A Beautiful Picture Of The Church (or... A Lesson From Vincent Van Gogh's Life)

Before he became one of the greatest and most innovative painters of the 19th century, Vincent Van Gogh desperately wanted to be in the ministry.  In his mid twenties he abandoned his career as an art dealer to go into ministry training to be a pastor like his father.  We can never really be sure what went wrong, but the exceptionally intelligent Van Gogh could never get his head around his studies and failed out of school.  The state church would not even consider making him a pastor.  They wouldn't even financially support him to be a missionary (it wasn't just his lack of knowledge that led to this, his rejection of materialism, and his radical attempts to identify with the poor and dejected didn't sit well with the upper class clergy.  Add to that his abrasive nature, spiritual intensity, and fits of melancholy made the church nervous.  It also sounds like he was a pretty awful preacher - in that he was long winded, scattered in his thoughts and boring).  The best he could do was become a volunteer missionary who would have to undergo constant evaluations to see if he would be allowed to stay on the field.  Maybe, if he did a great job, they would start supporting him... maybe.

The Heart of The Superhero Part I: Superman

There is a degree to which superheroes can (and should) be enjoyed on a completely aesthetic, visceral level.  We like to watch them break things, accomplish impossible feats, and beat the bad guy and save the world.  That's what I loved about them as a kid and that is still a major reason why they are compelling.  But there is so much more to them than that simple appeal.  That I would make an argument that Superheroes are not just the stuff of children and men in a state of suspended adolescence should be easily taken for granted by anyone who has seen me proudly wear any one of my four Incredible Hulk shirts.  Because of that I'd prefer to take the argument a step further and put forth my (controversial?) thesis that superheroes and existentialism are

inextricably links.  Further, to truly appreciate any individual superhero one must do

so in light of that individual character's humanity (even if they're an alien).

There is more to superheroes than their powers or gadgets.  Often movies and comics only hint at these compelling character traits, if they don't miss them entirely.  So I will be working at proving my thesis one hero at a time, analyzing what makes each hero unique and compelling beyond the obvious surface factors.  To get the ball rolling lets start with the first American Superhero, Superman.

For a lot of reasons Superman is a tough sell to a mass market: in a cynical age he's supposedly too boy scout-esque to be identifiable, he's nearly invincible, and "really?  All he has to do is take off his glasses and no one recognizes him?"  Some intriguing arguments that are easily trumped by the ultimate counter argument: Superman is crazy awesome!  Is he my favorite superhero character?  The most compelling? The coolest?  Definitely not.  But the potential to make an interesting Superman story is there, it just hasn't been mined like it should.

Yes, Superman is faster than a speeding bullet, able to jump a skyscraper in a single bound, can lift cars, fly through space, and shoot heat lasers from his eyes.  Correction: those are things he does, those aren't who he is.  Who he is is a man with nearly limitless ability who is trying to do right by the world in which he finds himself.  It is important to note that his abilities are only nearly limitless, and not entirely limitless.  It is in his one limitation that we can find Superman most compelling: he can't be in more than one place at one time.  Here is where we find his humanity, in the recognition that he can never be omnipresent.  To feel the burden of knowing (with super-hearing, even hearing) people are in pain, knowing you have the ability to stop that pain, and knowing also that you can't simply because something else has called your attention.  Superman is forced continually to chose who lives and who dies, who suffers and who is saved. The original Superman film cheated its way out of this crisis for Superman by allowing him to turn back time by flying really fast around the earth so he could save the world and Louis Lane (for which I say "shame on you Richard Donner!").  This was a disservice to the fans.  Superman shouldn't get a quick out.  He needs to come to terms with his limitations, but he first must wrestle with them.  There is a whole world of people in pain, what would hearing that and being aware that he could not stop all of it do to a person? 

How about on a more personal level, Louis Lane seems to love getting herself in trouble and Superman is always there to save her.  She counts on this, she has her own personal superhero.  Sometimes we even find her putting herself in harms way in order to be saved by him.  But what if, at the same time as Louis find herself driving off a bridge into a lake, a bus full of kids finds themselves in crisis?  What does he do?  How does he live with the results?  And what does all that say about him as a person? 

Falling deeper into this existential line of thinking, Superman selflessly gives of himself to save others without any monetary gain.  He does it because he is a kind hearted person and because he feels compelled to make use of the powers he has for good.  Ever tried to do good just for goodness' sake?  It certainly feels good, but (being honest) it comes back on you.  There's always more you can give, more people will expect or demand from you. How would someone handle that?  The endless feeling that even with his best effort there is always more to do and he will never be truly appreciated for what he has accomplished would be debilitating at times.  This has been dealt with more in the comics, Superman as the "angry god," disappointed with the people who he has selflessly served but not in the movies.  I want to see a Superman tired with humanity, he has tirelessly gave and they have tirelessly demanded more.  How does a man overcome such a thing.  That's a great movie right there!

Superman is the ultimate "hero of destiny," a trope that has been all but played out in recent history.  He is a hero because events conspired to make him one.  The great thing about him though is he is not a hero because of some tragic event that inspired him or forced him to reevaluate how he was living his life, he is a hero because that is who he is.  He is a hero of destiny, but also one of compulsion.  He didn't chose this life, but he's responding to it the best way he knows how (that sentence drips with existentialism, drink it up!).  But that doesn't mean he always enjoys it.  Being a hero is a burden, one that even the strongest man in the world can't hold easily.  The temptations to be a normal person must be incredibly intense and justifiable.  It is the burden of the ordinary to long to be exceptional and the burden of the exceptional to long to be ordinary.  That's what makes Superman so great: he can throw in the towel at any time, and he has definitely wanted to, but even with that longing he continues to do what is right; he perseveres.

You see?  Superman isn't a great superhero because of his powers or costume; he is a great superhero because as he wrestles with the limits of his humanity we are able to wrestle with our own.

Post Modernity, David Foster Wallace, Paradoxes, and Melting Brains

David Foster Wallace was, and there is no debating this, the greatest writer of the last quarter of the 20th century and, more than likely, one of the top ten writers in American literature.  As a journalist, social critic, and fiction writer he communicated in ways that no one would have even dreamed of before him.  He wrote a 100 page essay about being on a cruise that is more insightful and fun than anything any other modern writer could commit to paper, and one gets the impression he did that with minimal effort.  More impressive still (at least to me) he was talking about and analyzing post modernity ten years before it even entered popular culture.  In fact one of his comments on post modernity is the hypothetical hamster wheel I find myself running in when sleep eludes me.  Now you can join me!

Justifying a Title Change

Here's the problem with blogs... OK, there are a lot of problems with blogs, but here is the one that concerns me right now: every blog name is silly, unforgivably and ridiculously silly.  I guess you can name the blog after yourself but unless you're name is Chuck Klosterman or Donald Miller who are you to think that anyone is going to be drawn in by name recognition?  So you go with some abstraction, some concept that tries to define what the blog is about for readers, usually going with some hopeful book title or something like that. 

A book title can be highly conceptual without coming across as pretentious because the title speaks to the concept of the book, not the writer.  But a blog always speaks about the writer, because its not some self-contained thing with a beginning and an end but a potentially endless string of thoughts built over years.  So attaching a title to the blog is in essence an attempt to define one's self.  And there is no way to do that without being pretentious.

Loving Jesus and Religion - It's Possible!

Within a day I had my attention drawn to the Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus youtube video dozens of time.  I appreciate the video, although as with anything outside of Scripture it can and should be subject to some critique.  This may be a popular video that endures for a long time or people may forget about it next week.  I don't really know.  Either way it provides an opportunity for encouragement and to learn.  A video like this cannot exist in a vacuum, that is to say it shouldn't be watched outside of conversation and critical thinking.  And it definitely should be held up to the light of Scripture to see where it is correct (and therefore incredibly encouraging) and where it is found wanting, that we might all grow in our understanding of Christ, grace, and Scripture.

If you don't know what I'm talking about because you live under a rock or something, here is the video in question: 

My interest is in the conversation surrounding this poem that I believe can be as (or even more) encouraging as the video itself.  The author/performer Jefferson Bethke has some great things to say, but some of his statements have theological implications perhaps he (and many viewers) aren't aware of.  Like I said, there is too much going on here to allow this video to exist in a vacuum, there needs to be thoughtful responses.  The Gospel Coalition provided a great response you can find here.  Kevin DeYoung's essay led to a conversation between himself and Jefferson Bethke that is an encouraging example of how to respond to such a critique.  

I wanted to write my own response but before I could I found one of my closest friends (and he is the guy who convinced me to major in historical theology so if you've ever heard me talk about Luther, Calvin, Kierkegaard, Augustine, Moody, or anyone else in Church history you can thank him) had written a response that hit on every one of my points and added a few more, and all more eloquently than I would have.  To not think critically about such things is to become consumers of Christian culture and theology, rather than an active participant.  Here's to hoping believers are pointed to a deeper love and devotion to Christ and the Church as a result of the poem and the responses it's inspired.  So here is my friend Tom's entire essay, which I have nothing to add to beyond a resounding "ditto!"


Why I Love Religion and Jesus (but for different reasons!) A Brief Response to Spoken Word
By Tom Breimaier

I love Jesus and religion. There, I said it. This video, gone viral across the global canvas of Facebook this past week, crafted by Spoken Word author/rapper Jefferson Benthke, has hit my newsfeed multiple times across this past week. Many of my friends have suggested how it resonated with their experience..., while others just seem to be intrigued by its overall message. I should begin by saying two things: First, I understand what he is trying to say in his message, specifically the Gospel message that salvation is a free gift of God that cannot be affected by your own works. I agree with this, I agree wholeheartedly. If you posted this video or enjoyed it please don't think you've been placed on my list of naughty theologians. Second, my quarrel with this video is about the language Benthke uses to get his point across. To be a Christian and hate religion is a rather untenable position. Saying that "Jesus and religion are on opposite spectrums" is somewhat implausible. What Benthke is trying to say (at least what I hope he's trying to say) is that he hates legalism and the "ritual" element of Christianity. That is to say that the act of going to church, hanging out with other Christians, taking communion, and worshiping on Sundays does not make you any more right with God than anybody else. Getting right with God requires, per the words of Christ himself and subsequent Epistles, repentance and belief. More specifically, repenting of the sin that so easily entangles and has characterized your life, and belief that in the perfect life and substitutionary death of Christ you can be put right with God. In case you're new to this conversation, this is essentially Christianity 101.

I should also say that I do agree with his critique of legalism in the church. Let's be clear, however, that legalism and religion are not synonymous, and if your church teaches or tolerates legalism, its time to find a new church. This also goes against those who sit in the pews week by week who are there out of routine or habit. If you genuinely believe that church attendance will make you a Christian, it is also time to find a new church, or at the very least start paying more attention at the one you are attending!

My ultimate frustration with this video is the disrespect with which Mr. Benthke throws the Church under the bus, I don't think he's being particularly fair or honest here. For the record, him saying "Don't get me wrong, I love the church," in my mind, is not a justification for the rest of his statements. I suggest we think of it this way: the Gospel is the love of God come down to earth in the form of Jesus Christ. Religion is one form of humanity's expression of our own love returned to God. You can't read the Bible very far without encountering examples of religion. When God asked for sacrifices in the Old Testament, those burnt offerings (and the accompanying services) were an exercise of religion. The construction of the tabernacle and temples throughout the history of Israel, again, religion. When Christ himself received circumcision, baptism, celebrated Jewish festivals, they were him practicing religion! This makes it somewhat difficult to make the blanket statement that "Jesus hated religion." Christianity stands on the shoulders of Judaism as it rises in corporate worship each week to learn the Word of God, partake in the sacraments, and most importantly, worship the Triune God. To call religion a "man-made invention" is, well, wrong. Anyone reading the Bible can see that God spends the pages of Scripture (and the rest of history) calling people to Himself, and instructing them to come together to worship Him. Who created and built Israel? God. Who is the Lord of the Church, the author and finisher of faith? God. It is rather easy to be an armchair theologian in America and call religion an "infection," but I feel as if the scores of martyrs in the global church who gather together to worship, at the very significant risk of being caught in a hail of bullets from assault rifles, would largely disagree with this sentiment, and I'd gladly stand with them in that conviction.

To wrap this up, I'm pretty sure that if I sat down with Jefferson Benthke, we would probably agree on most aspects of the faith. That said, both he and I have the same responsibility to be careful with the words we use. To say that religion is "like spraying perfume on a casket" is a rather significant insult on the men and women who day in and day out lead a group of converted sinners to the foot of the Cross and to worship their Savior in spirit and in truth. Furthermore, in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul and other go to great lengths to suggest that the people of God are to live and worship together as a community (see the book of Acts) while they perform the rites of communion, baptism, and public worship. Multiple sections of Paul’s letters are very likely hymns that the early Church would have sung. The idea of public worship being primarily evangelistic also goes back to the Old Testament, where the Israelites under captivity would meet together to sing in corporate worship, to sing aloud that “the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” In their act of public worship they proclaimed the One God, all while located in cities that worshiped a plurality of deities. It is also a bit ironic that he uses the perfume analogy, as Jews and Christians have, for millennia, burned incense as a symbol of anointing the prayers of the faithful. It was also perfume that Mary poured out on the feet of Christ at great expense to her, but symbolic of her devotion to her Lord. I love Jesus for what He did on my behalf, something I will never deserve or be able to earn on my own. I love religion because it is the context in which I can do the work that my reawakened life in Christ called me to do. Again, I am not calling Jefferson out, these are not "fightin' words," but I do believe that we will all stand accountable for what we say, and I take this equally seriously myself. I simply hope that in the future he (and all of us) might strive for clarity over controversy, particularly in our proclamation of the Gospel.

Christian Cliches That Need To End VII: Throwing Around the Word "Heretic"

There is probably a good number of people who never had to spend time with young, excitable Christians who are just beginning a deeper study and understanding of their faith.  Those people will have no idea what I am talking about.  So to help them out here is a very real dialogue I had with a freshmen in college a few years back.
To set the stage: he had a book with him about tactics for evangelism, figuring that was a good conversation starter on my way to get to know this kid (I wanted to get to know him because I was starting a guys college ministry and was working to brings guys into the fold) and since I had actually read this particular book I had an actual frame of reference.  Of course instantly all those hopes were crushed when he threw out the word...

The Coolest Women In History Part 1: Jael of Judges

There is an unfortunate lack of heroes in our world today, for both men and women alike.  If I ever have daughters or nieces, I wonder who they will admire and look up to.  The list of poor role models is so huge as to be embarrassing.  So I thought I'd create a list of my favorite women through history for your reading pleasure and provide the world with a few greater options for women to admire. 

Jael (Judges 4):  That right, I'm starting out this mess by first mentioning an obscure person from the Bible you probably haven't heard of, but you should because this chick has got style.

Another Reason Why Community Is The Best Show On Network Television (meaning: its the only one worth watching)

Someday people will talk about Community with regret, asking themselves why they didn't appreciate the show when it originally aired.  If they had appreciated the show then perhaps the cast's escapades could have been enjoyed for more than a few seasons.  And as the masses bemoan their misfortune I will be standing above them to scream: "I told you so!"

NBC is putting Community to the sidelines at the end of this year with no set plans on what will happen afterwards.  One can hope that it will return but there is no certainty.  More than likely it will go the way of Arrested Development and only really find appreciation on DVD when its too late. 

This is all too bad because its the best comedy on tv right now and the only reason I watch network tv any longer (Tyler = TV snob.  I will not apologize).  There is a long list of reasons why this show is so brilliant and fun that I will spare you of an extensive list right now.  For now lets enjoy the brilliance of a joke that took three seasons to pull off and was so subtle hardly anyone noticed (I certainly didn't) until this clip surfaced on the internets.  Enjoy some Beetlejuice humor and marvel!

In the Duldrums (or "is it okay that life is boring sometimes?")

I doubt I will ever be a popular mainstream artist whose work is pored over or dearly loved by millions. And that's mostly because my natural instincts and the things I want to explore run counter to what is conventionally believed to be cool or entertaining. What I want to see and read, and by extension write about are the mundane things, the beats in between the exciting moments. But that's no way to get famous.

Imagine a James Bond film that has Bond sitting on the phone for over an hour making repeat phone calls to his bank because he can't get his online bank account working no matter how many times he CORRECTLY puts in his code it doesn't go through, and every time he hits the "forgot your password" button it just redirects him to a page that says "sorry, error," and then frustrated he hits his key pad repeatedly and still gets nowhere. Or we find Bond on the way to the restroom for what he is sure is a quick trip that turns into a marathon of work and now he goes through regret for not bringing a book or something to pass the time. Or maybe he stands in the restroom shaving, making faces in the mirror when he nicks his neck and bleeds for what feels like hours and all he can do is stand there holding a piece of tissue to his neck, then he pulls it away, sees a fresh stream of blood, exhales deeply then returns the tissue and taps his toes waiting another few minutes. And he does this over and over again.

How about reading a comic book where Superman finds himself in a sweltering mid August heat wave and now is embarrassed to take off his outer clothing and reveal his Superman costume because he's sweat right through it and he's not entirely confident about how he might smell once he's removed his sportcoat.

Or how about reading a version of a Stephen King novel where the main character knows he has monsters from his childhood returning from the grave he locked them in thirty years ago, but he can't go outside without a quick clean up so he goes to brush his teeth and when he spits out the toothpaste residue finds some blood in it. Now he's a little paranoid because he's in between dental insurances and wants to try to find out if this is a big deal or not so he searches his mouth to find the small contusion but can't find it so he goes looking around the house for a small enough flashlight to help him see inside his own mouth and can't find one. Then he finally does but the stupid thing in out of batteries, so he goes searching again through the house for some triple A batteries, swearing that he saw some when he was looking for the flashlight but now he can't remember where and he's kicking himself for not doing a better job being organized and hears his mom's voice in his head from the last time she was over and took the blame on herself that her forty year old son couldn't do a better job of taking care of his own home.

None of these things would have any impact on the story at all. But they happen to normal people, they should happen to these characters too. But they don't and I think that's ridiculous! Why should their lives get to be edited and shaped so that everything adds up to everything else and nothing is mundane or trite. That's what life is most of the time and that's the reason - more than the flying, or coming from distant planets, or super strength, or having incredible weapons and licenses (lincenci? licencees?) to kill, or battling childhood demons - makes these stories fictional.

Life is not nearly as exciting as it is in the movies or books, or even in the Scriptures. Sometimes life is just mundane and we have to learn to serve Christ and be faithful in those little moments. Which is anything but easy. In the historical books of Scripture we are told about key events with allusions to bits of time (where nothing happens) that pass right through. But if you're reading Scripture like I do you can pass over those allusions rather easily. When you do that you get the impression these events are happening in rapid succession without a pause to breathe. That's why Biblical study, commentaries, charts, etc. can be so helpful: they can save us from these mistakes. Take for example the life of Paul, with a timeline that can be found right here. When reading the story we get the important events: he is a young scholar who is present and approving of the murdering of Stephen, he wants to kill Christians in Damascus, Jesus appears to him and knocks him off his horse, he converts, he is brought before the elders in Jerusalem and approved for work, he gets persecuted, he escapes, he goes on one missionary journey, he goes on a second missionary journey, he goes on a third missionary journey (in those journeys there are shipwrecks, persecutions, miracles, sermons, imprisonments, etc.), then he is martyred.

The story comes at you hard and fast because it is hitting on all the main historical and theological notes that are relevant which leaves no room for stuff like how he got along with his mother, or what he liked to drink, or how good he was at tennis or whatever other mundane information we don't need to know but comprised his life experience.

I'm not saying the Bible is incomplete because it doesn't have these details, like I said these stories have a very specific reason for being there, and since the Bible has all we need for life and Godliness there is nothing that can be added to it that could benefit us more. What I am saying is that when we speed read through the historical books of Scripture we get the wrong impression that life was excitement 24/7, which it wasn't. Although it has to be speculation because I don't have any written account to verify it I have to believe - because he was human - that Paul was bored at times, that he had no idea where his life was heading or what it would amount to.

Take for example the beginning of his story in Acts. He is consumed with zeal for his faith and as a result seeks to destroy those who insult it - Christians. He oversees the death of the first martyr and then convinces the Sanhedrin to allow him to round of Christians in Damascus. He is noteworthy for his energy and zeal. Its doubted that anyone could match Paul for his hate for Christians and all that they represent, and the passion that sprang from that hate. Then he is converted through Christ revealing Himself to him. Paul is struck blind and must find comfort among Christians. Then he spends three years (!) be discipled and doing nothing for the ministry. A guy with that much passion, that much excitement, pushed to the sidelines to study and learn and be among Christians in order to be discipled. I can't imagine that time was always enjoyable. I can't imagine that Paul wasn't tapping his feet wanting to be out in the world doing the work of ministry. At this time the Church had been scattered and the Gospel was spreading through the known world. How could Paul not have been itching to be a part of that?

Finally he goes to Jerusalem and there he preaches and then people try to kill him for his preaching. So he is sent to Tarsus (his home town) and lays low for another four years! Four years!!! All while the Church is spreading, growing, and maturing, and the guy who is destined to be the most important figure in the early Church period (well... the entire Church period) sits to the side waiting. Then finally Barnabas calls him to help minister to the church in Antioch. Then he is off and running (more or less) until the Lord takes him home.

There is comfort for me in going over this time line today. I like knowing that the most important figure since the advent of the Church spent a number of years on the sidelines. I know he was studying, learning more about his Messiah. But he was also just living life, going through all the boring details we go through and presumably wondering when would be his turn on the front lines.

The time does come. Our duty, as was Paul's, is to remain faithful until we are called up. Until then we must remain forever vigilant, so that such a time does not pass us by. And enjoy the small moments until we get there, even if they are not nearly as cinematic as we might hope.

Thank You Peewee Herman (or "the new movie that i will be forcing loved one's to watch with me")

How could I have known as a kid that I was living in the tail end of the golden years of children's television? There was no real way of assessing that as I lacked any concept of history or the future, and my ability to think abstractly was nil. Even though I wasn't aware of it I don't think I appreciated it any less. I consumed it hand over fist. Ninja Turtles, Thundercats, Heman, GI JOE, Peewee Herman, Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, Fraggle Rock, Gummy Bears. I loved it all dearly.

I wasn't old enough to catch most of it in its original run so I relied a lot on syndication, but how was I to know the difference? These shows burrowed into my subconscious and helped me to develop the imagination I have today.

Some shows I have vivid memories of, even though its been some twenty years since I have seen them, others I only have bits and pieces. Those bits and pieces are funny things, because I'm not at all aware of them until I'm faced with the collective whole once again.

When I was working to build a youth program at my church my vision was to follow my personality more than the standard formula most youth groups fall into (hangout time/game, worship, message, everyone goes home happy). I wanted it to feel organic, with the fun and seriousness mixed in together so that you didn't know where one ended and the other began. There would be worship, prayer, games, and a message but also skits and weird characters who's business being in a setting like that might seem strange to anyone who wasn't there week in and week out. I took a cast of characters I had worked on and placed them in ridiculous sketches or had them teach on something (perhaps the Greek alphabet) so that students were getting information while also (one hopes...) laughing.

One of the characters I used was from a five minute play I wrote in high school for a competition. His name was ADD Boy, a character so loaded with energy it could hardly be contained, who's relentless optimism overshadowed everything around him. He was loud, obnoxious, and... ridiculous. But the kids seemed to enjoy him. He yelled when he shouldn't, smiled without end, laughed uncontrollably, and seemed entirely incapable of tolerating anything boring. I liked him. And I thought he was entirely original, a creature built by me.

But I was wrong. I did little skits as that character (and even some videos that had me, as myself, interacting with ADD Boy) for nearly two years and stopped as I stopped running the youth program.

That's when I found Peewee's Big Adventure on DVD for only five dollars. As a Tim Burton fan (except for Alice in Wonderland, which made my soul ache) and a thrifty movie shopper I was morally obligated to buy it, so I did. I took it home that night and cried laughing during the opening sequence (the plan was the eat whilest watching, a plan that was quickly set aside until about ten minutes into the movie when Peewee finally left his house). While I was beside myself enjoying every second I realized something: I completely ripped off Peewee Herman every second I was ever acting as ADD Boy. He is an exact replica, only lacking the cool suit and bow tie (If only i had those...).

There are only bits and pieces of Peewee's Playhouse and -Big Adventure floating around in my head. I remember a talking chair, a sailor type character, a cool red bike with a lion on the front, the claymation Penny, and Peewee's laugh, but that's about it. I hadn't watched anything Peewee related since kindergarten and ... well... his legal troubles. I have no active memory of the character or the show, but apparently the character burrowed its way into my brain and stayed there for some twenty years, because the second I pretended to be this character he came screaming out.

Its funny how things like that can work. I blatantly ripped off the man's work without even being aware I was pulling from it. Which I hope is a compliment to the world of Peewee Herman (even if Paul Ruben himself isn't the man most fitting of a compliment-this I cannot say with certainty either way*) that he affected me in this way.

Now revisiting the movie (and hopefully if I can get my hands on it-the show) there is so much to love about it's whole world, but mostly Peewee himself. Every second he's on screen, whether in his protective, insulated world, or out among murders, bikers, cowboys, and ghosts makes me laugh.

I love and long for his relentless optimism. There is a part of me that wishes for that childlike wonder he possessed-jumping on his bed the second he woke up, playing with ridiculous toys, making faces in the mirror (especially the tape bit), talking to his breakfast, and constantly laughing at himself all the way through. The thing I think I enjoy the most is his look of ever-tempered joy that fills his whole body as he takes in the world around him. He looks like he is going to explode with delight at any moment. He's not ironically joyful, he's simply joyful. And him enjoying the world around him is a joy for me. The potential to make anything fun, even brushing one's teeth, is something that I lose at times, especially when I am with other people. Peewee Herman, in it's silly way, reminds me of it.

Peewee's Big Adventure is now my official feel good movie, the one I'll throw on any time I'm in need of a quick, but well deserved, laugh. This week it served that very function and I can't express my appreciate for that enough, for ninety minutes of uninhibited silliness. And for only five dollars? What a steal!

*but his part in Buffy The Vampire Slayer was pretty great too!

Why The End of the World Matters (included inside: a joke about Harold Camping for your amusement)

Q: How does Harold Camping sleep at night?

A: On huge piles of money that were donated to him by people who bought into his sensationalism.

OK, its not the best joke ever, but it is probably pretty accurate.

The question that is being raised is why does any of this matter? Why are we talking about the end of the world? Why do Christians devote so much energy to thinking about it, hoping for it, fearing it, and creating giant billboards and buses declaring its imminence?

The simple answer is because the Bible makes a lot of the end of the world. From the beginning of the created world its destruction and rebuilding has been an important point in regards to redemptive history.

God created the universe. In sin man separated himself from God and corrupted all the created world. Since then the created order is no longer as God made it but is a shadow of its perfection. In God's timing that sin that corrupted and tainted the world will be destroyed and His creation will be redeemed and made perfect again. This has been the hope of ever Yahwehist (religious persons who follow the teachings of God-Yahweh-as He has revealed Himself in Scripture-Jews and Christians) through redemptive history.

A lot is made (and rightfully so) of the prophesies of the book of Revelation, in which the Apostle John tells of visions he received that give images of the end of sin-and by extension this world. People have spent the last 1900+ years analyzing this book to understand not only what is going to happen but how. People have dedicated their lives to understanding a book that is shrouded in imagery and metaphor. Not wanting to miss it when the end comes people have attempted to construct time lines and signs to point out when it's coming and/or if its already here. Some of these beliefs are completely insane and dangerous. Others are well supported by Scripture and agreed upon by reliable and learned individuals. But the point of Revelation has never been to give us an exact understanding of how its all going to go down. Revelation is the bookend of Scripture. As Genesis tells us that all things were Created by and for God so Revelation gives us the indisputable fact that in the end God wins (meaning He restores creation to perfection and does away with the sin that tainted it. It does not mean there is a cosmic scoreboard tallying points). Whether Christians are raptured or not, who this Beast is, when its all going to happen, if the 1000 year reign of Christ is literal, where Israel as a nation fits in are all important things in there place (some more than others) but giving us those answers isn't the ultimate point. Revelation is a comfort to believers because it tells us that in the end sin is done away with, the deceiver is cast into Hell, and those who confess Christ as Lord and Savior will be with Him in paradise.

But that's not how some people handle the book of Revelation. Much to the shame of Christians everywhere, people have been using the teachings of Scripture on the end of sin as a tool for fear-mongering, sensationalism, and as a way to line their own pockets. And people buy into it because they want to be clued in, they want to be in the know on a subject that is discussed a bit too abstractly in Scripture for their tastes.

There is a second reason why the Bible talks so much about the end of the world, and why Christians should actually care and think about it often. Knowledge of the fact that one day sin will be judged, Christ will return for His Church and establish an eternal kingdom without the corrupting influence of sin, is to motivate us towards holy living. The writers of Scripture have no problem admitting that the fact that The End hasn't come yet is problematic. And the longer we wait for it the more unlikely it seems. Its been nearly 2000 years since Christ ascended to Heaven and predictions of His return were first made. Since then the sun has risen and set, people have been born and died, and somehow people keep paying to see Michael Bay movies. Things continue as they always have. Why should we think they will change. The Apostle Peter (in 2 Peter 3) tells us that this will happen; as the day draws near people will scoff that The End hasn't come.

Christians are called to remember daily that the end is coming and not to lose heart. Yes the world has continued like it always has up to this point, but that won't always be the case. Our time will end, either through death or Christ's return. To continue on like there is no end is the gravest form of denial and ignorance. But the end of the corrupting influence of sin is not meant to stir fear in the heart of the believer. It is meant to inspire him on towards Godly living.

Two of my favorite passages in Scripture deal with this very topic, 2 Corinthians 5 and 2 Peter 3. The former is Paul discussing how as Christians we grown longing to be free of sin and in the presence of God because we know that to be in the presence of God is far better than anything this world has to offer. But this does not lead us to depression, suicide, or even sadness. Rather this hope of eternity with Christ leads us to live lives pleasing to God (2 Corinthians 5:9), because whether we are here on earth or in eternal glory our motivation for existing is the same, to be well pleasing to Him. In heaven we will be able to do this in a way we can't here, because sin will be done away with in Heaven, but all the same our lives are to be lived towards the same end, the glory of God.

2 Peter 3 tells us its going to happen, the end will come. Until that time people are going to mock Christians because all our hope is placed on a day that has not come for 2000 years. But we are to trust that God delaying His coming is for the betterment of mankind, in His mercy He is giving time for people to repent of their sins and confess Christ as their Lord and Savior. We are to be grateful that the Lord has not returned, not discouraged by it. As we Christians wait we are to "be diligent to be found by Him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And we are to count the patience of our Lord as salvation..." (1 Peter 3: 14-15).

Scripture never intended to (and it definitely DOES NOT) give us an exact date when the end will come so we could make billboards and line old men's pockets. Nor did it mean to give us an exact play by play so we could predict what will happen immediately before it happens (on a side note, can we please stop predicting that every presidential candidate could be or is the anti-Christ? Its getting really tired and more and more unimaginative). The Bible speaks of the end to assure believers that it is in fact going to happen and in light of that fact we are to live holy lives, not be caught up in the cares of the world. So lets stop spending our time trying to do Bible math and invest ourselves in Kingdom living, otherwise we've completely missed the point.

Will Celebrities Save Us All? (or "Reading US Weekly for Purposes of Prayer")

At my college we had a week in Spring that was known as Spiritual Enrichment Week. The distinctives that tried to make this week any different than any other week were slight; there was four required chapels during the week (rather than three), afternoon classes were "cancelled" but students were still required to go to those classes and have prayer sessions with their professors (unless you purposefully or accidentally chose classes run by professors who weren't so interested in mandatory prayer times in which case you got a week of naps after lunch), prayer rooms were available throughout campus, a group of students held a twenty four-seven pray session with the soul purpose of inciting revival (while another group of students spent a good amount of their free time debating what that even meant or would look like), and instead of having a different speaker for each chapel we had one "famous"* preacher come in and preach for the whole week with a single thesis or series he was going to explore.

I'm told in years past that the preachers that came in for Spiritual Enrichment Week were actually big time preachers who had both pedigree and intellect that backed up the term "famous," at least in Christian circles. Our new president had little interest in spending money so he got the best his minimal budget would buy. I don't remember most of these speakers. I only remember one, and I only remember him because of his ability to deeply disturb me with one message.

He wasn't saying anything heretical or downright offensive. If he did I wouldn't have been one of the lone people complaining. He just said a few things that rubbed me the wrong way, things that cater to our unrestrained love of celebrity.

I remember when I was 14 I wanted to be famous. At 15 I grew out of it. Celebrity is a bizarre thing that seems to destroy as easily as it entices. I do understand having a connection with celebrities, particularly talented ones who have earned their spot in the American conscience.** Their art may speak to us and forms in us a connection to the creator or mediator of that art that and we are bonded to them in our hearts and minds as a result. I know people who have bragged about just seeing a celebrity as if it is a major moment in their existence. I've scoffed at these moments but at the same time I don't deny that if I were to meet Mel Brookes, Jon Stewart, Bono, or Johnny cash or Kurt Vonnegut (while they were alive) I would be a little more than excited at the opportunity to talk with them. I'm not above it, even if I wish I were.

So I understand why we do it (buy the magazines, watch the dateline interviews, worry over their marriages and health, etc), but that doesn't justify it. Christians do deal with this in a way that is different than anyone else, simply because we do (or should) think about these things with different motivations. We don't want to set up for ourselves idols, things that we love, admire, or care for more than God Himself. We don't want to attach ourselves to immoral living (does being interested in a person's licentious lifestyle condone it?). And we don't want to be so drawn into the world that we are completely subsumed by it.

Christians deal with this in different ways. Some people in a way that I respect, others... not so much. This particular speaker (who I had never heard of before this event and have never heard of since, so don't think I'm being coy in hiding his identity, I really just don't know who he is) proposed handling it in a way that so frustrated me I considered walking out (an action I have only considered one other time-to be written about in the future-in that kind of setting) on the message.

The series started out nicely enough. The preacher was going to spend the four days discussing with us how we can effectively engage with the culture that surrounded us on every side. The first day he challenged us to consider our entertainment intake and consider how we might lead others in our churches to do the same when we graduated and became church leaders. He proposed having events where students brought in cds to discuss what the music was teaching them. The same could be done with movies. The end goal was admirable: teach people how to be considerate consumers of entertainment and media. A good concept that led to good conversation throughout the day but that in no way prepared me for what we would talk about the next day.

We were all set to process media in a responsibly way, not just ingest it like a Tasmanian devil consuming a carcass (bones and all). But that wasn't enough. He spent the entirety of the second day explaining to us what appeared to be a singular point-we should be praying for celebrities. And not just praying, but fervently praying. He talked about how he had a list of celebrities he was praying for, and he prayed for them every day. If he didn't say it explicitly rules of rhetoric made it clear-we should be doing this too. It began to get very hot in my seat and I squirmed a lot more than I am known to do during a chapel service.

How can anyone discourage prayer? I don't know, and I'm not sure even I can with a good conscience. But his message that we should be praying for celebrities sat very wrong with me. Simply because it Christianizes celebrity obsession. Now you have permission to read US weekly and other celebrity gossip because it assists in your prayer life. It justifies setting celebrities apart as higher beings, demi-gods deserving of our worship and high prayers.

Then he said something that was truly frustrating: "Imagine what Britney Spears could do for the Kingdom if she were Christian!" Just imagine! The mind boggles. If she were a Christian then people would really come to Christ because she'd show people Christ like I never could. I mean sure I'm a Christian and I love the people in my life and I try to show them the character of Christ but I'm just one man. She's Britney Spears! She exists on a higher level. That makes absolutely no sense. Celebrity has nothing to do with one's ability to show others who Christ is. You know what does help? Relationships, spending time with people, letting who Christ is be revealed in your successes and failures. Thinking that a celebrity can do a better job of showing Christ to the world than a regular person completely undermines the power of the Gospel and validates what is wrong with our celebrity obsessed culture-that celebrities are better and/or higher being than we are. They aren't. They are regular people who are blessed (cursed?) with affluence and public notoriety.

I can't tell people not to pray for celebrities. I can encourage them to make sure that their prayers are balanced with prayers for people in their life with whom they interact on a regular basis, you know, normal people. And I can tell them to stop putting a Christian spin on their celebrity obsessions.

What I hope for most is that we set aside this idea that if a celebrity would just become a Christian then, maybe then, people would come to know Christ in an incredible way. Throughout history it has not been celebrities who have led the Church or brought people to faith in who Christ is or what He has done for them. It is regular people who pray for their regular neighbors. People who work their jobs and share Christ through their lives and words are the ones who make an impact on society. Revival, or whatever you call it, comes from normal people who dedicate themselves to serving the Lord and showing Him to others. Celebrities aren't going to do the work for us, they aren't even capable. Its going to be normal people relying on an amazing God who will transform this world- and the individuals in it.

Praying that celebrities will be effected by our faithful work of ministry is one thing, waiting around for celebrities to become catalysts to ministry is something completely different.

When Jon Stewart and I become tennis buddies I will pray for him in earnest. Until then I will concentrate the majority of my prayer time on my friends who I see on a regular basis.

*The term is used loosely here. This is probably better explained as a guy who had at least one book that can be sold after each service.

**I have a harder time with a-celebrities, or non-celebrities, these people who are celebrities simply because they are on television and magazines---celebrities because the media tells us they are celebrities. This makes no sense at all.

An Addendum: Regarding Pastors and Their Responsibility as Guardians of the Gate

The Church has always been marked (and marred) by divisions. It is just the way things go when you bring strong-willed human beings together. We have disagreed on the place of free-will as it interacts with God's sovereignty, the meaning of communion, how baptisms are to be performed, when (if ever) Christ is coming back, if people will be magically taken into the air with only their clothes remaining in a heap, how the Church is to relate to the state, what place human works have in salvation, the nature of Christ as deity... and the list goes on. People even disagree on the nature of how important these issues are in the believer's every day life. As long as there is sin there will be disagreements. On this side of eternity we will not all reach consensus on every issue.

In the last hundred years the Church has argued over each of these issues in some form or another. But we have entered into a new argument that has never been so compelling as it has been in this latest century. The question is in regards to the place of theology in the life of the believer, especially in contrast to how one lives their life. The argument is broken down into two camps: Orthodoxy (right thinking) and Orthopraxi (right living). The issue here is what comes first in the life of the Christian, is it knowledge or action?

Traditionally the orthopraxi view has been held by the liberal church as it emerged in the late 19th, early 20th century. The goal was to save Christianity from itself by removing the need for the supernatural elements of the faith and making it more modern and post-Darwin-rationalism friendly. Christianity was less of a faith than a morality code. Miracles and supernatural claims were down-graded to morality stories about living a better life on earth. Is Jesus God? Was He born of a virgin? Did Jonah really get eaten by a giant sea creature? Did the sea really split at Moses' command? It doesn't matter. What matters is the lessons the Bible is trying to teach, i.e. live a good life, treat others as you would want to be treated, practice charity, etc. What mattered for the liberal church was how you lived. Whether Jesus was your Lord and Savior in whom you placed your faith as the substitution for the punishment you deserved for sin really didn't matter. A Christian was someone who looked to Christ as their moral teacher.

This viewpoint has endured. More than a few Church leaders at least flirt with this view, if not entirely embracing it (McKlaren more or less, Bell although he refuses to actually commit to anything this is the obvious end to his theological statements, Frank Shaeffer, et al). And because their writings are so popular many people follow them and give new life to a movement that more or less got stamped out after World War Two (its hard to believe in the potential goodness of man after seeing six millions Jews killed, not to mention Stalin killing millions of his own people, the Raping of Nankin, the firebombing of Dresden, or the US dropping two atomic bombs).

Orthodoxy tells us that right thinking must inform right action. What one believes about Christ is the most important issue in any individuals life. Orthodoxy holds to all the supernatural elements, including eternity. Eternity is one of the most important issues. Each Christian is conscious of their eternal destination as a place either of eternal communion with God or eternal separation from Him. You can be a very kind person, give your money to charity, adopt pets from the shelter, eat only free-range chicken, vote at every election, and never touch alcohol but that has no impact on your eternity. All people have sinned, this sin separates each individual from the Holy God who can have no part with sin. In God's economy there must be a punishment for sin. Jesus came to take that punishment. If you believe that He died for your sins and rose again conquering sin and death and confess Him as Lord you are saved. All the right actions in the world don't make you a Christian. Belief in Christ makes you a Christian. All the goodness that may follow after this confession of faith does not make an individual any more or less of a Christian. Rather that goodness is a rightful response to the Holy God who has given us everything, and the outworking of the Holy Spirit inside of us who transforms us into the character of God. First you must believe, right living must flow from that belief.

I, along with the historical Church, accept the orthodox perspective as the Biblical and correct approach to the life of faith. This is what has informed the stance that pastors are meant to be guardians of the gate rather than ambassadors. First we must be certain that our congregation knows what it means to be Christian, and allow that to inform the way they live their lives.

Because of this view we are to love the teaching of Scripture (at the risk of seeming pretentious I'd like to call this "theology"), teach them, ands defend them. How this makes us look is secondary to our job to protect the Gospel from being watered down or compromised. But this is always to be done in the loving spirit of the Gospel, informed by who Christ is, not by our own ambitions or desires. We cannot forget Christ.

This is a warning I was reminded of as I heard a sermon preached on Revelation 2. At the beginning of Revelation 2 Jesus is delivering a letter to the Ephesian church. Jesus praise and congratulates them for their steadfastness in identifying and removing false teachers and remaining steadfast in the truth. These were people who knew their theology, how to identify those who are wrong, and how to endure in their faith and not be led astray. These are people who would have agreed with my last essay, and this one, wholeheartedly; and that causes me to pause. Because in the next sentence Jesus calls them out because, even as they were doing all those things they made one huge mistake, they forgot their first love. They defended and held to their theological convictions but forgot about Jesus whom they had loved and who loved them. This was such an intense mistake that Jesus was prepared to dismiss them entirely. Because they were theologians without heart they were no use to the Kingdom and were in danger of being more of a harm then help.

Its hard to argue that the church heeded this warning. The church is now a sub-group, an underground movement that exists in defiance of their government, hardly the influential church it was then. I worry that my emphasis on right thinking might encourage people to become heartless theologians who know all the right answers but none of that knowledge affects the way they live, the way they interact with people, the way they pray, the way they look at a sunset, the way they read their Bibles, the way they look at a new born baby, or their spouse. Theology can bring us closer to Christ, it can encourage and strengthen us. It can inform our prayer lives, inspire us to share the Gospel, move our hearts during worship, etc. But we must test ourselves. Is our pursuit of right thinking an end in and of itself? Or does it come from a heart to draw closer to the God of the universe who has created us and desires to be in communion with us? Theology without heart is a dangerous thing. Theology that begins with and is informed by Christ, who He is and what He has done for us, can change the world.

Guardians of the Gate or Ambassadors to the Nations?

When discussing the influence and ministry of pastors with other Christians the critique I often hear of Church leaders is that they are too quick to cause division and give critique. It is not the place of pastors, they claim (either directly or through inference), to denounce others or speak against them. Pastors should be bringing together, rather than tearing apart.

Most recently the issue came up when Rob Bell's new book had its first press release and video advertisement. The video is classic pretentious Bell. I've never been a fan of Bell's as I'm sure he'll never be a fan of mine. The video raises the question of how one gets to Heaven, even saying that the Gospel message that Christ dying for our sins to appease the righteous demand of God for a punishment for sin means that Jesus is saving us from God, and how poorly that reflects on the Father. There is talk of an art show and Gandhi in there, he does his classic hand gestures and long breathy pauses, someone mixes paints, and a camera pans through a room nonsensically.

After the video and press release came out a few evangelical leaders spoke out against it. Some wrote blogs and essays about the danger of what Rob Bell was saying. John Piper sent out a message on his twitter account saying goodbye to Rob Bell (dismissing him from the evangelical world one would assume). Others wrote blog posts and essays in defense of Rob Bell, or at least against those who spoke against him, saying their criticism is premature and we should wait until the book comes out to judge where Rob Bell stands.

The criticism surrounding the criticism is what I find most interesting and is not unique to this one instance. I often hear people criticizing evangelical leaders for being too critical, too quick to speak against those who are theologically against them.

The question these people raise, perhaps without really knowing it is: what is the responsibility of the pastor? Is he the guardian of the gate or is he the the ambassador to the nations? Is he responsible to protect the Church (and his local church) from false teachings, heresies, and all distractions from the Biblical faith or is he supposed to cast the widest net of appeal so as to attract as many people as possible and hurt as few as possible?

The argument would seem to be that our pastors are supposed to be ambassadors. They should make the faith as appealing as possible so as to bring in as many people into the doors of the church as possible and discourage as few people as possible from wanting to leave. When a pastor speaks against another evangelical leader or group or individual he creates divisions. Divisions separate which is the opposite intention of what the church and pastor are supposed to be doing. Churches make fewer and fewer theological distinctions, talk less and less about controversial issues, and never say negative things about anyone because we don't want to offend anyone.

This reflects our postmodern age and proclivities. We need people in the seats, not at home thinking all Christians are narrow minded and judgemental. But there are those (I amongst them) who would argue the opposite. Pastors are not meant to cast the widest net of appeal. They are not ambassadors. They are the guardians of the gate. They are in charge of keeping watch over their flock (believers who are members of their congregation). They are not here to make Christianity look cool (because its not cool!). They are hear to guide and instruct people in righteousness and Biblical living. The pastor's job is to provide right teaching and declare false teaching as such. If a person is teaching against the Scriptures, leading people away from Godliness, profaning the name of God, it is the pastor's primary job to tell his congregation and teach them why its wrong. If a man is claiming to be an evangelical while teaching things that go against Scripture the pastor should be the first to denounce that man's teachings and teach the truth. The pastor's job is to protect his flock from heresy and guide towards truth, whatever the consequences. So if Rob Bell even hints at the idea of universalism (that all people go to heaven-or at least all "good" people-regardless of their faith in Christ) then pastors should be putting their people on notice to at least be on guard about that, if not outrightly saying he's wrong. If they don't they are neglecting their responsibilities and are a disservice to the Church rather than a help.

Some people claim this kind of thinking makes the Church look bad, and maybe at times it does (especially done with an arrogant heart). But I am convinced that if we didn't do it than we look even worse. We become hypocrites who have no foundation at all. If we claim to believe in the truth as revealed in Scripture and build our lives upon that and then someone shows up and says something that contradicts Scripture and we accept it we look wishy-washy and spineless. If we say "Christ says that 'no one comes to the Father except through me'" but then turn around and say "and you can also come to Him by living a good life, feeling guilty sometimes about sinning, giving some money to the poor, etc." We are foundationless. We have no appeal at all.

One of the things we forget, I think, is how theology has been formed. Theology was not formed in a vacuum or by council (despite what the revered historian*Dan Brown says). The development of theology (at least up into the 1800s) came from a defensive stance. Theology was formed from division-division from heresy. Orthodoxy was always assumed until someone came and taught a heresy that forced the Church to put orthodox teaching on the subject into writing. Hence the Church having many documents titled "Against [some heretic]". Theology has always been reactive. The Reformation was a reaction to the Roman Catholic Church's many theological errors. Luther wrote many documents against those he viewed as wrong and teaching against Scripture.

Is this always pretty? No! Do we want division for divisions sake? Not at all. Sometimes these divisions are done in pride, sometimes in anger. I'm not saying they are always great. I am saying that we should know our heritage and understand that when men are teaching against Scripture it has been the Church's role to stand up and speak against it. If we do not we validate it with silence.

The issue at stake is the souls of men and women. There is nothing more important than that. If people don't want to come to church because we are correctly handling Scripture I can live with that. If they are attracted to our churches because we look like the world and never make a stand against anything and never bring about eternal change in anyones' lives I can't live with that. We are working to bring people to understand the amazing love that Christ has for us, that saves us from the dominating effect of sin in our lives. The consequence of failing in this end, the cost of allowing people to be misled while we stand silent is beyond dire.

The pastoral office is always to be held with humility and gentleness. Confrontation is not to be sought out or desired. People who build us haystack towers so that they can knock them back to the ground and set them on fire are quite dangerous. Creating controversy from nothing is neither Biblical nor wise. It is in fact contrary to Christian character. But that does not mean we shy away from confrontation, either. We proclaim and defend the truth. The cost is too high not to. Heresies must be called out and corrected, never tolerated.

Pastors are meant to guard the gate, protecting the sheep from the wolves outside. If there is a wolf trying to break through he is fought off, if we find a wolf within the gates he is to be quickly removed. To do anything less would be to abandon one's duties for the favor of man.

*he says snarkily.

The Madman and Ravi Zacharias

We have created the narrative of a world where God is not necessary, where we live by our own standards and disregard as tyrants those who would call us to something different, even if that different thing is for our betterment. We have left the building of towers to heaven to the ancients and instead tried to bring God down to ourselves, where we removed His crown, placed it upon our own heads and spent the rest of our lives staring at ourselves in the mirror.

A Moment with Pastor Bonhoeffer Part 1

When the Puritans wanted to know if their community was in right relationship with God they looked to the harvest. If the harvest for the community was plentiful they knew that they had lived in a pleasing way before the Lord. If the harvest was bad then they knew that at least one individual in the community was living in unrepentant sin. This being the case they would collect the people of the community into the church where the pastor would preach a sermon known as a Jeremiad*. Named after the "weeping prophet" Jeremiah of the Old Testament who was famous for calling the people of Israel to repent with great emotion, Jeremiads were sermons designed to call the congregation back to a right relationship with Jesus and repentance from sin that was dominating their lives.

The basic assumption of this practice was quite simple. If Jesus is happy with us then he will reward us in the exact manner and timing that we expect. If we do not get the thing we want/desire/suppose we need in our exact timing then He must be mad at us and if that is the case then we must repent in dust and ashes so that His wrath doesn't fall on us. If Jesus likes you He gives you things. If He doesn't then He is withholding.

The practice came from, what I am convinced is, a poor theological framework. Nowhere in Scripture is the idea expressed that prosperity is designed for those with whom the Lord is happy. I can't think of any Bible believing Christian who would explicitly say that the Puritans were right in their thinking. Most would say that they were quite wrong. One can point to the Egyptian nation who defied God and still enjoyed centuries of prosperity, while a man like Job could live a life pleasing before God and have everything taken away from him. The way the Lord works is beyond our comprehension that the reasons for events beyond our ability to categorize. No one would deny this. And yet I still find myself and others guilty of the fallacy of the Puritans.

When things are going well I rarely consider how my life and choices are impacting God, whether He is content or disappointed. When things are bad I immediately retreat to the notion that I am being punished for some great sin. In essence this is line of thinking is more in line with the Prosperity Gospel than Biblical Evangelicalism. The thinking is that if I live well I will be rewarded, if I live poorly I will be punished. This isn't Biblical Christianity. The Lord lets the sun shine on the just and unjust alike. His ways are unknowable. Why things happen the way they do is beyond our ability to comprehend. All I can do in the good times and the bad is know that the Lord is God, nothing is out of His control and all things work out for the good of those who love Him. But what that "good" looks like might not be what I expect.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer addressed this very issue when he was writing to the Confessing Church pastors who were fighting against the Nazi takeover of the German Church and nation. They were beginning to get discouraged wondering if they had been wrong by choosing the path they had. By this time pastors were being imprisoned and some had even been murdered. The dark times were just beginning and their was no light in sight. This brought them to an existential crisis where they asked themselves "what if we were wrong? Why hasn't God delivered us yet?" In a letter to these pastors Bonhoeffer spoke powerfully to this issue:

"We then speak as though we no longer had 'a proper joy and certainty' about this way, still worse, as though God and and His Word were no longer as clearly present with us as they used to be. In all this we are ultimately trying to get round what the New Testament calls 'patience' and 'testing.' Paul, at any rate, did not begin to reflect whether his way was the right one when opposition and suffering threatened, nor did Luther. They were both quite certain and glad that they should remain disciples and followers of their Lord. Dear Brethren, our real trouble is not doubt about the way upon which we have set out, but our failure to be patient, to keep quiet. We still cannot imagine that today God really doesn't want anything new from us, but simply prove us in the old way. That is too petty, too monotonous, too undemanding for us. And we simply cannot be content with the fact that God's cause is not always the successful one, that we really could be 'unsuccessful'; and yet be on the right road. But this is where we find out whether we have begun in faith or in a burst of enthusiasm."

The Christian's life is not validated by his success in this life. One's faith is not proven by the condition of his life. The Christian finds his identity in Christ, his worth and value is found in the fact that Jesus took the punishment for his sins and died for him that he might spend eternity with Christ. Faith in Christ who died for man on the cross is what makes a man a Christian. He is eternally sealed to Him forever. Nothing can shake or break that. Life gets hard. We will find ourselves in times of plenty and in times of want. But God remains constant. He is the one who united us to Himself and He will not let us go. A change has to be made in our own minds (my own mind!) where circumstances do not dictate the quality of our relationship with God, but simply provide an opportunity for that relationship to be strengthened. Those who desire faith will be given it, but often with tears. We know the Lord is content with us because He is content with the work Christ has done. We live lives seeking to honor Him as a rightful response, in love, for what He has done. Joys and difficulties are not meant to reflect our relationship with Christ, but to strengthen it. The secret is to endure, never quit, and continue hoping in the Lord, come what may.

*Out of this tradition we get Thanksgiving.

The Spirit of Christmas

I don't think Bill Maher and I would be buddies. Maybe we would? I make a mean fried chicken. Maybe he'd be into that. But I'm not really a fan of his. I am always interested in people who are so avidly against what I believe in, part of me feels obligated to understand their position if I am ever going to hope they will understand mine. But I find it even hard to understand where he comes from at times. In practice I see him being guilty of a lot of the things he accuses Christians of being (arrogant close-mindedness as an example). But I have to admit that I agree with him on this (warning: foul language):



I could expand on this topic more I think I will let it speak for itself for now. While I'm not against having material possessions I think we're heading in a dangerous direction. Having things is not bad, but finding our identity in them and being driven by a constant desire for more is incredibly dangerous. Its a very strange new form of gluttony.

The Gloves Come Off

My last essay discussed how inadequately stocked Christian book stores are these days when it comes to books that are of any consequence. Because Bible covers were occupying the space that was meant for history books I came down at least moderately hard on those Bible covers. Over the last week I had conversations with a few different people about whether or not I was too hard on Bible book stores or not hard enough. I felt I was gentle while also making my point plain. No need to hurt any one's feelings. I felt that way, that is, until I went to the Bible book store again this morning to get my last Christmas present. Then I found this:


I no longer feel a need to be nice. This is either the saddest or funniest thing in the Christian book store, I can't decide. Well that's not totally fair, this is merely indicative of many products that Christian book stores are peddling. Every single brand that exists, from Adidas to the Republican party has Christian parody propaganda replicating their appearance. I'm pretty sure this is up there as the most ridiculous though. "I have an idea: lets cover peoples' beautifully leather bound, golden edged book that's contain the very words of God Himself, His main revelation of Himself to humanity, and put it in a really tacky case that is a semi-clever riff on a video game that was incredibly popular two years ago and has since decreased in significance in the culture, that will make us look relevant to society."

I hope I don't hurt any one's feelings with this, but its a frustrating thing. When I think of the creators of this product I can only think of two possible things that could be going on in their minds when they came up with this idea. One option is they think this is a really good idea and they are incredibly proud of the work they have done. If this is the case, which is a scary proposition, then we should not be buying this kind of product because we owe it to them to save them from themselves. When I was a kid I played basketball. I wasn't the most terrible thing in the world but I wasn't that good. Add to that that I was short then and am as an adult only 5'5" and you have the clear makings of a boy who had the potential to be anything he wanted, just not a basketball player. There was no sense in hoping that I was gonna make a career, or even really a hobby, out of basketball. I wasn't going to be Bugsy Malone. My parents were nice to me about it, but they made it clear that I should focus on hobbies I was better suited for, like sitting and reading, or theater, stuff that didn't require height. Did it hurt my little feelings? Absolutely! Were they right? I don't think anyone in all of human history has been more right about anything. If my parents had tried to encourage me on then the end result would have only been hurt, disappointment and embarrassment. We need to do for these people what my parents did for me: stop encouraging them because they are going in the wrong direction. This kind of thing needs to stop, and it will only stop when we stop giving them our money for making ridiculous products. I can only do so much people! I need your help. Stop buying silly knock-offs of pop culture products. Only then will they stop being made, and maybe when that happens something clever will take its place, something that has some artistic and real spiritual merit. Stop the madness before it goes any further.

The other option for what these creators are thinking is far more sinister and I hope its not true, but I fear it is. People make products like this because they think we're stupid. They have no respect for us. They don't think we want or desire anything with more artistic or aesthetic appeal because they don't think we'll appreciate it. They figure we'll be happy with the manipulation of a popular icon, justify its existence with a vague verse then display it. Job done. We'll just buy stuff because its Christian. We should demand more from the things we buy. Its not my place to decide whether or not people who make these products are Christians. But I can say that its an easy market to tap into. You don't have to come up with anything original, just "Christianize" items in pop culture then take a long lunch. When I saw this Bible cover my first thought was "man, they really think we're idiots." The people who make this kind of thing should have more respect for us. We should demand more respect.

I don't really understand Bible covers to begin with. So I'm probably not the market for this. But it confuses me to no end that these kinds of things even exist. And I'm sure if they are in the store they are in the real world. Which means someone is walking around carrying their Bible in one of these cases. And as they do people are giving them strange looks and asking themselves "how long has it been since Guitar Hero and Rock Band were even cool?"

Loving History (or "Why We Should Be Very Very Afraid")

I admit I watch The Daily Show because it is hilarious, and because I think Jon Stewart is one of the most interesting comedians/tv personalities working today, carrying an influence, reputation and charm that may one day be compared only second to Johnny Carson himself. This is all conjecture, but I'm nearly positive I am right. But that is not the main reason I watch The Daily Show. I watch it to support it. When you watch a tv show or movie, buy an artist's album, see a play, or purchase a book at Borders you're essentially voting for that thing you're purchasing-validating its existence, requesting that the creator continues making similar product, and calling for those in the business of that medium to continue making more products in the same vain. I watch The Daily Show because I support (at least in part-never in whole) what it represents, at least in my mind. That being the repopularization of intellectualism. For all the things that I don't fully agree with, the prospect that a show like this can bring people back to analytical thinking, appreciation for high ideas, and learning (especially when lacking the motivation that a school provides) is something to support. I believe this is a great thing to fight for, because in the age of reality tv and politicians taking off their ties and wearing flannel to tell us "I'm just like you... I did go to Harvard and I own a controlling interest in a major league baseball team... but I'm still just like you" intellectualism is taking a nose dive.

The popular conscience has not been penetrated yet, but this is a start. We seem to revel in not knowing, in gut reaction over informed decision. Being cool is more important than being informed. Comfort and safety is a more worthy pursuit than knowledge.

This really only started bothering me the other day when I was at a local Christian book store looking for a good present for a friend. After I found a good book for him I began doing what I always do in book stores: mining every isle to see what books there were, which ones I wanted to read, which ones I could only ask why it would exist. And I found this:

This picture* is take in the section marked "history." One would assume that in the section reserved for history books there would be books on Church history. This is not a barren area in the world of the written word. There are thousands of volumes on the topic. Even personally I have enough books on Church history to fill this single five shelfed section. But instead of there being any books on great leaders of the Church, or on the progression of theological ideas, or on the progress of the Church from the post-apostolic age to neo-evangelicalism there are a bunch of Bible covers. Bible covers! There was not one history book. My problem with Bible covers? They are nice and all (the butterfly on the cover seems pleasant, especially if it is intended to represent the transformation of the believer in Christ, rather than because they are pretty) but they aren't essential. Knowledge of history is essential.

I understand supply and demand. I know that if people were buying Church history books people would be selling them (they are writing them, they just aren't being marketed). I don't totally blame the store. But when I looked around the store I didn't find much to encourage me. The theology section is only a little more improved, but each of those books is written by authors who are still living, no sense of history there. Now, what books were well stocked and selling? The fiction section was huge with not one Bible cover to be found. Wall to wall there were books with girls with bonnets on covers. Those covers that were bonnetless were decorated in lightning bolts, dark clouds, or anything else that makes you think "This looks like a book Stephen King would write if he were a Christian." Funny enough, the fiction section, with all its books about people living on the prairie is the closest the whole place came to anything resembling history. I suppose I should be grateful and less snarky about that.

Full disclosure, I was a Church history major in college. So clearly I am biased to the subject. But arguing that more people should be aware of Church history doesn't benefit me in any way-actually one can make the argument that it hurts me, if people would just read a few books on Church history (even skim them), they would know as much as I would and all my anecdotes would be undercut-I see no more money in my pocket. My ramen noodles won't taste better. I want people to read history because I believe that its important. The old idiom that those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it is entirely true. We need history, we need to learn from it, otherwise we're going to be a broken record, never progressing, always repeating the same beats.

People don't understand why I don't trust Rob Bell. Most think I'm close minded or something clever like that, I've been accused of not having progressive enough thinking, being afraid of change. One guy tried to argue that I was too modern. I'm glad he said it because I hadn't laughed enough that day until then. After that I met my quota. Why don't I trust him? Because historically every "controvertial" thing he has said was also said by liberal theologians and pastors BACK IN THE 1920'S!!! How progressive can anyone be if their statements are more or less retreadings of arguments made 90 years ago? These liberal theologians and pastors were debunked and argued against all that time ago. Their whole theological framework was abandoned to be repackaged several more times over the last century. The claims he makes, the ideas he "introduced" were also made by men who, long before any of us were born, separated themselves from evangelicalism and if they didn't evangelical theologians and pastors were showing them the door. Now the same ideas are back again. "Yeah, but he does say some really encouraging things, and stuff that makes me think." One, I'm not sure thats worth the damage he does, two, I haven't found one thing he's said that is constructive that Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Moody, Schaeffer, Lewis, Spurgeon, or Bonhoeffer et al hasn't said (much less what is found in Scripture itself), and hasn't said it better.

Through reading about Church history, and reading works written by major figures I have learned so much that I fail to have to space to describe it all here. But I will certainly try to at least give an idea:

• Martin Luther taught me to deal with guilt when I was drowning in it. He helped me to further understand what it means to find my identity in Christ, not in my own actions or how anyone else saw me.
• Kierkegaard taught me to work through melancholy, the beauty of the individual, the dangers of a cultural religion, and the dangers of disregarding the importance of the Church.
• When John Wesley was sailing to England he encountered a severe storm that caused him to fear for his life. When he noticed a group of believers who showed no fear of death he was shocked. After they had arrived safely he asked them why they were not afraid. They responded that they saw no reason to be afraid of death, they were going to heaven. This group of people were called the Morovians. This is one of my favorite stories in church history. Why should a believer fear death? Amazing.
• Studying the persecuted Church brought me to greater appreciation for every right I enjoy now.
• Hearing about men and women willingly facing death because they refused to deny Christ forces me to ask why I am not more bold.

These are just a few examples. There are plenty more stories I could tell (DL Moody giving up his financially successful job to work with street kids to the point where he was out of money and sleeping on chairs in the closet of the YMCA comes to mind) to show how valuable history is. We have the opportunity to learn from men and women who have lived before us, saving ourselves the trouble and pain that they went through. As well as being encouraged and taught by them. That is essentially what the poem "The Weight of Glory" was trying to communicate.

If we don't study history we rob ourselves of its benefits. We cheat ourselves. We shouldn't knowingly allow that to happen. We have a rich heritage, and a wealth of knowledge at our disposal, but instead of trying to tap into that we're doing everything we can to make sure our Bibles look at pretty as possible. What a shame.

*I was about to apologize for the quality of the photo taken by my camera phone, then I realized how crazy it was to begin with that I could take a picture with my phone, send it to my email and then place it on this blog. Who cares that the quality isn't 1080i thats still pretty crazy.