it came upon a midnight clear

Emperors and Angels

Isaiah 9.2–7; Luke 2.1–20

a sermon at the Midnight Eucharist, Christmas Eve 2006

by the Bishop of Durham, Dr N. T. Wright

The following is from the Christmas hymn, "It Came Upon a Midnight Clear", but with a few of the lines changed a bit in order to more accurately represent the heart of the prophets and the meaning of Christmas, which, as Bishop Tom Wright said this is Christmas eve, is a "summons to us, as it was to his first followers, to sign on under his authority, to celebrate the birth of the Wonderful Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, and to work under that authority for the growth of his promised kingdom of endless peace, of justice and righteousness."

For lo, the days are hastening on,
by prophets seen of old,
When, by the Spirit’s mighty power
Arrives the time foretold:
When Peace shall over all the earth
Its promised splendours fling,
And the whole world give back the song
Which now the angels sing.
-Edmund Sears and N.T. Wright

A song and a Prayer

You are so high among the highest, and I am low among the lowest, a mean thing. You never go away from us. Yet we have difficulty in returning to you. Come Lord, stir us up and call us back, kindle and seize us, be our fire and our sweetness. Let us love, let us run (to you).
-St. Augustine

Since from His bounty I receive
Such proofs of love divine
Had I a thousand hearts to give
Lord, they should all be Thine
A thousand men could not compose
A worthy song to bring
Yet Your love is a melody
Our hearts can’t help but sing!
-To Christ the Lord Let Every Tongue,
Samuel Stennet and Laura Taylor

who are you?

You scored as Karl Barth. The daddy of 20th Century theology. You perceive liberal theology to be a disaster and so you insist that the revelation of Christ, not human experience, should be the starting point for all theology.

Karl Barth 80% Anselm 67% John Calvin 67% Jürgen Moltmann 60% Jonathan Edwards 60% Charles Finney 53% Friedrich Schleiermacher 47% Martin Luther 40% Augustine 27% Paul Tillich 20% Which theologian are you? created with QuizFarm.com

so, what do you do?

Here's an article from the New York Times about the brew-ha-ha that's going on with the American Episcopal church. With the ordination of the first openly gay priest a few years back, and the following installment of the first woman bishop of the entire Episcopal church in America, many of the more conservative churches and dioceses have felt jilted, and now they are leaving.

Not too long ago, several other members of the Anglican communion in some of the poorer parts of the world including Bolivia, Rwanda, and Nigeria got together to send missionaries over to help save the day. Now, many of the conservative Episcopal churches and dioceses are leaving the Episcopal church and joining up with these foreign branches of the Anglican communion because of irreconcilable differences.

So, what do you do? The Anglican communion has historically been very broad as far as the scope of doctrine professed, but for many it seems that now a line has been crossed. For me, of course, I think a line has definitely been crossed, at least with regards to homosexuality, if not also with the ordination of women. Is that cause for secession? What is cause for the breaking of fellowship? From what Paul the apostle said, and maybe Jesus too, it seems to be unrepenant sin is cause for breaking fellowship. But of course, that begs the questions, what kind of sin, who defines it, is it possible to really let the Scripture settle the issue, etc. I think so. I want to believe that it is, or we might as well just go in any old direction we want.

Several years ago J.I. Packer commented in Christianity Today about why he walked out of the meeting in which a decision was made to bless same-sex unions by saying that

"this decision, taken in its context, falsifies the gospel of Christ, abandons the authority of Scripture, jeopardizes the salvation of fellow human beings, and betrays the church in its God-appointed role as the bastion and bulwark of divine truth. My primary authority is a Bible writer named Paul. For many decades now, I have asked myself at every turn of my theological road: Would Paul be with me in this? What would he say if he were in my shoes? I have never dared to offer a view on anything that I did not have good reason to think he would endorse."

It's not an uncomplicated situation, and it won't be a quick fix, but someone somewhere at some point in time has to draw the line. And this time it might just be time for a change. I pray that it would not include division, but if it must, then let it be for the truth of Christ and the Scriptures and the glory of God, the only foundation for Christian love.

don't just explain it...

"Ironically, an estimated 90% of the world's Chirstian workers presenting the gospel use highly literate communication styles. They use the printed page or expositional, analytical and logical presentations of God's word. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, for oral learners to hear and understand the message and communicate it to others."

"Logical," "analytical," "presentation." Sound familiar? Where I'm from that's exactly what "sharing the Gospel" is, a logical presentation of the principles of the Gospel. Of course, there's nothing wrong about that. The Gospel message is logical, and any message is communicated in some form or another, many times in something like a presentation.

But, that's exactly part of the problem, that this understanding of "sharing the Gospel" is rooted in where I'm from. I am the product of all that I have inherited culturally, and part of that is a highly literate, abstract-conceptual form of thinking that looks for and responds to "logical presentations." But not everyone is like this, really, most people in the world are not like this, and even for those that are, it's only a percentage of their whole preferred learning methods. Literacy and literate thinking is not the norm, orality and oral communication is.

"All societies, including those having a highly literate segment, have oral comunication at their core. Oral communication is the basic function on which writing and literacy is based. When literacy persists in a culture for generations, it begins to change the way people think, act and communicate...These members of a literate society then tend to communicate the gospel in the literate style that speaks to them."

So, is the goal to make everyone literate like those of us who are? Is that the only way that they can understand the Gospel? Reason and experience tell us otherwise. Just as Paul and the first centuries of Christians translated the Gospel into the Greek culture around them, so we must work to translate the Gospel into the cultures that we go to or find ourselves in. And this is more than just using different words or languages; it involves entirely different forms of communication including "stories, proverbs, poetry, chants, music, dances, ceremonies and rites of passage."

a new effort

I was saved from a Hindu family in 1995 through a cross-cultural missionary. I had a desire to learn more about the word of God and I shared this with the missionary. The missionary sent me to Bible College in 1996... I started sharing the good news in the way as I learnt in the Bible College.. To my surprise my people were not able to understand my message. A few people accepted the Lord after much labour...there were little results.
In 1999 I attended a seminar where I learnt how to communicate the gospel using different oral methods. I understood the problem in my communication as I was mostly using a lecture method with printed books, which I learnt in the Bible school. After the seminar I went to the village but this time I changed my way of communication. I started using a storytelling method in my native language. I used gospel songs and the traditional music of my people. This time the people in the villages began to understand the gospel in a better way. As a result of it people began to come in large numbers. Many accepted Christ and took baptism. There was on church with few baptized members in 1999...now in 2004, in six years we have 75 churches with 1350 baptized members and 100 more people are ready for baptism.

This is just one of many stories from all over the world that have been surfacing for the past decade (at least) concerning a paradigm shift in how people are introduced to God, Jesus, and Christianity and subsequently discipled in the faith. For the next few weeks I will be blogging about this in response to the book, Making Disciples of Oral Learners, published by the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, originally published as a paper for their 2004 forum in Thailand.

Of course, at face value, you may be wondering what this has to do with evangelism in the United States. I mean, we can all read and write, right? Well, yes, and no, and we'll discuss that as we go. I'll just say for now that our ability to read and write (or lack thereof) isn't as fundamental as we'd like to think it is, and that even though we're a highly literate culture, most of us still learn best through oral methods (including pictures and movies), and, it is story and stories that shape our worldview more than anything else.

So, if you'd like to check the book out for yourself, please do. You can read it for free online! And, until next time, read a good story or two...

Goodwill Hunting

I just saw the movie for the first time (I know I'm a little late on that), and yes, I am aware that it is "Good Will Hunting", but I'm sure they meant to say something in the title more than something about the character Will Hunting himself. Maybe they were saying something like Will was hunting for "goodwill", for someone who would truly love him and speak directly to him and not use him, or something like that. Maybe.

But there were a couple things that struck me after having finally watched the movie. The first was the character of Sean Maguire, played by Robin Williams. Out of all the other "shrinks", he was the only one to engage Will, to share of his own life, to genuinely want to know Will and help him, and to be vulnerable himself.

I went to a conference in Colorado this past week where the president of Campus Crusade for Christ, Steve Douglass, shared a video monologue from a woman who was sort of speaking on behalf of my generation, or at least a significant portion of it, to the generation before. One of her main admonitions was for my parents' generation to share their lives with us. "We're disillusioned and skeptical and hurting and don't expect much else from life, but we desparately want more...we need more," she said. "We don't want a bunch of simple answers, but we desparately need you to walk with us, because you have been here before, you do know what it's like. We do need your help."

There was a scene like this in Good Will Hunting where, after Will has torn into Sean about his painting and his wife and all that, and Sean takes him out to the park the next week for their next session. Sean goes on to till Will that his comments the previous week kept him up most of the night until he realized that Will was just a kid and didn't know anything about having a wife, fighting in a war, etc. Here's the quote:

Sean: So if I asked you about art, you'd probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo, you know a lot about him. Life's work, political aspirations, him and the pope, sexual orientations, the whole works, right? But I'll bet you can't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel. You've never actually stood there and looked up at that beautiful ceiling; seen that. If I ask you about women, you'd probably give me a syllabus about your personal favorites. You may have even been laid a few times. But you can't tell me what it feels like to wake up next to a woman and feel truly happy. You're a tough kid. And I'd ask you about war, you'd probably throw Shakespeare at me, right, "once more unto the breach dear friends." But you've never been near one. You've never held your best friend's head in your lap, watch him gasp his last breath looking to you for help. I'd ask you about love, you'd probably quote me a sonnet. But you've never looked at a woman and been totally vulnerable. Known someone that could level you with her eyes, feeling like God put an angel on earth just for you. Who could rescue you from the depths of hell. And you wouldn't know what it's like to be her angel, to have that love for her, be there forever, through anything, through cancer. And you wouldn't know about sleeping sitting up in the hospital room for two months, holding her hand, because the doctors could see in your eyes, that the terms "visiting hours" don't apply to you. You don't know about real loss, 'cause it only occurs when you've loved something more than you love yourself. And I doubt you've ever dared to love anybody that much. And look at you... I don't see an intelligent, confident man... I see a cocky, scared s***less kid. But you're a genius Will. No one denies that. No one could possibly understand the depths of you. But you presume to know everything about me because you saw a painting of mine, and you ripped my f*** life apart. You're an orphan right? [Will nods] Sean: You think I know the first thing about how hard your life has been, how you feel, who you are, because I read Oliver Twist? Does that encapsulate you? Personally... I don't give a s*** about all that, because you know what, I can't learn anything from you, I can't read in some f*** book. Unless you want to talk about you, who you are. Then I'm fascinated. I'm in. But you don't want to do that do you sport? You're terrified of what you might say. Your move, chief.

At the climax of the movie, Sean shows Will his file from the judge with all the info about his abuse as he grew up. Will asks Sean if he knew about that sort of thing. Sean says, "twenty five years of counseling, I've seen a lot of terrible stuff." "But have you ever seen that before," replied Will. "Me personally?... Yeah, my father was a violent acholic..." With that, Will knew that Sean knew what it was like. Sean then turned to him and said, "You know, it's not your fault." Will shakes his head, smiles a little and says, "Yeah, I know". Sean just repeats it with the same repsonse about five times before Will starts to change. Sean just keeps saying "it's not your fault," and Will finally begins to break down and say "Don't f*** with me." Finally, the walls are down and real healing can take place. Will weeps.

When thinking about sharing the Gospel or discipling, I wonder how many times it takes for those walls to come down. I wonder what kind relationship needs to be established before that's even a possibility. I wonder how many of my walls need to come down before I expect that anyone else's would. I wonder how many times I need to hear Jesus say "I love you. I died for you. Trust Me." before I would really believe that. Not just smile, shake my head and say, "yeah, I know," but let that punch a hole in my hard heart and cause me to weep...and believe.

So, what IS the professor thinking...?

"A common perception of the college or university professor is that she or he is an atheist who rejects religion in favor of science or critical inquiry. "

According to a "working paper" (posted on Scot McKnight's blog, JesusCreed) entitled "HOW RELIGIOUS ARE AMERICA’S COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS?", researchers Neil Gross (Harvard University) and Solon Simmons (George Mason University) discovered that only 23.4 percent of university professors claimed to be agnostic or athiest. Now, this is much higher than that of the general US population and, even more appropriately, the college educated, "with about 11.2 percent of those with four years of college or more falling into the ranks of atheists and agnostics." So, while there is a marked difference in academia, "atheists and agnostics are in the minority among professors as a whole."

Here are some of the findings of the research:















1. Professors teaching in religiously-affiliated colleges and universities are more likely to be
believers (non-athiest/agnostic). (As expected...)
2. Professors at elite doctoral universities are much less religious than professors teaching in other kinds of institutions. (No surprise here either...)
3. Atheists and agnostics are more common in some disciplines than others.
Psychology and biology - 61 percent.
Mechanical engineering - 50 percent (shoot! come on fellow ME's!)
Economics, political science, and computer science - 4o percent

There are several other aspects to these findings and many other findings as well in the paper, which I encourage you to check out if you have the time.

So, I just thought this is a helpful piece to help us to be aware of what is probably going on in the professor's head, whether we agree with it or not. The situation is not as extreme as most evangelical Christians might first think, but, especially at elite doctoral universities you will run into many who are avowedly athiest/agnostic and probably more vocal about it, to boot.

Please pray that Jesus Christ, who became for us the wisdom of God, would redeem the dark places of the universities and bring light and life to the professors and all that they "profess".

Oklahoma Catalytic Fall Retreat 2006: Sent Video

A little slideshow video tour of the past year-ish of Oklahoma Catalytic students and staff sent throughout the world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.



The audio is "Take to the World", written by Aaron Tate, sung by Derek Webb and Dan Haseltine, from Derek's album, "She Must and Shall Go Free."

para-church phase out response

This is a response to this blog entry about a proposal to phase out the campus ministry of CCC. Neither the original blog nor my response are the opinions of CCC or the expression of anything bad or mean or disrespectful towards the past, present, or future of CCC. It's just some thoughts, theories, and desires for how things might be, hopefully in a way that is faithful to the heart of Jesus and the teaching of the New Testament.

Here's the original blog post: Parachurch Phase-out

Here's my response:

Kristie, you are thinking in a very good direction. Along with Melinda, I am also on staff in the Red River Region. I was involved with Crusade in limited fashion during college through my church's partnership with WSN and some relationships with staff and cru folk. I was on STINT for two years in East Asia with a team made up only from my church, and have since returned to be part of the Oklahoma Catalytic team.
Since my long term involvement with Crusade happened as a result of my church's partnership with WSN, I have always felt the need for a closer relationship between the campus ministry and the local church. So, like I said, you're thinking in a very good direction.
It's always precarious to make sweeping generalizations about things that are beyond one's ability to comprehensively evaluate, but I'm going to try anyway (I guess I just did...). There's an unhealthy split between the campus ministry and the local church. I say that because most Crusade students I know have very limited connection to any local church, if they have any at all. Most only attend a Sunday service weekly at best. I keep hearing from students the line that "In crusade I get fellowship, mission, Bible teaching, worship. Why should I go to church? Isn't that what it's for?"
Well, it seems to me that many Crusade students, and others probably, don't know what church is, and we may in fact need better definitions. I think most everyone realizes that the church is not the building; it is the people of God. But, if that is it, then when we plant movements, are we not then planting churches?
Recently at a Growing and Planting Movements conference, I asked this question during a Q&A time, "What's the difference between building movements and planting churches?" The answer was several minutes of silence. I think this was in part due to the fact that people using the language of building movements is new and very similar to the rapidly mulitplying church planting movements going on around the world. (We were even given the IMB's guide to planting Rapidly Multiplying Church Planting movements at our regional time at this last CSU conference.) It seems that this is a question that we are still working on.
From what one of the national team said, Campus Crusade for Christ as an organization has had a really good track record in working with local churches and denominations. Just read _Come Help Change the World_ and you can see that, but the campus ministry has not always been as successful in partnering with local churches and denominations. There are pockets where this is not the case, but until recently in Catalytic, it has not been something we have pursued with much conviction. I pray this continues to change.
In honor of Justin Timberlake with respect to para-church ministry, I would like to bring "para" back. Parachurch was meant to come along side the local church to strengthen it and reach out in ways that it couldn't (and many times wouldn't). But when it comes to campus ministry, it is not good enough simply that "we do our thing, they do theirs, and hopefully some crossover will happen when students graduate and join a church or someone from the church joins staff or supports us."
Like you Kristie, I would love to see the day when we work ourselves out of a job when it comes to doing all of the evangelism and discipleship on campus. If we are really going to reach all of the students of the world, it's going to happen through the ministry of local churches who stay there year after year and continue to train and disciple college students in large numbers as they pass through college. It will take a movement of "volunteers", plain and simple. Churches in their very nature are much more stable than campus ministries and much less dependent on the coming and going student leaders.
And I say this much not even having mentioned the question "what is church?" If a proper, God-ordained, apostolically proclaimed visible church body includes things like baptism, eucharist, elders, deacons, discipline, and social justice then we've got a problem when students feel that Crusade is their church because the worship, evangelize, fellowship, and learn the Word in that community. Because, in reality, many campus ministries (to overgeneralize again) function like churches on campus with staff as elders, student leaders as deacons, focusing on evangelism and discipleship without much concern for social justice and no baptisms or eucharist. (My pastor even remarked to me one day that he thought it would be great if orgs like CCC started baptizing and serving communion...) If all that students of a campus ministry see church for is getting baptized and occasional sunday mornings with communion if they come on the right day, then we have done a terrible injustice to them and to the church, and we have not set them up with a good ecclesiology to live from before and after they graduate.
I do think the catalytic style is heading in the right direction on this, but it must keep adapting. Reproducing staffed campus models on unstaffed campuses is not what we should aim for. This is, I believe, what Movements Everywhere and Mulitple Movements are all about, and without local church involvement and ownership, it will not succeed. (Unless of course God decides to reject the local church in this and work outside of it, but I don't think that is the case, and we would still continue to run into the same problems down the road and find that we would need to start planting churches anyway.) The campus ministry is not in the business of planting churches and shouldn't be, the freshman to senior cycle is too fast and volatile. But, if we do not work closely with local churches in building movements everywhere in every group on campus, then we will be planting churches, lopsided and unhealthy ones at that. And I don't know anyone in the campus ministry that wants to start planting CCC churches.
So, all that to say I like your proposal, but I would tweak a few things. I do think it will be necessary for Crusade staff to remain intimately involved on campus, but in a different way. My vision of the staff of the future would be that a majority of the campus staff would be catalytic and forerunners. The primary goals of the staff would be to network and build partnerships with local churches to reach campuses near them and to train church volunteers and student leaders in building and sustaining mulitplying movements of evangelism and discipleship. Bible studies and weekly meetings and such for the different movements on campus would be the responsibility of the students under the guidance and support of church volunteers and in line with the vision of CCC as communicated through the staff.
Staff would be the ones that keep expanding things, taking on new campuses and partnerships, both locally and with WSN, and giving vision and training for the volunteers and student leaders. There will certainly be room for continued one-to-one discipleship with students (because the staff still need to be intimately connected to the student world), but it will be limited.
One area in which I see great potential in this is in a CCC strategy called No Boundaries (www.nobounds.org) in which staff seek to plant churches in hard to reach countries through college students. Students who have been involved in campus ministry within the context of a chruch would be very prepared to enter into this kind of effort.
So, that's quite a comment, I know. I always seem to post long comments... But, please take it as a complement to the thought-provokingness of your post. I hope this discussion continues and even moves up the chain, which I'm sure it has in some fashion already. We probably just don't know about it yet.

agendas

I was talking to my friend Chris the other day about conversations with people wherein we discover that what seems to be one reason for a certain line of questioning or behavior actually turns out to be another and how that can be rather offensive and manipulative. It seems that in those situations, the issue is not so much that the person had a secret agenda behind their questions and behavior, but that it was a secret agenda.

There's a lot of fuss today made over people who have agendas behind their words and actions in everything from personal relationships to politics, philosophy, and religion. Of course nobody likes to be manipulated, and it seems that since Nietzche people have turned their glaring skeptical eyes on those who speak from those podiums of politics, religion, and philosophy, especially the first two. It seems that I always hear in critiques of political or religious leaders something to the effect of "Well, he's just trying to control this or that commodity or population" or "She's just saying that because she is really a ... (fundamentalist or liberal or witch or some other pejorative label) and is trying to push her agenda in order to control everyone else's."

Well, all of these critiques may or may not be true, but it seems that when it comes down to it, like I said above, the issue is not that someone is pushing an agenda, but that their pushing a secret agenda. I mean, the reality is that everyone has an agenda in what they say or do. Even people who decry those who push an agenda are at that moment pushing the agenda that others should not push their agenda. (It's kinda like the nonsense of the statement that "there is no absolute truth except for the statement that there is no absolute truth".)

The real trouble comes when people are dishonest or misleading or not forthcoming with their presuppositions and agendas that they speak from in everything from personal relationships to politics, religion, and philosophy. I mean, if you come to me and ask me leading questions and try to pin me in corner so that I come out agreeing with something yet uncommunicated in your head, then I may come out of that corner agreeing in word, but it may only be just to get out of that corner, and I will neither like you nor your idea as a result. But, on the other hand, if you think I'm wrong about something or doing something I shouldn't be, then just tell me. I mean, give me the benefit of the doubt and all, but just tell me, and we'll talk about why you think that. Sure, your agenda is to correct me. That's fine. I may need correcting, or I may not. But I can deal with that. Just don't act like there's nothing behind your words or questions. Nobody likes that.

So, when these things go cosmic, like I said, everyone has an agenda. There's no need to get all worked up about that. What needs to happen, especially in religion and politics, is people need to be honest with themselves and with others about their agenda-driven words and actions. Then, and only then, can we actually deal with the issue at hand. Then, and only then, can we talk about why this or that is being said or done in an intelligent and respectful way. Then, and only then, do we really connect on a fundamental level, even an intimate level, with what really matters in these conversations, people and their agendas, or really, the story they live by, their worldview. And that's when real sparks start to fly and people are changed, very much unlike the premature polarizing, hot-air name-calling that we hear on the news and participate in ourselves.

May God give us grace and mercy to be honest and forthcoming, not fearful or manipulative, in displaying integrity in our relationships, our politics, and our religion.

The bush we beat around has had quite enough, thank you very much. :)

Understanding Sin

I was replying to a comment to a post on Fireseed Anthology, and well, it just got too long to be a comment-reply, so I'm putting on here. Heck, anything I can do to keep the blogging up is good, right?

Hmm...yeah, there certainly is a problem with understanding sin, either the seriousness of it or it's existence altogether, depending on how much the person is a product of the current post-modern culture or the modern one.
Tim Keller, a pastor in New York City commented on this, and I think it is spot on when it comes to discussing sin with people. He said that when he talks to someone from his generation, say 40 and up, about sin being "not morally perfect" or "missing the mark", they get it. But when he talks to someone of the current generation, it just doesn't make sense to them b/c "morals are relative" and "whose to say whose 'mark' you should be hitting anyway". Instead, Keller says, he finds that when he discusses sin in terms of idolatry, looking to activities, relationships, achievments, cool stuff, to make you a whole or valuable person and exalting those things as your "savior" or "life-center", people look at him and say "oh". They get it.
I personally think that this is what we should have been saying all along, seeing as Paul, Jesus, and the whole of the OT put idolatry as the fundamental error of humankind.
When I think about it that way, I get it, and it's much more convicting and producing of repentance than when I just think, "oops, i broke the 'love your neighbor' rule".
I'd much rather be pointed, and point others, away from a non-person, a non-god, to the person, the one true God, than make the center of the conversation about some abstract moral code.
I think that's what Paul was focused on when he said to the Thessalonians "For the people of those regions report about us what kind of welcome we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God..." in 1 Thess. 1:9.

I hope this makes someone angry and want to comment because I like it when people comment because no one ever does, except for a couple people who are very excellent.
Okay, I don't really want anyone to be angry, I just would rather have a conversation than a monologue, even if it's in disagreement.

Peace.

story

I am copying this over from something I wrote in reply to a friend's question: why do stories have the ability to awaken parts of our soul?

I like stories. I think they're good, and here's why I think they might be important too.

Hmm... good question. I have been intrigued by this question, and so the other day I rented and watched Tim Burton's Big Fish. It's all about the power of stories, especially in light of their correspondence/non-correspondence to what actually happened. As the movie goes, several things come to the surface, one of which is that we all tell stories, just in different ways, and with different sorts of embelishments, but in the end, the power of the story lies in it's ability to communicate reality in such a way that it disturbs your view of reality, your own self-told story, to the end that you begin to live in that reality, you begin to tell that story as your own.

To quote somebody who seems to know a thing or two about stories:

"We (humans in general; the communities of which you and I, as readers, are part) tell ourselves certain stories about the world, and about who we are within it. . . The point at issue here is that the story (of Jesus) has brought a worldview to birth. By reading it historicaly, I can detect that it was always intended as a subversive story, undermining a current worldview and attempting to replace it with another. By reading it with my own ears open, I realize that it may subvert my worldview too."

- N.T. Wright, _The New Testament and the People of God_

So, that's a few thoughts on the power of stories. I have also been listening to Patty Griffin a lot recently, and she tells a lot of stories in her songs. And I think the combination of good music and good story are incredibly powerful. You see that a bit in the way that communism spread through poems and songs and things like the "Little Red Song Book" of the Industrial Workers of the World. It may be a stretch for me to say this, but while philosophical dissertations may lay the groundwork, it's the stories and songs that tell those larger stories that bring about revolutions.

I'd love to hear anyone else's thoughts on the matter, especially what to do with those thoughts...how to take those abstract ideas and conclusions and bring them into the concrete of conversations and actions. I think we need to think about it, talk about out, and try it out in order to increasingly bring the kingdom of God to bear on the world of God as people of the family of God.

Kerby

a trinity prayer

The following prayer is from a book by Tom Wright entitled Bringing the Church to the World. Sometimes we neglect the simple, repeatable, foundational prayers because of a misunderstanding of the prohibition to not use "vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words." The issue was the vanity of their babbling, as some translations have it, not just the fact that they said the same thing twice, or three or four times, and the fact that they expected to be heard by their idol-gods because of the quantity of their repetitions or something like that. But for those who personally address the one and only Creator, there is no vanity in addressing him, one, two, five, or even one hundred times a day, regardless of the variety of the content of the addressing. Did not Jesus validate the persistent (or nagging?) widow who won over the unrighteous judge? Or maybe we just don't know the benefits of it... I for one sure don't, but I know there are many whom have gone before me that do. And, I think I'd like to learn. So, anyway, here it is. If you'd like to read the corresponding chapter out of Wright's book, you can find it here. It's a good one.

Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth:
Set up your kingdom in our midst.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God:
Have mercy on me, a sinner.

Holy Spirit, breath of the living God:
Renew me and all the world.

Kerby

Perspective

(Partially copy 'n' pasted from my comment on Melinda Carter's blog.)
I was thinking today about the two things we do with the Bible on Sundays, Wednesday nights, and other things like that; we read it for ourselves, and we have it explained to us. I was thinking about that and realizing that a lot of time the explanation of what the Bible says is often valued more than the what the Bible actually says. I have seen it in others and in myself as I reflect on times when I didn't want to read the Bible because it didn't tell me what to do whereas some "Christian Inspiration" book would explain the problem and give me 5 steps to work it out... I have since (mostly) repented of that... :)
It seems that instead of letting the Bible speak for itself, we feel the necessity to explain what it should mean for us here and now. Of course, this is necessary, and I don't want to disparage the great gift of expository preaching, but it must arise out of a culture that is already letting "the Bible be the Bible" (to steal a comment from N.T. Wright). Now, I must to cross back over the bridge I just burned in order to say that there may need to be a lot of explaining in order to educate a culture in how to understand the Bible as the kind of ancient mostly narrative book that it is, but, after that, I say, let the stories of the Bible stir up thougths and emotions that we are not used to. Let the parables make us uncomfortable, not just because we may think we know what they mean and that convicts us, but also because we may not really know what they mean, and that should humble us before the one who does. Let us be offended, and corrected, when Jesus curses a fig tree just to make a point or refers to us Gentiles as animals who get the crumbs from his table. I think there are good theological and practical explanations to these sorts of things, but sometimes we miss the point when someone is trying to make the point for us.
So, all that to say, I don't want to do away with expository preaching, commentaries, Christian books and the like, I and we still benefit from those things tremendously, let's just tip the scales back in the direction of hearing from the stories of the Bible itself, allowing ourselves to get caught up in the Story that God has been writing since Adam and Eve, and is now including us in as key players in one of the last acts. May we be faithful to the Author and true to the story that we have inherited through Jesus Christ, our Lord.

(This last paragraph is heavenly influenced by an article by N.T. Wright entitled, "How can the Bible be Authoritative?")

A Date with a Counselor

I'm feeling a little defensive about the idea that there's something wrong with just knowing about God as opposed to knowing God. I'm learning a lot about Jesus right now as I read through and study the Gospel of Matthew, and I think that a large part of getting to know someone is knowing about their life outside of their direct involvement in mine. Then I have a better idea and context for his involvement in my life. Otherwise I feel like it's just a series of appointments with a professional counselor whom you know nothing about outside of those appointments... Anyway, that's just my soapbox and justification for enjoying studying about Jesus. Sorry.

Thank God for calculus...

Sometimes God moves loudly, as if spinning to another place like ball lightning. God is, oddly, personal; this God knows. Sometimes en route, dazzlingly or dimly, he shows an edge of himself to souls who seek him, and the people who bear those souls, marveling, know it, and see the skies carousing around them, and watch cells stream and multiply in green leaves. He does not give as the world gives; he leads invisibly over many years, or he wallops for thirty seconds at a time.

We live in all we seek. The hidden shows up in too-plain sight. It lives captive on the face of the obvious - the people, events, and things of the day - to which we as sophisticated children have long since become oblivious. What a hideout: Holiness lies spread and borne over the surface of time and stuff like color.
- Annie Dillard, For the Time Being

I find the story of God to be full of paradox, full of contrast. I draw short of saying contradiction, mostly because of the crossed-finger belief that God is consistent and pure. But, nonetheless, His story - before, now, after - is one with asymptotes, discontinuities. As He disappears into heaven, He comes forth from the dust to catch us by surprise. Whew, what a relief!

The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever...

At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants."

A nice British chap

Check this guy out. I'll let you know what I think in a little while.

N.T. Wright on Jesus at the InterVarsity Press Conference, January of 1999:
Jesus and the Kingdom (8.5MB MP3)
Jesus and the Cross (8.2MB MP3)
Jesus and God (10.4MB MP3)
Jesus and the World's True Light (9.8MB MP3)

Easter revisited

I moved the following over from my website. I posted it during the week before Easter:

Daily Entries

04.19.06

"It has been said that, in the New Testament, doctrine is grace, and ethics is gratitude; and something is wrong with any form of Christianity in which, experimentally and practically, this saying is not being verified. Those who suppose that the doctrine of God's grace tends to encourage moral laxity ("final salvation is certain anyway, no matter what we do; therefore our conduct doesn't matter") are simply showing that, in the most literal sense, they do not know what they are talking about. For love awakens love in return..."

- J.I. Packer, from Knowing God

04.18.06 Easter Tuesday

The Collect

"Grant, we beseech thee, Amighty God, that we who celebrate with reverence the Paschal feast, may be found worthy to attain to everlasting joys; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

For the Epistle

Acts 13:26-41

The Gospel

Luke 24:36-48

04.17.06 Easter Monday

The Collect (from the Book of Common Prayer)

"O God, whose blessed Son did manifest himself to his disciples in the breaking of bread; Open, we pray thee, the eyes of our faith, that we may behold thee in all thy works; through the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

For the Epistle

Acts 10:34-43

The Gospel

Luke 24:13-35

04.16.06 Easter Sunday

Christ the Lord Is Risen Today

1. Christ, the Lord, is risen today, Alleluia!
Sons of men and angels say, Alleluia!
Raise your voice and triumphs high, Alleluia!
Sing, ye heavens, and earth, reply, Alleluia!

2. Vain the stone, the watch, the seal, Alleluia!
Christ has burst the gates of hell, Alleluia!
Death in vain forbids His rise, Alleluia!
Christ has opened Paradise, Alleluia!

3. Lives again our glorious King, Alleluia!
Where, O death, is now thy sting? Alleluia!
Once He died, our souls to save, Alleluia!
Where thy victory, O grave? Alleluia!

4. Soar we now where Christ has led, Alleluia!
Following our exalted Head, Alleluia!
Made like Him, like Him we rise, Alleluia!
Ours the cross, the grave, the skies, Alleluia!

5. Hail, the Lord of earth and heaven! Alleluia!
Praise to Thee by both be given, Alleluia!
Thee we greet triumphant now, Alleluia!
Hail, the Resurrection, thou! Alleluia!

Happy Resurrection Day!

And some tunes:

Song o' the day

Good Friday, 4/14
O Come And Mourn
(lyrics)
(album 3)

Resurrection Sunday 4/16
And Can It Be
(lyrics)
(album 1)
Buy Indelible Grace music!

from the song:

"I woke, the dungeon flamed with light; My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee."

"We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life."

-the letter of Paul to the Romans

goethe & moses & paul

"The greatest happiness of the thinking man is to have fathomed what can be fathomed, and quietly to reverence what is unfathomable." - Goethe, Sprüche in Prosa (Proverbs in Prose)

"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." - Moses

"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!" - Paul, the Apostle

old guys

Upon inspiration from a dear friend of mine (one of probably two people that read this blog...), I have begun a inquiry into the doctrine of the nature of the inspiration of the Bible. I plan on doing this for the next few months, just enough time to get really confused and give up... :) So, I thought I'd stick some stuff on hear, just in case anyone wants to come with me on this journey (or encourage me or tell me it's hopeless or I'm terribly wrong...the second two of which I will promptly delete from my comments...) Here's some perspectives that I ran across today.

Disclaimer: The views expressed by the authors is not necessarily the views of the blogger, just something important to consider and pay attention to, possibly even agree with, maybe.

About the authors of scripture: "[Their sole function was] to present themselves pure to the energy of the Divine Spirit, in order that the Divine plectrum itself, descending from Heaven and using righteous men as an instrument like a harp or lyre, might reveal the knowledge of things Divine." - Justin Martyr, early church apologist

About Clement of Alexandria: "Clement's view of the plenary authority of the Old and New Testaments is unequivocal: he admits the doctrine of verbal inspiration, but finds himself sorely tried by the difficulty of reconciling his reason with his faith, the philosophy of Greece with the teaching of the Law and the Prophets.... he advocates no bald mechanical theory which leaves no room for the exercise of men's faculties, but that the human side of inspiration must be allowed due recognition.... And once more, Clement teaches us that the man who believes the Divine Scriptures with sure judgment receives in the Voice of God, Who bestowed the Scripture, a demonstration which cannot be impugned." - George Duncan Barry in his book The Inspiration and Authority of the Holy Scriptures, A Study in the Literature of the First Five Centuries

On the Scriptures: "Every letter, how strange so ever, which stands written in the Oracles of God does its work." - Origen

And finally, a little bit of ol' John Calvin: "For if we consider how slippery is the human mind...how prone to all kinds of error...we can perceive how necessary is such a repository of heavenly doctrine, that it will neither perish by forgetfulness, nor vanish in error, nor be corrupted by the audacity of men."

So, that's what I did today, as well as taking a picture of my surroundings as you can see above. Alright, I'm tapping out. More to come later.

uncle! thoughts on moleskins to start....

Okay, i give in. I'm going to blog now. I don't know if it's cause I feel inspired or just because I just read a friends really cool blog and feel out of the loop, but here goes nothing...really, mostly nothing.
Now I know there are great things to live up to as a blogger in the 21st century. I mean, people have been doing it for what, 5, maybe 10 years now. I've got a lot profundity, randomness, and clever little artsy stuff to put out. I should get busy.
My first bit will be a little plug for moleskin journals. I'm probably late to the game on this one, but it doesn't matter when I show, just how I play when I get there, right? My moleskin is the basic "ruled notebook". It has 192 ruled pages with a pocket in the back for all that stuff that you would put in a journal pocket if you had one, and it is the legendary notebook of Picasso, Hemingway, and some guy named Chatwin. They were originally made by small French bookbinders, whom may have been small in stature (as Meredith would like to believe), but were most likely small in the commercial sense of the word. It's really the journal that I have always wanted. Maybe my life will be better and my thoughts more profound now...yes, as sure as the Nike is fast they will!
I could go on, and I probably should seeing as this could possibly be the first and last entry in my blog. But, I will risk it, close my entry for the day, trusting that tomorrow will bring more fascinating thoughts for me to share with everyone and no one at the same time.
Till then, Au revoir! (that's french for goodbye...) ;)

The Gimp

for anyone who might read this, I just installed a free photo editing and graphic design program called "the gimp". I am experimenting and would love any constructive comments on what comes out of this process. thanks!

here's my first entry. thanks for watching!

Welcome!

Welcome to my blog.