The Problem of Donald Trump's Faith

The Donald is at it again. 

Gage Skidmore [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

In a swarm of unlikely GOP candidates, Donald Trump caps it off by convincing almost a quarter of likely GOP voters that he's the one to go up against Hillary. There's already talk that if Rick Perry gets his way, Donald will personally fund his own third-party candidacy. This would likely rob Republican votes of a worthwhile GOP candidate and almost guarantee a win for the Democrats in two Novembers time. In a world where Fox News has warned its viewership of the plague of political correctness, it's not surprising that a straight-talking, wildly-rich, anti-political Mr. Fix It is attracting a bunch of regular folks who are fed up with the current Administration. 

At this point, Trump is almost impenetrable. He denigrated a beloved maverick. He read aloud a private cellphone number of a likable bachelor. He, perhaps most dramatically, racially profiled millions of America's workforce. And somehow each time, no matter how much the press has pushed him, he's managed to weasel his way out only to grow in the polls. It is fascinating.

His bit about John McCain at The Family Leadership Summit was untrue, unwarranted, and wildly stupid and though it received, by far, the most media attention, it wasn't the the most remarkable part of that interview for me. I found myself entranced by his comments about faith. Most significantly, forgiveness.

Bluntly, Trump was asked, "Have you ever asked God for forgiveness?"

Trump answered it as Trump always does, as only he can. "That's a tough question. I don't think in terms of...I'm a religious person, shockingly...I'm Protestant, I'm Presbyterian, I go to church and I love God and I love my church." He continued with a story about "the great" Norman Vincent Peale, a man he reveres and whose sermons made a lasting impression on him. Never, of course, answering the question, "Have you ever asked God for forgiveness?"

I love this next part. The moderator didn't let it go. "But. Have you ever asked God for forgiveness?" The audience laughed. Trump responded, stumped. "I'm not sure I have. I just go and try and do a better job from there. I don't think so."

He likely could not have been more honest. While later he rightly referred to taking the "wine and crackers" at communion as a way of asking for forgiveness, there was a certain attitude of humility and repentance that the moderator was looking for to which Trump, truthfully, could not admit. Maybe it's because Trump can't admit to wrongdoing; that certainly seems likely. Maybe it's because Trump thinks he's the greatest man to walk this earth; that seems possible.

I can't help but point to his own admission: his pastor, to which he immediately made reference and shared exuberantly about his influence, may have shaped--or at least allowed--this mindset of Trump. 

To those familiar with recent American history and theological thought, the name Norman Vincent Peale isn't foreign. A controversial pastor after the release of his book, "The Power of Positive Thinking", Peale's teachings were shunned by both the mental health and theological communities being regarded by some as heretical.

Indeed Peale's writings are problematic for Christians who seek not to find faith in themselves but to find faith in Jesus Christ. Even Amazon's description of Peale's best-selling book says it bluntly:

"With the practical techniques outlined in this book, you can energize your life—and give yourself the initiative needed to carry out your ambitions and hopes. You’ll learn how to:

· Believe in yourself and in everything you do
· Build new power and determination
· Develop the power to reach your goals
· Break the worry habit and achieve a relaxed life
· Improve your personal and professional relationships
· Assume control over your circumstances
· Be kind to yourself" 

Seems an odd set of goals from a Christian pastor, eh? It's a self-help book, sure, but its Christian message, if there even is one, leaves much to be desired.

Wikipedia's entry on Peale quotes John Krumm(the book linked above), Reinhold Niebuhr, and G. Bromley Oxnam on Peale's anti-Christian espousing in his book. Wikipedia's choice of quotes from Liston Pope was my favorite though, "There is nothing humble or pious in the view this cult takes of God. God becomes sort of a master psychiatrist who will help you get out of your difficulties. The formulas and the constanat reiteration of such themes as "You and God can do anything" are very nearly blasphemous." ("The Case against Easy Religion," William Peters. Redbook Magazine, September 1955, pp. 22–23, 92-94). I mean, come on Dr. Pope, tell us how you really feel.

Either Trump needed to name-drop to evade a question about his own brokenness or Norman Vincent Peale made a lasting impact on The Donald through his preaching. The evidence, Trump's refusal to admit to his need for forgiveness, points to the latter. If a preacher preaches that one can overcome the most difficult obstacles and accomplish anything simply by thinking positively about it, how can one be convinced of their own need for redemption and forgiveness?

It doesn't take a political genius to realize that Trump's humility is lacking. I'm convinced, as a Christian minister, that humility and a self-awareness of one's own brokenness is essential to their discipleship. If one claims to be a Christian, as Donald does, one must be convinced of their own need for grace. Without it, there's no point in Jesus.

The problem? GOP voters have already proven in large part that politicians speak louder in their hearts than their pastors do and conservative pastors continually shape the work of their sermons and their reading of Scripture within the political atmosphere. I fear that an influential presidential candidate might renew a sense in America's Christians that one's own humility is not necessary for the gospel.

That is a lie. That is a problem. 

-B

True Freedom and Its Costs

Early yesterday morning, shortly after midnight, the freedom that a young man (younger than I am) named James Holmes had to own an assault rifle, legally, cost 12 people (maybe more) their lives. It cost 12 families their loved ones and it cost the world 12 individuals who could have made it a better place.

James Holmes was free to own the weapons that he used to shoot those 71 people yesterday. He legally purchased those guns, all that ammunition, and likely anything that he used to booby trap his apartment which he knew he would never return to.

James was free, like you and I. He had a right, a freedom, to own those guns.

Interestingly enough, that freedom that James enjoyed was paid for by the lives of soldiers who fought courageously both here in the States and abroad so that no one would take away that freedom. People lost loved ones in war, terrorist attacks, and random acts of violence, all because we were fighting to maintain our freedom. Simply put: we must defend ourselves in order to keep our freedom.

This concept isn't new. We know this. In order for us to have freedom, we must defend our freedom. But it does get more complicated.

Last night I asked a still-unanswered question via the wonderful world of social media and it went something like this: Is there any reason that non-military or non-police citizens should be allowed to own a semi-automatic rifle? I didn't phrase the question well, and I was unsure of what verbs to use, but I think the message was semi-clear: what good, honorable reason would there be for someone to own a weapon like James used in Aurora? Should it be legal to own a weapon that can do that much damage?

Of course, as many of my posts do, it sparked controversy. Americans are only as free as they can defend themselves to be! People attack us? We must fight back! We are only as free as we can assure ourselves that we are. Otherwise, those attacking us impending on our freedom have every opportunity to take away our freedom, which makes it so that we aren't truly free.

I should be clear: I think this is a giant load of crap.

If we define freedom in this way then we are saying that freedom only comes from the way in which we defend ourselves.

Friends, this isn't freedom. This is fear.

I'd invite you to take a step back and look at what this freedom has brought us: countless wars ending with much of the world hating our arrogance, machines in airports that send radiation into our bodies, racism, patent wars, and undying greed.

I have family members that carry a pistol wherever they go. The idea is that if anyone were to attack our family, they'd have a way to defend themselves. Again, I ask, is this freedom? Can we truly enjoy such a "freedom" if we are always concerned with who might be following us, ready to attack us? What is it that this freedom truly gives us?

Perhaps the question really is: what is the point of such a freedom? What is this freedom all about anyway? Is freedom the right to bear arms? Is freedom the right to say whatever we want, even if it is harmful? Is freedom the right to put up a fence so that the neighbor can't see me mowing the lawn? Is freedom the chance to eat BBQ, drink beer, and party with fireworks?

This, to me, doesn't sound like real freedom. It doesnt sound like a culture ready and willing to make this world a better place. It doesn't sound like a culture who cares about one another. No, this freedom sounds like a culture in which online bullying meets crazy heights and encourages suicide. This freedom sounds like a culture that encourages the defense of religion rather than the religion itself. This freedom sounds like a culture that has at least one mass shooting a year. This freedom sounds like a culture that is so obsessed with the work of the individual that it encourages such an individual to refuse to recognize the assistance they've received that led to their success.

In short: this freedom sounds like it delivers a worse product and costs more. It costs us the lives of soldiers overseas. It costs us the lives of moviegoers in a theater. It costs us a dying reputation. And what do we get? A degraded culture who cares nothing about what we should care about.

I sense a very different freedom in Christ. Christ assures us, because of his death and resurrection that the chains that once bound us through sin are broken forever. This freedom, true freedom, allows us to live into the people we have been made to be. This freedom, true freedom, allows us to recognize the gifts and graces of one another. This freedom, true freedom, inspires us to live as one with the peace that only Christ can give us. This freedom, true freedom, gives us life and life abundantly. The other freedom results in death; this freedom, true freedom, results in resurrection.

And the best part: the price for this freedom has been paid. The sacrifice has been given, by the very one who gives us life! It costs us nothing but the willingness to follow in the steps of the one who said "Come, follow me."

Many may say, "Wrong! This freedom costs us everyday. It costs us because the life of discipleship is one of martyrdom. It costs us because of the persecution of the world." AHA! The world wants us to buy into its version of freedom. But we must not. It wants us to pay the cost (and many many before us have). But we must not. Even if we are persecuted on this earth, we know that true freedom of being forgiven for our brokenness is still had. That price has been paid.

This freedom is not concerned with our rights as individuals, it is concerned with our holiness. It is concerned with who God wants us to be. It has nothing to do with our individualistic rights, it has to do with our calling.

In America, for some silly reason, we have been defining freedom in terms of the right to defend ourselves and right to do what we want. That freedom has a poor outcome and costs a lot. And that doesn't end well. It ends with dead bodies on the floor. It ends up with bloodied theater seats.

If only we would desire true freedom.

-B

We remember the lives of those who were shot in Aurora yesterday morning. May God's hand of comfort be on their souls and their family members. May God's comforting and guiding hand help this nation to recover from such a tragedy, and guide the world toward true freedom, for which the price has already been paid. We are a broken people. Let us remember that we are also a forgiven people.

Posted with Blogsy

Contemporary Worship Music: Unintentional Ecumenism

ec·u·men·i·cal

adjective

1. general; universal.

2. pertaining to the whole Christian church.

3. promoting or fostering Christian unity throughout the world.

4. of or pertaining to a movement (ecumenical movement), especially among Protestant groups since the 1800s, aimedat achieving universal Christian unity and church unionthrough international interdenominational organizations thatcooperate on matters of mutual concern.

5. interreligious or interdenominational: an ecumenicalmarriage.

In the United Methodist Church, we have a hymnal.  Every 20 years or so another one pops up, with great new hymns,  great old hymns, and...unfortunately...some of the same old, really bad hymns.  The church is trying to be 'progressive' (whatever that means), so we have seen little books like 'The Faith We Sing' and 'Worship and Song' pop up as well.  These are the technologically limited offerings aimed at keeping up with the rapid rate of song creation in the Church these days.  'Worship and Song,' printed last year, has only now included "How Great is Our God" and "Open the Eyes of My Heart" (Open the Eyes of My Heart was written in 1997, How Great is Our God in 2004).

When I purchased my copy of 'Worship and Song' at Cokesbury, the sales associate told me that this was the "first expandable hymnal!"  I asked her how the binding to the book played a role in its expandability and she gave me the scrunched-nose face. Technologically, these books have been limited.

Interestingly enough, in some Christian circles, this technological barrier has played a huge role in keeping the churches singing the same songs they've been singing for ages. In others, they have ignored the technological implications completely.  Many Christians are growing up in church environments (that alone is something to celebrate) and do not realize that Christians used to sing songs out of books that they held in their hands instead of on screens (I'll let you decide whether or not that is something to celebrate).

Long story short: music in the Church is rapidly changing.  Some people are changing it, some are avoiding it.  Others, like the United Methodist Church in large part, avoided it for 20 years or so and are just now trying to catch up. The last category of churches feel a little like RIM and Nokia do now when it comes to smart phones:  late to the game inevitably will hurt, no matter your customer loyalty.

Not long ago I presented a hymnal to a student of mine on which her name was imprinted.  I said to her, "These are the songs of our tradition." Ever since that moment, I've been thinking about what I meant by that statement.  Did I mean that these are the ONLY songs of our tradition?  Did I mean that these are the songs our of tradition and OUR TRADITION alone?  What is it that I meant?  Does that make the songs outside of our hymnal NOT part of our tradition?

In seminary we talk a lot about the music we sing being formative for the Christian journey.  We sing songs pertinent to the liturgical context we are in, usually having something to do with the morning's message.  We pride ourselves: the hymns we sing aren't, and shouldn't be, fluff.

In fact, the United Methodist Church has something going for it here.  Charles Wesley, brother to John Wesley and co-founder of the Methodist movement in England, wrote hundreds of poems.  As the search for a 'Wesleyan' identity is set before us in the UMC, a return to Charles's lyrics are usually appreciated.  Whenever I bring the topic up in UMC circles, eyes light up.  "Yes! That's the way it should be!" they seem to say.  Methodism was blessed from its beginnings with theologically based hymns and Methodists far and wide don't want to lose that.

This isn't the whole story though.  We sing songs every Sunday in Methodist Churches that were written by non-Methodist writers. Heck, we sing songs in church on Sundays that were written by the Gaithers.  We sing songs written by Calvinist predestinarians.  We sing all kinds of music in the UMC, no matter how much we pride ourselves in being 'Wesleyan.'

I was thinking about all of this, trying to put these pieces together in my head, so that I could sort out the proper course of action. Then I had this thought: We're not seeing this hangup with many who are writing music for the masses today.

No, in fact, these hangups of being strictly 'Wesleyan' don't matter to many.  The people who are constantly writing new, exciting, progressive, worship music are largely from non-denominational churches. These churches usually have some sort of vague mission statement and clearly defining themselves is not something they do!  The popular people writing music these days for the 'contemporary worship' setting are largely tied to movements.  Is Hillsong a movement or a church?  Yes.  Is Passion a movement or a church?  Yes.  What do these movements do? A little bit of everything.  Many of these groups don't even use the word "church." Being sticklers for quality, theologically sound music is simply not a priority.  They want music that is exciting and engaging, and the lyrical composition can be what it is.

The question then becomes: is the work coming out of these 'movements' unifying the church at all?  In other words, if those producing material are not hung up on staying true to their founders, are they free to write music that spans across denominational barriers? Are these songs acting, whether intended for it or not, as a form of ecumenism?

These songs, those written within the past 20 years for 'contemporary' worship environments are criticized all the time for being too "simplistic" or "shallow" in their theology. But it occurs to me that this  very criticism might actually be what makes these songs work across the barriers.  Charles Wesley wrote songs that were deeply explicit in their lyrics, calling out church heretics, heretical leanings, and teachings that were against his views of Christianity.  He even, from time to time, called out people by name.

We simply aren't seeing this in today's music.  We're singing statements about loving Jesus, about Jesus rising from the dead, and Jesus saving us.  While they might still be criticized for aligning themselves with Jesus and little else of the Trinity, these are overarching statements that don't necessarily apply to any specific denomination or tradition.

It seems to me that it is BECAUSE of the more universal nature of the lyrics within recent songwriting that these songs are becoming forms of ecumenism.  These songs are popular, easy to sing (choruses and refrains repeat constantly) and when played well, tug at the emotions of those singing them.  In a sense, these songs are unifying the church.  These songs are played in Baptist churches, Methodist churches, Presbyterian churches, Catholic churches, Lutheran churches, and most prominently in non-denominational churches far and wide.

So, are they unifying? Yeah, I guess, in a way they are.  These songs are being sung all over, much like hymns like "Holy, Holy, Holy" "It Is Well" and "Come Thou Fount" were before.  Generalized lyrics and easy to sing melodies.  They surpass and tear down walls of division that have been placed there by theological and political arguments for 2000 years. To me, it's an interesting phenomenon.

See, the technological barriers of printing books has kept many denominations and generations infused with the idea that if it's not in our hymnal, it's no good.  This has allowed for boards and agencies to curate the contents of our singing, too.  But, these groups that work past those technological barriers (we don't print books anymore), are able to stretch beyond that. And, because of that freedom, they've explored new realms of communal singing.

The interesting question is, what if true, studied theologians had done this rather than the guy down the street who played guitar?  Would that have changed the outcome?  Could we have had a more universal set of songs that were ALSO theologically grounded?  I don't think so.  I think the "shallowness" of much of what we see set to worship music today should get credit for helping me attend a non-denominational service and know the music.

Contemporary worship style gets a lot of crap for the way in which it exists. All I'm saying is that its music (one of the biggest reasons it has been successful) deserves a look. A critique, too, perhaps.  But, definitely, a look.

Just some random thoughts.

-B

We Ought To Have Compassion For Jerry Sandusky

I watched the news yesterday, like most of America: 45 out of 48 counts...guilty.

He was held for sexual misconduct with minors, child rape, and several other counts that make us turn our heads and cry. As the trial began, I wanted to give him the most hope I could, but after some time it became more and more evident: Jerry was guilty. The defense attorney said it was an 'uphill battle.' I've never heard such an understatement.

I wrote on twitter (and therefore Facebook) yesterday that I have a problem when I hear people say "he got what he deserved." I excepted, though, child molestation. Something seems so graphic, perverse, and utterly wrong about it. When it comes to child molestation, I tend to think that those criminals should get all that they deserve.

What does Jerry deserve? As at 68 year old man, he's going to get the rest of his life in prison. He was taken into custody following yesterday's proceedings. He will never spend another night in bed with his wife. He will never see the life of a free man again. The world is over for Jerry Sandusky. He won't even have much of an opportunity to right his wrongs.

I could tell that this news was well received because as the final decision by the jury became public, the crowd outside the courthouse steps screamed and cheered. They were ecstatic that this serial molester/rapist was finally going to 'get what he deserved.' They cheered the prosecuting attorney as she spoke to the crowd and booed the defense attorney when he even hinted at the idea of an appeal.

Jerry is going to, according to the world, 'get what he deserves.'

Unfortunately today I spent the greater part of the afternoon watching YouTube clips of Westboro Baptist Church. As many of you know, WBC uses their voice to scream fire and damnation to all 'fags' and 'fag-enablers.' Mostly, if you don't go to their church, you fall into one of those two camps for them. Within every clip they said, 'fags are gonna get what they deserve...because they don't listen to the Lord their God.' For WBC, being gay deserves damnation in hell forever. If you are gay, you will get what you deserve when you spend eternity in hell, according to Westboro Baptist Church.

Of course, the thing Westboro Baptist is missing is compassion. They have none. They will explain to you (I've asked them) that what they're doing is 'love.' They love gay people more than anyone else, according to them, because they want gays to turn from their 'evil' ways. Their love, though, is for some sort of works-righteousness where one could earn eternity in heaven simply by not being gay. That's how they define 'love'...like, hey, if I didn't love you, I wouldn't tell you about how bad it is to be gay. Therefore, I love you. That's not really love.

This seems a worldly, and not Christlike, response. You do something that is 'despicable' (in the case of homosexuality, we are remarkably disagreed...with child rape, we are not) in our eyes. Therefore, you shall be punished. According to WBC, for the gay it is hell. According the world, for Jerry it's prison for life...and a shamed life.

How shall the Church separate itself from the world?

The world says to Jerry, a sick sick man, "You are going to get what you deserve." The Church, though, needs to say to him, "What you did is wrong, but we love you. And yes, that means more than telling you that you get what you deserve...it means seeing the part of you that God is within. it means having compassion for the part of you that is broken, like we all are."

Jerry will spend the rest of his life in prison. And, according to this world, he should.

But the Church will have to take the step beyond that. A step to see Jerry as a person, a human. Perhaps a very sick man, but a man just the same. That compassion for those who have wronged us, those who do despicable things, those that are misfits in society is the type of compassion I see Jesus preaching and practicing within the Scriptures. We are to follow what Jesus did. That's who we are. That's our calling.

We ought to have compassion for Jerry Sandusky. That's how we, the Church, stand apart from the world.

-B

Thoughts on Bullying

The fearful always preyed upon your confidence.
Did they see the consequence? They pushed you around.
The arrogant build kingdoms made of the different ones,
Breaking them til they've become just another crown.
-Lifehouse

You may have caught the recent news about the death of Tori Swoape, yet another teenager who committed suicide because of school and online bullying. It's sad, sad news.

Bullying is a difficult problem in today's world. We hear the arguments left and right that because of the advent of social media, we are empowering each other to say things one might not have said face to face. Aspects of a changing cultural scene play into another one, making the issue of self esteem and bullying a more complex one that ever before.

My heart is saddened by these stories of bullying. My heart aches for the children who literally think there is no other way out of their difficult situations. I struggle a lot with the concept of bullying, mostly though because I'm convinced its been around for ages. Bullying, as I see it, is not a new thing.

Bullying, as I see it, is no more than a power play. Bullying is not about being cool or lame, smart or dumb, black or white, gay or straight, fat or skinny, or any other way that we distinguish ourselves from some other person. Bullying is simply a play of power in an effort to attain more. It is an attempt to use whatever assets I have to make you feel worse about yours.

It is an effort to draw upon the emotions of others using the skills, talents, and resources at your disposal in order for yourself to be made higher. Bullying is simply power at work.

Isn't our entire society shaped around bullying? Isn't the goal of American society to win over someone else? Isn't the goal to be the most powerful? Isn't that the reason that we continue to have one of the strongest militaries in the world? Hasn't the history of the world involved strong senses of nationalism and power?

The opportunity to surrender before entire annihilation in war is an example of this. The reason one might wave their flag of surrender is because they've been intimidated enough to the point that they can now acknowledge that they cannot win. They cannot go on. The other military has then used their resources to convince you and your military that it is weaker, insufficient, and likely to lose. Resources used to intimidate so that surrender happens and the fight for power is over.

It's no different on the schoolyard. A girl can call another girl a 'slut' because she knows it is a degrading word that others will associate with her enemy. If the term catches on, the girl will no longer be the cool girl anymore, she'll be the 'slut.' When the population turns against you, your own acknowledgment of who you are changes. Your confidence is lost. The power is removed from you.

The same is true of the current rush of gay children committing suicide because of bullying. They're just a normal kid until those who are against them use some sort resource (language, popularity, Scripture) against them so that they draw upon an emotional reaction.

Once someone has lost confidence in who they are, they've forfeited all power. And that power is left for the taking.

I see the attention that the media, social media, and school systems are giving to bullying as more than just an acknowledgment that bullying is wrong and must be stopped. In a very real and tangible way it is an acknowledgment that something is wrong with how we live together. Something always has been wrong with the way we have been.

Nevertheless, bullying is our history. If we believe in a cause, we march for it. We stop traffic. We boycott. We sing hymns to stop meetings. We use our resources to beat down those with power to get our side heard. We can and do (both rightly and not rightly) paint it with the brush of 'justice' but we bully...back and forth, left and right. When we use our resources to force even something as worthy inclusiveness and fairness, we are simply using the same tactics on others that were used against us.

I'd wager that some disagree, but I don't read Jesus as having used resources to draw emptional responses in order to win power. He took the authority that God gave him as his guiding light. With that, he was unwilling to submit to a power play. I'd encourage you to study his trial before his execution to see what I mean. It was (and is) I am very sure, a different way of looking at the world.

As we continue as a society, the trick is to remove the power. The trick is to remove ourselves from a world where power is at stake. We must remove ourselves, perhaps humbling ourselves to death...even death on a cross...because we are unwilling to give into the need for power in this world. If we could approach our disputes as people from an attitude of humility, surely some sort of attitude worthy of God would prevail.

If anything, the attention being given to bullying is bigger than it perhaps realizes it is: it's an acknowledgment that something has to change on a large scale or we are to suffer the devastation of centuries past. Worse, it's likely going against God's will.

We cannot continue fighting violence with violence. We cannot continue to fight bullying with bullying. We've got to change society's understanding of power. Hopefully, that will end the battle. Hopefully, that in turn, will end the suicides.

-B

North Carolina's Amendment One: What's God Got to Do With It?

I spent the last two weeks with WAAAAYYY too many United Methodists. Throughout the weeks, those who supported the church removing its statement, "homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching" wore colored stoles to show their support. The church attempted to reconcile the hurt it has caused to its gay and lesbian members but was unsuccessful at passing legislation that would help mend the wounds. The church then, in a vote of 61% - 39% voted to keep the language currently in its Book of Discipline. When the vote to remove the 'incompatible' language failed, many who support gay and lesbian full acceptance in the church marched onto the floor and refused to leave until the bishops negotiated with them.

Then I came back to North Carolina.

Amendment One has been all over the news here and throughout the country and those voting to defeat the amendment have been adamant about placing signage in their yards. Honestly, with all the promotion I've seen against the amendment, I didn't think it had a chance at passing.

News flash: Bryant underestimates the conservatism in North Carolina.

The best part of any breaking news story in 2012 is the mass amount of Facebook and Twitter trolling that occurs. When Bin Laden was killed, my news feed was split. When Obama cancelled NASA efforts, one would have thought they were calling for his resignation. The same was true today when I watched Amendment One pass with flying colors. Whoa.

My favorite argument: "This is God's plan. This is how God wants it to be."

GOD'S PLAN?!? WHAT DOES God HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS? Last time I checked, America was based on personal liberties, the right to not be under some sort of monarchical rule, and the right to not be told what religion to practice.

Friends, as I see it, America gave up on God A LONG TIME AGO. In America we care about free enterprise. We care about wealthy citizens. We care about the American Dream. We care little about the poor. And we, historically, have cared even less about the marginalized. Remember, we are a country that has based people's worth on the color of their skin. We have even based THEIR PRICE on the color of the skin and the calluses on their hands.

America doesn't care about what God wants. America only cares about what America wants.

Which leads me to a strange place with Amendment One. The majority ruled that they wanted marriage to be defined as between a man and a woman today in North Carolina. Fine. That's the way it goes. We live in a democracy where everyone has a right to their own opinion.

BUT PLEASE, OH PLEASE, DON'T BRING God INTO THIS! We gave up on the Almighty a long, long time ago. America was written under the paradigm of personal liberties and rights. And, somehow, we have been about taking away those rights and liberties ever since. It's a strange place to be in. Something tells me, too, that if those voting for Amendment One had taken God out of the picture completely, this vote would have been incredibly different.

See, the Church has a right to decide how it feels on the subject of Sin. It has a right to attempt to define it based on its own Biblical principles and historical teaching. It can do whatever it pleases and it's allowed to use God because she made it in the first place.

But, for America, no.

God's will has little to do with whether a gay man has a right to his partner's body and life insurance after his untimely death. God's will has little to do with whether a lesbian is allowed to know where in the military her partner is stationed. God's will has little to do with gay and lesbian rights in America.

Us Christians are living somewhat of a dual citizenship and our witness is being hurt by the way we throw one into the other so often.

-B

I use the term 'America' in substitution for the 'United States' simply because it seems to me to be a bit more pejorative. You're welcome.

Why Christian Music Is Essential

I literally remember the moment.

It was on a school field trip and all of my peers had their Walkmen and assortment of CDs with them. One of the greatest pastimes of such trips was, as kids do, compare and contrast the assortment of CDs each friend had brought with them. I remember my friends having CDs of The Smashing Pumpkins, Blink 182, Smashmouth, Green Day, Nelly, and many other secular albums that were often stamped with that 'my mom doesn't know I have this' EXPLICIT stamp.

My collection of CDs, though, was quite different. It was made up of dcTalk, Michael W. Smith, Newsboys, Steven Curtis Chapman, and many others. I loved that music. It was the music on the radio I listened to and I listened to it constantly. That fact alone was not enough though to keep me from being embarrassed when I was around the kids with the 'cooler' music. I was so embarrassed that I even moved dcTalk's albums to the front of my CD binder (remember those things?) because their album artwork would at least look cooler than Michael W. Smith's. The horror as a youngster of being caught listening to music that wasn't 'cool' was more than I could bear.

I liked my music. I just wasn't proud of it.

One peer even said to me (I remember this word for word), "I like the music to Christian music, but the words suck." To which I responded, "Oh yeah, I only listen to the music anyway. I don't listen to the words."

Wait, what?

What kind of an idiot was I? You don't listen to the words!?!? What a MORON!!! Of course you listen to the words, Bryant! That's the whole point!!!

But, you know, saying that would have meant that I submitted to the lyrics that he said, "sucked." I would not be caught doing such a thing as that.

(In seminary we talk all the time about pop Christian lyrics 'sucking.' But, we speak of them in terms of theological shallowness, not in terms of whether they are cool or not.)

I really was stupid. Either that, or I didn't realize the truth behind our faith. The truth is that everything we do forms who we are. The way we worship in church forms us into who we are. The things we watch on television form us into who we are. The things we read form us into who we are. The same is true of the music we listen to. These outside influences affect the way that we interact with God, each other, and surrounding communities.

This is why Christian music is essential. We need something that defines the Church and the disciples of Christ lest we risk allowing our children (and, let's be honest, us) to be influenced by other non-Christian, non-Holy influences. I no longer worry about whether listening to music that speaks the Gospel is cool or not, because I know that what I listen to is forming me into who I am. And, forgive me, but I'd rather that influence be something inspired by Christ rather than the sinful ways of the world.

Therefore, I give praise for the witness that Christian music, in whatever form, style, or genre, provides.

The next step, as we often lament in seminary, is to actually say something. "Falling in love with Jesus" was ok when we first realized the issue of American music. Now, it's time that we take this formative aspect of music one step further and use it to form disciples who can actually articulate something theological. Our next step is to recover the depth that many of our founders clung to.

Wouldn't that be something!

-B

The Greatest Love of All

I'm not one of those people who, when a celebrity passes away, writes on Facebook something along these lines, "People die every day. Why does the world stop when these overdosing celebs die?" I try not to judge people who do, but it's not something I've felt the need to say. And so, I write here not to disparage Whitney Houston's name, simply to call attention to the shaping and forming of our culture through music (which, arguably, music does).

People look up to many celebrities. Singers look up to singers. Athletes look up to athletes. Comedians look up to comedians.  Perhaps it's because they're simply good at their craft. Perhaps it's because they see a little bit of themselves, and a lot of their potential inside of the talent of these celebrities.  Perhaps it's a way to live a life they'll never have, vicariously.

I've refrained from commenting much on Whitney Houston's death. I'm saddened by the reality of her life, her dependence on substances to counteract an abusive marriage, and a talented soul lost from this world.  For many obvious reasons, her death reminds me a lot of Michael's death and that only brings sad feelings to my heart. It's such a shame.

However, I was watching YouTube this afternoon and came across this tribute by PS22 (who I have included man times here and on Facebook; I think they often do a stand up job at recreating pop tunes):

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grA54mwpxPI&w=640&h=385]

They do a phenomenal job here and are well led.  The female soloist is something else, too.

Every pop artist has their ballad that stands out for them.  It often separates them from the rest of the artists and solidifies their place in history as a phenomenal singer. Whitney, as I see it, had two: "I Will Always Love You" and the one above, "The Greatest Love of All."

What's most interesting to me is that Whitney set a place for black singers such as Jennifer Hudson and Beyonce to become as accepted and popular by mainstream media and popularity as they have been.  Whitney came out of church, gospel-singing background and blew the world away with her incredible range, passion, and natural phrasing. She had a huge voice and knew how to use it. Her level of stardom, in many ways, is untouched.

But, if we are going to see this song, "The Greatest Love of All" as a song that was defining for her career and thereby defining for our culture, I think it's important to examine the text for what it is, especially because of its placement of a bold statement within the title. The Greatest Love of All. If that statement doesn't shock you into listening to it, you ought to wake up. The song title makes you want to listen to find out what it is she is going to define as the 'greatest love.'

She starts by singing, 

I believe that children are our future

Teach them well and let them lead the way

Show them all the beauty they possess inside

I'm tracking. I agree. Show the children the beauty they possess inside? Yes, Whitney. (Whitney didn't write the song, but she's singing it so I'm going to speak as if she agrees with the text.  Especially because the story is that she fought for the chance to record it against Clive Davis's wishes.)

But then, we start to separate. She sings:

Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be

Pride is a weird thing for me.  Our Christian tradition teaches that pride is a bad thing. Our American tradition teaches that pride is how you get somewhere in life.  Without confidence in what you do, in America, it is hard to succeed. The song assumes that pride makes things easier.  If I'm confident and prideful in what I do, life becomes easier. This is a humanist message, not a Gospel message. This is reliance on the individual, rather than reliance on the grace of God.

Everybody's searching for a hero
People need someone to look up to
I never found anyone who fulfilled my needs
A lonely place to be
So I learned to depend on me

I assume that because Whitney desired to sing this song that these lines, perhaps more than any other within this piece, resonated with her. It, to me, shows two things: a reliance on herself (obviously), and a direct rejection of any Christian role model (i.e. Jesus).  I appreciate the honesty within the lyrics, but the lyrics suggest a solution that is not Christian (remember, the tradition that Whitney was raised in) in any realm. Reliance on self? Once again, this is a humanist argument. Our hope is that a born-again Christian would have someone who fulfilled their needs, Jesus. And, with that, the Church.

She continues:

I decided long ago, never to walk in anyone's shadows
If I fail, if I succeed
At least I'll live as I believe
No matter what they take from me
They can't take away my dignity

This is almost at the crux of the song. This continues to emphasize this complete and utter reliance on the self. More than that, though, the use of the term "believe" makes this a stronger position. It may not quite reach the lengths of spirituality, but it's clear: the writer of the song thinks that if you believe in yourself and have dignity, you might not always succeed, but you will be...better. This is an American idea to be sure, but seems to stand in complete conflict with the Christian message. Indeed, Christians are to walk in Jesus's shadows.

But there's more to this line before we move on. I read these lines to be an "us against the world" type argument.  This is intriguing to me because that has many parallels to the argument of Christianity. We have a better way of life, you do not. Come join us and put your faith, hope, and trust in the Savior of the world. This message: if I put my faith, trust, and hope in myself...and believe in myself...then I'll have a better way of life than the world. The world may be out to get me, but that's ok...I have myself. This, again, emphasizes where the trust is placed. Christianity claims Christ. This song claims the self.

Because the greatest love of all
Is happening to me
I found the greatest love of all
Inside of me
The greatest love of all
Is easy to achieve
Learning to love yourself
It is the greatest love of all

And here we are. The definition of the 'greatest love of all.'

Friends, learning to love yourself is not, as I see it, the greatest love of all. The greatest love of all is the grace of God. The grace that is poured out on a broken humanity that confesses its sins and seeks to live in communion with Christ's offering.

The song, for the listeners, is a lie. It spreads a reliance on humanity, on the self, and the good works of said people. It delivers a message of hope that resides completely within the self. It places trust on the individual. And because of that, it is in direct opposition to the heart of the Christian message: Jesus is Lord.

"But Bryant," you say. "This song was written by someone struggling with cancer who may or may not have been a Christian. She was in the midst of a crisis and writing honestly about where to place her trust. In her against the world, she finds the strength within herself to survive. How beautiful of a message?!?!"

I respond: This is not a beautiful message. And it is in direct conflict with where we should be.

The movement towards a trust in the individual rather than a higher power is a move that the Enlightenment granted humanity and may never ever be able to be taken away. Songs like this destroy the Christian message and focus: Christ. They enable humans to understand that they're able to battle whatever they're fighting (whether it is cancer or something less tragic) simply by believing in themselves.

The Christian Scriptures teach us that when humanity ran from God and placed their hope and trust in other things it always went worse than if they had placed their trust in God in the first place. This is a message that obviously wasn't written into Whitney's narrative, because I imagine this song would have struck a different chord with her than it did.  It's sad. And, inevitably, the trust that Whitney placed on herself and the things of this world came to cause her death. It's sad, very, very sad.

I do believe that children are our future. If we teach them well and let them lead the way, we are in for a wonderful ride. But, the beauty within them that this song talks about OUGHT to refer to the beauty that God placed in God's children, not the beauty within their humanity. Humanity is fallen, God is holy. Only a trust and belief in God can give true hope and love. That is the greatest love of all.

Why does this matter? Because music shapes our culture.  Therefore, music shapes us. I'd prefer that Christianity define "The Greatest Love of All," not Whitney. 

Lord, help our unbelief.

-B

Jesus > Religion (?)

Give the next four minutes to this video, even if you have already seen it. It's best to watch or read things several times in order to think critically about them. And, strap in, this is a long post. I hope you enjoy it, though.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY&w=853&h=505]

It's been 'liked' on YouTube over 160,000 times and 'disliked' on YouTube over 19,000 times. It's been shared on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, and YouTube time and time again. Most commentary thus far has been divided as to whether or not this 'message' is acceptable. Herein lie some of my thoughts. Feel free to read them, wrestle with them, agree or disagree with them, and challenge them. This is an important topic for our time and we would do well to approach in this conversational way.

I remember going to a Big Daddy Weave Concert. I love them. Soooo good. And they began singing a song, one they covered from another worship artist, "Fields of Grace." In Big Daddy Weave's version of the song resides a line that goes like this:

There's a place where religion finally dies.

And I remember Mike Weaver (the lead singer) prefacing the line by saying, "This is my favorite line of the song." The spirit in which it was sung now seems strange to me. I once was sold on the concept of "relationship, not religion" but I'm now more convinced that that notion cheapens the Christianity that both Jesus and Paul called for.

Which leads me to this somewhat bold statement: The man in the video was too caught up in praise given to him for his skilled rhyming that he forgot to actually check his statements and definitions for consistency.

The problem with the video above is that it seems to go one way...and then another. He claims that Jesus and Religion are on opposite sides of the 'spectrum' but he also points out that your religious affiliation on Facebook doesn't make you a Christian. Wait, what? How are these tied together?

It becomes necessary to define 'religion'. (Good rhetoric makes use of loaded, ambiguous terms like 'religion' and, well, 'Jesus' because you can begin to redefine them in your own way in order to make a point. Not defining them within an argument not only makes the problem worse, it threatens to destroy the terms entirely.)

It seems to me that this man considers 'religion' to mean: a facade that followers put on that masks their spirituality. He's not even close to suggest this. Get religion out of the way because JESUS is what is so important. He seems to be saying that you don't need religion if you have Jesus. In fact, he blatantly says that at the beginning of the piece. He says,

What if I told you that Jesus came to abolish religion?

(I desire to respond: I'd tell you that you were wrong)

If anything, I think, Jesus came to reform religion. Jesus came to correct religion. Jesus came to show humans how to live life. This was a large part of his ministry on earth, including his preaching. Jesus did not come to abolish religion, he came to serve religion. In one sense, he came to serve as a means of growth throughout that life.

So truly, 'religion,' for Christians, is the means by which we worship God and grow further in the likeness of Christ. Religion encompasses sacraments like communion and baptism. Religion involves a confession of sin. Religion encourages prayer. Religion encourages accountability. Religion is a way of life, and a way to grow into a Christ-like life.

Now, his courageous testimony is notable and honorable. I always am moved by people who had a huge transformation toward Christ-like living in their lives and are willing to speak openly and honestly about it. BUT, because he has this...he operates out of a mindset of grace.

Truly, surely, GRACE is a large part of the Christian story. Paul tells us that we are sinful people, in need of grace. Theologians have told us throughout time that that sin is covered by grace. Though it's disagreed on exactly HOW that grace functions, all Christians agree that the life of Jesus, the death on a cross, and resurrection have something to do with the grace required for eternal salvation. Even our friend in the video remarks that salvation is not based on "my merits, but Jesus's obedience alone." AND HE'S RIGHT.

Jesus's obedience to do the will of the Father, to face death, has a great deal to do with our salvation. This, I believe, is true. And I can't name you a Christian who thinks that YOU can earn YOUR OWN salvation. That idea was pretty much outlawed in Christian circles a LONG time ago.

But, he's still confused.

His points are right. We do need grace. That has been taken care of. Christians should live holy lives, not just consider themselves saved because of their Facebook information. Christians should tear down the facades. Christians should be open and honest. Christians should practice grace.

BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT 'RELIGION' IS!

That's the calling Jesus placed on us through his preaching. That's the call Paul placed on us through his letters. That's the calling our pastors place on us every Sunday. Religion, the practice of worshipping and becoming more Christ-like, is defined by all these things that he outlines. Religion is not just perfume on a casket, it is the burial ceremony and the tears shed for the loved one.

So, you've probably reached the same point I have.

He's a good poet. Spoken Word is popular now. Rhetoric is easy to come by with ambiguous language. Good speakers can catch and win over a believing audience just by the tones of their voice.

But this does not excuse us from watching our words.

Statements are bold. And when they're attached to art, they become MORE powerful.

Definitions are important. Because we use them to communicate effectively.

So 'religion,' as it stands, maye be a used up, dried out word that offends people. And...perhaps we need a new word. But people, good people, Christians in fact, use the word 'religion' to speak about how they're growing into a Christ-like life.

And so to make a statement that Jesus > Religion is simply unfair. Jesus and the Christian religion are intimately tied together. Religion is a way of life. Religion is the VERY thing this man is calling for. Jesus did NOT hate religion. Religion is a means to Jesus, and if approached in that way, those liking and disliking the video can actually come upon common ground.

Wouldn't that be wonderful?

As a writer, I can relate to this guy a lot. I often write papers that make awesome points that contribute to the exact opposite of my thesis. I end up at the end of the paper saying, "Wait, where'd I go wrong?"

I just tend to think that this is dangerous for the future of the Church. Influencing this many people and convincing them that 'religion' is wrong is scary. Very scary. We do need Jesus. But we also need prayer. We need accounable discipleship. We need confession of sin. We need baptism and communion. These are elements of religion that most in the Church are unwilling to let go. Because, for them, this is where Jesus is. This "Jesus and Jesus alone" mindset is ok, but only if religion gets included in the definition of 'Jesus'.

-B

Music in the Church - A Series

The facts are simple.

They can be boiled down to this: the Church, as an all encompassing body of believers, is declining in influence and popularity, in general, world-wide. The mainline denominations have less than 50 years left at their rate of decline and the "growing" churches among the world are not growing anymore. When "growing" churches can be named, because they are so few and far between, we know that we have a problem; we shouldn't be able to name the churches that are growing.

In general, religion is dying. While it seems to be growing in African countries and tribes, it is declining in Europe and America, places where lots of money, power, and world influence are still held. It is sometimes losing to "spirituality" or "divine relationship." The decline of organized Christianity will, by definition, lead to a loss of Christians. Less Christians might lead to less accountability. Less accountability often leads to weaker discipleship. Weaker discipleship allows the sinful world, not God, to win.

We are to be comforted, though, because we know that in the end God does win. However, I often fear that we are forgetting Jesus's commands to go and make disciples.

As far as the Church is concerned, I think I've come to the realization that the Church needs a revitalization movement. We've had several successful ones in our history, and there's not reason to think that God wouldn't bless a faithful one even today. Within that movement, we're going to need leaders. We're going to need followers. We're going to need ministers. We're going to need missionaries. We're going to need disciples.

And, we'll need some practical things as well.

We'll need new, creative, innovative, relevant, contextual, powerful ways to reach the world. We'll have to be ahead of the world, reflecting the ultimate Creator, rather than behind the world, simply copying what they do.

I imagine that we'll need some leaders that will attract followers with their charisma and gifts. But I don't think this movement will be led by only key leaders (what movement ever has?). No, I think this movement will need everyone; all hands will need to be on deck.

One of the gorgeous things about the Church is how diverse we are...we have so many people with so many talents, passions, and gifts. We'll need them all.

So, here is my thought: Let's stop talking about it. Let's just start it. It's already too late.

The movement is beginning, so let's start.

Throughout reflection, the Church has to find within each of its individuals a sense of place, a sense of fit, a sense of call. The area of which I feel I have been impassioned and gifted is music.

The point is often made: music is not the reason people come to church. While I'd often be inclined to disagree, I'll forego that opportunity to make a larger point: music serves a higher purpose than to get people to come to Church. Whether or not people come because of music is irrelevant. I believe that if we have quality, solid music, the details will often take care of themselves.

When people attend a church service, questions that are often asked are, "What songs did you sing?" or "How was the choir?" or "Is the service 'contemporary' or 'traditional'?" These questions are indicative of the situation of music in the Church. It matters to people.

Music is, as I see it, one of the most integral parts of the Church as it stands today. It is Biblical, traditional, formational, communal, along with many other things. It serves to worship God, it serves to create disciples, and it serves to create fellowship. Music is a magical thing that challenges perspectives, opens eyes, implants happiness, and encourages hope. It's often empowering and bold.

Last week, I attended a conference that tried hard to be cool and to reinvigorate a livelihood into the United Methodist Church. So, having thought about some of my thoughts above, I went to a a workshop on music ministry. I thought'd be a good reflection time. The lady who led it was nice, intelligent, talented, and very talkative. There were all kinds of students there. There were practiced, studied musicians. There were diva-like "worship leaders." There were hipster, tight-jeaned guitarists. There were classical snobs. We talked for about an hour about random things, mostly having to do with the practicalities of organizing a music team, rehearsing them, and some about leading music for worship. All in all, it was an ok workshop.

But that was my issue: it was just ok. It wasn't mind-blowing. We didn't talk about writing new music. We didn't think creatively. We didn't even really discuss why Christians sing. We just talked about how cool or sucky our band was and how to pray with our group. Then we left.

And I left the room knowing there had to be something more. There had to something more to our approach. I left the room feeling as if we were just sitting in a rut, trying to push ahead while the dirt just kept us back. And I realized this (probably aided by our worship service experiences throughout the weekend): We're faking it. We're faking it really badly. And we aren't growing from it; all we are doing is keeping from dying.

So that's what I hope to explore throughout a small series here on this blog. I'm going to be posting over the next week and organizing my thoughts into three different posts and categories, explaining why I think we do what we do and what good it is going to do for a dying church.

I often don't like using violent language, but I feel as if this fits: We aren't on the offensive, we are on the defensive. I can't think of a single point in history where those on the defensive changed the world because they intended to.

It's time to take the offense, and because it's one of the only things I know, I'm starting with music.

I hope to cover things like:

• Why do we sing?
• Is music foundational for the future of the Church?
• Is music for the Church ever-changing?
• What do we sing?
• What's a 'good' song for worship?
• Why do we use terms like "hymn" and "praise song" and what are their connotations?
• Who is writing quality material in 2011?
• What historical church material is worth retaining?
• What movements have progressed the Church positively?

...along with many other nuances of music ministry.

As is always the case with me, you'll hear my opinions and observations, and those often change from time to time.

It is, though, something we should be talking about, and I'm ready to get going on it. This dead time within the Church is killing us.

Follow along? I hope so.

-B

Are We Better Off With or Without Apple?

Since Steve's passing, the world has honored him at Apple Stores, via social media, via television talk shows, and countless other ways.

The world, even Apple haters, has been kind to honor the work and change he's made.

But, now, it's been a few days. And we've all had a small chance to grieve. And we've all had a small chance to reflect a bit on his direct impact on OUR lives. It is like when Michael died, we all grieved because the world had lost another Mozart; then we began to reflect on what kind of difference was made on our personal lives. For some it was sad to lose Michael, but not for too long. The same has been true of Steve, for some.

He's been compared quite a bit to Thomas Edison, the famed inventor of the light bulb. I was asked this question the other day, "Edison created the light bulb, how does Steve even begin to compare to that?" My honest first reaction was to automatically assume that the asker simply doesn't think about what they do day in and day out.

To me, the impact is simple to see: almost everything that consumers do with computers today has so much to do with Steve's work. He was the driving force behind making the graphical user interface popular (a paradigm we take hugely for granted today...I think my evidence above proves it). He made using computers simple, and I'd argue that that is what brought forth widespread adoption. Because of some of Apple's poor decisions and Microsoft's willingness to copy, it happened indirectly...but it was Steve who did it.

This morning, the point was raised to me,

"i[sic] think he was brilliant for sure but are we better off as a people to have the newest toy but as a whole we are going broke to afford them.[sic] i[sic] think these things have made a much more selfish world that are[sic] self centered and spoiled."

It's a fair point with a certain amount of validity. There are also many claims going on here:

• Steve simply made the newest toys
• We are going broke to afford them
• These things have made a much more selfish world
• This selfish world is self centered and spoiled (apparently because of the devices Steve has created)

Again, it's a fair argument. I know there are families that struggle to feed themselves each night, but give their kids smartphones. I know, and have acknowledged in the past, that texting and driving has become one of the most dangerous parts of our lives.

The main point though, I think, is that Apple's marketing has encouraged people to want the next big thing all the time. Our emotional draw to the company has forced us to wait in long lines, complain excessively, and stop everything we are doing for product announcements. Yes, it's true and each any every one of those statements applies directly to me.

I think it would be fair to account that a large objection to the future and progress of technology can be summed up inside of this argument: these things (and the marketing of them) have made us worse people.

I think I've recognized the bit of truth to this argument. We text instead of call. We avoid face to face confrontation if at all possible. We have gained a new sense of individualism, and less of a sense of community. I might argue that things like Skype and FaceTime have actually counteracted this argument, but I'll leave it be for the time being.

The question for me though is, "Who is to blame?"

The Church has discussed this for ages. The questions has always been, "Are we a part of the culture or are we not?" or "Is progress good or bad?" or "Can we have material things, or should we deny ourselves?" or "How is Scripture interpreted for this purpose?"

Throughout time, religion has made use of new mediums. In example, George Whitefield's popularity in early American Christianity is largely due to the newspaper reports of his preaching. There are tons more examples.

Isn't it a question now in the Church as well? We've got churches who attract more members because of their light shows and moving backgrounds. We've also got churches who speak down on these churches and worship in a very liturgical, high church way. Both have dying churches. Both have growing churches.

This argument currently going on in the Church is not separate from the argument made to me this morning.

However, even more high church churches are beginning to figure out how to relate to people. They sometimes break it down by "worship" vs. "outreach". For example, it's ok to have a website, because people want to know about you...but no computers in a worship service. But...even that's becoming less and less true.

I know where your mind is going..."Who is winning?"

STOP

This isn't about winning. This is about living a Christ-like life. This is about hearing a call from God. This is about Resurrection and Salvation.

I am convinced that these things, these most important things, are still possible with progress.

I actually think that progress helps these things. For instance, because of the advent and popularity of texting, we have been reminded that living, talking, and being in community is important. And now, now that we know this, we are able to use these new fangled inventions and technologies as tools instead of distractions.

Sure, these tools have the ability to distract, and ARE VERY TEMPTING in this sense. But, what if the Church were to look at these tools as better ways to communicate, as better ways to outreach, and as better ways to live as disciples in 2011?

What exactly are we afraid of? That we won't be creative enough to figure it out? That God won't show us the way? We've got to have more faith than that.

What I like so much about Apple's approach to technology is that they don't do things just because others did. They don't make a bigger screen just because others have bigger screens. They don't implement a voice recognition piece of software just because Google did. They don't have an open platform just because other companies did.

No, they approach it from the perspective of use. What good is voice to text software if you still have to hit buttons? What good is a big screen if you have to use two hands to use it and it no longer fits in your pocket? What good is an open platform if its very openness is one if its greatest downfalls as an experience? It's not even really about being ahead of the game...it's about taking a technology, a concept, an idea and applying it in a real world situation for a real purpose in a way that helps people communicate. That's what spurred Steve's innovation. That's what defines who Apple is in today's world.

So has Apple's marketing asked people to become self centered? Their new iPad ads don't seem to support that.

No, it doesn't seem so. No, what has spurred on this idea is our reaction. I can no longer blame the technology companies for my failings as a human. I can no longer blame McDonald's for the hot coffee I spilled on my lap. I can no longer blame the cigarette companies for my lung cancer (post-revelations that that was actually bad for you). I can no longer blame the city for me not paying attention to that huge stop sign. I can no longer blame the fast food companies for my fatness. I can no longer blame the Church for my lack of faith.

No. Because at some point, I must take up my own cross. At some point, I must learn that it's not the new things that bother us...it's the way we use them. It's not the progress that makes us worse people...it's our sinful nature. It's not someone else's fault that I'm not the disciple I could be, it's me.

(It's worth adding that this is mostly true in America, currently. There are places in our world where girls are used in conjunction with the exploitation of men's sexual desires. This is not the girls' fault, this is the both the faults of the brainwashers above them, and the men who readily support these ventures.) I, in these cases, think the Church has to speak up for the girls...speak up for those who can't. It is still worth noting that those reading this in American CAN almost assuredly speak for ourselves.

As soon as the Church realizes that our mission is active and not passive and that we are not controlled by others, but only influenced by the grace of God through Christ, then we will be able to look at our culture with new glasses...in a way that is beneficial to the life of faith and the progress of the Gospel.

We don't do things just because. We don't slobber at the feet of our favorite company just because they brainwash us. No, we appreciate what they do because it makes a difference. It changes what we can do. It changes how we do things. It's up to us to be able to step back and see where we have succeeded and faltered.

Apple made tools. Thankfully, they made good tools.

Let's use them for good. Please.

-B

PS - Lack of recognition of Steve's contributions to society is a great example of just how well he succeeded.

When a Woman Loves a Woman

Well, the trial is over. Because of the lack of updates on Amy DeLong's own website and the slow moving articles from UMC.org, I found out about the trial verdicts in the same way that most of you did. In the same way I found out about Michael Jackson's death. And in the same way most of the world found out that the criminal mastermind who hired people to fly planes into our buildings had been killed: Twitter.

So, though the UMC has posted pictures of the trial, the important worship services before and throughout the trials and sentencing, it is important to note that I, nor many who read this, have any clue about how this all shook out exactly. Some tweeters were there, and helped us along the way but taking their word for it. But trying to understand and really "get" what happened in that church without being there is like...well, a little reading the Bible in English. You mostly get the idea (and even exact quotes) but so, so much is lost. 140 characters just doesn't quite do it.

If you're looking for more "reporting" than Twitter can give you, just check out UMC.org and various other sites for as much info as you can find.

Story, as I hear it, is that she was acquitted 12-1 that she was a "self-avowed practicing homosexual". From what we all hear, she refused to answer some of the questions regarding this, citing that they were being asked in an accusatory manner. I see her point. But I also think that true "evidence" exists that is published by Rev. DeLong that submits that she is "guilty". I'm happy for Rev. DeLong because this verdict means that the person she loves hasn't held her back from pursuing her calling.

She was, though, guilty on the other charge...as we all expected. I think I made it clear last time, Amy broke the rules.

The punishment was a bit of a slap on the wrist but anyone who might have either expected or hoped for something more substantial probably wasn't being realistic. She was assigned to a 20-day suspension (seems to me like a "think-about-what-you-did" scenario) and to write a document for some sort of presentation at General Conference 2012. I really like the second penalty. I think it'll take her passion and put it into a position where it can actually make a difference, and possibly...a change. That's great.

I've received quite a bit of negative feedback in regards to my first post, as many who sit clearly on the side of Rev. DeLong have seen my post as a means of arguing against homosexuality. I wasn't. I was only saying that Rev. DeLong broke the rules. Even in my remarks regarding her baptism, I wished to point out that the movements against her have simply been to maintain fairness.

I have heard many "unjust rules were meant to be broken" ala MLK Jr arguments. Politically, I actually agree. I have made it quite clear that I think that God loves all of God's children. What I neglected to make as clear is that I see, as I think you should, a difference here in the political argument as opposed to the religious argument. The United States says that all are equal. So, all should be equal. Rosa Parks, MLK, Malcolm, X, and many many others fought for this cause. They were jailed for their efforts as well. And they were in the right. The laws of the USA were acting in opposition to some of the founding documents of this country. Many of them cleverly snuck in religious references to their arguments, but that argument was a social argument regarding a matter of US policy and law. It was against the rights of the African Americans to treat them in the way they were bing treated. All men are created equal.

What's perhaps most confusing about the homosexuality "issue" in today's society is that it is once again a political issue on the state side with a lot of religious rhetoric thrown back and forth. Who decides the rules for the country and states? The founding documents and then instances of precedents and bills passed in Congress. Who decides the rules for the church? The church, in whatever way each church chooses to rule itself.

The UMC has a way of going about this. Prayerfully, spiritually, and Biblically: the Book of Discipline is decided on. It's decided on by a vote. Which means that a MAJORITY of the people in the UMC elected delegates who decided to keep the current BOD language regarding homosexuality that existed prior. To break these rules, knowingly, is more than just to say "you are wrong", it is to say "your interpretation of the Biblical scriptures doesn't count because progress must be made." I personally believe that God's grace is available for ALL. The difference is: I don't see where this instance changes that that much.

Then there is the part about Amy's agreement with the UMC. Rosa Parks didn't make any agreement with the US. Because the whole situation of Civil Rights was born out of oppression at the start, it's not even fair to say that agreement was based on taxes and public services rendered. But Amy did agree to something. And the church agreed to something. The fact that Amy was a homosexual was something she knew about. And she broke the rules.

Which is why I think that the slap on the wrist of 20 days does nothing more than show others that they can do the same thing, if they're willing to take the penalty. This opens up a whole new world of interest. Had it been a stronger penalty, two things might have worked better (for all involved): the Discipline (and the inherent Bible-based decisions that have to come from that) might have been put to the use that it exists for, and the Biblical interpretations of all involved would actually have been dealt with in a way that made all feel like their voices were heard. What this might encourage (and to note, may or may not be good or bad...history gets defined by the "winners") is a whole bunch of pastors who believe so strongly in one idea that they're willing to break the covenant they made with the church. To me, that's a big idea. Biblically, breaking covenants is looked down upon. I must be clear: I think is is very, very different than Rosa Parks.

The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence are very clear in (most of) their language. The Bible really isn't. It was written by many many people over a long period of years; many of which seem to, at times, have different ideas about discipleship, salvation, grace, and faith. To make it worse, church history is even more messed up than the US's history is. It is because of this that we are at this juncture today.

One thing is clear to me, though: in this church trial, no one really wins.

-B

If I Were To End The World...

I look forward to seeing you all on Sunday. We'll meet for church, catch up for a few minutes, laugh and joke, maybe go out to lunch, and then we'll celebrate that the world hasn't ended. Or, we'll cry because we haven't been included in the rapture. These peeps that have been saying that the rapture will occur on the May 21 and then the end of the world will be on October 21 aren't reading the same Bible I am.

It has got me thinking though, what would I do if I were these people?

I'd be so convinced that the end of the world is coming that I'd want to tell people. I'd plan out an awesome Saturday lunch with friends and then retreat to my home. I'd probably lie down in bed and hope to be taken in my sleep.

But...what would happen when the stroke of midnight struck? Would I get worried? Would I call my fellow church members? Would I call my adversaries? Would I try to figure out if I had just missed the mark, or would I think I had been left behind? How would I show my face in public again?

I'd see two ways out:

• Mass suicide with all who think the way I do.
• Go in to hiding.

(I struggle deeply with the concept of suicide. It's a rough thing that has plagued our world for all of time. It's extremely sad and unfortunate.)

So, I think I'd have to go with hiding. After all, Osama hid in plain sight for ten years.

I think I'd take my church members and go into hiding. I'd secure some random island that no one knew about, figure out a way to get myself, my family, and all my friends there. Then I'd live there until people forgot that I had proclaimed the end of the world and judged them prematurely.

Yeah, hiding would be the only way to keep the news cameras and late night talk shows from taunting and stalking me.

After it had all been planned, I'd probably read over the plans.

I'd think about it, pray about it, and then decide that it sounded like a lot of work.

I'd probably just go ahead and on May 20th tell the world that I'd been making it all up.

Then, I'd go back to the Bible, read it, and decide that the world was actually going to end at a time unknown to man. I'd probably decide that Jesus's message needed to be spread more than ever. But not for the sake of the souls of the "saved."

I'd decide that Jesus's message needed to be spread in a way that eradicated poverty.

I'd decide that Jesus's message needed to be spread in a way that accepted those who has never been accepted.

I'd decide that Jesus's message needed to be spread in a way that showed the world the beauty of the resurrection.

I'd decide that Jesus's message was not modernity's "heaven" but rather, Jesus's "salvation."

Yeah, I think that if I was to decide that the world was going to end, that'd probably be how it'd play out.

We've got to rid the world of the Christianity that is so convinced that it is all about us.

I hope the world ends, because when it does, the pains of the world will no longer be, pain.

Maybe then, the beatitudes will finally come to life in a way that our Church could not accomplish.

-B

"Obama Thinks Jesus Is Nuts."

Bill Maher talks about how  he is a non-Christian, just like most Christians. Beware of the foul language, it is Bill Maher.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giVXvveef8Y]

While his rhetoric makes logical sense, I think he is targeting the part of the Christian body that won't watch his show and might never agree with him.  The "hippy" Christians already agree with him and...probably aren't watching his show either.

His point about Obama I thought was most interesting, as Obama has to be a politician first and foremost, probably above his faith.  He has to get Scripture to his phone every morning so that the Right will continue to tolerate him while he also has to go after America's enemies...because, well, he is the President.

But really, who is Bill Maher to talk about accountability of Christians?

Oh, yeah, that's right...this isn't accountability, it is just more of his campaign against faith.

-B

Thanks to Chad Holtz for sharing.

The Gospel of GaGa

This morning, I watched Lady GaGa's Monster Ball Tour on HBO. I missed it the first time around and thought quickly enough to TiVo it for the second time.  Thank God HBO shows specials like MTV shows reality shows. If you are a fan of creative use of costumes, lighting, dancing, video, and curse words...you'll enjoy the show.  It is well done.

I feel like my feelings toward her "Judas," however, are more real than I might have expected.

As far as I can tell, GaGa exists for one purpose: to let everyone know that they should be who they are (and be proud of it) because God made them who they are and it's ok to be who you are because people told her she was nothing and then she went and became a star, and Superstardom should be the key to all good things so people should want to be like her and follow her.

Throughout the show (in which she constantly encourages the audience in regards to the aforementioned point of her existence), other than GaGa, one figure remains constant on stage.  It's a shirtless, long-haired electric guitar player who she readily refers to as Jesus, Jesus Christ, or Jesus Christo. To be fair, he kind of looks like what we typically think Jesus looked like (throwing away the notion that Jesus might have looked a lot like Osama bin Laden). In fact, at first I thought that that was why she called him Jesus.

But...it seemed to move from being a joke to being real.

I've heard many people discuss whether or not GaGa's message of "love all" is really the message of the Gospel or not.  I've heard people advocate that GaGa is spreading her own Gospel. I've expressed before how much I think the sexuality of her performances and videos depletes the value of her message.

I think one thing is clear: I think GaGa senses a sense of calling to be the voice for those who have been afraid to be themselves in this world.  I think she feels a need to speak up for those who have felt "oppressed." I think she thinks she is spreading the Gospel (however we are to define that word).

The problem for me, though, still lies in her follow through.

Everyone should appreciate who they are and who God made them to be: awesome.  People who feel attracted to members of the same sex should be able to live lives that aren't based in hiding those feelings: great. People should want to make something of themselves, especially when they've been told over and over that they will never be anything: fantastic.

But, why the crotch grabs? Why the F words? Why the suggestive nudity?  Why the mocking of religious attire and practice?

There's no doubt in my mind that Lady GaGa is extremely talented.  If it's not in her singing, then her dancing, If not in her dancing, then in her writing.  If not in her writing, then in her work ethic.  If not in her work ethic, then in her creativity.  If not in her creativity, then in her sense of "call."

She's got what it takes to make it.

But she's one of those rare artists that come along and gains rare stardom...and tries to use that fame and voice to speak a message. So her potential is not just for fame, her potential is for change. Imagine a world in which this potential is used in a proper way!

If her message were based in love and life, she'd have something. But it isn't.

She wants to be a voice for those disrespected by culture...but she cares more about those people following her than the purpose of the message. It's a fake-out, to the highest degree.

She has a voice that many in the church wish they had.  She even speaks some of the same language that they'd like to. But she's doing it in the wrong way. The potential for change is lost, ruined, and destroyed. Instead...she doesn't influence culture in the way that the Gospel is supposed to. She influences culture in the way that she wants to.

And because of that, I'd ask her to stop calling that guitar player, "Jesus."

-B

She's good, but she used to be better. Just watch:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM51qOpwcIM]

Still In Love With Judas

Gaga released her Judas Video (or at least the first one). It won't embed, but you can watch it here.

I've now watched it four times. Admittedly, I still don't really get it. Some of the online sources claim that she is playing Mary Magdalene. If she is, I'm not quite sure which Gospel she is reading.

I now think that her purpose in the video/song is to have an honest approach to being involved/in love with sin and evil while trying to follow the proper way. I get that, although I don't really.

Most interesting, the end of the video. I'm interpreting it as a statement about what society does to someone who is in love with evil. Strange representation of it, but I do think it is a strong statement.

I think, maybe, that if I saw Judas as the root of all evil, I'd understand the whole world and their stance on this song and the history of Jesus in a different way. But, I don't. I see Judas as a human being who made a mistake (but a mistake they may not have been in his control, because of it's foretelling in the prophets).

I think the world has equated Judas with evil, and GaGa is continuing this effort. In fact, she begins from this premise.

The problem for me is that the history of Christianity's relationship to Judaism (and especially events like the Holocaust) is sometimes attributed to Judas and his betrayal of Jesus. That outlook does nothing but tear down our world and the relations that people of other faiths have with each other.

For that reason, I choose not view Judas as the source of evil within the Passion narrative...and I think that adds to my inability to fully understand GaGa's "message." Stay tuned, this could get interesting.

-B

May 1st, 2011 - Life Wins

It was May 1st, 2011 at 10:50 pm.

I was on my way back from Durham, having just gotten off the phone with my dad, when Allison called me.  "Did you hear the news?" she asked. "No." "Osama bin Laden is dead. It's all over twitter and the President is going to make an announcement."

I have to admit, my first response was to...smile.

I think I even said something like, "that's great!"

Because, you see, I remember sitting in 2nd period band when a school administrator came in and told us that our nation was under attack and that two planes had hit the World Trade Center in New York. I remember watching the Today Show, and I remember watching people jump to their death from the buildings.  I remember watching both buildings fall, live, on television.

And I remember thinking, "who would do that?"

Before 9/11, I didn't know anything about Osama bin Laden.  I didn't know a thing about al Qaeda.  But later that week, al Qaeda became the center of all our lives.

And I will admit that when I watch that clip of President Bush standing on that rubble saying, "I can hear you! And the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon!" I get goosebumps every time.
Every single time.

Because to me, a man who sent in OTHER people to kill 3,000 innocent Americans ought to be "brought to justice."

I once watched an episode of Oprah where she was talking about Timothy McVeigh.  I remember the story going that after he dropped that van off in the basement, he ran from the building. He got down the block before the explosion.  When it finally hit, he kept running. After it was over, he looked behind him and I'm almost positive that his quote was, "Damn, I didn't get all of it."

When I heard that Timothy McVeigh was arrested and sentenced to death, I smiled inside. Evil had been "brought to justice."

You can call me an evil person. You can call me unChristian.  You can call me a hypocrite. But, I'd rather refer to myself as "honest."

These people did horrible things to our world. And now they can't anymore. That gives me some sense of joy.

But immediately, I started questioning whether this sense of joy was proper or not.  Joy is not true joy unless it comes from the right source.  When I got home, I looked at the news and the first thing I saw was people flooding the White House with American flags wrapped around their backs screaming "USA! USA! USA!" I immediately had a flashback to all of those videos I've seen of Middle Easterners burning our flag.

I got on Facebook (which took awhile, I had deactivated it until finals were over) and all of a sudden, I saw thinks like "F&$@ you Osama!" and "WE GOT HIM!" and "Proud to be an American!" and "Rot in Hell!"

But, of course, I'm a Divinity student, so I also had interspersed within the news feed things like "Love your Enemies" and "Why do we celebrate the death of a human?"

And I was back to being torn.  Do I act as an American? Do I celebrate one more embodiment of evil finally being gone? Do I mourn that my fellow countrymen are celebrating in the death of someone? Do I remember Jesus' line about a giving him the other cheek? Do I try to reconcile some of the emotions I am feeling with the almost unbelievable message of the Gospel?

See, we were confused about the details at first.  We didn't know exactly if the mission was to kill or to capture (although most signs point to kill). We didn't know that night if Osama had shot back (although we know now that he was unarmed). We didn't know how all of it had gone down (although we know more almost every second now).

Sam Wells, of Duke Chapel, raised the point that Osama wasn't given a fair trial before his death. And my first thought is that I don't remember those on 9/11 getting a fair trial before their death. In fact, Osama seems to have been unarmed and unaware of what was going on when they shot him. In that sense, he has something in common with the people he killed on 9/11.

But I return to Jesus' command not only to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, but also to the idea of fighting this concept of "an eye for an eye." To Jesus, I think the concept of returning a bad deed with a bad deed seemed stupid...because it did nothing but return violence with more violence (though Jewish law really seemed to have laid it out as a fair and balanced system). In Jesus' mind, I am confident, violence returning violence only escalates.

When I said as a child, "Isn't it wrong to kill someone by the death penalty?" I remember being asked, "Well, if someone takes someone else's life, do they deserve to keep theirs?"

And, daily, I struggle with this question.

How is justice defined? Do Americans get to decide what is just? Is justice the same thing as fairness? Does the fact that "life's not fair" play into this? Is governmental justice different than vigilante justice?

And I continue to return to one fundamental concept. For Christians, none of us deserve to keep our lives. But because of the death and resurrection, God has given us the gift of eternal life, one that goes beyond the one that we currently inhabit. And, if we learn anything from the resurrection, it is that life defeats death...in each and every sense. It's not just Jesus' death that was defeated. Death...has been defeated.

Because of that, I choose not to condemn the US for killing bin Laden. I choose not to preach to my fellow Americans who are simply acting according to their emotions. I also choose not to celebrate a murder.

Instead, I choose to focus on life eternal. I choose to focus on salvation.  I choose to focus on resurrection, because I know that the way that we sometimes view life and death here on earth is wrong.

If resurrection lives in us, which I believe that it does, then we celebrate the new life that God has given our country and world because an active doer of harm is gone. We also celebrate those who were under his leadership who didn't know what life really was, and now do. We celebrate the lives of the marginalized that are now able to think and act for themselves because there isn't a ruler over them who has extremist views and glorifies violence.

Sam Wells said we shouldn't celebrate. If we define "celebration" in the same sense that those who flooded the White House gates defined it, then I  agree.  But if we define celebration as taking comfort and joy in some form of new life here on earth, then I think the resurrection still lives within us and with that, the Word of God is still present.

Murder is wrong.

Life is good.

What a world we live in.

-B

I Had To Jump...

...off of the GaGa train. First, it was this.

Then her new single, "Judas" came out. I don't know exactly how I define "antichrist" but I'm starting to believe that GaGa is getting scary close.

I've  sifted through these lyrics over and over trying to find a different way to interpret it. Can't. Do. It.

She mixes all kinds of stories centering around Jesus to point to (I think) the fact that she is in love with some sort of sin. I get that. But I think it was poorly timed with Holy Week (I'm sure that's exactly why they did that) but I think she has mixed a few too many things with a story I'm not positive she has complete understanding of.

Proof point: "In the most Biblical sense, I am beyond repentance."

Hopefully someone can enlighten my interpretation of the song. I'd like to a hear a non-biased interpretation that finds her point among the trash mixed in.

I choose not to post the lyrics.  Find them yourself.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAWpkZSCMXU]

-B

Bashir vs. Bell

I'm near the end of reading Harnack and needed a break. Duke is up by 12. Hopefully this will end well. I was told to watch Rob Bell's interview with Martin Bashir on MSNBC. Googling it, I ended up at our favorite (sarcasm) blogger's site, Justin Taylor's Gospel Coalition, where he graciously linked the YouTube video. Please, before going on, watch the interview below.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg-qgmJ7nzA]

A few things must be made clear in order to move from point A to point B:

1. Shame on MSNBC for having Martin Bashir interview Bell.
2. Shame on them for airing it.
3. Shame on Bashir for his interview tactics.

And I'm serious.  I had to watch the clip three times.

Taylor refers to Bashir in this way, "Martin Bashir is a reporter impatient with evasive answers." I argue: Martin Bashir is a reporter who has his own agenda and wants to zing his interviewee. Moreso than ought to be acceptable in journalism. (I'm a fan of hard hitting journalism, but Bashir is worse at it than most and leads the interviewee into questions that are often unanswerable because he begins with presuppositions that aren't true to the interviewee...not sarcasm)

First of all, like all great journalists (sarcasm), Bashir begins with a line that is framed around bloggers and writers' opinions of the book and not necessarily off of the book itself. He says, "Bell says that ultimately all people will be saved, even those who've rejected the claims of Christianity..." Congrats Bashir, good way to hook the audience (sarcasm).

Then, because it is appropriate to focus a religious leader on Japan (not sarcasm), Bashir asks Bell about Japan--posing the question, "Which one of these is true: Either God is all powerful but [God] doesn't care about the people of Japan or [God] does care about the people of Japan and isn't all powerful.  Which is it?" Bell answers saying that God is Divine and that the message of the Scriptures is that God will fix this place and renew it again. Most likely frustrated that Bell didn't answer his unanswerable question (even Jesus spoke in metaphors), Bashir asks his question again. Bell responds that this is a paradox at the heart of the Divine.  "Some are best left exactly as they are" Bell says. Knowing that this paradox is a reality, Bashir backs off the question.

Then he asks if Bell is a "Universalist." Bell says no and points out that Christians have disagreed about this speculation (whether or not ALL will be saved) for ages.

Then it gets good.

Bashir asks the question that he will harp on for the rest of the interview: "Is it irrelevant, or immaterial, about how one responds to Christ in this life in terms of determining one's eternal destiny." Bells says, "It is extraordinarily important."  Bashir responds immediately (interrupting) that in Bell's book he says that "God wins regardless in the end."

I think it is at this point that Bell realizes that Bashir and he are operating on two different mindsets, two different paradigms of thinking.

Bel says, "Love wins, for me, is a way of understanding that God is Love and love demands freedom." Bashir says, "You are asking for it both ways, that doesn't make sense." While I might argue that yeah, Bashir, it doesn't "make sense," because the idea behind a God who puts its children on earth and those people fall away from God and God still chooses to save them doesn't "make sense"...it is not my point. Bell isn't asking for it both ways.  Bell is asking for a new way of thinking.

Bashir repeats the question. Bell says it is terribly relevant. "Now, how exactly that works out in the future, we are now...when you die...in speculation." Going on explaining himself Bel basically says that entire Dogmas have been written and designed around this, which seems to be logical speculation. (I actually think this is a weak answer from Bell and perhaps without the TV cameras and the elusive British accent, he may have responded in a way that makes more "sense")

OOOH. Then Bashir says, "I'm not asking what happens when you die, I'm asking about the here and now." Oh Bashir, how messed up you are. YES YOU ARE. You ARE asking about what happens when you die because the question you are asking revolves around the idea of what happens when you die! You're asking that if your response to Christ's love matters in the here and now.  AND you're functioning off of the assumption that that response secures you in either Heaven or hell.  So, yes, Bashir. You ARE asking about what happens when you die.  And it is to that point that Bell is responding.

Bashir continues to ask, "Does it have a bearing or not have a bearing, how you respond to Christ now, to determine your eternal destiny."

I think Bell is making the point that you have to "know" what's going to happen when you die...and you can't. However, for Bell, that doesn't make how you react to God's love irrelevant. (I might argue that it is indeed necessary...simply because Jesus commanded it.)

"It has tremendous bearing" Bell messed this up (Cameras, lights, and British again). I'm not totally sure that Bell actually thinks it has a huge bearing.  I think he DOES think it is relevant. (Again, I think this can be explained inside of Jesus' calling and command on our lives.)

Bell also says, "I assume God's grace give people space to work those things out." Some may think, including Bashir, that this is a cop out answer.  To which I respond: Saying this is a cop out answer assumes that you don't allow God's grace to move and work in the world.  Because this entire faith is built off of a grace, one that surpasses understanding, I might argue that you have nearly disqualified yourself as a "Christian." It's not a cop out...it's an explanation (or at least an attempt) at wrestling with the many questions of life that are unclear.

Bashir quotes a critique of Love Wins: "'There are dozens of problems with Love Wins.  The history is inaccurate, the use of Scripture is indefensible.' That's true isn't it?"  To which Bell obviously responds, "No." Does Bashir really expect Bell to admit that his factual information is wrong? I'm not sure.

The kicker: "Why do you choose to accept the works of the writer Origen and not Arius..."

While I haven't read the book (Divinity School is time consuming), haven't compared the historical notes (and typically Bell's books and messages are well backed up and researched...even perhaps moreso than others...), the assumption of understanding Origen over Arius is assumed because while both were controversial at times, Arius is understood to have believed that not only is the Son subordinate, but also did not believe in Trinitarian theology and thought the divinity of the Father was over the Son. This is typically considered somewhat heretical and so...my point...BASHIR OUGHT NOT LEAD THE QUESTION AND ASSUME THAT IT IS "TRUE" WITHOUT ASSUMING THAT BELL OPERATES UNDER TYPICAL PROTESTANT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES LIKE THE BELIEF IN THE TRINITY. Bashir should not assume anything as a journalist, but if he does...he has to be fair about what he assumes.

I thought Bell was going to handle this. But...he went a different way. I think this was a mistake on Bell's part.  He started, "Well, first and foremost because I am a pastor." However, he went on to talk about a personalized side of the pastoral role rather than emphasizing the doctrinal thoughts and principles. Unfortunate.

I wondered why Bashir went back to the, "That's true isn't it?" line. Here's my hypothesis: Bashir thinks Bell is a hipster pastor who is changing the Gospel to serve a purpose and in that process the Gospel is watered down and destroyed (he actually uses this as an argument later). Bell doesn't think so. But, it doesn't matter because Bashir has his own agenda. He later says that Bell has tried to make the Gospel more "palatable" for contemporary people who find the idea of Heaven and hell hard to stomach. Then the line, "That's what you've done haven't you?" And Bell says, "No. I spend an entire chapter in the book talking about hell."

I imagine that if Matt Lauer were interviewing Bell, he would've asked "Have you done that?" Instead of "That's what you've done, haven't you?"

There is a huge difference.

The long and short is that Bashir has an agenda, something every good journalist should have (sarcasm), and wants to appear as "hard-hitting" and so he asks leading questions (poorly disguised I might add), that do no give justice to the discussion and rather try to catch a writer in his tracks.  This is poor journalism and does nothing but provide viewers to your television show. This, perhaps, is one thing that is wrong with the world at hand.

Shame on Bashir.  Shame on MSNBC.  Give the man an opportunity to defend himself in a way that is fair and just.

-B

Charlie Sheen and Jesus

As I have been watching ABC's interview with Charlie Sheen tonight, I am struck by how genuinely interested I am in crazy people. Though I can't really pin down why, crazy, eccentric people fascinate me. I've tried to figure it out and a few things came to me. Most notably, they have giant egos and are extremely good at what they do. But...there is more.

While watching the interview, I kept thinking, "My God, this guy is crazy."

And while translating Jesus' appearance before the Sanhedrin from Greek to English throughout the commercials, it occurred to me that this may have been how people viewed Jesus.

I mean, think about it. Here is a crazy man who does crazy things, talks in ways we can't really comprehend, has a completely different mindset on society and life, and seems on the outside to have a huge ego. (Jesus DID pretty much claim to be the son of God)

Jesus tended to live into a reality that certain principles that had been taught throughout history were finally coming to be. You could use the word "fulfillment." While I admit it is a stretch, it seems to me that Charlie Sheen is living into principles that have come to reality inside of him; these principles might be articulated as: winning is everything and only the best win.

Interestingly, Charlie Sheen has admitted fault in several situations and even apologized for some tonight...sort of. It is pretty well accepted by believers that Jesus was a perfect man.

Another comparison occurred to me; Jesus selected followers who followed him, left everything (Matthew 19) and were willing to believe in him, live like he asked them to live, and die for his cause. Charlie's "goddesses" seem to buy into the same mindset of him. And...people (mostly those in questionable job situations) seem to follow him still. To add, Charlie seemed to sum up his theory on life as "love" based around Charlie. Jesus seemed to sum up his "theory" (many of us would say...reality) as "love" based around Jesus (I include God the Father in this definition of Jesus).

Of course, I don't think Charlie Sheen is Jesus (I actually would hold to an argument to the contrary) but I do think that it can be an interesting study as to those in our presence who are crazy and the difference and effect they have on our lives.

Next week, Hitler and Jesus.

-B