Primary Intended Audience – My local Christian context.
Secondary Intended Audience – Christians and anyone interested in seeing this through the Christian lens.

As the events of September 11th unfolded, I was in a church staff meeting. We were conference calling and the person on the other side of the phone was watching television and at first said, “Oh wow, a plane hit the Twin Towers.” Like many, we assumed that it was a small plane. As our meeting continued, the person exclaimed, “Another one just hit!” And so began hours of watching television, listening to the radio and of course, reading websites (bear in mind, the internet was a bit different 9 years ago). Then the Pentagon, then a crash somewhere in Pennsylvania, planes still unaccounted for and we were gripped by fear that imagined endless possibilities. i had family relatives in Tower 1 – an aunt and a cousin. My phone rang from a man in our church who was frantic – one of his closest friends was on the 57th floor of one. The phone rang again and a friend from college told me his father worked inside and wanted me to pray for him. When the Towers fell, which seemed so unimaginable to me, the hope of my prayers seemed to dissipate. It would not be for hours until I heard from my mom that our relatives were ok, and that my friends’ loved ones had also survived. But by then, the body count was adding up and the joy of survival was personal relief in the midst of national suffering.

In addition to the surrealness of the day, as details unfolded of the attackers, I clearly remember feeling angry and that feeling would go through different stages directed at different people and populations for quite a while. In addition to being an American, my family is Egyptian, Christian-Egyptian in fact. My parents, grandparents and family ancestry have suffered extensive persecution at the hands of Muslims (extremists and nominal nationalists) for centuries. I felt that I could not escape the anger and as I mentioned yesterday’s post that it was not until the 5 year anniversary that I realized that this anger had a control over me. It was a complicated anger for a number of reasons but primarily in some sense, not remaining angry felt disloyal to my family, unpatriotic and even somehow unChristian.

I’ve mentioned elsewhere on this blog the beauty of forgiveness and the liberation experienced as a result. But how is this possible in this case; was it even appropriate? Eventually I started realizing that not forgiving the terrorist gave an exception in Jesus’ mandate of not just showing love to everyone but to loving our enemies. This is where the life of Jesus offers us a great deal of relevance. Had the story of Jesus ended prior to His crucifixion, I may have found the exception or the “loophole” in loving our enemies. Jesus clearly had enemies. One could make a case that he did not always show compassion to them. Among numerous feuds and confrontations, He called them snakes, fools, hypocrites and “white-washed tombs”. It was not until His death, when He felt the furthest from the Father, that He asked Him to forgive them, “for they know not what they do.”

Could I/we have a higher standard of forgiveness than Jesus? It seemed relevant to ask what were the consequences of having an admittedly lower standard of forgiveness? At the risk of sounded sacrilegious, what were the ramifications of wallowing in our suffering and limitations of humanity and being content on hating those who persecute us and quietly despising those who did not defend us? Why not punt the ball of forgiveness away and retreat into a defense posture? Franky, it seemed almost natural.

Around the five year mark, I began to untangle my patriotism from my loyalty to the Kingdom of God. Let me be clear here – this is not to say that I loved America any less. In fact, as the years have passed, I am only more grateful for my country and to my parents for immigrating here. I still grieve these horrific events and still despise evil (though it’s a larger scope than I ever realized and it’s not just the evil of the jihadist but includes my own and everything in between). But as I began to understand what it meant to follow Jesus, my greatest allegiance is to God. As I unpackaged that (and believe me there’s a long sermon here), I began to see God’s love for the world, despite its evil and flawed desperation and of course, I began to see my own failures, sin and pride. God seemed to be the only one who had anything worthy to offer.

I began to really wrestle with the idea, “Is Jesus really Lord of it all?” or is that a sentiment expressed so that I can force His divine hand to bring blessings to my life, family and nation? Further, I began to see that these claims of loving our neighbors, loving our enemies, and forgiving them was only possible if Jesus really was Lord. When Jesus teaches his the crowd in the Sermon of the Mount in Matthew 5 and tells his followers to turn the other cheek and walk the second mile, there is a context that I needed to realize. Commentators will say that the attackers were not their neighbors but most likely, the Roman soldiers. In an effort to keep this post only moderately long, Roman rule mandated that a soldier could force someone to carry their gear (the term ‘mile’ is used for our sake). Often this was another humiliation that the Jews endured from the occupying Romans. Until then, the Jews felt that they needed to either fight back or wallow in this persecution. But Jesus’ words frees them.

By offering the other cheek and by offering to volunteer to walk the second mile for the enemy, you have freed yourself from their oppression. They are no longer in control because of the willingness to respond in love to retaliate not with anger or violence but in humility. To say it in first person, “When I walk the second mile for you, my enemy, it is to demonstrate that you do not control me, I am not afraid of you, i would willingly do this for a friend and I am willingly doing it for you.”

Some have adapted Jesus’ words such as:
“Am I not destroying my enemies when I make a friend of them?” – Abraham Lincoln
“I will never let another man ruin my life by making me hate him” – George Washington Carver
“Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend.” – Martin Luther King

I want to also include the utmost importance of the resurrection of Jesus for it is the greatest announcement of life. “I have come to bring life to the full.” It is life now and forever and it knows no bounds. Let others promise the absurdity of perpetual virgins, food, drink and carnal pleasures (a heavenly Playboy mansion if you will), I’d rather know the presence of God. Death is what the terrorists have threatened us with, fear is their emotional ammunition that suffocates hope. How fitting that Jesus comes to bring life and faith is not only the shield against fear but also the sword to destroy it making it possible for us to hope again and still not be foolish.

On Saturday night, I showed this video that was arranged by 9-11 pictures and had Bruce Springsteen’s “My City of Ruin” from The Rising album. Honestly, I don’t really like most of these types of videos (overly dramatic and emotionally manipulative many times) but this one is beautiful.

About a month ago, Lady Gaga was on the cover of Rolling Stone again. To borrow the word from the Boomer generation, it’s a bit “risque” (in fact, most of their late summer covers were, Katy Perry, the True Blood cast). I like RS and I’ve been reading since high school. As I have been getting older, I’ve lost a bit of interest in the content of the magazine and if I am being honest, I only read barely more than half of the issues. They usually end up collecting in my basement.

I did read the cover story though and I find Gaga somewhat intriguing, I mean that’s what I am supposed to think right? I remember the first time I heard “Lover’s Revenge”. I was in a store and thought to myself, “Wow, I think I am going to have to admit that I like this new Madonna song.” It wasn’t until the following month that I realized that I liked a Lady Gaga song and by then, it was too late, it had grown on me.

People say, “She’s really talented”, “She’s only 24!”, “She went to Juilliard” (she didn’t but was accepted when she was 11), and “She’s such a consummate entertainer”, and that’s why she is who she is. Maybe. In all honesty, I don’t have a problem with Gaga; she’s probably a really cool person. Further, I don’t really like using the term “problem” because it’s too strong of a word for how little I actually think about her. I think my issue, concern, hesitation or whatever is how seriously people take people like Lady Gaga like when the call her “The next Madonna”. Sorry, I just don’t get it. I understand why Bruce Springsteen sells out his shows. I obviously understand (and love) U2. (Yes, Bono is on my prayer list)(Shut up ;-) I know when you mention Bruce and Bono and admit you don’t understand Gaga, it just means you are “old”. Yeah I guess so. (But I like the Muse and Kings of Leon a lot – they’re younger right?).

Here’s the thing that struck me as I read this interview though. Throughout the interview, she insists on trying to appear as a normal, down-to-earth, artistic person. However, she sounded to me as a person on the verge of a breakdown. Her relentless touring, promoting, rehearsing, recording, etc. while still channeling years of hurt and heartbreak (as she refers to repeatedly throughout the interview) really point to a potentially disastrous crash. Now mind you, I am not a psychiatrist, I am just a youth pastor with some counseling classes with the data of a handful of images, videos, and this RS interview, so I hope I am wrong but this young woman seems to be in trouble and this has nothing to do with my greater point here but I’m unlikely to mention this here again.  Again, I hope I am wrong.

However, to her credit, she really believes in herself. Just like Glenn Beck believes in himself. While you could make the case that they both suffer from similar forms of narcissism, you could also reason that their outrageous behavior is a ploy to advance their careers.  They are just putting on a show for us. Gaga wants to be the next Madonna (numerous “Like a Prayer” references in the “Alejandro” porno, I mean video. For conservative viewers, be warned and know that I’ll never watch it again. By the way, am I the only one that thinks this song sounds like “Don’t Turn Around” by Ace of Base?).   And Beck wants to be President (“The most used phrase in my administration if I were to be President would be “What the hell you mean we’re out of missiles?”). Neither of them will be, nor should be. There’s only one Madonna – thank God. Only one Gaga. And I’m still not sure we even need Beck but he may have “jumped the shark” with this Restoring Honor rally. But they do believe in themselves.

Which gets me thinking – I believe in the hope that Jesus offers. Personally, I believe it’s better than Gaga’s message and certainly greater than Beck’s counterfeit gospel of Americanism. While I know Jesus is not calling me to wear latex or to get on tv, I do find myself wondering at times if I am making the most of the opportunities presented to me and I wonder if we are being faithful as a Christian church. The easy answer is no we are not but what do we need to do remedy that for the sake of the Kingdom is a much longer and more difficult answer to articulate.  But I take hope and comfort that anything is possible, especially here in America.  If these two can get their message out, with the blessing of the Spirit and with a Church that believes in its calling and identity – we too can get our message out to a world that is hurting and hungry for redemption.

———-

I think I’m finished talking about Glenn Beck for quite some time. For more consider reading:
Christianity Today’s article “And Glenn Beck Shall Lead Them” by Tobin Grant (short article that my first Beck post was based off of).
A very well-wrtitten and intelligent article by my friend and fellow Biblical Seminarian Greg Kilimovitz entitled “A Response to Relevant Magazine’s Article and Glenn Beck’s False Gospel”.
And why not spend 4 minutes watching and listening to a few clips by the leader of the “Restoring Honor” crusader? Be warned though, it’s offensive and contains profanity.

Over the weekend, I read Brett McCracken’s article, “The Perils of ‘Wannabe Cool’ Christianity” in the online Wall Street Journal opinion page and had a few thoughts. First, it was a well-written and informed article. I nodded my ahead in agreement several times. I read Brett regularly in Relevant, he has an insightful blog (and brilliant quotes on the right sidebar), and I follow him on Twitter. He seems to have a sincere heart, a good head on his shoulders (he’s a Wheaton grad), and as a brother in the Lord, all in all I respect him and what’s he’s doing.

Sharing a similar suspicion and criticism of the evangelical consumer church mentality, I also see a great deal of catering, treating worshippers as customers, a fair amount of shallowness and the list goes on. Having been in pastoral ministry for the last ten years, I am among the countless who have seen the underbelly of the church and I can testify that sometimes, the “Church” is the one of the ugliest places to be. Bottom-line is that we all have enough reasons to have given up the faith at some point.

I’m all for self-awareness, constructive criticism, and engaging in conversations that will serve the Kingdom. I’m also fine with creating a buzz for your book (really, I hope Hipster Christianity sells countless copies particularly to the “70%” who are leaving our churches). But a few things bothered me. One is Brett’s starting point.  As one who has presumably spent his entire life in the Church, I imagine he’s grown extremely tired of Hawaiian shirts, Madonna mics, and various other artifacts from the Christian sub-culture. We all have, including Rick Warren (he even stopped wearing them). Still, I wished Brett would have identified a little more of his context, aside from, “as a 27-year old evangelical myself …”

Second is his finishing point – “He wants real”. We all do but what is real? Who judges that? Is it the same people who determine what is cool and hip? These are all pretty relative terms. How else can Brad Pitt and Michael Cera both being considered cool? Someone could probably write a very similar piece and cut through all the evangelical headlines of the past couple years and criticize “real” Christianity. Then in the end write, “As a twentysomething, I can say with confidence that when it comes to church, we don’t want real as much as we want some thing loving, life-giving, humble, transforming, insert your preference _______.”

Further, it bothered me that he came across as dismissive to some of the better ministries, pastors, writers and practitioners on such a public forum. Now here’s where I risk being hypocritical, because I enjoy making fun of Christian t-shirts, televangelists, and lame attempts of imitating the culture. (I kick myself every morning for not thinking of or being talented enough or disciplined enough, and not creating Stuff Christians Like. It’s a great blog and Prodigal John is perfect for it.) But yeah, there are a number of wanna-be’s out there BUT there’s a lot of people out there who are simply speaking out of the context and calling that God has placed on their lives. Again, I just found it to be too dismissive.

There is an entire other avenue we could pursue when it comes to “church marketing” in general. I won’t spend too much time here except to remind everyone that everything is marketed. Among the questions are to whom, to what extent, to what cost, the motives, mediums, devices, objectives and subtleties, but everything is “marketed” to some extent.

Of course I didn’t not my head in agreement with this line, “…something called “the emerging church”—a sort of postmodern stab at an evangelical reform movement. Perhaps because it was too “let’s rethink everything” radical, it fizzled quickly …” Sorry brother, among other things, I believe the Lord used the emerging church discussion to save my faith and ministry. And it hasn’t fizzled, it’s evolving as conversations do.

If the twenty-somethings (and supposedly 70%) are leaving, than why are we criticizing churches who are on the cutting edge of technology? And is there an irony that this piece was published online and shared via Facebook, Twitter and the almost old-school way, email? Are churches like Liquid Church (whom I truly respect) online because that’s where part of the 70% are? The idea of online church does not appeal to me in my current context, but if there was a reason I could not attend a physical church and not experience the joy of community (whether be overseas serving say, in the military or in a “closed” country), the online church would be a beautiful use of technology. Further, some people are so repulsed by walking in through the doors of a traditional looking church that there only way of connecting is a pub or coffee-shop church. Regardless of the abuses, there are healthy, doctrinally-sound, disciple-making, community-serving, all welcoming churches that have a “hip” pastor and great music – it’s just who they are. To imitate it for your own success may be wrong, but to be who you are isn’t.

If the twenty-somethings (and so do we thirty-somethings) want something real, than why are we complaining about Rob Bell writing a book on sex? And how dare we complain about Lauren Winner writing from the female perspective. Is this not a real topic in our lives? Granted, this is an area where the Church has made some questionable/terrible decisions (and will continue) but I also see it as an area where the Church is criticized for talking about sex and criticized for not talking about it. Let the Church talk wisely, openly and truthfully about sex.

And don’t get me started on 70%. McKracken was careful to phrase it a particular way but the Lifeway study’s had a particular context and its primary point was 70 percent of young adults ages 23-30 stopped attending church regularly for at least a year between ages 18-22. (That’s still not good but not as bad as assuming that 70% drop off completely as implied. Statistics and studies are helpful but they easily manipulated just like creating caricatures of “cool”, “hip”, “indie”, and attaching the adjective “wann-be” to them. Throwing statements around like, “They drink Guinness, wear Toms Shoes and sport cool eye glasses.” Yeah, they probably all sleep a little at night, eat a few times a day and breathe in oxygen too – how cliche.

As a brother in the Lord, Brett has be careful that he does not fall into his own trap that he has set and become the judge of “cool” and all things “hipster”, (which I don’t think he is intentionally trying to do). Between expressing his appreciation for hymns (I know everyone is tired of being reminded but many of the hymns we cherish are old bar tunes) and quoting David Wells (whom I respect), and criticizing churches that meet in third places, he quite frankly sounds like a guy who is hard to impress.

To his credit, he’s doing something. He’s writing, researching, and stirring conversation worth having. And like I said, I too, am among the many who are frustrated with certain elements of the evangelical tradition, the bait-and-switch tactics, the apathy, the self-indulgence, the entitled attitudes , etc, so please know, I am not defending all things evangelical but let’s just not be dismissive of the noble efforts of some who are being faithfully led by the Spirit.. And when given the opportunity to write for the Wall Street Journal online opinion page as an evangelical, perhaps considering not offering a cynical world another reason not to believe in Christianity but instead something that might offer the hope of Jesus to a world that is hurting and in need of redemption. That would be counter-cultural, maybe even creative, or relevant, and dare I say, that, may be considered cool.

—

For more, check out, Thomas Turner’s review of Hipster Christianity and his interview with Brett on Everyday Liturgy.  I think the interview is more true to what he’s really trying to say.

Yesterday was Pentecost Sunday and as mentioned in the previous post, it is an extremely important Sunday in the historical church. The day the Holy Spirit filled the disciples and fills believers still today (and is at work throughout all creation) is an essential matter of what Christ-followers should reflect on. I will be the first to say the Holy Spirit (and the theology of the Trinity) is a difficult doctrine to pin down. So years ago, I stopped “trying” because a theology that is living and breathing cannot be pinned down by mere mortals.  Take note, this does not mean I have given up studying Scripture, theology and the world around me, I just no longer buy into the notion that aside from a few loose ends that will be corrected when I get to heaven, I can have it mostly figured out ;-).

Having been educated in my college years in systematic theology (among many worthy disciplines), I had always been overwhelmed by the idea of trying to have perfect Biblical theology (a fruitless mission). That is part of the claim of modernity – that you can know it if you discover it all, accept it all, organize it all, understand it all, etc. The problem is “all” is too tricky for the flawed human mind and nature. As it turns out, one cannot comprehend it “all”. Feel free to try, you do not have to believe me but let me know when you stop trying, I think I have some solid brotherly direction for you.

God is not a subject. “World religions” might be a class but God is a person. He is not empirical, cannot be researched, organized and reduced to be “more understandable”. In other places, I have described this as dissecting the theological frog. The Holy Scriptures is a sacred thing that we are invited to partake in, one that we read, study, meditate, apply, converse with others, all in a Christ-like humility. And one of my favorite aspects of all this is Paul writes that the Holy Spirit will help us understand God’s will/word. Passages like I Cor. 2:14 & most of Eph. 1 have allowed some theologians to explain that the Spirit will “illuminate” these things to us. (“Illuminate” huh? Sure sounds good, throw that in the mix too). The Holy Spirit helping us to understand, that sounds like what Jesus promised in John 14. (He actually calls the Spirit a “helper”. Further, I have always found this to be so interesting because there was no New Testament cannon, only Old Testament and it would take centuries before his very writings would be canonized. Certainly they kept them, read them, copied them, etc. but there was no 3 ring binder, marked, “New Testament” that they threw them into it. What was being illuminated was the Old Testament and the present world in light of the work of Christ.  Sorry for the rabbit trail, I find that exciting).

I sometimes wonder what  the idea of “faith” would look like if it were not for the work of the Spirit.  I suspect that the Church would be obsessed with knowledge than anything else and therefore, “faith”, would be a meaningless term.  Which in looking at one of the most important aspects that I have underestimated in all the conversations about Scripture, accuracy, inspiration, the text, etc. is that the Spirit has always been at work in people’s hearts.   The Spirit at work in our hearts is even more important than proper doctrine. Don’t misunderstand me, the Church has suffered greatly from anti-intelluctualism and doctrine is extremely important  and as a whole, we may not be giving it its proper attention but loving God (and others – Mark 12) is even more important.   Again, don’t misunderstand, people have claimed the Spirit’s working in places where He was not – this is sinful but not a reason to dismiss the Spirit entirely, as some have seemed to do.  We need the Holy Spirit to realize, mature, and be at work in our faith and understanding of it all. And among other reasons, this is why Pentecost is so important.

(Part 3 hopefully tomorrow).

As many know, this Sunday is Pentecost Sunday.   Pentecost means “fifty” and the historical Church celebrates this on the 50th day after Easter.  It tends to be a bit neglected in non-liturgical churches but many pause and reflect on its great significance to the New Testament church – you should too.

Growing up in a non-liturgical setting, the beauty of this day was often lost on me.  But like so many, I could not escape the power of the coming of the promised Holy Spirit in Acts 2.  Gospel readers will remember that it is back in John 14 that Jesus promises the coming of the third person of the Trinity.  Acts opens with Christ’s Ascension into heaven which has always been a beautiful scene that was tragically cut short by bad writing (come on Luke) and the angels resembling NYC Police, “Move along now.  Nothing more to see here folks, move along ..”

If you have not read it in a while you should.  Start from the beginning.  I always try to exercise my imagination when reading Scripture (I used to think everyone did but …) and I imagine this incredible scene, with the Jesus giving His final farewell as He ascends into heaven in slow motion (it may not have been but slowmo but you are free to imagine how you please).  The disciples once again in a state of disbelief, their mouths open, their minds racing and spinning as they watch the Lord soar into the sky, finally their gaze interrupted by a cloud.  As you would imagine, they probably kept staring into the sky.  That is, until these angels (who I am sure were only following instructions) fly back into focus and say, “What are you looking it? The same way He left, He’s going to return … ”

It’s a good thing I wasn’t there, I would have been remembered as the sarcastic disciple who got zapped by an angel.  “What are we looking at?  What do you think we are looking at?  Jesus, you know the guy who was dead last month, just flew up into the sky after fishing and hanging out with us all week.  Now I’m talking to celestial beings – give us a moment if you don’t mind.”

But angelic authority trumps human curiosity every time and they returned back to Jerusalem, selected a replacement for Judas (Matthias) and waited … (chapter 2 tomorrow)