God's Eclectic

Ambassadors or Bullies?

2011-03-04T09:26:00.009-05:00

Followers of Jesus are charged with being ambassadors of the Gospel. The Apostle Paul, in a letter to a church in Ephesus, explains to us that we are to be ambassadors of the Good News that God’s redemptive and freeing power, made possible by death and resurrection of Jesus, is continually at work today through the Holy Spirit. The Bible makes it clear that the implications of the Good News knows no bounds—religion (2 Cor. 3:6), relationships (John 13:34), even politics (Luke 4:18)—everything is transformed in light of the Gospel. Yet when Christians unknowingly fight against the implications of the Gospel, we inadvertently blot out the glory of the God to a dark world and amputate the feet of very Good News we claim to spread. For example, it was only a few months ago that the United States Senate, a body composed almost entirely of self-identified Christians, voted against the DREAM Act and the repealing of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on the same day—the glory of the God became hidden by our brokenness just a little bit more. And by the time DODT was finally repealed in December, the move was reluctant and managed to demonstrate an even greater hostility towards the DREAM Act.

The DREAM Act would have allowed children of illegal immigrants who were taken into this country when they were under the age of 16 to be put on a six-year long conditional path to citizenship if they could get into an American college or serve in the U.S. military. Each year 65,000 children are, through no fault of their own, brought to America by their parents and constantly live under the threat of deportation to their parents’ country. Currently, they will be deported regardless of their contribution to society, whether they have any ties to their parents’ place of origin, or even whether they can speak their parents’ language. The DREAM Act would provide a reasonable and fair alternative to that fate. Instead, politicians who prided themselves on standing up for “family values” voted it down without offering any alternative. Were these votes a demonstration of loving our neighbor or manifesting the Good News to these sons and daughters of illegal immigrants? Perhaps the Good News is only “good news” for some people.

The majority of these same politicians also voted against allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the military both in September and December, making strikingly similar arguments used to keep African-Americans from integrating into the Army in the 1940s. In spite of the Pentagon’s support of inclusion, numerous studies showing inclusion would not affect combat effectiveness, and the grim reality that we’ve already discharged 13,000 GLBT soldiers in the last sixteen years—including 59 Arabic linguists in the last five—many Christians in our Senate still felt the need to continue discrimination. Yet, with reluctant vote overcoming the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, our government is now finally treating homosexuals with the same kind of equal treatment under the law granted to heterosexuals (marriage notwithstanding). No special privilege or preference, just the same opportunity to serve our country. But for the Christians who voted against this repeal twice, were these votes a demonstration of loving our neighbor or manifesting the good news to gays and lesbians? Perhaps they just don’t count as our neighbors.

Tragically, these were not primarily nominal Christians-in-name-only, but instead strongly self-identifying and strongly outspoken Christians making the case against both of these chances to legislate justice: to be for the DREAM Act equated to supporting the lawlessness of illegal immigration, or to be for allowing gays and lesbians to serve our country equated to affirming sinful lifestyles. In reality, these are nothing more than false choices, just as it is false choice to say that defending the rights of the unborn means being anti-women. Yet beyond this tortured logic, the false dichotomies created by some Christian leaders who offer no compassionate solutions of their own make us look just plain nasty. In the eyes of a hurting world examining the legitimacy of our Gospel, we seem far less like ambassadors of the Good News and far more like schoolyard bullies picking on the kids that aren’t like us. Why are we Christians behaving like this?

A well-intentioned Christian friend of mine inadvertently pinpointed the problem when, in response to my lament of the first vote, he wrote to me, “I thought you were a preacher of the Gospel of Christ: the cross, redemption, belief in Jesus, holiness, repentance of sin? I didn't know that included actively drumming up political strife—unless your gospel is one that favors illegal immigration and homosexuality, in which case I wonder what gospel it is you preach.”

The reason why many Christians in politics look like bullies is simply because we have not yet understood the totality of the Gospel. We embrace only a fraction, but believe the fraction is the whole. In doing so we open up the potential for worldly philosophies and prejudices, as well as our own inclination for pharisaical thinking, to fill the space in our worldview where the Gospel is supposed to be. We can even end up working against the Gospel, not out of premeditated malice, but because we are unknowingly viewing an issue through something other than a Gospel-centered lens.

Yet if we are to avoid sabotaging the Gospel we have been entrusted with, we must seek to know it in its fullness. Declaring Jesus as the one and only redemptive savior of the world and striving for Biblical justice in the world are not competing “gospels”, they are both intrinsic in the singular indivisible Gospel (James 1:27). To focus on either one without the other is to see only a fraction and not the whole.

So in the sphere of politics we must come to realize that one of our foremost roles in being ambassadors of the Gospel is in taking up the political cause of the voiceless and marginalized (Isaiah 1:17, Daniel 4:27, Exodus 23:9, Deuteronomy 15:1-2). On some level we already know this. Most Christians already see defending the lives of the unborn (and their mothers), alleviating extreme poverty, and stopping genocide as part and parcel with the nature the Gospel. But that is only part of the whole. We must be on the side of all who are voiceless and marginalized, without exception. Whether that's the unborn or the poor or the children of illegal immigrants or homosexuals rendering military service, for us to do anything less is treason to our charge as ambassadors of the Good News and a renouncement of our citizenship in the Kingdom of God. Instead then, let us seek to be loyal only to our King of Kings.

Covenanting With Your Church

2011-01-28T20:36:00.005-05:00

This Sunday, our church membership class will be the first to be introduced to a “Covenant of Commitment” between themselves and the church. We’ve rather rapidly experienced the spiritual and practical benefits of making our membership class more rigorous, theologically deeper, and required for the joining the church. Prior to that, we saw everything from people joining and dropping out in a matter of months to non-Christians joining (Why this phenomenon, you may ask? Since our church community was so welcoming, they said, they could overlook the Jesus-Son-of-God thing).

It’s our hope that this covenant will not only clarify and confirm the investment we expect from people joining the church, but also make it clear what should be expected from the church receiving committed people to its community. I think this is important because mainline churches often seem to operate under the assumption that, apart from grave heresy, they can do as they please so long as there is reasonable unity with the elders and staff. However, a church that covenants with its members binds itself in a sacred contract to uphold its end of the promises. Should that church fail to live up to those promises, members have indisputable grounds for calling the leadership of the church to account.

To be honest, I’ll be excited when the first person does. It will likely be good medicine for this congregation in renaissance.

What are your thoughts on church membership covenants? Thoughts on the covenant below? It’s not a document that’s written in stone, so feel free to make suggestions.

I, _________________________________________ as a follower of Jesus Christ, covenant with my church, my God, and myself to:

Walk with God daily in Bible study, prayer, and following Christ’s teachings in turning away from my sins and pursuing a holy life.

Invest myself in sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with non-Christians.

Be involved in discipleship outside of Sunday worship because I recognize the need for accountability and community in my life.

Receive from those appointed over me accountability, counsel, and/or correction for my actions. Specifically, my actions that do not reflect how Jesus teaches me in the Bible.

Give generously the time, resources, and giftedness that God has blessed me with so that the Gospel is advanced and God is glorified.

Likewise, the leadership of the church covenants to:

Teach the Word of God to the best of our ability.

Consistently preach the Gospel in our words and actions and from the pulpit.

Offer the necessary programs and opportunities that will lead to your spiritual growth and maturity.

Provide care in sickness, counsel in crisis, and guidance in what it means to follow Jesus and His commandments.

Make programmatic, financial, staff, and leadership decisions with the advancement of the Gospel and the glory of God solely in mind.

In signing this, I affirm my membership vows and place myself in a covenant with my church to hold me accountable to those vows, even as I hold the church accountable for its vows, so that together we can be the body of Christ demonstrating the Gospel of Jesus Christ to our neighbor, city, and world.

The South Carolina Senate Race

2010-11-02T19:09:00.011-04:00

As you may have heard, in South Carolina we had two great choices for senator this election. One was Republican Jim Demint--a man so bigoted and ignorant that he just weeks ago advocated banning gays and sexually active single women from being teachers. The other was Democrat Alvin Greene--a jobless, likely mentally-handicapped man living in his father's basement who won the Democratic primary even with pending felony charges for forcibly showing porn to a college student. Oh, and some Green Party guy that doesn't like nuclear power plants.

Yep. Those we're my options. Go South Carolina.

Therefore, I decided my best option was for a write-in candidate. On the clunky machine that looked like the Ipad's obese cousin, I typed in, "Jesus of Nazareth".

Not to be confused with Jesus, my immigrant neighbor upstairs. Got to be specific about these things, y'know. Though Jesus the immigrant neighbor would also be more qualified.

Anyway, go Jesus (of Nazareth).

Pew Forum Proves I Suck at My Job

2010-10-01T21:30:00.004-04:00

So for some odd reason you've missed having my commentary on your computer screen/mobile device, you have my apologies, but I've been working a good number of overtime weeks and writing sermons. I still don't really have anything for you other than to report on the most recent Pew Forum survey that you've probably already heard about.

The Pew Forum conducted a little pop quiz on a random sampling of Americans regarding how much they know about religion. The results? We bombed it worse than when I failed high school algebra two years in a row. Even people with post-graduate educations only made a D+ on average. And much to the chagrin of some Christians, atheists and Jews scored significantly higher than their Jesus-lovin' friends. Oh, how the media enjoyed spinning that one! However, a closer look at the survey finds that Evangelicals and Mormons actually knew their own faith better than atheists and Jews, but that the latter groups scored higher on the overall general knowledge about religion. This doesn't come as a surprise to me. After all, when you have the absolute truth in your hand, why would you need to know about what anyone else thinks? (Please hear the sound of sarcasm)

That all being said, the Pew Forum also proved that I must be sucking at my job. Mainline Protestants, of which the Presbyterian church I work for would be included, knew less about Christianity than atheists and even *gasp* Catholics. That's when you know your denomination is having a bad era.

The Official, Authoritative, and Divinely Inspired List of the Five Best Christian Bands

2010-07-19T19:51:00.004-04:00

So as a Christian music hater-turned-unabashed Christian music snob, I feel it’s only appropriate to finally release the names of the five best Christian music bands in the world. After all, when Saul became Paul, he had some pretty important things to say about Christianity. However, I’m going to do my best to be (sorta) impartial, avoiding giving you a list of my favorite bands for the sake of edifying your ears and minds.

These bands were selected for their theological depth, staying power, crossover (without selling out) appeal, and general musical brilliance—which means you won’t be seeing the likes of Toby Mac, Newsboys, or MercyMe within a mile of the top five. However, it does also preclude a lot of really good Christian bands for various reasons. Anberlin hits every category hands down—except theological depth. House of Heroes, Abandon, Deas Vail and the like are likely going to be huge—but they’ve only released one or two full-length albums. Mat Kearney’s early work was genius—until he decided to become the illegitimate child of Chris Martin and John Mayer. The Psalters changed my life—but almost no one has ever heard of them. This was a lot harder than I expected.

But I didn’t let nights of crying into my pillow about whether to include (SPOILER ALERT) Relient K stop me from completing the epic task I set out to do. And due to my importance as a Christian music critic, I predict after publishing this list, the record sales should increase for the following honored bands by .001 percent. Enjoy my analysis.

5. mewithoutYou

The best band you’ve probably never heard of. I would compare them musically to a more manic Modest Mouse, and with a raw and honest theological input from Sufism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity that provides the counterbalance Modest Mouse’s grating nihilism. They get the highest marks for originality, crossover appeal, and brilliant lyrics—and if they could just come out with one more good album, you’ll see them jump down the list.

4. Relient K

I hesitated to bequeath a pop-punk group an honor such at this, but the Relient K is the king of pop-punk in the Christian world. And even if their music isn’t the most creative, they’ve consistently carved out numerous tracks over a decade with a good range of spiritual depth that preaches well to the less-theologically astute listeners. Got to give them credit for that.

3. Switchfoot

I’ve praised Switchfoot before (as well as criticized them), but I’ll praise them again: these guys rock. They’ve been around for nearly forever, constantly growing and maturing with every album. Every album puts out songs that are catchy and theologically reflective, not to mention a few nationwide chart-toppers here and there. You might not be a fan (and I am only on occasion), but it’s really hard not to like them and they are definitely worthy of the being a best band.

2. Sufjan Stevens

For an Episcopal-Presbyterian who isn’t afraid to quote Scripture in his lyrics, it’s surprising that Sufjan has far more secular than Christian fans. He’s that freakin’ good. You got to be when you have entire songs about the transfiguration or impending death of Jesus. Sufjan’s material runs the gamut from folksy minimalist to full orchestras, and it tends to show up in the most random of places (e.g. Little Miss Sunshine, Brooklyn Academy of Music). Sufjan is one of the better contemporary musician/composers of our time and certainly pulls of one of the best infusions of spirituality and music.

1. Thrice

I’m sorry, but this was really a no-brainer folks. This post-punk-now-art-rock band wears their faith on their tattooed sleeve, but in a way that attracts even some of the most skeptical people (my friend, Colleen, for one). Nor is their spirituality only wading knee-deep in theological waters. They go deep, constantly quoting C.S. Lewis and exploring less hip themes—like of the total depravity of man. The lead vocalist, Dustin Kensrue, has been studying Reformed theology for the last two years and it really shines through in their most recent album, even as it shows a pattern of continual theological evolution on the part of the band. Oh, and their music is just plain good, with each album venturing into new musical genres. They may a bit too hard from some tastes, but that shouldn’t stop you from listening to them. Their lyrics and passion are worth the occasional screaming you may not like, and they are one of THE reasons why the Devil doesn’t have all the good music.

And now comes all the agreeing and mostly disagreeing. Oh yeah. It’s on.

Why I'm Not Religious

2010-06-30T15:42:00.003-04:00

"Religion kills," says anti-theist Christopher Hitchens. I couldn't agree more. In fact, I'm surprised Hitchens is so behind the times. The Apostle Paul beat him to the punch when he wrote to a new church in 55 A.D. that, "The (religious) laws kill, but the Spirit gives life." But Paul wasn't just waxing poetic. The decisive case against religion came from Jesus himself.

We read in the Gospels dozens of stories where Jesus, an itinerant rabbi, confronts the gatekeepers of his own Jewish faith, the Pharisees and Sadducees. The religious leaders of Jesus' day viewed themselves as the protectors of the ancient agreement made between the Hebrew people and God -- you might say religious UPS deliverymen (sorry ladies) -- delivering the perfectly received truth from generation to generation. There was only one problem though: Imperfect people were involved in this process. Over time, the religious deliverymen started stuffing the package with things that God had nothing to do with, literally adding 6,000 extra rules meant to keep people from breaking the original few rules. And since they thought they already had God in a box anyway, anyone who thought outside of it was a dangerous heretic.

In response to this, Jesus declared that religion -- as defined by a bounded set of doctrines, rules and structures -- was useless to the God and a "burden" to people. God's truth could not be bound up in a neatly packaged religion. Rather, it was found in the nebulous but centered pursuit of living out the "greatest commandment": "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind," and the equally important: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus said you could sum up true faith "and all the demands of the prophets on these two commandments."

Seems so simple, right? But life is complicated, and our concoction of motives causes us to miss the mark more often than not. So the voices of religion tempt us with an easy solution, offering to put God back in the box if we would just adhere to the bounded set of doctrines, rules and structures. It's not hard to imagine why so many people choose to live life that way. It's safer, more defined and, in theory, unchanging. But Jesus calls for a spirituality that is more dangerous, fluid and dynamic than most people will ever be comfortable with. Besides, if the past 3,000 years of history -- not to mention the hemorrhaging worldwide membership of the most calcified denominations -- is any sign, it seems self-evident that in the long run, religion leads far more people away from God than ever to God.

So how does the institutional Church, which by its nature is an organized body with doctrines, rules and structures, not offer the kind of religion that Jesus condemns? Churches must move from places of bounded-sets to centered-sets, that is to say, evolving from an organization with doctrines, rules and structures that define who is in and who is out (as the Pharisees did) to a community where the doctrines, rules and structures are adjustable around the spiritual center of following Jesus and living out the greatest commandment (as the early Church did).

Like I said though, this is nothing new, but my generation is manifesting this reform in new ways. We regularly change churches based not on a particular doctrine or denomination but on the spiritual transformation we observe occurring within the church. The Internet allows me, a Presbyterian, to read an Anglican blog before discussing it on Facebook with friends from a nondenominational church. Our individual theologies, made in overlapping groups of equals, look more like something worked out on Wikipedia than beliefs cut-and-pasted from the encyclopedia.

Proponents of religion may call this unorthodox, heretical or even watered down. We would call it the way of Jesus.

The Awkward Return of Jennifer Knapp

2010-06-09T15:52:00.009-04:00

So the almost-mythical Jennifer Knapp is back, replete with new album, a new tour, and a newly announced same-sex orientation—but she still loves Jesus. If you’ve missed the news, you can catch up on things with this article.

Now, some folks might be bit disappointed about her “succumbing” to homosexuality while still acknowledging her devout faith, while others will no doubt see her as potential poster child for gay rights. I would find myself somewhere closer to the latter view, but more from a point of her example advancing dialogue on an issue where the Church always seems to be dragging its heels. Unfortunately, her new tour will likely not be a positive contributing factor.

Even with a local radio appearance and feature in the Charleston City Paper, her concert failed to draw much of an audience. Probably about fifty people made up this scattered crowd—and what a crowd. Half the room seemed to be 20-something fans who listened to Knapp when they we’re 16. The other half were lesbians. The bartender behind me wanted to know what the hell was going on—and that was before a 13-year-old girl came on the stage for the opening act. Then he was just weirded out.

When Jennifer got up, things didn’t improve as much I was hoping they would. Her new music, which is more instrumentally diverse than previous albums, was unable to covert to the single acoustic guitar she played alone on stage. When she played her oldies—songs much better suited for a solo show—it gave the impression that this singer-songwriter’s best days were already behind her (which I don't believe is the case at all). Oh, I had so many questions by this point.

But despite providing a decent shot of scotch to our throwback musician, my request for a three-question interview was met with a very polite “just one second” followed by a hasty departure out of the bar fifteen-minutes later with someone who was either her overassertive butch bodyguard or partner—we couldn’t figure out her title. Dang. Fail. (UPDATE: It was pointed out to me that Jennifer apologized on twitter to me for forgetting the interview. Case in point about her politeness.)

Yet, let’s end on a positive note. Jennifer did speak really highly of the quasi-controversial artist Derek Webb, who, according to her, “Is one of the only [Christian] musicians I know that lives what he says.” I thought that was cool. And even if the tour may only be a warm up for better things to come, I encourage you to check out her new album.

They Shall Beat Their Warplanes into Blue Angels

2010-04-27T17:37:00.005-04:00

The Blue Angels, America’s ridiculously talented aerial acrobatics squadron, performed in Charleston last weekend. This is not something that usually appeals to me, especially since their practices in the days before the show was held in what felt like the immediate airspace above my office, drowning out phone conversations and rattling 100-year-old windows. If I hadn’t known better, I’d think the Russians and Chinese we’re jointly invading.

But my folks were visiting that weekend, and with my father being something of history buff, we decided to take the ferry Fort Sumter—where that great American institution called the Civil War kicked off with a four thousand-shell salute. As providence would have it, we somehow managed to get on the ferry that would take across the harbor at the exact time the Blue Angels would be performing, this time literally over our heads.

Now, I’ve heard the complaint in more liberal circles that events like the Blue Angels aerial shows are part of the military-industrial complex and a celebration of American imperialism. By showcasing our advanced war machines in our culture and entertainment, it is subtly reinforced in the American psyche that our military might is inherently good, if not glorious. I’m intrigued by this argument, but regardless of its legitimacy, I don’t feel that the Blue Angels should be included in this context. In fact, as these fighter jets screeched over my head in near-impossible formations, it occurred to me they represent the very “liberal” vision of Isaiah and the Kingdom of God.

The prophet Isaiah tells us that the fulfillment of the God’s reign on earth will signal the end of global conflict. Militaries, pacified in the glorious presence of Christ, will find themselves completely obsolete. But Isaiah has an environmentalist streak to his prophecy, and he predicts that the military hardware that once harvested lives will be recycled into tools for the harvesting of crops. Isaiah 2:4 reads, “He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” This is the ancient rendering. I believe the Blue Angels are the modern-day equivalent to Isaiah.

If the Second Coming of Christ were to occur tomorrow, America’s vast armed forces wouldn’t have much do anymore. Stopping genocides? None to stop. Protecting strategic resources? We’re all sharing them now. Pre-emptive strikes? Heavens, no. So what would we do with all our military hardware? Well, I don’t think we throw it all in the junkyard. We would have to convert our war machines for peacetime. And not for a peacetime that exists at the interstices of conflict, but a divine perpetual peace that renders weapons useless.

So what would we do with that killing stuff? We’d recycle it of course. Tanks could make great new bulldozers. Nuclear submarines would be fantastic research vessels. And jet fighters, well, I would love to see them do cool tricks—just like the Blue Angels.

Stripped of their weapons systems, the Blue Angels are denuded F/A-18 Hornets converted for our entertainment. We won’t see these guys dropping 500-pound bombs in Afghanistan. They are permanent planes of peace, perhaps a glimmer of what the Kingdom of God would mean for modern America.

So floating out in the Charleston harbor as the blue and gold painted aircraft roared over us in ear-deafening unison, I thought to myself, “They shall beat their warplanes into Blue Angels.” Lord, haste the day.

God's Public Relations Nightmare

2010-04-02T12:38:00.004-04:00

Sometimes we all wonder why God does or doesn't do certain things. Why doesn't he stop this earthquake or thwart that terrorist attack? Or perhaps even more important to some people, why hasn't the Big Man Up There let the Cubs win a World Series in over a hundred years? But to add a question: Why hasn't God trademarked His name yet?

Think about it. Since intelligent design/creationists are always going on about him being a perfect architect when he made the world, you would think this designer would at least have the common sense to put together a half-decent public relations team. And everyone knows the first step in marketing yourself properly is to trademark your own name. Snooki and half the cast of the reality show "Jersey Shore" are doing it, not to mention McDonald's, which owns the names of approximately 1.2 million words that can begin with the prefix "Mc" (e.g. McJob, McBuddy, McPen, and charity concerts named McFest).

God is quickly falling behind the times, and it's creating for him a public relations nightmare.

Just pause for a moment and recall all the religious people, church leaders and politicians that you know who claim to be speaking for God and who have the gradual but cumulative effect of somehow causing you to believe in God just a little less. It's not that any one priest or president or psychotic cult from the middle-of-nowhere persuaded you to trade in Jesus for sex, drugs, and Oprah's latest new age religion.

No, most of us are not that easily disillusioned. Rather, when someone asks why you haven't darkened the doors of a church since Mom made you go for Easter in 1998, these negative images of all the people who claimed to be speaking for God flood your mind, and the answer is quite obvious: Why on Earth would you? Those crazy people are probably just past those doors, or at least people who like those crazy people.

Which is why God needs to trademark His Holy Name — God®, Jesus®, Jehovah®, Yahweh® — and he should snag Allah® while he's at it just to be safe. With God® able to approve (by federal and international law) the use of His Name, he could work a miracle for his public image — and without violating any laws of physics. Sure, tragedies like earthquakes and terrorist attacks will still happen, and God® will have to deal with the inevitable questioning of his goodness. How much easier will it be, though, when God® doesn't have to clear up the confusion after Pat Robertson claims the Haitian earthquake was because of Haiti's "pact with the devil"? No longer will God® have to spend years disavowing the late Jerry Falwell's assertion that "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians, and the ACLU ... helped 9/11 happen." Come to think of it, if God® does manage to trademark Allah, too, he could effectively end this War on Terror almost overnight.

So why doesn't God? Not that I can claim to speak for him, but issues of free will and the dignity of individual autonomy seem like obvious explanations. God, selecting mercy over judgment, allows people to mess up representing him in the same way He allows people to mess up anything else. But while those answers may be intellectually sufficient, they are not really emotionally satisfying. After all, sometimes I really wish the Almighty would just hit Glenn Beck with a lightning bolt for declaring that church-based "social justice" is a code word for Nazism and Communism. But my desire for cosmic justice on Beck is tempered with the realization that there is a 100 percent chance that I have misrepresented God as well, both in my beliefs about His nature and will and in my actions as a Christian. So in all fairness, I deserve a divine smiting, too.

So why does God spare me? Perhaps if we understood God more as the Master Artist than as the Intelligent Designer/CEO/Hollywood Star, we could see a method in the apparent madness. If it is true that God is unfolding the greatest story ever told rather than manufacturing the most perfect machine ever made, then it stands to reason God might want elements of the story that can only be written in the messiness of human free will. So on one side of the story there are people who, with poor motives or misplaced zeal, mar and bloody the face of Christ to the point where others can no longer recognize him as Savior. On the other side are people who have managed, by the shocking grace of God, to live centered in the Spirit of God, having a hunger for justice, but also a thirst for mercy; full of wisdom, but loaded with humility; unafraid to speak the truth, but always lacing it with love. Those radiant people make life so deeply beautiful.

And perhaps God has already trademarked himself in a way. The Apostle Paul wrote to a church in the Greek city of Colossae during 60 A.D. that in Jesus, "the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." God's spokesman, if you will, was God enfleshed in Jesus. If that is true, then we are able to determine who speaks for God by the degree in which they reflect the nature of Jesus. No one, of course, will get it just right. That's where God's grace comes in. But beyond grace, we can take hope in the reality that the creator has not left us without a means to gauge divine will, and that the trademark of God's love for humanity endures forever in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

It's Morning in America

2010-03-25T14:18:00.005-04:00

When I heard the news Monday morning that the House of Representatives had finally, finally passed the near universal health care, I couldn’t but feel that it was morning for America too.

I realize that’s a highly perverted use of a phrase coined by Ronald Regan, but I couldn’t resist the temptation to use it. Maybe it was just because I had recovered from pinkeye and I could finally be in the sunlight again without going blind, but the dawn’s rays through the windows of my car seemed a little bit more hopeful, the air a bit more invigorating. America was about to enact some of the most historic legislation in its history, and I was witness to it.

Now, for all my beloved conservative friends who also see it as an historic day—but rather for America’s descent into socialism, let me acknowledge that this first step in health care reform is a mess of a bill. I believe it will take twenty years before we strike the most-perfect balance of free-market and government-run mechanisms for health care delivery.

But every generation will be remembered for some pioneering political action of bravery and sacrifice. The generation before us enacted civil rights laws. The generation before them created a New Deal and a safety net for the poor. The generation before them implemented universal suffrage. Our generation has abolished arbitrary premium hikes, insurance cancellations, discrimination against pre-existing conditions, and bankruptcy from medical debt—hopefully forever. We are freeing ourselves from another yoke of a sinful corporate system that exploited our need for health care by charging us to death before trying to deny us coverage till death.

Fifty years from now, my grandchildren will talk about how we made the first hard step for guaranteeing the right of health care to all people. They’ll probably recall how much it sucked at first for us too. The unexpected rise in some costs. The abuses of the system (by both individuals and corporations). The inevitable political sabotage by some conservatives. They’ll ask us what it was like to experience the birth pains of universal health care, and we’ll probably tell them it was rough.

Yet, we’ll look at the full grown child of the hopes and needs of millions of Americans and we’ll wonder why we ever resisted it back in 2010, why over a dozen states fought it on so-called “constitutional grounds”. The logic of resistance will fade away much in the same way the logic of segregation did. But let us not the miss the moment to celebrate now.

This year, we have done something controversial. We have done something hard. We have done something good.

Lord, to Whom Shall We Go?

2010-03-01T23:48:00.003-05:00

My third tattoo was inked today. Never thought I would say third, but there must be some truth to the adage that they’re addictive. At least I’ve spread them out over a period of more than three years. My first one was in Koine Greek down the sides of my spine that read, “Traitor to the world. Citizen of the Kingdom.” The second was a decorative Chi Rho on my right wrist. Both were and still are meaningful to me in their own ways.

This new tattoo holds a greater importance to me though. In Peshitta Aramaic, of which the only surviving copy of the Bible in Aramaic is written in, I have on the back of my left forearm a script that vaguely resembles Arabic. It reads, “Lord, to whom shall we go?” This simple question is from John 6:68, where Peters declares it rhetorically. Here’s the story, picking up in John 6:53.

So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever." Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum.

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you want to go away as well?" Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."

This has been my “life verse”, or perhaps more appropriately, my “life passage” for over three years of my life now. Jesus is saying some weird stuff. Many of Jesus’ outer circle of followers bail on him. Even his inner circle is shaken. They have no idea what he’s getting at and he’s more or less freaking them out. Now might be a good time to go back to fishing, tax colleting, or the Judean Peoples Front, some of them must have thought. No one would hold it against me if I gave up on this Messiah thing, must have played through their heads. Hell, even the Rabbi himself is offering a graceful exit, must have been some temptation.

But somehow, in the midst of a moment where they cannot understand the God-man—much less have evidence that he actually is such a thing—Peter responds, “Lord, where else could we go? Your words are the most life-giving we’ve ever heard, and what we’ve experienced allows us to truly believe you are God.”

In other words, even though God is making no sense, Peter doesn’t see any better option than Jesus. He’s seen too much, heard too much—and most of it beckoning the soul beyond itself to something everlasting—to call it a sham and give up now. I can’t tell you how many I’ve felt this way over the last few years of my life, most of them years that I’ve spent doing professional ministry.

But to whom should I go?

I’ve studied too many religions and philosophies to remember them all cogently, but I remember none of them rang as true as the message of Jesus, none of them manifested themselves as something worthy of giving my life over to. Only Jesus has been appealing enough that I would be willing to gamble and give up my life for the hope of finding it in him.

Some days this is all I have to go on. It’s the only fuel in my tank. Yet, I take solace in that it is not just an alien experience of my own. It is the experience of at least Peter too. The rock of the Church almost crumbled. The doorkeeper of the Kingdom of Heaven almost lost the keys.

But he experienced a choice, if that is something possible to do. The choice was not made by him, not self-willed into action. The choice was somehow given from without and activated within. Illuminated in the recesses of Peter’s heart was knowledge beyond reason. It was the existential choice to follow Jesus. It is my choice too.

Focus on Family: 1 Planned Parenthood: 0

2010-02-09T11:29:00.005-05:00

So I will take a brief moment to gloat that I totally nailed the Tim Tebow ad that aired during the Superbowl. The angry Left-wingers and feminazis got a little excited over an ad they had yet to see, with Panned Parenthood going so far as to create a counter-ad that aired on Youtube in response to the ad they never saw.

Of course, when the actual Superbowl ad debuted, it was less “controversial” than even I had imagined. In fact, it was so benign that had you not known it was about abortion in advance, you wouldn’t have known it was about abortion when you saw it. It was warm, folksy, even mildly comical—and a total victory for Focus on the Family, given the amount of free publicity they garnered while provoking their opponents into an embarrassing frenzy.

In what feels like a complete one-eighty from the bombastic messages James Dobson blasted around during the 2008 presidential election, this commercial represents a kindler, gentler face of Focus on the Family. Whether or not this signals a long-term strategic shift in the political and cultural tactics of the group remains to be seen, but hopefully the success of this ad will encourage the leadership of Focus on the Family that a smile and subtle message can go a lot further than a frown and a battle cry.

The Baptist Pastor Callback Tracker Device Thingy

2010-02-05T17:36:00.004-05:00

So there’s this large unnamed Baptist church in West Ashley. It’s a special place, mostly for two reasons. They’re the only church in Charleston that does an annual “Judgement House” during Halloween, a religious equivalent of a haunted house that is designed literally scare the hell out of you and into the Caucasian arms of a dude playing Jesus. Yeah, I know. Not exactly the legacy you want to build a church on. Anyway, the other reason is that the pastor has not, in almost two years, returned any of my calls.

Now granted, it’s not like I call the guy a whole lot asking for man-dates at the Charleston Music Hall (currently showing “Rent”, which is well-done if you can stomach the plot), but I have called on numerous occasions for invitations to various community forums and debates. The reason being is that church does claim to have something like a politics and philosophy outreach called “Salt and Light Ministry” and the church’s name indicates a self-perception of grandiosity, so the pastor seemed like a logical person to call.

Now, I realize though I may wish I was a big deal, I’m not. I lack the pedigrees often required in the Holy City and I’m a young pup by most standards. But I’ve been blessed by some of the most important pastors in Charleston willing to sit down with me for hours over lunch and feed me their wisdom and insight--not that I would place this pastor in that tier. And even if I did, professional courtesy at least demands church leaders return other church leader’s calls, if only to politely decline.

But apparently I have not been found worthy. Voicemails, notes with the secretary, emails over the last two years have all come back void. Recently, I’ve left some kind of message over a period of multiple weeks three or four times now. You start to lose count. So now I’m going to start officially counting, and you can count with me. And to give the man the benefit of the doubt, we’ll start at three.

Let’s begin.

Feminazis Shake 8-Ball, See Into Future of Tebow Superbowl Ad

2010-01-30T14:58:00.008-05:00

So Heisman trophy recipient and Florida Gators quarterback Tim Tebow has recently found himself in the center of something even hotter than his throwing skills: the American abortion debate. Apparently during the Superbowl, CBS will be showing a pro-life commercial by Focus on the Family featuring Tebow, who was born after doctors strongly advised his missionary mother to abort him.

Pro-choice and feminist groups have gone ballistic. Not surprising. What is surprising though is that none of them have actually seen the ad or have anything more than an inkling about the content.

Which means NOW (National Organization of Women) President Terry O'Neil told the Associated Press that the planned ad is "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning," without having any evidence as to why it’s offensive or demeaning.

NOW’s communication director, Lisa Bennet, warned on their website “that this ad could potentially put women's health and lives at risk by promoting ideology over medicine,” without seeing what ideology or medicine was discussed.

LiAnna Davis of CREDO Action (whose founder, Michael Kieschnick, is the kind of liberal Christian that embarrasses me much in the same way Pat Robertson does) called upon supporters to stop the “anti-choice commercial”, without any information to indicate the ad would call for banning abortion (or anything remotely legislative in nature).

And without having any clue about what she was saying at all, Kierra Johnson, executive director of Choice USA, told Fox News, “This un-American hate doesn’t have a place in this all-American pastime,” which I guess is a reference to Tebow being born in the Philippines (that’s very un-American of him). But we should cut Kierra some slack. I mean this well-intentioned feminist only cares about protecting the all-American Superbowl chauvinist commercial lineup of booze, boobs, and farting horses from the un-American hate of honoring a woman bravely choosing to have her son in a dangerous pregnancy.

Meanwhile, Tebow has had a good bead on the situation. “Some people won’t agree with it, you know, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe,” he said. “I'm just standing for something. That's the reason why I'm here because my mom is a very courageous woman.”

So like I told conservatives in the wake of Obama’s much wrongly maligned speech to students a few months back, pro-choicers can shut up until the ad comes out.

And that goes for you and your lawsuit too, Gloria Allred. It truly takes someone profoundly cynical and caustic to accuse Tebow’s mother of years ago fabricating the story of his birth.

Why I Won't Bash Brit Hume

2010-01-11T13:43:00.006-05:00

So Brit Hume has been quite the darling of the angry liberal media lately, and by ‘darling’ I mean punching bag. And by ‘liberal media’ I mean liberal media, which is a phrase I rarely use or believe in. However, the typically mythological secular media machine has been having field day over his highly offensive statement regarding the Tiger Woods scandal and Tiger’s nominal Buddhist faith:

"I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.’”

Yeah. That’s it. The correct assessment that most forms of Buddhism aren’t very helpful when you’ve demolitioned your life to pieces (that’s a hell of a lot karma Tiger just racked up) and maybe Christianity might be a better deal for people who are sitting in their own debris.

But no. Hume has been labeled all sorts of nasty things, from inflammatory to being a religious bigot. Even Charleston’s most involved atheist and left-wing activist (God bless him) argued that “embracing Brit Hume as a Christian Voice is no different than embracing Rudolph Hess”—that is, Hitler’s mentally-ill third-in-command. My favorite critique of him came from Washington Post columnist Tom Shales, who questioned, “is it really his job to run around trying to drum up new business? He doesn't really have the authority, does he, unless one believes that every Christian by mandate must proselytize?”

Um, actually Tom, he does because there is. That whole Great Commission thing, y’know. Or how about 2 Timothy 2:4, where Paul implores every Christian to “Preach the word of God. Be prepared, whether the time is favorable or not.”

Gosh darn it. Could it be that the liberal media elite failed to understand their conservative target’s faith before they started giving theological pointers? Shocker. I fully grant that pundits can debate the articulation of Hume’s statement (because I do think it was pretty awkward), but whether he had a right or an intrinsic faith-based imperative to make it should not be called into the media spotlight that it’s in. It’s pretty obvious that as a news commentator and Christian, he does have the right—and perhaps even the obligation—to comment on the news from the occasional Christian perspective.

And I still haven’t seen a single explanation on why Hume’s alleged bashing of Buddhism isn’t factually correct. Robert Thurman, a professor of Tibetan studies at Columbia University, remarked "I think it's ridiculous to make those statements,” to Tamara Lush of the Associated Press. “It is insulting to Buddhism to indicate that Buddhism doesn't take care of its own believers and followers. But I think he will discover that Buddhists are very forgiving about his stupid statements." Again, we could debate the manner in which it was said, but I didn’t notice where Hume says, “Buddhism doesn’t take care of its own believers and followers”, did you? Hume very clearly says Buddhism doesn’t offer the kind of forgiveness or redemption offered by Christ. Actually, Hume is being too kind here, since the most classical forms of Buddhism don’t offer any forgiveness or redemption. Those are truly foreign concepts to Buddha’s teachings.

Ironically, Stephen Prothero, a Boston University professor on Buddhism, agrees with Hume even as he derides him and Christianity while being interviewed. "You have the law of karma, so no matter what Woods says or does, he is going to have to pay for whatever wrongs he's done. There's no accountant in the sky wiping sins off your balance sheet, like there is in Christianity." So basically, Prothero is saying…Hume is completely correct—only that Christianity is stupid for offering forgiveness. Guess that’s why he’s Buddhist and Hume is not.

Now, back to you, Tiger.

Why We Don't Need to Fear the Hate Crimes Prevention Act

2009-12-13T16:18:00.003-05:00

So HR 1913, also known as the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, passed last month almost without any media attention.

It expanded the definition of a prosecutable hate crime (from the original act in 1969) to include violent assaults because of sexual orientation and gender identification. Did I mention this is a bill that had been unable to get through congress for over ten years now? Yet, it went through now without hardly any debate and even less news coverage. The reason being that the bill was attached as a rider for funding the troops in Afghanistan and because President Obama let his pen do all the talking, making no speeches about it at all. Sneaky? Yes, but also very effective.

Since it was signed into law, some politicians and activists have of course expressed their…displeasure at this bill. However, what concerns me is that most vocal opponents have been Christians. Intuitively, it just seems odd that those who should be known by their love are protesting legislation that now adds special legal protection to a category of people who endure almost three hundred violent attacks a year because of hatred for their sexuality. As you might expect, the opposition gets dressed up in fancy and noble language, but most of the resistance has been based purely off fear-mongering myths. So very quickly, I’ll break them down since I could find no commentary on the net that has done otherwise.

Myth #1- The Hate Crimes Bill can now be used to criminalize a Christian’s ability to say homosexuality is wrong since someone may consider that hateful speech.

Why It Isn’t True- HR 1913 only criminalizes forms of violent assault, meaning insults don’t count as assault. Even if someone thought saying “homosexuality is wrong” was hate speech, hate speech is specifically protected under the First Amendment. Some Christians have cited pastors or Christians in other countries who have been arrested from saying homosexuality is a sin, however none of these countries have hate speech already protected as part of free speech. Furthermore, in the one local case in which four Christians in Philadelphia were convicted of violating a Pennsylvania hate crimes bill for disorderly protesting at a gay pride festival, a local judge immediately threw out the conviction as completely groundless and unconstitutional.

Myth #2- The Hate Crimes Bill will be used for double prosecution (double-jeopardy trials) by the federal government.

Why It Isn’t True- Not necessarily untrue, but highly unlikely and without precedent based on the enforcement of the similar 1969 bill. And if, ignoring the reasons why this can also be a good thing, for some reason it did happen in a repulsive way—all it takes is a quick and easily passable amendment to the bill.

Myth #3- The Hates Crimes Bill can now be used to protect pedophiles since pedophilia is a “sexual orientation”.

Why It Isn’t True- “Sexual orientation” as a term is already defined elsewhere in other federal documents as only including heterosexual or homosexual orientations, so this is the clear operating definition in HR 1913. Most of evidence is based off a Fort Lauderdale congressman, who is fond of wearing rainbow ties and who also made a speech requesting that all some thirty sexual “ishes” or “isms” (his words, not mine) should be protected under the bill. His speech then got incorrectly spun by some pundits that this was the actual language or implication of the bill, even getting cut on Youtube to indicate such. His request was never approved or supported. (Note: Fox News commentators also pushed an argument that pedophiles would be protected under some notion of them having a mental disease, but this charge had almost no grounds in logic at all and was eventually substituted with the sexual orientation reasoning.)

Now granted, this isn’t an endorsement of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. There are other more philosophical and justifiable reasons to be skeptical of it, but Christians need to stop embarrassing ourselves and our Savior by engaging in political rhetoric that is fear-based and highly misleading. Instead of pushing fear, let us hold each other accountable in pushing dialogue and an honest exploration of the evidence—especially in regards to such crucial issues of justice.

Switchfoot's Good Song and Glamour Shots

2009-11-07T19:51:00.004-05:00

I've been a fan of the band Switchfoot since their Legend of Chin release way back when DC Talk and Jars of Clay dominated the Christian music scene. They've been one of the few old school Christian bands out there to have real staying power in this shining new era of Christian rock. Their new single, "Mess of Me" is well-written and has the classic Switchfoot agrresive catchiness that throws in a hint of musical chaos. The music video, however, is um, not what I expected for such a poignant song. Check it out for yourself. Glamour shots, anyone?

When an Atheist Reviews A Heaven-Backed Rebellion, And When Another Gets Patronizing

2009-10-21T22:22:00.006-04:00

Usually, when a Secular Humanist reviews an unwavering Christian book, the result is not warm fuzzies. However, last week Charleston City Paper columnist and vocal Secular Humanist, Will Moredock reviewed A Heaven-Backed Rebellion and was fairly kind to it—all things considered. Granted, he still felt compelled to attack my support of the FairTax (which takes up mere 6 of the book’s 270 pages) and contend that non-Christian worldviews are credible alternatives for supplying moral momentum to the progressive movement, but it ends with an endorsement nonetheless. You got to give a Secular Humanist credit for actually being as open-minded as they claim to be, so I appreciate him willing to dialogue with me.

Yet, perhaps the most interesting part of the review isn’t the review itself, but the commentary below the article, which also ended up being a letter to the editor the following week. In it, Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry founder Herb Silverman interprets Moredock’s review to think I’m denying the authority of Scripture, saying that I “appear to focus on passages where God behaves like a secular humanist, and ignores the rest.” Other than demonstrating a two-dimensional and 19^th century understanding of the Bible, he gives an invitation for me to continue “on a slippery slope that will lead [me] to secular humanism” so that he can “welcome [me] into the fold”.

Now, one could chalk this up to misunderstanding my analysis of examining of what issues the Bible emphasizes (i.e. it’s far more concerned with social justice than gay marriage) and some wishful thinking from our city’s most prominent “evangelical atheist”—it could then simply just be a case of a presumptuous atheist that enjoys being patronizing.

It could be, except Herb Silverman knows who I am.

Granted, my name might not be as memorable as his, but my friend Amanda says that “If, like you and some other guy were up for kinghood, I'd be like, even though we don't vote, I'd vote for him. He's got the name for it." That’s a decent name endorsement, right?

Besides, it’s not as if he simply knows of me, but never met me. He’s watched me in a debate earlier this year talk about my love for Jesus, my passion for sharing the Gospel, and the connection of those things to my libertarian and liberal politics. For goodness sakes, we had dinner afterwards with him and his wife and I talked more about Jesus. I’m not sure if he was either trying to pull a PR stunt for his atheist club or his brain really did just short-circuit the connection between Colin Kerr the Christian liberal at dinner and Colin Kerr the Christian liberal who is also an the author.

Poor Herb. His love letter is cute, but the man needs some Gingko Biloba.

Richard Dawkins: Good Scientist, Bad Philosopher

2009-10-15T11:27:00.004-04:00

Foxholes are unnecessary. There are no atheists in the dentist’s chair. That’s my theory at least.

After getting four teeth drilled on the other day in Charlotte, I had the only slightly greater pleasure of driving my Novocain-paralyzed face down to Columbia, South Carolina to see the infamous Richard Dawkins, the world’s most famous atheist. Dawkins, a British biologist, is part of the controversial neo-atheist movement. Neo-atheism itself is a highly vocal, if not outright shrill, atheist philosophy that seeks to argue, insult, and humiliate believers of all stripes into abandoning their faith—or at least ostracizing and ejecting them out of having any cultural influence. Dawkins’ last book and a key intellectual bulwark of this view, was politely named The God Delusion in honor of anyone moronic enough to have any belief of the divine.

I waited among thousands of students in Columbia with baited breath, for the neo-atheist circus ringleader to shock the crowd with resounding statements of intellectual superiority from his new science-oriented book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. I anticipated enough fire and brimstone to replace a Bunsen burner. I was instead stunned to hear a soft-spoken English gentleman request that ministers, priests, and pastors live up to their responsibility as community leaders by educating their flocks about the reality of evolutionary truth.

Dawkins rightly pointed out that many in clergy see no conflict between Darwinian evolution and their faith, but fail to make that clear to their congregations. Using the story of Adam and Eve as an example, Dawkins conjectured that many preachers cite the story without thinking of it as 100% literal. However, they do so without making those in the pews aware of this nuance. This in turn leads to misinformed religious parents and students resisting a science curriculum at their school in the name of their faith, even though their pastor would have no qualms about it.

In an odd sense of revelation, I felt spiritually convicted by this plea. Many of us in ministry have been unwilling to address this controversial issue because we are unwilling to expose ourselves to the potential fallout. It’s much easier to use the same words found in the opening of Genesis and allow for different meanings, especially when identifying those meanings may uproot deeply seated assumptions about the Genesis account. So let me do my part in this. I believe in Darwinian evolution—in essentially every sense that Dawkins would understand it—and I see no conflict between believing in that and believing in the inspired and authoritative Word of God. Furthermore, I plan to publish a version of this blog to my congregation in the immediate future.

I probably would go on longer about evolution and theology if it hadn’t been for Dawkins tangling himself in a web of strategic and philosophical contradictions the rest of the evening. Strategically, it seems highly counterproductive for him asking religious leaders to help him out in his educational crusade shortly before returning to his usual rhetoric of labeling religion as: “a kind of virus of the mind”, suggesting God is a sadist, and roundly declaring that “if someone is getting their morality from the Bible, you don’t want to be around that person!” It shouldn’t come as any surprise then that clergy are so reluctant to promote the same science that often holds hands with rabid anti-spirituality. But Dawkins can’t for the life of him figure out why.

I wonder if Dawkins replayed the tapes of his own lecture would he answer his own question?

Philosophically, Dawkins does more intellectual gymnastics than well, a gymnast, swinging from bold dictum to dictum without much logic connecting the points between. Comically, Dawkins states that he is not the last gasp of Enlightenment thinkers, refusing to address the evidence that indicates neo-atheists are really “hyper-modernists” tenuously held together by the internet and a zealous faith in science. Granted, that he “doesn’t follow the zeitgeist”, but does “notice the opinion polls”. He concludes “We [atheism] are winning.” Yet, even accepting the juvenile terms of “winning” and “losing”, the reality is that this is only true in the United States and nowhere else in the world1. In contrast to this, the Global South is exploding in religion, with Christianity at the forefront. Christianity is still steadily flourishing in spite of the state-enforced secularism of China. Even in post-Christian Europe (where atheism was assumed to have already won), we are beginning to see a dedicated Christian resurgence (e.g. Holy Trinty Brompton)

Maybe it’s just me, but winning sure looks a lot like getting your ass kicked. Sorry, I couldn’t help but phrase it that way.

Yet, with less humor and more irony, he claims evolutionary psychology has no bearing on forming social norms between race and gender. Defending himself to one questioner, he declared “You can do whatever the hell you like…you’re free!” However, when responding to (deep breath) a secondhand straw-man question delivered by an atheist on whether a world of atheists would degenerate morally, Dawkins proclaims that an atheist society would be a good society. Not only good, but that they “would do good for the sake of being good and not out of fear from some God, some cosmic spy camera, watching your every move and knowing your every thought.” The linguistic assumptions he makes about the meaning of value-laden words are painfully evident. The very concept of “good” is relative to individual perception in a atheistic worldview, so a world full of atheists doing whatever is “good” in their own eyes could range anywhere from helping end genocide in Africa to being the one perpetuating it.

Not to mention I once heard a man once say (about ten minutes earlier) that when you’re free, “you can do whatever the hell you like”.

Richard Dawkins reminds me a bit of Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Not because they believe any of the same things. It’s actually hard to imagine two people who might disagree more. However, both share a unique commonality of being very good in one field only to find they may be overreaching into another field where they really don’t belong. Dobson has some fine thoughts on child-rearing. He has mind-blowingly dubious (my friend Amanda wouldn’t let me use the word stupid) thoughts on politics. Likewise, Dawkins is superb at explaining complex science in common vernacular. He is woefully ill-suited for engaging in real philosophy beyond preaching to an atheist pep rally.

Hopefully, his new book on evolutionary science is an indication that he intends to stay in field that God made him for.

Crossman, Cathy L. "People With No Religion Gain on Major Denominations." Religion. USA Today, 22 Sept. 09. Web. /2009-09-22-no-religion_N.htm>.

My Top 3 Summer Flicks

2009-09-30T01:27:00.003-04:00

It’s a summer of violence, at least for good movies, that is. Granted, no summer is spared the barrage of mindless action flicks, but my top three summer films are all heavy on the violence and light on just about everything else. I feel kinda bad about this, but hey, they’re pretty darn good. What would your top three be?

3. District 9—Contrary to popular belief, this is not an alien film, it’s an action film with aliens in it. It’s a movie that’s very creatively shot, thoughtful in its commentary on depravity on human nature (and its potential of redemption), and sets the stage for what could be very interesting sequel. Hopefully, films like this will embarrass the people who make crap like Transformers enough not to take up similar projects in the future.

2. The Hurt Locker—A fantastic, and little distributed, portrayal of the bomb disposal expert in Iraq during 2004. It’s a white knuckle-ride watching him fiddle around with bombs that you have very little assurance he’ll be able to disarm (given the movie’s opening sequence). I felt it painted the near-chaos that existed in Iraq during 2004 in a way I could have never imagined from just reading the news reports.

And....

1. Inglorious Basterds—Tarantino redeems himself with Basterds. I know, I know. Such a gory-guy flick. I left this movie thinking it was a no more than a good movie, but then I couldn’t stop thinking about it for weeks and a handful of scenes were the source of many philosophical conversations at dinners to follow. Rarely do films create that kind of discussion fodder, but Basterds does it by having no true “good guys”. Instead, Tarantino creates a spread of amoral characters and a few likeable Nazis. Plus, Christopher Waltz, who plays the Nazi detective Hans Landa, is going to get an Oscar for his insanely twisted role.

Book Release Reception

2009-09-25T18:50:00.004-04:00

So I'm finally having my book release extravaganza, thanks to the good folks at the City Gallery at Waterfront Park, home of the famous pineapple fountain. If you're living in Charleston, you've probably already gotten a facebook invite. If you didn't, I'm sorry, I don't like you.

Kidding. You're invited. Officially.

Drop by during the Charleston Artwalk on Friday, October 2nd, from 6pm-8pm for a glass of wine and viewing of the original painting by Irene Virag used for the cover.

Autographed (which I'm sure depreciates the value) books will be on sale for $15 with the old pre-release copies on sale for $5 (they make great paper weights I'm told). Hope to see you there.

Blank Slate

2009-08-31T11:48:00.003-04:00

Sorry I’ve been out awhile (if any of you were actually hurting for an entry). I’ve been writing sermons instead of blogs.

So there’s been this young German woman who’s been going to my church for about a month now. A friend of hers who went to the church while she was a college student dragged her to a service while she was visiting back in town. I subsequently met her the next week at a party of lawyers and their clerks.

The first time she came alone I gave what was unquestionably my most fire and brimstone sermon ever. Fire and brimstone at least for a self-declared emergent churchy type of guy—though who doesn’t love dressing up in 1920s big-tent revival garb and singing “Nothing But the Blood of Jesus”? It’s probably because I’ve been listening to too much of Mark Driscoll. Anyway, I was really curious as to what this German, who had practically zero understanding of Christianity, thought about a very old school message for repentance.

I met her for coffee to get her scholarly assessment and to my complete shock, she thought it was quote, “very nice.”

Very nice? I just said you were going to Hell.

“Oh, I thought that was just for the old people. You’re a very good speaker.”

Well, thanks. But for the old people? I said about half dozen times and in a half dozen ways if you don’t have forgiveness for your sins exclusively from Jesus, you’re going to Hell.

“Oh, yes, that really made sense. But Hell doesn’t really mean anything to me. I mean, I don’t really believe in it.”

So you’re not the least bit bothered about me saying you’re going to Hell?

“No. I thought it was nice message. And I like going to church. I feel like I’m doing something good. I called my parents and told them, but they didn’t believe me.”

So basically, after a long and often confused conversation, I figured out that while logically, she understood the sermon perfectly, words like ‘Heaven’ and ‘Hell’ held so little meaning to her as to effectively render them useless in discussing the Gospel. Even the concept of sin, which I had discussed to decent degree in the sermon, was still practically a word without weight for her.

Theologically speaking, she was about as close to tabula rasa as I’ve ever met since I did mission work across the pond in England. I was really quite stunned, if not fascinated for that hour and half over coffee.

Would anyone like to help me draw a lesson from this? I’m not quite sure what to make of it, but she keeps coming back.

The Blind Leading the Blind

2009-08-05T15:25:00.005-04:00

I was guest-preaching at a nearby church last Sunday, and boy, was it ever awesome. Lightning had struck the sanctuary the night before, knocking out much of the power—at least the power that supplied the sound amplification and the lights. I got to shout in the dark. My facebook friend and awesome Anglican church planter Dale Brown said it was fitting, given that I was talking on prayer. I’m not very good at praying. But the service planners insisted I preach on it. Talk about the blind leading the blind. It was a learning experience if nothing else.

That night at the contemporary service the presiding ordained minister was set to serve communion to the small group gathered in the makeshift worship room. She was essentially blind, but had since learned to be fairly mobile with a walking stick and what very partial vision she had left.

There was also a middle-aged man from Pennsylvania visiting that night who was a recently retired minister. Retired because he had to. He went totally blind. His family with him there as well. I remember he could only introduce his teenage daughters by calling out their names and grasping the air until he found a hand. When the presiding minister heard that he was in the congregation, she approached him and asked if he could perform communion with her.

When it was time, she led him by the hand out of his seat and down the aisle to the communion table. “Talk about the blind leading the blind,” she joked. She turned him around so that he awkwardly stood facing the gathering at a seven o’clock angle.

She placed the cup in his hands while she held the bread. She proceeded to bless the bread, looking all around to the congregation. What was the word? She had talked about it using “gusto” when we say the Lord’s Prayer earlier in the communion that morning. She certainly had it now. If it weren’t for her walking stick, you would have never known she was blind.

Then holding out the cup almost nervously, the man blessed the wine. He eyes were fixed just upward enough as if he was gazing upon some heavenly display that danced over the audience. His smile confirmed the suspicion. By the way he said it, you would have thought it was his last communion. If you had heard it, you would have thought it was the first communion.

We were all lead by the blind that night.

A Spiritual Stimulus For Sunday School

2009-07-28T14:44:00.008-04:00

Religious education is in the same shape as Detroit automakers.

Gone are the days when it was a cultural norm that every child would go to confirmation and every adult would dutifully attend Sunday School before church. According to the Barna Group, a pollster of American religious trends, Church attendance has remained fairly steady in the last decade, but Sunday School participation is slowly going the way of the buffalo. Churches have tried all sorts of gimmicks to reverse this trend—bagels, coffee, dancing bears—without much success. Meanwhile, the Barna Group also says only nineteen percent of self-identifying Christians profess belief in historical Christian doctrines, which is at an all-time low.

Forget about atheists. We’re quite capable of sabotaging our own faith, thank you.

A good number of contemporary churches have thrown their hands up in despair at Sunday school programs and instead focused on educating their congregation’s children through youth groups and their adults exclusively through “small groups”, tightly knit groups that come together to study the Bible or a Christian book at some agreed upon time during the week. While this has been more successful in terms of being responsive to people’s schedules, it hasn’t been a silver bullet in education, as the Barna study acutely points out. The missing component, I believe, has not been finding the right time for people to meet. In a rush to respond to our consumer-driven culture, we’ve forgotten what the first century Christians did instinctively.

We’ve forgotten the art of cultivating worldviews.

A worldview determines how we make sense of everything that we see and experience, from spirituality to sex, ethics to economics, purpose to politics. A healthy worldview ties it all together in a way that is consistent and self-reinforcing. It may hold tensions, but doesn’t contradict itself. Worldviews are inherently exclusivist to at least a degree, that is to say a worldview means declaring some beliefs, values, and lifestyles are true while others are false. While that kind of statement can make our politically correct sensibilities squirm, it is nothing more than the rational acknowledgement that if we attempt to pluralistically approve all beliefs, values, and lifestyles—we will have ceased to have any views at all—and essentially will have given our brains a furlough.

I think God intends us to use our brains.

Yet, a healthy worldview does not necessitate, or even encourage, intolerance. In fact, a worldview is first required for the concept of tolerance to have any meaning. After all, you can’t tolerate what you agree with—that’s called approval. One is only capable of practicing tolerance when there is something or someone to disagree with. In contrast to intellectually passive relativism, rich worldviews allow ample opportunities for tolerance and dialogue.

But what do worldviews have to do with religious education today?

Until the 1960s, American churches could generally rely on the prevailing cultural worldview to reinforce it’s own. Whether or not this actually reflected an authentic “biblical” worldview is debatable, but its cohesiveness was not. The awkward marriage of church and state was only beginning to unravel, and religious institutions were enjoying their last days of social power where the educational mechanisms of the government worked in partnership rather than competition.

We’re not in Kansas, or the 1950s, anymore.

Now churches are tasked with educating their flock against a rising tide of culturally sanctioned materialism, relativism, and general narcissism. Felt boards and warm, fuzzy sermons are no match for the thousands of competing worldviews attempting to convert us (both believer and non-believer alike) daily by way of media, advertising, and culture. Cultivating a Gospel-centered worldview then, one robust enough to counter the systems that are out of sync with the way of life presented by Jesus, is now absolutely critical in a church’s educational framework. This is serious educational business we’re talking about here.

A Gospel-centered worldview is meant to put on the gloves and go all nine rounds.

However, it is important to note that this kind of biblically oriented worldview cannot be produced through religious indoctrination, a system of top-down learning designed to instill doctrine without a personal understanding and experience of its truth. Indoctrination is the fundamentalist’s primary tool for creating a worldview, but it is one akin to blowing up a balloon—a system of thought easily popped with sharp run-ins of reality. Indoctrinated worldviews are dependent on staying within the shelter of a protective group and rarely survive the scrutiny that occurs should an individual stray from the nest.

A Gospel-centered worldview must be able to stretch its wings in the “real world.”

In my personal context of ministry, I serve an intergenerational downtown church full of skeptical young adults, highly educated professionals, and diverse families—where we couldn’t go down the indoctrination path even if we wanted to. It’s a long-term transition with no short cuts and plenty of hurdles, but the leadership believes that the healthiest worldview comes to fruition by creating a community (a.k.a. church) that unconditionally embraces, provokes, and engages spiritual questions. Whether you’re a student who is just beginning to assume responsibility of his or her own faith or someone facing the challenges that come in the twilight of life, there is no question off limits, no doubt taboo. But isn’t that kind of questioning dangerous? If it is, I’m not sure for whom. Institutions? Maybe. Dogmatists? Perhaps. But not for Jesus.

Jesus is not threatened by your doubts. He’ll still be there in the morning.

In fact, if someone comes to our church believing to have “all the answers”, then it is the role of our church education to invite him or her to explore new questions. We aren’t interested in producing Christian zombies. This is why we have experiential learning for our children, Socratic curriculum for youth, our largest Sunday School class taught by a defense lawyer, beer and philosophy nights at local restaurants, and theological dinner parties in homes. We challenge each other, from kindergarten onward, because we believe an authentic wrestling with questions and even doubts ultimately distills a Gospel-centered worldview, one that is well reasoned, empathetic, and discerning. It is a worldview that equips our members for compassionately disarming the myriad of other worldviews that exist in our society and allows them to live the abundant life that God offers us.

And Jesus remains at the center of it all.

A Good Man is Hard to Find

2009-07-19T22:21:00.005-04:00

A good man is hard to find. My galpals tell me this all the time, bemoaning their lack of potential mates in Charleston, but I would say the same thing. A good man, a man of introspection, intelligence, of faith, is hard to find.

I mean, if I’m going to forgo the pleasant company of the opposite sex, then whatever dude I’m hanging out with better be worth it. Because I really don’t need another guy to hang out with, I need a guy who can challenge how I live and think and keep me accountable and expect the same in return. And honestly, I don’t meet many of them. At any given time in the last eight years in my life I will likely only have two to three close male friends—the rest are women. I’m blessed with many wonderful and wise galpals, but it’s just not the same as someone I can call “comrade”.

This week one of those comrades, Calum Lindsay, moved back home to the UK to attend seminary (finally) at Cambridge. Calum, a Scott who worked at Holy Trinity Brompton in the heart of London, came to bless us for almost a year working at an Anglican church plant nearby. Calum was, and is, a good man. Thoughtful, warm, and gregarious, he provided much needed sanity for me in during some hard times at the church and life in general.

Even when I was being a dumbass, I never felt judged by him, but carefully nudged in the right direction. He would come all the way downtown to lead worship for my massive youth group of five kids. He would always take in the whole story in before speaking. He could never say the “Our Father” prayer in unison with a group. He would explain to conservative Christians, in a very authoritative Scottish accent, why my ministries with beer at them weren’t sinful. He had a laugh that could fill a room. He wore his kilt for any event that he could get away with it.

He was good friend, and as he goes on to do even greater things for the Kingdom, he will be missed.

I'm Not Big on Sports Metaphors But....

2009-07-06T17:38:00.003-04:00

Picking up volleyball again has been providing some considerable revelations about God.

I typically get annoyed with sports metaphors aimed at explaining biblical truths (with the exception of the Rev. Steve Woods at St. Andrews—he somehow pulls it off), but the dedication of oneself to a sport has its theological uses. Last summer, I awoke from a nap behind a dune on a beach to discover that, in my slumber, a volleyball league had set up nets next to me. I wandered on over and began the process of relearning the only sport I played in high school (we were one of those rare schools with men’s volleyball).

It was like riding a bike, only that it took a lot more time to remember how your body is supposed to move properly, and with consistency, an inflated leather ball over an outstretched net. Metaphor #1: The development of our spiritual walk is like playing any sport. It takes hard work, and if you don’t use your skills (the cultivated communion with God), you lose them.

With regular practice and within a couple months, I had one my first doubles tournament. Ten hours of grueling matches in 105 degree heat in the Columbia, SC. Only thing was that I won in the B Division. If “B” stood for something it would be for “Bottom Barrel”. It other words, not exactly the stiffest competition. I didn’t care though. It felt amazing. I won. I was the B Division champion.

This revealed to me an answer I long had wondered about: On the Day of Judgment, won’t we (myself and most 21^st century Americans) feel pretty pathetic in our contributions to the Kingdom of God? After all, how can anything I do possibly compare to the life-long missionaries who converted entire nations and martyrs who inspired whole generations? Metaphor #2: Even if we’re B Division champions in God’s economy, the glory imparted by God on us will still be so incredible, we won’t even mind that’s a B division reward.

A couple weeks ago, I won my first beach doubles tournament. I felt a little cooler this time because it was AVP sponsored and it was the A Division. In order to prepare, I practiced all week and underwent an unpleasant and expensive detox diet the day before. And for those of you who know me, you know it’s not easy to forgo my daily handcrafted beer. The tournament itself lasted eight hours in the 90-some degree sun. Yet, by the final match I had more energy than ever, the adrenaline pumping through my veins like heroin through an addict. On the game-winning kill in front of over a hundred people, a relieved euphoria washed over me.

Taking some time to pray on the shoreline after as the sun set behind the beach, I think God finally made sense to me the Apostle Paul’s athletic metaphors. Like in 1 Corinthians 9:24 where he says, “Remember that in a race everyone runs, but only one person gets the prize. You also must run in such a way that you will win. All athletes practice strict self-control. They do it to win a prize that will fade away, but we do it for an eternal prize.”

I always had a hard time with his comparison to life as a race, because other than movies, and don’t marathon anything. I’m certainly no athlete, and the idea of resisting temptation or spiritual training for the long haul has always been difficult for me to internalize. I typically need concrete spiritual reasons that exist in the now or near-future in order to motivate me to make the wisest decisions. This works most of the time, but I realize it can circumvent long-term spiritual growth. Yet, sitting there on the beach and reflecting on the short-term sacrifices I made for the tournament and the satisfaction that came from winning it, I finally caught a glimpse of the value of the “eternal prize”. Metaphor #3: If it felt that good to win an insignificant volleyball match, I could almost conceptualize the significance of receiving the unfading crown of glory that comes with race well run.

No good closure to this post, though I'm not sure I’m supposed to have one.

Yes, I'm Defending Mark Driscoll

2009-06-29T19:57:00.009-04:00

I’ll be having a new post coming up soon about the wedding (theologically speaking) of pastors Mark Driscoll and Rob Bell, but in the meantime, I have to give a brief defense of Driscoll.

This I assure you this will probably not happen often. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate what he's doing for the Kingdom, as I am more interested in spiritual fruit than methodology (Mars Hill/Acts 29 Network by all indications seem to be bearing good fruit). But given that Driscoll has shouted many fiery scorns and curses upon my unsound doctrine and heretical interpretation of Scripture, he's probably not the guy I'd invite to a barbecue with my friends (scenes of "See this kabob on the burning hot grill? It reminds me of what your unrepentant soul will look like in Hell for all eternity..." go through my head). However, there are even people who will do the same to Driscoll, not from the flaming liberal Left, but from some far-out conservative corner of fundamentalism (most likely practiced in some hill country a hundred miles from the nearest Walmart).

The nice man at DefCon is now claiming, in addition to many other charges of heresy and impending damnation in other posts, that Driscoll is attempting “to poison my precious children with his toxic, man-centered, sin-pleasing oratory.” Really? I’m sure that was his plan. And did someone just use “sin-pleasing” and “Driscoll” in the same sentence? You can say a lot of things about Driscoll, but this dude would punch himself in the groin—repeatedly—if it meant he could be distracted (or incapacitated) enough to avoid sinning.

This is actually helping Driscoll’s street cred with me, since I thought he was the poster boy for Reformed fundamentalism. But if some fundies lump his soul in with heretics like me, then that technically moves him to a little more to the center—technically. But seriously, where do these people come from? And why do they all talk so oddly and angrily? If you’ve met anybody like the chap from DefCon, please explain this mystery.

Oh, and unlike one of the new edicts by our hyper-sensitive brother, The Pilgrim, I will not delete your posts if you disagree with me.

How to Talk to an Atheist (Because You Must)

2009-06-10T12:21:00.007-04:00

Charlotte Allen, author of "The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus, has been making some serious waves lately with her nationally published commentary on atheists. Her first line is that she "can't stand atheists -- but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.” And off she goes, pointing out just how intolerant, obnoxious, and pinheaded “superstar nonbelievers” have been.

Reading the column, I get the feeling of someone finally explaining to the school bully why nobody likes them—but instead of it being the guidance counselor, it’s a pissed-off honor student.

Allen doesn’t really say anything that’s factually wrong in the article, perhaps other then lumping all atheists into the more narrowly defined sub category of neo-atheists, who make it a part of their creed that they are (somehow) morally obligated are evangelize the religious in the name of reason. Yet, what bothers me a little about her commentary is that my atheist friends and acquaintances didn’t really seem to enjoy reading it. In fact, I first heard about the article from Charleston humanist Larry Center-Carter, who was bashing it not once, but twice, in long notes online. Allen seems very skilled at giving neo-atheists a taste of the their own literary medicine, but is that a skill she should be employing?

Assuming Allen is a Christian, I have to wonder if she thinks her article will help peel off the scales of skepticism that have grown over the eyes of nonbelievers. If Larry’s response was any indication, I really doubt it did. Or perhaps she was just writing it to rally the religious troops, much in the same fashion that neo-atheist Christopher Hitchens has tried to get his fellow atheists out of the closet by verbally lampooning believers (to show atheists they have nothing to fear, I suppose).

Again, while I grant atheists the right to this strategy—since their ethical systems are at the end of the day relative to the nonbeliever’s personal conscience—I’m not sure Christians are meant to encourage one another by mocking the very people God has called us to love into the Kingdom. I’m not saying it’s easy by any means, especially when folks like Dawkins and Co. seem so hopelessly arrogant and mean, but weirder things have happened.

Like that Pharisee named Saul. I heard he was a pretty nasty guy.

So in the specific context of the Allen’s column, perhaps she could have centered herself for a more meaningful opportunity if:

1) She had picked specific targets of absurd reasoning, rather than atheists in general. I don’t like being linked with Pat Robertson probably anymore than friendly atheist Bob likes being associated with Dawkins.

2) Sought to identify some atheists she likes and respects, explaining what makes them different from neo-atheists. I always appreciate it when some atheist writer lets me off the hook because my brand of Christianity isn’t fundamentalist.

And 3) Closed with inviting cordial atheists everywhere to take a stand against their more annoying brethren and engage in constructive dialogue with believers. I much prefer invites in nicely decorated envelopes to the throwing down of gauntlets.

It probably makes for a less exciting column, but I think it’s fair to say it would have made significantly more inroads with the people God aches and longs for.

Mat Kearney: City of Black & White Review

2009-05-30T19:12:00.005-04:00

The phrase “sell out” has been an overused and loosely thrown about term. Especially in terms of the music world, fans have often used it to describe any deviation in X’s band style or sound. This is regardless of whether the changes reflect greater maturity, nuance, or experimentation—if it doesn’t sound like the old stuff so he/she/they must be selling out. And because of this flippant and often knee-jerk usage, I’ve always been annoyed by this accusation, although today I make it myself.

Singer-songwriter Mat Kearney has been a favorite musician of mine for years. I first saw him at Washington University in St. Louis, a show where he played to eight people. I took his debut album with me everywhere I traveled, peddling it to my friends and acquaintances like some Gospel tract. He was at the top of my facebook’s music list for goodness sakes.

But all that is about to change.

Kearney’s newest release, City of Black and White, throws out everything I had come to know and love about this young musician from Oregon. His signature rapping, which made Kearney unique among guys with a guitar, has essentially been jettisoned. His lyrics, once some of the most thoughtful and poignant in the industry, have given way to songs mostly about girls.

Sure, the album is produced well, and I have no doubt Kearney will snag some significant airtime with a line-up of radio-worthy singles. Yet, it feels as if that was the only goal. Get on the radio. Sell songs on iTunes. Make money. To quote Reese Roper of the now-defunct Five Irony Frenzy, that’s a “handbook for a sellout.” There seems to be no evidence of growth in terms of style, sound, or writing, but rather a devolution to campy pop music that girls play when they feel in love or when they get dumped.

Mat, if you’re listening, I still like you as a person, but your once-iconic sound will be dearly missed. Please bring sexy back.

A Five-Minute Interview with Frank Turek

2009-05-19T08:30:00.003-04:00

Yes, those points by Turek I mentioned earlier at the Baptist outreach event. But before I re-begin, let me first qualify the following by saying that while I may have significant disagreements with Frank Turek, he is still on Team Jesus, and therefore an ally in the cause of Gospel. This should not be taken in any way as an attack, but rather as an opportunity for some healthy in-house analysis.

The first of Mr. Turek’s more difficult statements to accept was his insistence that that if you can prove the Gospel accounts are true, then you prove the entire Old Testament to be true. This seemed to be huge stretch to me, and I’m not quite sure I’ve read any scholar who has argued this point. When asked for elaboration, Turek pointed to Jesus quoting the Old Testament in various places. I still wasn’t sure how this proved the entirety of the OT, but I didn’t think it was worth pressing the point. Has anybody else heard this argument?

The second statement was actually his quoting of Hitchens in their debate that the vicarious sacrifice of Christ was immoral because it supposedly absolves the saved from responsibility of their actions. Turek’s response to this is interesting in that he compares Christ’s sacrifice to that of Navy SEAL in Iraq who dove on a grenade to save his comrades. However, I’m not sure this would satisfy Hitchens, who is unknowingly making a valid argument against universalism, or the notion that everyone is saved by God regardless of their beliefs, decisions, or actions. Hitchens believes the Atonement lets people off the hook without responsibility. However, it seems obvious to me that Atonement gets us off the hook of the Law and the condemnation that exits by it, only to put in our hands the responsibility of living by the Spirit and freedom that flows from it. Plus, there is some indication in Scriptures that there will be a merit-based reward system in the coming Kingdom, which would also point to responsibility in this life. Not as emotionally stirring as a soldier’s sacrifice perhaps, though maybe more relevant to the issue Hitchens is wading through.

Thirdly, I was most intrigued by Turek’s solidly modern mindset demonstrated during his preaching. I don’t fault him for it, since that is my own educational heritage and because well, hey, I’m not sure how well postmodern Christian apologetics would pan out anyway. There’s something it seems about apologetics, at least right now, that is inherently modern. My difference with Mr. Turek in our brief discussion was that he seemed very reluctant to acknowledge that my generation may be completely resistant to modern assumptions about truth—namely, that we can know it, especially in a metaphysical context. I don’t think it’s beyond the pale of reasonable concerns that even the best reasoned apologetic today, though generally convincing, might be altogether unmoving. If a thoroughly postmodern individual can be insulated to such approaches, what’s Plan B for sharing the Gospel?

Additionally, I was little surprised that he couldn’t concede the belief of Christian postmoderns (as opposed to the secular brand) that truth, while real, isn’t fully knowable due to the limitations of our minds and the brain’s various lenses that distort perfectly accurate information from being captured. He asked me if I knew that statement was true. I responded that I couldn’t even know that, I could only believe it given the evidence around me. To his credit as an apologist, Turek was able to ask enough variants of that same question until I was confused and he claimed I had made a self-defeating argument. I gave up my weak struggle, still without seeing why by acknowledging the significant limitations of human perception I was creating a self-defeating position.

Even after a few weeks of reflection, it seems perfectly reasonable that part of our eschatological hope is being resurrected from a life where truth as seen as only in part and through a mirror dimly (1 Corinthians 13:12) and coming into communion with the only true imparter and interpreter of truth.

Do I know that? Nope. That’s where faith comes in. It’s the action between belief and knowledge.

Evangelicals ♥ Torture?

2009-05-11T20:06:00.004-04:00

So according to a new Pew Forum poll, it seems that devout Christians, especially Evangelical Christians, are our nation’s biggest backers of torture. Can we call in ChurchMarketingSucks.com to save us from this PR faux pas?

The poll found that 54 percent of those who attend weekly services say the use of torture on terror suspects in order to gain important information can "often" or "sometimes" be justified. That's twelve percent higher than the 42 percent of those who seldom or never attend such services who say the same. In addition, the survey shows that increasing support of torture corresponds with increasing levels of religious attendance.

But who just who are this these “religious people” anyway? We all know how the media likes to humiliate real Christians with examples of nebulously defined “religious people.”

Well, in this case, white evangelical Protestants are the religious people. Doh. Guess the Catholics are finally passing on the Inquisition baton.

It turns out that white evangelical Protestants were significantly more likely than the general population to say the use of torture can "often" or "sometimes" be justified—62 percent to be exact. The figures for white non-Hispanic Catholics and white mainline Protestants (groups like Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians) are closer to the general population: 51 percent of the former and 42 percent of the latter say torture can "often" or "sometimes" be justified.

So how do we explain this? I was originally planning to outline a number of theories, but I think listing my top one will do. I bounced it off my uber-smart friend Jennie, who’s getting her doctorate in political philosophy, and she gave me her seal of approval (provided we can have some statistical analysis eight years from now).

The reason for such inordinate approval of torture in the Evangelical camp comes down to the reality that political beliefs are our de factor source of beliefs in the absence of clear worldview formation by churches. Evangelical churches have failed to teach a coherent and encompassing worldview to their members, which would (hopefully) include condemnations of practices like torture. Yet, in the absence of a Christian worldview, Evangelicals have knowingly or unknowingly looked to the next most authoritative source for clarification of their beliefs—their political party. Since most Evangelicals vote Republican due to a perception of accommodation and support of Christian values, the Republican position on torture—which one might describe as laissez-faire—has been absorbed by Evangelicals’ moral compass. Likewise, non-churchgoing folks are more likely to vote Democrat, which has recently developed clear teachings that reject torture, and therefore non-churchgoers have absorbed that position in similar fashion.

Not a good thing to say the least, but at least not as bad as saying Christianity endorses torture.

The long-term solution of course is simple, but hardly easy: The Church must stop abdicating its obligation to teach a comprehensive worldview. The Gospel does not end with acceptance of Jesus as Lord, it begins there. The Gospel affects everything, including politics. Until the Church recognizes this (which I think many do), and apply it to their teaching (which I think few do), there will be more embarrassing surveys like these to come.

Cinco de Mayo, or Thank-a-Gringo Day

2009-05-05T14:33:00.003-04:00

I completely forgot today was Cinco de Mayo, until someone asked me where I was getting drinks later.

Which reminds me that I would like to be part of the growing enlightened movement of Americans who realize that Cinco de Mayo is not Mexican Independence Day. I had a good history teacher in high school that explained these things.

But I also would like to argue that Cinco De Mayo is really an American holiday at least as much as it is a Mexican one (in reality, it’s not even a national holiday in Mexico). The Fifth of May would not exist for if it weren’t for Gringos, especially the non-Confederate variety. The battle which Cinco De Mayo commemorates, a Mexican upset against the invading French army, didn’t do anything but delay the inevitable takeover and creation of a puppet government by the French. It would have stayed that way too had not the Union defeated the Confederacy, pointed a million bored Yankee soldiers towards Mexico, and kindly asked the French, “Are you sure you would like to stay in Mexico?”

The French, while being cowardly, were not stupid and decided it was a good idea to call the Mexican invasion just a spring break trip gone wild and go home. The Mexicans revolted and executed their puppet emperor less than two years after the end of the Civil War.

Looking back for some shining moment in a revolt that didn’t have to do with lining someone up against a wall, the battle won in May five years earlier seemed to be a good choice. Ergo, Cinco de Mayo, brought to you by Gringo diplomacy and Mexican feistiness.

When Southern Baptists Attack!…er…Evangelize

2009-04-28T17:04:00.005-04:00

So once a year Charleston Southern University’s Baptist Collegiate Ministry descends upon downtown Charleston from up the road in Summerville to set up an evangelization event for students on Marion Square, a major hub of foot traffic in Charleston.

The aim it seems is to preach the Gospel to the audience in attendance and see if anyone wants to get saved. Prayer booths are stationed in the rear of the event like any good revival. Now, while even though this methodology of sharing the Gospel isn’t my cup of tea, I can respect someone doing it if they do it right.

However, you would be hard pressed to find anyone in the crowd that wasn’t a Christian already. I deduced this because during the course of the event just about everybody I could take note of bowed their heads in prayer, sang worship songs with the band, and kept trying to talk to me in that extra-friendly-I-want-to-share-Jesus-with-you kind of way.

I guess I looked like I needed saving.

This year was my third year in attendance, and I have to admit, they’re at least getting better at it. Granted, the first year I had the train-wreck pleasure of hearing the evangelist scream to the crowd about atheists being killed by fiery serpents (how’s that for a compelling argument?) and the second year’s stage almost got blown away by a 30 mph wind storm.

And thank goodness, they cut out the cheesy dramas this year. Those were painful.

But what made this year all the more better was that the invited evangelist was actually someone whose name you’d recognize, at least if you’re a bit of a philosophy/theology/apologetics junkie like me. Frank Turek, most well known for his book, Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, was the man of the hour. He’s also debated everyone’s favorite pompous neo-atheist, Christopher Hitchens, which can be viewed here.

Mr. Turek delivered an efficiently put-together slideshow on the failure of relativism and atheism, as well as the case for resurrection of Jesus. A few points he made caught my attention however, and I spoke with him after the presentation. More on that in the next entry.

The Charleston Tea Party

2009-04-20T12:38:00.008-04:00

So I made it to the tail-end of the Charleston Tea Party on April 15th, a hodgepodge protest of sorts against the expansion of the federal powers, the stimulus bill, over-taxation, the Federal Reserve, the current tax system, the IRS, the Obama administration, and liberals in general. I personally came out to show my support of the FairTax and for auditing the Federal Reserve, but could have done without the boiling anti-Obama sentiment there.

I saw a great “Don’t Tread on Me” t-shirt though. Must get.

Almost three thousand people gathered at this protest on the steps of the old customs house downtown. By the time I had arrived there about five hundred remained. What fascinated me was the complete dichotomy present between the libertarians and the religious right-wingers present. Both came against a common foe, but both really aren’t on the same side of many issues…at all. A philosophy of strict non-intervention by the state into the morality and economy of its citizenry doesn’t really jive with folks wanting to make America an overtly “Christian nation.”

I have to admit though, it was pretty comical when one of the protest organizers got on his knees, microphone in hand, and prayed a deeply accented and deeply fundamentalist prayer of resistance against “than man who kills babies and promotes perversion.” You actually saw people either bowing in reverence or turning their heads away to the side, the former of course on board with the Jesus-land prayer and the latter acting as if they were trying to pretend it wasn’t really happening.

He ended it by begging Jesus to “help us take this country back.” Stay tuned for Jesus’ response.

Jesus in My Orange Juice

2009-04-14T10:39:00.003-04:00

I gave up drinking juice again for Lent this year. If you know me, you would know this is possibly the most constant thing in my life. Colin wakes up. He drinks juice. Colin gets ready for bed. He drinks juice. It's about the equivalent of breathing really. So drinking water every morning for forty days was mildly jarring to say the least. Ok, it was gross. Especially Charleston tap water. However, it was a good meditative tool for reflecting on Christ's sacrifice.

But flash forward to this morning, the day after Easter. Groggily, I poured myself a glass of orange juice. But as the liquid splashed in the glass, I snapped into a strange sense of expectation. Then I prayed—over my orange juice.

How must the disciples felt the next few days after Jesus had returned to them? Elated? Awed? Clueless as to what to do next? I'm not sure, but I bet everything tasted different.

Can you imagine what their food tasted like when with they were with Jesus at the last supper before is trial and crucifixion? Fresh? Sweet? Savory? This was it. This was the last meal with their rabbi, their friend, their Messiah. The flavor of food always changes in the context of the moment.

And did they even eat Saturday, huddled in a upper room of a vacant house, praying to the God who wasn't there that they would not soon suffer the same fate as their teacher? What did the leftover bread and wine taste like then? Stale? Bland? Bitter? The flavor of food always changes in the context of the moment. The consistency of each bite changes with the state of the world.

Then came Sunday, where I imagine there was too much excitement to even eat. That's how I felt this Sunday, and I was just memorializing it. If you were there in that upper room as Jesus came through—not by way of—but literally through the door, eating would probably be the last thing on your mind.

So that leaves us with Monday. A new reality has set in. Jesus is alive. Everything He said was true. The creator of the universe has come down in the flesh of a poor Jew, died for the sins of world, and come back from the grave. Everything has changed.

But then again, nothing has. The Romans are still in town. The Pharisees are still running the religious show. And the disciples still need to eat. So what does their food taste like now? The flavor of food always changes in the context of the moment. The consistency of each bite changes with the state of the world. The satisfaction found in every sip is a reflection of the heart.

So I prayed—over my orange juice.

The Unexpected Supremacy of Christian Rock

2009-04-01T10:41:00.006-04:00

I never really liked Christian rock music growing up.

This is in part explained by the fact that my mom wanted me to listen to it, and being a quasi-typical teenager, I of course instantly did not want to listen to it—even without actually listening to it. But what better explains my lack of Christian rock appreciation, apart from owning two CDs by Jars of Clay and DC Talk, was that it just simply sucked—including my DC Talk half of my two-CD collection.

Christian rock, since its modern inception in the early nineties, had always been a few years behind and a lot of talent short of their secular counterparts. It was missing originality. It was missing good studio producing. It was missing something that simply prevented it from making fans outside of undiscerning Christian listeners who would buy anything that had a “Christian” label attached to front men with Kurt Cobain look-a-like goatees.

Southpark’s Faith + 1 episode, in which Cartman starts a crappy Christian band in order to go platinum, wasn’t too far from the truth.

But what surprise my ears have beholden in the last few years. Christian Rock, for sociological reasons I cannot explain, has actually gotten good. In fact, as I listened to Christian indie band House of Heroes on the way to work one morning, it occurred to me that not only has Christian rock gotten to the point of worth listening, but that is has actually exceeded the quality of its secular equivalent.

Now, for those of you who have missed the last two years of Christian rock releases, this probably comes as a complete shock. I don’t blame you. Had someone else prophecized about the supremacy of Christian rock in the 90s, I would have cried heresy and burned him at the stake, or at least laughed at him until he went home and cried. It is a purely unexpected supremacy.

Just ask my vocally non-Christian friend Colleen. She loves herself some good hard rock, but she confessed me to her shock when she realized that most of her favorite bands are signed to Tooth and Nail records, a relatively ancient Christian label. So all I can ask you to do is the same: listen and hear that the Lord’s guitar chords are good.

All that being said, Christian rockers still have a long way to go before reaching the caliber of the likes of Radiohead, Modest Mouse, The Killers, or Andrew Bird. I’m not saying we’ve made it there yet. But I am saying that because of Christian groups like A Rotterdam November, mewithoutYou, The Rocket Summer, or Mat Kearney, give me the choice between turning the dial to a secular rock station and a Christian one, I’ll tune into the latter any day. Partially because there’s finally originality and good producing, partially because the lyrics are better, and partially because Christian rock has mostly steered past the horrendous “white-trash rock” trend that has pervaded secular music (e.g. Nickelback, Papa Roach, Hinder, etc) for years now. Yet, however you slice it, Christian rock on the whole is finally just more pleasant to the ear and soul.

So I hereby repent of my Christian rock bashing and admit that truly, Mom, you were right—even if it took twelve years for me to say it.

The Sadness of Surfboards

2009-03-22T21:44:00.002-04:00

The other day my ex-girlfriend came for her surfboard.

I had bought this surfboard as a gift for her about two-thirds of the way into our relationship. It was a faded sky blue 7'8'' fun board. She had moved to Charleston recently and I was going to teach her to surf. It was kinda like buying a puppy, but without the responsibility. With my hours as they are, puppies would starve to death. A surfboard was a much safer choice.

While we dated, I kept it on my deck outside my bedroom. Unfortunately, we only managed to surf together once before we broke up. However, her two-door coupe didn't exactly have the space to take it anywhere, so she left it behind. I was tempted to let other people borrow it, but never did. That would have been like giving away a puppy, albeit a neglected one. No sir. Just wasn't right.

So it sat there unused for months while she continued to lived in Charleston, moved home to Georgia, and moved back again to Charleston--until the fateful day she borrowed an SUV from one of her band members and pulled up to my place. She had come for her surfboard.

Through the house, I carried the board to the car with her holding onto the leash behind me. I think I subconsciously petted it as I slid it through back of the SUV. There was a strange sense of finality in closing the trunk. The object of one of our only mutual activities loaded away.

I don't know if she'll use it come summer. I hope she does. She needs a bigger car.

Welcome to Macland

2009-03-20T20:48:00.002-04:00

Got my new macbook finally. I won it on Ebay. I got a good deal on it in part due to a cracked keyboard, but the previous owner supplied a replacement board.

The great people at the Genius Bar in the local Apple store wouldn't touch it since the parts didn't come through them, so I was left to my own devices (pun!). So after looking up an online tutorial and a failed first attempt, I successfully took apart my macbook, traded keyboards, and reassembled the pretty little machine. Unfortunately, the "i" key was non-functioning, also known as ibroke. I ended up taking apart and putting back together the thing three more times to confirm the cause the defect.

Pain. In. The. Ass.

But the upside was that now, through many trial and error, I actually feel fairly comfortable now ripping this baby open now (which upon writing inadvertently made me think of morbid abortion clinic comparisons). Anyway, now comes the fun Ebay negotiations. Who told me to buy a mac?

Wrestling with Irrelevancy

2009-03-16T13:27:00.001-04:00

So I went out to dinner with the president of Princeton Theological Seminary the other night. I was initially really excited by the opportunity because, for one thing, this guy’s resume smells of mahogany and fine leather-bound books. And not in the stogy academic way either. He was chaplain to the Queen and also to the British forces in Iraq. A big deal to be sure.

But once the evening started in the one of the more expensive restaurants in Charleston, I spent three long hours wrestling with this gnawing feeling of irrelevancy. Basically, I kept asking myself in my head: what’s the point of what we’re doing? I couldn’t then, and still can’t, put my finger on it in any precise way what was bothering me. Perhaps it was the extremely reserved personality of the president, or the topics that were discussed, or just the fact that nothing really seemed to be edifying me as the hours went by. And I also simply realize that, apart from special occasions, I’m never really comfortable eating in fancy restaurants to begin with—I’m just too poor and laden with too much guilt over the lavishness of the experience.

The bottom line though was a grating questioning in our relevancy as believers at that table, of fulfilling the call to be salt and light to an aching world. It seemed as if my Prince Edward Island mussels in spicy Thai sauce were doing a better job at that than me.

Afterwards, I went to a fashion show at Eye Level Art and felt much more comfortable. Yet, turning my critique back on myself, I wondered why I shouldn’t feel equally uncomfortable in warehouse for avant-garde fashion. Could I justify it because they were serving cheap beer? Or that I was actually meeting people who probably hadn’t stepped a foot inside church in years? How was I being the salt and light in this place?

I think my saving grace was in the conversation I had. It seemed to drip with a holy residue. There was something personal and theological about most of it without it being overtly religious (though sometimes it was as well). At the end of the night I felt edified, even though I have almost as much difficulty putting my finger on this time as I did with the dinner. Nor am sure how long or how often I’ll be able to maintain the feeling in my extra-curriculars, but finding relevance in one’s step really feels good.

I Wish Ash Wednesday Were Every Day

2009-02-27T08:38:00.002-05:00

I love Ash Wednesday. There’s something about it that reverberates deep down within my psyche.

I assume it’s mostly the imposition of ashes that gets me. It’s practically tribal. Like a warrior donning war paint before going into battle. The ashes seal me. They mark my mission.

They remind me to Whom I belong, which gives me great pride. They also remind from where I come and where I will return to, which greatly humbles me.

As I go about my day—in the coffee shop, the gas station, on the street—I see the sign of the cross on strangers that pass me by. I feel caught up in a conspiracy of believers, bound in an immediate comradeship with those who bear the same mark.

The ashes are an insignia, a branding. I don’t know you, but I know Who you follow. I don’t know you, but I know your Master. We are soldiers together in common cause. We are slaves attached by the same chain.

We walk with our ashes and await the empty tomb.

Meltdown

2009-02-24T10:46:00.004-05:00

Can someone calculate the odds of a three-year-old desktop and a two-year-old laptop melting down in the same week? I'm guessing it's fairly unlikely.

Might be out out of commission for awhile until I buy refurbished something. So I leave you with this:

Used Macbook or a used Dell D810?

Let the debate begin.

Sick Unto Death

2009-02-08T19:55:00.016-05:00

We all know at least one person who appears to continuously exist in a cycle of misery and general unpleasantness. Most of the time we avoid them because they seem to be a living, breathing black hole for even the joy in your own life. But one of the saddest things about them is that, apart from their despair, they are really not unpleasant people to be around. In fact, they are often quite wonderful and gifted people, but their perpetual sadness masks one's real self.

I like Soren Kierkegaard, when I can wrap my head around what he's saying (or 'said' I guess, but books live on well past their authors). One thing I recently read by him translates volumes of the gut feeling I've had about people who I want so bad to love, but who seem to forever rebuff me with some barrier of quiet grief.

Kierkegaard calls it a sickness unto death.

"So to be sick unto death is, not to be able to die--yet not as though there were hope of life; no, the hopelessness in this case is that even the last hope, death, is not available. When death is the greatest danger, one hopes for life; but when one becomes acquainted with an even more dreadful danger, one hopes for death. So when the danger is so great that death has become one's hope, despair is the disconsolateness of not being able to die."

No great pontificating here. It just stood out to me and I wanted to share it.

The only path to a solution I can take from SK's words is that hope is our health, and by realizing that we can take refuge in that knowledge that our greatest hope is found in Christ Jesus. Perhaps that is only hope capable of healing the sickness unto to death that afflicts everyone at some point in their life.

Obama Uses Archaic Language

2009-02-05T09:46:00.003-05:00

If you've been following the news recently, Obama bungled two appointments cabinet appointments by picking guys with less than sterling tax records. That's DC for you. It happens.

But what is really shocking about the whole affair is that Obama is now constantly using archaic terms and phrases with the press to explain his actions. Clearly it's another attempt to confuse the public with his elitist vocabulary and dodge the issue. Earlier this week, Obama did interviews with five major news outlets about the botched picks. If you listen carefully, you'll notice he sneaks things in like, "I made a mistake," and "I screwed up."

It's nuts really. Who talks like that?

Language like that went out of fashion, I dunno, Jimmy Carter. And if there was any question about it, the Bush administration officially expunged it from the White House lexicon. And here this uppity-Harvard-laywer Obama comes along and thinks he can trick us using fancy Slick Willy jargon that nobody has heard in years. Who does he think he is?

The audacity of it.

The Five Principles of Emergent Politics

2009-01-12T15:40:00.009-05:00

To my knowledge, few folks in the Emergent Church have ventured into the realm of fleshing out a complete political philosophy. Admittedly, Emergents are very good at deconstructing bad politics but not normally the best at creating comprehensive alternatives (although with Doug Pagitt running for Minnesota State Legislature in 2010 that could certainly change things for the better).

Assuming someone hasn’t already beat me to the punch (can someone tell me if Shane Claiborne has already done this?), I think the list I provide below might act as a good working framework for a holistic approach to politics within Emerging theology. My own personal take on Christian Liberalism is similar, but realizing that vast spectrum of thought that exists within Emergent churches, I’ll try to put something forward that most Emerging theologies could get behind.

Each principle begins “In response to the revelation…”, indicating my belief that scriptural truths uniquely ground our value system in God, from which we rationally respond with logical applications of those revelations. Some of these revelations are evidential and can be easily backed up with secular arguments. Other revelations are essentially pre-rational, and cannot ultimately be proven or refuted logically. Most of those below I feel are a little bit of both. Anyway, feel free to critique it to pieces.

The Five Principles of Emergent Politics

1. In response to the revelation that humanity is the pinnacle of the created order (Genesis 1:26-27), all law should dignify and protect life. An Emergent politic seeks to maintain and encourage a consistent life ethic that speaks for the voiceless, empowers the oppressed, ennobles the marginalized, and redeems the outcasts.

2. In response to the revelation at our citizenship is in Heaven (Philippians 3:20), allegiance to the state or its institutions becomes entirely secondary to allegiance to Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God. Our loyalty to the state only exists insomuch as the state advances the liberties and rights of its people.

3. In response to the revelation that people flourish and prosper within structured communities (Ephesians 4:11-16, Romans 13:1-4), the role of citizens and the state is such that both the individual and the government have a joint responsibility to promote justice. The Emergent Church recognizes the great ingenuity of the private sector while acknowledging its limitations. Likewise, the complexity of economic and social challenges requires regular guidance by the state, but within framework that honors the autonomy of the individual.

4. In response to the revelation that we are slaves to sin if we are not slaves to Christ (Romans 6:16-18) and that non-Christians do not accept Biblical authority (1 Corinthians 2:14), the role of Christianity is to maintain orthopraxy exclusively within the Church. Emergents realize that only the Holy Spirit, not legislation, can change a person’s moral compass. Therefore, laws that dictate personal morality should exist only to prevent an individual’s actions from infringing upon the rights and physical safety of another.

5. In response to the revelation that humanity is capable of great accomplishments (Genesis 11:4-6) while simultaneously weighed down by an inherently fallen nature within every person (Ephesians 2:1-3), the Emergent Church embraces historically "liberal" goals but through a historically “conservative” means of achieving them. The constant pursuit for equality of opportunity (Leviticus 25:8-54) and an economy of equity (Isaiah 1:17) via a Biblical lens of human nature and emphasis on personal responsibility enables genuine social and economic progress.

Will Ferrell is a Brain-Eating Pinko Polar Bear

2009-01-04T18:38:00.007-05:00

My favorite New Years tradition in Charleston is the Polar Bear Swim on Sullivans Island. Polar Bear Swims in are Charleston obviously much easier than most places than say, in Maine, and due to our warmer climate we have a large crowd come out to take the dip.

Unfortunately, this year was less than balmy. A cold front swung down on us on New Years Eve so that in addition the usual 55 degree water, we would have to wait in 44 degree air with frequent high gusts of flesh-piercing wind. Maybe not a big deal for Mainers, but this was one step away from being in the Arctic for Charlestonians.

Our pre-party posse had a vast collection of costumes, most notably a huge contingent of zombies and Will Ferrell characters. The zombies would ritualistically take turns drinking a syrupy spiked punch, letting it drip all down their bodies and back into the punch bucket. They used the same cup too. Watching the spectacle that would put most frat boys to shame, a friend with me almost threw up.

The Will Ferrell costumes were much more wholesome—especially the female Elf who “traveled through the candy cane forest” to take the plunge that day. As for myself, I was Soviet solider. This was good because my Czech military-issue winter coat kept my upper half warm and fuzzy, though I couldn’t say the same for my legs.

Shortly before the run I found myself a few feet from the front of the mass that gathered between the on looking crowds. All those bodies blocking the blistering wind almost created a serene sense of warmth. I jumped up and down anyway, screaming in front of the cameras like my Scottish ancestors before going to battle. It’s possible that I was less intimidating then they were.

The countdown began. Ten…Nine…One of the zombies, clearly unable to find brains, lurched past the starting ribbon. The official tried to stop him in vain. The crowd rush forward. Halfway to the water I felt an unexpected push from behind. I went down along with another runner to my right. Visions of crushed Walmart employees drove me back to my feet in seconds.

I kept a staggered sprint towards the water. About thirty feet into the relatively warmer ocean I got pushed forward again. This time, I took it as my cue and dove in. Practically refreshing.

But man, it sucked getting out.

Beautiful is Peculiar’s Cousin

2009-01-02T14:47:00.003-05:00

New Years was something peculiar this time around. At a half hour till midnight I found myself in a nearly empty bar. Less than a block in any direction were other venues packed out with people getting ready to consummate the countdown with what I could only guess would be ample revelry. But this little place housed a population of no more ten, including the multiple off-the-clock bartenders.

The drinks were cheap though and the bartender begged us stay. I imagined he couldn’t bear the thought of not only working on New Year’s Eve, but working alone in an empty bar at midnight.

As the clocked marched forward to its usual first hour glory, a homeless man entered the bar. He was selling flower arrangements. And he no hands, just two finger-like hooks at the end of each arm. Flower arrangements are a peculiar profession for someone with no hands. The bartender tried to shoo him out and we declined to make a purchase.

The ball on the TV screen was about to drop in a few minutes. With our champagne glasses full, we realized the man without hands wasn’t going anywhere. Taking a plastic cup, I filled it with champagne. The man eagerly wrapped his claws around it in a fashion so awkward I can’t remember how he did it. For a fleeting moment I wondered if I might be enabling a potential alcoholic. I countered my worry with the growing spirit of the moment. We counted down the last ten seconds with all the gusto of the Times Square revelers. A bartender, a handful of patrons, and a homeless man with hooks for hands—all toasting in unlikely unison to a new year.

A peculiar start. A beautiful start. I think the two adjectives are cousins actually. This is how I begin.

Seeing Meekness

2008-12-24T11:29:00.009-05:00

At the moment, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the reality that Christmas is tomorrow. It feels as if just last week I was playing volleyball on the beach in 70 degree weather. Actually, I was—which is probably why Christmas sneaks up on me so quick. You can always pretend it’s some other time of the year in Charleston.

But the one thing we can’t pretend is that Christmas time is simultaneously a wonderful opportunity for drawing closer to Jesus and also a huge stumbling block in trying to do so. It’s the classic materialism versus spirituality dichotomy. All the obligatory gifts, overpriced toys, awkward parties, stupid sweaters, overloaded parking lots, and eggnog (does anyone still drink eggnog?) versus the quiet call the of the Holy Spirit beckoning us to set aside time to center ourselves within Him.

And the fact that Jesus wasn’t even born on what we call Christmas Day shouldn’t even matter. God’s Spirit is not constrained by dates on a calendar or the orbital anniversaries of past events. Christmas, for our sake, has been set apart as our time to prepare our hearts as if Jesus was coming again in the form of meekness.

Would we recognize Him if He did?

My hope is that this Christmas you and I will really take the time to set apart time to prepare our hearts for Him. To revel in the glorious incarnation of the I AM, but to also recognize the meekness of the newborn Christ in the homeless man, the overburdened co-worker, the lonely student—and make a difference in their lives as other believers have made a difference in ours.

Then go drink all the eggnog you want.

Tolerance is for Losers

2008-12-18T18:39:00.007-05:00

Like the Religious Right in 2000, the Secular Left is already begun feeling the beer buzz of political power. Whenever a political faction starts falling under the inebriating influence of political might, the first thing to go is their tolerance. Tolerance, that is, for any groups or individuals who don’t line up with their ideology. Sure, quaint ideas like tolerance were all well and good when we were a minority, but now “our guy” is sitting in the White House. The Left are the winners. Tolerance is for losers. And the Evangelical Christians, at least as how the media has defined them, are now the losers.

So when President-Elect Obama announced megachurch pastor and Evangelical rock star Rick Warren would deliver the invocation at his inauguration, the Secular Left threw out any pretensions of being tolerant.

People for the American Way President Kathryn Kolbert told CNN she is "deeply disappointed" with the choice of Warren and said the powerful platform at the inauguration should instead have been given to someone who has "consistent mainstream American values."

Since when did having your book sell more than 20 million copies (yes, count it) and hosting what was essentially the first presidential debate of the 2008 election put you outside the mainstream?

Oh, but Ms. Kathryn continues, "There is no substantive difference between Rick Warren and James Dobson," Kolbert said. "The only difference is tone. His tone is moderate, but his ideas are radical."

Yeah, no difference at all—except Warren’s support of green practices, fighting global warming, relieving domestic poverty, stopping the spread of AIDS worldwide, dedicated programs for creating sustainable economies in developing nations, and interfaith dialogue. This is either ignorance masquerading as knowledge or simply intellectual dishonesty. Take your pick.

But let’s get the gay rights lobby to chime in, shall we? Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights campaign, said Wednesday he feels a "deep level of disrespect" over the choice of Warren and is calling on Obama to change his mind (as if that wouldn’t cause ten times the furor there is now).

Joe, are you feeling a “deep level of disrespect” that Obama didn’t cater to your particular agenda by not picking someone like Bishop Spong or because Obama is truly practicing what he preached by reaching across the political divide and calling on a man who shares some, but not all of his views? Are you really that intolerant of people who hold honest and deeply seated convictions other your own? And I’m asking this as someone who supports allowing gay marriage as well. I may not agree with Warren’s politics, but I respect him for change agent that he is.

If you want others to be tolerant, you have to set the standard yourself. One would think that eight years of being blasted by the Religious Right’s propaganda machine would sear it into the Secular Left’s dizzy moral compass that if nothing else, it hurts your feelings to be called names. Yet, if Buddha says “don’t do unto others as you would not have them do unto you,” why are they unleashing payback on clearly progressive Evangelicals? Ann Coulter would probably see it as reflection of their "Godless"ness, but I’m inclined to attribute it to the nature of American politics—where the loud, nasty voices always make front-page CNN coverage.

But this is just the beginning. Winners, be they real or perceived, have a way of justifying systematic intolerance. Get excited.

Wise Words from Harvey Dent

2008-12-10T23:30:00.005-05:00

So there’s little doubt that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich is royally, democratically, and imperially screwed since he was caught, among other scandals, trying to sell off Barak Obama’s senate seat.

This brought to mind wise words from Gotham D.A. Harvey Dent that “You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.” After all, it was Blagojevich who bravely commuted the death sentences of 167 men, many of whom were convicted under dubious evidence. He was even nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. It’s a shame that Dent is far more of a prophet than we would like him to be.

But then I realized that it was actually Republican Governor George Ryan (though also quite corrupt), the man who Blagojevich succeeded in 2003, that did all that. Blagojevich, who refused to even spend a night in capitol city of Springfield, was Chicago's white knight of forcing pharmacists via personal fiat to dispense the “morning after pill” and, oh yeah, mandatory seat belt laws.

So I guess Dent was only half right about Blagojevich.

Either way, it still goes to show you that as Christians, it’s not a good idea to marry yourself politically to any party or personality. Not that anyone really did with Blagojevich, other than his wife, but the truth still remains that even decent politicians are capable of doing what not-so-bright Blago did with so little guile.

Politicians, especially Illinoisan—but even popular ones—are best handled with rubber gloves.

Operation: Jacuzzi Raid

2008-12-07T21:59:00.008-05:00

Spending time back in Laguna Beach is like spending time away from reality, and not just because Laguna Beach tends to exist in a state of non-reality glittered with mansions, glitzy hotels, and reality TV stars. No sir, the escape from reality goes much deeper than that. As a fourth-generation Californian myself, the vast majority of my blood-relatives live there too, and I like to lay claim to Laguna as my “hometown” (even though in reality, my earliest origins hail from the much lesser-known Dana Point next door on PCH.)

And not only are my relatives there, but so are my oldest friends. Friends that still can’t seem to, nor do I think particularly care to, process my decision to go into ministry. It’s a trait that makes them all the more endearing, because frankly, even churchy-leader-people need a break from being churchy-leader-people. The last thing I need is to go on vacation and have another person inquire about the apparent contradiction between [insert fun activity] and working in a church.

So in between reading chapters of Ray S. Anderson's heady book, An Emergent Theology for Emergent Churches, and in light of being on vacation from judgment, my dear old friend Martina and I performed what could simply be called nothing other than a jacuzzi raid, which is the tactical art of using a jacuzzi of not one’s ownership. I used to do this all the time as a teen in Orange County, but the typical target was a neighborhood whirlpool. This time we we’re going to hit the St. Regis.

The St. Regis is likely the most insanely decadent hotel in Laguna. How insane? For starters, they have a luxury mall inside. And really, Who does that? Even better, the St. Regis was actually built about a mile from the ocean, which would immediately take it off my list (give me the Ritz-Carlton any day). Yet, architects “solved” that problem by building an underground tunnel to the shore. Anyway, it was a loophole we intended to exploit. No, not the tunnel. The decadence of the place. More on that in the conclusion.

So after buying a few high-quality microbrews, we pulled up to the entrance of the hotel and awaited our valet, who I might add took entirely too long for the service we would have been paying for (but we tipped him well anyway). The car and our fashion didn’t particularly look the part of the overbearing establishment, so Martina had a reasonable number to pass off when we were asked about our room number. Unfortunately, she gave what I think was a room number that didn’t even exist and had gestured to the wrong wing of the building. She was awkwardly corrected by the valet and we got into the hotel. Pronto.

The next step was to get past the grounds security to the jacuzzi. Easy. Just look cool and don’t walk directly towards the target. We got through no problem, though we managed to bump into every unlocked gate before finding the unlocked one. After we traded our street clothes for swimsuits we victoriously arrived at our target mostly unnoticed.

But there was only one problem. Our beers, being the caliber that they were, required a bottle-opener—and that was not on our list of mission gadgets.

So in my desperation, I began trying to pop the caps on the edges of a fancy wood sign by a trail that led to the jacuzzi. Let’s just say the wood was not up to the task. Then, seemingly out of nowhere, a staff security man came out of the darkness and towards me. Hoping he didn’t notice my abuse of the sign, I hopped back to a nearby chair and tried staring dreamingly into space.

“Excuse me. Are these your bottles?”

Caught! Prepare to abort mission.

“Yes.”

“I’m sorry. But glass is not permitted out here.”

Oh, we were so busted. I was sure the rest of the security team was already inbound.

“Oh, um, we didn’t know…”

“I’ll get you some cups to poor it out in. Do you have any other bottles?”

Um, what was going on?

“Um, Yes.”

“I’ll be right back.”

Still in a slight stage of shock that we were still basking in the warm golden bubbles of the hot tub rather than being carried off the premises, the man returned a minute later with a dozen cups for us. But like any good agent, I adapted to my environment quickly.

“Excuse me sir. Sorry to trouble you again, but you could find us a bottle opener? Thanks so much.”

“Yes sir. Right away.”

Mission accomplished.

As I was saying, the loophole. At a place as swank as the St. Regis, you can’t even question a suspicious guest for fear that they might actually be a recluse Hollywood reality TV star. Only rude four-star hole-in-the-walls do that. Their snootiness, our jacuzzi time. See you next time, Regis.

Relating to Your New President (Part II)

2008-11-24T19:06:00.004-05:00

So now that I’ve challenged Christians who backed President-Elect Obama to become a prophetic constituency of accountability, now comes the other fun part.

For all you believers who couldn’t help but push the button for Senator McCain, either out of your love for his straight-talk express, the brilliance of his running-mate, or your various fears of what Obama might be capable of (read Dobson’s letter below), you have your own challenge.

Love your new president.

Yes, love Barack Hussein Obama (the agape version of course). Now, I don’t mean just refrain from starting an insurrection against his administration. That’s a clear Biblical order, along with praying for your leaders. And I don’t just mean praying for his poor, heretical and politically wayward soul either. Even the pagans do that. Instead, I want you pray for Obama with the hopes that his administration would do better than any pundit could forecast—that his success in turning our country around would be so evident that no Republican would be able to win in 2012.

That doesn’t even mean you need to vote for the man in 2012. Just show real support that extends beyond the usual tortured agreement that it’s only Biblical to “obey your leaders.” (Hebrews 13:17) That gets trite quicker than redneck high school kids in Georgia can talk about assassinating Obama (and get visited by the FBI!).

But what are some practical ways to extend our goodwill towards our new leader without compromising our unwavering conservative political principles? I’ve thought of five simple ways, most of which can be done from the comfort of your computer screen.

5. Write letters to your state’s congressmen and senators urging them to work out compromises with the new administration, and that you are, in fact, writing to them as a Christian conservative.
4. Watch Obama’s weekly addresses on youtube if you have the time. You don’t have to agree with them, but at least you’re hearing things from the source.
3. The next time someone at or from your church starts bemoaning Obama’s administration, respond by talking about how Obama has already disappointed the Left by picking moderates, how Democratic administrations can help the Church flourish, or how God is sovereign (because for all you John Piper fans out there, clearly, God’s sovereignty is the answer to just about everything).
2. Stop forwarding anti-Obama emails to your friends, because I’ve yet to read to one that wasn’t racist, cliché, misleading, or fear-mongering. We can do better.
*Drum Roll* 1. Be bold and actually email the sender of your most recent anti-Obama email and ask him or her to join you in not sending disparaging emails about our president-elect. Don’t you remember how those anti-Bush emails for eight years pissed us all off?

See, those weren’t so bad, were they? I’m sure you could even think of a few yourself.

In her book Plan B, Christian liberal author Anne Lamott talks about her struggles with loving President George W. Bush, even though it’s clear she struggles with loving Bush like I might struggle to love Hugo Chavez. But somehow, through agonizing bouts of strong distaste and pity, she manages to least forgive the man.

I imagine that this might parallel a similar struggle for us, especially once Obama actually takes office and actually starts doing something. But if Ms Lamott, who is way more liberal than most of you are conservative, could be convicted about loving Bush, than surely we can do the same with Obama.

Politically, I don’t expect this to be tactically effective for the conservative cause, since liberals will merely (and already have) write our goodwill off as realizing Obama was right all along. But for a Gospel-centered politic, this may diffuse the battle and revenge mentality of the Secular Left, who has without much hesitation locked themselves into a culture war with the Religious Right.

If one side—with the world watching—offers the olive branch, can the other refuse it without incurring some social stigma? For whichever faction is the first to love the other, it can only be a public relations win-win. If that first side is a united front of believers, then the Gospel will benefit from our radical love.

Now is our time, our opportunity, to love the man we didn’t want. The world is watching.

Back to the Future with Doc Dobson

2008-11-14T21:39:00.005-05:00

Oh goodie. I just got wind on Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson’s new “letter from the future”. Written and released shortly before the election, Dobson writes as his 2012-self (which God apparently has not yet struck down in a hail of gay Teletubbies and Spongebobs from the sky), lamenting the dystopia that has fallen on America since the inauguration of Barack Obama.

What the man says about parenting has yet to bother me. Granted, I’m not a parent yet, so I don’t know much better anyway, but I’ve never found him off in la-la there yet. But for some painfully undiscovered reason, this family psychologist can’t help but throw himself into the political arena—again, and again, and again.

Maybe we can blame it on the liberal media, but every time I hear about Dobson opening his mouth, he’s making some inane political declaration that makes you wonder if he really said it. And then of course, you read the transcript, and find out he really did say every inane word within its almost impossibly inane context. And then you’re like, “Wow, what a dumbass.”

This letter is no different. As just a taste, Dobson describes an America where:

-Gas is $7 a gallon and the economy is collapsing.
-The sick languish in socialized medicine and where old people are told to “go home and die.”
-Bush administration officials are jailed.
-The courts are overrun by radical homosexual activists and ACLU lawyers.
-Ministers are forced at lawsuit-point to conduct gay weddings.
-We’ve been hit by four terrorist attacks.
-Christians in many professions are fired or forced to quit their jobs.
-The new liberal courts have legislated a secular state from the bench that the likes of Richard Dawkins would salivate over.

Oh yeah, and Iraq is the new Taliban, Israel got nuked, South America became communist, and Russian tanks rolled through half of Europe again.

Damn that Obama.

Now I won’t give Dobson even the credibility of a response, because unless you live on the Focus on the Family compound, this apocalyptic tale blows away even the Left-wing sadomasochistic fantasies of a Bush theocracy. Yet, what amazes me is that Dobson is so obsessed with homosexuality in this letter that it consumes most of his entire tirade on domestic policy. Is stopping gay rights his primary lens for politics? His strategy of fear-mongering, of creating a world so terrifying so that one might be dissuaded in the eleventh hour from casting a vote for Obama, was not even most of his goal, it was his entire goal. Does he believe that this tactic is ethical—not within a Rovian or Moveon.org morality, but a Christian code? And the spirit of fear, or perhaps acute paranoia, is palpable throughout the breadth of it all. We have to ask ourselves, is this the mark of a healthy faith?

I’m not sure how to put my finger on it—but even reading Dobson’s style, it just feels so… strange.

Dobson’s future-self closes by blaming Obama’s victory and America’s doom on the young Evangelical voters who “thought Senator Obama was an opportunity for ‘Change’” and tilted the election in his favor. Ironically, since this was published right before the election—Dobson is in a sense a true prophet. Young Born-Again Christians more than doubled their support for the Democratic candidate since 2004.

“Why did they risk our nation’s future on him?”, Dobson cries out.

Actually, that can be answered by a mysterious letter from myself that I pulled from the mailbox yesterday. It was postmarked 2012. It said Senator McCain had won the 2008 election. Floating amid the white space of the page was simple description of the past four years in this alternative America.

“A lot like 2008.”

Enough reason for me.

Relating to Your New President (Part I)

2008-11-08T11:03:00.003-05:00

Alright friends, there’s been some great and a few not-so-great responses to the last post on evaluating whether an Obama administration would create a healthier climate for believers to share the Gospel. But that was the easy thing to say. These next few thoughts are the hard ones. Depending on whether you voted for or against Barack Obama, I feel the Spirit challenging Christians in two ways.

First, if you voted for Obama, now is the time to disengage your loyalty to him and become a prophetic voice of accountability. One of the many errors committed but Christian conservatives during the Bush administration was that after his victory in 2000, they threw (what felt like at least) unconditional support behind him and never looked back. He was their Christian president ordained by God, his decisions were to be supported uncritically, and all dissent be damned. David Kuo, in his book Tempting Faith, retells us first-hand as the former Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in the Bush administration how that kind of allegiance set Christians up to be totally used by Karl Rove and company. Christian leaders got thrown political scraps and White House pens while the neo-cons got free reign in their ill-conceived agenda to reshape the Middle East.

Eight years later and a long story short, it wasn’t a good trade for the country or Christians.

So Christ-followers who are also Obama-backers, don’t become the Left-wing version of our Right-wing past. Reverend Jeremiah Wright, for all his fruitcake comments, did get one thing right. He said that he would switch from a supporter to a critic of Obama the moment he entered the Oval Office. It was his prophetic duty to do so. Jim Wallis of Sojourners, the day after the election, sent a message to his organization’s members (of whom very few probably voted from McCain) to join him “in ensuring that these campaign promises become a reality.”

What an opportunity progressive Christians now have to hold Obama accountable to his vision for a new way of doing politics that seeks common ground and compromises instead of wedge strategies and stirring up the base. If his actions deviate from that pledge, we have an obligation as modern-day prophets to call him out on it (like my homeboy Amos pictured above). Even now, where Obama seems disconnected from the truths of Scripture, we will immediately pray and lobby for a new understanding.

Our support will not be unconditional. Our allegiance will not be tied to an earthly king. White House tours and trinkets will not placate us. Only justice finally being done in the land will.

Amen?

The Obama Regime: Good for the Gospel?

2008-11-04T23:28:00.005-05:00

So it’s 10:56 pm EST, and I’m calling it a pretty solid blowout for Obama.

I’m not interested in the mourning or gloating over the outcome of this election. There will be enough of that crap getting spewed out other blogs and columns and poorly spelled facebook rants. What I’m thinking about right now is the likelihood that an Obama presidency will create a healthier environment for the Gospel to be transmitted.

My first instinct on this is yes. On the surface, since Obama supports federal funding of faith-based charities and is likely to back them more fully than President Bush did (he promised to expand them), it’s reasonable to conclude that the cause of the Gospel will advance further than it did under Bush purely based on that reason alone. That's a very tangible, if not simplistic, measure.

Yet, just the fact the Obama isn’t Bush will go a long way as well. I can’t even begin to count the number of times I’ve heard young people reject Christianity on the grounds that if Bush represents born-again Evangelical Christianity, then they want nothing to do with it. Bush of course doesn’t represent the Church, at least not any more than you or I might, but his outspoken faith combined with the limelight of the presidency has all but set him up as a Protestant Pontiff for America. Unfortunately for the Gospel, somewhere between Bush’s speeches and political positions, non-Christians got a bad taste in their mouth about folks claiming to follow Christ. I doubt we’ll be seeing the same sort of ire over an Obama administration, even though Obama has been very open with talking about his very non-Muslim (aka Christian) faith.

And perhaps counter-intuitively, I think the new Democratic stranglehold on the government will be healthy break for the Church. Ever since the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, Evangelical Christian politicians began to achieve power like never before.

But power, I believe, is like a cancer. It starts out benign, but it will eventually destroy your body.

I think the Body of Christ in America has been eaten up this last decade by the inherently corrupt nature of politics. Christian leaders and interest groups have misused and abused their power in a way that may have passed a few laws, but ultimately made Christianity much less appealing to many non-Christians (read unChristian by David Kinnaman for evidence of that). Therefore, by denying political power to Evangelical Christians and forcing us into a minority position, we may well be able to do some serious repenting and reemerge a few elections later not only political viable again, but wiser and more humble as well.

So is Obama good for America? It depends on what you value for America. Is Obama good for the Gospel? I’m confident in saying that we as the Church will benefit from these upcoming years, no matter how long, short, successful or unsuccessful his reign is.

Wanna Know How I Got These Scars?

2008-11-02T22:26:00.005-05:00

Halloween in Charleston is epic. Really, it's like nothing I've ever seen. Coincidently, the same can be said of the Dark Knight (more on that later). So then it only made sense to be, ta-da, Heath Ledgers' Joker for such an occasion.

The costume was been found exclusively through Goodwill stores, with the exception of the shirt. That cost more than everything else combined. But hey, where are you casually going to find a hexagonal dress shirt? H&M doesn't even carry that. The whole get-up is pretty exact with the exception of the hair, which is a couple shades lighter than the film's. Darn green spray can said Joker hair though. Too bad it had been sitting around since Jack Nicholson put on some clown make-up.

As for the effect, after finishing up the young professionals church dinner party where I split my time being photographed between Sarah Palin and a crack whore, I made it a point to go to every party and bar I could to freak out as many people as I could. And when people run away from you as you approach them, you know you've done your wardrobe well. The fake butterfly knife and rehearsed joker impressions probably didn't hurt either.

But the question I kept getting throughout the night was, "Does it feel weird to be playing a dead guy?" Um, I think it feels weirder that I'm a playing a psychotic mass-murderer sociopath, actually. I dunno, that's just me. Either way, a it was a very satisfying evening, and the other six jokers I saw had nothing on me. Booyah.

The Art Music Justice Tour: Unsurprisingly Entertaining, Surprisingly Powerful

2008-10-27T11:41:00.002-04:00

Led by folk-pop singer Sara Groves, the Art Music Justice Tour rolled through town last Sunday Heaven-bent on raising awareness about the injustice in the world and who is at the forefront of fighting it. At Groves’ side was protest-song writer Derek Webb, his wife and up and coming folk singer Sandra McCracken, heart-throb Brandon Heath, and the ever-awkward but likable Charlie Peacock on keys. With their powers combined, they were Captain Justice, and the show severely rocked.

The adjective ‘severely’ mostly stems from the fact that I was one of only three organizers for this show, myself and two older pastors scheming over lunches how to bring in a $10,000 Christian concert tour with almost no money and to a city not known for its cooperation or interest among local churches.

Let’s just say it wasn’t easy and another story altogether.

But the final product was glorious. There were over 800 people spread out in the imposing Gaillard Auditorium, just enough to assuage the fear that the cavernous venue might swallow the energy of the show. The crowd was star-studded with Charleston’s spiritually hippest. Justice-minded pastors and musicians and conscientious members of their congregations made up of the bulk of attendees. If fair-trade coffee had been served after the show, no one would have gotten home till 3:00 am.

As concerts go, it was minimalistic but decidedly entertaining. Between the likes of Derek Webb practically challenging the audience not to vote, heart-wrenching videos of girls being rescued from brothel slavery, and watching the singer-songwriters weave their skills together into a formidable band, this show was undoubtedly one of the best Christian tours of the year.

Yet, what stood out to me the most was the unwavering focus on Christ throughout the entire performance. I expected the artists to give a hard-sell for justice while soft-peddling Jesus. That is most commercially expedient thing to do right now after all.

But instead, Christ was the answer to all the world’s ills, and because of that, we then simply are unable to resist the implicit call to become agents of justice and liberation. By the end of the night the audience was being led in a stitched-together series of hymns that fell nothing short of a beautifully illuminating cry for hope and justice.

So if the Art Music Justice Tour is coming to a town near you, make sure you get there. Car, train, plane, unicycle, whatever. Just get there. You won’t regret it.

4 in 41

2008-10-20T15:23:00.001-04:00

God tends to provide just barely, just barely enough to know that His precision is more accurate than yours.

I was invited to speak at a high school retreat this weekend. I was probably given three months notice, but I wasn’t provided the topics they wanted me to talk on until two days before it began. By that time I was too locked in at work to prepare anything. On Friday afternoon and after a flurry of manic last-minute activity, I rolled into the camp with a compact bible, an empty black notebook, and little clue as to what I was going to say to these kids who were getting dangerously close to being adults.

Like any normal spiritually-inept human being, my Hail Marys started being sent up probably about halfway in my drive between Charleston and the camp. I arrived at five in the afternoon and got my briefing. I was to write and deliver four messages between now and ten in the morning Sunday. Four in forty-one hours to be precise. The camp did provide a critical tool to help me though. Hot pink sticky notes. A whole stack of them and everything. God, I am so effed, I thought.

You see, I’m not known for the speed in which I craft a spiritual message. I usually agonize for a good week about anything formal I would say to an audience. Four in forty-one hours seemed all but an unintentional plot to showcase my sloth with a pen.

But the good Lord provided in His usual fashion, which usually for me manifests itself by my running around with my head chopped-off and God making sure I don’t lose it permanently. Then of course everything gets done, and done well, but just barely. As Reese Roper says in the final Five Iron Frenzy album, God demonstrates “Unequaled precision behind our scope of vision.” Darn golly though, it that’s true, then it’s a rather uncomfortable truth, isn’t it?

I love that about truth. If it were easy to swallow, more people would believe it.

Baha’ul’llah Brouhaha

2008-10-11T12:22:00.001-04:00

Ok, so I’ve only been on Match for a few weeks now and I’m basically fed up with it. In retrospect, I really would have been fine with a month-long membership, but I’m such a sucker for bulk discounts. Kinda like the single guy who grocery shops exclusively at Sam’s Club despite knowing that fifty pounds of beef he bought will only sit in his freezer for months unwanted and undigested.

So let’s start out with wonder woman, who I had the impending coffee date from the last entry. So as it turns out, this girl definitely was the real McCoy, other than looking significantly better in front of a camera lens than in front of the human eye. But basically besides that, she was everything I’d hope she be based on our previous exchanges. Of course, because this is online dating we’re talking about there has to be some sort of catch. Like the dealbreaker catches that make online dating infamous. Massive credit card debt. Five gold teeth. Wanted by the International Criminal Court. This time it was Bha’i. Yes, Bha’i, which I’m willing to bet you have no clue what that is. It’s okay, I didn’t till about a year ago either. In a nutshell Baha’i, according to our good friends at Wikipedia,

Is a religion founded by Bahá'u'lláh in nineteenth-century Persia, emphasizing the spiritual unity of all humankind. There are an estimated five to six million Bahá'ís around the world in more than 200 countries and territories. Bahá'í teachings emphasize the underlying unity of the major world religions. Religious history is seen to have unfolded through a series of divine messengers, each of whom established a religion that was suited to the needs of the time and the capacity of the people. These messengers have included Abraham, the Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad and others, including most recently Bahá'u'lláh. In Bahá'í belief, each messenger taught of the next, and Bahá'u'lláh's life and teachings fulfill the end-time promises of previous scriptures. Humanity is understood to be involved in a process of collective evolution, and the need of the present time is for the gradual establishment of peace, justice and unity on a global scale.

Cute, huh? It’s hard to hate a religion like Baha’i, because it sounds just so darn warm and fuzzy, but if you’re any degree of theologian or philosopher, this is the kind of religion you’d place on shelf next in the category marked ‘Lesser World Religions’. Seriously, if there was a legitimacy scale to measure Baha’i’s claims that of all worlds religious leaders are really on the same divine team and that their man was the grand finale, the scale probably place them slightly below Wicca and slightly above Mormonism.

I had this naïve hope going into the first date that this woman’s Match.com profile check-off of ‘spiritual, but not religious’, might be a codeprhase for ‘I like Jesus, but not the church’. Baha’ul’llah is laughing at me right now, because for all of this girl’s study of world religions, she settled on Baha’i. Granted, it seems like the choice was mostly out of fatigue, but epistemological laziness just doesn’t fly with me.

And if you’re thinking I cut this girl off just because she was of a different religion, think again. I’m normally prone to like diversity at least for self-enrichment purposes, but when she literally disappears (a.k.a. walks out without notice) on me at a gallery opening three days later, I can’t figure out if her previously very outspoken interest in me died like her religion’s founder or if she’s just exceedingly rude. Either way, I’m not having it.

But I’ll probably try to hook up the charitable organization she’s assisting with more volunteers anyway. I know. I’m such a sucker.

Jean Calvin's Dolphins

2008-09-30T20:56:00.001-04:00

I saw the most dolphins I’ve seen in my entire life the yesterday. It was early evening on Sullivans Island and a pod cruised by for feeding. Now it’s not unusual for me to see a dolphin or a two around this time, and at first I didn’t think much of them. But they kept coming, and coming, and coming—in what seemed like an hour-long parade only two-hundred feet from shore. If I had my surfboard with me, I could have paddled out there in thirty seconds. Though seeing the size of some of them, that might have been a bad idea.

I’ve read what you might call conflicting accounts about dolphins. Some of them recount tales of stalwart heroism. One in particular tells of a dolphin that despite being shot at numerous times by sailors, would regularly resurface to guide other vessels away from the deadly submerged reefs at sea into safe passage. On the other hand, I’ve read of dolphins that have come close to taking some hands off of people. It seems the increased capacity for thinking comes with it the increased capacity for emotional dispositions. If that’s true, and the dolphin is capable of such significant good and ill-tempered acts, what does it mean for us humans?

There was a short story I read when I was twelve. In it, aliens had come to destroy earth. But before they did so, they were going to spare the most morally perfect male and female inhabitant and bring the pair with them. It was Adam and Eve come full circle—at least that’s how the media reported, and the whole world was captivated in agonizing anticipation waiting simultaneously for their own annihilation and the selection of two best people in the world. Amidst half the world tearing itself apart at the news of its impending demise, the obvious speculation centered on major world leaders and religious figures. Certainly among these elites they were some of the most righteous beings on the planet. It wasn’t the only prediction though. The wild card choice was perhaps a child, less corrupted by its own humanity.

Then the day came. The aliens made their decision. The world held its breath.

They choose two dolphins.

First Impressions

2008-09-26T15:16:00.005-04:00

So the great experiment has begun, and I'm proud to say I've taken it pretty seriously. Not only seriously, but strategically as well.

The first day I joined I made sure to post a dozen photos that really gave the spread of who I am. I said I played volleyball, so there's naturally a picture of me sweaty, topless, and in mid-flight towards an inevitable kill. I said I surfed, but in reality I'm not very good, so I have an image of me tearing up some three-foot mini wave on a skimboard. Whatever. Close enough. But most importantly, I show the diversity of my looks. Y'know, that shot at just the right angle that somehow captures my sculpted chin contrasted with the next photo that lovingly reveals my chipmunk cheeks. An unbiased friend once told me I looked much better on the internet, which I think was my Myspace account. That had all sculpted chins on it. Reality can be disappointing, so it's good to be honest about who you are.

Then I had to be honest and strategic about how much of a catch I was--and its ramifications for online dating. I only e-mailed three girls in Charleston. Because if you think about it and consider how good looking I am, emailing a dozen pretty women could land me in some serious trouble. I mean, how do you pull off a dozen dates in a weekend? No sir, you can't. At least not without a stop watch and digging into one's savings account. Three is much more manageable.

As a disappointing reality would have it, my dashing looks and superior intellect weren't as alluring as I might have imagined. Strangely, I got the feeling one girl thought I was some Californian snob devoid of good Midwestern values. I tried to explain to her that my best friend in college was a redneck who always made me eat deer instead of beef, and everyone knows that venison is low in fat and high in Midwestern values, but the jury is still out though as to whether that worked on her or not. Another girl seemed pretty cool but obviously not as cool as to be on Match every single day, so I've only heard from her once. And the last of the three seemed so classy that I almost felt like I should have broken out in guttural grunts upon reading her profile. Very well-traveled, fashionable, artistic, attractive, intellectual, bilingual, and spiritually open-minded. Or at least that’s what she seems like. Remember, reality can be disappointing. Either way, I’ll find out soon. We have a coffee date coming up.

The Great Match.com Experiment

2008-09-22T15:29:00.002-04:00

Upon my admittance that I did indeed, look at Match.com the other day (hey, it's OKAY to look!), a friend urged me to officially join it. Not only to join it, but to blog on it. Nobly, and predictably, I ponied up the $50 and took her up on this challenge.

So I made a profile, full of thoughtfulness, good intentions, and truly high standards—and have begun my first journey into the wild electronic yonder of internet dating. Now, you may be asking yourself, "Is he really that desperate?" The answer is yes. But it's not the kind of desperate that implies I couldn't get laid by a hot chick no matter how hard I tried (and another friend pointed out with obvious precision that I don't get laid even when I have a girlfriend). And while I’m sure there are lots of guys doing internet dating that fall into that category, I’m honestly not one of them. Honestly. Rather, this desperate is the kind of desperate that implies the dating world in my fair city sucks in the way that few men can understand. You see, Charleston is chock-full of beautiful women. They're really all over the place. We're very blessed about that and I offer of thanks to God the Father every time I'm at the beach.

But the problem is that despite the external charms of these ladies, the internal allure is generally lacking. To borrow an old John Elderidge term, they're simply not captivating. So much so, that I've had to outsource my dating to Georgian women not once, but twice. In fact, the only girl I ever dated from Charleston lasted a whole two unpleasant weeks. And really, the only reason I tried in the first place was because she looked like she was from LA and that offered some semblance of cultural comfort. I'm telling you, times are tough in a spiritual and intellectual economy such as this.

But enough rambling about bemoaning my dating prospects. You want to know what happens with this Match.com madness. Well, there are more lurid details to come, including my theories as to why it's so hard for a nice, decent-looking guy to find a date in a city-by-the sea teeming with bronzed beauties.

Pockets

2008-09-17T20:34:00.002-04:00

I took a couple of our teenagers down to Seabrook Island the other weekend for ‘Celebration’. There’s a retreat center there called Camp St. Christopher, though they would prefer to use the word ‘renewal’ over ‘retreat’. I wasn’t sure why.

Getting out of the car I was immediately struck by the lush natural beauty of this beachside camp. All the buildings, even though they were on stilts, seemed to hug the landscape around them. That probably had something to do with their aging wood frames, which bore inside them facilities as Spartan as they were old.

It didn’t take long for me to let my students run free once I got there. I would have a different group of teenagers to watch over. But try as I might, I couldn’t let go of all the baggage I brought with me—even though I packed exceedingly light. The emotional weariness that followed me to the island couldn’t be handed off to the staff that rushed up to carry my travel case. I felt like a shipwreck that had just beached itself into the barrier dunes.

The first night they asked the students to deposit all forms of communication and watches into a box for the duration of the weekend. They said knowing time would distract from getting to know God. Though I wasn’t their target audience, I decided to go along with losing a sense of time. I ditched my watch and emptied my pockets of their contents for good measure. Phone. Wallet. Keys. Gone.

That first night I was still brimming with anxiety. I couldn’t worship to the kids’ songs with anything more than amusement. My soul felt stiff and rigid. Hardly something that could be malleable to God. Sleep came quickly, mostly borne out of exhaustion.

The next morning though, I felt distinctly different. Maybe it was the morning communion that did it. Maybe it was the salty ocean air pouring into my lungs. Maybe it was all the prayer being poured into the camp. But whatever it was, my pockets felt lighter. And everything started to change.

I could pray with a renewed vigor. I could sing out the teenage remixes of renewal. I was even able to *almost* slow my 70 mph Charleston ministry brain down enough to the pace of the leisurely 25 mph ministry of Celebration. All the while my pockets reveled in their liberation. They were so light.

Sometimes I felt obligated to check in with the civilization I had left behind forty-five minutes up the winding roads. I would come back to my cabin pining for my cell phone to see if some minor crisis had broken out in my absence. Dropping the phone in my pocket, I suddenly felt a physical awkwardness as though some ungainly weight had just anchored to the side of my leg. My spiritual alarms went off as if I had just stowed away some small satchel of sin. I ditched my phone as soon as I could.

My pockets and my spirit felt light for the rest of the weekend. This continued to surprise me, as I was physically exhausted from corralling teenagers all day and was coming down with a cold. And I occasionally retested the depositing of some relatively small worldly reminder in my pockets, only to be met every time for a physical yearning to cast them out. By the end Sunday, even chap stick was starting to feel oppressive.

Was this a retreat from the ‘real world’ or a spiritual renewal equipping me for it? I’m still not sure. Perhaps it doesn’t matter. Actually, I’m pretty sure that it doesn’t. For a few continuous hours, I was able to empty my pockets, be still, and know that God is God.

Collate

2008-09-17T20:34:00.001-04:00

It's time to put stuff together. Blogs that is. I've had couple floating around the internet for years now. Two of which I hardly use any more since I started blogging for my church. I would use that one, but the nature of church website would circumvent my more colorful thinking. So everything is going on here now. I might throw some of my old stuff on. I might transfer over my tame church too. But come here expecting slightly discombobulated thoughts about the current state of affairs in our nation's culture, spiritual life, and the body politic.

Not like there aren't really enough of those out there, but I'm told that people who write books should have outlets where people can read our constant thoughts so we don't have to write books anymore. It saves trees. Trees are good.

So enjoy what you will, or what you can. It doesn't particularly matter. God's got this thing.