Napster, Titleists, and Faith

Let me ramble for a bit.

This past Tuesday night I started teaching a new class for the alma mater. This time, however, I'm up at their extension campus on the southside of Indianapolis. It's an additional three hours in the car for the next four weeks [and I've signed on to do this again up there in the Spring] but it seems to be a really great group of students and well worth my while.

I'm teaching Ethics— I know, I know: how do you teach if you don't have any, eh? As a discussion starter for the first session, we discussed illegally downloading music. I'll admit that in those early days of Napster, I downloaded songs on my work computer until I began to realize that it was essentially song theft.* Later, as I confronted others about their music piracy, I would hear the most creative attempts of justification; chief among is that was that file sharing was a victimless crime, harming no one except for the billion dollar recording industry that could well afford the loss. I expected to hear a few more excuses during the class discussion. But there were none: all my students held that stealing music over the internet was wrong.

Still I wonder if their not necessarily a reflection of their pre-established ideals or instead a visceral reaction to the way I presented it. I inadvertently used terms such as "theft," "stealing," "illegal," and "piracy"— all words that they already perceive negatively. As I discussed with them later, whomever is able to frame their argument in terms of their own choosing usually ends up being the victor. When I teach this course again, I think I'm going to have the same discussion while deliberately avoiding those terms to see if it affects their viewpoints. It's much easier to take a moral stand when you already have a clear delineation of right and wrong in front of you.

Anyway, I was still chewing on all of this the next day when I read the story of J.P. Hayes. His story is fascinating as Hayes is a pro-golfer who lost his PGA tour card and was forced to re-qualify via tournament. On one hole, he inadvertently played a prototype Titleist ball that was accidentally left in his bag and played it for two shots. When he realized this, he told an official that he played a wrong ball which automatically cost him two stokes. But the next night, realizing that the prototype might have been illegal, he again reported himself. It, indeed, was not an approved ball and Hayes was thus disqualified from the tournament and losing his place on the tour.

Golf is interesting like that. Whereas every other sport has officials that police the rules, golf insists that the player police himself. So when you attempt to violate the rules, you do so at the risk of your own integrity as judge. And if you try to justify your misdeeds through well crafted arguments, you are already well aware that you are, in essence, cheating.

I love that Hayes matter-of-factly responded that any other golfer would've done the same thing. After being lauded for reporting himself after a similar rule break, the legendary Bobby Jones remarked, "You may as well praise a man for not robbing a bank." Basically, the ethics of golf are unshakable because a judge is always watching. 

I believe that this technological era allows more opportunities than ever to commit unseen transgressions. As a result, our personal ethics will become more and more crucial in the year to come. But if we really hold to the concept of an omniscient God, then absolutely nothing is different, except our own delusions about personal integrity. We'll need to take on the attitude of people like J.P. Hayes, staking a claim on integrity, even if it's to our detriment, until it becomes commonplace.

In summation: someone is always watching, so don't do it.

____________

*Three additional thoughts about this that didn't fit the above thought flow:

1) I am gambling that the RIAA doesn't have enough information to nail down my indiscretions during my Napster days, but with the constant ineptness of my employer's IT system, I think I'm safe.

2) My ignorance surrounding the legality of file sharing in those early days can be attributed to the fact that I seriously assumed record artists wouldn't care if I downloaded their tunes. I never burned CDs of any of those songs I downloaded. If I really liked those songs, I went ahead and bought their album.

3) When I was younger, we would "file share" with each others' cassettes. In fact, I believe this practice is the reason why they began selling stereos with dual cassette racks [what other purpose could dual cassettes serve?]. Where was the RIAA 1980's big hair bands were losing cash?

When The Family Business Falters

I'll admit that on most Sunday mornings we usually view at least some portion of the Hour of Power on TV. It's not really my style, although the architecture of the Crystal Cathedral should be enough for almost anyone to tune in. I actually own Robert Schuller's autobiography [bought at severe discount, mind you] and it is rather fascinating.

As a student of evangelical eccesiology I was wondering what would happen when Schuller had to finally step aside from the pulpit; I predicted the church would be OK through the transition, but the television ministry would probably suffer. Then, almost two years ago when Robert Schuller named Robert Schuller [his son] to replace him, I thought everything would be OK. The son of Schuller is very much like him, even sharing similar mannerisms, and should have been able to at least maintain the ministry of his father.

But this morning's L.A. Times reports that the younger Robert Schuller has now been forced out of the pulpit by his father, citing "different ideas as to the direction and the vision for this ministry." The elder Schuller states that the Hour of Power will now feature multiple speakers in an effort to present the best preaching in the world. He can spin it however he wants, but I'm now convinced that this signals the end of the Hour of Power program. With no definitive connection to the past, the show will fade into the sunset, yet another sign of changing times.

This may sound bad, but I almost hope there was a moral failing on the part of the son. Otherwise, it then becomes another case of an aging leader who just can't let go. I'm sure Schuller the younger was just doing what he felt he needed to do to attract a younger audience. After watching his shtick a few times, I wasn't impressed but you could at least see he was trying. But I'm sure his father was watching every one of these moves with a scowl, perhaps ever muttering, "that's not how we've always done it," until it finally became too much for him to bear.

As more and more of these megachurches attend to transition from the founding or established preacher to a new leader/vision, these incidents will become commonplace.  Sadly, this one happened on a national scale. And even more disturbing is that a father did it to his son, damaging that relationship forever.

I just hope that thirty-plus years down the road, I'll be able to step aside and let go at the appropriate time. I guess as long as no one screws with my television ministry it'll be no problem.

CORRECTION:

Apparently, the younger Schuller will remain the Senior Pastor. This move dealt only with the Hour of Power television program. Still, I'm not sure if that's less awkward.

UPDATE:

And the younger Schuller speaks! His take is that the board of the church made this move, pulling rank on his father. So if this is true (which is still debatable), then dad then towed the party line, rolling over his son in order to please the board. I'm not sure which is worse at this point. Again, it's just a sad situation.

On Life

As election day nears, the frenzy grows. It's difficult to find "normal commercials" on television anymore, and I'm prepared to go on a Facebook hiatus as it has become a cavalcade of spin for their candidates and causes.

Anyone who reads my blog understands that I've held a lifelong fascination with politics. I remember election night in 1984 as Ronald Reagan's blue wave [yes, back then the colors of the states were switched] ushered in his re-election. I can name my congressional representatives [both national and state] and know the names of all of our city council people. For the longest time I assumed my life would be engulfed in the political realm but I guess that wasn't God's plan for my life.

That said, I do not make endorsements as that is the lot I chose in life with my vocation as a minister. As our church has yet to get our 501c3 status, I could legally come out in the pulpit and tell our people who to vote for and face no repercussions from the IRS. But I have family, friends, and parishioners on both sides of the aisle and I prefer to wield my influence in more productive ways.

Still, I feel compelled before our election to discuss what is perhaps the most divisive issue in this country: abortion. I realize that many of you who read this blog are incredibly passionate about this issue, but I will proceed nonetheless, keeping comments open on this post, pleading for maturity in dialogue about a controversial issue. And I realize that there might very well be women reading this who have had an abortion and my heart goes out to you. This is not meant to be a treatise of judgement of the past. Rather, it is meant to project to the future and the implications of this issue on this and generations to come.

ABORTION IS WRONG

Yes, abortion is wrong. I can say this confidently as a man of faith because it is part of my Christian heritage. The church arrived at this conclusion by virtue of systematics [i.e., these is no "Thou Shalt Not Abort" verse in the Bible, but we can construct a solid theology that states as much through a careful examination of the Scriptures]. This position also matches early church tradition. Throughout the Roman world, in the days of the early church, children were seen as less than human. Therefore, if a child was born with any kind of defect [including the child's sex], then there were usually hillsides or dumps were they could be deposited. Christians, however, were notorious for going to these places, rescuing the babies, and adopting them as their own. That's why many conclude that Paul's diatribe in Ephesians 1:5 ["In love (God) predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ"] does not reference Calvinistic theology, but rather this practice of saving discarded children. Despite times when the church hasn't lived up to it, a theology of life is present in Christian theology throughout history.

I should note that one could also show that abortion is wrong without using a Judeo-Christian ethic. We can cite Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative and propose that abortion creates a moral law that creates a negative universal precedent. Abortion is also a rejection of Thomas Jefferson's great plea for humanity's unalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Humans have the freedom to do what they want in this world so long as it does not violate the freedoms of others.* The right of "choice," when it comes to abortion, is a violation of the rights of the unborn. While at one time, the polemic against this was to a scientific discussion concerning when life begins, this is hardly a matter of contention anymore because science has shown us that there is life at contention. So even people who care nothing about faith and the Bible should be concerned about this issue.**

CHANGING VIEWS

And now to the issue at hand: there are many Christians [Protestant and Catholic, orthodox and liberal] who have grown tired of the issue of abortion and its dominance in the American political arena. These folks are looking to either reframe the abortion arguments or dismiss the topic altogether. Some of the statements that have emerged as a result of this seem to be consistent with a theology of life, but I would argue that they are actually red herrings that need to be confronted. Here are some of the ones I hear the most lately:

1. If you were really about life, you wouldn't support the death penalty. This statement can be easily deconstructed through a Biblical hermeneutic by contrasting the two lives in question: that of a baby and a murderer. I really have no desire to do so now, but I will opine that if you cannot see the difference between the termination of the life of a condemned killer to that of an unborn child then you need to reevaluate your ethical priorities. Also, many people use a similar line concerning the war in Iraq and the civilian casualties there. Whether or not the conflict can be declared a "just war" is debatable, but it still doesn't deny the fact that abortion is the willful termination of innocent life and such a comparison is "apples to oranges."

2. We don't need to be one-issue voters. The point here is that if you reject a candidate based on merely only one issue then you are acting irresponsibly. This is a naive statement. First, every one one of us has a hierarchy of issues that determines our voting preferences. For some, it's simple party affiliation. For others it's the war, or the economy, or abortion. So even though we claim to be even-keeled, we are actually predisposed towards certain issues more than others. Second, what if that "one-issue" was the subtraction of over 40 million people from our society?***  Tell me what other political issues has such a deep impact. There is none. So demeaning those who vote using the abortion stance as their litmus test is a perfectly acceptable practice.

3. We need to concentrate more on the issues that lead to abortion. This is the most persuasive of them all because it's actually true. Americans have been woefully ignorant of the economic/social issues that lead to abortion. Hamilton County, Ohio [the county in which I live] has one of the worst infant mortality rates in the country. Pregnant mothers often feel helpless and need guidance to seek out the many avenues of support that are available to them. But even though there's a long way to go in fixing the situation, this does not entitle a person to end the life of a child— these concepts are not mutually exclusive. I agree that people who wave the banner of life need to explore the many different aspects of it, but that does not negate the tragedy of baby genocide.

ELECTORAL IMPLICATIONS

It's my opinion that these arguments have emerged because Christians want to feel justified in voting for pro-abortion candidates. But do not deceive yourself into believing that the issue of abortion does not matter. If you are a Christian, it is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest issue. If you are not a Christian, then I would argue that it still matters. When you enter the voting booth, you need to consider the implications of the abortion issue. Try as you may, you cannot ignore that this is still the preeminent issue of our time. It depends our attention and our thoughtful consideration.

For some of you, the preceding thoughts have brought you to the following conclusion: "HA! This is how the Republicans understand the issue of abortion, so you're telling me to vote the G.O.P.!" And to that I would respond, "not really." Just four years ago, all three branches of the federal government were dominated by the Republican Party; this happened for the first time since the Roe Vs. Wade decision in 1973. If there was ever an opportunity for the Republican Party to make a move, this was it. Their response: silence. So even though this has been a political issue that the G.O.P. has embraced, I really wonder if their actions rivaled their words.

Sounds like I'm straddling both sides of the fence here, but I promise I'm not. What I want to urge you to do is not to cop out. Don't opt for the easy excuses I listed above. Explore your electoral options and develop a reasoning behind your decision.

In the end, respect life.

_____________

A National Review and Wall Street Journal article that resonates with this post.

* The most perplexing issue of the Libertarian Party platform is that of abortion. Basically the party passes on the issue, saying government should not be involved in such matters. This has spawned the group Libertarians for Life which argues the very point that I was trying to make here.

** It is interesting that some of the more "liberal" lobbies out there still support abortion rights when it actually harms their constituencies. For instance, feminist rights groups such as the N.O.W. think that women's rights is furthered by permitting abortions. But one can assume that half on the aborted pregnancies in America would have resulted in the birth of more women. So the argument appears to be that we're for women who want to terminate women. Additionally, the vast amount of selective abortions in China are done to girl babies.

Another group that has supported abortion rights is the NAACP. Ironically, abortion is the highest killer among African Americans.

*** Although the exact number of abortions since the judgement of Roe vs. Wade in 1973 is placed as high as 50 million, 40 million is likely a safe estimate.

The Shack Book Review [Part Two]

I will admit that this rather lengthy post is written specifically to the Christian who is further along in their faith. New Christians or non-Christians might view this as petty and/or confusing, so those people might want to avoid this post altogether.

INTRODUCTION

Considering I wrote Part One of this review almost two months ago, you might need to glance back to see my original criticism of the best-selling book The Shack written by William Young. There you can also find a brief synopsis of the story. Since I'm not going to repeat it here, you might be a little lost without referencing Part One first.

Among my dislikes of The Shack listed there were a) it's poorly written fiction, b) it attempts to speak authoritatively under the guise of fiction and c) it hides behind an emotional narrative to present its theology. As more and more people are starting to read this book, I thought I'd finally get around to citing specific texts with which I had problems. I will admit that even though I took these notes while reading the book, I already passed it on to someone else, so I apologize if I don't fully recall the exact context of these quotes. And I typed a couple of pages of notes, so following is merely a handful of my concerns.

GOD SPEAKS

Upon receiving a written note from God, we read an inner-thought process of Mack reflecting on THE Written Word of God. We read,

"The thought of God passing notes did not fit well with his theological training. In seminary he had been taught that God had completely stopped any overt communication with moderns, preferring to have them only listen to and follow sacred Scripture, properly interpreted, of course. God's voice had been reduced to paper, and even that paper had to moderated and deciphered by the proper authorities and intellects. It seemed that direct communication with God was something exclusively for the ancients and uncivilized, while educated Westerners access to God was mediated and controlled by the intelligencia. Nobody wanted God in a book, just in a box. Especially an expensive one bound in leather with gilt edges, or was that guilt edges." [Page 64]

There is an edge to this quote. While made somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it's really the premise for what will follow throughout the rest of the book. It is a slighting of God's Written Word that will set the stage for "real, personal interaction with God." At its best, this statement is anti-intellectual; at its worst, it's a revolt against the submission to the Scriptures. Listen, I get it: some people worship the Bible more than God Himself, but you're not doing anyone a favor by disparaging the process here. Although this quote is subtle, I think it's deliberate. It's intended to presumptively backhand anyone who dares to criticize the experiential revelation that is to come. Young does a huge disservice to the concept of Biblical inspiration/interpretation by this needless one paragraph jab.

DID GOD FORSAKE JESUS?

On page 96, there's dialogue between Papa (God the Father) and Mack about the crucifixion of Jesus. Here's how it plays out:

PAPA: "We were there together" MACK: "At the cross? Now wait, I thought you left him — you know— 'My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?'" PAPA: "You misunderstood the mystery there. Regardless of what he felt at that moment, I never left him."

I would argue that Young misunderstood the mystery there. Despite many interpretations/references claiming otherwise, Jesus was indeed forsaken by God on the cross; not out of spite, mind you, rather as the fulfillment of his life as substitutionary atonement. Examine the scene at Calvary— an event without parallel— with the sun being darkened, and earthquake, the temple curtain torn, and dead people walking the streets. Our sin needed to be accounted for and the Holy God, in his judicial role, had to enact justice. That doesn't speak ill of God. It actually reflects poorly on us who forced God to have to take such a position.

Again, you might counter that this is no big deal, that substitutionary atonement isn't the point of this book. But it's the point of Christianity, so it needs to be noted.

ALL ABOUT RELATIONSHIP

The thrust of Young's book is the emphasis on relationship with God above everything else, stating on page 101 that the Trinity can be summarized as love and relationship. At the conclusion of the weekend, Mack said to the Spirit, "This weekend, sharing life with you has been far more illuminating than any of those [Seminary] answers." The Spirit responds, "And you will hear and see me in the Bible in fresh ways. Just don't look for rules and principles; look for relationship— a way of coming to be with us" (page 198).

While many Christians would swallow this whole, we need to realize the term "personal relationship with God" is merely a contextualization of the gospel message— a way of explaining the interaction between God and humanity. Notice that I said, "A way of explaining" and not, "THE way of explaining." The emergence of "the personal relationship" language can be dated after the Second World War, originating in American society then spreading globally, to reach a society that started to value the individual more than the communal.

This might be shocking, but "personal relationship with God" is not found in the Bible. In the NIV translation (produced in the early 1970's), the word "relationship" is only used three times in the entire book. Even the paraphrased Message Bible only uses "relationship" once in this kind of context. Throughout the Scriptures the predominant view of our interaction with God is explained in legal or covenantal terms. Unfortunately, this terminology turns most of us off because we'd rather not wrestle with that view of interaction with God— he as Judge/King and we as violator/servant.

Sure, we prefer a "personal relationship with God" because we'd rather view God in a human-to-human relationship; the thought of a judgmental God can be frightening and it reeks of old-school Christianity. So instead of viewing Jesus as the atonement of our sin, we think of him as our buddy. But regardless of how much disdain we carry for this "legal" interaction with God, it is consistently found in the Scriptures. And perhaps this is why The Shack is so popular: it embraces an interaction with God that we find comforting rather than frightening.

CONCLUSION

I could talk much more about all the qualms I had with this book, but I feel like I've said my peace. Hopefully you understand my opinion here: this is a flawed piece of fiction. Again, allow me to reiterate: I'm not saying that people shouldn't read this book, but we ought to realize that this is just one person's perspective on faith and it does not present a consistent explanation of the gospel message. If you're interested for a more compelling piece of literature, I suggest the Bible. It's good stuff.

If The Shack has made your relationship with God "more real," that's great. But I would challenge you to ask yourself why.

Transitioning Back To Life

I haven't posted as frequently this summer. Nothing personal; I still enjoy the blog. It just seems like there's always an excuse not to.

The most recent excuse was that I didn't quite know how to follow up my last post. It seems inappropriate to make little jokes or talk about my pet peeves after previously referencing a child's death. But even though I've been lamenting this tragedy that past few days, I somehow seem to function throughout the rest of year when there are just as many unspeakable incidents that happen around the world every day. Of course, we tend to overlook these events, only affected when disaster comes to our own neighborhood.

Although I can't really claim to know Dr. Edwards personally, we had a class or two together in grad school (I had many friends in that Counseling program with her who can claim a much closer bond). What I do remember from our limited interaction is that she was a very kind person. She was also somewhat introverted, so this intense media attention compounds the tragedy. Regardless of what rabid web commenters will offer, I observe that she was not the prototypical uber-professional woman forsaking her child for career. Despite the many that will continue to vilify her, I hope for comfort in this situation and encourage you to keep Dr Edwards, her friends and her family in your prayers.

But, like with every tragedy, those of us left behind must continue to grapple with everyday life. And that means moving forward. When the tears dry out, we go back to laughing, and thinking, and loving— transitioning back to life. So even though our lives are no longer the same, they still need to be lived.

Weep and Pray

The local media has picked up on a horrific story at my alma mater. It seems the baby daughter of a faculty member was left in an automobile today. She passed away. It is an incredibly sad situation and your prayers would be greatly appreciated. School is just getting started there and a bunch of young adults, along with many of my friends on staff there, will be scarred by this event for years to come. Ironically, I spent a considerable amount of time at Cincinnati Christian University today. When I first arrived on campus this morning, I took a call from an old college friend and decided to talk to him while taking in the beautiful view of the city. During this time (I like to walk while I talk) I apparently walked back and forth past the car where the little child was left.

Didn't see a thing. Why would I have looked?

I think the windows of the vehicle were tinted, which could explain why it took the entire day before she was discovered. But it's hitting me very hard tonight, forced to think that I was within a few yards of this little infant in need and had no idea.

It's too sad, especially for her parents. I'm sure it was an accident, so before the media forces a critical eye towards them, and the public looks for justice, let's stop for a moment. Let's shed some tears for this family for their loss. And let's hug our children tonight.

A little baby died. And it's incredibly sad.

What A Waste

Although I'm not a hyper-megachurch kind of guy, I really like Rick Warren. He's had ever opportunity to take advantage of his Christian celebrity status for personal gain and continually refuses to do so. Also, he's using his large church's influence to support issues like poverty and AIDS, so even though his congregation is large, it's influence is not intentionally introverted.

And I can understand why he thought it would be a great idea to get the two Presidential candidates together this past weekend for an interview at his church. Warren was trying to give both men the opportunity to answer questions on faith and morality so the people could see for themselves, as well as highlighting the importance of the evangelical vote. But even though he had good intentions, I wasn't convinced this was a good idea. True, Warren will not endorse any one candidate and maintain objectivity throughout the election season[which will keep his church from the wrath of the IRS], but the American political arena is a sewage pit. And you cannot dwell near sewage and leave untainted.

The example of this is the controversy surrounding McCain's decent performance at the forum. After a coin flip, it was deemed that Obama would go first and McCain would be in a "cone of silence" [Warren's words] until his turn. My observation after viewing much of the exchange online: Obama was mediocre and McCain came off much better than expected. But apparently McCain was still en route to the venue during Obama's time, allowing for the possibility that he might have heard the questions, and giving his detractors plenty of ammunition with which to attack both McCain AND WARREN HIMSELF.

My opinion: Warren didn't lie about thinking McCain was sequestered, trusting that McCain would abide by his word. Now whether or not the McCain campaign actually did this, I can't say. I wouldn't even imagine to try and vouch for them on this issue. But here on Monday, it's a controversy. And I wouldn't be surprised if it led tonight's evening news.

So now, Warren is under scrutiny for something ridiculous, and his church is going to be called to defend him. Despite all the amazing things that he's done for people around the country and around the world, the general public will begin to associate him with helping John McCain look better than Barack Obama— whether it's the truth or not.

Like I've said here before, I love to watch politics. But I observe as if it's a sporting event, not really caring who wins or loses. When the church gets involved in the political arena, there is little chance that anything good can come out of it.

And I prefer not to smell like sewage.

iWrite

I'm still swamped from teaching two classes simultaneously [the first one will be finished tomorrow night], so I'm not back to a regular blogging schedule. But you can fill that void by checking out an article I wrote in this week's Christian Standard about the urban church conference I attended in Dallas this past winter. It's yet another way to shed light on what we're doing with Echo.

This Old House

Scott and Robyn Duebber are awesome. I declare it.

They are expecting child number two any day now [hopefully not before Scott leads worship at Echo on Sunday], but their awesomeness is not limited to feats of procreation. They moved to Price Hill last year, rehabbing an old house near St Lawrence Catholic Church, and, like us, are committed to raising their family in the city.

Scott also is a witty blogger, whose musings you should be reading. It is his blog, more specifically his using the blog to chart his house rehab, that got him featured in a City Beat article this week. To catch it, click here and scroll down to page 15 [note: fear not, Scott's inclusion in the magazine has nothing to do with pending lawsuits concerning prostitution advertisements].

I'm proud of Scott and Robyn. I'm particularly proud to have them in public view as solid Christians who love their city and live it out loud.

My People

Posts will be sporadic next week as I'll be consumed by our churches' national convention. This year, the North American Christian Convention will take place at the Duke Energy Center [a couple of years ago I wrote a brief history of our movement and the meaning behind this convention that you can check out]. I'm looking forward to connecting with people and perhaps even learning something.

I'm actually the usher coordinator for this year's convention, which means I just need to find people to help with offering for the evening sessions. If you're going to be there, or your interested, it's a minimal commitment and I could really use the help— especially on Tuesday and Wednesday evening. Drop me an email if you'd be willing to lend a hand.

Even if you're not going to help me out, you don't have to be registered to attend the evening session. Let me know that you're coming and we might be able to connect. More info on the NACC can be found here at their website.

No Dough

How about some more Catholic-ish stories? This past weekend I was honored to perform the wedding of Jeff and Kristin in Louisville, Kentucky. They are an amazing couple. Kristin was working on a law degree from Chase at NKU and found us on the interwebs. Jeff was from San Antonio, got a job here in Cincy and a friend-of-a-friend connected him to Kristin. And the rest they say . . .

I should note that the church building in which they were wed was fantastic. Amazing stained glass and woodwork. They had a communion table that was about five feet tall. I conducted the ceremony from the floor, which left very little space to maneuver around. But I'm a can-do guy and wasn't worried about it.

While Kristin is a practicing Protestant [that's fun to write for some odd reason] her family is mostly Catholic. Since Protestant weddings differ greatly from Catholic wedding masses, I do my best to carefully explain the different aspects of the ceremony to the crowd. Additionally, I'll try to make things more familiar to them. For example, there's the Lord's Prayer. My new school Protestantism asks forgiveness from "our debts as we forgive our debtors." Catholics [and old school Protestants], however, ask to be forgiven "of our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." While I'm usually a "debtor" guy, I'll swing to "trespass" in a Catholic crowd.

Anyway, Jeff and Kristen decided that they wanted to have communion served during the ceremony, so we planned out the specifics at the rehearsal. Fast forward to the service when communion time rolls around. I pick up the bread and chalice [which is rather full] and realize that the close quarters put me within very close proximity to the bride and her very expensive, very white dress. I must admit that I've never been in that situation and was very nervous. Knowledgeable of the fact that spilling a cup full of the fruit of the vine on a wedding dress would be something I would never recover from, I tightly grasped the cup and held it close to my chest.

After the prayer, I served the couple, and then had to serve the rest of the bridal party. This meant again maneuvering around the dress, which I believe grew even whiter as I navigated my way to the bridesmaids, all while holding the cup like a parachutist holds their ripcord. Unfortunately, all my attention was on the cup and I didn't realize I was holding the plate of bread at a slight angle. Sure enough, half of the bread hit the floor at the feet of the maid of honor. Yet fortunately, no one in the audience saw the bread hit the floor and I played it off.* And like a miniature miracle at Zarepheth, there was still enough bread to go around.

Immediately after communion I offered another prayer, after which I had the audience join me in the Lord's Prayer. Like I said, I was concentrating on the whole "trespasses verses debts" line, wanting to get it out properly. Well apparently in my zeal to be accommodating, I skipped right over the line, "Give us this day our daily bread." I had no idea until after the ceremony when Kelly told me. Amazingly no one in the audience pointed that out to me later.

So there was something about bread and me last Saturday. I just couldn't handle it in any form. Not quite sure what that was all about.

Kinda unfortunate too, as it was a beautiful wedding and I really like bread.

*For my Catholic friends, the thought of the bread hitting the floor might be more offensive than I reflected here because of the doctrine of transubstantiation. We Protestants do not view the Eucharist in the same way, so my dropping the bread wasn't a theological violation, but just your standard reason for embarrassment. Additionally, I don't have to polish off the rest of the elements after communion, which I sorta appreciate.

I Don't Call Him Daddy

My current Xavier class has the potential to be my best course thus far at the university. The professor is a retired Jesuit priest who is incredibly informational and conversational. But as it's my first class taught by a priest, I'm finally faced with a dilemma I've been contemplating for some time: what would I call him? Despite not sporting the priestly collar/uniform, he still has the prefix "Father" before his name.

Being raised a good Protestant boy, I was taught the words of Jesus in Matthew 23 that you were not to call any man "Father." And even though I've realized for some time now that the context of that passage deals with the Pharisee leaders who cherished earthly titles to the point of abuse, and it is really not forbidding the Roman Catholic clergy title, it still made me feel awkward to the point of avoidance. Blame it on my upbringing. I've interacted with priests before, but was able to maintain communication by adhering to strictly generic pronouns. I could have tried that with my professor, but six weeks of class-time just seemed like too long to keep up. So last week I finally broke it out for the first time and posed a question to "Father Bracken." Not sure if I'll ever get used to it.

Of course, at Echo, I love it when they call me "Big Papa."

About The Shack

I don't read fiction. I just feel that there are enough true narratives out there to keep me busy, that I have little use for fiction. Plus, if I want a fake story, I can pop in a DVD and be finished in a couple of hours. This is just one reason among many that will keep me from reading the new book The Shack by William Young. But because it's becoming somewhat of a Christian phenomenon, I've tried to familiarize myself with it. So anything I state here should be taken with the understanding that I haven't actually read the book [well, the first chapter is on the web, so I did read that], but I'm not convinced that my ignorance should prohibit me from commenting about it.

Here's the quick synopsis from the publisher:

Mackenzie Allen Philips’ youngest daughter, Missy, has been abducted during a family vacation and evidence that she may have been brutally murdered is found in an abandoned shack deep int he Oregon wilderness. Four years later in the midst of his Great Sadness, Mack receives a suspicious note, ostensibly from God, inviting him back to that shack for a weekend.

So when Mack goes to the Shack [seriously] he gets to spend a weekend with the Trinity. Of course, the author has to anthropomorphize the Godhead, so The Father becomes an older African American woman, Jesus is a Middle-Eastern looking guy, and the Holy Spirit is Asian lady. Apparently, the weekend is spent in deep conversation where Mack finally forgives God and the murderer. Basically, it's a theological, fictional narrative that's supposed to teach people about the Trinity.

Like I said, I've not read the book, but based upon various reviews I've examined, I have a few observations.

1. The most important thing to understand is that theological fiction is a ridiculous genre. I know that many of you love to read that kind of informational fiction, but when you try to make truth digestable in the form of metaphor, you end up with useless mush. Remember the way The DaVinci Code claimed it was based on a true story? In the months that followed, scholars ripped its claims to shreds. But there are probably thousands of people walking the face of the earth who read Dan Brown's book and think it's actually true.

It was the same thing with Tim LaHaye's Left Behind series. Christians ate those books up, and many people think that his view of the end of the world is how it will really happen. If people could read these books and just be content to have enjoyed it is recreational fiction, I'd be fine with it. Unfortunately, people can't [or won't] distinguish between truth and fiction and I end up having to de-program people and explain what the Scriptures actually say about an issue.

2. One of the reasons people like these books is that it makes the reader think that he's more knowledgable without having to wade through any heavy research. One reviewer on Amazon wrote,

This book quickly became one of my most favorite books of all time. I have wanted to share this with everyone I know with the statement: "THIS is who God is and what He's REALLY like!!"

So one piece of fiction nails who God really is? Look, I've spent the past few weeks studying through deep theological writings and it's kicked my tail. I would much rather prefer to read a 200 page story to glean this information but if I want something worthwhile it's just not possible. For thousands of years theologians and philosophers have been contemplating the nature of God and William Young nailed it? The blessing to the theological fiction writer is that he never has to leave research footnotes. So the interpretation offered by the author is not necessarily orthodox Christianity but whatever he thinks Christianity should be.

Allow me to explain it like this: some people tend to hate science and math and prefer arts and stories. Likewise, some believers who disdain intellectual, systematic theology gravitate towards The Shack approach where it's all boiled down to a pretty story. But interestingly enough, when it comes to your house or car or the airplane you're flying in, you're hoping that people who assembled it used blueprints and/or schematics as a guide, rather than a watercolor painting. Even though you might not like those things that are difficult to understand, there is definitely a place for it. Why won't people tolerate that when it comes to God?

3. Some people love these books because it seems like a new expression of the Christian faith. Removed is any sense of staleness the accompanies "traditional Christianity" and people become enamored with a fresh way to live the Christian life. Therefore people will cling to it, and claim this is the God that they want to hear about. And then they get pissed off at their church because it isn't enough like The Shack. Many will claim that the book pushed them forward in their relationship with God, but I would speculate that it actually transported them into an understanding of God that isn't necessarily true. But since it's enjoyable, it's gotta be right, eh?

Wrapping things up, I'm not saying that everything is terrible about this book. In fact, I hear that it makes some powerful points. But if you're thinking of restructuring your entire Christian faith to conform it to the philosophy of The Shack, then we probably need to talk. These kinds of books are fads [remember Jabez?]. It'll be something new next year. So don't get caught up in the hype and go read the Chronciles of Narnia instead.

By the way, if someone wants to lend me a used copy of the book, I'll do a thorough examination. For a more detailed review [by someone who actually read the book], check out Tim Challies reflections here.

UPDATE: Of course, my college buddy Greg not only knows the guys behind the book but also designed the book's website. He vouches for the guys and has been following closely the controversy closely. You can read his brief thoughts here and here. Additionally, one of the guys behind the book wrote a defense article of the book here.

Looking back at what I wrote earlier, I think my criticism doesn't lie as much with the work itself as much as how people have reacted to the book— in some instances treating it as salvific. I would suppose this is no fault of the author, but in our hyperactive culture, we need to talk about balance constantly. All this insures that I'll definitely have to get my copy of the book and see what I think.

It Was Bound To Happen . . .

Check out Stuff Christians Like.

Pop Culture, Pitchers, and Preaching

If you've ever listened to me preach, you know I have quite an affinity for including pop culture references into my sermon. I do it rather deliberately. Sometimes it's just in passing, for a select few to enjoy for themselves. Even if they only catch one every couple of weeks, I think expecting the unexpected forces the listener to pay close attention to the message, not wanting to miss out on something. That's one of the reasons I enjoy people like Dennis Miller, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert, who have the knack of making obscure, dated pop culture references. Sure, they don't always attract boisterous laughs, but they definitely pay-off when done well.

That takes me back to the Reds game I attended yesterday when young phenom Johnny Cueto pitched a masterful game. It was a miserable day so there weren't many people in the stands [unless the seats were covered by an overhang]. In the row next to us were three guys in their early twenties, and one of them was hoisting the only sign I spotted all afternoon. Written in Sharpie on a white board, the sign simply read, "CUETO LIVES!" I didn't think to much of it until today while reading up about things from the game. An obscure Reds blog noted the sign. Apparently it was an obscure pop-culture reference.

It goes back to the 1990 Arnold Schwarzenegger* film Total Recall. Directed by Paul Verhoeven [a member of the Jesus Seminar?], the academy award winning sci-fi movie [seriously] features Arnold as a secret agent who gets a mind swap and becomes a construction worker. As information about his previously life starts to reappear, the powers-that-be want him dead so he heads to Mars to discover more. While on Mars, his finds an underground resistance group headed by a sage named Kuato. Come to find out, Kuato isn't a guy, but someone's mutated stomach [looks like this if you're interested].** Hijynxs ensue, Kuato is killed, but so are the bad-guys and Arnold saves the day.***

Anyway, the rally cry on Mars for the resistance movement was "KUATO LIVES!" So the twenty-somethings brandishing the sign were making a Total Recall reference. In retrospect, I'm very impressed with the sign, especially considering those guys were probably toddlers when the movie was released.

So very creative pop-culture reference there. And now we see have a Schwarzenegger/Reds connection.

* I find it fascinating that of all the words that spell-check chooses to highlight, Schwarzenegger is not one of them. So his name is so much a part of American vernacular that people who design spell-check include it in their programming.

** Saturday Night Live did a spoof on Kuato that you can watch here.

*** As I wrote out that movie plot I kept thinking, "this movie won an Oscar?" I guess that's why the Academy Awards aren't as cool as they used to be.

Foot + Mouth = Steve

For some reason, I consistently invent new ways to say controversial things. This past week I had the opportunity to teach a class at my alma mater. I've taught in their continuing-ed school a few times before, but this time I was filling in for a class in the undergraduate school: a perfect opportunity to contaminate the minds of 19 to 22 year-olds.

It was a church finance class so I was discussing the various aspects of financing a new church. Whenever I tell people about the unconventional way we went about getting things started it immediately draws distinct parallels to how other practitioners are doing it (for example: most new churches today cost about $200,000-$500,000 to start, while we spent less than $20,000 to get Echo going). In explaining our philosophy it is difficult not to critique the ways many churches spend exorbitant amounts of money for high impact ministry all while chalking it up to doing "God's work."

In that discussion last week in class, I used a specific church as an example and criticized that financial aspect of their ministry. I used strong words at first, and then caught myself and pulled back a little, but still I was pretty hardcore. Even in the case of young, impressionable minds, we need to be critical of ways that we act that aren't necessarily Biblical.

Of course, in that class were a couple of students connected with that church.

That afternoon I felt a little convicted about what I said; I still hold that my critique was correct, but I didn't do a great job of establishing my respect for that church. Therefore, I could've come off sounding like an arrogant church. I knew the email of one of the kids and apologized for those few words. He connected me with the other student and I apologized to him as well.

What sucked about the whole thing is that I had to apologize to a couple of young guys significantly younger than me with no experience. I could've just walked away and not done it, but it would've probably gnawed at me. Honestly, I'm still not 100% convinced that an apology was in order, but since I didn't feel 100% confident in the situation, I went ahead anyway.

I guess the big thing I learned is that I continually need to strive to find a balance. I'm not going to withhold strong words where necessary; one of the problems within our movement of churches is that we tend to value politeness more than truth. That said, I still need to figure out how to be as respectful as possible if I criticize others.

I'm still learning. But now more than ever, I think I'm finding my voice.

Pastor Problems

Barack Obama has been backpedaling this week because of his relationship with the pastor of his church in Chicago. If you haven't heard yet, the mainstream medium picked up on Jeremiah Wright's more controversial sermon statements, including the US deserving 9/11 and proclaiming, "God Damn America." His campaign handled the controversy head-on with a media blitz, in some way diffusing the situation. Obama claimed that he heard of most of these statements for the first time this week. He then asked Pastor Wright to resign from one of his advisory committees.

I'm not sure of the legs this story, whether or not it will last beyond the Democratic Convention, but it does raise some interesting thoughts in my mind:

1. The "Obama is Muslim" rumor should go the way of the albatross with this controversy. But I'm not sure if that's necessarily better for him. I doubt you would ever hear the rhetoric of Pastor Wright from an American Muslim [not including, of course, Farrakhan's Nation of Islam]. Therefore, Obama attackers have much more ammunition to work with the rogue Christian angle now and won't emphasize his middle name as much as before.
2. Obama better not be lying when he claims never to have heard [in person] any of Wright's outrageous statements. I guarantee every major media outlet is researching his family's church attendance and cross-referencing with these sermons. I'm not convinced this was the best defense Obama could've come up with in this instance. But it's now his Alamo and he better be prepared for the consequences that would come if he indeed was in church when Pastor Wright went off. As is, he's fine, but if they prove he was there, it would cost him the Presidency.
3. Despite good old Gerraldine Ferraro's "he's lucky he's black" statement earlier in the week, the Wright incident demonstrates how much more difficult it is for a black man/woman to ascend to America's highest electable position. Just belonging to a black church can be problematic for the candidate. The black pulpit in America is a very unique rallying point that, in most instances, goes beyond the gospel message to social/political issues facing the community. For almost one hundred years, it was the only voice the African American community had and, therefore, wasn't limited to Biblical exhortation. As all American churches have become more media savvy, recording services in audio and video form, the voice of the black pulpit is now accessible to those beyond its community. Many in white America, who have no exposure to the nuances of the rhetoric that originates from the black pulpit, find it frightening. I predict that when any future black presidential candidates emerge, the media will immediately reference iTunes to listen to the person's pastor.
4. This incident does make me wonder to what extent the thoughts of a pastor are supposed to represent his congregants. Those critical of Obama for attending Pastor Wright's church, because of Wright's opinions, should first ask themselves if they're 100% behind the statements made by their own pastors. As a preacher, I'm not sure I want my church to think exactly like I do about every social/political anyway. When I preach, I try to clearly delineate between Scriptural mandate and my opinions, i.e., not everything I say from the pulpit is the Word of God. At Echo, our most important doctrinal issues are articulated in writing [all of which, by the way, are based on the Scriptures]. Anything I say authoritatively from the pulpit should fit within those parameters. And if they don't, it's just my opinion. And people are free to disagree with my opinions. Just ask my wife [har, har].
5. Summing the last two points up, people of faith should really use this incident as an opportunity to examine what your church/pastor really believes. You might be surprised.*

There's much more I could say about the black church in America, but it wasn't necessarily the point of this post. I would assume that the same brand of controversial statements made by Pastor Wright have been made in pulpits all over the United States, by both black and white pastors. I wonder if this will lead to some sort of political inquisition where politicians are critiqued for their religious connections. For instance, John McCain has allied himself with Rod Parsley and John Hagee, evangelical leaders who have some interesting theological positions as well.

Because the church in America is so fractured, ranging from conservative evangelical to liberal mainline congregations [even Scientology is considered a church!], these kinds of stories will become more and more prevalent in the years to come.

*Personal note: I should add that I am not THE pastor, but ONE OF THE pastors at Echo. We believe the Biblical model is for a plurality of elders that lead the local church. Therefore, if I say something authoritative from the pulpit, then WE say it. And if I personally say something wrong, I'm in submission to the other leaders to keep me in line.

More From Me

I forgot that a few months ago a wrote an online article for the Christian Standard magazine. They assigned me a couple of texts and I did an accompanying lesson. The two texts had absolutely nothing in common, so I got a little creative. The article is based on an idea I published on this blog a couple of years ago. Yes, I am pro-recycling.

If you're interested, it can be found here [at least until Tuesday].

Faith and Doubt

We had our Theology Pub tonight, and our men began a study of a new book by Tim Keller out of NYC called The Reason For God. It appears to be a stellar read and I might even start a Blogger blog to detail some different aspects of our study.The thrust of the book is that there are indeed some definitive reasons for doubting the existence of God that Christians should struggle with; yet, conversely, there are very many reasons that support the existence of God that skeptics need to acknowledge.

Our conversation tonight was enlightening, perhaps a little liberating. It always makes you feel good to be able to admit in a safe place that you have doubts.

Even as a pastor, I have moments of doubt about my faith. [if you're a Christian and you don't, then I would suggest you either stop lying or see a mental health specialist]. But at the end of the day, I inevitably return to the side of faith.

It's a little deeper read, but I'd suggest picking up a copy.

Vaya Con Dios

As someone who started a church, I feel a certain camaraderie with guys who try it too. Tomorrow I know of two different church's having their first Sunday services, and I'd like to share a little about them. The first church is in Lexington, Kentucky. I know about Catalyst Christian Church because my in-laws [Dave&Bev, as well as Scott&Jess] are helping to get it started. I emailed Catalyst's lead pastor Dave Kibler this week to encourage him and let him know that people are praying for them.

The second church is in Kansas City. I played fantasy football this year with Troy McMahon, who is leading the new Restore Community Church. Troy picked up his family and moved straight to KC without knowing many people to start Restore. I'm sure things will go well there also.

Good things happening all around the country. Very exciting stuff . . .