Christian Bookstores (Part 1): Tolkien, Hagee and Political-Zionism

A week before Christmas I went to a popular Christian bookstore in Richmond BC with a friend. I asked if the owner could point me to the section with Tolkien's Lord of the Rings so I could buy it for myself (though I have read it I have never owned it -- I borrowed my brother's copy). His response was interesting: "We don't carry it!" he said emphatically. "You mean you do not have it in stock?" I replied. "No. We don't carry Tolkien. That is not Christian!" he exclaimed loudly. I kind of stood there for a moment really taken off guard. "Oh because the wizards and goblins and stuff" I tried to reason. "No! It is not Christian!" He repeated. At this point my friend turned to me to see what was happening. He had been flipping through Joel Olsteen's latest book proudly set up at the front of the bookstore. He walked over. "Do you sell The Chronicles of Narnia?" he asked. "Of course" he said. "That is Christian" My friend and I looked at eachother in amazement, less at what he was saying and more about how agressive he was being about this whole discussion -- so matter-of-fact; so black and white.

I said "You do know that Tolkien had a key role in bringing Lewis to Christ right?" He stared at me. "Lord of the Rings is not Christian" he repeated. "So you have made a decision--" he cut me off. "No. The Christian booksellers association of Canada decided not to sell that book in Christian bookstores." "Oh" I said. "It's just that I have seen it in other Christian bookstores". He exclaimed "No you haven't!" I said "Yes I have; they sell it at my school with big cardboard cut-outs and posters." "Which school?" he said. "Regent College." He fired back "Well they shouldn't!" I told him that they do and then said thank you. My friend put Joel Olsteen back on the shelf and we walked past the table full of useless Christian consumer goods (doilies, "Testa-mints", and bumper stickers that say "My boss is a Jewish carpenter") and we left. I arrived in Toront and the next day went to Michell's -- A Christian bookstore in Ontario. I walked in and asked them if they sell LOTR thaey also said no. I didn't even ask why. And then I looked around and got more and more discouraged as I walked around. I felt as if I had walked into a political convention for Zionism.

Everywhere I looked were books about the "end times", and mostly about how Israel are the true chosen nation/people/country of God and that we (meaning Christians and America) should support them at all costs. The book that this Christian bookstore had on display that day for sale was the latest John Hagee book In Defense of Israel. As I looked at the book the irony of it all struck me. The Christian bookstores were protecting people from the evils of Hobitts and a Christian writer (Tolkien) who was used of God to mentor, disciple and lead to Christ, arguably the most influential Christian writer of the twentieth century (C.S. Lewis), and yet they were promoting an author who spends his life arguing in support of the American foreign policy to support the country of Israel at all costs (even in their illegitmate wars), and who, in his recent book, seems to deny the Messiahship of Jesus (see below).

I was baffled. I was transported back to footage of Hagee, which I saw recently, in which my jaw hit the floor. He was leading a massive coalition of Christians in Washington called Christian Zionists or something, he stood up in front of these people and called for a pre-emptive strike on Iran before they attack the country of Israel. Hagee's Comments on video. I said: "Wow. A Christian pastor of a church of 20,000 people just called for a pre-emptive strike on a country. How far we have strayed." In his most recent book Hagee seems to deny an essential Christian doctrine:

If there is not one verse of Scripture in the New Testament that says Jesus came to be the Messiah … And if Jesus refused by his words or actions to claim the be the Messiah to the Jews, then how can the Jews be blamed for rejecting what was never offered?” (page 136)

Now imagine how quickly people would be up in arms if one of the so-called liberal "Emerging" pastors made a comment such as this. People would be writing books saying "Oh those liberal pastors denying the essentials of Jesus!" but a key pastor in America says these things and the major Christian publishers/bookstores don't blink an eye. It sells because it is popular Christian writing (easy to consume, and thus easy to sell) -- the fact that it is heresy is no big deal I guess.

My fear is this: the bookstores / publishers are being driven by two things: the first is obvious and legitimate: sales -- people buy these books. Fine. But the second is what is scary -- these industries are driven by political and theological agenda's and that is wrong. I don't have a problem having this view point in book stores, the problem I have is that other theological/political viewpoints were not in the store! I will speak more about this next time (especially in relation to book publishers). For now: think on these things.

Good King Wenceslaus on the Feast of Stephen: God and Government

Christmas is over. So what did this mean to the church through history? The following is an article written by John Mark Reynolds, from Scriptorium

The day after Christmas, the Church wisely decided to celebrate the Feast of the first martyr, Stephen. We are reminded that not everyone was happy about the Good News.

This feast has a carol associated with it that also reminds us of the nature of good Christian governance.

Good King Wenceslas looked out on the Feast of Stephen,
When the snow lay round about, deep and crisp and even.
Brightly shone the moon that night, though the frost was cruel,
When a poor man came in sight, gathering winter fuel.

“Hither, page, and stand by me, if you know it, telling,
Yonder peasant, who is he? Where and what his dwelling?”
“Sire, he lives a good league hence, underneath the mountain,
Right against the forest fence, by Saint Agnes’ fountain.”

“Bring me food and bring me wine, bring me pine logs hither,
You and I will see him dine, when we bear them thither.”
Page and monarch, forth they went, forth they went together,
Through the cold wind’s wild lament and the bitter weather.

“Sire, the night is darker now, and the wind blows stronger,
Fails my heart, I know not how; I can go no longer.”
“Mark my footsteps, my good page, tread now in them boldly,
You shall find the winter’s rage freeze your blood less coldly.”

In his master’s steps he trod, where the snow lay dinted;
Heat was in the very sod which the saint had printed.
Therefore, Christian men, be sure, wealth or rank possessing,
You who now will bless the poor shall yourselves find blessing.

The carol is based on the legends that grew up around the rule of the Duke of Bohemia, Saint Wenceslaus. According to the Anglican Breviary Duke Wenceslaus ruled justly.

“To the orphaned, the widowed, and the destitute, he was very charitable so that sometimes in the winter he carried firewood to the needy on his own shoulders. He helped oftentimes to bury the poor, he set captives free; and at the dead of night he went many times to the prisons to comfort with money and advice them that were detained therein.”

Whatever the actual history of his life (which from this distance it is hard to ascertain), the important thing to notice is what kind of legends crept around a model Christian ruler. You can know a great deal about a religion based on the myths it wants to tell about its heroes!

First, Christianity has always recognized the equality of all persons before God. Whether the Good Duke actually carried wood for a poor man, it is the sort of thing the Church encouraged rulers to do. Rulers had a different function than their subjects, but they were not better as men.

This assumption is so normal to us as moderns that it is hard to recall how difficult it was for the Church to teach it to the Europeans. The Church herself did not always consistently hold to this doctrine, but never could deny it. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself, when He took on flesh, did not come as a member of the elite, but to a working class family without political power.

This commonplace fact of Christmas was constantly used to rebuke Christian princes or governors with pretensions to superiority.

Christians can respect the job of ruling, but we do not owe the person of the ruler any more (or less!) dignity than the woodcutter.

Second, the charity of a good monarch was personal. Christians long recognized that a state that attempted to eliminate poverty as official policy was a dangerous expansion of power. Given their experience with Caesar, they were happy to check the power of government and not expand it.

At the same time, the monarch was urged to live simply in his personal life. Statecraft might require a palace, but the ideal monarch would live a rigorous personal life. He would eat simply and dress modestly. The absolute kings living in glorious settings such as the Sun King of France were a degenerate class in a culture losing its Christian moorings.

The Church recognized that the danger of ruling was losing track of how everyone else lived. The command to a good ruler was to serve the poor . . . sometimes literally washing their feet. They were urged to extensive personal charity (building schools and hospitals). Personal charity ennobled both the giver and receiver.

We forget sometimes that the gap between how a good king of the Middle Ages lived and how a free peasant lived was not so great as the difference between the super-rich and the very poor today. Partly this is the result of increased wealth, but it is also a result of a false view of possessions. While nobody should steal from a rich man in order to give to a poor man, the rich man is wrong if he allows his neighbor to suffer. Charity cannot be forced, but it can be commanded.

A king who lived in luxury while his people starved was a wicked ruler.

Third, the great job of a Christian ruler is to do justice. This justice must be impartial to the status of those before his bench. The rich must not get lighter punishment than the poor. Too often in the American legal system injustice occurs because the rich are able to buy better lawyers or deceive juries with high priced experts who lie for cash.

Finally, Christians learned slowly over time how to practice the great truths of the Faith. We always believed all humans were created equal, but practicing it in the fallen world was (and is) hard. Our ancestors made mistakes as do we.

To cite one example, Christianity was born in a world that condoned torture and thought it useful. At first, the majority Christian view was that torture, under some circumstances, was justified in a fallen world. There was always a minority who worried about it, but practical considerations seemed to justify the practice.

However, like the views of Christians on the death penalty, over time the deeper belief that each human contained the image of God began to undermine the practice of torture. Over time most Christian states abandoned it or made it so restricted that in practice it vanished. Experience with modern secular states that used the power of science to torture (like the Soviet Union) confirmed the fact that this was one power the state could not use safely.

(It is ironic that the torture chambers of the late Middle Ages which were emptied by the Church are our image of torture while few think of the scientific torments of Stalinist Russia.)

Fundamentally, the role models for Christian rulers were kind men and not so much warriors. Many sainted rulers were martyrs who failed at war (such as Saint King Edmund). Even Crusaders like Saint Louis were best loved for their buildings and charity and not for their (often unsuccessful) warfare. Good Christian rulers like Duke Wenceslaus were not remembered for their use of torture, but for their chartity!

This made a difference in how Christians viewed the “ideals” for government. We expect personal charity from our rulers and justice in their official capacity. We have come see torture as incompatible with good governance and war as a last resort.

On this second day of Christmas, the Feast of Stephen, let us celebrate and, if we have power, try to emulate Wenceslaus by some act of personal charity toward the poor or oppressed.

The Hobbit

Three weeks ago I was up late talking to a friend, which is not rare, and I was physically gesturing with my hands and body, again which is not rare, and anyone standing outside my house looking in might have thought that this passionate display of emotion had something to do with the person I was speaking to: Maybe I was yelling at him for something. My whole demeanor was angry and violent. What I was angry about however was not anything he had done, in fact people might argue I had no real reason to be angry at all, for what I was fuming at was the fact that Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema's could not work their stuff out in court and thus they were not going to make The Hobbit.

"They are so dumb." I said, "The make the best trilogy in human history, LOTR (sorry Star Wars fans but you know its true!), and now they have an opportunity to keep it going and they are in court battling over a puny 40 million dollars! Come on I want to see another good movie because most of what Hollywood is creating these days is, well, not very good at all!" The news that they were not going to join together to make the movie upset me and has kept me upset for the last year. New Line actually started looking for a different director (they were looking at Spider-man director Sam Raimi--ugghh! Spider-man 3 was horrific!). Anyway as Erin and I packed late into the night before flying to Toronto this week a friend called at 12.45 at night. He said "Sorry to call so late but I have big news for you: Peter Jackson is making The Hobbit" I was speechless. The Hobbit: finally!

My only thing now is that he has not signed on for director, only writer/producer which is still great but he needs to direct it. He has scheduling issues because he is making two other films; and they want them releases by 2010 and 2011 (did I mention they are making two films?). My issue is that there needs to be strict continuity with the Lord of the Rings. If he can create that with producing it fine; but I say shelve the other project and focus on The Hobbit.

Here is the story as it ran in TIME:
Bilbo Baggins is finally progressing on his most fraught journey — landing a leading role on the big screen. After three years of legal wrangling and public sniping, director Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema have reached an agreement to make J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit, the prequel to the Lord of the Rings blockbuster trilogy that made nearly $3 billion at the box office and earned 17 Oscars. The Hobbit is Tolkien's most accessible and popular book, a fairy tale about the reluctant adventurer Baggins, who embarks on a trip with 13 dwarves and the wizard Gandalf.

Jackson, who directed the Rings trilogy and inherited creative stewardship of Tolkien's massive fan base, will serve as executive producer for The Hobbit with his wife, Fran Walsh. A director and screenwriter will be chosen in the New Year, when Jackson and Walsh meet with the studio heads. MGM, which owns the distribution rights to The Hobbit, will co-finance and co-distribute.

The reconciliation between Jackson and New Line was set in motion when Bob Shaye and Michael Lynne, co-chairman and co-CEOs of the studio, approached Jackson's agent at the Cannes Film Festival in May. "We said, 'Let's get past the acrimony that's been created by each of us and the rest of our clans,'" says Shaye. "Let's talk about something productive and creative."

After the resounding critical and commercial success of Rings, relations between Jackson and New Line should have been rosy — studio and director each deserved credit for the other's good fortune. But the partnership soured over disputes about New Line's accounting for that fortune. In 2005, Jackson sued, claiming that New Line committed fraud in its handling of the revenues generated by 2001's The Fellowship of the Ring, underpaying him by millions. As Jackson and New Line's lawyers and accountants tangled over paper, the director and Shaye engaged in a bitter battle via the Web.

Last November, when Shaye told Jackson he was looking for other directors for The Hobbit,The Hobbit. This was a courtesy call to let us know that the studio was now actively looking to hire another filmmaker." In December Harry Sloan, chairman and CEO of MGM, invited Jackson and Walsh over for dinner and heard Jackson's vision for The Hobbit. Yet Shaye was still bitter, telling the Sci Fi Wire website in January, "I don't care about Peter Jackson anymore. He thinks that we owe him something after we've paid him over a quarter of a billion dollars!" Jackson posted on the fan site The OneRing.Net, "[We were told] that New Line would no longer be requiring our services on The Hobbit. This was a courtesy call to let us know that the studio was now actively looking to hire another filmmaker."

Sometime between making that bold statement and Cannes, Shaye softened his stance. "Each of the respective sides looked at our confidantes, wives, etc. and said, 'This is really getting out of control,'" says Shaye. "Maybe it's worth a voice-to-voice conversation instead of letting a bunch of lawyers and intermediaries get in the middle and muck things up."

New Line's tough last couple of years at the box office has also magnified the studio's need for a sure hit like The Hobbit. Shaye and Lynne's latest attempt to recreate the box office magic of Rings, the fantasy adaptation The Golden Compass, underperformed, with $25 million at the box office its opening weekend.

Jackson delivered his stamp of approval in a statement: "I'm very pleased that we've been able to put our differences behind us, so that we may begin a new chapter with our old friends at New Line. We are delighted to continue our journey through Middle Earth."

Principal photography on The Hobbit has been tentatively set to start in 2009, with the goal of releasing the film in 2010. And Jackson and Walsh have already come up with the plan for a sequel — a film that would link the conclusion of with the start of The Fellowship of the Ring. Expect that one in 2011.

Sienna: The One We Love

This covers the second six months of Sienna's life.

Seeker-Engaging or Not?

The people who rail against "seeker-sensitive" churches are excited that Bill Hybels and Willowcreek have recently said they have made some mistakes over the years; creating churches that do not put a high level of focus on Bible and theology, but more of an application based teaching style to issues of life with Biblical theology in the back-ground. The statement of Hybels was as follows: We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become ‘self feeders.’ We should have gotten people, taught people, how to read their bible between services, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own.

A couple things: It is important that the church learn from a seeker-sensitive spirit that focuses the church not on just learning about of stuff, but which drives the church to be missional. A church can do both equip people and be evangelistic and seeker-engaging at the same time -- the dichotomy of either equipping /or seeker-engaging is a false dichotomy and must be relegated to the garbage dump of history. If you teach about Jesus and lift him up people will both be equipped and saved. The church's primary goal is to reach the world for Christ. Nothing else matters.

We must ask and answer the following question: Is community the mission or are we supposed to be a community on mission -- there is a world of difference. Community is great but it is not sufficient. The church in the past has often been a bunch of people sitting around, debating the rapture, the anti-Christ, and the five points of Calvinism -- and while it is nice to think that we have the luxury of such conversations the truth is: we don't. People are dying everyday without knowing Jesus. Recently, in the best presentation of missiology I have ever heard Mark Driscoll said Canada right now is in the single digits Christian and dropping fast. "There are more Christians in Baghdad than there are in Vancouver" (see http://www.willingdon.org/refocus/default.asp?id=760 ) Bottom line "seeker-engaging" is not a category or an option for the church it is what the church should be; both in the day to day life of those who make up the church and when we gather formally. The question is then: what does that look like?
Many preachers, in answering this question have lapsed into a form of teaching which is based on people's "needs", it becomes therapy, "chicken-soup", for the soul. And the product is watered-down, application-driven, people-focused, sermons about our problems and "going to heaven when we die". The problem is that what gets lost is the Bible, doctrine, theology and the gospel. The Bible becomes a tool where preachers search out proof-texts for their latest "How-to" sermon series. The Bible gets used to simply prove a point and then placed aside for the next proof-text. No wonder we have a generation of Biblically illiterate people! They think the Bible is their own personal treasure-chest of daily answers to their questions about dating, jobs, and whatever else.

Hence the critics are right: The Bible and theology get marginalized from seeker sensitive churches.

I am convinced that this is the greatest mistake of the movement, and a very unnecessary one.

The Bible is central to anything we do as the church and we should never feel as though seeker-engaging means marginalizing theology or Biblical teaching -- we should not assume people are stupid but that they are educated and should engage them at a high level of discourse. There are plenty of examples of church who focus on 20 -30 somethings and do so by engaging them at a high level of discourse precisely because we are an educated generation.

Here are three:
The Meeting House (Oakville, ON) -- 3,000 people meeting around Biblical teaching at a high level of discourse under Bruxy Cavey (and my friend Paul Morris; hehehe)

Mars Hill Church in Seattle -- Mark Driscoll teaches theology and Bible for an average of 1 hour sometimes up to 2 hours and his church has 6,000 people meeting on Sunday's all 20 to 30 somethings;

Mars Hill Bible Church (not connected to Mars Hill Seattle) in Grand Rapids Michigan -- 10,000 Sunday worshipers mostly 20 to 30 somethings gathered around the teaching of Rob Bell.

I could give more examples, but the point is each one of these churches is committed to a high level of teaching, all focused around Jesus and they accomplish two things at once: equip believers and present Jesus to non-believers.

So again I agree with the critics here: That we, as the church, need to expect people to think and investigate critically. But here is the problem with these kinds of people offering that criticism.

Unfortunately the same people who are opposed to seeker-sensitive teaching embrace a form of Christianity and way of learning doctrine that does not give way for critical investigation outside a modernistic framework, exegesis that is not familiar, or theology that might challenge the old paradigms. So the same people who get angry or upset when someone teaches something that challenges long held beliefs (i.e. young-earth theory, the rapture, forms of worship) are the ones saying "teach us the Bible!" and "Lets think critically". So, really what they mean is: do those things within a certain boundary that I am comfortable with.

I hear complaints along these line all the time. So we must realize that many people say they want doctrine taught but then limit the people trying to teach it by acting as if they can't say anything fresh or look at the text from a different angle -- thus by their actions they relegate the teachers in their church to saying non-threatening things (simply confirming what they have thought all along) and so these teachers lapse into "therapeutic theology" ... which is easy for them and easy listening for people investigating Jesus, but for mature Christians it feels like "fluff".

Let me end with a personal story: Two weeks ago I preached a message called "a Theology of the Cross" (see DSF Sermons) in which I said it was a travesty that all I could find in the Catholic monastery I was at on the weened were statues of Jesus on the cross while all I could find at our church was an empty cross (celebrating the resurrection). I proposed a balance in both churches, and then went on to teach penal substitutionary atonement for an hour to a room full of 20 - 30 somethings. I got no email encouraging me on that difficult task. That week a lady bought me a crucifix with Jesus on it and gave it to me. So i put it behind my on a mantle as I preached last weekend. A man who wants biblical theology taught in the church called the church this week and complained saying "We are not Catholic" -- interesting isn't it? The same people who want theology taught don't actually feel all that comfortable when it is.

"No Country for Old Men": Thoughtful, Frighteneing, and Beguiling

I was going to write a review of No Country for Old Men myself but then I found this review and I felt that I couldn't have agreed more or said it better:

When a film ends with the recounting of a dream in which a weather-beaten, life-weary man searches for the fire his father is building to warm them, it's impossible not to think of the love we all yearn for and can hopefully muster. It's also a welcome spiritual respite when that film has seduced its audience on a journey into a hell of the relentless violence that follows a man after he steals drug money in the naïve belief that its owners might ignore him, and the slow-moving chase that ensues when a truly psychopathic person pursues the man and the cash. No Country for Old Men, the new picture from the Coen Brothers, based on Cormac McCarthy's 2005 novel, is probably the most accomplished film released this year.

I'll do my best to avoid spoilers, as it would be unfair to assume that readers have seen it. So I must skirt around the issues that cause me to praise this film so highly. In short, No Country for Old Men is a slow, thoughtful, frightening, and beguiling film about the selfishness of people and the desperate need to restore the virtue of community bonds. Its central character – called Anton Chigurh, and played by Javier Bardem – is one of the most titanic characterizations of evil intent I've ever seen in a film. He simply kills what gets in his way, and even plays sport with some of his potential victims - inviting them to toss a coin to determine their fate. Josh Brolin is the man who finds the money belonging to Chigurh's employers, and Tommy Lee Jones the sheriff baffled by the trail of death that ensues in their wake.We follow these characters - scared of the killer, ashamed of the thief, and hoping against hope for the sheriff. We look away from the screen when the violence occurs, but may perhaps feel a little horrified by the fact that a part of us still wants to watch. And when one character finally stands up to Chigurh, it is not with physical violence, but by simply speaking and refusing to accept his games, forcing him to face the fact that he, and he alone, is responsible for his murderous ways.

This film does not suggest that – as some critics have implied – there is no way to stop evil, but rather that we live in an age where we need to find new ways of resisting the violence many of us face. It doesn't provide simplistic answers, but suggests that the path may be found in such things as renewing the bonds of community and mutual respect, refusing to accept the moral reasoning of those who resort to force at the drop of a hat, and embracing something like the vision of the 5th century BCE Chinese thinker Mozi:'If every man were to regard the pain of others as his own person, who would inflict pain and injury on others?'The country where violence is king may indeed be no country for old men; but, to my mind at least, the film that takes this term as its title offers nothing less than a prophetic reflection on the most important question facing humanity today: Where do we go from here?

Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at http://www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com/

Mark Clark: The Augustinian Monk?

Many of you know that I have been divided recently: so much church work to do and yet a Masters Thesis to write. The challenge I faced is that I didn't have a third space to work. Home was too busy and the office was crazy. Last Night I found a solution. I was attending a program called Alpha we do at the church (an introduction to Christianity) and for the weekend away we went to a Monastery. While there I spoke to one of the monks (he was down getting some late night tea). I explained to him that I was looking for a quiet space to write a Masters thesis. Before I was done explaining he said: "There is quiet space here."

I smiled, as did he and we talked about setting up a quiet room in order to write. With a desk and some light and some space for books. I am going to go by this week to set it all up. God is good. I see his provision in this in a big way. The monastery is filled with iconography of Jesus, a great library and a beautiful chapel where there are constant burning candles and incense burning -- a great way to focus on Jesus on my breaks and a great way to be reminded of why I am doing all of this.

God answers prayer in his timing; time and time again.

What Would Jesus Buy? (A feature film)

Prosperity Preachers to be Audited by a Republican Senator! (by Ben Witherington)

In the 'it's about time department' a series of mostly Prosperity TV Evangelists are going to have to face financial accountability at the hands of a Republican Senator! Truly, the eschaton is at hand.

Here is the link to Laurie Goodstein's article in the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/us/07ministers.html?th&emc=th

Charles Grassley is the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee and the issue here is whether money given for charitable purposes to this or that TV Evangelist's ministry has been used to feather the nest, build the house, buy the yacht, purchase the bling bling, etc. of the Evangelist.

To date, the six ministries that will fall under this probe are those of: 1) Creflo A. Dollar (you can't hide when you are a prosperity preacher with that name); 2) Paula and Randy White (see the upcoming article in Time Magazine by David Van Bema for which I was consulted); 3) Benny Hinn; 4) Joyce Meyer (who says these were all blessings from God showered on her personally... including a $23,000 marble commode! I hope that blessing didn't fall directly from the sky.); 5) Kenneth and Gloria Copland; 6) Bishop Eddie Long of Lithonia Georgia.

M.I.A. are Joel Osteen and Rev. Hagee of San Antonio, but perhaps they will be on a subsequent list.

The issues here are severalfold. Firstly, from a legal point of view, 'churches' do not have to file the IRS forms that tax exempt non-profits do have to file. With normal non-profits a 990 form is filed with the IRS as a useful form of accountability. But, if you can somehow construe yourself as a church ( applying for and get tax exempt status), even if you don't pastor a church, and then call yourself a tax exempt ministry (which falls into the category of church by certain current definitions), well then you can claim the money which comes into that ministry is tax exempt.

However if funds are diverted from this tax exempt 'ministry' for personal use, that appears rather clearly to be a violation of the tax code... a sort of robbing Peter to pay Paul, or in this case, a robbing of Jesus to pay Joyce, and others. As Senator Grassley has rightly stressed, tax exempt revenues have to be used for the tax exempt purposes of the organization. This might mean buying a new bus to ride to one's preaching appointments might be o.k. Buying a new marble commode--- not so much.

There are several helpful organizations which try and prevent such abuses of donations to tax exempt ministries. There is for example www.ministrywatch.com or the Trinity Foundation in Dallas. There is in addition the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability which many Evangelical Organizations are accountable to (for example the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association). I am pleased to say that many many Evangelical Churches and organizations do indeed report and accept the guidelines and strictures of the ECFA and its auditing procedures. Sadly, many do not.

One of the reasons there is such a need for this in Evangelical circles is of course because so many Evangelical ministries are accountable to no one and nothing but themselves and their own self-appointed Boards or supervisors. They are not accountable to a larger denomination, or a federation of churches, or a bishop or the like, being so low church in polity, that the temptations and possibilities for financial abuse are huge.

There is the further problem with the prosperity teachers that they have long since provided what they see as Biblical justification for living a prosperous, indeed rich and opulent life style. In fact, it would be contradictory to their preaching not to do so, because otherwise they would appear to not be practicing what they preach, or put another way, it would suggest God wasn't blessing their ministry! It is indeed a vicious circle.

Sen. Grassley says that when he gets answers back from these six ministries they may look at others. It is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

The sad part is that none of this would have to happen if either: 1) these preachers had a better theology of stewardship when it came to God's resources; 2) they had local persons who were not just their cheerleaders whom they held themselves accountable to within the ministry or church; and 3) they had a decent enough ecclesiology to realize they are accountable to the whole body of Christ as well, and many of us are watching--- and are appalled! To whom more is given, more is required and be sure your sins will find you out, are two phrases that immediately come to mind.

But sadly, if past performances are any guideline (e.g. the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker PTL Ministry scandal), one or more of these folks will be anathematizing the good senator from Iowa, getting their flock to pray against his probe, and otherwise demonizing the accountabilty folks. I hope that unseemly spectacle does not transpire this time. But we shall see. If it does it will be yet one more example of Evangelical Christians behaving badly.

Happy Reformation Day!

Today, I proposed to our church secretary that we should make the sign outside our church read "October 31: Reformation Day." I went out for lunch and when I came back it read exactly that. It was good to see it. Calling on people to re-think what this day (Oct. 31) is all about. Concerned Christians have come to our secretary and asked if it is a reference to Halloween and thought we should take it down. They also wondered if it is offensive.

Of course 9 out of 10 people have no idea that this is Reformation Day, or even what Reformation Day commemorates. And I have realized that most Christians sadly don't know either.

Wikipedia: Reformation Day is a religious holiday celebrated on October 31 in remembrance of the Reformation, particularly by Lutheran and some Reformed church communities. It is a civic holiday in Slovenia (since the Reformation contributed to its cultural development profoundly.

On this day in 1517, Martin Luther posted a proposal at the doors of a church in Wittenberg, Germany to debate the doctrine and practice of indulgences. This proposal is popularly known as the 95 Theses, which he nailed to the Castle Church doors. This was not an act of defiance or provocation as is sometimes thought. Since the Castle Church faced Wittenberg's main thoroughfare, the church door functioned as a public bulletin board and was therefore the logical place for posting important notices. Also, the theses were written in Latin, the language of the church, and not in the vernacular. Nonetheless, the event created a controversy between Luther and those allied with the Pope over a variety of doctrines and practices. When Luther and his supporters were excommunicated in 1520, the Lutheran and Protestant tradition was born.

Within the Lutheran church, Reformation Day is considered a minor festival, and is officially referred to as The Festival of the Reformation. Until the 20th Century, most Lutheran churches celebrated Reformation Day on October 31st, regardless of which day of the week it occurred. Today, most Lutheran churches transfer the festival, so that it falls on the Sunday (called Reformation Sunday) on or before October 31st.

Luther's hymn, "A Mighty Fortress is our God" is traditionally sung on this day. It is also traditional in some Lutheran schools for schoolchildren to hold Reformation Day plays or pageants that re-enact scenes from the life of Martin Luther.

We love to boast the protestant gospel: Faith Alone, Scripture Alone - but we don't even know who helped us get there. If we did know, we wouldn't have so many Christians wondering: "What is Reformation Day?" It is the day that commemorates the work of Calvin and Luther (and others)... while specificaly focusing in on Martin Luther

Martin Luther (November 10, 1483 – February 18, 1546) was a German monk, theologian, and church reformer. He is also considered to be the founder of Protestantism. In the 16th century Luther's theology challenged the authority of the papacy by emphasizing the Bible as the sole source of religious authority and all baptized Christians as a general priesthood. According to Luther, salvation was attainable only by faith in Jesus as the Messiah, a faith unmediated by the church. These ideas helped to inspire the Protestant Reformation and changed the course of Western civilization.

It is interesting that Baptist Christians don't know about this. Are we that poor at explaining church history? The fact that the sign has created controversy is great! It might get people talking - maybe even re-thinking what this day - now dedicated to pagan religion - should really be about: Jesus and his challenge of religious elitism and empire.

Destroy the Christian Subclture? (Guest Blogger: Keith Giles)

Keith Giles is a writer, missionary, pastor, teacher, and house church leader in Orange, California. He also publishes a FREE, weekly e-newsletter called [Subversive Underground].

I've come to the conclusion that the Christian Subculture is evil. I want to destroy it. I want to choke the life out of it.

In the past I've written articles that express the dangers of the Christian Subculture, and it's no secret that I cannot stand Christian Radio, and have zero tolerance for "Jesus Junk" such as sanctified breath mints or t-shirts that christianize popular logos and advertising (see "Bud Wise Up" or "Lord's Gymn" for example).

The Christian Subculture prevents the breaking in of the Kingdom. It inhibits the Gospel message. It paralyzes the followers of Christ by isolating them from the people they are supposed to love and interact with on a deeply intimate level.

About a week ago I realized that my passion for deconstructing the popular "Churchianity System" extended beyond mere dislike. As I began to fully understand how insidious it really is, I resolved to dedicate myself to its demise. I am now fully convinced that someway, somehow, the entire thing needs to be knocked down with a very large hammer and burned into oblivion.

As part of the upcoming "Non-Con" in March of next year, I had planned to have a "Burn Our Christian Crap" session where attendees could bring the symbols of their involvement with the Christian Consumerist Monster and we could all stand around and sing "Kumbaya" together while we tosssed our "Lord's Gymn" tees and "Carman" Cd's and other idols to materialistic spiritualilty into a giant bonfire, in homage to those horrible youth group parties where teens were forced to burn their Van Halen records and Rush albums (because they were "secular").

I've come to the radical conclusion that there is nothing secular. There is only the world we live in. This one, right here (look around you...yeah, that world), and nothing more. God created the entire world, and it's a fallen world I agree, but there is no "Sacred" or "Secular" division to this world, other than the artificially constructed one we've created to keep ourselves safe and comfortable and far away from "those evil sinners over there".

Another big revelation for you? We're all sinners. You. Me. That guy over there. Yeah, we're all evil. We all need Jesus. Not just those who don't attend your church or who vote Democrat or who read Harry Potter. All of us. Look it up, it's in the Bible.

So, at the moment, all I have is the fire in my gut, the passionate resolution in my belly, that I hate all things "Christianese" and I long to assist in the complete demolition of this man-made evil.

Now, to be honest I have no real idea what that actually works out to in the real world. Let me be clear; I am not advocating the wanton destruction of Christian bookstores; I am not organizing petitions to shut down Christian Television (although I'd probably sign a petition if someone sent me one); I'm not calling for people to light torches or assemble in protest...but maybe it would be good idea if we just simply tried to escape the pseudo-reality of Christian Subculture? Maybe we could just start living in the real world, as followers of Jesus, without seeing those imaginary boundary lines between "Us" and "Them"? Maybe we could talk to people and befriend them, and love them, regardless of whether or not they were Christians? Maybe we could stop seeking comfort and shelter within the invisible walls of our own safety zones and start realizing that we live in this world, the real world...the only world, and begin living as Salt and Light to those around us?

Jesus prayed for us, those who would follow after Him, in this way: "My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one."(John 17:15) It was never God's intention to take us out of the world we live in. Why have we decided that it's ok to take ourselves out of the world?

Paul the Apostle also agreed on this point when he wrote, "I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world." (1 Cor 5:9-10)

Have we left this world for some virtual, "Clean World" where everything is Christian? Do we have to get our Christian Milk from a Christian Cow? Do we have to freshen our breath with Christian Mints? Do we have to drink Christian Soda and bowl at a Christian Bowling Alley?

This idea of withdrawl from the culture is evil. It is not God's plan for us. It is the fruit of our own sinful, selfish desires to be safe and comfortable, and in some cases to make money and perpetuate an industry. It is demonic, and it hinders the Gospel message by isolating the agents of change (you and I) from those who need "the hope that lies within", and I want nothing more than to see it die a horrible, agonizing death so that God's people can begin to learn what it means to be human and start relating to other human beings who are sinful and hopeless without Christ, just like everyone else.

The Christian Subculture is essentially a wall that we build to keep ourselves from the world. Like the Berlin Wall, or the Great Wall of China, or Hadrian's Wall, or the wall between Palestine and Israel, it is an artificial border designed by us, the supposed followers of Jesus, in order to isolate us from the ones we are commanded to love.

Jesus would want us to smash down that wall. It's the same wall built by the money changers in the Temple at Jerusalem which kept the common people from entering the house of God. Those systems were also man-made. Those systems also invovled making a buck on the sale of faith and the commercialization of God's name.

I'm not sure where to find the hammer big enough to knock down this wall we've built, but I long to find one, and when I do I will let it swing.

What do you think?

The Courage to Live a Life that Demands Explanation (Brian Russell)

I had the opportunity to participate in a four day spiritual retreat that ended this past Sunday evening. I spent much of the time in prayer and reflection. As I listened to speakers, prayed, and read Scripture, one word kept resonating in my being: Courage.

Courage is the key that unlocks the door to the life of God’s dreams. Do you believe this? C. S. Lewis, the 20th century writer and follower of Jesus, once wrote of courage:Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at its testing point.

Why do I write and talk about courage so much? It’s simple. We live in a moment in history in which I believe that God is looking for women and men who desire to live for something greater than their own wants, desires, and circumstances. The Western world is at a crossroads. Our world is growing increasingly violent. People are scared. People are hungry. People are desperate. As my friend Alex McManus says, “The Western world has lost its faith in the shadows of church steeples.” How can this be? Where is the Church? Where are Jesus’ followers? Too often we find ourselves scared. The great temptation for us is to turn inward, hunker down, celebrate our own traditions, and pray for God’s blessing and protection on our own lives rather than allowing God to unleash us to live lives of purpose and significance in authentic community.

God has created each one of us for so much more. Most of us have barely scratched the surface of the life that God wants us to live. We have grown used to broken relationships, cruelty, pain, unhappiness, and the nagging feeling that life is slipping us by. We settle for mediocrity. Friends, don’t give up yet. We are to live lives that demand explanation.

JESUS CHRIST WANTS TO REWRITE EACH OF OUR LIVES INTO A GRAND EPIC OF REPENTANCE, RENEWAL, AND RESTORATION. This is the subject matter of our current series in worship: The Courage to Live.
This story begins in an encounter with God in the shadow of Jesus’ cross. On the cross, Jesus gave his life so that we may find true life. In the shadow of the cross, Jesus invites us to bring all of our brokenness, our hurts, our shame, our fears, our guilt—everything.

This takes courage, but when we come to the cross, God takes each of us and does something extraordinary. He adds us to the masterpiece that he is creating through the lives of those who come to the cross and become followers of Jesus, the crucified one. Following Jesus takes courage. It takes courage to receive God’s love and grace. It takes courage to admit to our need for change—for realigning our lives in light of God’s mission to bring hope, wholeness, and restoration to our world. It takes courage to surrender to the way of the cross by turning from a life centered on self to a life centered on serving God and others. It takes courage to follow Jesus into the world.

My own community of faith seeks to exist as an outpost of hope for the world. Our mission is to ignite humanity one dreamer at a time. I count it a privilege to worship and serve together with my friends and partners at Awaken Orlando as God shapes each of us into a person of God’s dreams so that we can live by faith, be known by love, and be a voice of hope in a world that is desperate for those things that only God can give. I am excited about how God is moving in our midst.

The New Atheism

The End of Faith provides a harrowing glimpse of mankind’s willingness to suspend reason in favor of religious beliefs, even when these beliefs inspire the worst of human atrocities. Harris argues that in the presence of weapons of mass destruction, we can no longer expect to survive our religious differences indefinitely. Most controversially, he maintains that “moderation” in religion poses considerable dangers of its own: as the accommodation we have made to religious faith in our society now blinds us to the role that faith plays in perpetuating human conflict. While warning against the encroachment of organized religion into world politics, Harris draws on insights from neuroscience, philosophy, and Eastern mysticism in an attempt to provide a truly modern foundation for our ethics and our search for spiritual experience.


In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He presents the supreme improbability of a supreme being.

This new movement of atheism has been styled "The New Atheism" and Harris and Dawkins are likely its two most popular names. It is an interesting movement, involved in aggressive movement, with the style of evangelism--a real desire to win "converts" to this non-religious religion. I have read the God Delusion and am ordering The End of Faith. I think it is important for Christ-followers to read and have dialogue with such wordviews, so that they do not insulate themselves from the cultural discourse.

To listen to the response of such atheism from an informed Christian worldview listen to Alister McGrath's direct response to Dawkins' book here:

http://www.citychurchsf.org/openforum/Audio/OF_Alister_McGrath.mp3

Re-Imagining Congregational Ministry

What shape will congregational ministry become in the future? George Hunsberger, professor of missiology at Western Theological Seminary and coordinator of The Gospel and Our Culture Network, and others worked on this question and presented some of their ideas at a conference a short time ago. He shared the Network's focus on strategies necessary for the recovery of the church's missional identity.

1. The church now lives in a post-Christian era. Congregations and clergy no longer enjoy the social position which formerly gave them prominence in North America. For example, churches no longer have influence regarding the scheduling of events by community organizations. Our congregations now live in a vast mission field where many are apathetic regarding the gospel.

2. Congregations will recover a missional character. They will become what David Bosch describes as "a body of people sent on a mission." Hunsberger noted two foci. First, congregations will recover their missional identity in a culture which draws people away from, rather than pushing them toward, churches. Second, congregations will become missionally engaged in their context with members involved in mission and ministry they perceive is faithful and having value and worth.

3. Congregations will come to terms with a pluralist society. The church will come to realize it must learn how to minister as a minority in a society composed of many colors, of Asian, African, and Hispanic heritage (as well as European), and of many ethical values. In addition to atheists, Christians will live next door to Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists, who affirm different ultimate principles.

4. While living in a consumer culture, a missional congregation will move beyond consumerism. Church growth advocates have urged congregations to attract people by offering better and larger programs, thereby strengthening the perception of churches as vendors of religious goods and services and occasionally pitting church against church. In moving beyond consumerism, currently dominant images will shift--in worship from a passive/entertained audience to worship participation (including roles in developing worship content), and in administration from policy committees to an emphasis on ministry teams.

5. A missional congregation will cultivate the future. It will transform congregational life by emphasizing ministry which corresponds to a vision for the future shaped by exile not exodus. An exodus paradigm conjures a crusader conquering the land (North America). An exile paradigm conjures life in the midst of an alien culture but still singing the Lord's song.

A great deal of work lies ahead. The next task is to develop strategies to work with congregations in re-forming ministry; while we focus on always being reformed by the word of God.

The Compassion Movement

UPDATE: On Sunday October 14 we raised more than our goal of $150.00 and have money in The Compassion Movement fund to start seeking out our next project! God is good. Thanks to all of those who helped. (Visit "The Compassion Movement" Website-see Resources on right)

"You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."
--John Lennon

God calls us to help those who need it. If there is one thing that is certain it is that God lives, in a special way, with the poor and broken this world. Jesus said that when we help people our actions are really serving him. "I tell you the truth: whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine [the sick, hungry, lonely and imprisoned] you did for me" (Mat. 25.40).

For a long time I have struggled with God, like Jacob. My struggle has revolved around what to do with the above command of Jesus. My heart is sensitive to the needs of the world and I believe the church is called to be missional in everything it does. But beyond this theoretical level what am I to do? What is God calling me to do? In my context?

Something happened recently that helped shape that heart a little further: a friend went to work with poor people in Nicaragua. She sent me an email with a need to be met. A man named Carmelo Silva has a daughter who needs a wheelchair (see picture above). She presently is sitting strapped to a plastic chair. They need is $150.00 to buy fully-working wheelchair. Could we, the church community, help?

While reading about this need a flood of inspiration came over me: this need is so small and tangible. The need could be met by the DSF community (our evening church service). Meeting this very small need would then create momentum. The sick helped in the name of Jesus for the glory of God. This is more than just a "one-off" though. There are hundreds of these needs, thousands, millions!

What causes people to stall when trying to help the world is the enormity of the task. The scope of needs is so big it becomes too much for the heart to contain, thus we become hard because we feel guilty, which ultimately leads to indifference and inaction. So, then: what if the scope of the project is smaller and more tangible? Then the work is do-able. One small need at a time. Indeed; this is more than just a "one-off". This is a movement. A movement of compassion.

Thus was born in my heart: The Compassion Movement: identifying and responding to global and local needs. Born out of a desire to follow the way of Jesus: helping the poor, sick, lonely, naked and imprisoned to both physical and spiritual restoration for the glory of God.

There is alot that needs to happen from this stage. Right now it is an idea. But, I believe a good one, and one infused with God. The parable I am taking as a guide is that of the mustard seed. "Jesus said, 'What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground. Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade.'" (Mark 4.30-32)

1. The movement is, of course, starting small, like the kingdom of God (right now it exists only in my mind and on the page of this blog) but it will catch on. It will grow. I believe it exists in the hearts of many around me, some of whom know it and some who don't know it yet, but they will.

2. The small size of the seed is crucial in another way: The small seed has become the foundational metaphor for the entire vision. I know this sounds backwards but I think the following is the whole point: we will resist the temptation to "think big". We will force ourselves to think small-- tangible goals that can be met with the resources at our immediate disposal.

In his book "Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community" Wendell Berry says that to address global problems one must first work with local ones. And though for sure not all global issues are represented in all local societies, local communities are a microcosm of the macroscosm that is the global community. The idea here is that smaller changes taken together create larger changes by default.

My friend Jeremy always speaks about the power of grassroots movements. He holds the power of the community in very high regard, saying that many great changes in society have come from these non-official revolutions such as Civil Rights. Small voices slowly becoming more prominent. when small victories are won and more voices join the choir. Small changes creating great waves. That is all it takes and that is all The Compassion Movement will try to do.

Small changes. Precise. Tangible. Mustard seed. A girl in a wheelchair. Such is why we exist.

Is Theology Sinful? Yes! (and no)

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" (Genesis 3.1)

"God is treated as a third person. God is not party to the discussion but is the involved object. This is not speech to God or with God but about God. God has been objectified. The serpent is the first in the Bible to seem knowing and critical about God and to practice theology in the place of obedience."
--Walter Brueggemann, Genesis

This insight by Brueggemann is profound. As someone who loves theology, who loves reading and speaking about God, this ideas is very challenging: an imbalance of talk about God and not directly to God is following the way of the serprent in the garden.

I have a friend who used to invite me over to his house and we used to sit in the backyard pontificating about the smallest theological details. He used to say we were "talking shop". He meant this as a good thing: most people talk about their work or common interests (sports, movies, etc.) that is what we were doing. As I reflect on this idea now, I wonder if I wouldn't say that we spent too much time talking about God and not enought time (if ever!) talking to God together.

Practicing theology instead of obedience can be deadly. It gives the impression that you are "doing God's work". It lulls us into a false sense of security and purpose. I think there was a group of bible scholars who did this in Jesus time wasn't there? I forget: did Jesus like them?

I think it applies to many areas of life. Do we spend more time criticizing people who actually work to bring about change in the world than actually trying to bring about change ourselves?

Recently some friends and I watched a sermon preached by Rick Warren (of "Purpose-Driven Life" fame). After he spoke about the foundation he had started to help AIDS victims in Africa that raised millions of dollars, someone I was watching it with said: "I didn't like his shirt." This is a recapitulation of Irael's sins who rejected the voice of the prophets who came with a message of repentence from such mislaced ideals.

I feel this aching in my bones to help do something for the world, for the poor, for the sick, like Jesus would. Like Jesus commands (Matthew 25). But what do I do?

Ideas...theology...philosophy...art...programs...books...blogs...websites...if it doesn't end in life change and outward work to change the world...it is all garbage, rubbish--pointless and useless. To know that God made human kind in his image is one thing. To refuse to ever hurt anyone because they are made in his image (Genesis 9.6) is a whole other story. But it must go there. The one must result in the other. The Bible does not give us options.

It can never end at "I believe...". I believe must always result in "thus I am" and "thus I live this way". Theology must work itself out in practice. Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy. The former without the latter is lame. The latter without the former is blind (to borrow from Einstein).

So, is theology sinful? Yes, when it replaces obedience to God himself in practice and ends with just the trading of ideas.

Walter Brueggemann's 19 Theses

One of the most influential Old Testament scholars still alive today is Walter Brueggemann (former OT professor at Columbia Theological Seminary). He is a prolific writer with profound ideas in relation to human beings living in subversion of and alternative to the lies of the Empires that we live in. His book The Prophetic Imagination is the best book I have read on the OT prophets (see my March 2007 Blogs about the "Posture of a Prophet"). His most recent book, Mandate to Make a Difference is a collection of essays/sermons and the last one "Some Theses on the Bible in the Church" is interesting. I'll just quote Brueggemann's theses:

1. Everybody has a script.
2. We are scripted by the process of nurture, formation, and socialization that may go under the large rubric of liturgy.
3. The dominant scripting of both selves and communities in our society, for both liberals and conservatives, is the script of therapeutic, technological, consumer militarism that permeates every dimension of our common life.
4. That script promises to make us safe and happy.
5. That script has failed.

6. Health depends, for society and for members of it, on disengagement from and relinquishment of that script.
7. It is the task of the church and its ministry to de-script from that powerful script.
8. That task is undertaken through the steady, patient, intentional articulation of an alternative script that we testify will indeed make us safe and joyous.
9. That alternative script as an offer of a counter-metanarrative is rooted in the Bible and enacted through the tradition of the church.
10. That alternative script has as its defining factor the Key Character in all holiness, the God of the Bible who is variously Lord and Savior of Israel, Creator of heaven and earth, and is fleshed in Jesus, we name as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

11. That script of this God of power and life is not monolithic, one-dimensional, or seamless, and we should not pretend that we have such an easy case to make.
12. The ragged disjunctive quality of the counter-script to which we testify cannot be smoothed out and made seamless, as both historical-critical study and doctoral reductionism have tried to do.
13. The ragged disputatious character of the counter-script to which we testify is so disputed and polyvalent that its adherents are always tempted to quarrel among themselves.
14. The entry point into the counter-script is baptism.
15. The nurture, formation and socialization into the counter-script with this elusive, irascible Key Character at its center constitute the work of ministry.

16. Ministry is conducted in the awareness that most of us are deeply ambiguous about this alternative script. 17. The good news, I judge, is that our ambivalence as we stand between scripts is precisely the primal venue for the work of God's spirit.
18. Ministry, and the mission beyond ministry, is to manage that inescapable ambivalence that is the human predicament in faithful, generative ways.
19. IF what I have said is true, then it follows that the work of ministry is crucial, pivotal, and indispensable; as in every society, so in our society.

What do you think?

Warning: Be Careful What You Pray For

I was reflecting on something about God this week. How he loves us, answers prayer, guides us along our lives, providing at every moment. My friend Jeremy is the best songwriter I know. In one of the worship songs he wrote (Come and Rest; see the DSF myspace link to the right-- go and listen to the song! as well as the other three that are on there...), he writes these words: "Oh God we pray be faithful, Oh God we pray be Gentle." I love this line; because it recognizes the truth of the old adage: be careful what you pray for. How often we pray that God would do something without an eye on how God might decide to do that. But people who often pray, and see God answer know what asking God to be gentle is all about. "Do you really want God to do that?Even if it meant that this needs to happen and then that and then that!"

What if in order for God to be faithful he needs to scold us, test us, put us through the fire in order to refine us. What then? That is why I think the song finds it necessary to ask God to be gentle when he is being faithful: because the writer (and singer) is knows that there are times when in order for God to be God he must be strong-armed and "rough"-- he must be allowed to be God. That is why we trust him.

I am reminded of the famous conversation in C.S. Lewis' classic "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe": One of the children asks Mr. and Mrs. Beaver about Aslan the Lion, who is a figure of Jesus: "Is Aslan quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion."

"That you will dearie, and no mistake," said Mrs. Beaver. "If there's anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they're either braver than most or just plain silly."

"Then he isn't safe?" said Lucy.

"Safe?" said Mr. Beaver; "don't you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? Of course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."

Mark Buchanan wrote a book called "Your God is Too Safe"-- I haven't read it but I like the title. God isn't safe. He causes us to be the most radical people we can possibly be! Revolutionaries until the very end. We rebel against what the world, the flesh and the devil tempt us with (Ephesians 2.1-3)-- usually it all revolves around the same stuff-- self-centeredness. Martin Luther defined sin by the latin phrase "homo incurvatus", 'mankind turned in on itself'-- amkes sense. Do we have the guts to pray that God works his amazing power even if it might cause inconvenience or a change of plans for us?

Four years ago I was comfortable. I had alot of great friends, close to my family, loved working under my mentor as I studied Scripture-- and then I followed where the Lord was leading Erin and I and it became uncomfortable: it caused us to move across the country where we did not know a soul. Not one living breathing human being! "God, why do you have to be so harsh? Can't there be a good school in Ontario where you want me to go?" But, of course, God decided to be faithful instead of gentle. In retropsect God was doing much more in our lives than simply bringing me out here to go to school. He had bigger plans for us here and we are just beginning the amazing journey He is taking us on.

God, be faithful, but (please) be gentle. Sometimes he listens to the latter request, but sometimes, when necessary, he ignores the request for gentlessness, in order to accomplish the first part of the prayer. And thank God he does because if it were up to me life would never be uncomfortable, and as Malcolm Muggeridge once said, life without discomfort would ultimately mean life too meaningless to be worth waking up for.

Top Ten Christian Books of the Twentieth Century

If you want to be changed, read a good book. Or so said A. W. Tozer: "The things you read will fashion you by slowly conditioning your mind." Of the millions of books published this century, only a few hundred have shaped people in extraordinary ways. Here are some of those—100 books that had a significant effect on Christians this century.
Christianity Today asked more than 100 of its contributors and church leaders to nominate the ten best religious books of the twentieth century. By best books, we meant those that not only were important when first published, but also have enduring significance for the Christian faith and church. We have included books which do not always prompt agreement, but which are important for evangelical Christians to read and contend with. A few "period" pieces also made the list of 90.

By far, C. S. Lewis was the most popular author and Mere Christianity the book nominated most often. Indeed, we could have included even more Lewis works, but finally we had to say: "Enough is enough; give some other authors a chance." Readers are welcome to send us their own nominations of the top ten religious books of the twentieth century, with comments.

THE TOP 10 (for the other 90 see Christianity Today.com)

1. C. S. Lewis
Mere Christianity
The best case for the essentials of orthodox Christianity in print.

2. Dietrich Bonhoeffer
The Cost of Discipleship
Leaves you wondering why you ever thought complacency or compromise in the Christian life was an option.

3. Karl Barth
Church Dogmatics
Opened a new era in theology in which the Bible, Christ, and saving grace were taken seriously once more.

4. J. R. R. Tolkien
The Lord of the Rings (trilogy)
A classic for children from 9 to 90. Bears constant re-reading.

5. John Howard Yoder
The Politics of Jesus
Some 30 years after this book was published, the church has found itself culturally in a more marginal position, and this book is making wider and wider sense.

6. G.K. Chesterton
Orthodoxy
A rhetorically inventive exposition of the coherence of Christian truth.

7. Thomas Merton
The Seven Storey Mountain
A painfully candid story of one Christian soul's walk with grace and struggle, it has become the mark against which all other spiritual autobiographies must be measured.

8. Richard Foster
Celebration of Discipline
After Foster finishes each spiritual discipline, you not only know what it is, why it's important, and how to do it—you want to do it.

9. Oswald Chambers
My Utmost for His Highest
A treasury of daily devotional readings that has fed the souls of millions of Christians in the twentieth century. Future generations of Christians must continue to draw from this treasury.

10. Reinhold Niebuhr
Moral Man and Immoral Society
Introduced a breathtakingly insightful, shrewd, and cunning realism about human sin, especially in its social expressions, rooted in biblical theology and a penetrating appraisal of the dark era into which the Western world had entered.

The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

The Shock Doctrine is Naomi Klein's (of "No Logo" infamy) new book. I have not read it, but many feel it will add alot to the present conversation about globalization, free-market capitalism and what Klein calls "corporatization." Here is a description of the book:

"Only a crisis, actual or perceived produces real change." --Milton Friedman

In THE SHOCK DOCTRINE, Naomi Klein explodes the myth that the global free market triumphed democratically. Exposing the thinking, the money trail and the puppet strings behind the world-changing crises and wars of the last four decades, The Shock Doctrine is the gripping story of how America’s “free market” policies have come to dominate the world-- through the exploitation of disaster-shocked people and countries.


At the most chaotic juncture in Iraq’s civil war, a new law is unveiled that would allow Shell and BP to claim the country’s vast oil reserves…. Immediately following September 11, the Bush Administration quietly out-sources the running of the “War on Terror” to Halliburton and Blackwater…. After a tsunami wipes out the coasts of Southeast Asia, the pristine beaches are auctioned off to tourist resorts.... New Orleans’s residents, scattered from Hurricane Katrina, discover that their public housing, hospitals and schools will never be reopened…. These events are examples of “the shock doctrine”: using the public’s disorientation following massive collective shocks – wars, terrorist attacks, or natural disasters -- to achieve control by imposing economic shock therapy. Sometimes, when the first two shocks don’t succeed in wiping out resistance, a third shock is employed: the electrode in the prison cell or the Taser gun on the streets.

Based on breakthrough historical research and four years of on-the-ground reporting in disaster zones, The Shock Doctrine vividly shows how disaster capitalism – the rapid-fire corporate reengineering of societies still reeling from shock – did not begin with September 11, 2001. The book traces its origins back fifty years, to the University of Chicago under Milton Friedman, which produced many of the leading neo-conservative and neo-liberal thinkers whose influence is still profound in Washington today. New, surprising connections are drawn between economic policy, “shock and awe” warfare and covert CIA-funded experiments in electroshock and sensory deprivation in the 1950s, research that helped write the torture manuals used today in Guantanamo Bay.

The Shock Doctrine follows the application of these ideas though our contemporary history, showing in riveting detail how well-known events of the recent past have been deliberate, active theatres for the shock doctrine, among them: Pinochet’s coup in Chile in 1973, the Falklands War in 1982, the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Asian Financial crisis in 1997 and Hurricane Mitch in 1998.

(Personal News) A Confession: I am now a Mac user

I am glad to announce that I am writing this on my new Macbook Laptop. I am now at the point where I am writing my thesis and the old "Acer" laptop was breaking down every few days--so I figured it was time to actualy invest in something like a good computer that would be mobile, and this really is the best laptop going. Many of you might say "How can you afford that?" The truth is I can't, that is why I am paying for it over the course of two years. Seventy dollars a month for two years. I am excited about it and now look forward to working on this very important work (my thesis).

It is amazing how much of a thing in our culture this Mac-people vs. PC people has become. Mac people are like these weird people and PC people hate them and Mac people hate PC people--its odd, adn I don't intend to become one of those Mac-people who are always like "You gotta get one" however this is only my first day and I am very impressed. Watch the commercials above to see some of the pros. Today I was at a wedding and I was introduced by one Mac-guy to another by saying "Mark got a Mac today." The guys face lit up and he physically held out his hand and shook it! As if to say "Welcome you have arrived." Weird. BUt maybe something I can only understand in a few months...

Obviously the brilliant marketing of Mac/Apple recently is helping Mac to become the one of the fastest growing companies in the world.Their commercials personify computers in two types of people: PC as up tight and Mac as cool and hip and young. Beyond brilliant and expensive marketing Mac relies on innovative products and the quality of products. Single-handedly they put earphones back into peoples ears which had pretty much been removed because of skipping CD that people had to lug around with the invention of the iPod the best selling MP3 player in the world (I don't have actual numbers on that but I am assuming it is--if anyone knows different please let me know I would be interested)...Apple also popularized (i hesitate t say invented because who knows where some of this stuff actually comes from!) Podcasting which in itself is changing the landscape of audio information...and so much of it free. For instance I, as a pastor/preacher, find it very helpful to download sermons for free from preachers like John Piper, Mark Driscoll, and Erwin McManus--all for free. At the encouragment of some people involved in my ministry I created (my friend Steve Harris technically created I just preach he does everything else ) a Podcast of the teaching/preaching that I do at deep.spirited.friends (DSF--our churches Sunday evening service)--(To subscribe see right side of this Blog).

Thomas Friedman has cited Podcasting as one of the thigns that has "Flattened the world"-- in his stellar book "The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century." And I think he is right. I used to listen to Christian radio and every week the preachers would say that a person could order a tape for three or four dollars plus shipping--now tose same sermons are free because of Podcasting. I don't know how this plays into costs/payments for radio time for those preachers but it is certainly great to have such free services at my disposal.

I would love to hear your stories about how Podcasting or recent technologies have changed your life.

Blessings.