The Irony and Beauty of Thanksgiving

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

Have nothing to do with irreverent silly myths…

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.

“We’re doing God’s work”

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.

The online church debate hits CNN

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 Week 8 SEMI

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 makes you uncomfortable?

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?”

“Murder has no religion”

I, like the rest of the world, was utterly horrified when I heard about the shooting that took place at Fort Hood last week. It was and is a heartbreaking tragedy.

I was also saddened to hear that the gunman, Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, is a Muslim. I knew that it would likely provoke an anti-Muslim backlash against a minority group that has already suffered more than enough because of the behavior of extremists who claim to share their religious beliefs. My heart hurt for those that would be affected by such a backlash, and it was angry at the thought of people who would inflict physical or emotional pain on Muslims because of these events.

In light of our cultural proclivity to lash out against Muslims, I appreciated Arsalan Iftikhar’s article on cnn.com entitled “Murder has no religion”. Iftikhar is a Muslim, and in the article he shares what most of us already know: that Islam is a nonviolent religion, and the Quran is a non-violent book.  Iftikhar does a good job of showing that Hasan’s heinous act was not a Muslim act, even though he said, “Allahu Akbar” (Arabic for “God is great”) as he began his killing. To quote Iftikhar:

First of all, someone simply saying “Allahu Akbar” while committing an act of mass murder no more makes their criminal act “Islamic” than a Christian uttering the “Hail Mary” while murdering an abortion medical provider, or someone chanting “Onward, Christian Soldiers” while bombing a gay nightclub, would make their act “Christian” in nature.

Simply put; murder is murder and has no religion whatsoever.

I find it odd that in our culture (particularly the more fringe conservative fractions of our culture) we are willing to write of abortion doctor killers and gay nightclub bombers as extremists who don’t represent Christianity, while we are inclined to believe that Islamic terrorists like Hasan are somehow the product of mainstream Isalm. The reality is, as Iftikhar said, “murder is murder and has no religion whatsoever.”

Iftikhar’s article is very good, and he ends it with this statement:

The larger point is that Muslims in America completely disavow and wash our hands of any acts of murder (or terrorism) claimed to be performed in the name of our religion. Acts of mass murder, regardless of their time or place, are simply ungodly criminal acts that have no religion whatsoever.

I do not, for a second, believe that all religions are the same. I do not believe they all lead to the same place or worship the same god. I do not believe that our specific beliefs don’t matter as long as we are sincere. I believe in the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, the reality of human sin, the inspiration of the Bible, and the need for repentance and a relationship with Jesus for salvation. But I also believe that part of being a Christian is loving Muslims and standing with them when our wider culture wants to hate them because of the actions of extremists. Just as Muslim organizations condemn Hasan’s killings, Christians should be the first to condemn any anti-Muslim backlash.

It seems tragic to me that even though the Christian and Muslim holy books clearly prohibit killing, Christians and Muslims continue to kill one another, and often invoke their deity in doing so. Additionally, Christians and Muslims continue to support state-sponsored killing. Makes me wonder how religious we really are. Or, better yet, it makes me wonder what our religion really is.

The Week 7 SEMI: Exploring Asian American Theology

The Week 7 SEMI: Exploring Asian American Theology

This week’s issue of the SEMI features articles from several Asian American students at Fuller. The goal of the issue was to help the Fuller community better understand the specific challenges that those who are ministering in an Asian American context face. Asian Americans are by far the most prominent minority on campus at Fuller, so it is important that their concerns are understood and addressed by the community. Enjoy the issue!

Are Young Adult Ministries bad for the Church?

There’s a thought provoking article in this month’s issue of Relevant Magazine (the entire issue can be viewed online by clicking the link and entering your e-mail address). The article that caught my attention was called “Church Mutiny” and it was written by a young adults pastor in Florida.

The premise of the article is essentially that ministries for young adults, generally speaking, start as a form of rebellion against their own churches. They are a way for young adults to get what they want without leaving their churches. Young adult ministries thus reduce inter-generational relationships and are bad for churches.

Needless to say, as a former (and hopefully future) college pastor, this caught my attention.

About three years ago I helped start a college and young adult ministry at the church I worked at. Words like “rebellion” and “mutiny” were not a part of the vocabulary of the small team of us that cooked up the idea of starting a worship service for young adults, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say that there was a general sense among us that the needs of young adults were not being adequately met by inter-generational church programs. We liked our church (and our jobs!) and we didn’t want to leave, but we knew something had to be done to better reach young people with the Gospel. So we started our own service with the blessing of the church, and it was pretty successful. I’ve since moved on, and the service has continued to flourish, even without a full-time staff leader.

According to the author of the Relevant article, who himself has led a fast-growing young adult ministry for several years now, that sort of model may not be healthy. Here are a few quotes from the article:

“The attitude (rebellion) is rarely named. We prefer to cloak it, to explain it away as a simple difference in musical tastes, or as an aversion to getting up early on Sundays But let’s call it what it is. Rebellion. Mutiny.”

“This season-of-life segregation in our churches–that pastors like me have been responsible for creating–has fed the consumerism monster and turned many church leaders into babysitters who try all sorts of toys and treats to keep the different babies from crying.”

“Relationships formed over a lifetime with people who are just like you is, honestly, a form of self-worship.”

“…the ownership of this tension (the tension between generations in churches) must be shared. Older generations have spent much time trying to prove themselves as a worthy ‘captain’ of the ship. They have chosen not to heed the younger voices around them as contributing members of leadership. The truth is, churches still only hire young people to work with young people.”

The article then goes on to talk about the need for intergenerational ministry and the needs for both the young and the old to learn to work together to carry on the work of the Kingdom of God. The author rightly criticizes the use of the phrase “Next Generation” to refer to youth and young adult ministries, as it implicitly devalues the contributions younger generations can make to the life and leadership of a church.

I’m not entirely sure what to think of all of this. In a sentence, I think the author overstates the ‘rebellious’ nature of young adult ministry, but he also makes a number of valid points.

On the one hand, generational separation is problematic, and I began to see this towards the end of my tenure at my old church. It was very difficult to foster relationships between older adults and younger adults when they attended different church services. On the other hand, the young adult service provided a legitimate function, and it was something that younger people could relate to. I’ve been pleased to hear that recently my old church has been fostering intergenerational relationships by encouraging young adults to join small groups with older adults. This seems like a great way to foster these relationships while allowing people of different life stages to attend worship services where they can connect with God.

I really think the author of the article is on to something when he talks about the need for shared leadership. I believe there is a mutual distrust between younger adults and older adults, and there is general desire to gain and grasp power that afflicts many of us with leadership gifts (to our shame). That distrust and power hunger will have to be overcome if generations are going to work together, but I believe it certainly can be.

What do you think? Are separate young adult ministries good or bad for churches? Why?

Piper and the “Gospel” of Health and Wealth

In this ten minute video John Piper gives a brief yet thorough critique of the prosperity gospel that is, in my opinion, 99% right on. I’m not sure how many of my readers subscribe to prosperity theology- the notion that God wants you to be rich, healthy, happy all the time- but I’ve been surprised before by people’s views on this subject, so I thought I’d post this video.

One of the many aspects of the true gospel that I love is that it speaks of power that is manifested in weakness. Throughout history a great multitude of gods and goddesses that have been worshiped have amounted to little more than capricious good luck charms that were supposed to help bring prosperity. The God of the Bible is not like that, and we need not assume that the God of the Bible is intent on bringing prosperity and painlessness to his people in this life. God is one who redeems suffering and who will one day wipe away every tear. Our hope is thus not in a good luck charm, but in a suffering God who has suffered on our behalf and uses suffering to bring about redemption. We need not judge whether or not God is for us and with us by our temporal circumstances, but rather we can know God is for us and with us because of the cross of Jesus Christ.

As an aside, for those who are inclined to think that because I posted this video I endorse everything Dr. Piper has ever said or written, or those who are inclined to ignore this video because they disagree with Dr. Piper on other issues, please take a look at this post.

Here’s the video: