Here are some beautiful reflections on advent from Stanley Hauerwas. I found this video to be very moving, and a wonderful beginning to my own personal preparation for the season of Advent. Enjoy.
I found this video thanks to a retweet from my former college pastor Rhett Smith, who found it on Jake Bouma’s blog.
I like Facebook, for the most part, but I’ll be the first to agree that there are things worth hating about it. Here is a creative presentation of 25 such things.
That video was made by this guy.
I’ve always had a pretty good handle on the “big” sins.
I could probably list a fairly admirable list of things that you’re “supposed” to do that I’ve done and things that you’re not “supposed” to do that I’ve never done. I don’t take much pride in that fact. If anything I’m grateful that God has wired me up in such a way that I’ve never really been all that tempted by the sorts of sins that drive pastors out of ministry. It is what it is.
And it doesn’t mean a whole lot.
As I have been passing through a period of relative spiritual dryness for the last month or so, I have reflected on this absence of supposedly “big” sins and have come to the obvious conclusion that there are, in fact, big sins that do not appear to be big sins. Just now I was reminded of Francis Chan’s statement where he was talking about a period of time when he was feeling dry and he knew he needed to step away from pastoral ministry for a couple of months. He said something like, “I wasn’t committing any major sins, I just didn’t love God and didn’t love people.” I think he made a number of important points in that statement.
Yesterday I was listening to Matt Chandler’s message from the most recent Acts29 Church Planting Conference (he gave the same message at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s chapel last week, and it can be seen here). I cannot remember the last time a sermon impacted me as deeply as this one did. I’ve already listened to it twice. At Acts29 he was talking to prospective church planters, and he spoke briefly about what might drive them out of ministry.
He basically said that of those who would end up disqualifying themselves from ministry, very few of them would be disqualified because of “big” sins. In other words, he doubted that any of them would one day start smoking crack. He said that, instead, what will drive them out of ministry will be an over-commitment to the morally neutral (not his exact words, but pretty close). In other words, their affection will not be given to God, but will instead be given to something else that is not necessarily sinful but that is not God. He provided the example of the male tendency to react emotionally to a sporting event, but rarely react emotionally to the things of God. I, obviously, cannot relate to that example (joke).
I believe it is fair to say that in our societal emphasis on the sensationalistic it is easy to ignore sin that is easy to hide but that rots our heart worse than any more noticeable sin. This has certainly been true for me.
It is strange to think about how easy it is for us to be emotionally affected by the temporal, but how difficult it is to be emotionally affected by the things of God. I tend to maintain a fairly even keel emotionally, but I think that on some level my own recent spiritual dryness is somewhat attributable to the fact that I have allowed things that are not God to garner my highest affection. On my worst days, that which may cultivate my spiritual life becomes a chore. I believe this is at least partially the result of the reality that there is much in this world that seeks out attention without us seeking them, but the things of God must be sought.
That being said, I am striving with some intentionality to confront this big sin in my life as I seek to revive my heart that seems to have fallen asleep. I am trying to discern what morally neutral things are dulling my affection for the Lord, and in a spirit of repentance I am seeking to shake myself free from the self-exalting complacency that comes from avoiding the supposed big sins. I am seeking to be more consciously aware of what activities stir my affection for Jesus Christ and spend more time in those activities. I have by no means arrived, but I am approaching this task with a degree of intentionality that has perhaps been lacking in recent weeks. I don’t want to fall prey to the destructive power of the morally neutral.
So I invite you to join me in this task of discernment and self-examination, and I would ask you (for your own reflection, not to leave as a comment), what morally neutral things are dulling your passion for the things of God?
For some time now my heart has been heavy because of a well-intentioned but tragically flawed nationwide evangelism project that took place this last week at colleges and universities all over the United States. I first heard about the project several weeks ago, and it was just carried out this Thursday.
What happened was a Christian evangelist wrote a 50-page “introduction” to Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species and printed specially made copies of the book that included his introduction. The introduction, which is available on the Internet and I have skimmed, sets out to debunk evolution. The author of the introduction then raised a whole bunch of money to print over 100,000 copies of the book, and then distributed them at college campuses across the country, with distributors only telling recipients that the book was a free copy of The Origin of Species. The evangelist even appeared himself at my beloved UCLA, and quick blog search on Thursday led me to videos of him shouting down people who believe in evolution, and wrongly equating evolution with atheism.
The evangelist’s website features a six-minute video by a well-known actor that paints a rather grave picture of the state of the modern university, and then enthusiastically describes the plan to get this book into the hands of students so that they can “hear the other side of the story”, since all they are only taught evolution in their science classes.
I applaud these men for their passion for the gospel and their willingness to share their faith in a hostile environment. They are to be commended for that. However, having skimmed the introduction and watched the video more than once, I can honestly say I cannot think of anything charitable to say about either one. This project is a tragedy, and I fear it will do more harm than good. The video has already been mocked all over the Internet.
Both the introduction and the video are so hopelessly flawed I presume they will be quickly dismissed by any thinking non-believer, and I fear that this will incline such non-believers to dismiss the gospel as well. Not only do the video and introduction play loose with the facts (understatement), there is a tone of combativeness and worldliness in both that betrays the message of the gospel. Again, these men have a passion for the gospel, and that is wonderful, but their methods are truly unfortunate. For a more thorough repudiation of the introduction from a Christian perspective, click here.
Wherever you land on the issue of evolution, I believe it is most important that all of us who are Christians recognize that it is an “open hand” issue. By that I mean it is an issue about which we are free to disagree as faithful Christians, and no one perspective is the only correct perspective. We certainly should not waste our time trying to argue against evolution with non-believers because:
a) There are a great many faithful, evangelical, Bible-believing, Christ-exalting Christians who believe in evolution. That would have seemed heretical to me no too long ago, but it’s the truth (for those of you on Twitter, follow @BiologosOrg. They provide a lot of good articles about evolution from a Christian persepctive)
b) Evolution is so widely accepted in the non-Christian world that denying it turns people of to the gospel and makes Christians look unintelligent.
I’m not saying that every Christian should believe in evolution. Frankly, as a non-scientist I recognize that I am unqualified to speak definitively on the issue. I am saying that all of us who would seek to represent Christ in the secular world need to make sure that in our efforts to evanglize we are a) focusing on the gospel itself and not secondary issues, and b) doing so in a winsome, honest, non-argumentative way that is becoming of the gospel of peace.
Projects like the one I’ve described here break my heart because they provide fodder for those that would mock our faith. I pray that these men have a fruitful ministry in which God uses them to bring many into relationship with him, but I also pray that they would humbly reevaluate their methods. I pray that all of us can learn from situations like this one, and remember the importance of the evangelism, and we would also remember that our task is not to belittle, mock, and insult those who disagree with us, but is instead to bear faithful witness to the gospel.
The following is my column from the Thanksgiving issue of the SEMI that came out today. If you’d like to see a PDF of the entire issue, click here.
Does anyone else find it a little bit ironic that thirty days of unbridled consumerism and commercialism begin the day after a holiday called “Thanksgiving”?
By the time we’ve finished reflecting for a moment on all that we have to be thankful for we are bombarded (even more than at other times of the year) with reminders of that which we lack. These reminders likely will impact our behavior more than we care to admit.
I think it’s ironic that Thanksgiving kicks off the holiday shopping season, but I also think it is wonderful. It is especially wonderful for those of us who claim the name of Christ. The act of pausing to give thanks can remind us that as Christians we are participants in a story that subverts the consumerism of this time of year. More than that, we are participants in a story that also subverts the busyness, the stress, and the commotion that accompanies this time of year. Our story reminds us of the abundance that is available to us in Christ, an abundance that has nothing to do with the material or the commercial.
This reality prepares us to enter the holiday shopping season, also known as Advent, armed with a thankfulness that need not fade when the leftovers have been eaten and the family members have returned home.
The author of Hebrews writes, “Let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire.” (Heb. 12:28-29)
So as we pause this next week to spend time with family and friends, to eat some food, and momentarily step away from the papers and tests that will greet us in the first part of December, may we allow Thanksgiving to prepare us to walk in thankfulness in the season ahead. May we be thankful for that which cannot be shaken—and cannot break, and cannot wear out, and cannot go out of style—and may we live as thankful people for the fame of the one who gives us so much to be thankful for.
-Brian Kiley, SEMI Editor
So I’m in the library right now working on a sermon for my preaching class that is going to come out of 1 Timothy 4, and will center around 4:7, “Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness.” I have been challenged immensely by that verse in the recent past, and I have enjoyed studying it in greater depth this week. It is certainly a verse that lends itself to all kinds of misuse, but at its core it is a beautiful command.
I first started really thinking about this verse after seeing this video clip of a sermon given on 1 Timothy 4 by Matt Chandler at the 2009 Desiring God conference. I’ve posted the clip and before, and I’ve written about my appreciation of Chandler’s gospel-centered preaching before, but I wanted to post the clip again because I believe it unpacks 1 Timothy 4:7 in a profound, humorous, practical biblical way.
That clip shows why, in my opinion, Matt Chandler is one of the best preachers preaching today.
The entirety of that sermon (which is excellent) can be found here, and there is a link on the page to audio and video of it.
There is so much in our world and in our churches that is irreverent and silly. What an honor and a joy it is to humbly train ourselves and others in godliness.
I laughed out loud when I first heard this quote on NPR’s Wait Wait, Don’t Tell Me! this weekend. It’s from Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sach’s, the wildly successful investment bank that has become the subject of public ire in recent months (years?). In an interview with The London Times Blankfein, whose firm will hand out around $16 billion in year end bonuses said:
“We’re doing God’s work. We help companies to grow by helping them to raise capital. Companies that grow create wealth. This, in turn, allows people to have jobs that create more growth and more wealth. It’s a virtuous cycle. We have a social purpose.”
(The “We’re doing God’s work” bit might go at the end, not the beginning of the quote, the article that the quote appears in is unclear).
Is it possible to defend that quote?
One in inclined to wonder which god Mr. Blankfein is referring to.
In mocking Mr. Blankfein on his show, Stephen Colbert referred to Goldman Sach’s as “Goldman Calf” and said, “It’s nice to see that doing God’s work no longer involves punishing pride, greed, vanity, or gluttony.” Good thing.
I don’t ordinarily read The Huffington Post because, well, if you’re at all familiar with it you can probably figure out a few reasons why, but a quick Google search for more information about Blankfein’s gem of a quote led me to a hilarious satirical Huffington article entitled, “”Goldman not doing God’s work” Says Satan” To quote from the article:
NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) – Goldman Sachs’ Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein’s comment that bankers are doing “God’s work” came under fire today from one of the longest-standing allies of the firm, Satan, the Prince of Darkness.
In a rare press conference, the usually reclusive Beelzebub blasted Mr. Blankfein for his remark, telling reporters, “Lloyd Blankfein needs to remember who he works for.”
Wearing his trademark red cape and carrying a smoking pitchfork, Satan refused to say exactly what if any punishment he had in mind for the Goldman Sachs chief, saying only, “Maybe it’s time for Lloyd Blankfein to have a little ‘come to Satan’ meeting.”
While Satan said he was “delighted” by the record bonuses being paid out to Wall Street executives this year, he was clearly miffed that his role in the financial firms’ successes had been largely ignored.
“Lloyd Blankfein seems to have forgotten who came up with the idea of credit default swaps, derivatives, and mortgage-backed securities,” he said. “I don’t want to sound like a diva, but how about a little respect for the guy who signs your paycheck?”
Well done.
On a more serious note, Mr. Blankfein’s quote is unfortunate for a great many reasons. I believe it is indicative of our own propensity to justify our sin rather than repent of it. While Mr. Blankfein’s sin may be more public, more egregious, and more able to be ridiculed, I believe reading this quote is a reminder of the need we each have to honestly search our own hearts in an effort to see where we have allowed ourselves to become deluded by our sin to the point where we would excuse it in the way that Mr. Blankfein excuses his.
Over the weekend CNN.com posted a story about online church services (as a brief aside, I have no idea what kind of church service is being represented in the picture with the article. A graphic like the one here is closer to what I think of when I think “Internet church”). For those who haven’t heard of such a thing before, online church services (or, online church campuses) are a relatively new phenomenon, but they are rapidly growing in popularity. The mere fact that a story about online church found its way to CNN demonstrates this.
The article weighs some of the pros and cons or online church services, and has comments from both proponents and critics of this new way of doing church. I have “attended” an online church service once in my life, and it was on a Saturday evening. I was at my office at my old fashioned brick and mortar church preparing for my sermon the following evening, and I decided to log on for an online service put on by www.LifeChurch.tv because I thought it might be interesting to reflect on the experience in my sermon, which was going to be about the purposes of the Church.
I went to the church’s website, and within a few clicks I was in the “Virtual Lobby” where I could chat with other “attendees” from around the world. I mentioned that I was new, and most people were very friendly. At around 4:30 the “service” started and I clicked on another link which started a live stream of a worship band, complete with fancy lights and a smoke machine. After a few songs the pastor got up and preached a pretty good sermon, and at the end of it there was a button I could click to indicate I had accepted Christ for the first time. Following the service there was a brief message from the Internet Campus Pastor telling me more about the “campus” and other ways that I could get involved. They even had online small groups I could join. Overall the experience was a bit weird, but it was more positive than I was expecting.
As mentioned, the CNN article discusses some pros and cons of Internet church:
Internet pastors and parishioners cite their 24-hour access to interactive tools and social-networking platforms to show their online experiences are as meaningful as those that take place with face-to-face congregations.
But critics believe virtual worship separates followers from a trinity of spiritual essentials found in brick-and-mortar Christian churches: community, Communion and connection with Christ.
“Online church is close enough to the real thing to be dangerous,” says Bob Hyatt, a pastor who leads the brick-and-mortar Evergreen Community Church in Portland, Oregon. In a blog post for ChristianityToday.com, he writes that calling it virtual church “gives people the idea that everything they need is available here.”
I’m somewhat ambivalent in my feelings about Internet church. On the one hand, the Internet is a tremendous blessing in that is provides access to a rich array of resources for spiritual growth. In addition to sermons and I hear and/or give live on Sunday at a church, I download and listen to several sermons a week from some of the best preachers in America. On the other hand, I think there is a big difference from the Internet supplementing church involvement and the Internet replacing church involvement. Online church can be a wonderful resource for those that are unable to attend church because of, for example, heath reasons, but I’m not sure it’s a good idea for those of us that are able to attend but would prefer not to. Personally, I can’t imagine ever voluntarily choosing to attend an online church service in place of a live service.
As a society it seems that we are gradually forgetting how to communicate face-to-face. I fear that relegating church to something that is experienced on a screen without the experience of real physical interaction with other believers both reflects and accelerates this reality. There is something about being physically present with someone that is very difficult (if not impossible) to replicate online. Furthermore, I believe there are certain practices of the Christian faith, namely Communion, that lose their power if done in isolation. Such practices are meant to be done in community.
Many of the ministries that sponsor online church services are doing incredible things, and I am grateful to God for them. As tends to be my opinion of most things, I don’t think online church is entirely good or entirely bad.
What do you think? What are some pros and cons of Internet church? Could you ever see yourself attending an online church service in lieu of attending a live service.
War, Peace, and Afghanistan: The Fall 8 SEMI
This week’s issue of the SEMI, Fuller’s student newspaper, deals primarily with the war in Afghanistan. Those of you who know me well know that issues of war and peace are very important to me. Peacemaking is a gospel issue, and it is an issue that should be of central importance to Christians of any and all political perspectives. That being said, I recognize that advocating for peace is difficult. It is difficult because peacemaking confronts the notion that we are entitled to revenge. It confronts the notion that violence solves problems. It confronts the notion that uncritical nationalism is virtuous. Advocating for peace is difficult because it must be done in a way that honors those who serve in the military. However, I argue that in tactfully advocating for peace we are truly “supporting our troops”. Advocating for peace gives our rhetoric legitimacy, and demonstrates the extent to which we are shaped by the gospel, which is at its core a message of peace. Advocating for peace is also difficult because we live in a violent, vengeful world, a world that often leads us to find peace more threatening than violence. Advocating for peace is difficult, but peacemaking is a gospel issue.
This issue of the SEMI has a few different perspectives on war in general and Afghanistan specifically. You can access a PDF of the issue by clicking the link above.
Captain Dana Krull wrote the front page story. He is a soon-t0-be Army chaplain, and he wrote an excellent article about the challenge of loving and ministering to soldiers during war.
My column is on page two. It provides more questions than answers. The seriousness of the column is somewhat compromised by the silly cartoon of my face that is next to it, but I love the cartoon and I’m grateful to the guy who drew it, so I included it. It will be included with the rest of my columns.
Jake Diliberto wrote the article of page three. Jake is a two-time Iraq veteran and is the founder of Veterans for Rethinking Afghanistan, and he wrote passionately about the need for the Church to advocate for peace. Needless to say, I agree with his perspective. Jake was recently in Washington, D.C., where he appeared on Larry King Live to discuss Afghanistan and the potential disaster that a troop surge would be.
Garry Mathew wrote the article on page six. Garry spent several years working with a non-governmental organization in Afghanistan doing humanitarian work. He believes that pulling troops out of Afghanistan is not a good idea, and believes that a military presence is necessary for grassroots movements to be effective.
There are a few other articles in the issue that aren’t related to Afghanistan, but are still worth reading. I’d love to hear any comments you have, whether you are a part of the Fuller community or not.
What parts of the Bible make you uncomfortable, and why?
My Old Testament Exegesis professor asked us that question in class the other day in the context of a discussion about monotheism in ancient Israel and today. We talked about how, for the most part, the people of Israel weren’t monotheistic, but instead worshiped any number of foreign deities in addition to their God. Many of the passages in the Old Testament that talk about God’s uniqueness are not descriptions of Israel’s thought at the time as much as they are exhortations towards a particular belief system. Throughout the Old Testament, and particularly in Isaiah 40-66 (the passage this class is dedicated to) God is repeatedly summoning his people to monotheistic belief.
Later in the lecture the conversation turned from monotheism in the ancient world to monotheism in 2009, and we talked about the various false gods that we have a proclivity to worship in our churches and in our private lives. As you can probably imagine, it didn’t take long for us to come up with a list of false gods we tend to worship in church. Our false gods are not made of wood or stone, but they are objects of worship nonetheless.
My professor then went on to say that discomfort is something that we should make more seriously when we read the Bible. We should ask ourselves the question, “what parts of the Bible make us uncomfortable, and why?” The answer to that question can give us insight into our own false gods. My professor said that it is through the uncomfortable parts of the Bible that God is trying to break down the false gods that we have built up. Conversely, the parts of the Bible that we presume affirm and endorse our own beliefs are dangerous. When we misappropriate Scripture to reinforce our beliefs as an American, or a Democrat, or a Republican, or a man, or a woman, or a rich person, or a poor person, etc., we really run into trouble. That is evidence of our false worship.
I believe that discomfort is an important part of spiritual formation. I know that I come to the Bible with various presuppositions and biases that come with being a male, a Caucasian, a Protestant, an American, a young person, a graduate student, a married person, a political moderate, and person whose allegiance is distracted by any number of cultural narratives that seek to be formative for me. It is through allowing the Bible to confront those presuppositions that I can begin to be formed less by my presuppositions and more by the voice of God speaking through the Scriptures. To quote my professor, “We need to learn to take the Bible’s critiques of us seriously.” Discomfort is thus not something to be afraid of, but is in fact a wonderful gift that God gives us.
It is through acknowledging this discomfort and being broken by it that we learn to submit ourselves to God and subsequently be carried by him. If the Bible does not make us uncomfortable and it does not confront our presuppositions or beliefs, that probably says something about the way we are reading it.
So then, I invite you to reflect with me on the questions, “what parts of the Bible that makes you uncomfortable?”, “why?” and, “what are you doing about them?”
