Reflecting on EDC – Dave Kinnaman’s UnChristian Presentation – Post 3

At the Eastern District Conference, our main speaker was Dave Kinnaman.   First, I’d like to say that I loved that our district invited him.  But I am a skeptical soul by nature, so I was suspicious that he wouldn’t be as proactive as his research in UnChristian indicated.   In the back of my mind, I was concerned that he wouldn’t take advantage of the opportunity to say to a bunch of pastors in the Northeast that according to the research, we have a serious problem communicating the crux of Christ’s message to young people.  But this became yet another reason why we shouldn’t pay too much attention to the skeptics.

 

He did bring the bad news.  As you may know, the first line of his book UnChrisitan reads, “Christianity has an image problem”.  I think it takes some …. uhh, courage (yes the 5 letter word I was looking for was courage) to travel around and say what he’s saying.  What else can you say about a young guy who stands in front of a lot of traditional pastors and tells them that the research among young non-Christians he has conducted as led him to several conclusions? Christians are hypocritical, homophobic, judgmental, and the greatest issue is their superficiality. 

 

And he said it wearing a button-up shirt and jeans.  He said the airline lost his luggage and aside from being skeptical, though I have no reason to disbelieve it, I’m pretty sure he was just going to wear another pair of jeans.  I say that because in some of our conservative churches, if you have something important to say, you need to be wearing a tie to be heard.  I was encouraged that many of our pastors were dressed down as well and there really was a relaxed atmosphere.  But I guess that’s how it was when it’s not Sunday.

 

My senior pastor heard him.  He told the church this past week that he appreciated what was said and highlighted what Dave said about the need in being “spiritual entrepreneurs”.  There’s a lot to say there, maybe for another day.

 

Kinnaman also said that the church’s biggest problem is its superficiality.  I appreciated that as one who is guilty of it and as one who has been burned by it.  I recommend picking up a copy of the book.  It’s a great resource to be familiar with.

Reflecting on the 'debate' between Christopher Hitchens and Lorenzo Albacete

Monday, my friend (I only have one – the jr. high youth pastor who is also named Tim.  Yep, I have to employ people for them to be my friend. And yes, he was required to attend with me and drive with me). Anyway, we to a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete.  It was a free event at The Pierre Hotel in Manhattan sponsored by the Templeton Foundation’s “The Big Questions” Series and the Washington Post’s “On Faith” program.  I received the invitation through Socrates in the City.  The debate lasted for a little over an hour and was moderated by Sally Quinn of the Washington Post and Jon Meacham from Newsweek.

The Monsignor began by expressing the admiration he had for Hitchens and that he liked his best selling book, God is Not Great. I thought this was a nice gesture but as the debate developed, his extreme kindness got frustrating for me (and for many others).  The problem was the Monsingnor kept agreeing with Hitchens.  At first I thought he was being polite, then I speculated he might be “ropa-doping” him Ali Style and was about to counter him with some great upper cut point – but that never happened.  Now, I don’t want to see something that belongs on the Jerry Springer show but this was not an interesting debate.  Nor did it seem interesting to Hitchens who eventually tried to push the Monsignor to a point of difference.  Finally after Hitchens dropped the F-bomb the Monsignor told him not to be flippant (as Hitchens accused him of being earlier in the debate).  It was a great stand that lasted a little longer than an agnostic’s prayer.

What was that I wanted to see?  A debate or a discussion or  something that combined wit and courage.  As a new friend pointed  out, the idea of debates are outdated.  He may be right, however  couldn’t we manage some kind of intelligent discussion with sharp  and articulate disagreement?   Certainly I did not have some deliusion  that the guy would be so good that Hitchens would fall on his knees  and repent but was hoping for a discussion.  In the future, I’d be  interested in seeing a guy like Hitchens “discuss matters” with a guy like Tom Wright.

A late night reflection on emerging church, power, and conversation …

Evan has a put up a reflection that starts with Phyllis Tickle, and continues by sharing his impressions of the emerging church movement, it’s effect on Christendom, power, and the Church itself.  I always enjoy talking to Evan so you might enjoy reading his post.

That said, I’m not sure I can commit to the reduction of “us versus them”.  One of the pleas of the postmodern mindset, is the idea of both or more and being careful of the idea of exclusivity.  As one who connects with the emergent church, I see it “many against us” while emergent-thinking types ask, “Why not us too?”.

Thus, I don’t see this as a fight for power.  Feel free to call me naïve.  Further, I think most who consider themselves to be emergent don’t want “power” in the traditional sense.  Influential, maybe, but only by those who want to be influenced.  Speaking for myself, I want to engage in conversation with whoever is interested in hearing my voice.  Either as a fellow child in the Lord or if one does not recognize themselves as a child of the Lord, then as whoever you’d identify me as.  Just like I am willing to listen and converse with the voices of others.  This is not universalism, and it’s only conversation and if we have such a great gospel, then let us refrain from only sharing it on our turf and terms. You can have the “power”, I just want conversation.  For the record, I have not interpreted Evan’s post to extend this far, he just got me thinking so do not read this as a rebuttal.

Back to the church context, Paul seems clear to me that we cannot all share the same convictions.  We don’t have to agree on even majority of our points.  (Certainly the essentials and I realize that we may differ on what we may identify as essential).  You don’t have to read my books either.  Frankly, I cannot see certain people reading writers like Jones, Pagitt, McLaren, (or even Bell!).  Emergent/emerging/whatever is not a new brand of evangelism but it is dialoguing with new people and some of them are people would have never stepped foot in my church.  Now, my brother Evan does not imply that he thinks this but I firmly suspect that others do.  Among the evidence is instead of brotherly discussion, many of us have been attacked, punished, and rejected as apostates.  That said, don’t try to burn my books either, just as I have never damaged a single copy of any of the Left Behind, Prayer of Jabez, or WWJD  books, bracelets, or refrigerator magnets.  For that, I think you owe me one.  

pssst – Christian shirts don't work

At the Revelation Generation music festival, I stopped by one of those Christian t-shirts tables.  Yeah, not sure I’m going to be able to stop once I start.  

First, I believe in righteous anger but I cannot tolerate the argument that this is a form of it.  Please comment/email me/contact me if you are the guy/girl who came to know Christ from reading someone’s Christian t-shirt.  I’m still looking for that story, “I was walking through the mall and this shirt read, “You think it’s hot here?  God.” and I asked the guy, “Dude, what must I do to be saved?”.  

Second, they only rally Christian  (Todd Hiestand has an interesting post regarding preaching) and offend the skeptical, the hurting, the marginalized and the normal.  

Third, though they’ve been out for years and years, the”attitude” shirts are too much of an imitation.  In a world without consequences, I would open up my own Holyster store so I could create these type Christian shirts.  They’d pretty much be the same type of shirts as we have now, but I’d market them like Abercrombie.  I’d employ Amy Grant’s strategy of “being sexy for Jesus” (Rolling Stone, June, 6, 1985) and have good-looking models with six pack abs holding their shirts that read, “Virginity is HOT”.  Maybe I’d even produce a teen coming to age movie, entitled, “He’s All That”.  I’d have the ‘t’s look like crosses.  Unsuspecting audiences would come expecting American Pie and we’d hit em up with uhhh … well … I’d have to pray about it but it would be a solid bait and switch which some consider to be great evangelism.  

Fourth, they’re usually lame.  

I present to you exhibit A:

You might ask, “What does this even mean?”

“Well, I’m glad you asked.  Please read the back of my shirt that has some Scripture and an explanation how porn “poses” as love but it isn’t really.  You see?  Now go and sin no more”.  Is that how you would actually speak to someone?  If so, you might want to rethink some of your social skills.

Here’s one that I thought was pretty good ….

until I read the back:

Should have just left the back blank.  The front actually has the potential to start meaningful conversation.  

Then there’s the pro-life shirts.  First, please know that I have very strong views against abortion.   However, if you have ever spoken to someone you love and respect (even if they are a stranger), some rhetoric, regardless of how clever it may be, is not helpful.

For example:

Could you imagine a pro-choicer having a shirt that says, “It’s a fetus – get over it!”???  I’d go nuts.  

What if someone walked around with an anti-capital punishment t-shirt that had a picture of a woman strapped to the electric chair with the fifth commandment over top of it, “Thou Shalt Not Kill!”.  I may not go nuts but I think that shirt would be distasteful.

I want to be careful and not say, “We shouldn’t wear these shirts” because those type of statements, among many things, sound legalistic to me.  Perhaps we can put some different thought into what we wear (and don’t wear).

 

Don't tell Hauerwas, but I preached a Father's Day Sermon

So yesterday was my first Father’s Day.  It felt great though I am still trying to wrap my head around it.  Truth be told, I’ve been so happy and blessed every since we got Nathan that Father’s Day was great and all, but today feels just as good as Saturday did.

I did get to preach yesterday too and that felt good.  Not good in the performing sense but good in the I feel like the Lord is using me to some extent sense.  Also the congregation seems to have really warmed up to me this past year and I feel that there’s a better connection.  

My friend, Evan, reminded of Stanley Hauweras’ shock value line of American flags, mother’s day sermons, and whatever else as being non-Christian things and not being acceptable in churches.  If you don’t know Hauerwas, he’s the intelligent man’s version of Tony Campolo, only less spiritual (yes, I’m kidding.  I don’t know even know what ‘being spiritual’ means).  

So I gave a Father’s Day sermon that I said was directed to everyone but to the men first.  I remember hearing that these types of sermons leave some feeling isolated but I think that’s kinda short-sighted.  If we come to worship and not just to hear a sermon as being the focal point, then I think the sermon can be topical and specific from time to time because whoever enters the sanctuary should have the intent of worshipping God first, and having Him “speak to you” as secondary.  

I think of all the times I heard sermons and illustrations relating to marriage before I was married as a good thing.  I like hearing about the Proverbs 31 woman (from time to time) because I think she’s great.  Though I don’t plan on dying of old age soon, some of the messages that are geared towards older people are sometimes memorable to me because chances are if I live long enough, I’ll get old too.  (yes, I am aware of what I just wrote, but I am trying to be funny.  I’ll try harder).  I personally think that you can be blessed from pretty much almost any sermon, even if the guy sucks at his delivery.  If he (or even she!) is being faithful to their calling, then I must be faithful not only as a listener, but as a worshipper.

Reflecting on McLuhan's "message is the medium" (and Hipps)

I am taking an intensive class through Biblical called “Ministry and Media”.  It’s being taught by Pastor Tim Lucas from Liquid Church and we are encouraged to blog of course.

One of the books we are reading and posting feedback on our class site is The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture by Shane Hipps (who was at Fermi’s Q Conference – fantastic).

This was the assignment that we were to respond to:
“Marshal McLuhan famously observed, “The medium is the message.”  Yet, a lot of evangelicals claim media is value neutral.  Do you think media affects us as powerfully as Hipps suggests?  Or do you think it is truly neutral?  Give some examples of ways media has impacted you powerfully (for good or for ill).  In a well-thought out paragraph, show your interaction with the text we’re reading!”

Here was my response:

Like everyone, I agree with McLuhan and love the idea. Though it’s rare that I would defend an established evangelical opinion, especially one concerning the view on technology, I’d like to unpack this a little. Evangelicals are scared to death of watering down the message. If they believed in tattoos, they’d get Rev. 22:18-19 inked (“If anyone adds anything [to this book] … God will add to him the plagues ….”). Kidding (sorta) but our modern “interpretation” puts a great deal of fear in us that results in guarding the message. There is almost a theological reason to disagree with McLuhan.

In a sermon I preached this Mother’s Day, I said something to the effect of “The Gospel is changing”. I learned quickly that the “bolts of lightening” were not electric at all but were pews being thrown from the balcony. “I said, wait the resurrection is still true but the way my parents understood the Gospel is different then how I understand it … which is different then how my child(ren) will understand it … Jesus still died and was raised BUT understanding that is different….”. As they elderly women dismounted from the projection screen that they partially tore off, I tried to use the example that Rob Bell has regarding the idea of having a “personal relationship with God”. He reminds us that it is a new idea to the church, it’s an invention from this century’s evangelical movement. This revelation of course resulted in the biggest offering ever collected …

This based on a true story account did not end in tragedy because for many of them, the message was still in tact. Surprisingly, I did receive several positive comments from the “Silent” Generation because they saw their grandchildren in these thoughts.

Like everyone’s above comments, aside from the periodic data loss, I have had a fantastic experience with media and technology. Ipods, podcasts, ezines, blogs, have helped me grow spiritually in addition to the written word (and frankly with no help from the televangelists. But may those who are blessed by it be blessed by it). Hipps makes mention of the local Ft. Worth pastor who insisted the spiritually successful have a daily quiet time with the Lord, part of my normal morning ritual includes listening to sermons via podcasts as I am applying deodorant and hair gel. And though I’m not spiritually successful and couldn’t imagine making such a legalistic statement, I feel what that guy was trying to say.

 

Reflecting on McLaren at Princeton Theo. Seminary

A couple Tuesdays ago (April 15th), I went to see Brian McLaren at PTS with super blogger, Thomas Turner from Everyday Liturgy and super mission-centered barista , Jesse (he runs the Holy Grounds Coffeehouse in Allendale NJ).  Good times.  

I’ve heard this lecture a couple of times, have read through it in Everything Must Change and have a high appreciation for Brian and his presentation, specifically of the Three Crises, (Prosperity, Equity, Security)

“It’s not about equality, it’s about justice” is often the anthem mentioned by everyone from Bono to joe blogger.  A lot of time and thought have been spent on that line and I’ve come to appreciate it.

The thought that has really occupied me lately was mentioned by Brian that night, “What you focus on determines what you will miss”.   I may have heard that before but it struck me.  I find myself juggling this thought with the other appreciated maxims, “You can only do a few things well”, “Focus on your strengths, forget your weaknesses” and others.  Praying for wisdom on this because there seems to be some kind of goodness to the tension-balance-paradox that’s called for.  The mediation on it has been good for the soul.

If you are stimulated by such discussion, consider going to see Brian at the Everything Must Change Tour and/or read the book.

For more perspectives, check out Todd Heistand’s post or Everyday Liturgy Thomas Turner’s Hitchhiking to Princeton.

thanks Todd H. (www.meremission.org)

Francis Collins – Q Conference – Session 3

Session 3 with Francis Collins was a little more controversial.  Again, we sat in round tables of 10 so whispers were easy to hear.  Not to insult your intelligence, but in case you don’t know, Dr. Collins is the chairman of the Genome Project, author of The Language of God, a devout believer, debates Richard Dawkins on NPR regularly, but does not hold to conservative Christian views of origins.  Frankly, he wasn’t very specific of his position.  One of his points was to leave the audience unsettled with theirs. 

He discussed how science and faith are not enemies stating, “Regardless of what we have heard from the atheistic horsemen, we do not have to choose between the two.” 

I was proud of that because I’ve been teaching my students that for years.  In fact, back when I was in 4th grade and heard of the Big Bang Theory and how that threatened the teaching of Creation, I immediately asked the teacher, “Why couldn’t God create the big bang …” The budding theistic evolutionist trajectory was quickly squashed when I entered youth group.  Today, I am certain that God is sovereign and that not even Francis Collins can figure it out.

Back to Collins, he showed 2 pictures – one of spiritual (stained glass window) and the other – DNA view along its axis which resembled each other.  Cool although the skeptic in me couldn’t help but think this was a little gimmicky for a world class intellectual.  Fortunately the next slide was not Jesus in the nucleus but his point was to segue how the spiritual world and the material one intersect.  It got everyone’s attention.

Collins was not raised in a religious home, his parents did not criticize religion but did not promote it.  He was an agnostic throughout college and then in med school, he was touched by the faith of those in hospital beds.  A woman asked him what did he believe and he did not have an answer, he researched it, found CS Lewis and continued his journey. 

The most unsettling moment (and this would come up in various conversations I had with people) was when he showed a slide of the human chromosome and the chimpanzee’s.  I am paraphrasing but he said the key difference was with the one part in the middle that has  a something mysterious in it while the chimp has two parts but not this particular thing (sorry I didn’t get what it was he said) inside it.  It’s here where they split.  He said something to the effect of it is possible that they had been the same until a certain point in time when God pre-ordained/pre-programmed/pre-something or other to split and create a new species.  Again, this was the unsettling moment.  He mentioned in passing literal meanings of Genesis 1, quoted Augustine, and Chesterton, and asserted his faith in the Almighty God.

Again, each Q speaker only had 18 minutes and his “big point” was, “science and Religion are not incompatible … God cannot be threatened.”  Some attendees were as upset as if he had just slapped their wives and ran out the door.  As for me, maybe their view deserved it.  So the possible lessons are don’t marry your theology or don’t marry an ugly wife, or be smarter then Francis Collins or maybe keep your theology open-handed and maybe your wife won’t get slapped by Dr. Collins.

Leroy Barber at Q Session 5

Leroy Barber (pastor, Atlanta) from Beloved Community was the Session 5 presenter. 

These are the notes I took:

 

6 aspects that King shared from Jesus regarding Community:

 

1. All people can share in the wealth of the earth

2. Poverty hunger and homelessness will not be tolerated.

3. Racism discrimination, bigotry and prejudice will be replaced with a spirit of brotherhood.

4. Violence will be resolved by peaceful conflict-resolution

5. Love and trust will triumph over fear and hatred. 

6. Conflict is part of human experience and will be reconciled and resolved peacefully.

 

I appreciated the last point the most.  As I am past the point of frustration with all those that say, “If we would just obey God, all will work out …” type of stuff, I find myself saying similar things like, “The struggle is inevitable, you will experience pain whether you are obedient or disobedient to the Lord, evil surrounds you, this is part of the human condition …”.  When Jesus promises us suffering … for the obedient.  He promises suffering for the disobedient, how do these prosperity gospel preachers drive their Bentley’s in good conscience?   Certainly people need to be encouraged, I value that.  But I think saying these types of things sell out the gospel in order to fill the offering plate.  Guys like Leroy are to be appreciated and I hope the Lord’s presence fills Beloved Community in Atlanta.

Chuck Colson – Session 4 at Q

I appreciate a lot of what Chuck Colson says, can’t stand some of it, what can you do?   He’s been very critical of the emergent conversation and quite frankly, I don’t think he really understands what is actually being said.  But it was good to see him at Q. 

 

This picture has received a lot of praise and it summarizes his session.  To paraphrase what he said emphatically,  “We (as a Church) are ignorant (of the Gospel message) for if we took it to heart, we’d all be changing the world.” 

 

To read more Chuck, feel free to stop by Breakpoint or read any of his 67 books.  He told us at Q, he wanted to write more books then Jesus.  (Not true but neither is what he says about the emergent conversation).