What happens when 3 generations of Evangelical Christian leaders get together to discuss church and politics in the 21st century?  These videos capture a lively and thoughtful conversation between Chuck Colson, Gregory Boyd and Shane Claiborne moderated by Krista Tippett of “Speaking of Faith” radio program.  Check out some video clips below.  The full program details can be found HERE.

What are your impressions of the conversation and perspectives represented?

Mark Roberts posted A Brief History of Thanksgiving at his blog and I especially found George Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789 inspiring: 

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor–and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their Joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be–That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks–for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation–for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war–for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed–for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions–to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually–to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed–to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord–To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and Us–and generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Happy Thanksgiving friends!

Few studies have been more timely and pin-point accurate in it’s findings than the research of Christian Smith in “Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers” concerning the religious beliefs of American teenagers.  I would argue that many of these teens have learned their faith from parents with similar Christian convictions and level of commitment.  Thus, his findings are not limited to teenagers by any stretch of the imagination.

Smith’s definition and description of what he calls “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism” will long be used as the best description of what goes for typical civil religion in America.  Here’s an excerpt from Albert Mohler’s commentary on this ground-breaking study:

As described by Smith and his team, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism consists of beliefs like these: 1. “A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.” 2. “God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.” 3. “The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.” 4. “God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.” 5. “Good people go to heaven when they die.”

That, in sum, is the creed to which much adolescent faith can be reduced. After conducting more than 3,000 interviews with American adolescents, the researchers reported that, when it came to the most crucial questions of faith and beliefs, many adolescents responded with a shrug and “whatever.”

As a matter of fact, the researchers, whose report is summarized in Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Eyes of American Teenagers by Christian Smith with Melinda Lundquist Denton, found that American teenagers are incredibly inarticulate about their religious beliefs, and most are virtually unable to offer any serious theological understanding. As Smith reports, “To the extent that the teens we interviewed did manage to articulate what they understood and believed religiously, it became clear that most religious teenagers either do not really comprehend what their own religious traditions say they are supposed to believe, or they do understand it and simply do not care to believe it. Either way, it is apparent that most religiously affiliated U.S. teens are not particularly interested in espousing and upholding the beliefs of their faith traditions, or that their communities of faith are failing in attempts to educate their youth, or both.”

As the researchers explained, “For most teens, nobody has to do anything in life, including anything to do with religion. ‘Whatever’ is just fine, if that’s what a person wants.”

The casual “whatever” that marks so much of the American moral and theological landscapes–adolescent and otherwise–is a substitute for serious and responsible thinking. More importantly, it is a verbal cover for an embrace of relativism. Accordingly, “most religious teenager’s opinions and views–one can hardly call them worldviews–are vague, limited, and often quite at variance with the actual teachings of their own religion.”

Nothing motivates me more as a youth pastor of teens than research findings like this.  There is much work to be done in raising up, discipling and equipping a generation of new Christians established on the firm foundation of biblical faith.  The strong current of wishy-washy, religious pluralism grounded on our culture’s highest virtue of tolerance will continue to make this task challenging.  Yet, we have God’s revealed truth on our side and the Holy Spirit empowering our efforts.  This should give us the courage and strength to continue to “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 1:3).

“The harvest is plenty but the workers are few.”  Let’s keep laboring for the Kingdom!

Yesterday I shared an alternative model of evangelism shaped by the interactions and approach of Jesus in the Gospels.  I thought it might be helpful to offer a concrete example of this approach in action.  

As I was planting the Revolution ministry in Mound I was helped along by my daily interactions with teens in various roles which included substitute teaching almost everyday in the high school, coaching the high school basketball team and teaching all of the driver education classes and offering behind-the-wheel instruction for nearly every 15 year old in the school.  I had many opportunities for conversation during these years but a few relationships with students stand out above the rest.  

One student was exceptionally bright, extremely liberal and passionate about the pressing social and political issues of the day.  He spent his free time reading up on influential thinkers such as Marx, Nietzche, Darwin and other lesser known figures (as a 16 year old!).  He loved debating politics in the cafeteria and waxing eloquent (even if way over the head of his peers) on issues like poverty, militarism, and social justice.  We formed a relationship through time in class, driver ed and he attended some of our “Coffeehouse Live” outreach events at church. 

Through our six hours together in the car for his behind-the-wheel lessons (which is a fabulous evangelistic opportunity!) he came to know of my Christian convictions and the mission of the Revolution I was trying to start in Mound centered around the Man, the Message and the Mission of Jesus.  He was intrigued.  And he was skeptical.  We had many deep conversations where he shared all of his grievances toward “organized religion” parading the typical list of atrocities Christians have been associated with (e.g., the Crusades).  He articulated his own worldview and atheistic convictions clearly.  

He did however speak very respectfully of Jesus and admires his life of selfless love and service to the poor and downtrodden.  I took the opportunity to share that The Revolution I was leading in Mound was seeking people with a heart for the poor, the broken-hearted and the lost, and we gathered around the teachings of Jesus every week to explore what it looks like to be part of advancing his movement of grace, love, forgiveness and hope in the world today.  

Here is where the Jesus-shaped model of evangelism kicks in. I told him we were going to be hosting a benefit concert to raise money for the Invisible Children of Africa and a local social services organization that works with the homeless. I asked him if he would help out withe the cause.  He said, “Yes!” Soon one of the most-outspoken atheists in the school was locking arms with Christians in the common mission of serving others with the love of Christ.  He helped organize and publicize the event at school. We had formed a relationship of mutual respect.  He was far from accepting the beliefs of the Christian creeds but rubbing shoulders regularly with Jesus’ community-in-mission.  Through our conversations he was (I pray) getting to know the person of Jesus more clearly.  As the popular saying goes these days, I was was hoping he would get covered with some of the dust of the rabbi as well as he traveled along with us for awhile.

I haven’t talked to this young man for a while.  As far as I know he never became a believer.  But I pray that his time spent “in mission” with our Jesus-centered community made him wrestle and consider the claims of Jesus more seriously.  At least I hope some of the walls that had been built up separating him from Christ were broken down during our times together. Many churches and Christian leaders have scruples about inviting unbelievers into our mission activities.  I believe they are missing out on many great opportunities to share the gospel-in-action with them and draw them closer to a saving confession.  

CHALLENGE

What service outreach opportunities does your church have coming up?  Are you distributing food?  Serving at a soup kitchen over the holidays?  Are you going Christmas caroling to shut-ins and elderly?  Are you raking leaves or shoveling snow for those unable?  Are you going on a short-term missions trip to build a house or bring clean water to a remote village?  Whatever you’re planning to do to further the mission of Jesus in the world please consider inviting an unbelieving friend or neighbor along.  As you do, you may discover Jesus’ words being fulfilled right before your eyes: 

“Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven” (Matt 5:16). 

FROM THE DI ARCHIVES: Prior to my current ministry role  I spent a few years living “missionally” in a smaller town community where God called me to use new and innovative means of reaching unchurched and ‘de-churched’ teens for Christ. Check out The Revolution. I wrote the following reflections while in the trenches trying to effectively reach teens with the message and mission of Jesus.   -JB

There is a strong movement within the church today toward becoming “Missional.” The idea driving this movement is that we do not go to church, but we are the church. Christianity is more than attending a weekly service and participating in various programs. Rather, the church is revisiting its origins as an irresistible, loving, counter-cultural community of people whose strikingly beautiful way of life together draws others to Christ and his Kingdom simply by the faith, hope, and love they manifest, and the truthfulness of the redemptive story they embody. They don’t merely preach the message of salvation, they embody it in their calvary-shaped common life together.

This is a healthy move away from the unfortunate tendency within the church to make “Missions” a separate calling for an elect few of “professional missionaries” who usually then commit themselves to some overseas endeavor with the rest of us providing the prayerful and financial support. In this traditional model, back home the rest of us focus on sharing our personal faith with our friends and neighbors, inviting them to church or youth group, and attempting to win souls to Christ. When someone “comes to Christ” (meaning, accept certain beliefs about the faith), they are then invited to get involved in the discipleship process. As one matures in their faith (through Bible Studies, small groups, Alpha, etc.) they are then encouraged to take the next step and get involved in a short-term mission trip or local service opportunities. The progression looks like this:

Evangelism (Message)–> Conversion/Salvation –> Discipleship –> Mission

I believe this model has worked in the past, is certainly a biblical model but often ineffective and short-sighted in reaching outsiders for Christ in today’s western post-Christian culture. Let me share a few thoughts regarding the weaknesses of this particular model and offer an alternative approach to consider.

1. First, the traditional model is ignores the huge barriers keeping today’s skeptics from Christ. What I mean is this: Many of today’s young outsiders reject a caricature of Christianity that is all about people trying to sell them the right beliefs so they can avoid hellfire. Teenagers today will immediately turn and walk away the minute they sense we are trying to tell them what to believe or make our religious sales pitch. Call it sin, pride, a hard heart or whatever — I just call it a huge barrier keeping the emerging generations from ever encountering the person of Christ and hearing about his mission in the first place (which I don’t think is offensive at all to today’s outsider). Don’t get me wrong, I believe one is saved through faith in Christ as savior, that one eventually needs to repent of their sin, make a decision to follow Jesus and turn from their old life. And I know what Romans 10:13 says. I just think sometimes young skeptics (especially teenagers) need time to know and experience Jesus before we should expect them to accept some cerebral propositions about him. When we start our conversation with outsiders by offering them a creed, heavy doctrine, four spiritual laws, or a set of beliefs to sign off on, have we really introduced them to the person of Jesus Christ? It’s not an either-or; its a matter of neutralizing the surface so seekers can genuinely see the love of Jesus behind the Christian stereotype of judgmental bigot.  This is basically what is known as “pre-evangelism.”

2. Second, related to what I just said, this traditional model has a narrow concept of “evangelism” by which we hope outsiders will come to faith (i.e., conversion). By evangelism we normally think of offering someone simply the MESSAGE of salvation, and inviting them to respond to that proclamation. However, a person can be just as moved, swayed, impacted or spiritually challenged by a redemptive EXPERIENCE or PERSONAL ENCOUNTER than by a redemptive proclamation. For example, I experienced the life-changing, world-rocking love of my wife long before she finally spoke the words, “I love you.” Her words confirmed, clarified and described more fully what I had already tasted, experienced, and come to know and believe deeply in my heart long before she put it in words. And I was drawn to her far more by my overall experience of and relationship with her than by certain truths I came to believe to be true about her. We need to widen our concept of evangelism, and remember that people can come to know the redeeming love of God just as powerfully through a personal encounter with a Christian, a transforming experience at a retreat or concert, or a life-altering missions trip to serve the poor as they can through a clearly articulated gospel message. “Evangelize” means simply to bring the good news of Christ’s saving reign to other people. Remember St. Francis’ famous words: “Preach the gospel at all times, and when necessary use words.”  I think words are eventually necessary; just not always the first step in the process.

3. Thirdly, I believe Jesus offers us a different approach in his life and interactions with outsiders. In fact, it would seem that Jesus may almost flip the entire thing around and go about things the opposite way. While Jesus was hardly systematic in his ministry approach, and certainly was not intending to give us a rigid model or fail-proof formula, I do believe a pattern emerges in our reading the Gospels that would allow for the following approach to reaching people for Christ:

Mission/Evangelism –> Discipleship –> Conversion/Salvation

EVANGELISM WHILE IN MISSION

For Christ, the good news he shared was the mission he embodied. Christ went about the countryside manifesting the redemptive reign of God breaking into history through himself, bringing healing, restoration, and forgiveness to every person he encountered. Jesus’ approach to evangelism was to meet everyone with an invitation or call to join his community-in-mission. They weren’t met initially with a statement of faith they must sign before they could join the mission. They didn’t need to take membership classes before they could tag along with this traveling band of emerging disciples. They didn’t need to “say the prayer”, “bow their head and walk the aisle” or anything of the sort before they found themselves curiously following Jesus around in his mission.

All Jesus required was an openness to the cause, and a commitment to follow him where ever they might end up. Some followed, some didn’t, and some probably followed initially and left later. In the gospels, however, we see nothing close to an idea of “Missions” as some secondary, additional calling for a select few later after maturing through various levels of discipleship. Those who follow Christ are always in-mission, because Jesus is always in-mission. The church exists as a missional community. And when someone comes into a relationship with Jesus, and their entire life begins to change for the better, they have truly been “evangelized.”

DISCIPLESHIP WHILE IN MISSION

If a curious outsider decides to join this active, missional community of Christ-followers they then enter into an apprentice-master relationship with Jesus the Rabbi. In the context of a personal relationship with Jesus, a friend they have grown to trust, they will hear all about the redemptive purposes of God, Jesus’ unique, salvific role in God’s plan, “the Romans Road”, the four spiritual laws, etc. and naturally begin grappling with their own need for repentance, forgiveness and salvation. In community they will all learn to mimic the life, words and actions of rabbi Jesus, and gradually become more like him along the way. By definition ‘discipleship’ is relational — even if churches have traditionally narrowed it down to a set of courses to take on Sunday morning or Wednesday nights, or some spiritual disciplines to practice by oneself. Discipleship then happens as long as we travel in Christ’s missional community and as long as we commit our lives to our Rabbi’s ways and daily take his yoke upon us. Discipleship often begins to take place after we choose to join in the work of Jesus’ mission of bringing God’s forgiving, restoring, renewing reign to a broken world — or at least that’s how it seemed to work in Jesus’ ministry.

So, here we have it again:

Mission/Evangelism –> Discipleship –> Conversion/Salvation

IMPLICATIONS & APPLICATION

What would it look like to put this approach into practice with teenagers today? How would this change our approach to evangelism? How does this change the way we view our own personal responsibility to go out and share Christ with out friends and neighbors? Should we begin inviting outsiders into the mission of Jesus before they have confessed faith in Jesus? Should we build trusting relationships with outsiders before we begin challenging them with their personal sin and need for repentance? Does Christ offer a different model than the Apostle Paul? Does Paul offer aProclamational Model and Christ a Relational Model? If so, which model should we follow?

These are some of the thoughts, questions and convictions behind the approach of The Revolution in Mound. This is an honest experiment in postmodern student ministry, and I have only one goal in mind: To find the most biblically faithful and culturally effective way to reach today’s anti-religious teen culture with the life-transforming, saving gospel of Jesus Christ and his Kingdom.

A COMMON CRITIQUE

Some will object to my attempt to use Jesus as my example and model for evangelism.  They’ll say, “We are not supposed to re-live the pre-cross/pre-resurection movement of Jesus as if we’re wandering around the countryside as a rabbi seeking disciples.”  They’ll remind us that we’re living in the next Act of history, called to preach the message of the cross and resurrection of Christ, and bring that gospel to bear on the new situation we find ourselves in.  I agree and have long wrestled with this critique and am not sure exactly where I stand.  I just know that Jesus is the supreme model for warm, inviting summons to the Kingdom movement and we cannot go wrong in following his example as we try to make disciples in our world today.

These are just my thoughts as I wrestle with the day-to-day, in the trenches challenges of building bridges to young teens who are running in the opposite direction of the church but who are very open and receptive to the person and message of Jesus.

Long live the Revolution!

In my first review of this film I pointed out some of the underlying spiritual/psychological themes in the film: (1) the danger of letting a relationship take over one’s entire life, (2) turning a relationship into an idol which we cannot live without, (3) engaging in self-destructive behaviors (e.g., self-injury, suicide attempts) as a desperate cry for attention or manipulative tool to get other to do something, and (4) the positive message that we should not simply indulge our natural, carnal desires but rather seek to resist and follow a higher law.

I did not even comment on the most obvious spiritual issue in this film: Losing one’s soul and the question of eternal damnation. Remember the conversation between Edward and Bella about the state of their souls? In his article Self as the Standard of Spiritual Truth, Love as the Ultimate Idol: Old Problems Arise inNew Moon Marc T. Newman discusses this more serious spiritual issue found in this saga.

Does each person have the right to determine spiritual truth?

While some critics have focused on Bella’s reckless behavior in pursuit of Edward (more on that below) hardly any have hit on the film’s spiritual solipsism – the idea that the individual is all that exists and is, therefore, the ultimate arbiter of truth. When phrased in that way, most people can immediately see the dangers inherent in such belief. Bella, in the book (not the movie) describes her own theological training at the hands of her father and mother: “My own life was fairly devoid of belief. Charlie considered himself a Lutheran, because that’s what his parents had been, but Sundays he worshipped by the river with a fishing pole in his hand. Renee tried out a church now and then, but, much like her brief affairs with tennis, pottery, yoga, and French classes, she moved on by the time I was aware of her newest fad.” (New Moon, p. 36).

To set things up for the uninitiated, Edward wants Bella, and Bella wants Edward. But Edward firmly believes that if Bella becomes a vampire, so that they can be together and not grow old, that it will cost Bella her soul. As a creature who fears eternal damnation, he is unwilling to bring her into such a state. But Bella, devoid of belief, has apparently come up with one on her own. She fervently claims that Edward does have a soul, and that she will not forfeit her own should she follow him into vampirism. On what does she base this hopeful claim? In the film the argument never advances beyond some kind of personal intuition. What it really comes down to is that Bella believes that Edward has a soul because she really wants him to have one. And she will not lose her soul, because, if she thought so, Edward would never give her what she wants.

Vampires are fictional creatures. New Moon is a movie. I understand. But underlying the theme of this fictional film is a very real philosophical presupposition. Human intuition – or human desire – is the determining factor in revealing spiritual truths. If we want badly enough for something to be true, it must be so. Compare this attitude with what the Apostle Peter claims: “So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” (2 Peter 1:19-21)

Determining that we can make up spiritual truths to suit our current emotional states is asking for trouble. If you want to know if someone, or some thing, has a soul, and what is likely to happen to one’s soul, the best place to turn is to the Person who created it: God. As creatures, we are not competent to assess our own spiritual state any more than a car could understand any of its own mechanical defects. For that, one needs to consult the operator’s manual. Fortunately, God has provided us with truth about who we are, what we are made for, and how best to live out the lives that we have from Him. It can be found in the Bible.

There we have it.  Another clear expression of the rampant “create your own spirituality” that is constantly being preached from the pulpits of popular culture in America.  The belief that we can decide what’s right and wrong, true and false is an enticing option.  For our oldest human ancestors fell into the same trap so long ago in that Garden when they decided it was more desirable to play god and write our own rules.

As millions of teenagers go and watch this film many will unknowingly become more and more deeply shaped by this worldview.  As Christians we must gently point out this dangerous belief and remind our fellow believers that God has revealed his truth to us — the truth about ourselves, our deepest longings for love and intimacy, the truth about our souls and our eternal destiny.

“And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul?”

Mark 8:36-37

Can you articulate the main plot of the entire Old Testament story?  What’s the overarching big story of which the smaller episodes are a part?  Here’s my attempt to capture the essence of the OT story with key moments/themes in BOLD.

The Creation story presents a picture of humanity initially living in proper relationship with the Creator, with Yahweh dwelling in their midst. The created world is the good creation of a good God, and human beings are God’s co-regents (i.e., image of God) placed in dominion over the rest of the created things (naming the beasts, working the ground, etc.). The Fall of Adam and Eve was essentially an effort of human beings to breech the proper Creator-creation distinction, grasping for equality with God, and no longing willing to be dependent upon the blessings and provisions of God. The primary problem/sin recurring throughout human history, and particularly the history of the Israelites, is this tendency towards idolatry, i.e., placing oneself or any other thing in God’s place, desiring to control our own destiny and neglecting to give honor where honor is truly due. The initial downward spiral of the human race into idolatry culminates in the Tower of Babel story, thus leading Yahweh to devise some long-term solution to this recurring problem.

Yahweh’s answer is Abraham. Abraham and his descendents enter into an everlasting Covenant with the Creator in order to become, not only an example to the nations, but more importantly the means through which Yahweh will heal and undo the sins of the world, and to bring lasting justice and peace to the ends of the earth. Yahweh’s everlasting promise to Abraham includes (a) a great nation, (b) blessing, (c) a great name, (d) blessing to the nations, (e) land, (f) numerous offspring, (g) father of kings and (h) Yahweh as God (Gen 12:1-3, 7; 13:14-17; 15:5, 18; 17:4-16; 22:15-18). Moreover, Yahweh’s covenant with Abraham sets into motion the Story of Israel and her God. The rest of the Bible tells the story of this sojourning people, learning to live in right relation to their God, their neighbors and their environment.

The single most influential event in the early stages of Israel’s story is the Passover and Exodus from Egypt. Israel’s sufferings at the hands of a foreign king, and Yahweh’s merciful and miraculous act of deliverance—bringing just punishment down on Pharaoh (plagues) and clearing a way to freedom (through the Red Sea)—became the centerpiece of Israel’s family memory and corporate consciousness. The Exodus story would serve as an archetype of all Yahweh’s future dealings with his people. Israel’s corporate identity was founded upon one certain belief: We are the unique people of the almighty Creator God, and if we find ourselves suffering again under pagan oppression, Yahweh will hear our cries and deliver us once again.

Following the Exodus was the giving of the Torah (or Law) at Mt. Sinai and the forty years in the Wilderness. Yahweh’s presence went before His people in a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. During this time of testing, repeated failure, purification and instruction, Israel’s identity as Yahweh’s chosen was forged and set literally “in stone.” The Torah given through Moses was received with gladness and was designed to be the national charter regulating all aspects of Israel’s life. This covenant document was never intended to be a legalistic list of rules and regulations by which individuals could earn their ‘salvation.’ Torah observance was an expression of gratitude to Yahweh in response to his loving kindness toward Israel in establishing them as his special people and delivering them from slavery. Salvation and Eternal Life, if it ever were a concern of Jews, would be the natural byproduct of covenant membership within the family of Abraham. There is little speculation (or concern) on the afterlife until the latest writings of the OT.

Another pivotal moment in the Story of Israel was entrance into the Promised Land after crossing the Jordan River and the Conquests that followed. These events reinforced in the hearts of Israel that Yahweh would be faithful to his promises, Israel would receive her promised inheritance and the nations would be no match for Yahweh’s mighty arm. The period of the Judges is characterized by infidelity and waywardness, as Israel lacked consistent leadership living amongst the nations. The final verse of Judges sums up the apparent problem: “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit” (21:25).

Once in the land, Israel’s days as a sojourning people were through. Israel soon became a strong Kingdom under the leadership of kings David and Solomon. David, whose weaknesses were many, nevertheless ruled with righteousness and a fear of the Lord. Yahweh promises David that his offspring will occupy an everlasting throne and whose kingdom will have no end (2 Sam 7:12ff). The climactic moment of the glory days of the monarchy was the planning and building of the Temple. The temple was the focal point of every aspect of Jewish national life. The temple was the dwelling place of the God of Israel, the place of sacrifice, where sins are forgiven and where the union and fellowship between Israel and her God was consummated.

The kingdom of Israel divided into south (Judah) and north (Israel) under Solomon’s successors. Both kingdoms would grow deeper and deeper into sin, forsaking their covenant with Yahweh and chasing after foreign gods. The great Prophets pleaded with the people, reminding them of the terms of the covenant (i.e., blessings and curses – Deut 27-30; esp. 30:15-20), calling them back to obedience and announcing Yahweh’s judgment if they resist. Both kingdoms resisted the prophets’ warnings and were eventually taken into Exile. The Northern kingdom (Israel) was captured by the Assyrian army in 722 BC. The Southern kingdom (Judah) fell to the Babylonian forces in 586 BC leaving the Temple in ruins. The exile was a bleak time of mourning, national repentance and longing for Yahweh to relent and restore his loving kindness to his people (cf. Lamentations). The exilic prophets renewed the hope of Israel, forecasting a bright day in the future when Yahweh would enact a New Exodus, bringing his people once again back to the Promised Land (cf. Isaiah 40-55). This New Exodus will be nothing short of a new creation (Isaiah 65:17-18, 25).

Under the decree of Persian king Cyrus, the people of Yahweh were allowed to Return to the Land (539 BC) and rebuild the temple (516 BC) under the leadership of Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemiah. This ushered in a very ambiguous time in the history of the Jews. While they were back in the land, and allowed to resume worship in the temple (which itself was far inferior to the first), they remained under the yoke of foreign rule and saw themselves as “slaves in their own land” (Neh 9:36). The great promises of Isaiah (e.g. 2:1ff), Jeremiah 31, Ezekiel, and others had clearly not yet come to pass: Yahweh had not returned to the Temple, Israel’s enemies had not been overthrown, the royal dynasty had not been restored, and the nations were not yet flocking to Zion to learn Torah and worship the one true God. Instead, one foreign nation after another ruled Israel with an iron fist (Persians, Egyptians, Syrians and finally Romans), sometimes allowing them to worship their God, but always reminding them who really was in power.

As oppression grew worse under the Greeks, the messianic hope for deliverance and the restoration grew more urgent. The rise of Apocalyptic Eschatology grew out of these hard times, which was the belief “that a new order of reality (e.g., ha-‘olam haba, or ‘the age to come’; the kingdom of God; etc.) will soon overthrow the existing social order” (e.g., ha-‘olam hazeh, or’ the present evil age’)” (D. C. Allison). Most notably within the OT canon, Daniel 7-12 provides the fullest expression of Jewish apocalyptic hope in the second temple period. Daniel is given a vision of a series of four large beasts (representing four kingdoms) rising out of the sea to persecute “the saints of the most high”, i.e., Israel. However, a representative of Israel (the Messiah), the “one like a Son of Man,” is vindicated and enthroned at the right hand of God, and is given a kingdom that will have no end (Dan 7:14,18). This was the hope of the Kingdom of God that would fuel the religious and nationalistic fervor during the Maccabean revolt of the second-century BC and also the various messianic movements leading up to and following the Jesus movement.

The Story of the Old Testament ends leaving God’s chosen people living ambiguously as “slaves in their own land”, still awaiting the fulfillment of the great promises for a new exodus, the defeat of Israel’s enemies, the restoration of the Davidic dynasty (i.e., the promised everlasting kingdom), the glorious return of Yahweh to Zion to dwell again with his people, and ultimately the fulfillment of the entire Abrahamic project—shining the light of Yahweh’s righteousness and peace onto the nations, and thus drawing them to Zion to worship the one true and living God (cf. Isaiah 2:2ff).

This OT backdrop and guiding narrative sets the stage for the dramatic entrance of a rather obscure Galilean preacher from Nazareth named Yeshua.  But that’s another story for another day.    

“The Medievals conceived the world as a book written by God, the plot of which is given in God’s other book, the Bible. Today, however, the world is plotted by different narratives, either humanly authored (modernism) or authorless (postmodernism). Now the world writes itself; or better, it is writing itself…It is against this background—of the world writing itself—that the church continues to tell the story of God’s Christ… In Christ the world is affirmed, freed from the need to write itself, loved simply as that which is written.”

Gerard Loughlin from ”Telling God’s Story: Bible, Church and Narrative Theology”

This particular Friday night I was proudly wearing both my “good husband hat” and my “committed youth pastor hat” as I went to see the much anticipated “Twilight: New Moon” film on opening night.  (Keri asked me to go to the midnight opener the previous night and I had to draw the line somewhere!)

Gazillions of teenagers gobbled up these books when they came out.  My guess is that these books and movies will eventually outdo Harry Potter because of the huge attraction to the cutesy teen-romance focus of these books and sex appeal of the movies.  They appeal not only to middle school book-nerds (the Potter club) but broader youth culture including older teenagers and adults (e.g., my wife and I). So, we’ve all seen the hype.

Did the movie deliver?

As a man, I’m under a gag order to not say anything positive about this teen chick-flick or else be disowned by the male population. Just kidding. I actually quite enjoyed the first movie — not quite knowing what to expect and being new to the whole vampire romance genre.  I thought the first movie was cute, intriguing and I appreciated the relatively clean portrayal of this teenage relationship.  From what I’ve heard of the author, there is a deep Mormon influence behind her writing and these books explore many moral and character issues such as good and evil, the virtue of self-control and overcoming one’s natural cravings, etc.  I really enjoy this aspect of Twilight.

So, how about New Moon? I was thoroughly bored and unimpressed with this second movie.  Acting was fine. Special effects were fun. But the plot was slow and boring. I think the “newness” effect that held my interest in the first movie was gone.  I’m used to the whole vampire-human romantic dilemma now.  But let’s just be honest: the masses of teens coming out to see this film aren’t coming for plot, special effects or acting.  They are coming to ooh and awe over their latest teen idol crushes — the battle between the sexy pale skinned vampire and the always shirtless, weight-lifting warewolf.  (Are warewolves exempt from the ban on “performance enhancing drugs”?)  And, if the all the giggling heard throughout the theater was any indication, they got what they came for!

The Twighlight series is all about the complicated romantic relationships of these star-crossed lovers, and the thrill of waiting, hoping, watching and sharing in their messy world filled to the brim with love, attraction, hormone-laden temptation, longing and heart-break, loyalty and betrayal, fury and forgiveness.  In fact, I was absolutely blown away by how clearly this movie captured some of the most intense issues facing teens today. My youth pastor filter was on overload for most of the movie.  Let me share some of the great teaching moments this movie presented.

NOTE: I’m speaking in generalities now.  The following observations are not necessarily true of all teenagers.  But on the whole they are pretty accurate.

1. The all-consuming power of teen romance. Relationships and belonging are the most significant reality for teens — with identity formation bound up with these two.  When teenagers get swept away in a romantic relationships it can completely take over their entire life.  As my mom used to tell me as a teen, “Jeremy, stay away from those girls; they’ll only turn your mind to mush.”  She was right, and I managed to graduate from high school with most of my brain in tact. This movie powerfully demonstrates how a strong desire for another can become a total obsession and when that love is lost (or, in this case, temporarily suspended) how devastated one can be.  When Edward leaves, Bella sinks into a deep depression, believes her world is coming to an end, that she can’t live without him and even jumps off a cliff (a strong allusion to suicide).  Bella is portrayed as having no life, no interests, no hobbies, no job and few other friends outside of Edward.  This is a danger for teenagers who fall head over heels in love and let that relationship become the single, all-consuming reality of their life.

2. Trying to fill that hole in our heart. This fall our youth group explored the significant topic of idolatry.  We defined idolatry as anyone or anything we put in the place of God in our life in order to find significance, self-worth, love, joy, meaning, purpose, etc. Christians believe that ultimately only God can satisfy our greatest longings or fill that God-shaped hole in our heart.  We will always be let down and unsatisfied when we attempt to get life, love, significance, etc. from sources other than God.  They just can’t deliver on their promises.  This movie was filled with folly of overt “relational idolatry.”  I can’t remember how many times I counted Bella talking about the hole in her heart left by Edward’s absence. How many times did Edward, near the end, say he could not, would not live without Bella?  ”I can’t imagine an existence without you,” he said (or something similar). This movie, whether or not it intended to do so, powerfully showed why we should never ask another mortal to do and be for us what only God can do and be.  If we ignore this truth, we will always find ourselves, sooner or later, in the same messy, emotionally empty place as Bella.

3. Self-injury as a desperate cry for help. A more disturbing theme and behavior of Bella in this movie was how she put her own safety in jeopardy as a way to try to draw attention to another deeper pain and longing in her life.  First, she discovered that by putting herself in danger she could actually get Edward to draw nearer to her (or at least visions of him). She gets on the back of the scummy guy’s motorcycle against better judgment in hopes that Edward would come to her rescue. How many teens entertain self-injury or suicide as a desperate cry for loving attention?  Second, sometime later in the movie she says something to the effect of, “My pain is the only reminder that what we had together was actually real.”  She couldn’t be with him so she became friends with her pain and misery that somehow, in her mind, kept his memory alive and brought her closer to him.  How many young girls with deep emotional pain or numbness resort to cutting themselves in order to “just feel something”?  These themes are very real, and many teenagers are processing their own pain, loneliness, disappointment and sense of abandonment with similar behavior and rationalization.  What on the surface appears to be a cute teenage romance film is laden with significant, psychological and pastoral issues below the surface.

4. Acting on what’s right vs. what feels good. The most powerful biblical theme at the heart of the vampire-human dilemma is the matter of whether we should act on our natural impulses and carnal urges OR act on what we know to be both good and right. Edward’s blood-sucking family has, “through many years of practice”, self-discipline and resisting temptation, managed to restrain their behavior and learned to live peacefully among good human beings.  If they gave in to temptation and just acted on their natural desires and instincts, they would be constantly devouring innocent lives. But they despise that part of their nature and believe it is worth the long, hard battle against their nature in order to reach a higher, more virtuous level of living. This is Christianity’s lesson of “original sin” in a nutshell: We are called to resist our carnal, sinful nature we’re born into this world with, and instead fight against these desires and impulses in order to live according to a higher law and be controlled by the Spirit rather than “the flesh.”

“Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you” (Rom 8:5-9).

Who knew a series of books about teenager vampires could be so thoroughly biblical and Pauline at this point?  This idea that we often need to resist our natural urges completely cuts against the grain of a culture that constantly tell us to just act on our impulses, “go with our gut”, “be true to our inner longings”, “if it feels right do it”, if it’s natural it must be right and a thousand other variations.

I could go on and on.  In the final analysis, this was not a fun, exciting, thrilling, suspenseful cinematic experience for me. But for a youth pastor trying to remind myself of what it’s like to be in the shoes of a teenager again, and for the pastoral issues raised above, I found this movie well worth my time and an excuse to indulge in some popcorn and some hand-holding with my sweetheart.

QUESTION: Can I trust God if he does not possess exhaustive definite foreknowledge?

Excerpt from Motivations for ascribing foreknowledge to God by GREGORY A. BOYD published in “Religious Studies” (Cambridge University Press 2009).

Aside from exegetical objections, the single most frequent criticism raised against the open view in the polemical literature is that it undermines confidence in providence. To illustrate, this criticism permeates Bruce Ware’s book, God’s Lesser Glory. According to Ware, the open view of God posits a ‘limited, passive, hand-wringing God’, who can do little more than hope for the best. ‘[W]hat is lost in open theism’, Ware contends,

… is the Christian’s confidence in God … . When we are told that God … can only guess what much of the future will bring … [and] constantly sees his beliefs about the future proved wrong by what in fact transpires … . Can a believer know that God will triumph in the future just as he has promised he will?

Inasmuch as the need for security strongly influences the faith of most people today, as it did in ancient Greece, this type of argumentation is psychologically effective. But is it valid? I do not believe that it is.

Of course, it cannot be denied that a conception of God who meticulously determines the whole of history, such as we find both in Stoicism and in the classical Augustinian-Calvinist tradition, provides more assurance to believers that everything is going ‘as planned’ than can a God who grants libertarian free will to agents. Most non-Calvinists of course argue that this extra ‘assurance’ is purchased at an unacceptably high price, for it requires, among other things, that we accept all evil as part of God’s providential plan. But more importantly, this is not what is at issue in the debate about God’s foreknowledge. Rather, the issue is over whether God gains any significant providential advantage simply by virtue of knowing the future exhaustively as a domain of settled facts (what will and will not come to pass) as opposed to a domain that includes possibilities (what might and might not come to pass). And the answer to this specific question, I argue, is that He does not, provided one agrees that God possesses unlimited intelligence.

Of course, we humans are much less in control of a future we know to be comprised of possibilities than we are a future we know to be comprised only of settled facts. But the reason for this is that we only possess a finite amount of intelligence. Hence, the more possibilities we have to anticipate and prepare for, the thinner we have to spread our limited intelligence to anticipate them. This is why playing a formidable opponent in an important game of chess, for example, is much more stressful than (say) working on an assembly line.

By contrast, if God is omniscient, there is no limit to his intelligence. This entails that God does not have a finite amount of intelligence that must be ‘spread thin’ to cover various possibilities. Rather, if God possesses unlimited intelligence, God can attend to each and every one of any number of possibilities as though each and every one was the only possibility – viz. as though each was an absolute certainty. For a God of unlimited intelligence, therefore, there is no functional difference between anticipating a possibility and anticipating a certainty. God prepares for ‘maybes’ as effectively as He does ‘certainties’. Indeed, a God of unlimited intelligence anticipates ‘maybes’ as though each was a ‘certainty’. If you ever have the misfortune of playing God at chess, you will most certainly lose. For however you may choose to move, God has been antici- pating that very move and preparing a response to it, as though you had to make this move, from the onset of the game – indeed, from before the foundation of the world (for possibilities are eternal, hence eternally known by an omniscient God).

This means that, whatever comes to pass, an open theist can say as confidently as a person who ascribes [exhaustively definite foreknowledge] to God that God had been anticipating this very event from before the foundation of the world, as though the event had to happen.

It is just that the open theist would add that, because God possesses unlimited intelligence, God did not need to foreknow the event as an eternally settled fact in order to anticipate it as though it was an eternally settled fact. Any number of other events could have occurred instead of the event that came to pass, and if any other event had come to pass, the open theist would be saying the exact same thing about it.

In the light of God’s unlimited intelligence, an open theist can affirm that every event happens with a divine purpose without having to assert that everything happens for a divine purpose. God brings an eternally prepared purpose to events, but God does not bring about (or specifically allow) all events for an eternal purpose. The open theist can thus remain as confident as any free will theist who ascribes exhaustively definite foreknowledge (EDF) to God that God can bring good out of evil and fit all events into a divine plan. But she can do so without having to make God complicit in evil.

What do you think of Boyd’s argument?  Is it valid?  What are it’s strengths and weaknesses?

The “My Top 3″ series is your chance to get to know some of my personal favorites.  Today, on a lighter note, I share my favorite 3 bands.  These are not necessarily my vote for the BEST bands of all time.  I would have to place The Beatles, Led Zepellin, Elvis Presley and many others on that list.  These are my personal favorites who have had the greatest impact on my musical tastes — primarily during my high school and college days where I bought a lot of CDs, played a lot of guitar and went to a lot of concerts.  Here they are:

#3 – U2. Bono, the Edge and the other boys from Ireland were an acquired taste for me. It didn’t make sense why I like them at the time. I think I was impressed with their longevity, classiness, unique sound driven by the Edge’s “helicopter guitar” as we called it. Over the years I would grow to love their convictions as artists and Bono’s growing forthrightness about his Christian faith.  These guys have been in the spotlight for decades and have avoided the scandals and illicit behavior that brings the downfall of so many pop stars.  I was fortunate to score free tickets to their Popmart Tour in 1998.  It was fun to be part of the hype and see them live on stage — but the Metro Dome was the worst concert venue possible for sound quality.  Just awful.  I’m impressed with their latest albums and they keep growing more mature and classy as entertainers.  They are the real deal and easily fall in my top 10 bands of all time.

#2 – Dave Matthews Band. Ok, DMB isn’t in the same category as U2.  They are not legendary yet — though time will tell if they can reach those heights.  They are in my top 3 because of the sheer enjoyment they brought to my passion for music as I was learning the guitar in high school.  I am proud to be one of the original discoverers of DMB before they made it big.  I swear I found them before they MTV did. There was nothing like Under the Table and Dreaming out there in the early 90s.  Where did this alternative rock band with South African acoustic guitarist, jazz saxophone/clarinet, crazy violinist and world-class jazz drummer come from?  John Popper from Blues Traveler played harmonica on their first radio hit single “What Would You Say” and because they were hitting it big at the same time I actually mixed the two bands up for a week or so.  Oops.

But I will go on record saying that their second album release Crash is by far my favorite album of all time.  Seriously.  From start to finish, there is some amazing musicianship taking place. As a beginning guitarist and lover of acoustic, rhythmic guitar riffs I couldn’t get enough of tacks like Two Step, Lie in Our Graves, Tripping Billies, What Would You Say and perhaps the best 15 minutes of continuous music #41 flowing into Say Goodbye. I liked their 3rd album Before These Crowded Streets but slowly grew disappointed from that point forward as they seemed to grow more mainstream, more studio-ized and less of a grassroots jam-band.  Dave’s signature acoustic riffs became more and more electric and saw them as “selling out” to the mainstream.  I haven’t listened to DMB for years now.  But I enjoy putting on Crash every now and then to take me back to many good memories of high school.

#1 – R.E.M. I was in 8th grade.  I loved music and my good friend and I were invited to our first major stadium concert with a group of older students. I still don’t quite know how we were invited.  But we saw R.E.M.’s Monster Tour at Target Center. Overnight I became a fanatic.  The concert was epic.  Classic hits like Stand, End of the World As We Know It, One I Love, Man on the Moon, Everybody Hurts, Losing My Religion and others were combined with the edgy, distorted new sound of Monster.  It was the best of all worlds.  Clean acoustic and electric, then some heavy buzzing distorted rock, then some ballads with pop harmonies and Michael Stipe’s unmistakable vocals filling the stadium.  But the concert didn’t even capture the sound that would eventually win me over as a crazy R.E.M. groupie.  A local radio station (KQRS?) was playing their entire library of R.E.M from A-Z for that whole day and night.  I was immediately hooked on the lesser known early 80s R.E.M. material.  My parents belonged to BMG music club and I immediately ordered their first 10 albums for my 15th birthday.  Still one of my best gifts ever!

Many people today still have never been treated to their early sound of their 1981 5-song single debut Chronic Town with “Gardening at Night” followed by first full release”Murmur” (1983) featuring hit song “Radio Free Europe” and then Reckoning (1984) with “Don’t Go Back to Rocktown” and “So. Central Rain”.  It’s hard to describe this early 80s hipster rock sound carried by Stipe and Mills’ Beach Boys inspired harmonies and Peter Buck’s hypnotic finger picking on clean electric.  It’s clean.  It’s catchy.  And you can’t help tap your foot and bob your head.  It’s clearly original and to this day is hard to classify.  I was told some call R.E.M. the Father’s of Alternative Rock — back in the day before it was a definable genre but a label give to a sound that just couldn’t be easily pinned down.  Through the years they have remained difficult to define and always innovative and changing.  I thoroughly enjoyed all of their albums (each a unique listening experience with many shifts in sound through the decades) up until drummer Bill Barry left the band around 1997.  I have not enjoyed any of their albums since then — though I finally heard a taste of the old R.E.M. in their 2008 “Accelerate” release.

At the end of the day, R.E.M. is still my favorite band of all time — and one of America’s top 10.  I have recently begun collecting their vinyl collection for fun. Today their 1981 “Chronic Town” showed up in the mail.  Check out a video from a very young R.E.M playing first song receiving radio play “Gardening at Night.”  Does it get any better than this?!

This is by far one of the warmest, most concise, well-reasoned and articulate cases I’ve seen for the existence of God lately.  Tim Keller visits Google’s Mountain View, CA, headquarters to discuss his book, “The Reason for God.” This event took place on March 5, 2008, as part of the Authors@Google series.  

His arguments are basic and well-known.  Tim Keller’s real strength seems to be his warm and humble demeanor that comes off as both sharp and friendly.  His personality is as compelling as his arguments.  I recommend you get this in the hands of your skeptic friends, use this video for a good discussion starter or the basis of an apologetics class. 

And, of course, go read his book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. Its wonderful. 

“Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil 4:4-7).

If believers begin to experience the indwelling power and transforming effect of the Holy Spirit in their lives, they will begin to taste a joy that transcends one’s particular circumstances.  Remember Paul is writing from prison to believers being threatened and persecuted by the power brokers of the Roman Empire.  Still, Paul urges Christians to rejoice (it is an imperative).  He repeats himself followed by his concern for their witness to the onlooking world.  As people observe these followers of Jesus what do we want them to see in our lives?  Here’s how one commentary addresses it:

“Joy, unmitigated, untrammeled joy, is–or at least should be–the distinctive mark of the believer in Christ Jesus. The wearing of black and the long face, which so often came to typify some later expressions of Christian piety, are totally foreign to Paul’s version; Paul the theologian of grace is equally the theologian of joy. Christian joy does not come and go with one’s circumstances; rather it is predicated altogether on one’s relationship with the Lord and is thus an abiding, deeply spiritual quality of life” (IVP New Testament Commentary).

This “abiding, deeply spiritual quality of life” is rooted in the conviction that “The Lord is near” — both in the sense that (a) His comforting presence is nearby when we call out in “prayer and petition” during anxiety-inducing circumstances and (b) in the eschatological sense of his imminent Second Coming to make all things right. Jesus is our example again here. Jesus constantly brought prayers and petitions before his Father in Heaven and taught the disciples not to worry:

“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life” (Matt 6:25-27)?

The best anecdote for anxiety is persistent prayer and utter dependence on God in all times and circumstances. Paul tells us that communion with and dependence on God leads to the experience of the peace of God “that transcends all understanding.”  Just as this marvelous peace is beyond understanding, so to it is beyond describing in words.  But those of us who have experienced God’s calming peace amidst the personal storms of our own lives can testify that Paul’s words are true.

Never has this supernatural, unexplainable “peace of God” been more apparent than when people of faith are grieving the loss of loved ones.  Despite great loss and sadness, there is a peace that prevails in the hearts of the faithful rooted in the hope and promises of God in Christ.  This is a peace, Jesus reminds us, that is quite out of this world: “I’m leaving you peace. I’m giving you my peace. I don’t give you the kind of peace that the world gives. So don’t be troubled or cowardly” (John 14:27).

Finally, this peace is not merely a meek, comforting force in our lives.  The peace of God serves as a military garrison standing guard over our “hearts and minds” — our innermost being — protecting us from the onslaught of fear, doubt, anxiety and despair. This peace has “the Prince of Peace” as it’s source and goal, and as with everything else with Paul this gift is ours “in Christ Jesus.”

NOTE: Please don’t the following too seriously.  I’m just thinking (or joking) out loud again.

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  Yeah, well, if that’s what it means to be insane, then what do we call folks who do certain things religiously and repeatedly without ever asking ‘Why?’

I have an honest question and I have no hidden motives.  I honestly want to know why people spend hours each fall raking, bagging, mulching and hauling away leaves?  I also want to know why people spend hours in the cold shoveling, plowing, and scraping the snow from their driveways every time the snow falls?

You’re probably thinking the reasons are as obvious as the noon day sun, but hear me out for a second.  This is probably only a question that gets asked by over-analyzing intellectual types who like to rationally think through everything we do.  Plus, as a Christian and pastor guy, I’m  wary of participating in any rituals without knowing the significance or reason for doing them.  To do so such in religion is called “legalism.”  I tend to apply this test to all areas of my life.  I guess I’m a bit strange. 

But I have some honest questions.  And please don’t accuse me of laziness.  That might be a factor but my primary reason for asking is that I try to be as intentional and rational with the tasks I spend my time doing and try to avoid doing things “just because.”  

First, those leaves:

1. What happens if we just let the leaves be some fall and winter?  What happens in the spring?  Are they still there?  Are there less of them since they rot away?  Have you ever tried this?  If not, why?

2. Why do some people do the leaves repeatedly every weekend over the weeks of fall?  Doesn’t it make sense waiting until they are all off the trees and just doing them once?  ”There would be too many and it would take longer,” they say.  Really?  Have you ever tested your theory?

3. Does leaving them on the grass over the winter damage the grass in spring?  I have heard this but don’t know if it’s true.

4. How many of you, if you were completely honest, do leaves just because it’s what you have always done?  It’s what your grandpa did and your dad and all your neighbors and so on.  Is it a sneaky marketing scheme to get us to spend money on bags, rakes, tarps and thousand dollar lawn tractors?  

5. Or, like me, how many of you just do leaves because it’s nice to get your butt off the couch, breathe in the fresh, autumn air and get some exercise?  Be honest.

6. While we’re at it, what’s your preferred method of leaf disposal?  Are you a mulcher, raker, bagger, tarper or, like my neighbors, do you just rake them all onto the street and let them blow into your neighbor’s lawn?  I typically do everything I can to avoid picking up a rake and prefer mulching them until they are only miniature leaf-crumbs.  But my mower keeps breaking and so I’m raking this year.

Now, how about that snow?

1. I think there are better reasons for shoveling than raking.  We shovel to clear our walking path and make sure our vehicles can get out.  We don’t want our friends and family slipping on the ice and cracking their skulls. I get that. Plus, nobody wants an angry UPS driver over the Holidays!

2. Still, this does not explain those who shovel every time we get a dusting.  You know who you are!  I have seen a 1/10 of an inch of snow and someone religiously running his shovel across a massive driveway.  I have no idea why. Can you please tell me why?

3. I have an unpaved, gravel driveway.  I purposely avoid shoveling because I like a good thick layer of packed snow covering an otherwise slushy, muddy driveway.  I use the car-packing method.  Yes, I just drive my car back and forth until it’s good and packed.  And it’s a lot easier than shoveling!

4. The only time I shovel is after large snowfalls and then just enough to clear a path from each of our car doors (we have no garage!) and get the car out of the driveway.

5. I have been told that not shoveling and letting ice accumulate on the pavement does damage to the driveway. Is this true?  I doubt it.  With our extreme temperatures Minnesota driveways are going to take a beating whether or not we keep them shoveled.

6. Again, I suspect many people shovel not because of necessity but rather because “it’s just what you do.”  Well, have fun out in the cold.  I’ll be the guy sipping hot cocoa inside my house by the fireplace.  I personally have better things to do with my time.

So, honestly, I would love to know:

Do you spend a lot of time doing leaves in the fall?  What is your main reason?  How about shoveling the snow?  What is your main reason for shoveling snow?  Any fun stories?  

I can’t believe I’ve never made this observation before.  We all know Christianity and church life is all about COMMUNITY.  Well, at least it has become the big buzz word in the last decade or two.  The Sunday worship routine that had for so long become a spectator sport with the people on stage providing the entertainment has realized the relational vacuum this way of doing church has left in the hearts of people starving for intimate, Kingdom community.

The past decade or two has seen the rise of the small group ministry and resurgence of the “house church” model.  Churches are rightly encouraging their people to get plugged into “small groups”, “life groups”, “covenant groups”, “community groups”, “small churches” or whatever you want to call them.  The Sunday morning worship service does not take the place of real, authentic, kingdom community with one another. This has been a healthy move back toward the kind of community we see characterizing the early church in, for instance, Acts 2:

“All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:43-47).

As a staff member of a church, I whole-heartedly support the power and effectiveness of small groups for living out our Christian life together — growing in discipleship, encouraging one another, having accountability and reaching out to others in evangelism and community service.  However, just today I made an observation that really opened my eyes to see how far we Christians still have to go in achieving the kind of life-on-community God has truly created us for.

Here’s my observation: Community has become the GOAL of the Christian life rather than the natural STARTING POINT.

This is a huge difference between our highly individualized American culture and the ancient localized, tight-knit community structures of the early church. The early Christians lived in close proximity to one another, shared resources as needed, watched and raised each others’ children, ate together regularly, prayed together naturally and out of this community could naturally flow service, witness, worship and discipleship.  They started with community and the rest of their Christian life flowed from it.

As I see it, many of our churches are trying everything they can to help busy, scattered people form community in the first place.  We use programs, classes, worship gatherings, seminars, events, outreach and service opportunities, mission trips and retreats all as ways for people to hopefully connect with one another and begin to establish community.  But the point is: Sadly, we live in a society that has chosen to make intimate community an after thought, a secondary concern that we might get around to if we can somehow fit it into our busy schedules “when life slows down a bit”.

This reality was brought home to me today in two ways.  First, my wife and I were invited to consider joining a small group of young couples from our church who meet on Sunday nights for dinner fellowship and Bible study.  I would love to but…  But we live 45 minutes away from church and these friends, and we really love lazy Sundays watching football on the couch at home, and don’t really want to make the drive twice in one day (we are there in the morning for church and this would be 3 hours of driving).  Welcome to life in 21st century America.  We hardly know our neighbors next door, our friends are scattered about the Twin Cities suburbs, and we’re more worried about gas mileage and football than the life-in-community God has created us for.  This is the world we live in.

Secondly, however, one wonders if we have to go along with the societal norm.  I was listening to Greg Boyd interviewed on a new podcast I discovered called “Nomad”.  He was talking about intentional kingdom community and swimming against the current of the American culture.  Basically he shared his story of how he and his wife decided to uproot themselves from their comfortable suburban home and lifestyle and moved into an inner city neighborhood along with 2 other couples from their church to live side by side and do life together.  They now share cars, food, get together at each other’s homes 2 or 3 nights a week for food, fun, fellowship and prayer.  Nothing fancy.  Just good old fashioned community.  But they had to intentionally uproot and move across the city to establish a community from which they can now pursue kingdom service, support, growth, accountability, witness and more.

But the point is: Community shouldn’t be the goal of Christian life but rather the natural starting point for living out the Kingdom together. Even with the healthy impact of church small groups it still appears that we have a long, uphill battle ahead of us.

We Christians in the Christian blogosphere can easily isolate ourselves and our writing into a little club of associates who all speak our language and understand our biblical framework.  This goes for Christians in general who only surround themselves with other Christians and pastors whose social interaction is almost exclusively with fellow believers.  

When was the last time you had to answer some very basic, fundamental questions about your Christian faith and beliefs to somebody not completely immersed within the Christian subculture?  I was recently interviewed by a family member for a college paper for a class on an Introduction to the Christian Faith.  

How would you answer the following questions? For what it’s worth, here’s a glimpse at my off the cuff answers.

1. What program of Christian or general religious education has most significantly shaped your view of life?

My understanding of the Christian faith and worldview was initially shaped heavily by the Bible-based expository teaching of Pastor David Johnson at Church of the Open Door.  He unpacked the Bible’s meaning verse-by-verse and then applied the truth in relevant, personal ways. My church upbringing as a child provided warm relationships and some spiritually enriching experiences (e.g., Mission Trips).  

 Most significant in my journey of faith has been a rigorous 7 years of academic study of the Bible and Theology at Bethel University (B.A.) and Seminary (M.A.T.S.).  In college I experienced a radical and sudden “spiritual awakening” or “transformation” through a powerful encounter with Scripture.  The simplest way to summarize this experience is this: I discovered God’s bigger Story and my role to play within the unfolding plot of redemption history.  Ever since I’ve been trying to align my life with God’s purposes by finding my unique role in advancing the Kingdom using my unique gifts and passions. I have devoted my time and vocation to studying and teaching others the Christian faith through the teaching of the Bible and Theology. My influences are many which include Greg Boyd, N. T. Wright, Dallas Willard, C.S. Lewis to name a few.

 2. How does Christian worship (or another Christian experience) impact your daily life?

While many experience the reality of God through such spiritual practices as prayer, service, Christian fellowship, Bible Study groups, worship, the arts, etc., I am an intellectual who experiences the beauty and truth of God most powerfully through reading, writing, studying, discussing and teaching on all things found at the busy intersection of faith and everyday life.  I post daily essays and discussions at my Daily Illumination blog at www.jeremyberg.org. I read incessantly and write constantly.  I believe God’s beauty and truth permeate the entire creation, and I am continually discovering that the more I learn about God and the nature of his redemptive project carried forward in Christ, the more I realize I have yet to learn.

3. What are some of the struggles that you face in your Christian life? 

This can be answered in a couple ways.  First, Christians share in all the struggles common to man.  Christianity doesn’t promise to deliver us from trials or make our lives less difficult.  We all live life in a fallen and sin-stained world.  However, secondly, following Christ often creates new problems and challenges as we resist the tide of the culture and strive to live in holy obedience to the demands of the gospel.  Jesus warns us clearly:“In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world” (John 16:33).  Elsewhere we read:“Dear friends, do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice that you participate in the sufferings of Christ, so that you may be overjoyed when his glory is revealed” (1 Peter 4:12-13). The difference is that Christians have vast resources for coping with loss, growing through trials, finding hope beyond ourselves and our circumstances, and find healing and restoration through the power of the Holy Spirit. “That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong [in the Lord]” (2 Cor 12:10).  

More personally, I have struggled to remain faithful to God’s vocation on my life while swallowing my pride and resisting the desire for more worldly wealth and luxuries that might come if I pursue my own preferred career path.  I am currently a youth pastor who feels gifted and equipped for work in more reputable field of academic teaching. Nonbelievers are free to choose their calling; Christians must obey God’s call and direction in their life.  

I also struggle to live out faithfully the beliefs and values I hold so dear.  Christians are well-known to be hypocrites who “talk the talk” but do not “walk the walk.”  I strive to be humble, faithful, honest and follow the example of Christ the best I can.  I have a deep awareness of my own sinfulness and a strong view of God’s grace.  I believe Christianity is good news for broken people, and the church is first and foremost a hospital for sinners.

And, of course, a thousand other struggles too embarrassing to admit. 

 4. What are some of the struggles that you can share about living in the workplace and being true to your convictions?

I struggle to share my beliefs and convictions with non-believers in ways that are warm and winsome, honest and true.  In a pluralistic culture whose highest value is tolerance and in a relativistic society that rejects all absolute truth claims as arrogant and suspicious, Christians who believe in the divine authority and truth of the Bible have an uphill battle.  I find myself in the heart of this battle, engaging skeptics and teaching young students how to think rationally and open-mindedly about ultimate issues of faith, morality and truth. 

5. In your opinion, who is Jesus Christ?

I believe Jesus, in concordance with the ancient creeds and the testimonies of the Scriptures, is the divine, heaven-sent Son of God and long-awaited messiah foretold in the Old Testament.  I believe Jesus is the full self-disclosure of the invisible God (cf. Heb 1:3; Col 1:15-20).  Jesus said, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9).  I believe Jesus is one in essence with the Father and Holy Spirit and God incarnate (cf. John 1; Phil 2:6-11).  I believe Jesus is God’s answer to the world’s problem of sin.  I believe God sent Jesus in the fullness of time to rescue the world from the power of sin, Satan and death.  I believe that Jesus, the second Adam, who was without sin was crucified as a substitute atonement for sinful humanity to reconcile humanity to God.  I believe God vindicated Jesus’ death by raising him bodily from the grave after three days. He will come again to judge the living and dead, and usher in God’s everlasting reign of peace and justice.  Jesus is my savior, my lord, my master teacher and example for life. And I’m only getting started…

6. What do you believe to be the greatest benefits of living a life of faith in Jesus Christ?

I think I’ve probably answered this above.  =)  Put simply: I have meaning and purpose in this life (i.e., to advance Jesus’ Kingdom on earth by serving God and others in love) and hope in the life to come.  

Rob Bell is one of the most popular pastor-teachers in America today.  He is best known for his Nooma short films used by churches everywhere.  He was recently interviewed by YouthWorker Journal at a national conference to give us some of his thoughts on youth ministry today.  Here’s the interview originally published on October 2, 2009 in YouthWorkerJournal.com:

YouthWorker Journal: What are some specific tools youth pastors need for effective ministry? Back in my day, if you could play guitar (you needed to know chords C, F and G, but not much more) and could lead kids in wacky games, you pretty much got the job. If you could provide an insight into a Bible verse at the end of some activity, well then, you were gold. What are the magic bullets for today’s youth minister?

Rob Bell: I don’t begin to think about that by wondering, “How do you do youth ministry?” I begin with, “What kind of person are you?” Let’s explore your own experience with the resurrected Christ. So if a youth pastor says, “How do I create a safe place where my kids can deal with their pain?” Let’s first talk about your own parents’ divorce. Let’s talk about how Christ is helping put you back together. A lot of times we’ve been burned because even if someone could play the guitar and got the job, then it turned out the person had a lot of other stuff he or she was carrying. Who doesn’t have some story of a person they respected having a massive collapse spiritually, emotionally, sexually, whatever?

YWJ: OK, the magic bullets, if you don’t mind.

RB: The dominant paradigm in churches is production, not discipleship. It’s about how to keep kids coming—how are the numbers? In the gospels, whenever there were large crowds, Jesus gave a difficult teaching that thinned out the crowd. Over and over, He chose those moments: John 6—Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood. Nice. Very accessible for kids. There is a certain pattern where He’s trying to find out who is serious. Youth workers are put in this position where their paychecks are based on how many people they can keep in the place. When they read the gospels, they realize this whole system seems to be going the other direction. Many youth pastors I’ve met are promoting something they don’t believe.

CONTINUE READING INTERVIEW HERE.

“Therefore, my brothers, you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, that is how you should stand firm in the Lord, dear friends! I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord. Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.” (Phil 4:1-3)

Paul is bringing his thoughts to a conclusion at last as we near the end of his letter — “that is how you should stand firm in the Lord…dear friends” (v. 1). His words are saturated with emotion and heartfelt good will — “you whom I love and long for, my joy and crown.”  We’re reminded again that this is a personal letter of pastoral nature and real, actual human lives are the focus. How often do we read the Bible as stale depositories of truth and Christian principles?  I love the raw humanity that ooze through Paul’s writings.  

Paul takes an opportunity to make it very personal as he mentions two individuals who are not seeing eye to eye.  As one commentary says,

“In a media-saturated culture like ours, where naming the guilty or the grand is a way of life, it is hard for us to sense how extraordinary this moment is. Apart from greetings and the occasional mention of his coworkers or envoys, Paul rarely ever mentions anyone by name. But here he does, and not because Euodia and Syntyche are the “bad ones” who need to be singled out–precisely the opposite. That he names them at all is evidence of friendship, since one of the marks of enmity in polemical letters is that enemies are left unnamed, thus denigrated by anonymity. These longtime friends and coworkers, who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, are no longer seeing eye to eye with each other” (IVP New Testament Commentaries).  

This is the grace-filled Body of Christ doing what it’s called to do: help broken, sinful human beings work through relational differences by the aid of the Spirit in ways that restore unity and bring reconciliation. But such restoration and reconciliation demand the first bold step of confrontation.  Paul does not shy away from this difficult first step but breaks the silence and names the elephant in the room: “I plead with [them]…and I ask you…Help these two women” (v. 2). 

How often do division and personal quarrels invade our churches?  How often do well-meaning but cowardly Christians avoid naming and facing the conflict head-on with grace and truth?  How often do pastors fall short of imitating Paul’s boldness in addressing individuals who are stirring up dissension within the church?  

May we all recommit ourselves to following Paul’s example in letting the reconciling power of Christ have its way in our own fractured, divided churches.

What if we could follow Jesus on Twitter?  This question is asked all the time and is worthy of a good conversation.  I’m glad you can find innumerable articles with similar titles as mine.  Would he give new revelation via Twitter or just quote his own Bible verses daily?  One person was surprised and humored to find that Jesus was following them on Twitter!

It’s certainly fun to ask WWJT.  But I think the great irony of the entire question is that I don’t believe Jesus would ever bother twittering in the first place.  I know this is a controversial statement and many will begin making their case why Jesus certainly would use Twitter to spread his Kingdom message and so on.

I’m not going to build a case for my claim today.  For today I’ll just share my hunch.  My hunch is that Jesus would simply open a Twitter account one day, instantly be noticed by the Twitter community and overnight be followed by millions of people (once he proved he was the real Jesus Christ — and I have no idea how). Then, the twitter world would wait with great anticipation for Jesus to offer his first divine tweet and soon be disappointed when the following message came through the wire:

JESUS CHRIST: “Stop twittering and go into your prayer closet” (cf. Matt 6:6; Luke 5:16).

or

JESUS CHRIST: “Stop following my twitter and start following my lifestyle rhythms.”

or

JESUS CHRIST: “Why follow my twitter when you have the Holy Spirit within you?”

John Barry recently stated the usual critique of our technologically over-stimulated culture in his post What if Jesus Was on Twitter:

Like iPhones and Blackberrys, Jesus is with us all the time. One of the most powerful elements of Christ coming to earth is the fact that He brings the Holy Spirit. The Spirit then becomes our constant advocate and guide here on earth (John 14:16 –26), while Jesus (as the risen Son of God) is our advocate in heaven (1 John 2:1). If only I kept up with Jesus as much as I do with Twitter. So, here’s my pact. I am going to work at constant prayer, and I hope my suggestion of keeping an eye on the noise in your life will help you to do the same. Shut off the computer and turn off your phone sometime today. Try just listening to God. Because after all, he is a God who often shows up in the silence (1 Kings 19:11 –18).

I have written on the issue The Constant Buzz of the 21st Century Technopolis elsewhere (including at Jesus Creed) which I invite you to read.  But we’ve all heard this tune before.  I’m as guilty as everyone else (as I sit here on my laptop!) and long to form better habits and rhythms of holy disconnection from the fire hose of information coming at me from a thousand directions.  But I thought I’d ask once more:

What do you think Jesus would Twitter?  Or would he Twitter at all?

Greg Boyd is involved with some very deep and provocative research and writing at the moment (and always).  He gives us a link to a recently published article entitled “Two ancient (and modern) motivations for ascribing exhaustive definite foreknowledge to God: A historic overview and critical assessment.” If the title is any indication I would guess this is a lengthier read! He also gives a fascinating preview of a very significant book he’s working on called “Jesus Verses Jehovah” grappling with the apparent violence of God in the Old Testament who can seem quite irreconcilable from the picture of God revealed in the person of Jesus in the New Testament.

For anyone who has struggled with the violence, nationalism, vindictive nature and so on of the Old Testament story of God and the world, this book will be a must read when it appears (hopefully) in the summer of 2010.  But for those of you who can’t wait, here’s sneak preview of his outline and argument quoting from Greg’s blog:

The core of the book is structured around six “principles.” Just to provide a little “heads up” as to the direction I’m going, here’s a short definition of each principle.

The Christocentric Principle: All of our thinking about God must be rooted in Christ. Jesus reveals what God has always been like. We thus need to read the Old Testament “through the lens” of Christ.

The Principle of Incarnational Flexibility. If Jesus reveals what God has always been like, then God didn’t start being “incarnational” with the Incarnation. Rather, God has always been willing to humbly “embody” himself within our fallen humanity and has always “borne our sin.” The portrait of Yahweh as a nationalistic, law-oriented, violent-tending warrior god is the result of God condescending to “embody” himself within our barbaric and deceived views of him in order to work toward freeing us from them. (The reference to “god” rather than “God” in this previous sentence is intentional, since I argue God takes on the semblance of a sub-Christ-like “god” when he condescends to work within our fallen framework). Like Nanny McPhee, God is willing to appear as ugly as he needs to in order to free us from our ugliness and eventually reveal himself as he truly is to us (which is what takes place in Christ).

The Principle of Contrastive Pedagogy. Though you’d never get this reading the Old Testament itself, Paul tells us that the most fundamental reason God gave the Law was to increase our sin and, by way of negative example, drive us to Christ. I argue that when we read the Old Testament through the lens of Christ, we can say the same thing about the nationalism and violence of God’s program in the Old Testament. It tells us more about what God is not like and how not to build his Kingdom than it tells us what God islike and how we are to build the kingdom. When Jesus shows up, he reveals a God and a Kingdom that invalidates nationalism, is rooted in empowering grace (not law) and is utterly free of violence, for it is centered on loving and serving enemies.

The Principle of Punitive Withdrawal. When Jesus was crucified, God delivered Jesus up to wicked humans and “the powers.” Moreover, by entering into solidarity with us in our spiritually oppressed and fallen condition, Jesus experienced God-forsakenness. Since all of our understanding about God must be centered on Christ, Jesus’ abandonment and God-forsakenness should form the center of our understanding of how God punishes sin. He does so by withdrawing his protective presence and turning people over to experience the consequences of their decisions — a truth that is confirmed throughout the Old Testament. God’s “wrath” is his withdrawal.

The Principle of Cosmic Conflict. Jesus’ ministry as well as the whole of the Old and New Testaments reveal that the world is engulfed by cosmic forces of destruction. Like a dam being opened, when God withdraws his protective hand to bring judgment, the powers are allowed to carry out their evil intentions and chaos ensues.  Yet, whenever God “pours out his wrath” by withdrawing himself, he does so with a grieving heart and for the ultimate purpose of bringing healing and redemption.

The Principle of Responsible Identification. Though he was in fact all-holy, on Calvary the Son of God identified with our sin to the point of bearing our guilt. So too, the Father is said to have afflicted his Son (Isa. 53) though in fact he merely allowed wicked powers using wicked people to crucify Jesus. When we read the Old Testament through this lens, we find God frequently identifying himself as the agent of violence, though the context makes it clear that he is merely allowing violent agents to do what they want to do. God is portrayed as doing what he actually merely allows.  There are historical and exegetic reasons for this, but the theological reason, I argue, is that God has always been a God who takes responsibility for all that he allows — even though he detests much of what he allows. This is how God bears our sin and why he takes on the semblance of a nationalistic, law-oriented warrior god.

I argue that each of these six principles are rooted in Christ and confirmed throughout Scripture, and they take us a long way in reconciling the crucified God with the violent portrait of God found in the violent strands of the Old Testament.

What do you think of this initial thesis and line of argumentation?  Let me just say that it is certainly not uncontroversial and conventional.  I look forward to being challenged once again by a passionate student and teacher of the Bible who’s not afraid to rethink conventional readings in light of a careful wrestling with the ambiguity and complexities of Scripture and the world in which we live. I don’t agree with everything Boyd teaches, but he constantly challenges me and pushes me back to both Scripture and the centrality of the crucified Jesus who stands at the center of their meaning.

The book of Romans doesn’t mess around. Paul is shooting straight and going to the heart of things.  Our senior youth group is plowing through portions of Romans this fall and winter.  We’re still bogged down in the swamp of chapter 1 and Paul’s description of the fallen human condition is growing darker verse by verse.In the weeks ahead we will be trying to understand the nature and power of that awful three letter word: SIN. So, here’s the big question:

WHAT IS SIN?  HOW DO YOU DEFINE IT?

Now I realize that this question isn’t necessarily a simple one.  But I’m searching for a simple, straight-forward, easy to grasp concept of sin that will give our students something to grab hold of in their own life.  Here’s what sin is NOT: Breaking arbitrary rules set by a killjoy God (though, as we’ll soon see, sin does involve ignoring the Creator’s “rules” in a different sense).  Let’s try to understanding the worldview of the apostle Paul that leads to his understanding of the fallen, sin-infected human condition.  

Paul presumes that there is a sovereign Creator God who has made the world and human beings with a set purpose and this creator has designed the world to operate according to an established moral order.  Perhaps an illustration or two will help us grasp this foundational truth.

Remember the first time you played a new board game — say “Monopoly”?  You open the box and find an assortment of game pieces and a board with curious markings and names on it.  Now, imagine for a moment that you are with a group of friends who have also never played the game.  What do you need to get started? You better hope that the game creator/manufacturer included some instructions to explain the game’s purpose and rules that govern the proper way of playing (e.g., Who goes first? How do you win?  How do you play fair? What behavior qualifies cheating? etc.).  We all know that the game was designed with a set objective, rules and so on. The game is most enjoyable and fun when everybody knows how to play by the rules and nobody tries to cheat and ruin the game.

A biblical worldview believes God, much like Parker Bros, has created the world and human beings with a set purpose and has established certain moral guidelines and proper behavior to govern human existence and maximize enjoyment and bring glory to the Creator.  Sin is tantamount to human beings refusing to play the game of life according to the divine rules and established purposes of God. Put simplistically, Romans 1 describes sin-infected human beings like a room full of children digging carelessly in the Monopoly box, tossing the pieces around thoughtlessly, making up our own rules and playing our own game.  We’re rolling dice, moving pieces around the board, exchanging money at will but no one seems interested in learning how to play the actual game as it was designed to be played according to the divine instructions in the box. To paraphrase Romans 1:18-20: “Although they know the instructions are in the box, they ignore them and instead make up their own rules to play by.”

Sin = living (or playing the game of life) in a way that disregards God’s established “instructions” and “set purposes” human life. Literally, the Greek word for sin is hamartia which is an old archery term meaning “to miss the target.”  While the Monopoly illustration is helpful to a point, it falls way short of capturing the gravity and destructive power of sin in real life.  A wild, restless card table full of kids “missing the mark” by messing up a game of Monopoly is not too big a threat to the moral order of the universe.  We might actually applaud these children for their imagination and creativity in making up their own version of Monopoly.  In real life such tampering with the divine order proves much more costly!  For life really isn’t a game — is it?

You can supply your own superior illustration: whether we compare life to performing heart surgery where if we don’t follow the proper procedures of our med school textbook we endanger one’s life; or the game of golf where if we ignore the OB posts, hazard markers, and avoid playing the fairways our ball ends up in deep trouble.  But the point is clear: God has established a moral order to the universe and human beings thrive when they willingly play by God’s rules.  These “rules” are not meant to inhibit life but to protect us from danger, pain, destruction, conflict and all manner of disordered living.

One last thing.  When we play the “game of life” according to God’s established rules, we will discover that the goal isn’t to win at the expense of others losing.  The very definition of winning in God’s game is that we have a fun, enjoyable time together playing fairly and cooperatively like good kids on grandma’s living room floor.

Now go and play nice!

I am currently teaching a 4-week class on the topic of Heaven with our high school students. What a fascinating and inexhaustible topic to explore!  Among many questions that this raises is ‘What happens immediately upon death?’  Of course, Christians believe the soul lives on beyond the last heart beat and cessation of brain activity.  But is there evidence for this beyond the claims of the Bible?

In my study and research for class this week I realized that Dinesh D’Souza has just released a new book entitled Life After Death: The Evidence which attempts to substantiate belief in life beyond physical death on more scientific grounds rather than merely faith and Scripture.  A recent Huffington post article called “Life After Death: A View From the Edge” by D’Souza summarizes the argument of the book. D’Souza was interviewed on Fox News and you can view the video here. Newsweek covered the book with an article by Jerry Adler entitled Heaven Can Wait. D’Souza bases part of his argument on the study of near life experiences (NDEs).  As Adler writes:

People with NDEs sometimes report out-of-body experiences, such as looking down on themselves from above and witnessing their own resuscitations. Obviously, if this is actually taking place—and not, say, a composite reconstruction of memories drawn from years of ER episodes—then the threshold requirement for life after death has been met: the separation of consciousness from the physical brain. “Near-death experiences show that clinical death may not be the end,” D’Souza writes. Thus they support his larger point, that “neuroscience reveals that the mind cannot be reduced to the brain … consciousness and free will … seem to operate outside the laws of nature, and therefore are not subject to the laws governing the mortality of the body.”

A study of NDEs reveal many common elements shared by those who have crossed over the threshold and come back to tell about it: moving through tunnels, seeing themselves from outside their bodies, being dazzling by bright lights, meeting deceased relatives, reliving their entire life in an instant and so on.  Read more HERE.  I figured why I was in the mood I better check out Don Piper’s best selling book 90 Minutes in Heaven which has been sitting on my shelf for months — not least because I have been a bit skeptical of this type of book.  Piper shares his own heavenly experience after he was pronounced dead at the scene of his car accident only to come back to life 90 minutes later.  Interesting stuff to say the least.

So, one has to wonder how much should be made of these NDEs and strange stories from beyond the grave. Have such folks actually been given a sneak peak of the Heaven Christians believe in?  What do you think of the reliability of the thousands of stories of near death experiences?  Have you read Don Piper’s 90 Minutes in Heaven? What did you think of this book?

“We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:8).

Join the conversation on how to approach Jehovah’s Witnesses when they come to your door at Jesus Creed today.  Scot McKnight’s Jesus Creed blog at Beliefnet.com is ranked the #6 most popular Christian blog, the #1 blog of the emerging church by Technorati and receives nearly 500,000 visitors per month.  Thanks again, Scot.

“If there is one single molecule in this universe running around loose, …then we have no guarantee that a single promise of God will ever be fulfilled. Perhaps that one maverick molecule will lay waste all the grand and glorious plans that God has made and promised to us…” -R.C. Sproul, Calvinist

“There is, I submit, no conceivably weaker view of divine sovereignty than one that is threatened by a single maverick molecule.” -Greg Boyd, Open Theist

From Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views by James K. Beilby, Paul R. Eddy, Gregory A. Boyd

“Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you. For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body” (Phil 3:17-21).

When we’re children we’re encouraged to find good role models to emulate.  When we grow up we still do well to have godly people whose faith and virtue we try to follow.  Interestingly, however, we might question the humility of a person who boldly tells an entire community of believers, “Join with others in following my example” (v. 17).  But this is precisely Paul’s invitation above.  ”Follow me!”  And I think to myself, “How arrogant and rude!”  But perhaps I’m missing his point altogether.

Upon further reflection I believe Paul is not primarily lifting up himself as the example to follow but rather drawing their attention to “the pattern we gave you” (v. 17). In other words, Paul urges people to follow his example insofar as his own conduct aligns with this same pattern of life. So, where does this pattern originate?  

We should know this answer by now: Christ. Paul says this much elsewhere. In I Corinthians 4:16 he strongly states, “Therefore I urge you, imitate me.” But why Paul?  The answer comes in I Corinthians 11:1 where he says, “Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ.” Bingo.  Paul is following the pattern set by Christ and we should follow Paul insofar as he follows Christ.

The sad reality, however, is that many will always live according to a different pattern than Christ — “the pattern of this world” (Rom 12:2).  Paul sees no middle ground for people in this life: people either live with an eternal perspective with our eyes on Christ awaiting our final transformation and redemption; or they live with their minds set on “earthly things” and without reference to the activity of God in Christ. The end for such people according to Paul is not pretty: “Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame” (v. 19).

But before one is tempted to past judgment on such unbelievers Paul provides us with an attitude check. Notice that our attitude toward these “enemies of the cross of Christ” should not be arrogance or anger or bitterness or hostility or judgment (cf. 1 Cor 5:12).  Rather, Paul’s heart breaks to the point of shedding tears for them (v. 18). Elsewhere Paul was willing to give his own life up if only by doing so his fellow Jews would come to know Jesus as Savior: “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel” (Rom 9:2-3).

Should this attitude surprise us coming from someone who is following the example of Christ?  Paul no doubt knows the account of how Jesus wept over Jerusalem as he watched them reject God at their own peril: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing” (Matt 23:37).

So, let us follow Paul as his life follows the pattern set by our Lord Jesus who is both the goal and means of our salvation — the puzzle box cover whose image we will some day reflect.  This is precisely Paul’s point today: “The Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body” (v. 21).