This semester, I’m taking a class called “Capstone Seminar in Christian Life.” It’s pretty much the “capstone” course for every single person who graduates from JBU, reserved only for seniors. One of the main focuses in the class is to examine, study, practice, and hopefully cultivate spiritual disciplines in our own lives. Since my degree falls within the realm of the Bible division, I am required to do a little extra work as part of my degree. This extra work is a research paper on a particular spiritual discipline. Included in this assignment is the admonition to actually practice the spiritual discipline. Makes sense, doesn’t it? It doesn’t do a whole lot of good to learn about something that it a tool to help us grow in our faith and not actually put it into practice and find out about it ourselves.

The spiritual discipline that I am researching for my project this semester is that of writing. As far as I can tell, just about every single major figure in the history of Christianity has been a well-published author. Perhaps that is what makes them a major figure; regardless, writing has been at the bedrock of Christian doctrine and practice. It continues today with prominent pastors and theologians publishing works. It’s hard to find a pastor of a large church who has not published a work. So, I am going to research the spiritual discipline of writing throughout this semester and figure out what it is about this practice that so many influential Christians find worthwhile.

Additionally, I will be practicing my own spiritual discipline of writing through this blog. I hope to post about three times a week on a topic that has to do with Christianity, spirituality, or theology in some form or fashion. Perhaps I will post some of what I am finding in my research as I prepare my paper. Some posts will probably be commentary on scriptures. Others might focus on personal encounters and lessons I’ve learned recently. Chances are, I will comment on current events through a Christian worldview.

I pray that this will be a beneficial practice for me as well as for anyone who might stumble upon these words of mine.

In keeping with the theme of my last post, I found this quote from Anthony Smith, someone who has more authority to talk about racial issues in the church than I do:

For instance, many Christians are influenced by a particular form of individualism that makes it extremely difficult to see how we are complicit with the “principalities and powers” in how they continue to divide the body of Christ racially. Many Christians think that this is simply a matter of cultural taste and expressions that divide us racially in Christ’s body. Individualism along with consumerism hinder discernment in seeing how the divisions are due in part to the dis-ordering work of the Powers. When going to a black church as opposed to a white church is a matter of personal/cultural choice and taste, we are in trouble.

The whole paper can be downloaded here: Practicing Pentecost: Discovering the Kingdom of God Amidst Racial Fragmentation (pdf)

Tags: ecclesiology, race, racism, church

It’s a good thing no one actually reads my blog, because I might get in trouble with this next post.

It’s not as timely as it could be, but I’ll write it nonetheless. It has to do with hurricane Katrina. I had been thinking about the racial implications of what was happening those first few days and trying to decide if there was some weight to the argument that the slow response to aid the victims was due to racism. This CNN article on September 13 made me think about it again and I have come to a conclusion. Here’s my take:

From the perspective of the majority (typically white people, of whom I am a part), the slow response we saw to hurricane Katrina was not based on racism. However, the problem with the perspective of the majority is that racism is (usually) simply discrimination based on the color of someone’s skin. And of course, we in America are not so ignorant, so uneducated, so barbaric as to deny someone proper treatment simply because that person has a certain color of skin. No, we have come far past the trespasses of our ancestors and have put this kind of racism behind us.

However, what about discriminating on some other grounds? What about denying someone proper dignity and respect based upon his or her level of education? Based upon his or her economic status? Based upon the way he or she talks? Based upon the quality of housing he or she lives in? Based upon the area in which he or she lives? Based upon the structure of his or her family? What if we are discriminating against people because they live in a culture so different from our own that we do not even have the ability to perceive our own discrimination?

I have heard so many people say, “Why did they stay?… How stupid can you be not to leave?… If they would have just gotten out of there, we wouldn’t have to go save them…. If they would have followed orders and left, they wouldn’t have had to go stay in the horrid living conditions of the Superdome…” and the list goes on. You know what I’m talking about. The problem is that the people who are saying these things are putting themselves in the situation of those stranded in New Orleans rather than putting themselves in the situation as well as the status of those in New Orleans. Of course, if I lived in New Orleans in the life I am now living, I would have left, no questions asked.

But, if I lived in New Orleans for my whole life, if I was born there, if I had no father, if I had to watch friends die growing up, if I had to literally fight for my life to survive in my neighborhood instead of worrying about petty things like homework, if I couldn’t afford to go to college, if I didn’t know anything other than waking up in the morning hoping I would find a way to make a few dollars, if I didn’t have a car, if I didn’t have a credit card, if I didn’t have a bank account, if I didn’t know anyone outside of my neighborhood, if I had only one hundred dollars to my name, if that was me, then I would stay. Left to my own, I would have no choice but to stay.

And therein lies the problem. From the perspective of the majority, we aren’t racist because we don’t discriminate on the basis of the color of someone’s skin. How dare you call us racist. We only discriminate on the basis of someone being different than we are economically, culturally, educationally, socially, but not racially. Just because most of the people who we discriminate against in these ways happen to be black (in the case of New Orleans) isn’t our fault. All we know is that we aren’t discriminating based on the color of someone’s skin.

It’s time we wake up as a nation, and especially as a church, and see that racism goes deeper than the color of a person’s skin. Racism is still alive in this country because we are unwilling to do what it takes to take the perspective of the other, unwilling to see the world from their eyes, unwilling to understand what it is like to live as a minority that is stuck in a cycle of poverty, violence, and neglect.

I’ve often heard people say “I have no problem with black people. However, I don’t like when they wear those big saggy jeans down below their butts. I don’t like it when they talk the way they do. I don’t like the music they listen to. I don’t like the way they ‘pimp out’ their cars. I don’t like the way they act. If they just wouldn’t do all those things, I’d be fine. But I’m sure not racist.” The problem is that these people don’t see the fact that in saying these things they are rejecting the entire black culture rather than just an individual. The culture that those people grow up in tells them no different. They don’t know any other way to live. By asking black people to stop doing the above things, you are asking them to stop being black. This, my friends, is a tragedy. We need to realize that there is a whole culture out there that is completely different from anything we know, yet that is all some people know. That is their world. Our definition of racism needs to be expanded from only discrimination based on the color of someone’s skin to include discrimination based upon one’s culture being different from our own.

I would venture to say that the slow response to hurricane Katrina was in fact a problem of racism. It was racist because no one anticipated that that many people would still be left and have no where to go and no way to get themselves the help they need. It was racist because we thought that people were economically able to follow the orders they were given. It was racist because it was only the poor who were left.

So, it is our duty as Americans, and especially our duty for those of us who call ourselves Christians to first of all help these people who are completely and utterly different than us. Secondly, we are called to implement strategies to break the cycle of poverty, violence, and oppression, and truly give our minority brother and sisters an equal opportunity at this life. Hurricane Katrina was a sad reminder of how far we have to go, but hopefully it will be a catalyst for future positive change.

***Note: For anyone who does happen to stumble across this post, I am a white male trying to understand what it is I need to do to help my brothers and sisters across this world, regardless of culture or skin color. I may have made some inaccurate generalizations about those who were left in New Orleans as a result of hurricane Katrina, but I am using it to make a point. I do not want to lump all black people into one easily definable group. I know you are a much richer, more complex people than that. I am using specific, extreme examples in order to make a point that will hopefully result in a positive outcome for all minorities. I hope no offense is taken in my above post; if there is any, I apologize. Feel free to leave feedback if you disagree with me and can help me form a more accurate perspective of those who are discriminated against.***

Tags: Katrina, racism, classism, equality, New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina

I’ve been thinking about my pragmatism post lately. In it, I said that maybe the event wasn’t as successful as I thought, even though it had good “results.” I had read a post on pragmatism saying that we shouldn’t be happy with results and should instead focus on obedience, which I agreed.

The problem I have been wrestling with however, is that, as heretical as this may sound, “obedience” is exceedingly difficult to define. Can any church service, any event, any ministry be 100% obedient? If it isn’t completely obedient, how obedient does it have to be? What aspects have to be obedient? The preaching? The worship style? The worship lyrics? The worshippers? How “disobedient” do things have to get before you can say that an event wasn’t faithful to God?

Tim Challies’ post seemed to say that it will be obvious when an event is obedient or not. I don’t think that simple, clear delineations like that exist though. Instead, it seems to me that obedience, especially in terms of ministies or events can be judged on a sliding scale. So the question is, how obedient do we have to be, or is there some other criteria that we should be using?

Tags: church, ministry, pragmatism, obedience

Steve Bush over at Generous Orthodoxy thinks “Resisting consumerism is surely one of the primary ecclesial tasks in the 21st century world.” Although his primary concern in the article isn’t with consumerism, but with the mis-labeling of all liturgical creativity as consumer-driven, this sentence nevertheless struck me. And I wholeheartedly agree. Way to go Steve.

If I had more time, I’d think up some of the other “primary ecclesial tasks,” but I don’t.

Tags: Generous Orthodoxy, Church, Consumerism, Mission

This past Saturday, an event took place at our church (where I am the youth pastor). It was an event that I really wasn’t excited about and didn’t want to be a part of. But, being the youth pastor, I was sort of forced into it. Let me explain.

A few months ago, a lady in the church came up to me telling me that she really wanted to get Jami Smith to come to our church and do an event for the youth. Jami leads a worship band that goes around the country leading worship at youth camps, retreats, conferences, etc. She’s quite talented and I love her songs and have no problem with her and the career that she has. My problem aat first was twofold: 1.) I had been at the church for about a month and didn’t know if this was a good idea because I didn’t know the students yet, and 2.) I am highly against putting on an event just because someone plays the guitar well, sings great, and writes good songs. I have some theological misgivings about building an event around a person, no matter who they are. So, I told the lady that I’d think about it, but there’s no way we could do it in the very near future. I didn’t hear from her for a while and thought she had forgotten about it.

Then a few months later, she came and talked to the pastor about it and told him how much it would cost. He said there was no way that the church would be able to cover close to the cost of the event. If it was going to happen, she was going to need to find individual donors to cover the cost. I didn’t think anything of it. But apparently this lady took that as a green light to go out and get donations and book the event.

I found out around the very end of July that this lady had booked Jami Smith, paid the deposit, and that she was going to be here on August 27th. Less than a month away. And we had no reason for any event to take place and other than this lady liked Jami Smith. We got together and had a meeting and I was expected to do pretty much the rest of the planning for the actual event. I was not happy about this. If an event like this was going to take place, I would have wanted at least a few months notice so that I could try and get other youth groups on board and make this a multi-church, interdenominational event. But with less than a month to go from absolutely no idea this event was going to happen to Jami Smith being here on the 27th, I was skeptical. So, I called up a speaker to come and speak at the event, came up with a theme, etc. The event was only going to be 2 hours long, which I also didn’t like because I feel like you can’t do much with only 2 hours with a group of total strangers.

Anyways, to make a long story short, the event went off pretty well, there were 190 people here, and it seemed like there were some “decisions” made. So, I got the feeling that maybe God used this event in spite of my skepticism and lack of enthusiasm for this event.

And then I read Tim Challies post on pragmatism this morning. Now, I don’t agree with Tim on a lot of things, but pragmatism is one area where I feel like Christians are missing the point (However, I am a little stumped about the whole “bearing fruit” thing that scripture talks about. Sounds at times like pragmatism to me). Just to do things because they “work” has in my opinion taken then church to the sorry state that it finds itself in today. We cannot be happy just because things were a “success.”

And I realized that I did become happy with the event Saturday night because it seemed “sucessful.” Even though I didn’t like the reason behind the event. Even though I had some theological problems with what I knew was going to happen and how people were going to be asked to make a decision.

So now I am rethinking about how I feel about Saturday night’s event. Maybe it wasn’t as successful as I thought. Maybe it doesn’t matter. Or maybe God did use it in spite of me. I don’t know.

The problem is, if I’m not pragmatic, I’ll probably lose my job. So what do I do?

The next book I hope to read for my own personal pleasure and edification (read: not for class) is Stan Grenz’ Primer on Postmodernism. I was flipping through the pages today and noticed that in chapter 7, “The Gospel and the Postmodern Context,”Grenz has subtitles describing post-individualism, post-rationalism, post-dualism, and post-noeticentricism (is that a word?) as they pertain to the gospel.

As I read through many emergent-type blogs I see the phrase post-_____ (fill in the black) quite often. Post-liberal, post-conservative, post-evangelical, etc. Seldom do I see the four “posts-” that Grenz has listed in his book, which I find mildly surprising considering Grenz was always considered one of the theological friends of the emerging church.

I don’t know why I am writing this. I guess I am wondering if Grenz started the “post-” trend or if it can be found elsewhere. And why are we no longer claiming to be “post-” as Grenz lays out in his book? Was he wrong? Are we going somewhere else with ourselves? Is postmodernism different that Grenz understood it?

When I read the book I’ll find out more.

Tags: postmodern, postmodernism, emergent, emerging church

So, it seems like I’ve been reading a lot about people’s praise for Miroslav Volf’s Exclusion and Embrace, so I decided to check it out for myself. I’m only about 65 pages into it, but so far it is, as Tony Jones calls it, “mind-bendingly good theology.” A few quotes that struck me:

His explanation of Paul’s reconciliation of the universality of God’s being with the cultural particularity of his revelation (to specifically the Jewish people):

Paul’s solution to the tension between universality and particularity is ingenious. Its logic is simple: the oneness of God requires God’s universality; God’s universality entails human equality; human equality implies equal access by all to the blessings of the one God; equal access is incompatible with ascription of religious significance to genealogy; Christ, the seed of Abraham, is both the fulfillment of the genealogical promise of Abraham and the end of genealogy as a privileged locus of access to God; faith in Christ replaces birth into a people.(Exclusion and Embrace, 45)

Volf’s addition to the Barmen Declaration:

“You were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God saints from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9). “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer males and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

All the churches of Jesus Christ, scattered in diverse cultures, have been redeemed for God by the blood of the Lamb to form one multicultural community of faith. The “blood” that binds them as brothers and sisters is more precious than the “blood,” the language, the customs, political allegiances, or economic interests that may separate them.

We reject the false doctrine, as though a church should place allegiance to the culture it inhabits and the nation to which it belongs above the commitment to brothers and sisters from other cultures and nations, servants of the one Jesus Christ, their common Lord, and members of God’s new community. (Exclusion and Embrace, 54)

It seems that Volf’s book has vast implications for missions, American Christians (or any Christian for that matter), and hopefully will offer some practical insights into how to deal with the “ethnic cleansing” going on around the world that he speaks about so often in the book. I’m looking forward to the rest.

Tags: Exclusion and Embrace, Miroslav Volf, Barmen Declaration

I just finished reading Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller. It was a refreshing read. I didn’t know what to expect and read it on a recommendation from Rusty, who said it was a good, and easy, read. He was right about it being an easy read. It’s one of those books where you read it and you look down and say, “wow, I’ve read 30 pages already” when you think it’s been like 10. I guess that’s a good thing.

It was essentially a spiritual autobiography that was surprisingly orthodox. After seeing it was highly endorsed by Brian McLaren, I thought it might be a little more “cutting-edge” or Emergent theologically, but it didn’t seem to be. It was very orthodox when it came to theology, just unorthodox in his mode of presentation, which is what made it a fun and refreshing read. I seemed to identify a lot with Miller as I read it as well, which made it all the more enjoyable. I guess you could call it a sort of modern-day Confessions. Just a lot lighter.

Anyhow, I took some things away form it and liked a lot of his insight into the human condition and the fact that when it comes down to it, we’re all just flat-out selfish. I also enjoyed his epiphanies about things like thinking we are better than close-minded fundamentalists because we are willing to think liberally and intellectually, when actually we are no better off than the fundamentalist by thinking ourselves better than them (wow, does that make sense?). He wrote with a very high degree of humility and authenticity. I recommend it.

Up next: Exclusion and Embrace by Miroslav Volf

Tags: emergent, Blue Like Jazz, Donald Miller

I get to see Noah today. I’m in Siloam on “business” and so we’re meeting up for a bit. Should be exciting.