Michael's Blog

From the Nobel Peace Prize to War President (or Bush III)?

After watching President Obama's speech last evening, I wondered if the difference between Obama the War President and Bush the War President is a distinction without a difference.   So, Obama didn't take his decision "lightly" and spent the time since the recent Afghan election "deliberating" I'm hard pressed to see the difference between their policies.  Maybe Bush was a "ready, fire, aim" sort of guy, but Obama is still shooting in the same direction using the same weapons.  Hardly creative problem solving for someone with a Nobel Peace Prize.

Click here for a great article in Slate and here for an insightful blog post from Michael Westmoreland-White.  It seems like the "audacity of hope" has given way to the audacity of saying you are different from those who came before, but in reality you are the status quo all over again.  At the very least, President Obama owes President Bush an apology.

Taking back ground!

I think it's high time that people of faith take back the ground that we surrendered to reason in the last century.  No, I didn't just leave the land of the sane.  Nor am I saying that faith is an unreasonable response to life as we experience it.  What I am saying is that faith is a valid way of knowing that is different than, but not lesser than, human reason.

Thanks to our good friend Descartes, human reason held the dominant position during the Enlightenment or Age of Reason.  Beliefs that were worth believing were based upon clear thinking and solid rational foundations.  Claims that were based on other epistemological foundations, such as tradition, faith, institutional authority, etc. we looked at suspiciously at best.  This wasn't all bad, because much thinking in the Middle Ages was dominated by superstition.  Let's face it, some of that stuff needed to go.

Good church folk didn't throw the baby of faith out with the bathwater of superstition, but they did relegate faith to second class citizenship in the city of Reason.  While not rejecting faith, revelation and the institution of church, they did accept the proposition that humans had the capacity to grasp objective, universal truth.  While faith was nice, reason was King.

This led people of faith to seek to prove that their faith indeed contained objective, universal truths that were accessible by human beings through the exercise of reason.  Thus apologetics became the primary Christian discipline.  We were told that to be good Christians we had to be ready at any moment to give a reasonable defense of the Christian faith.  We bought books and curriculum with catchy titles like "Don't Leave Your Brain at the Door."  

This was, in my opinion, the perfect petri dish for the growth of fundamentalism.   I like Peter Rollin's brief definition of fundamentalism.  He writes, "...fundamentalism can be understood as a particular way of believing one's beliefs rather than referring to the actual content of one's beliefs.  It can be described as holding a belief system in such a way that is mutually excludes all other systems, rejecting other views in direct proportion to how much they differ from one's own." [How (not) to Speak of God pg. 27]

Fundamentalism leaves little room for faith and no room for humility.  When my particular understanding of God is elevated to the point where it is used as the basis for rejecting other people and ideas, it has essentially become a conceptual idol.  "My God" is no god.  "My God" is  man-made.  In order to reject you and your beliefs based upon my beliefs, I also have to hold my beliefs as certain.  That doesn't sound bad until you remember that we are talking about God.  The reality is, once you believe that you fully understand God, that which you fully understand can't possibly be God, it has to be (no) god.  You're not that smart and God's not that small.

Those who nearly had their faith suffocated to death in the church of Reason, breathed in deep the fresh air of postmodernity.  While those beholden to the Age of Reason/Enlightenment mode of doing church have demonized postmodernity as a relativistic and nihilistic philosophical system, others have found a fresh approach to faith that elevates faith back to equal footing with reason.  

To begin with, postmodernity can't possibly be relativistic for to say that there is no such thing as absolute truth is in itself an absolute truth claim.  Which is a terribly modern approach to truth which makes relativism a very modern philosophy in the end.  What it can do is rightly point out that, while absolute truths do exist, human reason is an insufficient instrument through which  to access such truths fully.  Our finite position as human beings always puts pure knowledge beyond our grasp.  Even within science, the King of the intellectual/enlightenment disciplines, there is an acknowledgement that pure, absolute knowledge is illusive.  There is always more data to consider and that data may change the hypothesis.

Thanks to postmodernity, faith can now come off the bench and get in the game.  It doesn't have to play second fiddle to reason because reason is seldom reasonable.  Reason, for the most part, is faith couched in the language of certainty for the sake of winning arguments.  The reality is we all believe things to be true and real that we cannot prove through clear thinking and solid rational processes. And guess what...that's OK.  As a matter of fact (did you catch that?) it can be no other way. You might say, that given the evidence, the only properly reasonable conclusion is that there are not reasonable conclusions. Reason negates itself.

So don't be shy about living by faith!  That's not an encouragement to be unreasonable, but an encouragement to live freely knowing that, while somethings are accessible by reason, not all things are and not all things are fully.  Your faith is a valid way of knowing that isn't lesser than reason, just different.  As it leads you towards life and faith and love it's a good thing.  

On earth as it is...

"...more and more of us are realizing what our best theologians have been saying for quite a while: Jesus' message is not actually about escaping this troubled world for heaven's blissful shores, as if popularly assumed, but instead is about God's will being done on this troubled earth as it is in heaven.  So people interested in being a new kind of Christian will inevitably begin to care more and more about this world, and they'll want to better understand it's most significant problems, and they'll want to find out how they can fit in with God's dreams actually coming true down here more often."

~ Brian Mclaren, from Everything Must Change, pg. 4

Does postmodernism = moral relativism?

Click here for a blog post worth reading from Brian McLaren.  It's especially helpful if you tend to make the "postmodernism = moral relativism" straw man argument.   He is answering the question, "Do postmodern thinkers believe there are no moral absolutes?" posed by a grad student.  Brian answers the question in a clear, accessible and practical way.

Lay down the straw.  Step away from the man you're building.  It will be OK.

The Men Who Stare at Certainty

People would visit the church for a few weeks or months, listen intently, and then come to see me with their questions … I would give them my best answers, but often, after they left, I felt hollow. If they “bought” my answers, I was strangely disappointed. If they pushed back and told me my answers still made no sense to them, I though, “Good for you, because some of them don’t really make that much sense to me either.” (6)

This quote comes from A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith (available February 9, 2010) by Brian McLaren. 

Has the desire for answers that provide certainty and chase away doubt created unrealistic expectations?  Parishioners that believe their Pastors know the right answers to life's most demanding questions? Pastors that believe they have to know the right answers to life's most demanding questions? 

What happens when the Pastor doesn't know, but thinks he/she should know?  What happens when the parishioner doesn't really believe the answers but believes he/she is supposed to believe?

Have we lost the ability to strike a delicate balance between certainty and doubt, knowledge and mystery, thought and experience, belief and action?

Is there a beauty, something inherently Christian, in pushing back against answers that don't make sense, theologies that don't give birth to love, spiritual experiences that don't break out into shalom building?  Is such pushing back a Jesus-like expression of faith?

I appreciate Brian McLaren for this reason ~ he's honest about his struggles as a Pastor who loves Jesus but isn't comfortable in the "faith world" created by the modern/enlightenment project.  To me, his experience seems like that of Martin Luther's, but fought on a different battlefield.  Luther fought the tension between his own sinfulness as a priest and a view of grace/sacrament, the effectiveness of which rested on his righteousness.  If it was his righteousness as a priest that made the sacraments effective, what if he wasn't righteous?  It was in pouring through the scriptures that Luther found words of life ~ that the righteous live by faith alone.

McLaren seems to fight the tension between his own finite understanding of God and the need for absolute certainty/truth that arose through the modern/enlightenment project.  There is tension between having to know the answers because that is what is expected, but also knowing that you don't know the answers, and wondering if you even know the right questions.

I recently saw The Men Who Stare at Goats.  The movie title comes from a psychic experiment where a man stares at a goat and uses his mind to stop the goat's heart. Congregations don't expect their pastors to stop a goat's heart with their mind, but they often ask the Pastor to believe on their behalf by speaking to issues of life (eternal life) and death (eternal death) with absolute certainty using the tool of human reason trained in the academy of theology.  

Is there another way or ways that break out of the modern/enlightenment cage?  Is their life to be found in pushing back against the cult of certainty in search of a coherent Christianity that majors on living like Jesus and minors on "orthodox" understandings of theological minutia?  

Some questions spurred on by Brian's quote...

  

A third way in Christian/Muslim relations

After the Fort Hood shootings, Christian/Muslim relations are once again on the front burner.  I heard many voices calling for an all "Christian" Military.  (Which seems counterintuitive because Jesus told his followers to love their enemies, which at the very least means not killing them).  Other voices calling for all Muslims to be kicked out of the Armed services. To me, this is an impulse in the wrong direction.  It will be very hard to convince the world that Iraq and Afghanistan are not "Holy Wars" with that kind of rhetoric.  If rhetoric turns to policy we will lose friends and gain enemies around the world.

Here's a story from Skye Jathani's website that shows a man who took a different approach to Christian/Muslim relationships. If more Christians and Muslims were willing to lay down their lives in love for even their enemies, instead of killing them, we would have a different world.

Story09 recap (part 2)

 One of the highlights of the Story conference was hearing Don Miller speak.  Don Miller is the author of Blue Like Jazz, Searching for God Knows What, Through Painted Deserts, To Own a Dragon and A Million Miles in a Thousand Years.  I highly recommend reading everything Don has written.  Here are some of my notes from his presentation:

• A story is a character who overcomes a conflict to get what he/she wants.
• Story has an unbelievable power to engage people.
• A character has to sacrifice for the good of others, you have to do more than just win.
• What is true in a story is true in life.  What is beautiful in a story is beautiful in real life.
• A character in a story is only what they do!
• A good character knows what they want!  What they want is what the story is about.
• Conflict is the only what that a character changes.
• Pain changes us.
• Pain makes things more valuable.
• The climax of a story is an action which ends all conflict.
• In real life, people are protagonists who need conflict to grow and change.  But in life there is no climax.  We always experience conflict.  We have an inherint knowledge that something is still wrong.  
• It is bad theology to say that Jesus is the climax that makes all conflict go away.  It comes from commercialism.  We are always looking for the one thing that will make the conflict go away. 
• We are living in a three act play.  We are living in act two.  Act three is the wedding feast of the lamb!

I resonate with what Don is saying. Too often American Christianity strikes me as a product that has over promised and under delivered.  It isn't Jesus' fault.  It isn't God's fault.  It's our fault.  We need to repent.  We need to come to grips with suffering, pain and death.  We need to stop buying books entitled, "365 Promises God Must Keep" and we need to read the Bible more together. 

Holy Saturday at Campus Life

Last evening, I had the opportunity to sit on a panel at an event called Holy Saturday.  Holy Saturday is an event where students get to ask questions, express doubts, etc. about their faith.  I sat on a panel with Ty, Dave, Craig, Pastor Rod and myself.  I had a good time.  There was great diversity among the panelist, some disagreement, but overall the other panelist were very gracious, and I only felt like a heretic a couple of times (not sure if that is good or bad).

Whenever I do these kinds of things there are always some answers that I want back.  I'd like another crack at them to explain myself better.  Two stand out from last night.  Here they are.

Is it a sin to doubt?  I answered with a short "no'  Then I added that I think doubt is actually a virtue.  When pressed on that, I didn't answer as well as I wished.  Here is what I wanted to say.  I see doubt as a virtue because God, while imminent and knowable, is also transcendent.  God is always before us and ever beyond us.  That means that while there are parts of God that we rightly understand, if we say that we fully understand God, that which we understand is no longer God.  Why?  Because if we can fully know God that which we fully know can't possibly be God.  In that way it is healthy, I believe, to look skeptically at that which we think we know.  As Peter Rollins has said better than I, "I don't question God.  I question my conceptions of God, but I don't question God."  This is a virtuous form of doubt, in my opinion, that leads to humility amidst faith.

The Bible is called many things ~ infallible, inerrant, inspired by God, God's word, etc.  What is the Bible to you, what role does it play in your life?   I think my answer blew, to be honest.  If I had another shot, this is what I would say.  There are many different ways to approach the scripture.  I'm most comfortable approaching the scriptures the way Paul approaches the scriptures in his writing to Timothy.  All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for correction, reproof, instruction and training in righteousness.  I think terms like infallible and inerrant are not all that helpful and can divert attention away from the purpose of scripture.   As I see it, the purpose of scripture is to lead us to belief in God.  The best definition of "belief in God" that I've ever seen comes from Peter Rollins.  Belief in God means to have your entire being caught up in a commitment to transforming the world in love.  When you live into what the Bible teaches, as followers of the way of Jesus, that is the result.

 

Story09 recap (part 1)

 I started this post last Friday, after returning from Story09 in Chicago.  Then....I finished day 1, my computer lost it, and I had to start over.  Then...I got sick and I've been in bed, more or less, since Friday afternoon.  Feeling much better now.  I'm glad I took notes.  It was a great conference and I met some new friends!  

Here are my reflections on the various speakers/presenters/preachers/prophets...

• Ed Young - Some stuff Ed said that stuck with me;  "Everybody wants to reach people until you start reaching people", "It's healthy for some people to leave" (very true), "Who are YOU (not the church program, but YOU) reaching?"  Overall, I had the feeling that Ed had seen the Sea Parable over at I Love Pinatas.  Then he took the cool animated parable and turned it into a cheesy presentation that rhymed.  That may sound harsh, but I think if we are going to talk about Jesus, we should talk about Jesus.  
• Dave Gibbons - Dave is a pastor and author of The Monkey and the Fish (haven't read).   Dave talked about how our metrics (how we measure success) impact our message.  The reality is, if our metrics are skewed, our communication will be skewed too.  In American churches, we spend 60-80% of our budgets on staff and buildings.  What does that say about our willingness to engage a world in pain with the gifts God has given us?  He also talked about how we go about the art of spiritual formation.  Instead of a process that is driven by communicating information (101, 201, 301, 401...Wow!!! You're now a mature Christian) he talked about listening to people's stories, getting to know them and where they have come from, and collaborating with other churches in order to steer people towards what they need to grow.  He also challenged us to develop a deeper theology of suffering.  Good stuff.
• Chris Seay - Chris strikes me as a pastor/theologian with a heart for people and a vision of what Jesus followers can accomplish if they follow Jesus.  On many occasions Chris uncomfortably (but humorously) took some rhyming jabs at Ed Young.  Then Chris moved in the direction of exploring the way Jesus used stories in his teaching.  Jesus didn't tend to wrap up his stories by telling people the point when he was done.  He lauded the contribution of postmodernity which taught us that "words only point us somewhere" and helped to strike a blow at the Biblidolotry present in many modern approaches to the scriptures.  As a key figure behind The Voice of the New Testament project, he spoke well of the power of scripture to transform as they point us to a transcendent God and a Liberating King Jesus.
• John Ortberg was the first cat to mention my favorite word, Shalom!  John was hammering prophetic nails as he compared the "me" centered culture that focuses us on the American dream (right school, right job, right spouse, healthy kids, vacations at Disney, etc.) to the Shalom building vision of God.  His message; "Quit being about your story and ask God to make you a part of His story and His dream!"  A good challenge.
• Nancy Beech lost me!  She read a lot from a book she liked by a guy whose name I could never understand.  I understood her words, but I didn't know what she was trying to say.  Then a girl came out a read a story that Willow will use this Advent season.  It was a cool enough story!  Their creative team will present it well, I'm sure.
• Blain Hogan (sp?) came up and led a confession piece they did at Willow.  I tried to meet Blain but I couldn't catch up with him.  He's done a few short films with my brother-in-law, Dylan Griffith.  My daughter interned on a short film (soon to be completed) that they did last summer.  He's a talented artist and follower of Jesus.
• Stacy Spencer flat out preached!  [WARNING: RELEVANT ASIDE FOLLOWING] As the only African American speaker at the conference (that I'm aware of, anyway) his presence pointed out the elephant in the room.  The whole experience was a largely white, middle, upper-middle class affair with churches that have a great deal of resources to have people like "communications directors" on their staff. I attended a seminar entitled "What we can learn from the poor" led by a CEO and sat through a session on church branding by a guy who kept saying to make sure we allocate the proper assets to branding.  I think he meant this will costs lots of money.   [ASIDE OVER]  Stacy was the first guy that gave me some practical insight on how to communicate in a sermon the way someone might communicate through a movie.  He gave us 5 things that are in movies that should be in messages.  1)  Dilemma - what is the dilemma that the message will address?  2)  What does the Bible text have to say about the dilemma?  3)  Put "me" in the movie - make people sympathetic/care for the characters.  4) Twist - every great story has a twist.  Like, three days later, Jesus rose from the dead!  5) Redemption - Every great story is about redemption.  Good stuff from Stacy Spencer!  He pastors a congregation in Memphis, TN and I liked him.

More in the next post...

What's in a joke?

This morning my daughter Isabelle had Sabrina, the Teenage Witch on the tele before school.  As I walked through the room, the show caught my attention.  Sabrina and her two friends has a shopping cart full of stuff that they were taking to a local shelter to donate to the poor.  Then I heard this line...

"You know the best thing about donating stuff to the poor?  You get to buy new stuff!"

That shocked me, to say the least.  Then the joke progressed as Sabrina's friends made her look homeless as to embarrass her in front of a boy she liked.  Two powerful images.  Both of them heartbreaking.  In 15 sec. of television.

But it did get me thinking.  Do I do the same thing?  Is my lifestyle disconnected from the lifestyle of the least of these?  Am I more comfortable stereotyping the homeless for a laugh than engaging the homeless in love?   

It's the age old question; Does TV shape reality or reflect reality or both?  It makes me uncomfortable that people would learn about service and the homeless through this Sabrina bit.  At the same time, it makes me more uncomfortable when I consider the reality the show reflects.  We are more like this than we like to admit.  On a subjective level, we give to the poor.  Yet, we never consider the part we play on the objective level that creates the social conditions where it is acceptable for some to have too much when most have too little. If we have too much we are glad that we don't have too little. We are glad that after we give, we can still afford to get new stuff.  This is one of the reasons that poverty continues.

What to do?  To paraphrase Pete Rollins, don't make poverty history, make poverty voluntary!  As Jesus people we should joyously enter into poverty!  That sounds a bit harsh, but it also sounds like something Jesus would say and did say.  It also sounds like what Jesus did.  It sounds like something transformative. 

Most of us live somewhere between "giving to the poor as we buy more stuff" and "joyously entering into poverty!"  Jesus calls us in love to move from the former towards the later. That doesn't sound like an easy journey, and it is not.  It does sound like life!  Who's in?