A Baptist Hope

First off, IDK if I've posted it before, and if I did it was before I started tagging my posts. If repeated, sorry!

I was reminded the other day of a document that I had been led to by some friends called "The Baptist Manifesto" (click to read...opens as pdf.). As most of you may know, I was raised and have remained Baptist (at least in my personal convictions, and speaking of Baptists in the historical sense) even though I have tried hard to publicly withdraw from certain Baptist circles. Baptists, as most things do, have evolved over the years and many sects of the Baptist denomination have moved away from the historical beliefs that on which the Baptists obtained their identity.

To most people, Baptist has come to mean conservative/fundamentalist in it's ideals (although there is a whole spectrum of beliefs in the Baptist world), judgemental, separatist, and non-tolerant! In undergrad, when I started to learn about the politics and beliefs of Baptists, I have to say I was ashamed to be a Baptist. Through education of Baptist/Church history, I began to cling to what originally made Baptists stand out from other movements throughout the reformation. However, as we move into postmodernity, I once again found that many Baptists (even the ones that I had not cut connections with) were not eager to reach out into postmodern theology/ideology and change. Most Baptists were too busy fighting over what they WEREN'T and not defining who they were or wanted to be.

I was befuddled, because as I studied and understood this changing worldview, I realized that Baptists who held the original/traditional Baptist beliefs could more easily adapt and evolve into postmodern ministry. It shouldn't be so hard. And then comes the "Baptist Manifesto" (actual title: "Re-envisioning Baptist Identity: A Manifesto for Baptist Communities in North America"). In this document, the contributors work towards BOTH being true to original Baptist heritage, as well as acknowledging and looking forward into a postmodern worldview.

At this point, I was proud once again to be a Baptist. I think there is still a ways to go, and one of those steps is a desegregation of denominationalism. I know that is a seeming contradiction to this post, but having a sense of identity goes a long way towards transitioning. I think as these types of Baptists began working with emerging Methodists, Presbyterians, etc..., then we will begin to see these lines of denominationalism blur and again become one body, a Catholic Church. This is a great start for Baptists! There's still a long ways to go!
___________________
Other articles on Baptist Manifesto:

Baptist Studies Figurehead: William B. Shurden's Response

APBNewsArticle
History of "Baptist Manifesto"

Pursuit of.....

Check out my friend Terry-Michael's Newest Blog post: Holiness Observed over at his blog, Twist of Faith .

A great quick story and this quote:

For some folks, the pursuit of truth (or Truth, or absolute
Truth) is seen as the highest, most honored of quests. But, I wonder,
God may be saying, "that's none of your business." And God might go on to
say, "The truth? That's my business. Why don't you all stick to finding
beauty instead?"

That's just a teaser! See how he got there. GO GO GO!!!!

Inspired Inspiration

This blog post is a result of MANY conversations (some much nicer than others towards me...and I admit that I can get defensive online) and a common root to those discussions. No matter what the topic of conversation is (dealing with Christianity), a divide of beliefs is bound to happen. It can usually then go one of several ways multiplied by the number of people involved in said discussion.

1) We have a nice discussion, ask questions, listen to each other's opinions, and walk away with new nuggets of thought to process.
2) The person begins drilling me on my comments in attempts to prove me wrong, inefficient in my "arguments", and attempts to poke holes in my theology. MOST of the time this is done in a civil manner and is not meant to be harsh or demeaning. However, by it's very nature it puts me on a defensive platform, and becomes not a conversation but a debate. The difference between 2 and 3 is the usual civility and there is still a fair amount of listening going on, yet toleration is more the theme here rather than acceptance in #1.
3) The person begins calling one such names as "heretic", "apostate", "non-Christian", and false prophet. (I'm waiting for someone to combine all these together and just call me a "Harry-false-no-Christ-Ape:) At this point, NO listening is going on on either end, everyone is trying to "prove" they're right, and it is the furthest thing from conversation.

So, when speaking of Christian issues, the most common disagreements that arise can be followed back to ONE issue. That of Biblical inspiration. I wrote a couple of posts back about Biblical Interpretation (literal v. other) and the disputes and actions that rise from that (see the article to see about the teacher being fired for questioning a literal interp.) However, I purposely left out a key factor in this discussion/debate. You see, those that argue for a literal interpretation are usually arguing about a kin, yet slightly different subject: that of Biblical Inspiration!!! What is the theological stance on the book that inspires all of Christianity. How do we understand this "Inspired Inspiration"?

The main theories are three-fold
A) God spoke to the writers and they wrote down word-for-word what God is saying, thus making the Bible "the word of God".
B) God actually led the hand of the writers of the Bible (as well as those that copied and translated the manuscripts down through history), and again, word-for-word it is God speaking.
C) It is a book written by different people (perhaps more than one author to a single book) from a certain point of view, with a specific audience and agenda. Thus, not technically, the "Word of God" (at least as far as it goes word-for-word).

Can you see where the arguments would come in? That's right, not between A/B, but between A and/or B v. C . Because you can't logically have infallibility and inerrancy without believing first A or B.

(I must now state that there are other positions, but in the blog world where these debates are happening, these represent or most closely represent the majority.)

So, what happens with C? Well the Bible becomes a collection of humans writing from their own experiences in a specific context and culture, with a specific reason and audience in mind. I tend to explain it this way: "It is the human record of humanity's (from a Hebrew to an early Christian context) attempt to understand and explain their experiences with the Divine and mankind's relationship to that divine through the use of language." So it is a certain culture, specific experiences, and a message being delivered through the writings.

What does this mean?
Well it means that things in the Bible might conflict. A culture who does not record history in the same way we understand recorded history (preserving the actual events), is not trying got make the Bible a "history book", but instead a book with a metaphorical understanding of the Divine. These writers knew that language was not adequate enough to describe God, and only serves to contain God to a being within our understanding. But how else are we to understand except through language? So they use stories and metaphors (the most elegant of comparisons) to communicate God and their experiences with him. That doesn't mean that things like the Exodus didn't happen, but the story (preserved through verbal transmission for centuries before someone wrote it down) is not concerned with being accurate, rather it is concerned with preserving the message. Therefore ACCURACY is not the highest priority for any of the writers...even the "history books" (Acts, 1&2 Kings) have conflicts with historical details put forth in other books mentioning the same histories. But does the Bible have to be 100% accurate in the same mindset we think of accuracy in the modern mindset in order for it to be inspired, inspirational, reliable, informative, and most importantly: sacred?

Another example:

Jesus understood all of this. Why do you think that he chose to speak in parables that even his closest disciples couldn't understand at times. One of his most used phrases is, "________ is like _____________ ."
"The Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed."
"The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field."
The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount of flour until it worked all through the dough."
"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field."
etc... (that's just the first part of Matt. speaking about the Kingdom!

"God, Heaven, the Divine...it is LIKE ______, not exactly, but it's a good example....oh, and it's also LIKE ______ too. As well as it being LIKE__________....." And that's kinda how Jesus speaks of things that our language can't quite express.
___________

Ok, so what does all this mean about INSPIRATION?
Well, anytime we come "face-to-face" with God/the Divine...anytime we experience something Holy...we are inspired. These authors recounting the stories, experiences and messages that were holy to them were inspired. It doesn't matter if God led their hand, or took over their body and mind so that each drop of ink was directly from him. He's been using mankind all throughout history to share their experiences and work together (dare I call this communal aspect community) in order to understand him and his wishes. He then sent Christ to give us even more direction and inspiration for humanity's journey. I think the Bible can still be INSPIRED even if it was written by man in his own words because the experience and tradition (stories) that prompted the writing was indeed inspired by God.

But doesn't this make the Bible less SACRED?
Again, I would argue that the Bible is still JUST AS sacred in this understanding as it is in the "Divinely Inspired" approach. Some would even argue that it is MORE sacred from this vantage point! Let me explain. Sacred has traditionally been tied to the source of said topic. However, that is always in hindsight. What MAKES something sacred is us! How we treat and approach something is what makes it sacred. Why do you think idolatry is high on the "no-no" list? It's not that making en graven images, or having icons is in itself idolatrous, it is how we approach and treat these icons that makes our acts idolatry.


For Centuries, these writings have been held in the highest esteem. They have been considered "sacred" by more than one religion because of how they speak to us! There were many writings that didn't make the Bible's "cut", yet were considered sacred to different communities in a different time.

Addition: (I don't feel like I finished my thought process here)...
I sometimes feel that in the way we approach the Bible, there's a fine line between that sacredness and idolatry. I have had people point this out with the above idea..."don't you think that this view/approach leads to an idolatrous view of the Bible?". I would have to admit that yes, it can be a tendency. However, admitting that it is NOT God's dictation, and that it is in fact errant and fallible stems people away from treating it as MORE THAN sacred. In fact, I would argue that in modern Christianity, the A and B view has actually LED people to allow the Bible to become an idol. When we allow the Bible to be something MORE than what it is, when it becomes an extension of God (part of God), or hold the same qualities of God (without error/ never wrong), it can become a sort of god in our lives. There are many people that focus so much on the Bible (like the argument that God CAN'T reveal himself outside of the 66 leather-bound books) that they can fall victim to a form of idolatry. Modern Christianity has had a habit of raising the Bible BEYOND the sacred, to the Divine...in all practicality, worshipping the Bible rather than worshiping God. Worshiping their pick-and-choose scriptural God, over a God that is not bound in or by the scriptures. As Marcus Borg Says, "The Bible is the finger pointing towards God, not God himself. There is a big difference in worshipping the finger, and worshipping God." (Reading The Bible Again For The First Time emphasis mine and slightly paraphrased).

In addition to C's view still being sacred, when people view these writings as human beings and communities struggling to understand God and our purpose in the world (the same question that people and communities of faith are asking today!!!), there is a connection that transcends time and space. We can relate to their humanity, their struggles, their mistakes, and their victories. We add their stories to our own stories; their experiences with the Divine to our experiences with God and his Kingdom/work!!!! This timeless, seemingly supernatural, connection makes the Bible even MORE sacred to many people!
__________
So, nutshell version of this approach. What are the implications? Well, there is a language barrier... an understanding barrier when two people (one who belongs in A or B and thinks anything else is wrong, thus cannot converse with C because their theology (built with this cornerstone) begins to fall apart if questioned) simply cannot accomplish true conversation. It leads usually, to either #2 or#3.

The question I'm pondering is how to get around this hump. This theological and religious structure we call inspiration, seems to be the biggest dividing point amongst Christians because everything else Biblically derived is tied to a person's personal understanding of the inspiration of the Bible. Until we can cross this language/viewpoint barrier...I'm afraid, I'm afraid that we will continue this trend in Christianity to keep dividing when Unity is needed most. I wish we could switch our focus from unity around beliefs to unity around something else? ! That's where our conversations need to be centered! We need to be finding what it is we can unify ourselves around, not continually debating that which continues to divide us!

What are your thoughts?

The Church in Crisis

Copied from Relevant Christian Blog:


There has been a lot of buzz about David T. Olson’s new book, The American Church in Crisis (Zondervan, 2008). Olson is the director of the American Research Project and director of church planting for the Evangelical Covenant Church.

His book is loaded with charts, graphs and sidebars, and his research is based(as are his conclusions) on his study of a national database of some 200,000 churches.

And the upshot of his research - there is cause for concern.

For instance, despite some optimistic polls that otherwise suggest the American church is thriving, Olson writes,

“On any given Sunday,cthe vast majority of Americans are absent from
church and if trends ccontinue, by 2050, the percentage of Americans attending
church will be
half (of what it was in 1990).”

I know that in Metro Atlanta in the heart of the “Bible Belt” there are over 70 Mega-churches (defined by 2,000+) and one would think that almost “everyone goes to church”. And yet in our county, only 15.7% of the population actually go to church. We are not as “churched” as we are often led to believe.

According to Olsen, to avoid this dismal future, “the American church must engage with…three critical transitions …which have altered the relationship between American culture and the church.” Namely, Olsen defines these critical transitions as:
1. The transition from a Christian to a post-Christian society;

2. The transition from a modern to a post-modern society;

3. The transition from a mono-ethnic to a multi-ethnic society.

Of course, transitions 1. and 2. have long been foreseen and understood. It’s transition 3. - the new kid on the block - that’s getting increased attention from researchers, writers, theologians and practitioners, etc., alike.

According to Olson, it’s not only what’s needed; it’s the future.

He writes,

“In the mono-ethnic world, Christians, pastors and churches only had to
understand their own culture. Ministering in a homogeneous cultures is easier,
but mono-ethnic Christianity can gradually become culture-bound….In the
multi-ethnic world, pastors, churches and Christians need to operate under the
rules of the early church’s mission to the Gentiles.”

But this is the “money” quote:

“As the power center of (global) Christianity moves south and east, the
multi-ethnic church is becoming the normal and natural picture of the new face
of Christianity.”

The NEW FACE of CHRISTIANITY in AMERICA. If you are threatened by the idea of a church that is going to be less Anglo and more diverse, then this won’t perceived as good news. But if you believe and know that the heart of Christ and the gospel is a church for the nations, then it becomes exciting to see the church transformed from ethnic and cultural parochialism to seeing it transformed into a multi-ethnic mosaic.

What do you think, is this a crisis or a new and exciting opportunity?

Bill Reichart is a pastor at Big Creek Church in Forsyth County, GA. He blogs at his personal blog, Provocative Church and his ministry blog, Ministry Best Practices.
________________________
I also want to import the comment/response up as of right now, but would love to hear your thoughts!!:

Paul says: (please click to see original link)
The problem lies in the fact that modern fundamentalism is a failed method of communication in a post-Christian world. Modern fundamentatlism, which didn’t come about until the end of the 19th century, sets itself in opposition to modern society, rather than in support of Christ. It is no wonder, then, that people become so turned off. Instead of doing what we should do, we focus on telling people what they should not do. Instead of love and education, we give fire and brimstone. We are a negative religion instead of a positive one. We stand in opposition to science with ID. We stand in opposition to so many things. And it is this very angry face which is the picture of Christianity in our post-Christian world.

We can only win them back with unconditional, non-judgemental love. If homosexuals want to come into the church, as one example, greet them with open arms. If God can forgive a murderer, as He did multiple times in the Bible, then how much more easily can He forgive a homosexual? If God set Deborah in charge of Israel, how can we not let a woman stand behind the pulpit in our churches? No man can know what any woman’s calling is. That is between her and God.

What is the major challenge facing Christianity in America? Look to the mirror. It is you and me.

The Key To Life

I offer you a little reading music:



This may sound like a no-brainer, and it kinda is, but still it needs to be said. It goes something like this:
1) Life is made up of relationships. Everything important boils down to some sort of relationship. we have relationships in and through our work, our free-time, our families, our enemies, our organizations and communities (i.e. churches, neighborhoods, sports, etc...). Everything boils down to relationships of differing degrees. (Even lack of a relationship is a relationship category... a "non-relationship").
2) The key to any relationship is COMMUNICATION!!! Without communication relationships become dysfunctional and become something like a non-relationship, or just the facade of a relationship.
3) Therefore the key to life is COMMUNICATION!



Why bring this up? I see a lot of dysfunction on a daily basis! I've come to realize that a key concept to this dysfunction is the lack of healthy relationships caused by the lack of communication, or dysfunctional communication. Let's look at examples. I think that many divorces are caused by lack of communication! At least a lack of healthy communication. I was thinking back on past relationships I had in dating and realized how I was always blindsided when a girl dumped me. When given the reasons, I always wondered how I had missed the issues, and the problem always boiled down to a failure (usually on both people's part) to communicate. The issues could not be addressed properly because of deception, pushing down the issues, and not being open and honest.


Communication is key to a relationship...that was the most important lesson I learned in premarital counseling. Everything is communication. Choosing to do or not do something is communication. A touch, hug, or kiss is communication. Sex is all about communication!!!!!


So with that wisdom in hand, I think about other relationships in our lives. Having been a youth minister (and a youth), as well as an Assoc. Pastor... it amazes me how dysfunctional communication has become in families. Parents don't talk with their kids, and/or hold back, misrepresent, or outright lie when they talk. This is dysfunctional communication. I am always surprised that many times I would know more about a child as their youth minister than the parent would know about their on child! I only saw the youth 2-3 times a week, but the parents should get to see their kids every day! What's the difference? Communication! And communication is done as much verbally as it is non-verbally. True communication usually involves as much (if not more) listening than talking. More on that in a sec.


I look at people who are unhappy in their job. I ask, what are they communicating? Does their "front" they put on say they are happy when they aren't? Have they tried to communicate with their bosses and fellow coworkers?


I look at many churches who are hurting right now. Most of the time, the church is one of the worst models of communication... and the church is supposed to help model and lead people towards leading a healthy life! Interesting. Yet many churches suffer from power struggles, subversive politics, and non-genuine communication. This usually ends with an unhealthy church where eventually people end up getting hurt. That's a lot of what happened to me.


I will use my own story as an example. There were a lot of areas where people would not, or did not want to openly and honestly communicate. I did, and it got me fired. But that's ok, it takes both parties to openly and honestly communicate for a healthy relationship to be produced. I got to walk away knowing that I had not been subversive or deceiving in my part of the relationship, which to be honest, is the only part of a relationship that you can realistically be responsible for.


However, communication was the MAIN issue there. We see the guy who was classic passive-aggressive... this comes from a lot of dysfunctional relationships, and how he tried to form a dysfunctional relationship with me through my public lynching. We have parents who were afraid that I was setting a bad example for the youth by having a friend that was gay (regardless of my own personal opinions or beliefs on the matter). They did not confront me about it, but went around me forcing their will on the administration. More dysfunctional relationships. The administration folded and thus did not have healthy communication by confronting the issues, and allowing me to know about the whole thing (little less speak on my own behalf). Then you have the announcement: telling the church that I had mysteriously left (both been fired and resigned in 2 sentences) and then saying that it was taboo to talk about the subject...."move on". Very dysfunctional communication/relationship skills there!!!! And thus the church is saved from having to face and COMMUNICATE about tough issues in the real world like the issue of Homosexuality in their church/beliefs.


That's only a partial example, but I see it all the time. Where did we lose the ability to openly and honestly communicate with one another? I see this all the time on the blogosphere (I admit I'm guilty). Communication is infrequent because people can't get past their differing ideas and theologies. I try to have true conversations in the blogging world, but have been labeled and called names, and degraded. I wonder...did we lose the ability to communicate or did we never learn how. Why can't we find healthy ways of communication?

And that's what it boils down to. The key to a healthy life: OPEN and HONEST communication, done with RESPECT and in a TIMELY, PERSISTENT MANNER! Communication should always be happening. Things don't need to be stored up and allowed to fester. Conversations need to be INCLUSIVE and not done behind the involved parties back. Honesty is a key. Sometimes being honest hurts, but it is necessary for a productive and healthy relationship! The trick is that there are fair and unfair tactics that can be used when communicating honestly! Honesty SHOULD NEVER be used as a weapon, but be respected for the weight it can sometimes carry.


I think about the days my wife and I have long conversations about our lives and our relationship. Sometimes these conversations are hard. We get defensive by nature. But we made a promise almost 5 years ago to always communicate and to be open and honest. Because of this, we have had very few fights! I can still count the number of fights STILL on one hand! Growing up with parents who fought a lot, this still amazes me. But I see the reason. Timely, open and honest communication. Communication that speaks, but truly listens and thinks about what the other person is saying. EMPATHY, and UNDERSTANDING are keys to relationships...this goes a step far beyond tolerance to acceptance! That is the only way communication remains healthy and relationships work out positively. ACCEPTANCE doesn't mean that the other person is always right....but acknowledging their position and accepting it and respecting it as their own.


Communication is the key to life. So why are we so bad at it?

In the words of John Mayer: "say what you need to say". But do it in a healthy way!!!!

Sex Ed. 101

SCENE: A Public School Health Class
TEACHER: "Today's topic... Sexual Education. If you'll please turn to page 77 in your textbook....um yes Timmy, will you read what it says on that page? What's that...yes, please read the whole page!"
TIMMY: (reading) "uh....it just says, 'don't do it'?!"
TEACHER: "That's right, and that completes our comprehensive education on Sex, now on page 31 we will be discussing the most important topic this year, how to clip you toenails"
END SCENE
______________

Coming from a conservative (actually fundamentalist) Baptist upbringing, sex was a big topic in my youth years...I mean abstinence was a big topic...SEX was NEVER openly and honestly talked about!!!

Yes, as with most churches, sex is a taboo topic except for that once a year weekend retreat where you bring in someone else to talk about the evils of sex before marriage and guilt them into signing some sort of covenant (like True Love Waits) pledging that they will remain abstinent until their marriage night (or 50th wedding anniversary). ONE problem with this approach (from both a youth and youth minister perspective) is that all this usually guarantees is that when a teen does decide to have a night of passion, they will wake up the next day with a LOT of guilt. The subliminal message: Sex is bad!

I know that that's not the message that these approaches are trying to send, but it is, in fact, the message that we do send. I'll be honest... my wedding night, I was scared that I would feel like I was doing something wrong because fear and guilt tactics were the only way anyone would ever approach the topic of sex.
____________

After that TMI, we recently see the results from the Oversight Committee Hearing on Abstinence-Only Education, headed by Chairman Waxman. Here's some of his opening statements:

The statistics are shocking. A few weeks ago, the CDC released data showing that one in four teenage girls in the U.S. has a sexually transmitted infection. 30% of all American girls become pregnant before the age of 20; for African-American and Latina girls, the rate is 50%. And thousands of teenagers and young adults in the United States become infected with HIV each year.
If we’re serious about responding to these challenges, we must base our policy on the best available science and evidence, not ideology.
We’re here today to discuss evidence on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs. There is a broad consensus that the benefits of abstinence should be taught as part of any sex education effort. But abstinence-only programs teach only abstinence. In federally-funded abstinence-only programs, teenagers cannot receive information on other methods of disease prevention and contraception, other than failure rates.
To date these programs have gotten over $1.3 billion dollars of federal taxpayer money, along with hundreds of millions of dollars in state funds, to conduct programs in schools and communities across the United States. Meanwhile, we have no dedicated source of federal funding specifically for comprehensive classroom sex education.

But we will hear today from multiple experts that after more than a decade of huge government spending, the weight of the evidence doesn’t demonstrate abstinence-only programs to be effective.
In fact, the government’s own study showed no effect for abstinence-only programs. In 2007, the Bush Administration released the results of a longitudinal, randomized, controlled study of four federally-funded programs. The investigators found that compared to the control group, the abstinence-only programs had no impact on whether or not participants abstained from sex. They had no impact on the age when teens started having sex. They had no impact on the number of partners. And they had no impact on rates of pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease.

Meanwhile, more and more research shows that many well-designed comprehensive programs that teach about abstinence and contraception are effective. Comprehensive, age-appropriate programs have yielded results including increasing contraceptive use, delaying sex, and reducing the number of sexual partners.
In other words, the evidence demonstrates that not only do good comprehensive programs not encourage teen sexual activity, they actually decrease it. This shouldn’t be too surprising, because in effective comprehensive programs, young people are taught that abstinence is the safest choice, the healthiest choice, and a choice that they should never feel pressured to abandon.

Click to read the full transcript!
_______________
Ok, so let's get this out of the way. I'm not some person who doesn't care about our youth and is an advocate for sex before marriage. Actually, I still strongly support abstinence as the best choice... but not ONLY for religious reasons. I would actually say they are the least of my justification on that stance. No, I stand for abstinence as the best choice for psychological, and physiological health reasons IN ADDITION to my religious beliefs on the subject. (actually, they are all tied together being that I believe God wants what's best for us as a whole person, not just spiritually).

But, the Abstinence-ONLY approach of education isn't working. It isn't effective, studies have shown, and if you have truly worked with real life teenagers then it's pretty intuitive, that Abstinence-only education is not long-lasting education.

So...why do we ignore the experts? I mean I agree if a more comprehensive sex-ed. program did not give abstinence as a sexual option. But every comprehensive program and curriculum that I've studied not only spends time on an abstinence option, it ENCOURAGES that option OVER AND ABOVE all other options. AND IT IS MORE EFFECTIVE! Here we have teens (esp. male guys) at their sexual peak (hormonally speaking), and we're telling them that they are supposed to completely ignore those natural feelings, and feel guilty and dirty when they give into their hormones. Instead, we can better educate them about their bodies, what's going on, and the ones who are going to have sex regardless, will at least be better informed on their options! Studies have shown that those who are MOST LIKELY to remain abstinent because of an abstinent-only approach, will still respond with the choice of abstinence when given a more comprehensive approach to sex.

So here are my questions:
Why do we not listen to the experts and take a more scientifically proven approach? Why don't we listen? Are we scared?

I think Representative, John Duncan (R-Tenn.) summed it up best: "It seems rather elitist to me for people who have degrees in this field and because they've studied it, somehow know better than the parents...."
Yeah, all these researchers with all their research and studies and degrees thinking they know something about the field in which they are working. Because parenting REQUIRES a higher degree and....wait...what's that??? I'm being told that parenting in fact, does not require a degree or class of any sort. What many would consider the most important job in our society (raising a child) does not heed the research and use it towards better parenting, instead cling to the the way they think is best.

I know that's sarcastic, but, like my last post... we Christians seem to think that because we have the Bible, we don't need any advancements in human technology and understanding. Hmmm.... we should picket the printing press!!!! Stupid Martin Luther and his idea to translate the Bible into the vernacular and have it mass produced!

Sorry, really don't know what's gotten into me tonight to be so sarcastic, but I really do question when parents (esp. Christian parents) are so against a better and more effective way of educating teens about sex. Let me say this, I respect if you want to teach abstinence-only in your house, or even in your church. That is perfectly fine if that is your religious viewpoint. But in public schools (sit down, this may shock you), teens are 1) not all Christian or religious, and 2) are having sex. Us fighting against a more comprehensive public education program is IN FACT, not making number 2 any better, and the WAY Christians teach it isn't helping #1 all that much either.

So studies show....
Comprehensive Sexual Education is more effective....
Abstinence-only education has little-to-no effect....
Why not allow the system to change?'

Sorry for the rant and the sarcasm, but this has bothered me since I was in youth. I saw how little this old approach worked with my peers, and well... I think I will support whatever the studies show as long as the educational program still teach abstinence as the best option!

Searching For Questions?

Is it ok to question the historicity (the historical accuracy of what is said and portrayed literally) in the Bible?
What can be gained from this?
What harm can it bring?

One man, Ed Dobson, found out the answer to that first question was "no", in a tough way:



BIO/BACKGROUND--From ThinkChristian
Dobson, the 31-year-old son of retired Calvary Church pastor Ed Dobson, resigned his post as Bible teacher at NorthPointe Christian High School last week after the school board questioned his role in the March 16 special, “Jesus: The Missing History.”
On the hourlong program, Dobson questioned biblical scholars on possible contradictions between the Gospels and the historical evidence of Jesus’ life. The questions included:
Was Bethlehem Jesus’ birthplace?
Was Jesus a carpenter or a stone mason?
Was Jesus’ eviction of money changers from the temple a political or religious move?
Is there any truth in the Gnostic gospels?
In the program, which is not scheduled for rebroadcast, Dobson does not definitively answer the questions or take a position. He interviews biblical scholars who present evidence that contradicts the Bible.

A series of emails from the school board and community shows that the situation is predictably messy and complicated, and while I’m sympathetic to Kent and have a great deal of respect for his work, I don’t want to comment much on this case because I don’t know all the facts. Hopefully he and his church community will work this out in a Biblical manner. However, this bit—from an email by an upset parent—stood out and points to a broader question (emphasis mine):
We understand that this was done with unbelievers and that parts of this were edited.
The part that actually concerns me that as a Christian the Bible was questioned. The Bible is never to be questioned!
Why as a Christian would one place himself in this type of situation where we would actually be questioning the Bible.
________________________

Ok, so I have some questions...

In the world of academia, this question was the "make or break you" point for most religion majors at many schools. I remember how few people who came in as rel. majors my freshman year actually graduated with a degree in Religion, mostly because they had a really tough time emotionally and spiritually looking at the Bible, Christianity, and Theology critically. I don't mean that to diminish them, simply stating the BIGGEST (not only) reason that those that chose to quit did so.


On many conversations (both online and in person), there seems to be this running consensus by many that questioning the Bible is in some way a negative thing. There are many people like this teacher, and John Dominic Crossan (older man at the end being interviewed) who have spent their lives asking the hard questions about the Bible. This involves looking at the latest scholarship, archeology, and cultural studies of all of the people groups and areas represented in the Bible. There is soo much more to the scriptures than what we find on the pages. Those that see this as a negative thing are quick to label those people who question, "heretics" or "false teachers".

Most of the time a person's opinion comes from their theological approach to the Bible. Many people, myself included, grew up being taught that what you find on the page is the "only" meaning of the text. The text was taken at "face value" and could have no other meaning. This is known as a LITERAL INTERPRETATION of the Bible. Basically, what you see is what you get.

However, what some people call the "obvious meaning" is not always so obvious. Even with those who take a literal approach to the Bible you can find many different schools of interpretation. Many theologies have grown over the years by different literal readings of the same texts.

But one thing that the modern research has taught us is that there is a lot behind, between, and beneath what we find on the pages of the Bible. Knowing things like cultural practices, political subtleties, secular philosophies, and the differing religious sects and beliefs of a region play a significant role in understanding the life and times of those in the Bible. In addition, knowing the dates, identity, audience, and intentions of the authors of each book can play a big part in helping us to have a DIFFERENT understanding of the passages we were taught literally growing up.

But which is a BETTER way of interpreting the Bible?
The literal interpretation requires less research and persistence in keeping up with the latest scholarship. However, one who DOES keep up with the research will find that there is not always a consensus amongst Biblical scholars. That means making some judgement calls in what scholarship is most accurate. This can be tough! This also means that new research usually provides more questions than it does answers. As we see in the video, Ed's quest provides him with more questions than he had in the beginning.

In my opinion (having been exposed to both sides), I personally have found a greater depth than I ever had by adding in different historical findings and theories (let me stress, a lot of historicity is and ever will be theory save the invention of the time machine). Many use this an argument FOR a literal interpretation. But, there are so many passages, ideas and concepts that were taught to me one way (using the literal interpretations), that I have found far deeper and more meaningful interpretations by adding in the historical context. Things that I took for granted as "knowing" to be true before, now have room for questions, but have multiple depths and meanings. To me, and this is my humble opinion, it has opened all new depths and understandings to things like the teachings of Christ. It has made God seem more complex, but so much bigger in the process... a place I am comfortable with him being...I mean, he is God.

Whichever view you fall under, they both present their own problems and benefits.

But back to my questions....
1)Is it wrong to question the Bible?
2)Why or Why not?
3) Why are we HOSTILELY critical of those that choose the side different from ours?

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?

Shout Out!

If you haven't checked out my good friend Tripp's new podcast and Blog: Homebrewed Christianity... You should give 'er a go!

Laughing Until I Cry

Some ASBO Jesus that I've been collecting when thinking about churches and Christians from my experiences...enjoy:

Art by jon birch

A Prayer of Protest

While I was on vacation in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico I began several books. One of the books that I began was Prayers For A Privileged People BY: Walter Brueggemann (mentioned in my last post).

I wanted to post this excerpt from his prayers, and hopefully I will post a couple more off and on These are deep and thought-provoking, esp. knowing that we ARE the "privileged people".(I think that they are really good...let me know what you think!!!):
______________

A Prayer of Protest

Since our mothers and fathers cried out,

Since you heard their cries and noticed,

Since we left the brick production of Egypt,

Since you foiled the production schedules of Pharaoh,

We have known your name,

we have sensed your passion,

we have treasured your vision of Justice.

And now we turn to you again,

whose precious name we know.

We turn to you because there are

still impossible production schedules,

still exploitative systems,

still cries of pain at injustice,

still cheap labor that yields misery.

We turn to you in impatience and exasperation,

wondering, "How long?" Before you answer

Our pleading question,

hear our petition

since you are not a labor boss and do not set wages.

We bid you, stir up those who can change things;

do your stirring in the jaded halls of government;

do you stirring in the cynical offices of corporations;

do your stirring amid the voting public too anxious to care;

do your stirring in the church that thinks too much about

purity and not enough about wages.

Move, as you moved in ancient Egyptian days.

Move the waters and the flocks and the herds

toward new statutes and regulations,

new equality and good healthcare,

new dignity that cannot be given on the cheap.

We have known now long silence,

That you reject cheap grace;

even now as we know that you reject cheap labor.

You, God of justice and dignity and equity,

keep the promises you bodied in Jesus,

that the poor may be first-class members of society,

that the needy may have good care and respect,

that the poor earth may rejoice in well-being,

that we may all come to Sabbath rest together,

the owner and the worker, the leisure class and the labor class,

all at peace in dignity and justice,

not on the cheap, but good measure,

pressed down

running over...

forgiven.

Thoughts On Unity And The Cross

Art by Paul Soupiset

I've been thinking a lot over Lent and Easter about the idea of Christian Unity. This is a theme heavy on my heart, because it is so very lacking in the framework of Christianity these days.

We are soo divided over doctrine be it the theory of atonement, Biblical inspiration, or social issues like homosexuality. But there is a commonality between all who call themselves "Christian"...and that is Christ; esp. Christ on the cross. Now I know that some would say that Christ did die on the cross, but the story of his death and resurrection is metaphorical and not historical. So the other side says "we can't call you a "Christian" because you don't believe what I believe." But the other side says, "Why not? to be a Christian is to 'follow' Christ and live the life God created us to live, and Christ taught us to live. We are 'little Christs' which is a better translation for 'Christian'."

Just to clarify, I personally believe in the death and resurrection of Christ.... But I'm trying to look at things from multiple sides.

No one that I have known or read denies the crucifixion of Christ. I know that both of these sides (and all in-between) can't seem to reconcile their beliefs, but there is a sense that when we celebrated Easter, we were all standing around the empty cross (whether we were looking at it as he was raised, or that it was just empty and the Christ had been removed). We were all looking at the cross and could all celebrate the NEW BIRTH (a very common theme in the Bible) of a movement...one that we would eventually call "Christianity". I know many would argue, "you can't celebrate Easter because we are celebrating the resurrection!", but those on the other side would say, "we are celebrating the meaning of Easter, and the tradition of the death and resurrection theme of Easter. We are celebrating the history of the tradition, and what it means in our own lives."

Yet instead of uniting us, we (as the picture shows) put a lock on Christ and the event of the cross. Mostly, I find it is the side that believes in the traditional Easter (resurrection) saying, "no, this is our holiday, and you can't celebrate it and call yourself a 'Christian' unless you've done/believe A, B, and C!" How can we deny others to come to the foot of the cross? Who are we to say such a thing??? We spend so much time trying to divide, and in this instance (as an example, but I think we do this a LOT), push others away from the cross!!! What would Christ say to that?

I know it happens from both sides, but I see less tolerance and acceptance on the more traditional than the historical. Either way, I think we let ego get in the way of the spirit!!!! I'm as guilty in my life as anyone, hence why I spent so much time thinking about this before posting.
___________

But back to unity. I prayed this Lent and Easter for more Unity in the coming year. I pray for more discussion and less militant debate. I pray for less name-calling, and more embracing. At my discussion group last week we were talking about the ability to end poverty, world hunger, economic issues, etc... and a statement was made that hit me so hard.

I asked, "Is there hope for religion to solve the world's problems? Is it possible that a religion like Christianity can alleviate something like world poverty." The answer I got was this from several people (collaborative paraphrase): "no...it can't. It hasn't and it never will because the religious institution (constructs) is made built in such a way that it is naturally divisive. It draws lines to separate, no attempt to unite. Religions of the world have had how many years to unite and alleviate problems in this world? And they have yet to do so, because all they can do is draw lines and dig in."

I'm sorry to be pessimistic, but to an extent, I have to say that statement is true:/
_________________

Another thing that I wanted to share was something I read in Cokesbury Catalog; a statement by one of (if not THE) best renowned Old Testament Scholar, Walter Brueggemann. He States:

"What i am really interested in is the wrestling with the Bible in the church in the culture wars and the fact that the Bible is odd and does not fit any of our conservative predispositions or any of our liberal impulses.

I think the Bible puts us all on edge and reminds us of our idolatries. But what strikes me is how people who disagree can be together around the Bible. A personal note on that is that i reflect from time to time the spectrum of places to which I get invited to speak. I'm on the liberal Episcopal circuit with Marcus Borg, but in the spring I'm speaking to a Nazerine college. I think the reason I have access across the interpretive spectrum is that I try to stay close to the text and give people room for their own hearing of the text. As best we can, we have to try to hear the Bible without imposing our particular slant on it too soon. This is not easy, but we have to work at it. We have to give each other room and I think that is what it will take to recover energy for our mission.

What that gathering around the Bible requires is for EVERYBODY to give up CERTITUDE(Emphasis mine). Our lust for certitude is fed by the depth of anxiety that is in our society. for the church to name the anxiety so people can see what's going on is a big step toward moving toward the Bible in a way that lets us stay on edge.

If the anxiety is unnamed, you have to find ways to tone the Bible down, or it just feeds the anxiety. But if the anxiety is named and hailed, we have a chance of being addressed.

I am heartened by the new generation of evangelicals that is pulling back from right-wing craziness and I imagine the rising generation of liberals is likely not to be so shrill and imperialistic. So I have this hope that we may be arriving at a new posture, so we can practice the unity of the church, to which we are ALL called (Emphasis mine). That does not mean that we have to agree, but it means that we have to LISTEN to each other as we are all addressed. "

Look at his new book here!!!

I for one am really heartened and challenged by this great man's words. If we can't center ourselves around the cross, then we all go to the Bible as our MAIN source for Christian living. Regardless of our interpretation...perhaps acknowledging THAT can be a start???

____________________________

I'm not the smartest person in the world...all I know is that I long for unity within our world, and ESP. within our faith. If we want to help people find a better way to live, and we believe that Christ is a better way to live than the way the majority of people are living, then we need unity! If we want people to acknowledge Christ and his "way" (however you interpret that), then we cannot deny them access to the cross! If we want to change this world to mimic the Kingdom of God that Christ speaks of (in whatever way you interpret that), then we have to rally around our sacred scripture, no matter our interpretive differences, and stop attacking, but begin to dialog! Let our anxiety be known...confessed if you will. To God, and to each other!

It's time for us to take the lock off the cross and once again allow access to "all who are thirsty."

Do You Dream?

I couldn't entitle this "What Do You Think" again.
Of course this video was put up with all kinds of negative commentary, but I just want to know what you think about what's said in this video. What do you agree with, what do you disagree with. WHY?

Feel free to share your "Dream".
By Dave Parker: