fit the stereotypical norm of a "man's man," like the Marlboro Man--tough, outdoorsy and self-reliant.
"He seems to place such a strong emphasis on the hypermasculine image that he doesn't adequately affirm men of a different type," Strauss said. "To me, from the hyperfeminine woman, on the one end of the human spectrum, to the hypermasculine man, on the other, and every person in between (assuming psychological health), reflects the breadth and image of God," he said.
Hey, if you read my blog at all, you know I love Jack Bauer, and he is hardly your typical feminine stereotype. I also love Braveheart and Gladiator as much as the next guy. But I don't agree with some of the conclusions that are being discussed, nor do I think that the answer for the chuch is to dress it up in military language and garb in an attempt to strike a better gender balance. And maybe the problem is not with the church, but with us as men in general. Maybe we as men need to learn how to be men in the church today, and not grasp for old stereotypes of what we think masculinity is supposed to be in the church. As the roles of men and women shift in both society and the church it is going to take time and some periods of wrestling out what the church looks like. There is no easy answer and there is no cookie cutter solutions.
I think and believe that one of the most creative relationships is that between a man and woman, a husband and wife. It is creative because of the differences that sometimes exist between the sexes, and it is that tension that I think makes for a beautiful relationship and marriage. It is a true balancing act that only God can succeed in bringing together. (But hey, what do I know...I'm speaking as a man who has been married for only ten months :-)
And I think that if the church is truly going to be the Church, it is going to need both the gifts of men and women. It is going to need both men and women using the gifts that the Holy Spirit has given them. And whether the church has more men or more women does not matter. What matters is that God is using both men and women to accomplish His work, in the Church and here on earth.
Posted by rhett at 07:29 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
April 21, 2006
being shaped by the Potter.....
To be honest with you....this has been a very long and arduous week for me. I know all of you can relate. I want to be able to go into the weekend giving you something to read, or at least impart to you some brilliant reflective piece that will make you say wow. But I just don't have it in me today or the last few days. So I'm not going to make it up.
This has been a very transitional stage in my life for me, as I adjust to being newly married (10 months); as I come to the half-way point of another graduate school program; as I wind down my fourth complete year as the full-time college director of The Quest; and as yesterday, April 20th marked the 20th anniversary of my mother dying from breast cancer. I originally wanted to post something yesterday remembering her, and honoring her, but I ultimately felt that what I wanted to say and express was best said with no words at all, as I shared that time with my family and with God.
I definitely feel like "clay" who is being shaped by the potter, yet I don't know exactly what shape I am going to take as I feel like the potter is continuing to re-work me into something that seems "good to him" (Jer. 18:4). But I am reminded by my grandmother who is 90, and by another that the potter never takes his hand off the clay:
"The skill of the divine potter is an infinite patience of improvisation. No sooner has one work gone awry than his fingers are pressing it into the form of another. There is never a moment for the clay, when the potter is not doing something with it. God is never standing back and watching us; his fingers are on us all the time," (Austin Farrer quoted in Susan Howatch, Absolute Truths, 482).
So in this time of transition I wonder what God is shaping me to be? What will the ministry look like next year after I have graduated most of my long-standing leaders, and my first class that I have seen through from freshmen to seniors? What is my graduate program shaping me to be, or in what ways will it influence how I do ministry? What will marriage look like in the next year? All very exciting things, but things ultimately that I do not know for sure. But in the midst of this time I know that I worship a God whose hand is continually upon me, molding and shaping and forming and re-shaping me, into exactly what He deems to be good....into who He designed me to be.
May you have a restful weekend, and may you reflect on the imagery of the potter and the clay during this time in your life. And may you know that God's hand is always upon you, shaping you into the person He has created you to be.
Posted by rhett at 03:01 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
April 20, 2006
last night in college group...
it's been a long day, and it's very late, so I will post more about this later.
but last night, Hugh Hewitt came out to our college group to speak on the issue of being "wired" and being a "Christian." Basically....how do we as Christians, living in a wired world, live and transform those communities, etc., etc....
it was a great night of dialogue, and I have never seen my students ask so many questions....it was also very challenging for them as they thought about and reflected on how they live and what they write on their My Space and Facebook pages....
more later....
Posted by rhett at 12:33 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
April 19, 2006
Church, not family is first?
Steve McCoy references a great article on The Brutal Burbs: How the Suburban Lifestyle Undermines Our Mission. This post was written originally over at Out of Ur. Steve McCoy wrote this:
By idolizing the family, suburbanites may become focused on consuming more stuff to create the perfect home and family. There is nothing but contrived affection left to keep the home together.
All of this got me really thinking a lot about not only the surburban family and home, but the family in general. And I have recently been reading Families at the Crossroads: Beyond Traditional and Modern Options by Rodney Clapp. It is an amazing book. But he says this about the family in Chapter 4, "Church as First Family."
In the postmodern world the market and its ways have swallowed our lives whole, so that living in genuinely Christian family is almost a lost art. Recovering the purpose of Christian family, on the distinctive terms of the Christian story, requires two declarations--one negative and one positive.
The negative declaration: The family is not God's most important institution on earth. The family is not the social agent that most significantly shapes and forms the character of Christians. The family is not the primary vehicle of God's grace and salvation for a waiting, desperate world.
And the positive declaration: The church is God's most important institution on earth. The church is the social agent that most significantly shapes and forms the character of Christians. And the church is the primary vehicle of God's grace and salvation for a waiting, desperate world.
Putting the church first, of course, runs counter to the interpretation of many evangelical traditionalists. They put the biological family first. They emphatically place family at the center of God's purposes and work on behalf of the world.......
Yet, we cannot put Jesus first and still put family first.
(pp. 67-68)
Read Christianity Today's Suburban Spirituality: The land of SUVs and soccer leagues tends to weather the soul in peculiar ways, but it doesn't have to.
Posted by rhett at 09:50 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 18, 2006
diversity at Fuller....
One of the reasons I chose to come to Fuller both the first time and this time is because of the diversity....this diversity presents itself in the form of denominations (over 120 plus represented on campus); ethnic group (about 1/3 of the population is international, with a a great majority being Korean); classes in different languages (primarily Spanish and Korean); women on campus (about half, and yes that makes us diverse for a seminary); to diversity in not only theological views, but political, economic, culture, etc.
Ex. Our MFT cohort just finished a discussion on the diversity in our community and it was a great time for everyone to hear each other's perspective. This is the first time in my life possibly, outside of mission work, that I find myself in the minority as a white male. So I very much enjoy the exchange and it is obvious that we both learn from each other...both minority and majority groups.
Ex. I am sitting in the library, on the top floor, looking at the window of a large group of students circled around a speaker. The speaker happens to be Franciscan priest Richard Rohr who is here speaking at some seminars. But what's interesting that behind him (this is not his presentation) is a wall with signs that read "Jesus and Paul were prisoners of Empire" or "Jesus was a Torture Victim" or "Jesus rode a donkey not a warhorse."
Only at Fuller can such opinions be expressed in a seminary setting, yet dialogue persist, and unity in Christ found, within our diversity as people and opinions.
Posted by rhett at 12:45 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
April 17, 2006
Spiritual Abuse....
I was persusing over at Gospelcom.net this morning, and came across this featured article, What is Spiritual Abuse?. The article is based on the book, The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by David Johnson and Jeff VanVonderen.
I have not read the book so I can not speak on its findings, though I agree with some of the abbreviated ideas on the gospel.com page. It's interesting because my professor has often talked in class about "spiritual malpractice" by pastors. I found that to be a very interesting and insightful concept. There are ways in which pastors abuse their power and their authority, and do so often by using scripture to reinforce their ideas or their power.
Of Johnson's and VanVonderen's findings they identify seven characteristics of an abusive church system. You can find them here: Seven Characteristics.
Though I have been fortunate to be in what I believe are pretty healthy churches, the concept of "power posturing" is the one that I think is the most common in churches that tend to be abusive. It is definitely the one that I have had the most conversations with people about who struggle in their church settings. Here is what they say about it:
Power posturing
How much time does a person focus on their spiritual authority, reminding you that they are the one in control and that you must submit to their authority? Real leaders don't have to keep announcing their authority, they get on and use it without fanfare [See Lessons on Leadership, a bible study on Joshua, chapters three and four]. I think that leaders who talk about others having to "submit to their authority" on a regular basis are power-posturing.
You should be able to ask leaders why they made the decision they did. You are not refusing to submit to their authority, nor are you rebelling. It is a simple question. If you are not allowed to honestly ask questions, the person in authority is not being held accountable for their decisions.
Romans 13:1
Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Note that "submit" does not mean agreeing with everything the leader says and does. Neither does it mean that we should leave our brains at the front door because the leader wants to do our thinking for us.
God gives authority, not man. Elections do not give authority, posturing does not, shouting loudly does not, trying to appear the most spiritual does not, length of service does not, how much you give does not. God gives authority to our leaders to shepherd the flock, not to make the leader feel good, or to bolster their ego, or to paper over a sense of inferiority.
I agree. I tell people often that a quarterback does not have to go into a game and tell all his teammates in the huddle that they have to listen to him because he is the quarterback. They listen to him because he leads and is a team player...they listen to him because he gives his "power" away and distributes it to others....etc, etc.
A true leader does not exert power over others, but intstead gives power away (Phil. 2:5-11).
Posted by rhett at 09:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Easter at the Hollywood Bowl....
I will have more to say about this later in the week, but Easter yesterday was quite unlike any other Easter I have been a part of. Our church, Bel Air Presbyterian Church celebrated Easter at The Hollywood Bowl. So we moved from about 5 services and 6,000 people last year, to one service and about 10,000 people this year. It was a very beautiful service and I especially loved the music, as the choir, the orchestra and the praise band did an amazing job of playing together. Our pastor, Mark Brewer delivered a wondeful Easter message and I was happy to see both, Bel Air goers, and first timers there.
This week is also a huge week in the life of our church as we celebrate 50 years as a church this week. I am looking forward to the huge celebration this weekend and on Sunday as all the former pastors of Bel Air are returning. This week is a wonderful reminder of God's faithfulness to our community and to His people, and I am very thankful to be a part of this church.
Posted by rhett at 09:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Easter....
John 20:21-23
21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you."" 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."
Posted by rhett at 09:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 15, 2006
Holy Saturday....
John 19:40-42
40 Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. 41 At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. 42 Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.
Posted by rhett at 10:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 14, 2006
Good Friday....
John 19:28-30
28 Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty." 29 A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. 30 When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.
Posted by rhett at 03:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The bottom-up culture and its influence and challenge to those in power in the church: Example, Lake Avenue Church in Pasadena, CA, pulling offline Jason Djang's sermon on homosexuality and the subsequent petition in favor of Jason.
If there has ever been any post that is incomplete and in process, it is this one. But bear with me as I throw out some thoughts. And please interact if you have any opinions. This post is a ramble of several different ideas that I think are congruent or attached to one another.
Bottom-Up Movement
I have recently been thinking a lot about the "bottom-up" concept, especially its role in the church, and therefore its implications on church structure and the theological process. I am no expert, but in short a "bottom-up" theory is a theory where influence, power, thinking, action, etc., flow from the bottom to the top. So for example: In a church structure the flow is usually "top-down" from the pastors, elders, denominations, etc. to those in the pew...the lay people. A "bottom-up" theory challenges this line of thinking and sees the flow moving from the laity and those in "grassroot" positions to the top. This type of theoretical praxis is probably most evident in the "emergent church" movement and its practitioners.
We have seen this most powerfully on the internet, where blogs in the last few years have become the source of information, toppling some of the giants in the mainstream media such as Dan Rather and other news outlets. This is an example of "bottom-up" movement.
We have seen it in entertainment. I wrote a post about the dying of the Oscars and the bottom up culture last month after reading an article in the LA Times. The gist of the article was this:
There is another, even more radical shift in today's pop culture that is helping to undermine the Oscars and other tradition-bound award shows. For years, the Oscars have mattered because the awards served as a barometer of cultural heft. Just the name alone--the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences--has the air of high-minded authority.
Millions of moviegoers who would've been wary of seeing a challenging film like 1969's "Midnight Cowboy" or 1999's "American Beauty" caved in and plunked their money down, soothed by the academy's best picture badge of distinction.
But this elite, top-down culture is being supplanted by a raucous, participatory bottom-up culture in which amateur entertainment has more appeal than critically endorsed skill and expertise.......
Though he may not directly use the phrase "bottom-up", blogger Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit understands this idea, and writes about the role of technology in empowering "ordinary people", which he talks about in length in his book An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government and Other Goliaths.
And we see it in theology, where theologian and scientist John Polkinghorne discusses bottom-up thinking in Science and Religion.
The Exclusion of the "bottom" in a "top-down" Structure
So what's the big deal you may ask? Well, I was reminded yesterday, though I shouldn't need to be reminded, that those at the top often don't speak for or represent those at the bottom, though in theory they (those at the top) would hope so, or would like to believe so. And when the top does not speak or represent the bottom, there are naturally those left out of the conversation. Those at the bottom for a long time have had no power, no voice, no ability to stabilize action. But the bursting forth of the web, along with blogs and community groups such as My Space has mobilized the bottom and have help enabled the movement of a "bottom-up" theory.
As part of my program in the MFT program at Fuller, we are required to take an integration class and be in a small group, where we discuss the implications of integrating theology, psychology and other disciplines. My small group consists of two Asian men, one African American woman, two Latina women, three white men, and two white women. I tell you that because as we talked in our group yesterday about integration, we discussed that one of the great things about postmodernity (because of its fear of power and exploitation, especially relating to overarching narratives) is that it levels the playing field. It allows for those at the bottom to be able to come and sit at the table and contribute to the discussion. The African American women explained to us how minorities and the less privileged are often excluded because they are not allowed, or are not often in the powerful, top positions. But with the combination of postmodernity and technology, we are now more than ever, seeing the rise of a "bottom-up" culture....which I think is quite refreshing. I also commented in my small group that most seminary small groups would consist of only white men, while often excluding women, and sometimes lacking in in any ethnic diversity. How can we have a theological discussion which involves only one segment of society? Talk about seeing and speaking out of rose colored shades.
The Bottom-Up Culture and the Ability to Embrace Multiple Strands
When operating in a "top-down" environment, the goal is often to forumlate, develop and disemminate that information to the bottom. This can happen in theology where the top sees the importance of developing doctrine, embracing an absolute truth, and then conveying that to the bottom. It can be seen in media, where the major news outlets control stories and are biased in their reporting. But with the rise of the "bottom-up" culture, there is now the ability to not only disagree with the top, but to challenge the top by mobilizing the "troops" if you will. Those at the bottom no longer have to sit and take in without question whatever is preached, teached, handed over to them, etc., whether it be in a church, business corporation, media, etc. And with the new abililty, there is now the situation where many things must be held and embraced at once, whether it be doctrinal truth, business policy, or newstelling. Why? Because with the rise of the "bottom-up" comes multiple voices, not just one.
The Bottom-Up Culture and its Impact on the Church
If there is a place I have seen this more than anywhere else, it is in the church structure and the preaching/teaching event. No longer do those in the pew sit idly by and simply take in what is taught, and without thinking, regurgitate it to others. No longer are those at the top simply allowed to make decisions that affect the bottom, and not be concerned that the bottom may disagree and rise up. Now we can go round and round and exegete the idea of postmodernity, or blogs, or authority in the church, but that's not really the issue to me. The issue is that, whether you agree of disagree, like or not like, the bottom-up culture is present and is impacting the church. I tend to think that this is a wonderful shift taking place in the church and in the media and online.
What has brought all this to my attention, is this. I have a friend from Fuller who preached a sermon last month about homosexuality, and the difficulties regarding some of the differing Christian opinions, etc., etc. Jason preached this sermon at Lake Avenue Church, in the young adult ministry called the Warehouse. Jason gave different Christain viewpoints on the issue and ultimately acknowledged that it is a tough issue. But what seems to be evident is it is not so much what he said, but what he didnt' say....i.e., didn't come down strong enough on homosexuality being a sin. This is my interpretation of the events and the outrcy over the sermon. But in this post I am not so concerned about this issue, as I am wanting to show what the "bottom-up" culture can do in the church.
The Fallout After the Sermon
Word soon got out about Jason's sermon and once the "leadership" at the top caught wind of the controversy, certain actions were taken, such as Jason losing his preaching privileges, etc. As the "top" leadership stepped in though, the "bottom-up" culture mobilized and rallied on behalf of Jason.
Josh Whitler from Fuller has posted most about this issue. Here was his first post, where he acknowledged basically how Jason in preacing on "Your Gay Neighbor", expressed many of his own sentiments.
Josh follows up this post where he explains how Jason's sermon was taken offline. And he gives inormation about a petition that was started within the Warehouse and mobilized on My Space to affirm Jason, and to express their disappointment over the decision making process by the church leadership.
Josh follows up with a third post regarding the circumstances regarding Jason's preaching of the sermon, as well as posting some of the letters from leadership.
If you go to Lake Avenue Church's website and look for the sermon preached on March 12th, you will find this statement: The Warehouse Sermon for this date is currently unavailable.
For more information please click here. Which will lead you to this statement.
You can also follow some of the My Space thread, Jason Djang needs to step down from leadership for his sermon on homosexuality, where they rally in favor of Jason and get a petition going.
As for now...you probably know as much as I do. But I think this is a great example of the impact of the "bottom-up" culture within a church, as well as a good example (if I may stereotype) of the rub or disagreement that often occurs between the different congregations within a church. I am finding that many young adults and those who might best be described as postmodern are having difficulty with those operating out of more modernistic mindsets. Postmodernists are quite comfortable with someone preaching at times and never stating a postion, but instead opening up a discussion. Where modernists are often more comfortable where an absolute truth is clearly stated and there is no room left for other interpretations or discussions.
Like I said, I am not wanting to get into the content of the sermon at this point, but I was more interested in some of the shifts taking place in church. Primarily the movement of the "bottom-up" culture.
Last week I preached a sermon stating my position of women in ministry (pro), and of the equality between men and women in general. I acknowledged that it was a tough issue, and that there were different sides. But more than anything, I told them that I wanted to bring this topic out for discussion and I wanted them to think about it. I had more people come up afterwards, whether agreeing or disagreeing, who said, "Thank you for allowing me to think for myself." The "bottom-up" culture wants to be at the table. They want to be part of the process. But as long as the church operates in a "top-down" model, those at the bottom will often be excluded and will not be allowed to think for themselves.
Whether you agree with Jason or not (and how will you know...they pulled his sermon offline within a couple of days), I admire his willingness to discuss a very difficult issue with love and grace. And I appreciate the movement of the Warehouse community in speaking out on behalf of Jason, rather than simply allowing him to bear this alone.
church, bottom-up, homosexuality
Posted by rhett at 09:53 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
April 12, 2006
Books that spiritually shape college students....
I have been wondering about what books spiritually shape college students. So I asked some of my students who are invovled in leadership positions from leading a Bible study, to being on the servant team and who volunteer and lead worship. I asked them what were the five books that transformed and impacted them spiritually....outside of the Bible, as I assumed that book would have been mentioned by everyone...though I don't know if that is always true. Below you can see their results.
The results are not in any order, but there are some interesting notes. Of course, the usual "suspects" are there like C. S. Lewis and Donald Miller, but I was also surprised by some of the names on the list such as Dan Allender, Ken Gire, etc. Lewis would have made this list for the last 50 years. Miller is on the rise in collegiate circles.
What is also interesting, but which is probably unknown to you, is how many authors made the list that I think that my associate Lyndsey or myself had some type of direct influence on. I love Lewis, Nouwen, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, and talk about them quite a bit. They all made the list.
I have been wondering about my own list that I would have carved out in 1997 when I graduated. And that list would probably be quite different today than it was then. One, my theology has developed and changed over the years, and some books are sort of a gateway into the reading of theology and books that are spiritually transforming. As we grow, our tastes grow, but we all can remember the book or books that started it all for us.
Below is the list which you can read. I compiled all the results and listed the books that were mentioned. By far and away, Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis made the most lists, with Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller, Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky and In The Name of Jesus by Henri Nouwen rounding out the books that were mentioned the most.
In November of 2005, I wrote about The Five Books I Would Recommend to a College Student...or Actually, to Anyone!.
But for now, below is the list that some of my leaders compiled. Take a look.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible
The Healing Path: How the Hurts in Your Past Can Lead You to a More Abundant Life by Dan Allender
How To Get a Date Worth Keeping by Henry Cloud
The Sacred Romance: Drawing Closer to the Heart of God by Brent Curtis and John Eldredge
Calm My Anxious Heart: A Woman's Guide to Contentment by Linda Dillow
The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky
The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoevsky
Frederick Douglass: Autobiographies: Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave/ My Bondage and My Freedom/ Life and Times of Frederick Douglass by Frederick Douglass
Wild at Heart: Discovering the Secret of a Man's Soul by John Eldredge
Captivating: Unveiling the Mystery of a Woman's Soul by John Eldredge and Stasi Eldredge
Windows of the Soul by Ken Gire
The Call: Finding and Fulfilling the Central Purpose of Your Life by Os Guinness
A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics and Salvation by Gustavo Gutierrez
Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkegaard
The Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis
The Great Divorce by C. S. Lewis
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader by C. S. Lewis
The Weight of Glory by C. S. Lewis
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C. S. Lewis
Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis
Wittgenstein's Mistress by David Markson
More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell
A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey by Brian McLaren
Moby-Dick by Herman Melville
Blue Like Jazz: Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality by Donald Miller
Gracias: A Latin American Journal by Henri Nouwen
In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership by Henri Nouwen
Desiring God by John Piper
Atonement Child by Francine Rivers
Mark of theLion: A Voice in the Wind, an Echo in the Darkness, As Sure As the Dawn by Francine Rivers
Redeeming Love by Francine Rivers
The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity by Lee Strobel
The Scientific Case for Creation (Scripture and Science) by Bert Thompson
The Purpose-Driven Life: What on Earth Am I Here For? by Rick Warren
The Jesus I Never Knew by Philip Yancey
Posted by rhett at 07:03 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
First Twixters, now Grups...
The new stereotype of emerging young adults. Are you a Grup?
Posted by rhett at 11:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
I know what I will be watching for the next 3 years....
Sutherland pacts for 3 more years of "24"
Details on the deal were sketchy, but sources pegged the acting portion alone at more than $40 million for the three seasons, which could make Sutherland the highest-paid actor in drama series.
Posted by rhett at 09:35 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 11, 2006
Tending the garden....
One of the most important resources that a garden makes available for use, is the gardener's own body. A garden gives the body the dignity of working in its own support. It is a way of rejoining the human race.
Wendell Berry
One of the reasons I haven't blogged in several days is that I spent all weekend pretty much working on our house, whether it be in the house painting, or in the backyard planting flowers in our garden, and trimming back the shrubs. And by the time the day ended I was completely exhausted and blogging was the last thing I wanted to do. But to be honest, I have really enjoyed just getting out in the yard and doing manual labor, while listening to the birds sing. I am realizing just how much time I spend working in front of a computer or reading behind books. And though I workout at the gym and run, there is nothing quite like manual labor to really "center", or bring back oneself to the reality of life and what is important. There is something beautiful about having your hands deep in soil as you plant flowers, or something beautiful about building a picnic table, sanding, staining, and painting it.
I find it interesting that in John 20:15, when Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene, the gospel writer says, "Jesus, said to her, 'Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?' Supposing him to be the gardener.........." I am not making any theological implications about this, but I like the idea of Creation being birthed and placed in a garden that Adam and Eve were to tend to....I like that Jesus is mistaken for the gardener.....I like the idea that we as Christians are to be about the task of putting our hands in the soil and tending to what God has given us, and to the places that He placed us. I like the idea that we need to get out from behind our computers and books and TV's and video games, and we need to put our hand into the soil and tend to it.
As I write this, I recall some thoughts by my professor Dr. Ray Anderson from his book, Unspoken Wisdom: Truths My Father Taught Me. When he decided to leave his farmland and the vocation of being a farmer for the ministry, he wrote these words:
"I was pleasantly surprised to discover, even after only a few months, that my new 'calling' had not left and empty space. Nor did I long for what had been or what might have been. What I had expected to be a painful uprooting turned out to be a transplant--roots and all--from one soil to another.
What my father had discovered, but left for me to learn on my own, was that there was neither mystery nor magic in the soil. The mystery and magic, if we dare to use such words, lie in the connection of the heart to the hand. There is no place or task on earth satisfying to the restless hand that is not attached to the heart.
On that day long ago, my father had not attached my hand to the soil of a farm--although that was how I had understood it. Rather, he had attempted to attach my hand to my heart. No matter what "soil" my hand was plunged into, if the task was undertaken with my heart, there was a sense of completeness that brought joy and fulfillment. My father's once-in-a-lifetime gift was the ability to grow in any soil, the ability to be not only transplanted by transformed--by loving what I do. (pp.18)
As we approach Easter, I wonder what it is that you and I have our hands in? Is what we have our hands in, attached to our hearts? Do we take care of and tend to the things that God has given over into our care? What is the soil that God has given us to work in?
Posted by rhett at 11:27 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
April 07, 2006
Weekend Perusing....
----Let's start with the fun stuff, before the serious stuff. On the continued tangent of all things Jack Bauer, I want to list some of the things floating around the "Christian blogosphere" regarding him.
--Last week I wondered what Jack Bauer would do for your pastoral team. This was more tongue-in-cheek, but I think some thought I may have actually sent him a resume.
--Steve McCoy listed Jack Bauer facts.
--The A-Team listed Jack Bauer's theological facts.
--Andy at Think Christian, posted this, which contains: 1) I Need Thee Every Hour: The Devotional Journey of Jack Bauer by Dave Zimmerman . 2) Four Reasons Why We Love Jack Bauer, by Wade Hodges.
Here is #4: Jack gets to say and do things that in the deepest part of hearts we wish we could say and do. Jack's best line from the premiere: "The only reason you're still conscious is because I don't want to carry you." What preacher/pastor hasn't wanted to say that at an elders/board meeting at one time or another?
----In Chris Gonzalez's and I's continued attempt to find and connect college pastors/directors/volunteers who blog, here is an updated list.
Chris Gonzalez of Vital Impact in Tempe, AZ
Phillip Moses, Scott Norton and Steve Leonard of The Source in San Luis Obispo, CA
Kenneth Koons in Long Beach, CA, who blogs at Abundant Hope
Jason Deuman of Transit in Lynnwood, WA
Ben Lemery of Campus Cry.
----I saw this, Is Your Pastor Serious About Study, posted over at Slice of Laodicea.
HT: Andy Jackson
Here is the quote:
"Bible interpretation is a skill that requires rigorous training, understanding the meaning in the original languages, a working knowledge of grammar and logic, a grasp of historical settings, competence in theology, and a broad understanding of the whole of Scripture. Those who lack expertise in Greek and Hebrew must be all the more careful, checking commentaries, dictionaries, and other study helps to analyze the text as carefully as possible."
--John MacArthur, Reckless faith
Note: John MacArthur believes that pastors should devote around 20 hours per week to studying the bible.
Posted by Jim Bublitz on April 7, 2006 @ 06:50 AM
Quotes to Remember
I have been to seminary. I have studied Greek and Hebrew and use them in my sermon preparation. I read commentaries and understand logic. But I do not believe that if a pastor does not have these skills or training that that makes him or her incompetent. Nor does that make them less serious. I know plenty of amazing pastors who know nothing about Greek or Hebrew, or who don't use all of the "tools" of the trade, but who are competent and gifted orators and preachers of God's Word.
This statement makes me wonder about some missionaries I know in other countries who have not had the opportunity to study in a school or seminary. Who don't know Greek or Hebrew. Who don't have the commentaries or dictionaries or tools, because they barely can afford to own the 5-10 books they do have on their shelves. Who don't have access to the internet because they are out in the "backwoods", etc. Does that make them less serious? Does that make them incompetent? Does that mean they have to be all the more careful? And if a pastor does not study his or her Bible to the MacArthur standard of 20 hours a week, does he or she then fail? Sadly, I think John MacArthur would say yes.
----Following MacArthur's thoughts, I then came across this post, M. Div. for a Community by Benjamin Sternke. Benjamin reflects on some of the thoughts put forth by Ryan Bolger on his blog.
Here is a sample:
Ryan Bolger has a fascinating idea:
How do we equip men and women for the manifold ministries of Christ and his church, when these communities have shared leadership? When the leader is not the teacher? When the teacher is not the pastor?
A seminary training model is built around the idea that a single person or a set of staff workers has most of the gifts in a particular church community and then we train that one person or group of persons. But, what do we do when the gifts are spread throughout the community as they are in many new forms of church? How do we continue to train the many, rather than the few?
I dream that my seminary will move away from the professional training model and will equip entire communities for mission.
Some ways to do that ? Perhaps the seminary might contract with a community on a subscription basis, train their people in the skills they need, e.g. one person takes a preaching class, another takes community formation, another Greek...in a sense, we allow community degrees. Churches or networks pay by community - their community contracts with the seminary so that their community will have access to their resources.
In a very real sense, the community receives the M.Div rather than the clergy...
----Check out Rich Kirkpatrick's post on Jesus Creed Blog response to Mark Driscoll: Modernist vs. Postmodernist?. Rich closes his post with a quote from Scott McKnight regarding Mark Driscoll.
Later in his post Scott McKnight shows his cards and solves the issue that indeed the issue IS theology.
"EP Sanders is famous for saying that the problem (for Paul) with Judaism was that it was not Christianity. Let me play with this: the problem for Driscoll with the emerging movement is that it is not conservative, Reformed evangelicalism."
----Steve McCoy has a summary of a growing discussion of what it means to be "post-reformed." Here are the seven statements.
Posted by rhett at 01:05 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
April 06, 2006
4 8 15 16 23 42
For those of you who watch LOST....well this is mind blowing!
I mean, I thought I was a somewhat insightful and intelligent person, but I never would have connected these dots (no pun intended).
Posted by rhett at 11:19 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
April 05, 2006
Connecting Bloggers....
I have really enjoyed and been truly blessed by the friendships that have developed with others because of blogging. Some of the bloggers I have met in person and others I have not, but it has been a wonderful experience. Also, one of the greatest things about blogging is the ability to connect people to one another around the country.
For example: A student came up to me tonight after college group wanting to get his struggling friend connected to a church community. So he asked if I knew someone in a certain state who might be able to help his friend get connected. And in fact I did know someone through blogging, who is involved in ministry, whom I can help connect this person to.
That's what has been truly great about blogging. Often I get people asking me for references for "good" churches in the states they are moving to, and blogging has given me more access to find these communities, or to find people involved in these communities.
So, speaking of connecting, let's try to continue to connect. I not only want to be able to connect people to Christian community, but I am passionate about connecting with other college pastors/directors/volunteers.
I have asked for those who are college pastor/director/volunteers and who blog, or know those who do, to please send me their names and blogs. Or you might be one of them. Here are some names that you may already know, and some other ones that have been coming in.
Chris Gonzalez of Vital Impact in Tempe, AZ
Phillip Moses, Scott Norton and Steve Leonard of The Source in San Luis Obispo, CA
Kenneth Koons in Long Beach, CA, who blogs at Abundant Hope
Jason Deuman of Transit in Lynnwood, WA
Posted by rhett at 11:46 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Help!
Hey, I know if I post a blog about this, I should receive some responses from some people who probably have some good ideas, and are more in the "know" than I am on these issues. I am looking for a new cell phone, preferably one with PDA. I want to spend under $300. I was thinking about the TREO 650 because a lot of people I know have them, and like them.
Any thoughts on this?
Posted by rhett at 11:40 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Attention: Looking for College Ministry Blog, or College Pastor/Director Bloggers
Hey, do you know any blogs of college ministries around the country, or of any college pastor/director bloggers.
There is ours: Rhett Smith, which is also here on our site, but slightly different, The Quest College Director.
Then there is my friend: Chris Gonzalez.
Chris led me to this site: The Source, which is the college ministry of Grace Church in San Luis Obispo.
I know there has to be more out there. So if you are one of them, or you know of others, please let either Chris or I know.
Posted by rhett at 11:31 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
April 04, 2006
Oh, I see the similarities!
Indian director hopes to cast Paris Hilton as Mother Teresa.
My favorite line:
The filmmaker said Hilton is on his shortlist after a computer-generated image showed a close facial match between the hotel heiress and the Albanian-born nun.
Posted by rhett at 02:48 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Jack Bauer's theological views? This gave me a good laugh this morning....
Austin Hayden point me in the direction of this posting by the A-Team Blog on Jack Bauer's theological positions. They are as follows:
Theological Jack Bauer Facts
by Roger on Sun 02 Apr 2006 03:10 PM PDT | Permanent Link
You might have seen some Jack Bauer facts floating around online (such as these posted by Steve McCoy), but we've put together some other facts you might not know about Jack...
Jack Bauer believes in Divine Election because he understands what it means to control everything.
Jack Bauer is a Complimentarian-everyone submits to him.
Jack Bauer once questioned the authenticity of the Bible, so he brought the authors back to life and tortured them until he was convinced they were telling the truth.
Jesus will return when Jack Bauer dies. The problem is that he keeps coming back to life.
Jack Bauer knows whether the earth is "young" or "old," but no one's successfully tortured it out of him.
For Jack Bauer, confrontation is the only form of evangelism.
1/3 of the angels fell when Jack Bauer kicked them out of heaven for not telling him who they worked for.
Jack Bauer is proof of Intelligent Design.
Luckily, the Egyptians gave in after the 10th plague because number 11 was going to be Jack Bauer. (HT: Amy)
The 10 spies gave a bad report because they saw Jack Bauer.
Jack Bauer is his own accountability partner and community.
Posted by rhett at 10:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 03, 2006
"Jesus Loves Porn Stars" revisited....
Here is that article in the Los Angeles Times on Sunday, A Setback for Anti-Porn Pastors.
Very interesting article. Here are some excerpts:
The publisher said that while it applauded the outreach to those who make a living off pornography, "the wording is misleading and inappropriate for a New Testament," according to a letter the pastors received from Barbara Bernstengel, the executive in charge of standards at the nonprofit Bible publishing company.
and
Gross said their slogan isn't misleading; Jesus does love porn stars and the message doesn't insinuate that he loves pornography.
"But that's why we're putting the Bible in [the porn stars'] hands -- Jesus is not OK with it," said Gross, a former youth pastor who works on the XXXchurch.com website from his Lake Elsinore garage. "The publisher is hindering the Gospel going forth."
and then this....
The XXXchurch.com pastors say the rejection of the cover is typical of the clash between old-school Christianity --with its rigid structure and traditions --and an emerging brand practiced mostly by younger Christians who focus on relationships, spiritual experiences and converting nonbelievers through bold, sometimes edgy marketing.
"This whole religious rule book just needs to be burned, and we need to reinvent the rules," Gross said. "Otherwise, Christianity is going to fade away."
I originally didn't post any thoughts on this issue, because I was really on the fence to be honest. I really, really respect the ministry of XXX Church and I also really respect the amazing work of The American Bible Society. XXX Church does ministry that most of us could not, and do not want to do. So I certainly don't want to speak on what exactly are the appropriate and inappropriate methods in the spreading of the "good news" in the porn world. When one goes into a mission field, whether it be in India, or the Middle East, or in pornography, each has their own missiological methods and some are more unorthodox than others. But I also don't want to see the American Bible Society get "crucified" over this issue as well.
I think Craig Gross is off base when he says that the American Bible society is "hindering the gospel going forth." The American Bible Society distributed 4,113,106 Bibles and 8,322,112 copies of the New Testament in 2000-2001. That's hardly hindering the gospel.
I just really wonder if an agreement could have been reached so that both sides could have benefited. And not only both sides, but those who would have received those Bibles.
"Jesus Loves Porn Stars" is definitely very catchy and gets to the heart of who they minister to. But when it comes to passing out Bibles, why even single out one segment of society. Why not have the slogan "Jesus Loves and Redeems Sinners." Or "Jesus Loves You", though that probably wouldn't be "edgy" enough for many. What about "Bible" or is that too antiquated for some? When missionaries in foreign countries pass out Bibles to those they minister to, whether it be drug dealers, murderers, Christian persecuters, they don't tailor make their Bibles, yet the message still seems to be relevant. There is not a big run on local or foreign missionaries or ministries asking the ABS to print up "Jesus Loves Drug Dealers" or "Jesus Loves Fornicators." Yet, the Bible still seems to transform lives. I mean, we are all sinners, and we all need redemption...right. Why even categorize?
I do agree with Gross that there is this divide between what Gross labels "old-school Christianity" and a more "emerging brand." And their marketing strategies are going to be very different. I sort of have a foot in each of those places. I was raised in a church and understand the more old-school brand, but I also minister to college students in Los Angeles, and I get the more emerging brand as well. Sometimes I revert to the one that I feel would more clearly get the message across. So maybe XXX Church is correct in their approach, but I don't think that makes ABS bad, or an organization hindering the gospel. And maybe ABS is correct as well in their understanding of the situation. I mean they have been around for over a 100 years, so I have to respect their opinion as well as this is hardly the first tough issue they have dealt with.
I just don't think this issue is black or white or that there is a good or bad scenario in this issue. Each have their reasons, and I get both.
I do think that XXX Church is doing a great ministry. But I do think that their slogan, "Jesus Loves Porn Stars" is grasped by some, and is totally lost on others. I definitely wouldn't have known what "Jesus Loves Porn Stars" was about unless I knew about the ministry. Maybe XXX Church is hoping that people would ask about the shirts, which would lead people to the ministry and then to Christ. Or maybe the shirts are simply just an attempt to be "edgy" and to separate themselves from "old-school Christianity." To me, the shirts don't really separate themselves from any t-shirt that one wears from Urban Outfitters or Abercrombie and Fitch when they are trying to be "edgy."
As for this statement: "This whole religious rule book just needs to be burned, and we need to reinvent the rules," Gross said. "Otherwise, Christianity is going to fade away." Well.....I am trying to look behind this statement and get to the heart of what he really means, not what he says. Regardless, I doubt Christianity is going to fade away because the ABS won't print "Jesus Loves Porn Stars" on Bibles.
This is a tough issue. I get that. In the end, I am thankful for the hard work of both of these ministries. And like many good ministries, sometimes methods can be where people and organizations part company, which is unfortunate, but pretty common. We should continue to pray for the tough, gritty work of XXX Church, especially when I know not many would be willing to do the work they do. And we should continue to pray for the great work of the American Bible Society who continues to provide Bibles to millions of people all over the world.
One of the better comments I received was from
Wayne Bowerman. You can read his thoughts below.
Rhett,
I followed your link to the xxx blog then their website and then did some other research. I think I've spent too long on this now but I wanted to comment carefully.
I guess I my sympathies lie with the ABS on this one. I may not agree with how they said it ("it goes against everything the Bible stands for"-- if that is indeed what they said?) but I think I agree essentially with what they are saying.
Yes, Jesus does