A Mother Teresa Quote

Image by Troy Holden via FlickrWhat can I do to make Jesus look beautiful?

Biblical "Rules of Engagement"

Image via WikipediaWhat you will read below here is not my own.  This is from Rachel Held Evan's blog.  But I'm going to borrow some of this and try to pass it off as my own as I enter discussions with persons about the Bible and about following it.

See, I not only read the Bible (it's a "Good Book" :) ), but I'm interested in how we use the Bible, are shaped by it, and, oftentimes, shape it.  I'm interested in the presuppositions we bring to it and the how our view of others is shaped by our interpretation of it.  I'm interested in the notion of inerrancy as it seems that no one views the whole thing as "inerrant" and we all seem to pick and choose.

I want to take the Bible seriously.  I believe it has words of life as it relates to us the Word (Jesus Christ) of God, who is the Way and the Truth and the Life.  Can we take it seriously without using it to beat up our theological opponents?  Can we be honest about its breadth and depth and confess how we prooftext to fit our social or religious perspectives?  Can we approach the Bible with humility and see how complex the act of believing and interpreting really is?

So, Rachel has her "Seven Rules of Engagement" for discussing the Bible.  These are the ground rules that she (and I) think are needed to make sure we're honest about our limitations and perspectives.
It blew my mind today...particularly #6.

Here they are...

Are you ready...

1) I won't question your commitment to the Bible just because you interpret it differently than I do. 

2) I won’t use the Bible as a proof-texting weapon of mass destruction. 

3) I won’t accuse you of “picking and choosing” when we all employ some selectivity when interpreting and applying the Bible.

4) I will use the word “biblical” properly—as a descriptive adjective, not a prescriptive one. (The cartoon above illustrates the need for this perfectly!) 

5) I won’t use the words “plain” or “clear” when referring to an ancient collection of stories, poems, letters, laws, history, prophecy, and philosophy—all written in a language and culture very different from my own. 

6) I will keep in mind that my interpretation of the Bible is only as inerrant as I am.

7) I will use the Bible as a conversation-starter, not a conversation-ender.

So, what do you think?

A lot of this comes through in the discussions I've had with folks about David Kinnaman's book, UnChristian.  For instance, (to use the "poster child" of Biblical hot topics) if we're going to say, based on Leviticus (20:13), that homosexuals should be killed, we need to admit that, a couple verses prior, (20:9) the Bible says that children who "curse" their mother or father should be killed too.  If we're going to be "literal" with one...we need to be aware that we're not being "literal" with the other...or at least be honest in how we're doing our interpretation.  (Let me be clear here, this does not mean that we can pretend that homosexual practice is not mentioned in the Bible.  It's there.  But we need to have the proper perspective of our interpretation.

Moreover, we need to be clear that non-Christian people in the world can see that we prooftext and they can see that we beat each other up with our respective Bibles and interpretations.  The recent Rob Bell debates is a case in point and this is an argument that has gone mainstream, even being picked up by Time Magazine.

I want to take the Bible seriously. 

Sometimes...maybe a lot of the time...Christians use the Bible for their own purposes, perhaps taking themselves more seriously than the Word of God.

And, in all honesty, I do this too.

Oh, click here to see the great cartoon that Rachel Held Evans mentions.

"No Exit"

photo © 2009 Danielle Scott | more info (via: Wylio)
Thanks to Daryl Dash and this great quote from Peter Larson:

Despite our efforts to keep him out, God intrudes. The life of Jesus is bracketed by two impossibilities: a virgin’s womb and an empty tomb. Jesus entered our world through a door marked “No Entrance” and left through a door marked “No Exit.”

Let Us Not Mock God with Metaphor

Image via WikipediaThis is an Easter Poem by John Updike.  It's called, "Seven Stanzas at Easter" and talks of the danger of diminishing the resurrection my making it a metaphor.  I've seen it around the last couple of days.

Make no mistake: if He rose at all
it was as His body;
if the cells’ dissolution did not reverse, the molecules
reknit, the amino acids rekindle,
the Church will fall.

It was not as the flowers,
each soft Spring recurrent;
it was not as His Spirit in the mouths and fuddled
eyes of the eleven apostles;
it was as His flesh: ours.

The same hinged thumbs and toes,
the same valved heart
that–pierced–died, withered, paused, and then
regathered out of enduring Might
new strength to enclose.

Let us not mock God with metaphor,
analogy, sidestepping, transcendence;
making of the event a parable, a sign painted in the
faded credulity of earlier ages:
let us walk through the door.

The stone is rolled back, not papier-maché,
not a stone in a story,
but the vast rock of materiality that in the slow
grinding of time will eclipse for each of us
the wide light of day.

And if we will have an angel at the tomb,
make it a real angel,
weighty with Max Planck’s quanta, vivid with hair,
opaque in the dawn light, robed in real linen
spun on a definite loom.

Let us not seek to make it less monstrous,
for our own convenience, our own sense of beauty,
lest, awakened in one unthinkable hour, we are
embarrassed by the miracle,
and crushed by remonstrance.

"It's Friday...But Sunday's Coming" -- Awesome Clip for Today

Sermon by S. M. Lockeridge set to images from The Passion.  This gave me chills today.

It's Friday....but Sunday's Coming.

Community and Church

Image via WikipediaSomewhere in my reading the last couple of days, I came across a Stanley Hauerwas quote.  It went something like this....

I don't like the word "community" for a church.  "Community" seems to imply that we like each other.  But a "Church" isn't a place where people "like" each other.  It's a place where people love each other, whether or not they love them.

This has had me thinking.

Pluralism -- And Yet More Rob Bell

Image via WikipediaRob Bell. Rob Bell. Rob Bell.   Man, haven't we heard enough?

No!, I say.  This is good stuff.  This is good discussion.  And, a lot of the blogs I follow have taken sides on the "Rob Bell Issue."

Well, more fuel to add to our theological fire.

I was reading over at NextReformation.com about the ongoing debate.  There, I found a great quote about this issue.  The post closed with this quote from Leslie Newbigin.  This rides the fence in wonderful fashion.

“exclusive in the sense of affirming the unique truth in the revelation of Jesus Christ, but not in the sense of denying the possibility of salvation to those outside the Christian faith; inclusive in the sense of refusing to limit the saving grace of God to Christians, but not in the sense of viewing other religions as salvific; pluralist in the sense of acknowledging the gracious work of God in the lives of all human beings, but not in the sense of denying the unique and decisive nature of what God has done in Jesus Christ.” The Gospel in a Pluralist Society 1989 182-3

Yet More On Rob Bell...or Maybe It's not About Him At All

Image via WikipediaOK, I admit.  I've not read Rob Bell's book.   I don't find the topic of universalism all that threatening to me or my faith...not that I'm a universalist.  But...if God were to choose to save everybody or nobody at all, I really leave that up to God.  But I've been fascinated by the discussions about Rob Bell and his book Love Wins.  I've read stuff on the left and right of the issue and I've sort of found a home somewhere in the middle.  And I'm sure that's either weak or upsetting to some folks.  But, alas, that's where I am.  I'll let God be God and trust in his grace and mercy and the sacrifice of his Son, Jesus, whose death and resurrection we remember this week.

But, again, it's the discussion about this issue that's kept me fascinated.  Is Rob Bell a false prophet?  Can God save those outside of the Christian faith?  What is hell like?  Where is it?  Who will be there?  What is the proper Christian response to false teaching...or to diverse belief?  How much diversity can we have within the faith and still keep the faith?  THIS I find interesting. 

Perhaps the big issue is not Rob Bell, but about Christianity as a whole.

Jason Boyett, who writes over at "O Me Of Little Faith" has a nice post addressing the latter issue...diversity within the church, within the faith.

He says

Right now, Christian theology is broader and more diverse than most Christians are comfortable with. In fact, over two thousand years of biblical interpretation, the Christian religion has proved to be ridiculously flexible, able to tolerate significant theological and practical differences without, you know, us having to say “farewell” to people who land on a different interpretation. Consider:

There are Christians who believe they are saved exclusively through grace, period, full stop … and Christians who believe some manner of works are involved (those “works” may be as basic as an acknowledgment of Christ’s lordship or as complex as to what extent we cared for the “least of these”).

Some Christians believe salvation is eternal. Others believe it can be lost or cast aside.

Some Christians believe the elect are predetermined by God, chosen for either salvation and damnation. Others believe God gives mankind real freedom to make his or her own choice.

Some believe salvation occurs at the moment of baptism. Others believe baptism to be an important, public confession of salvation — but only symbolic.

And he goes on, with some pretty stark differences, diversity we can find within the Christian Church.  I know, every time I lead a talk at the Walk to Emmaus spiritual retreat or even preach on Sunday morning, that there are people who are going to disagree.  Maybe they come from a different background.  Maybe they think it's unbiblical that I practice infant baptism.  Maybe they question my interpretation of Scripture.  Maybe they're offended that I talk about my female (gasp) clergy friends.

So, how do we still manage to come to the one table to eat and drink Christ's body and blood together?  How do we work together as the Body of Christ in the world?  How do we act in love, welcoming and not excluding the other?

Girdwood Chapel has been a great model of this for me because we have such great diversity in our midst.  When we stand together in a circle at the end of worship singing "On Eagle's Wings" I see it as a foretaste of heaven, when the walls that divide us come down.

We need to approach these discussions with, probably, more humility than we want to.  Jason Boyett closes his post wonderfully...with such humility...and a lot of perspective.

Though we base our beliefs on the same source (the Bible and the last couple thousand years of tradition), we Christians are a fantastically diverse people. Some of our core beliefs are not just very different from another, but frequently at odds with one another.

Most of us think we’re right. But we can’t all be right about everything.

Which is to say: almost all of us are wrong about something. Regardless of what we believe, there are Christians somewhere in the world who think you are dead wrong. Dangerously wrong. Maybe even a heretic. Why? Because you are on the wrong side of what they consider a core belief.

For all our talk about narrow roads, Christianity has become a broad, gushing stream. Acknowledging that, with humility, ought to give us pause before we start all the in-fighting and name-calling. I need to remember that the next time I decide Rob Bell is wrong…or John Piper is wrong…or I am right.

Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/omeoflittlefaith/2011/04/flexibility-heretics-and-love-wins.html#ixzz1JovRLsYd

For The Arminians In Da Hizzouse

This is from a Jared Slack's photos over at Plixi.

Interesting Take on Heaven and Hell

                   Image via WikipediaStill a lot of talk about the Rob Bell book, Love Wins, now that some people (not me) have read it.  Is he a heretic or false preacher or a true prophet or a man of this time or a great showman or what?  Regardless, we have a lot of folks thinking about heaven and hell.  That's a good thing.  I found the following quote today as I was going through my inbox.

Whatever we want to say about hell, it simply cannot be what we have received as the ‘traditional’ view, a place of eternal, conscious torment. If that kind of suffering exists, there can be no heaven for any of us.

This is from Richard Hall on his blog, Connexions, from Wales

Interesting, huh?  

He says there would be no heaven if we knew that there were folks in endless torment.

Made me think.

That's a good thing.

What Can Apple Teach Us About a Post-Church World?

Image by marcopako  via FlickrI'm sort of an Apple fanboy.  I admit it.  I type this on my MacBook Pro.  I have my iPod in my pocket.  I'm a new user of an iPad.  We have a PC, too.  I'm comfortable on Microsoft products.  But, I really like the Mac stuff.  It just seems to make sense to me.  I know others have different experiences, but this is mine.  I switched to Mac about 8 years ago after a Dell laptop went dead with a motherboard problem and I was struggling with Windows ME -- which was a waste of an operating system.  I thought I'd give Apple "a fair shake" and haven't looked back.

One of the things I've bee interested in is the very different business model that Apple plays by.  I'm sure they've wanted a bigger piece of the PC pie.  But, even at 5-7% or whatever it is, they've made their money and they've made their fans.

But I've been amazed at how they've functioned.  In my PC days it was always a matter of getting faster, bigger, more powerful hardware.  And it was cool.  And, while it's still cool to get faster, bigger, more powerful hardware on the Mac, they've been much more holistic in their approach, looking at the total experience.  Perhaps it can be analogous to bigger, more powerful churches not necessarily providing the best experiences.

I read an article yesterday that furthered my thinking on this.  It's from Eric Jackson from Forbes Magazine.  It's called "Apple Doesn't Have an iPad Strategy, It Has A Post-PC Strategy."

Here are some select quotes:

We are looking at the forest instead of the trees when it comes to the current tablet wars between Apple, Google’s Android platforms like Motorola Xoom and Samsung’s Galaxy and Research in Motion’s soon-to-ship PlayBook.

Apple doesn’t look at their businesses through separate product groups.  They don’t have an iPhone strategy conceived of by people who never talk to the iPad corporate strategy people.  Take a step back and look at the forest: Apple is following a Post-PC Strategy.

Apple used the term “Post-PC” at least a dozen times in its most recent iPad keynote last month.  Apple doesn’t just slip words and phrases in its corporate messaging at random.  They are always deliberate.

So what is their Post-PC Strategy?  It is an iOS strategy.  They want to be the dominant operating system through your life – at home and on the move.  That sounds a little geeky but it means that they want you to be so delighted with your experience on the iPhone’s operating system that you want that same experience on your tablet.  After you are satisfied with that experience, you start to wonder why you are still using a PC versus a Mac or MacBook Air as your “desktop computer.”  And then that will extend to your television.

So, could this be telling us something about a "POST-CHURCH" World?  Are we, perhaps, putting too much energy on failed systems or, perhaps, missing out on the holistic view of faith?

Maybe....

So...I sat with that for a while.

And then here comes a video by George Bullard of the North American Baptist Fellowship with a very solemn look at the decline of denominations.  I thought this was really good and made me scared and excited at the same time.



Well...

So....

Are we looking towards a post-church, post-denominational world out there?

If so, what can we learn and do?

Looking at Apple, what is the iOS, the operating system, the building blocks of faith that we need to be building across platforms?

What does a missional outlook on ministry mean to this?

(I realize I say this as pastor of a church with a new building, within a denomination that has been declining in the US.)

More From Rob Bell -- He Comes Clean

(HT to my FB friend, Lisa)

Missional Leadership -- By David Fitch

Image via WikipediaThis is from over at his blog, Reclaiming the Mission:

We need a different kind of leadership from you.

1.) We need a leader who puts forth ideas, vision by I saying “This is where/how I see God working. This is where I hear God calling us” and then ALWAYS submits that to the other person(s) asking – what are you seeing? Where are you going? Is this the way you are being called as well? NOT SOMEONE WHO SAYS “OK THIS IS THE VISION GOD HAS GIVEN ME FOR THIS CHURCH – CAN YOU FOLLOW ME? OR DO YOU NEED TO GO TO ANOTHER CHURCH?

2.) We need a leader who leads by listening and then knows when to ask (out of relationship) “can I speak truth into your life?” NOT SOMEONE WHO TELLS PEOPLE WHAT THEY NEED TO HEAR/DO BEFORE HE/SHE EVEN LISTENS

3.) We need a leader who never presumes authority but whose very presence and life makes people want to trust him/her and follow him/her. NOT SOMEONE WHO SEEMS TO ALWAYS BE ACTING OUT OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE, EXPERTISE OR PERCEIVED OFFICE.

4.) We need a leader who serves first by example, who embodies the disposition of being in everyday ministry/service to the hurting and then asks someone “can you join me on this?” NOT SOMEONE WHO RUNS THE CHURCH AS IF HE/SHE IS A CEO

5.) We need a leader who can unfurl the reality of the Lordship of Christ in the world and in each one’s life via Scripture, and then invite/challenge people to live there. NOT SOMEONE WHO USES SCRIPTURE TO PREACH A PRE-SCRIBED PRE-DETERMINED AGENDA FOR THE FUTURE ORGANIZATION OF THIS CHURCH.

6.) We need a leader who can cultivate the Kingdom in people, who can sit down with people over a cup of coffee, ask questions, and help each person see that God is “breaking in” through Jesus Christ working for the salvation of this person’s entire life and the people around him/her. And then ask, “how do you respond, how can you be faithful, how will you join in?” NOT SOMEONE WHO HAS A SET OF PRE DETERMINED PROGRAMS THAT HE/SHE WANTS EVERY PERSON TO VOLUNTEER FOR.

7.) We need a leader who can teach many more leaders how to be this kind of leader. NOT THE KIND OF LEADER THAT RECRUITS MORE LEADERS UNDER HIM/HER TO CARRY OUT HIS ORDERS.