PostSecret, God, Faith, and Seminary

That picture appeared in this Sunday’s edition of PostSecret. For those unfamiliar with PostSecret, the concept behind it is that you can send in a postcard with anything on it, and they select a few dozen each week to print on their website. These postcards range from funny to bizarre to inappropriate to depressing (with most of them being depressing). Most postcards contain some sort of bizarre confession. Personally I don’t follow PostSecret just because the whole concept weirds me out, but I have a few friends who are fascinated by it.

Needless to say when I saw the picture above (having heard about it on Twitter) I was struck by it. I was struck by it for reasons that go far beyond the fact that the sign this person is sitting on is the very sign that I walked by on my way to my office this morning.

I can’t claim to know why the person felt the way that postcard indicates they felt, but the card itself raises a number of issues.

The first relates to seminary itself.

Perhaps this will sound arrogant, but the truth is, if you’ve never been to seminary you probably don’t know what it’s like. It certainly doesn’t live up to your stereotypes, I can promise you that. Just as I don’t fully understand medical school or law school and yet I have my stereotypes I choose to believe, the stereotypes held about seminary are similarly inaccurate.

It turns out we don’t sit around and pray all day. Whether you’re a Christian or not, I think you’d be surprised by what you experienced if you spent some time here.

The second relates to fear.

I suspect that there are thousands, if not millions, of Christians that are afraid for their faith. In other words, they are afraid that if they learn enough about science, or enough about people, or enough about the way the world works, or enough about who actually wrote the Bible and what the circumstances of that authorship was, that they will lose their faith in God. This leads to a sort of purposeful ignorance maintained for the purpose of keeping oneself secure in one’s faith.

That is silly.

And yet it is, I suspect, shockingly prevalent.

And I believe this happens because of our tendency to build what I have long called “A House of Cards Faith” where we build our faith upon a narrow set of ideas that may or may not be biblical, and when those ideas are called into question, our faith collapses.

Some examples:

The earth is 6,000 years old. Uh oh.

Everything that the Bible talks about happened literally exactly as it says it happened (this, by the way, is a misunderstanding of inerrancy and authority, and a misunderstanding of the Bible). Uh oh.

You can’t be a Christian and believe in Evolution. Uh oh.

All Christians are Republicans. Uh oh.

There is such a thing as a Christian nation. Uh oh.

God will fix everything all the time just how I want it. Uh oh.

And the list goes on.

If your faith is built upon the truth of ideas like that, yes, seminary, at least a seminary like Fuller, will indeed destroy your belief in God. It will make you wonder why no one ever told you x, y, or z in church.

But the truth is, Christians do not need to be afraid of new knowledge. They don’t need to be afraid of science, they don’t need to be afraid of philosophy, they don’t need to be afraid of Richard Dawkins/Sam Harris/Christopher Hitchens (heck, their books are used as seminary textbooks, so that should tell you something),and they certainly don’t need to be afraid of critical study of the Bible and its origins. See, the beauty of seminary, at least at a place like Fuller, is that while it will blast your house of cards to pieces, it replaces those cards with a firm foundation if you are willing to do the hard work of seeking to understand. It will give you, if you will let it, a foundation for your faith that, at least for me, is rational and reasonable, yet also transcends debates about God’s existence.

Another beautiful thing about seminary is that it affords you the opportunity to sit under people that have entered into the study of the complex issues of faith and life and science more deeply than any of us ever will and have lived to tell the tale.

I will admit, I think differently about God than I did when I first started seminary. I love the Scriptures more than I did when I started seminary, but I think differently about them. I think even more differently about those things than I did when I was 18 or 19. A lot of what I believed then I now know to be wrong. But my faith isn’t a house of cards, so I can let go of certain beliefs without my faith collapsing.

The point of all of this, especially for those that will never shell out the zillions of dollars for a seminary education, is that you don’t need to fear. You don’t need to fear the next best-selling book on atheism. You don’t need to fear new knowledge that contradicts what you’ve learned in the past. You don’t need to worry that the more you learn the more likely it is that you will lose your faith.

Yes, as you grow and mature and engage with God seriously your faith will change. Your understanding of what it means to be a Christian will change. You will become frustrated at some of the simplistic ideas that you have encountered in church. But if you are willing to let the “cards” fall, and build your faith upon a solid foundation, there’s nothing to be afraid of.

Question for you to answer: What was your initial reaction to that postcard?

Question for you to think about: In terms of your faith, are you afraid? And, if so, of what? What is the source of that fear?

Francis Chan and The Big Red Tractor Church

Francis Chan, pastor of Cornerstone Church in Simi Valley and frequent conference speaker, has created the following brief children’s story as a commentary on both the state of the Church in America and the possibility of what the church can be. Take a look:

Those of you that are familiar with Francis will not be surprised that he created a story like that. It is generally reflective of what he has been saying about the Church for years, albeit it is a new and more creative way of expressing his ideas.

I certainly agree that the Church in America is not having impact it could have, and much of the reason for that is that our efforts at innovation are perhaps focused in the wrong areas. To extend the metaphor of the Big Red Tractor, we are trying to think of new and clever ways to push the tractor, rather than having the faith to read the “instruction manual”.

As a seminary student, I know all too well that it is en vogue to criticize the Church. Seminary, it seems, is a breeding ground for condescending attitudes about the Church. If all of us are right then the Church is in really bad shape, and we’re all going to be the ones to fix it. For that reason, I’ve grown a bit weary of critiques of the Church. Of course it isn’t perfect, but it is far too easy to critique the Church while resting safely in the protective cocoon of academia.

And that is what makes Francis’ critiques different. And that is why I appreciate them so much. He is one of the best tractor-pushers in the world. The whole tractor pushing system has worked out really well for him. He is one of the biggest names in the Christian cult of celebrity. And yet he is willing to take a good, long, biblical look at tractor pushing and realize that the Church is not meant to be a tractor pushing institution. As Francis says, it is not meant to be an institution whose success can be explained by the talents of its leaders.

I appreciate Francis’ critique because there is a hopefulness to it. He isn’t seeking to tear anything down, but instead is calling church leaders to reevaluate church leadership in light of what the Scriptures say. This is hard and dangerous work, because tractor pushing has been proven “successful” in that it pays for buildings and salaries and postcards to mail to everyone in the neighborhood, and it is downright hypnotic is its ability to convince us that this is what the Church is meant to be. But Francis Chan’s work is authentic and biblical work, and that is why I am grateful for voices like hi. He provides a third way. A way that doesn’t accept the status quo but doesn’t succumb to unproductive cynicism, but a way that helps inspire new ways of thinking about what it means to be the Church.

Question: What did you think of the story?

Super Bowl Party Rules for Non-Football Fans

1) Every Super Bowl party since the dawn of humanity has had at least one schmuck in attendance who doesn’t know an interception from a fumble that all of a sudden decides he is a football expert and must comment on every play and every call by the referee. Don’t be that guy. If you are a male you will be tempted to be that guy, so allow me to say it again: Don’t be that guy!

2) Related to point one, there is an unspoken rule that states that the passion with which one roots for a particular Super Bowl team should correlate with a) your interest in football during the rest of the year, and b) your interest in said team during the rest of the year. You are welcome to pick a team and root for it because you like their uniforms, you feel sorry for a city, you share the religious views of a team’s star player, you like their mascot, or any other reason (that’s part of what makes the game fun), but don’t act like you’ve been a fan since birth, and don’t harass real fans of the other team. The one exception to the passion of rooting/interest rule is that super die hard fans who like to paint their chest and worship at the temple of (team name here) need to scale it back when they are in the presence of well-adjusted people.

3) Don’t be annoying.

4) If you aren’t interested in the game, find someone else who is not afflicted with an incurable football addiction and talk to them. Don’t keep announcing to the room how dumb football is. I promise you this will make everyone in the room want to throw you through a window. If you have a fan like the one referred to in the italicized section of rule #2 in the room, you may actually end up being thrown through a window.

5) Related to rules #1, #2, and #4, do not feign intense interest in the game. It is like feigning extensive knowledge of Renaissance art. Anyone that actually understands football will know that you are a faker, and will begin scanning the room for objects that can incapacitate you. You don’t want that. Feel free to ask honest questions that are not related to uniform color or mascot selection, and take the opportunity to educate yourself about the game, but when asking questions, do not forget rule #3.

If the aforementioned five rules are observed, you are assured to have a positive Super Bowl watching experience that will not result in you not being invited to next year’s party.

What is Christian Freedom?

“For Paul the death of Christ in which he gave himself “for us,” is not only God’s offer of pardon for sinners, but also the only proper model of discipleship. Hence “freedom” does not mean “to seek my own good”; it means to be free in Christ in such a way that one can truly seek to benefit and build up another person.” -Gordon Fee

“‘All things are lawful,’ but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful.’ but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.” - 1 Corinthians 10:23-24

For Christians, words like “power”, “freedom”, “love”, and “rights” mean something different than they do for the world. I’ve been reminded of this as I have been studying 1 Corinthians 10 for the past few days for a paper that I have to write.

To quote Gordon Fee again from his commentary on 1 Corinthians:

“(The Corinthians) had confused the true basis for Christian behavior. For them it was a question of knowledge and rights. For Paul it is a question of love and freedom. Knowledge and rights lead to pride; they are ultimately non-Christian because the bottom line is selfishness–freedom to do as I please when I please. Love and freedom lead to edification; they are ultimately Christian because the bottom line is the benefit of someone else–they they might be saved (v. 33).

I love what Fee says in that first quote about freedom. Freedom, for the Christian, is ultimately not about the right to do whatever one pleases whenever one pleases. Freedom, for the Christian, is about having one’s identity so completely found in the person and work of Jesus Christ that one’s concern can be for the good of others and not one’s own interests.

I would suggest that is true freedom. And it is evidence that societally we are very confused about what freedom is.

Freedom and “rights” inspire a lot of things that in reality are symbols of our own bondage: fights, divorce, relationship breakdowns, violence, war, and the list could be much longer than that.

Paul, it seems, would argue that Christian freedom is conformity to the way of Jesus, a willingness to suffer but not inflict suffering, a willingness to see and expose the value in those society would vilify, an ability to freely give of our own “rights”, and even our very lives, for the sake of others.

We will never be free as long as we cling to the world’s definition of freedom. That definition enslaves us to endless violence, whether it plays itself out in interpersonal arguments or international killing. The pursuit of worldly freedom justifies all of those things, and in so doing exposes the idolatrous nature of such freedom.

True freedom frees us from that, and helps us locate our identity in the crucified God who died not only to make us truly free, but to show us that true freedom is not found in knowledge, or power, or rights, but is instead found in unquenchable, suffering love.

O, that I would learn to live in that kind of freedom.

Question: What are the implications of this way of understanding freedom?

What does it mean to be Pro-Life?

This morning I read an article on the God’s Politics Blog called, Is George W. Bush Pro-Life? Is Any Politician?

I was immediately intrigued by this article because I believe that societally we are very confused about what it means to be pro-life. The term has been culturally defined to mean, “against abortion”.

I find that definition somewhat offensive. I’ll explain in a minute.

The article talks about how George W. Bush is set to receive an award from a pro-life group of Catholic business professionals.

The group cites his administration’s opposition to embryonic stem-cell research, an executive order barring federal funds from international family planning groups that offer abortions, and the appointment of “pro-life” Supreme Court justices.

The author of the article then raises the question that is the title of this blog post. What does it mean to be pro-life?

For some, that question is answered simply by evoking opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. This landmark ruling has defined a generation of political polarization and fueled bitter culture wars that reward the shrillest voices. A singular focus on abortion as the only pro-life issue has also severely narrowed our national discourse about moral values in the public square.

That last sentence is the important one. The truth is, one’s beliefs about abortion do not ultimately qualify an individual as “pro-life”, and President Bush’s administration is a perfect example of why this is the case.

While the former president spoke eloquently about the sacred dignity of life, as governor of Texas his state led the nation in executions. His presidency is remembered for a legacy that often undermined lofty rhetorical appeals to human dignity. Preemptive war, torture, a reckless disregard for the environment and economic policies that left the poor farther behind even as the wealthy grew more prosperous is not a proud record in defense of life.

Whether you loved President Bush or hated him, I hope you’ll agree that doesn’t sound very pro-life. The article goes on to cite the Catholic social teaching of a “seamless garment of life”. a teaching that I have long resonated with. To cite an article about Cardinal Joseph Bernardin who originally coined the term:

“I am convinced,” he continued, “that the pro-life position of the church must be developed in terms of a comprehensive and consistent ethic of life.” As the new chairman of the bishops’ pro-life committee, he committed himself to “shaping a position of linkage among the life issues.”

The cardinal posed two questions about these life issues: “In an age when we can do almost anything, how do we decide what we ought to do?” and “In a time when we can do anything technologically, how do we decide morally what we never should do?”

The spectrum of life issues, he observed, cuts across genetics, abortion, capital punishment, modern warfare and the care of the terminally ill.

“If one contends, as we do, that the right of every fetus to be born should be protected by civil law and supported by civil consensus,” Bernardin declared, “then our moral, political and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth.

To be pro-life requires a holistic, scandalous, commitment to the protection of life in all of its forms: the unborn, the elderly, the murders, the terrorists, everyone. The author of the God’s Politics article goes on to suggest, rightly in my view, that no political party to claim to be truly pro-life.

In general, Democrats perform better when it comes to anti-poverty initiatives and protecting vital social safety nets, but often don’t grapple seriously enough with the reality of over one million abortions performed a year. Many Republicans trumpet their pro-life bona fides, yet fail to back up their rhetoric by fighting for robust social policies that help pregnant women and vulnerable families.

A new generation must decide. We can stay mired in stale battles of the past and cling to easy labels or chart a course that honors human life at every stage. I would be the first to applaud an award given to anyone who helps us achieve that elusive victory.

I believe that Christians in particular need to be the ones that take the dialogue about issues of life and choice to a different level. Christians need to be the ones who recognize the sacredness of all life, and thus practice a consistent morality that recognizes that the lives of fetuses in America are just as valuable as the of civilians and soldiers in Afghanistan. We must recognize the moral inconsistency inherent in at once clamoring for the end of abortion while at the same time defending the practice of war.

Until an individual reaches that point, one does violence to the term “pro-life” to use it to describe oneself.

Easing the Values Tension: Christians and Sports, Part II

Once again, in case you missed it, here is the quote that I started my post yesterday with:

Variously described by those inside and outside as narcissistic, materialistic, violent, sensationalist, coarse, racist, sexist, brazen, raunchy, hedonistic, body-destroying, and militaristic, big-time sports culture lifts up values in sharp contrast with what Christians for centuries have understood as the embodiment of the gospel. There are simply no easy, straight-faced, intellectually respectable answers for how evangelicals can model the Christian narrative—with its emphases on servanthood, generosity, and self-subordination—while immersed in a culture that thrives on cut-throat competition, partisanship, and Darwinian struggle. If evangelical ethicist R. E. O. White is right to assert that self-absorption is behind all wrong social relationships and, for this reason, self-denial is the first ethical condition of discipleship, then elite athletes immersed in the self-consumed atmosphere of sports, where self-denial is a recipe for competitive disaster, face a fundamental problem.

That quote, as I mentioned yesterday, is from an article called Sports Fanatics: How Christians have succumbed to the sports culture—and what might be done about it, that appeared in last month’s Christianity Today.

Taken by itself, that quote could be a pretty good apology for the position that Christians should avoid sports all together. After all, servanthood, generosity, and self-subordination are not values that lead to athletic success. Furthermore, it is quite clear that athletic participation, in particular athletic success, can inspire values that are in conflict not only with Christian values, but also with public decency.

Needless to say, I don’t think abstaining from sports is the answer. Furthermore, I believe the characteristics of “big-time sports culture” as listed above are not characteristics that are unique to sports. The world of sports is but once place that they play themselves out. The fact is, we live in a world where the survival of the fittest reigns in all sorts of different fields, and one consequence of that is that high ethical standards are not often in one’s self-interest. This is quite obvious in the sports world, where coaches that refuse to break academic rules, athletes that refuse to use illegal substances, and fans that refuse to allow sports schedules to dictate their lives are at various types of disadvantages. But again, this is true in all sorts of different sectors of society.

All of that being said, I believe that sports can be an opportunity for the cultivation of Christian virtue if some proper attitudes are brought into the athletic arena. Here are five ways this can happen:

1) Fair play and honesty can be valued over winning- The article that I link to above talks about a controversy that began when a college volleyball coach instructed his players to inform the referee if a ball touched them before landing out of bounds if the referee missed it. This, in effect, would give a point to their opponents. I couldn’t find other information about this story on the Internet, but apparently some folks were upset that this coach would give such instructions to his players. I can relate on a much smaller level, as I’ve had teammates get frustrated with me in pick-up basketball games when I have said I was the last to touch a ball before it went out of bounds, or when I have called a foul on myself. The truth is, however, this kind of honesty in sports can cultivate an appreciation for honesty that is useful in other areas of life.

2) Sports can help teach proper perspective- One of the great dangers of big-time sports at any level is that they often have an all-consuming power over athletes, coaches, their families, and even fans. This is silly. The fact is, games are just that. Games. And if athletes can be taught at a young age that sports, while fun and exciting, are not the end all and be all of life, it can help athletes differentiate between what really matters in life and what is simply entertainment. I have tried to carry this perspective with me as an athlete and a fan. To paraphrase Matt Chandler, “If your mood is going to be affected by whether or not a 20 year-old catches a ball, you’ve got a real problem.” I think that’s absolutely true. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with getting excited during a sporting event. That’s part of what makes them fun. But allowing the outcome of a sporting event to ruin one’s mood, or cause one to lash out at someone else, or do something else along those lines is evidence of a lack of maturity and a lack of proper perspective.

3) Sports can teach respect for the other- Sports are a great opportunity to practice respecting those who disagree with you. In the case of athletics, there is the opportunity to respect your opponents while at the same time opposing them. The quote above suggests that those committed to self-denial are setting themselves up for competitive disaster. In one sense, this is true, but in another sense I believe that self-denial and humility can be practiced alongside of competitive greatness. The truth is, any time an individual excels at anything there is going to be the opportunity for self-glorification, and this is especially true in sports. Athletes, however, have the unique opportunity to respect the other in cases where self-glorification can be most tempting.

4) Sports can teach teamwork- This one is obvious. Sports provide ample opportunities for people to work together, share responsibility, resolve conflicts, and work towards common goals. Athletic competitions can promote group bonding in profound ways, as anyone that has ever played sports at just about any level can attest. Even the act of rooting for a team in a group can be a bonding experience.

5) Sports can inspire discipline and industriousness- There is something to be said for learning to work hard for the purpose of achieving a goal. Certainly athletic success requires a high level of discipline and industriousness that can be useful when applied to other areas of life. Of course, the flip side of this is that if one is too disciplined in their athletic endeavors other more important areas of life can be neglected, so this works both ways.

So there are five potential ways that sports can teach athletes, coaches, and even fans values that are shared between the sports world and the Christian world.

Questions: What did I miss? Am I off-base on any of those five points?

Writing is Difficult

This video blog was inspired by an event that I went to at Fuller last week that got me thinking about one of the unique challenges of writing, particularly of writing things like blogs, emails, blog/facebook comments, etc. I’d love to hear your thoughts on how to address the challenge I mention in the video (and please pardon the fact that it looks like I got punched in both eyes…as you can see the light above my head seems to be burned out).

Christians and Sports, Part I: A Values Tension

Variously described by those inside and outside as narcissistic, materialistic, violent, sensationalist, coarse, racist, sexist, brazen, raunchy, hedonistic, body-destroying, and militaristic, big-time sports culture lifts up values in sharp contrast with what Christians for centuries have understood as the embodiment of the gospel. There are simply no easy, straight-faced, intellectually respectable answers for how evangelicals can model the Christian narrative—with its emphases on servanthood, generosity, and self-subordination—while immersed in a culture that thrives on cut-throat competition, partisanship, and Darwinian struggle. If evangelical ethicist R. E. O. White is right to assert that self-absorption is behind all wrong social relationships and, for this reason, self-denial is the first ethical condition of discipleship, then elite athletes immersed in the self-consumed atmosphere of sports, where self-denial is a recipe for competitive disaster, face a fundamental problem.

That quote is from an article called Sports Fanatics: How Christians have succumbed to the sports culture—and what might be done about it, that appeared in last month’s Christianity Today.

The article is a long one, but it is well worth the read.

Those of you who know me know that I love sports. Well, I don’t really love sports, but I like them a lot. I play them whenever I get the chance, and I watch them with some degree of regularity.

I have, however, for sometime, been grappling with the tension between the values of the sports world and the values of the Christian world. As the quote above suggests, sports tend to glorify human traits that are in contradiction with Christian values.

For the next several days I’m going to be writing a series of posts (interspersed with other posts) about Christianity, sports, and the relationship between the two, because I think there are a lot of important issues that fall under that umbrella that deserve some attention. I’d invite you to join in the conversation with me.

Question: What is your reaction to the quotation above? Is it fair?

How To Read Genesis (According to N.T. Wright)

Watch this video, produced by the BioLogos Foundation, and tell me what you think. N.T. Wright touches on a lot of issues in five minutes. If you don’t want to watch the video, I’ve included some of the highlights below. If you want to see more comments that people have, check out the discussion of the video happening on the Jesus Creed blog.

We need to say that Genesis is one of those books, like a Shakespearean play or a Beethoven symphony where you can describe what it literally says…but that doesn’t actually capture what’s going on in this.

Genesis 1, 2, and 3, are some of the most explosive chapters – and when anthropologists talk about myth what they mean is not an untrue story. What they mean is a story that is full of power for how we understand ourselves individually, for how we understand ourselves as a community, for how we understand what the human project is all about. … we need to lighten up about these words and maybe find some other words because I do think it matters that something like a primal pair getting it wrong did happen. But that doesn’t mean I am saying that therefore Genesis is a kind of positivist, literal, clunky, history over against myth.

We have to read Genesis for all its worth. And to say either history or myth is a way of saying I’m not going to study this text for all its worth. I’m just going to flatten it out so that it conforms to the cultural questions that my culture today is telling me to ask.

The six days of creation…are a way of saying that when the good creator God made the world, he made heaven and earth as the space in which he himself was going to dwell, and he shared the earth bit with human creatures. And to flatten that out into, “this is simply telling us that the earth was made in six days” is almost perversely to avoid the real thrust of the narrative.

The meaning of Genesis is that this world was made to be God’s abode.

There are several other great lines in the video, but I’ll stop there. N.T. Wright, whether you’re a fan of his or not (and I am), certainly has an excellent way of explaining his views.

Questions: What did you think of the video? Anything that concerns you? Anything you particularly resonated with?

Some Good Christian Theology From A Leading Atheist

Check out this excerpt from an interview with Christopher Hitchens (interviewer’s words in bold):

The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

Bingo.

The interviewer followed that up with, “Let’s go place else…”

Hitchens, ironically enough, is absolutely right, and his interviewer, a Unitarian minister, is quite clearly “not in any meaningful sense a Christian.”

Christianity is about far more than just “beliefs”, but beliefs do matter. The foundation of Christianity is the belief that Jesus really is God’s son, he really did live as a man, he really did teach us about the Kingdom of God, he really did die on a cross, and he really did rise from death.

If that foundation is lacking, then one cannot properly call oneself a Christian, regardless of what the sign outside of one’s place of worship says.

It still seems true, though it is thankfully becoming less and less so, that calling oneself a “Christian” in America is somewhat of a default. In other words, a person is a “Christian” unless they are specifically something else (Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic, etc.). It is as though “Christianity” has been confused with American Civil Religion, even though the two are quite dissimilar (with the later, admittedly, being somewhat difficult to succinctly define).

The whole interview, which was originally published in Portland Monthly Magazine and was an interesting read, can be found here.