October 2, 2008

The Hansen Report: Modern versus Postmodern Politics

by Collin Hansen

You can listen to every stump speech and read every position paper, but nothing compares to evaluating presidential candidates side-by-side during a debate. Their contrasting styles and views emerge in ways you hadn't noticed during the long primary season. The candidates practice their lines and prepare their strategies, but the format allows for precious moments of spontaneity and even humor. The best candidates deftly address issues in ways that lodge them in the public consciousness.

Perhaps the best example of this is President Reagan, who in 1984 famously said, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience." His 56-year-old opponent, Walter Mondale, could only look on in laughter.

The first debate between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama provided no such memorable moments. But it did highlight important distinctions between the Republican and Democratic candidates. Namely, McCain and Obama represent key differences between modern and postmodern cultures. Analyzing their debate through this lens reveals similarities to the church's own debates about how to respond to shifting cultures.

Obama spoke with empathy about the personal effects of the current financial crisis on Main Street America. He advocated greater oversight for Wall Street. McCain, too, said he wants oversight, but he emphasized different reasons for the crisis. He spoke of individual greed and said the government needs to hold the failed executives accountable. As the debate progressed, McCain spoke passionately about members of Congress who perpetuate the "evils of this earmarking and pork-barrel spending." McCain underscored personal morals where Obama accentuated communal values.

Obama consistently drew attention to points of agreement with McCain. He credited McCain for opposing President Bush on torture, for example. By contrast, McCain chided Obama for not understanding the issues and for displaying naïveté. He perpetuated the Right vs. Left dichotomy by describing Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. While Obama sought to build consensus, McCain pointed out their differences.

The debate's most contentious moments came when Obama reiterated his intent to "meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing, if I think it's going to keep America safe." Despite taking a political beating for this view from Sen. Hillary Clinton, Obama willingly contrasted himself with McCain:

"So let me get this right," McCain responded. "We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, 'We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth,' and we say, 'No, you're not'? Oh, please."

McCain is a man of action and frank talk. Obama sees intrinsic value in engagement, which may even produce unexpected tangible consensus. You could plug in certain pastors and see the same differences.

Nationalism is a key reality of the modern world. But postmodernism prioritizes the global community. McCain hammered Obama for advocating precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, which McCain said would result in a host of horrendous consequences for America and the Middle East. He promised to seek American "victory and honor." Obama was more concerned about America's global reputation. Near the end of the debate, he shared a story about his Kenyan father writing letters so he could attend an American college. At the time, Obama said, America offered hope that hard work could pay off. "The ideals and the values of the United States inspired the entire world," Obama said. "I don't think any of us can say that our standing in the world now, the way children around the world look at the United States, is the same."

In their exchanges, Obama called McCain by his first name, drawing attention to his personality. McCain never reciprocated, indicating respect for Obama's office but not necessarily for Obama himself. This difference highlighted Obama's preference to question McCain's judgment and prudence as McCain drew attention to his own experience and record. McCain even mocked intuition and President Bush when explaining his views on Russia.

"I looked into Mr. Putin's eyes, and I saw three letters, a 'K,' a 'G,' and a 'B,'" McCain said. "And their aggression in Georgia is not acceptable behavior."

Not everything in the debate can be framed as the difference between a modern and postmodern worldview. But like our church debates, a little awareness about perspective goes a long way toward understanding. The November election's results may help church leaders gauge the mood of their own constituencies. A tougher challenge is knowing when and how to confront those cultural assumptions for our own good and for the sake of the gospel.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 2, 2008 | Comments (12) | TrackBack

September 24, 2008

The Green-Letter Bible

by Brandon O'Brien

Late yesterday afternoon, I received a copy of The Green Bible (HarperOne), and I’m not sure what to make of it.

The Bible is “green†in composition, which I appreciate. Its pages are made of 10 percent post-consumer recycled paper, the words are printed with soy-based ink, and the binding is 100 percent cotton/linen. It is certainly a good-looking book (that marketing sleeve comes off). And it smells nice. I wouldn’t mind if my bookshelves were lined with cotton covers.

But to put things in perspective, Thomas Nelson released a “green†Bible printed on recycled paper—the first of its kind—almost a year ago. So it’s not the composition but the content of HarperOne’s ecologically friendly canon that makes it unique.

Before they make it to Genesis, Green Bible readers encounter an impressive roll of contributors, each offering a sermon or article on some aspect of creation care: “Reading the Bible through a Green Lens†and “Knowing Our Place on Earth: Learning Environmental Responsibility from the Old Testament†for example. There’s a foreword by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, an introduction by Matthew Sleeth, poems by Francis of Assisi and Wendell Berry, and articles (mostly reprinted) by Brian McLaren, Barbara Brown Taylor, N. T. Wright, and the late Pope John Paul II, among others.

But what truly sets The Green Bible apart is that it’s a “green-letter edition.†It’s akin to the New Testaments in which the words of Jesus are printed in red. Except in this case, “over a thousand references to the earth and caring for creation†appear in green ink. While there are certainly more instances besides the highlighted ones that would have applied, the editors tell us in the prefatory material, they have chosen only those “speaking directly to the project’s core mission.â€

To meet their criteria for what makes it in green, a given biblical text must address:

· how God and Jesus interact with, care for, and are intimately involved with all of creation.
· how all the elements of creation—land, water, air, plants, animals, humans—are interdependent.
· how nature responds to God.
· how we are called to care for creation.

These criteria yield some obvious results. All of Genesis 1 and most of Genesis 2 is green-lettered, as is Romans 8:22: “We know that the whole of creation has been groaning in labor pains until now…†But there are some puzzling passages that make the cut. There’s the final sentence of Revelation 19:20, for example: “These two [beasts] were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.†And Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree is not green, even though it seems to describe “how God and Jesus interact with…all of creation.â€

The selection of passages aside, I have two concerns with this method of highlighting biblical text. The first is this: the implicit argument in the green lettering is that by sheer bulk of words in green print, the editors prove that creation care is a central concern of the Bible. But what if we tried a different subject—say, violence. A faculty of editors color-codes a Bible so that every passage that references an act of violence is printed in purple ink. Would that, by sheer bulk, prove conclusively that violence is at the center of God’s plan of redemption? Or what about gold-lettering all the instances of sexual perversion? What I mean is this: frequency is not a compelling argument without context.

Speaking of context, I’m afraid the letter coloring will distract, in many places, from the actual theological significance of a passage. Take Genesis 2, for example. The majority of the chapter appears in green, except—oddly—a brief reference to the second river in Eden, Gihon (but the bit about Pishon is in green). The Lord’s proclamation that it is not good for the man to be alone is in black, as is the great crescendo of the chapter: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh…†I can understand why the institution of marriage is not “green.†But the predominance of green ink in that chapter diverts attention from the real significance of the passage—the completion of the creation of humankind.

I respect what the editors are trying to do here. We frequently need to be reminded that the Bible speaks to issues that we completely overlook for one reason or another. And I believe the Bible does challenge us to be better stewards of the planet. But I wonder if color-coding certain biblical themes disintegrates—rather than integrates—the unity of the gospel message by dividing the text into specialized issues. Does it help me understand the Bible to think of a passage about judging my neighbor as a “green†concern (Matthew 7:1-2 is green-lettered)? Or does it simply confuse matters? Does this advance the cause, or set it back a step?

Well, I guess I do know how I feel about it. For now, The Green Bible will have a place of honor beside my “Itty Bitty Bible†(the entire Scripture reduced to microscopic proportions so it fits on a single slide) and my talking Jesus action figure on the shelf of things I’m glad to have but don’t have much use for.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 24, 2008 | Comments (24) | TrackBack

September 18, 2008

What the Unchurched See in a Building

On the heels of David Gibbons’ interesting thoughts on the way many churches squander their resources on underutilized buildings, Matt Branaugh has this piece over at LeadershipJournal.net. Apparently, if you’re going to throw your church’s money into a building, make it a sacred one. -Url

Does "sacred" space appeal to or repel the unchurched? A recent survey probed 1,700 unchurched American adults, putting photos of four different church exteriors in front of them. Respondents indicated their preferences by allocating 100 points across the four images, based on the appeal of the appearance.

The Gothic look averaged 48 points, more than double the next-highest finisher, a white-steeple-and-pillar exterior that averaged about 19 points. The other two churches, with more contemporary looks, averaged 18 points and 16 points, according to the study, commissioned by Cornerstone Knowledge Network and conducted by LifeWay Research.

So should churches opt for the cathedral look as a way to attract the unchurched?

Not necessarily, says Jim Couchenour, director of marketing and ministry services at Cogun Inc., a church building design firm that co-founded Cornerstone with Aspen Group. Aesthetics are an important element to weigh, Couchenour says, but the building must reflect the values and integrity of the congregation in order to work.

"Buildings without relationships have no meaning," he says. "The vast majority of people will go to church based on an invitation from a friend or family member. A small minority of people will make a decision based on the way the building looks. If it were aesthetics alone, we'd have a lot of beautiful buildings in inner cities that are full. That's just not the case."

And one style that works for one church doesn't necessarily work for the next. Younger respondents in the study, for instance, rated exterior design as a higher priority, while older participants tended to prize a building's usefulness.

"The style is not as important as the integrity of the design," Couchenour says. Integrity starts with the church realizing what God has called it to be, what ministry needs it can meet, and how a building can help meet those needs. "People—churched or unchurched—can tell if it has integrity, if it feels right."

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 18, 2008 | Comments (9) | TrackBack

August 26, 2008

The Church & Politics Quiz

Where I grew up in the South, the three big holidays on the church calendar were Christmas, Easter, and Fourth of July Sunday. Now I live near Chicago, where many churches let Independence Day slip by without a word from the pulpit. There are, no doubt, historical and theological reasons why Christians in one part of the country (or in one denomination or another) are more inclined to link the church to the state in its worship. But in my experience, people simply don't give the issue a lot of thought; they just do what they've always done.

That's why I'm excited to introduce the Church and Politics Quiz, a tool designed to help you uncover your assumptions and blind spots regarding the role of the church in politics. How should the church relate to the state—as chaplain or prophet? Is it appropriate to display flags in the sanctuary? In the spirit of the Hermeneutics Quiz from earlier this year, there are no right or wrong answers. Rather, we hope this tool will help you think critically about the church's role and responsibility in this historic election year.

Take the quiz here, and then come back to Out of Ur to post your results and comments.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 26, 2008 | Comments (25) | TrackBack

August 22, 2008

Olympic Shifts

by Dave Gibbons

Shifts happen all the time—shifts in economics, politics, theology, church, and culture. But we usually don’t comprehend the full nature of the shift until much later. One subtle shift happened in Beijing last week. You may have missed it amid the pageantry of the Olympic opening ceremonies.

Many consider it an historic event for modern China to host the Olympic Games, and the show proved to be amazing. It was an experiential canvas of creativity few have ever seen before on such a scale: techno-utopian shows, creative and innovative artistry, massive numbers of participants synchronizing poetry through dance and song. The opening ceremony masterfully put the world on notice: a shift has occurred. Here’s what I saw communicated:

1. China is increasingly more open to the “barbariansâ€
In one of the most beautiful sequences in the ceremony, the dancers displayed the Great Wall reflecting one of the most notable metaphors of China. It was a reminder to the world that barbarians weren’t welcomed. Things have changed. The dancers transformed the walls of China into a bridge of flowers. Sure, the doors may still be closed in many respects--human rights and religious freedoms are still lagging in China--but there seems to be a growing openness in the culture. This is probably the result of many who have prayed and fueled the movement of the Holy Spirit.

2. Skin color and racial stereotypes are becoming irrelevant
Did you see the group of children representing the 51 different cultures of China! China, like so many other places today, is multi-cultural. A group of young people is emerging that some call Third Culture—a wave of people who will lead the missiological movement because of their ability to adapt to different cultures. Being comfortable moving between cultures all of their lives, these people will be more equipped to become all things to all men.

3. China is not just about copying things
The Chinese have a heritage of being some of the most creative and artistic people on the planet. The opening ceremony showed that China wasn’t content to copy what other countries have done in the past. They created an innovative experience unlike any before. New ideas are coming from Asia, and not just the West. Although most Christians see the West as the center of Christian activity and mission in the world, some are now predicting that Korea will soon outpace America when it comes to missiological initiative.

So what does this mean for the church? I believe an ecclesiastical and theological shift is happening too. An expanded and new wave of theological scholarship and creative ministry expressions will take shape and continue to fuel God’s global movement, and these will increasingly come from outside Western cultures. The emergence of China and other Asian powers on the world stage parallels what’s happening in the church.

How should we respond as Americans? One practical thing to do is experience what God is doing globally by reading a macro perspective of the shifts happening in Asia by authors like Fareed Zakaria. I highly recommend The Post-American World. It’s an inexpensive trip to take a journey with your mind.

Secondly, I’d encourage you to take a vision trip overseas—not to serve as much as to learn. There are great partnership groups like World Vision, or you can email me at dave.gibbons@newsong.net and I will put you in touch with great groups I work with in Asia and beyond. There is no better way to experience a great move of God than by being in the middle of one. If you do that, watch out… you may never be the same. I know because it happened to me.

Read about Dave Gibbons’ ministry-changing, and life-changing, experience as a pastor in Bangkok, Thailand in the summer issue of Leadership.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 22, 2008 | Comments (10) | TrackBack

August 19, 2008

The Hansen Report: Warren, Obama, and McCain

by Collin Hansen

I’m not Rick Warren’s biggest fan. Don’t get me wrong; I admire his godly character and zeal to claim this world for Christ. But I could live without the hokey acronyms and, especially, his “felt needs†approach to evangelism.

That said, I was impressed with Warren’s hosting skills at the Saddleback Civil Forum on Saturday night. Warren is the only Christian leader in America who could pull off this event. Sen. Barack Obama wants to peel away more of the evangelical vote, and he trusts Warren not to play gotcha with him on the issues where he disagrees with evangelicals. Sen. John McCain needs to bolster his credibility with evangelicals, and he knows Warren harbors no long-standing vendetta against him for sometimes bucking conservative political orthodoxy.

Moreover, Warren gave conservatives what they wanted out of the event. He coaxed both candidates into sharing how they would compose the Supreme Court. He asked questions about personal morality, and both candidates shared their views on same-sex marriage and abortion. Obama certainly didn’t impress by dodging Warren’s question about when life begins. Granted, we can’t expect our presidents to be experts on science or theology. But in formulating their policy positions on such a crucial issue as abortion, politicians necessarily draw on theology and science. They can’t pretend to avoid the problem.

At the same time that he addressed standard conservative issues, Warren broached other topics important to evangelicals and nonbelievers alike. He asked about education, taxes, foreign military interventions, and so on. Rarely did the candidates break new ground. And yet this event somehow did.

For example, Warren introduced the forum saying, “We’ve got to learn to disagree without demonizing each other, and we need to restore civility…in our civil discourse, and that’s the goal of the Saddleback Civil Forum.†With this standard as his goal, Warren succeeded magnificently. The candidates’ personalities emerged clearly as they responded specifically to an impressive array of questions. Anyone who watched the event got a real sense for the candidates’ comparative strengths and weaknesses. Though Warren’s event lacked the side-to-side comparison of presidential debates, it also avoided the stage theatrics that sidetrack them.

Let’s give the pastor credit. Journalists are trained to distrust their interview subjects and try to outwit them into revealing something they didn’t want to share. Pastors likewise harbor no illusions about human nature. But they also must navigate the choppy waters of church life where they try and convince clashing personalities to work together for the common good, a task they share with politicians. As a result, Warren shared evident rapport with the candidates, which put them at ease and made for a more substantial discourse. For so long, evangelicals have contributed to America’s poisonous political climate. It’s about time we became part of the solution.

Let me share one final concern, though. One of Rick Warren’s heroes is Billy Graham—a great choice. I hope Warren’s relationship with Graham and knowledge of his life will help Warren avoid the pitfalls of intervening in politics. Like Warren, Graham befriended the rich and powerful around the world. His two closest friends in the Oval Office were Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Only Graham could befriend two consecutive presidents who disagreed on so much. That’s because Graham had his policy views, but he didn’t let them get in the way of personal spiritual counsel.

So far so good, until you consider the outcome. Under Johnson and Nixon’s leadership, the United States endured conflict over civil rights, Watergate, and Vietnam. Still today, we live with the fruit—both good and bad—of these painful controversies that split generations and communities. The evangelical track record during this period is spotty at best. Too often evangelicals on both the Right and Left failed to bring their faith to bear on the greatest questions of their generation. For the sake of the country and the church’s faithfulness to God, evangelicals cannot afford to make the same mistakes today.

In its recent profile of Warren, Time magazine observed that he “may not aspire to global mogulhood, but he is clearly near giddy over occupying a globetrotting-catalyst status normally reserved for ex-Presidents.†That sounds dangerously like the awe of political power that seduced Graham. As much as evangelicals need leaders who can encourage civil discourse, they desperately need leaders who will help them biblically discern where they must resist the prevailing culture. It’s a tricky mix.

I will be praying that the God who has given Warren such influence with presidential candidates will help him resist the temptation to seek their approval.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 19, 2008 | Comments (10) | TrackBack

August 6, 2008

Audio Ur: Brandon O'Brien on the Masculinity Movement

Back in April, Leadership assistant editor Brandon O'Brien wrote an article in Christianity Today about the recent trend toward manly Christianity in some evangelical churches. The article generated quite a buzz on the website and in the blogosphere. Brandon was recently interviewed on the subject for an article in USA Today. Last week, Skye Jethani, Leadership managing editor, talked with Brandon about the articles and asked him a few hard questions. What really keeps men out of church? Where do our gender stereotypes come from? What's really at stake here?

To download this episode of Audio Ur, click here.

P.S. For those wondering when Audio Ur will be on iTunes...we're working on it.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 6, 2008 | Comments (3) | TrackBack

August 1, 2008

Book Review: Jesus Wants to Save Christians (Part 2)

As promised I’ve finished reading Rob Bell’s new book, Jesus Wants to Save Christians. It didn’t take long to fly through the remaining 100 pages of one sentence paragraphs. And as I noted in part 1 of this review, I’m glad I was given a free advanced copy, because $20 is a hefty price for such a short book. Sorry, Zondervan, but that’s my honest opinion. Can we still be friends? (Full disclosure: Zondervan is publishing my book early next year.)

Beyond formatting and price, a more important issue is whether the book’s quality compensates for its scant quantity. That answer will depend upon the audience. Obviously Rob Bell isn’t the first person to explore the biblical basis for social justice, but his foray into the topic is very accessible. He’s definitely put the cookies on a lower shelf. I found myself thinking the book would be a good introduction to the topic for a student or someone with no prior knowledge of the topic.

But there’s a difference between making the cookies accessible and predigesting them. For that reason I feel Jesus Wants to Save Christians probably isn’t for most of Out of Ur’s readers (theologically aware church leaders, many seminary trained). N.T. Wright and Ron Sider write with far more depth and theological persuasion on the subject, and even Shane Claiborne’s Jesus for President (which seems to be targeting the same audience as Bell’s book) denounces the American empire with more flair and credibility.

That may have been the most surprising thing about Jesus Wants to Save Christians for me. Rob Bell and coauthor Dan Golden include virtually no illustrations, no stories, no real world examples of people or communities living out the vision of Christian faith they advocate. The later chapters are loaded with eye-opening statistics like:

And

But there were no stories. For a gifted storyteller like Bell, that seems like a missed opportunity. As a result, Jesus Wants to Save Christians feels more like a lecture than a sermon--it informs but it never inspires.

That isn’t to say I found the book completely unhelpful. There are a few memorable and well communicated ideas. Take, for example, the notion that the American church is in a state of exile. Bell and Golden use the story of the disciples on the road to Emmaus as a metaphor for the church today. “It’s possible to be with Jesus every day and yet miss who he truly is and where we really are.â€

The Bible, say Bell and Golden, is “a book written from the underside of power. It’s an oppression narrative. The majority of the Bible was written by minority people living under the rule and reign of massive, mighty empires.... This can make the Bible a very difficult book to understand if you are reading it as a citizen of the most powerful empire the world has ever seen.â€

Bell and Golden also pick apart many sacred cows in the contemporary American church—from the dangers of being trendy, hip, and cool, to the temptation to market the church to specific demographic populations. “The authority that the church has in culture does not come from how right, cool, or loud it is, or how convinced it is of its doctrinal superiority.†Amen to that.

But this same deconstructionist tendency is what may cause some readers (not me) to freak out when the authors apply it to Scripture and history. For example, they advance a preterist reading of Revelation stripped of any eschatological meaning (while taking a jab at the Left Behind books in the process). Their view certainly has scholarly support, but the snarky way it’s presented belies the enormous complexity of apocalyptic exegesis and the humility it should engender.

Similarly, they make this statement related to American history:

Again, this view is not without basis, but the decision of President Truman to drop the bombs has been hotly debated for over 60 years. Bell and Golden make it sound like the verdict is in and the issue is settled. Even the attached endnote sheds no additional light on the complexity of the issue which, I thought, is what an endnote was for.

Perhaps the most controversial element of the book is their discussion of the Iraq War. Bell and Golden’s perspective can be summed up in one word: Oil.

Thumpin’ theocrats be warned—Jesus Wants to Save Christians is highly critical of America. Bell and Golden repeatedly state that God has blessed America, and we should be “very, very grateful†to live in America, but they argue we’ve confused blessing with entitlement. Our demand for a self-indulgent lifestyle is causing the oppression of poor people throughout the world. They soften their punches by saying “guilt is not helpful…knowledge is helpful,†but few will be able to put down Jesus Wants to Save Christians without a sense of self-loathing—perhaps for supporting the oppressive American empire, but more likely for shelling out $20 for book that only took two hours to read.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 1, 2008 | Comments (37) | TrackBack

July 25, 2008

The First Church of Second Life

by Angie Ward

There is another life beyond this one: a realm where one’s role on earth is a distant memory, where inhabitants have new bodies and can fly anywhere they like. It sounds a bit like heaven. But it’s not. It’s cyberspace.

Second Life is—well, for the uninitiated, it is hard to explain. Some call it a game, but in reality it is ultimate virtuality: a virtual, 3D, online world that is continually created and updated by its residents. Originally introduced to the public in 2003 by the company Linden Lab, Second Life now boasts over a million members from around the world.

These members, 50,000 or more of whom are online and “in-world†at any given time, create their own names and “avatars†(virtual identities with infinite combinations of customizable human and nonhuman “looksâ€) that can own merchandise and property (bought with real U.S. dollars) and interact with any anyone else in-world via Second Life chat or instant messenger. Residents can walk, fly, or teleport to various destinations, including lush beaches, raucous dance clubs, trendy restaurants, seedy strip joints, bustling malls—and churches.

As of this writing, there were around 100 churches listed in Second Life. Some were obviously created as a joke (The Church of Apathy), but dozens of others advertise legitimate doctrine, membership, and church functions. But why would anyone start a church in a place that isn’t real?

Because, for many of its residents, Second Life is real; more real—to them, at least—than their real-world existences. Some members spend entire days in-world at one time; they make friends, go to school, party, play, and sometimes even derive more income from their virtual enterprises than from their real-world ones. This is either cause for great alarm, or great opportunity for ministry.

Second Life resident “Emmanuel Hallard†believes the latter, and started the Christian Church of Second Life two and half years ago. “I felt that Jesus’ saying, ‘Go into all the world’ included Second Life,†explained Hallard, who in his “First Life†is Lee Wilson, a minister, author, and actor who works for the Family Dynamics Institute, a nonprofit marriage and family ministry located outside of Nashville.

Wilson/Hallard chose his Second Life first name, Emmanuel, because it means “God with us.†“When I first joined Second Life I wanted that message to go with me—that God is everywhere,†he said. “We can’t hide from Him in the dark, in a voting booth, or in a virtual world.†The Nashville minister says he spends around 10 hours per week in Second Life, communicating with his church’s 1,000 members, developing the church “property,†leading Bible discussions, talking with church visitors, and exploring new areas of the world. The church also has a donation box and accepts gifts that go toward the purchase of new property and the Second Life land ownership fee of $30 per month.

Other Second Life churches function in a similar manner, offering Bible studies and discussion groups. Some hold special events based on the liturgical calendar, such as Easter gatherings and special prayer services.

“Second Life in general lets you experience freedom you might not have in your everyday life,†explained Wilson/Hallard.

And the freedom to be and do anything you want in-world is a two-edged sword. “Slappy Yering,†another Christian who has spent significant time in Second Life, has observed the darker side of this freedom.

Yering, a church planter and telecom employee in his First Life, used to spend 8 to 16 hours per week in Second Life. He originally joined to get closer to a couple in his church that was very quiet in real life, but spent a lot of time in-world. “In the game they were just crazy,†Yering explained. “The couple worked at a virtual strip club. He was a DJ and she was a dancer, and they owned a house in-world. Most of the time I was there, we were talking about life. I was a counselor to these people who had trouble dealing with each other in the real world.

“It was kind of a fun thing,†Yering continued “You could be whoever you wanted and do whatever you wanted—no responsibility, because it’s just a game. But that’s the dangerous part. It crossed a line. The couple eventually divorced. They should really have never been married in the first place, but the game accelerated their downfall.â€

So, what is Second Life? A colossal time waster, a harmless (albeit elaborate) diversion, or evil escapism? From my own experience, the Second Life world is difficult to learn, yet potentially addicting. The virtual world is completely unreal, yet totally real at the same time. Dangers lurk, yet opportunities abound. What is the appropriate approach for a Christian? On the one hand, Scripture warns us of spending time in futile pursuits; on the other, we are to spread the Gospel to the unreached, using whatever means possible.

Personally, I am too busy in my First Life to spend time in Second Life. But I commend those who are thinking outside the box about how to engage a vast, unevangelized world that is actually contained inside a box.

For a brief glimpse of a Second Life church experience, check out this video, produced by Craig Groeschel's LifeChurch.tv.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 25, 2008 | Comments (20) | TrackBack

July 24, 2008

Is Manliness Next to Godliness?

Today you can read Leadership’s own assistant editor, Brandon O’Brien, was in USA Today. The report by Cathy Lynn Grossman highlights the lengths churches are going to reach men. O’Brien wrote an article last spring for Christianity Today on the errors that plague some of these Christian masculinity movements. He was tapped by USA Today to comment on the trend. Here’s an excerpt from the piece:

Read the entire article here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 24, 2008 | Comments (19) | TrackBack

July 22, 2008

The Life You've Always Wanted (in Bed)

A number of churches are now preaching a message I never heard from the pulpit growing up: God wants you to have sex. Lots of sex. Great sex. All for his glory, of course.

In February 2008, Relevant Church of Tampa, Florida, issued a “30-Day Sex Challenge†during their sermon series on relationships. Married couples were exhorted to have some form of intercourse—and singles to abstain—every day for a month.

Last month, New Direction Christian Church (Memphis, Tennessee) conducted its own “40 Nights of Grrreat Sex†program. The pastoral staff handed out daily planners with suggestions for mixing things up. They set up a blog so members could ask questions—and presumably offer advice—anonymously. I hope they also have plans to increase their children's ministry budget in the coming months.

And it’s not just churches. In the Christian publishing market, the body of explicit sex manuals for Christian couples is growing. Ironically, about the time secular commentators have begun to voice their concern that our culture is overstimulated, the Christian church says, “I’ve got an idea; let’s have more sex.â€

Of course I understand the difference between casual sex and intimacy within a godly marriage. And in some ways, I find this trend toward openness about human sexuality to be encouraging. Having grown up in a conservative church in a conservative part of the country, I know Christians who feel guilty about having (not to mention enjoying) sex with their Christian spouses. This certainly should not be so.

On the other hand, where does "church as sex therapist" lead? In the upcoming issue of Leadership, Sam O’Neal reports that Relevant Church's sex campaign resulted in a 15 percent increase in attendance. Is that transfer growth or conversion growth, I wonder? (Not growth precisely, but you know what I mean.)

I don’t mean to criticize either of the ministries above; there’s certainly nothing wrong with churches celebrating sexual intimacy within marriage. And I don’t know enough of the details to critique either of the “campaigns.†But to comment on evangelicalism’s apparently growing fascination with sex, I have to wonder what this looks like to nonbelievers.

For example, as I understand it, there is some disagreement among Taoists concerning the role of sex in spiritual development. Some say that sex uses up chi (which one must reserve in order to become immortal), so they abstain. Others say a person can actually gain chi during intercourse, so have all you want. From an outsider’s perspective, if I were going to choose a form of Taoism … well, it’s a simple choice, isn’t it?

There’s a part of me that wonders whether nonbelievers will look on Christianity, from an outsider’s perspective, and say, “Well, if my options are ‘take up your cross and follow me’ or ‘have sex every day,’ I’ll take option two, please.†What you win them with is what you win them to, or so they say.

I’m curious to hear what you think. Is this "tell 'em what they want to hear"? Or are we finally beginning to understand God’s design for sex in marriage? Does an emphasis on sexual fulfillment (or financial security, or anger management, or …) distract from the gospel? Or is satisfaction of all sorts an element of the gospel message of restoration? Let us know what you think. And remember--keep it short and keep it clean.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 22, 2008 | Comments (28) | TrackBack

July 9, 2008

Audio Ur: Dan Kimball on Gay Marriage

Last month the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage. Some are predicting that the California ruling will open the door to gay marriage throughout the country. How should church leaders respond? Skye Jethani, managing editor of Leadership, recently spoke with Dan Kimball, pastor of Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, California, about how his congregation is handling the controversial decision.

To download this episode of Audio Ur, click here.

P.S. For those wondering when Audio Ur will be on iTunes...we're working on it.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 9, 2008 | Comments (39) | TrackBack

June 27, 2008

Tuning Out Christian Radio

It’s official: I’m tuning out of Christian radio.

When some of the Christian radio stations in my area shifted their play lists from Southern gospel, country Christian and syndicated preaching, I took notice. I was thrilled to have airwave access to what I considered great Christian music. And I found myself tuning in more often.

But even my favorite stations have started losing me in recent months. What led me to reprogram my car radio and cancel my monthly $10 pledges? Three things.

First, I’ve noticed a growing level of—how shall I say this?—sappiness. Yeah, that’s the word. It’s not so much the music that’s sappy (some of it is); it’s the commentary, news stories, and contests that combine to present Christianity as synonymous with sentimentality. I live in a real world that’s not always positive and encouraging, so Christian radio’s steady diet of sugary spirituality doesn’t promote sustaining faith.

What’s more, I’ve noticed Christian radio becoming, for me, a sort of faith vending machine. Need some encouragement? Just push a button! I suspect that too frequent exposure to otherwise fine music hackneys that music and causes spiritual satisfaction to become one more commodity in my life. This makes real corporate worship feel like an imitation of the canned radio versions of the songs. Plus, it keeps me from developing truly nourishing habits. After all, who needs real corporate worship and challenging formative disciplines when I can just tune my radio dial and get a quick God fix?

Most importantly, I detect Christian radio has succumbed to consumerism. An on-air promo for one station’s Friends and Family Music Cruise pushed me over the edge. Here’s an excerpt from their website:

Is it just me, or are “bigger,†“better,†and “having it all†actually not congruent with the One who made Himself nothing and was obedient unto death? Plus, the station boasts that you can finance the cruise on your credit card. I’m a fun loving guy, but encouraging indebtedness for an experience that appeals to and promotes selfishness—under the guise of being a godly experience—is nothing to laugh at.

Buried beneath my growing dissatisfaction for Christian radio, I find four nuggets of caution for those of us responsible for ministry leadership.

First, Christianity is interesting, but it’s not amusing. After all, “to amuse†basically means to divert and cause someone to not think. Church does not exist to take our minds off the real world, but to focus our attention on God, His plan for the world, and our place in His plan. It’s an interesting plan requiring focus and attention. As a pastor, I often tried too hard to avoid being boring and (gasp!) irrelevant. But in avoiding those dangers, I sometimes fell into the ditch of mere amusement. Christian leaders need to take caution against spinning the gospel as a spectacle that holds our attention but does not hold us accountable.

Second, we must resist presenting immediate fixes for felt needs. After all, salvation and spiritual growth are not commodities that can be produced, marketed, promoted, and perfected for mass satisfaction. Jesus is not a hamburger, a snappy set of sandals, or an iPhone. Discipleship is a committed relationship with Jesus that gradually forms us into the likeness of our Creator. We must take care in how we present the gospel, lest Christ come off as a product we consume instead of the Lord we obey. While more people may buy into a Jesus who makes us happy, we are called to preach a Jesus who makes us holy.

Third, lowest common denominators tend to push us off course. Just because lots of church members (and would-be church members) believe God is for this or that political party, we cannot taint the gospel message with partisan political appeal in order to gain the masses. Likewise, just because obsessive parents demand a children’s program that’s on par with Disney doesn’t mean allocation of tithes and offerings toward such a ministry is wise or warranted. “Give people what they want†makes a poor church motto.

Finally, it’s all too easy to generate and get caught up in hype. We Christian leaders can get stoked about the “big†things we’re doing and lose focus on our core purpose. Hype is not hope, and it is not a route to Christian hope. So when we build a bigger building, plan a super outreach event, orchestrate an awesome Easter service, or pull together a marvelous missionary experience, let’s not get high on the hype that can take on a life of its own.

I’m humbled to realize that for all my critique of Christian radio, I’ve made many of the same mistakes in my own ministry. So while I may be tuning out of Christian radio for a while, I’m thankful that my departure reminds me how we can inadvertently do bad while aiming for good.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 27, 2008 | Comments (63) | TrackBack

May 14, 2008

From Useful Idiots to Political Misfits

What is an “evangelical� According to almost 80 prominent pastors, theologians, and activists, the word “evangelical" has become “a term that, in recent years, has often been used politically, culturally, socially—and even as a marketing demographic."

The group signed and released a 19 page “Evangelical Manifesto†last week in Washington D.C. The goal of the document is to “reclaim the definition of what it means to be an Evangelical.†They believe that theological, rather than political, principles should define evangelicalism, and they offer a strong rebuke to those who would equate the word with either end of the political spectrum. When evangelicalism is politically defined, they say, it makes Christians “useful idiots†for politicians and parties.

The manifesto’s signers are a diverse bunch including Timothy George, dean, Beeson Divinity School; Os Guinness; Richard Mouw, president, Fuller Theological Seminary; David Neff, editor in chief of Christianity Today; and Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners magazine. Absent are some high profile Religious Right folks like James Dobson. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, has written about why he won’t sign the manifesto even though he agrees with 90 percent of its content.

One commentator has noted that the manifesto represents a divide between the “old-style populist evangelicals†(think Religious Right, Moral Majority, pro-life, anti-gay marriage) and what he calls the increasing ranks of “cosmopolitan evangelicals†(think global awareness, social justice, poverty, AIDS). He says this bunch (shall we call them Cosmo-Christians?) are “the new public face of the evangelical movement.â€

It isn’t that Cosmo-Christians don’t care about abortion, sexuality, or marriage issues, they’re simply acknowledging that there are other moral issues address by scripture and impacted by evangelical belief. A Seattle Times article this week reports on this trend:

Shane Claiborne calls these young evangelicals who don’t feel at home in either party “political misfits†which, I suppose, is a step up from “useful idiots.â€

With the election driving political conversations in churches and among evangelicals, these trends are worth discussing. Do you think evangelicals have become useful idiots for the Republican Party? Are we in danger of becoming equally useful and idiotic tools for the Democrats? And do you resonate with Claiborne’s label? Are you a political misfit?

Here are a few additional resources to check out. Then come back and share your comments.

“The Evangelical Manifesto: What It Means†(U.S. News & World Report)

Read the full manifesto here.

“Why I am not signing the 'Evangelical Manifesto'â€by Richard Land

“Young, evangelical ... for Obama?†(Seattle Times)

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 14, 2008 | Comments (29) | TrackBack

May 13, 2008

Gordon MacDonald: Is Wright Really Wrong?

In Gordon MacDonald's monthly column at LeadershipJournal.net, he asks this provocative question:

I figure Out of Ur is as good a place as any to answer MacDonald's question. Have at it.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 13, 2008 | Comments (41) | TrackBack

May 6, 2008

John Ortberg on Religion AND Politics

Anybody but me notice that this is an election year? I have loved politics since I was a kid; one of my first and favorite books was a little Cold War classic called Being an American Can Be Fun.

But it’s an odd thing. The church—where we’re supposed to be fearless; where we’re supposed to challenge people on sin, and be prophetic, and face martyrdom—the church is also the place where we’re told, “Don’t talk about politics!†Or at least we’re told that in the kind of churches where I grew up. Other traditions are different. In the African-American church, for instance, for decades church was the one place where politics could be safely talked about; leaving a legacy that is reverberating pretty loudly this year.

Here’s the problem: politics is an important sphere of human activity, and as such God is keenly interested in it. It was the Dutch theologian and politician (why don’t we have more of those?) Abraham Kuyper who famously said, “There is not one inch of creation about which Jesus Christ does not say: ‘This is mine!’â€

However, as soon as human beings (including church leaders) start assuming they are in a position to pronounce God’s political leanings, things get a little dicey.

In Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, which remains the high water mark in presidential theological reflection, he notes that “Both (the North and the South) read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other.†So maybe a way to place politics in its proper context is with a little thought experiment.

Imagine that we elected all the right people to all the right offices. President, Congress, governors, right down to the school board, city council members, and dog catcher (which, by the way, does anyone still get to vote for?) Let’s imagine that all of these ideal office holders instituted all the right policies. Every piece of legislation—from zoning laws, to tax codes, to immigration policy, to crime bills—is just exactly the way you know it ought to be.

Would that usher in perfection?

Would the hearts of the parents be turned toward their children?
Would all marriages be models of faithful love?
Would greed and pride be legislated out of existence?
Would assistant pastors find senior pastors to be models of harmony and delight?
Would human beings now at last be able to master our impulses around sexuality, and anger, and narcissism?
Would you finally become the woman or man you know you ought to be?

In the words of theologian Macaulay Culkin: “I don’t think so.†Because no human system has the ability to change the human heart. Not even democracy, or capitalism, or post-modern-emergent-ancient-future-missionalism. T.S. Elliot summed up our quandary brilliantly: “We want a system of order so perfect that we do not have to be good.â€

Systems are important but they’re also complicated. Historian Mark Noll notes that evangelicals often fail to add value in politics because we like simplicity: good vs. evil; right vs. wrong. Political and economic arrangements are full of complexity and nuance. Well-intended legislation may lead to poor results. When we condition people to think that every bill is a battle between the forces of righteousness versus the minions of darkness, we do not serve the process well. But we specialize in polarizing. No parachurch organization with a political agenda ever sent out a fund-raising letter noting that an upcoming bill was “likely to do 40 percent more good than harm.â€

We ought to be engaged in the political process. We ought to vote, be educated, be involved. We should do it in a way that is civil and respectful and redemptive. (I saw a cartoon recently where a guy showed up at the pearly gates to hear St. Peter say: “You were a believer, yes. But you skipped the not-being-a-jerk-about-it part.â€) But we should also remember that the church is not called to be one more political interest group.

The human race needs an administration of another kind. There is one possibility. Someone needs to be in a position to say: “The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe the Good News.†Scholars like N.T. Wright remind us that these words were politically loaded. They deliberately echo or parody the claims of Rome—that Caesar was Savior, that his kingdom was Good News.

The Gospel of the early church was, among other things, a deliberate in-your-face to the empire. Pretty cheeky when you think that the church had a few thousand ragged cohorts and the Empire ruled sixty-five million hearts. It was pretty clear which horse to bet on. But here we are, two thousand years later, and we give our children names like Peter, Paul, and Mary; and we call our dogs Caesar and Nero.

These gospel words of the early church were deliberately politically loaded. But they were not to be co-opted. They are to stand above every human party and candidate and political platform. The church historically has not done well when it gets too closely associated with empires. The gospel words must transcend higher to go deeper.

My daughter got a CD for me recently from an old Broadway show called Camelot.
Richard Burton is singing at the end ad the dream of Camelot is about to perish in a great battle. He sings/speaks in a tone of unbearable wistfulness:

‘Don’t let it be forgot,
That once there was a spot,
For one brief shining moment…’

I wondered why that was so evocative. Until I remembered—there is a longing. But it is not really about Camelot, or King Arthur, or Shangri-la, or Constantine, or whoever your favorite candidate is. It’s for a carpenter-turned-rabbi, who once ran for Messiah, and got crucified.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 6, 2008 | Comments (18) | TrackBack

May 2, 2008

The Passion of the Heist

I have a confession to make: I’m a thief and a murderer. I haven’t actually killed a living, breathing human being (I have stolen a thing or two, though; mostly pens and pencils). But one summer in college, a roommate and I played Grand Theft Auto: Vice City until we’d both done pretty much every awful thing there is in the world to do, including killing and stealing.

And it was great fun.

The newest installment of the Grand Theft Auto series is anticipated to be dang near the most lucrative media release ever. Take-Two Interactive Software, the company that owns GTA creator Rockstar Games, expects to sell 9 million copies of the game by the end of their fiscal year in October. They expect sales to gross $400 million in its first week; that’s a measly $1 million less than the top grossing movie of all time, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End, made in its first week.

Together the series of three games has sold around 70 million copies so far, which puts it in competition with (and actually slightly ahead of) Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code (Doubleday, 2003). It will also be in league with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the last of Rowling's Harry Potter books, which sold 12 million copies in its first run in the U. S. Think of that: if the game's popularity is comparable to that of Harry Potter and The Da Vinci Code, there's no doubt that people in your church will soon be stealing cars and chasing women. Virtually, of course.

Now that the Da Vinci Code and Harry Potter comparisons have been made, that makes me wonder, What is the church to do with Grand Theft Auto IV?

Do you suspect we’ll see Christians picketing Game Stop and Wal-Mart for selling a game that celebrates violence, drunkenness, theft, prostitution, and heaven knows what else? Will we write books and Bible studies to refute the game’s poor theology? I doubt it. I suspect we’ll buy it. And play it. (Not all of us, of course. Females seem to be immune to these sorts of temptations. And since the church is made up mostly of women, then maybe it won’t be any problem at all.)

I understand the temptation myself. It didn’t take me long to overcome the queasiness I felt during my first exposure to Vice City. Sure, I have qualms about murder and carjacking, but only in real life. It turns out it’s quite a lot of fun to pull someone out of their car and drive it around a while when there are no consequences (and no one really gets hurt). It’s also great fun to run down pedestrians and take their pocket money or shoot a cop to instigate a high-speed chase. I had no problem preaching on Sunday morning (in real life, of course) and selling drugs from the back of an ice cream truck (in Vice City, of course) on Sunday afternoon.

We continued our killing spree through the summer, my roommate and I, our consciences relatively unscathed. The only thing that gave us pause (you’re gonna laugh) was when we acquired, as the reward for completing one mission, a strip club called the Pole Position. Once a week (in Vice City time), one of us drove by the club to pick up our income. Our principles prevented us from going inside the club, where the scantily clad digital dancers made us feel dirty. Gratuitous violence and civil mayhem my evangelical conscience could bear, but the insinuation of sexual sin—that made us both uneasy.

In fact, it’s the connection to virtual sexual sin that makes me think I ought to confess my GTA addiction at church. I mean, if you can kill a man in your heart (as Jesus seemed to think you could), then why should we expect God to excuse us for offing someone on a video game? We evangelicals are pretty sure we can commit adultery in our hearts, and we seem to agree that viewing pornography makes us guilty of that heart kind of adultery. If viewing pornography (which isn’t a real affair, after all) makes us adulterers, then doesn’t killing someone in a video game (which isn’t a real crime, after all) make us murderers?

No, you’ll object. It’s different. Porn involves real people; video games don’t. You have a point there. But then again, the deep tragedy of pornography is that it objectifies and dehumanizes women (and men). It completely ignores all the things beneath the skin that makes a human a human—the spirit and personality and whatever else. It presents us with a facsimile of a person. A video game starts with the facsimile and then adds spirit and personality to make it more human so that we find more satisfaction in killing it.

So what do you think? Am I guilty of sins I should confess to my church? Or am I within my liberties as a Christian? Tell us what you think and then take the poll on the left.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 2, 2008 | Comments (41) | TrackBack

April 10, 2008

Live from Shift: The Perfect Storm

The second day of the conference began with Brian McLaren's breakout session, "Onramp to the Postmodern Conversation." This was designed to help newcomers to the issue understand the shift that is happening in the culture. He compared this change to a hurricane that assaulted Honduras a number of years ago. 100 inches of rain fell in one week. The country was devastated. When the rain stopped the landscape of the country had been changed.

In one case, a bridge that had spanned a river was now on dry land. The river’s course had completely shifted. To the bridge’s credit it was still standing; it was very well built, but it was totally useless. This, says McLaren, is what the modern church is facing. The modern church was very well built and designed for stability, but the ground is shifting and it’s no longer as effective.

A similar storm is hitting the world today. Brian covered western history in about fifteen minutes, revealing paradigm shifts that have occurred in the past—including the one that gave us modernity about 500 years ago.

We are experiencing another prefect storm today, says McLaren.

In the last century there have been unprecedented changes in communication, technology, transportation, and economics that has shifted how people think. And once again, Christianity needs to recognize how it has linked itself to an old world view and be prepared to make the shift as well. McLaren was mindful to say that the bible is not the problem, but the modern boundaries or “bands†that we’ve constrained it with.

Following the presentation he gave a generous amount of time to questions. This is where his pastoral sensitivity and pragmatism came through.

A 61 year-old gentlemen who works for Evangelism Explosion asked, “How do we keep current? Things are changing so fast.â€

Brian’s answer—there are two big shifts every organization must recognize. First, that their current method isn’t working. And second, that even the new method they develop won’t work forever either. That’s hard for modern institutions that value stasis.

A young pastor from west Texas shared his struggle with defining postmodernism for others in this church. He said it’s really hard to talk with his senior pastor about these ideas. He asked Brian for his advice.

McLaren admitted that the word “postmodernism†is becoming problematic. Many people automatically associate it with evil, relativism, or some other heresy. He suggested avoiding the term. Instead, we ought to approach leaders in our churches from a place of humility rather than solutions. Let’s talk about the problem together. Help them see the challenge you’re facing with younger people. “If you rush at people with a solution before they feel the problem you’ll have trouble,†he said.

One inquisitor, an Anglican priest from Canada, said that his church has embraced many of these postmodern/post-Christian ideas for decades. But now they’re not only wrestling with issue of homosexuality but also the resurrection and the deity of Christ. He wanted to know, what are the guards the boundaries to ensure that his conversation doesn’t go outside of orthodoxy.

Brian said that the polarities his church is witnessing is the “residue of modernity.†In modernity there were two ways of being Christian—the fundamentalist way and the liberal way. But both of these came from a modern world view, they just landed on different conclusions. When we see churches fighting between liberals and conservatives, that’s a church still locked in modernity. McLaren says that in a postmodern paradigm he’s finding liberal Christians who are open to the idea of miracles again, and fundamental Christians who are rethinking the way they read the bible.

Toward the end of the session, Brian talked about the challenges of taking a church in this new direction and the conflicts that can arise. He said we’ve got to remain focused on those who need a relationship with Christ. “It’s heartbreaking to see Christians fighting and arguing with Christians about all of this stuff,†he said. “The fighting is driving people away from Christ.â€

Rather than fighting with church leaders to make changes, Brian suggested finding more creative ways to live out the mission to reach people for Christ. He said, “If you wait for your religious organization to give you permission to do the things you know have to happen, then you’ll never be faithful.†If the kind of people you are called to reach won’t be welcomed into your church then invite them in to your home, he said. This doesn’t mean leaving the church, but for some people it might mean “getting out your resume.â€

That made me think—how much energy do we pour into helping our established institutional churches make the shift? Are we, in a sense, casting pearls before swine? And should more of us be working outside the boundaries of the institutions that pay our salaries in order to faithfully engage what Christ is calling us to?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 10, 2008 | Comments (6) | TrackBack

April 2, 2008

Book Review: Jesus for President (Part 2)

A few months ago, while visiting a church out of state, I had a moment of crisis. Just before the sermon, the pastor stood to give the announcements. After wrapping up, he invited a young man in military uniform to stand. The young officer had grown up in this church and had just returned from his first tour in Iraq. The pastor thanked the congregation for their prayers for the soldier and his family. The congregation responded with enthusiastic applause. So far so good.

But then the pastor reminded the church of the dangerous and noble work America’s soldiers were doing in Iraq. He said they were protecting our American freedoms and that we should be grateful for their sacrifice. The congregation stood to their feet and began clapping…and clapping…and clapping. I have never experienced a more enthusiastic and prolonged standing ovation on a Sunday morning in my life.

What would you have done? I sat.

After the service I admitted to my wife that I was uncertain what the right response was in that situation. The tenor of the pastor’s remarks and the zeal of the congregation’s response did not seem to reflect Christ’s call to love our enemies. I wondered how a brother or sister in the Iraqi church, which has come under increasing persecution, would have felt about this Sunday morning display of patriotism. At the same time, I felt like a total jerk for sitting while the rest of the congregation demonstrated their gratitude to the military. This experience and the questions it raised came to mind several times while I read Jesus for President.

In chapters one and two, Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw summarize the Biblical narrative. (I covered their perspective in my first post.) In chapter three they begin exploring the implications of this narrative for those of us living in the world’s most powerful country. They describe America as an empire parallel to the Roman context the first Christians endured. They also believe Constantinianism was generally bad for the church, and that the book of Revelation is less about eschatology than living faithfully within a diabolical empire. Whether or not you agree with these assumptions, Claiborne and Haw make a compelling case that the church in America has become much to cozy with the state—a point that my Sunday morning experience seems to validate.

According to the authors, the great challenge facing the American church today is how to live faithfully as the distinct people of God within an empire that will preserve its interests at any cost. To press this point they quote often from the early Church Fathers who existed within the Roman Empire.

The authors point out that these earliest Christians fully expected to be persecuted by the empire. “The powers would drag them before governors and courts, beat them and insult them, feed them to beasts, and hang them on crosses. And hate his followers is what the world did- at least for the first couple of hundred years.†Claiborne and Haw think American Christians have avoided persecution not because we live in a Christian nation, but because the church is content with the government’s Christian veneer.

Jesus for President wonders if the reason the American church does not articulate a Christianity distinct from national citizenship is that we have lost our godly imagination. Or perhaps we have become so used to living with power and privilege that we are hesitant to articulate a different way of living. Let’s assume these modern-day monks are on to something. What then? What is the role of the church within the empire?

Had I been in the pastor’s shoes that Sunday morning a few months ago, I would like to think that I would have asked the congregation to pray just as diligently for the church in Iraq as for our troops. I would like to think that we would have mourned every life lost in the war—Iraqi and American. And I would like to think that we would have spent time praying for our enemies.

But maybe my courage would have failed me. After all, I too am a comfortable citizen of the empire.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 2, 2008 | Comments (30) | TrackBack

March 28, 2008

Book Review: Jesus for President (Part 1)

As you can tell, subtlety is not what Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw were aiming for when they co-wrote, Jesus for President. Apart from the provocative content—a mix of stories, biblical narrative, and political manifesto—even the look of the book provokes a reaction. The pages are filled with photography, artwork, doodles, and strange typesetting. Some will appreciate the book’s creative format and others will find the style too different—not unlike the authors themselves.

For those unfamiliar with Claiborne and Haw, both are associated with what has been called the New Monasticism movement. Known for their emphasis on community, racial reconciliation, and peacemaking, many of these new monastics live and serve in what they call the “abandoned places of Empire.â€

Contradicting the popular image of monks as recluses, Claiborne seems to be everywhere these days. His first book, Irresistible Revolution, remains on Amazon’s top 20 list of Christian Living books two years after publication. And in addition to regular spea