Signs of Life

The smell is that of something that is rarely used. The dusty, old smell of a library, or maybe an attic. Once in the sanctuary, I notice that there are signs that this is used, though not necessarily loved or cared for. The hardwood floor has places that are clearly faded by the sun. The pews are only really long enough for four or five people at the most. The arches are large, but clearly the church that worships under them is small. The hymnals are well worn, but the voices lack excitement or feeling. There are no bibles to be found.
I worshiped with Robin at her old church this weekend, and the places struck a lot of sadness in me. What was, presumably, once a thriving body of faith was now a place that people go because they have always gone. Sadly, this is the state of our entire church in the United States. It is a dying shell.

But, here and there, you can see signs of life. This is the great testimony of the Holy Spirit. Even in places dried by years of apathy and rote worship, God finds a way to break through and infect some with the mustard seed of his kingdom. He found me in such a place. He found my wife. I dream of a day when people can say of our church in the United States that it is thriving, that it is authentic and truly alive in the Spirit of the Lord. This, I feel, is what I am called to do, to try to be a part of a community of faith that is like many, but very unlike the majority here, a community that is living and active. Come soon Lord Jesus, come soon Holy Spirit, come soon God the Father, come and let us help you bring your kingdom in.

Boomer Sooner

I rarely post on a whim here, so here goes.
My wife's folks got me tickets to the Big 12 championship this past weekend, and let me tell you, it was AWESOME. Grant and I drove down to San Antonio after camping Friday night with some friends. We were both tired, but we woke up quite a bit when we got on the bus of the park and drive and noticed we were the only sooners on the bus. Surrounded by obnoxious Tiger fans was fun, we did some jawing and decided that they had never watched football before.

When we got to the game, it was 75% Sooner fans, so right away it felt like home. Our seats were in the nosebleed section, but really, there wasn't a bad view in the house, a great stadium. The game was close early on, with a 14-14 halftime tie. Then the Sooners started to dominate. The final score ended up 38-17, good guys. My prediction was 42-24 good guys, so they exceeded it by some. What a great game, what a great season, but we were really close to having a chance to win it all, too bad we had a couple choke games... but that is why sport is so great. Anyway, great game, great atmosphere, great result.

BOOMER SOONER!

what are we against, what are we for?

I get so furious with Christians. I was just now on facebook, that wonderful waste of time, and there is a group called "boycott the Golden Compass." I was thinking about our church in america. When I tell people I am a Christian, immediately I am asked if I hate gay people, or they make a joke about Harry Potter or they tell me about someone they know that couldn't go to church anymore because they were not liked at church. I see lines of people that show up in droves to protest abortions, or to protest gay marriage. I hear reports on the news of Christians that will not let their children go to such and such, or to listen to such and such, and I just wonder all the time, why do they only know us by what we are against?
Shouldn't it be that people would know us by what we are for? Didn't Jesus say that they would know us by our love, shouldn't people think when they hear that you are a Christian think, those people are really about helping people, those people are for love, those people do a lot of good? That is in no way to say we are a people of mere moralism, but as of now, we are only a negative people, only seeking to let everyone know what they shouldn't do. Isn't there a better way? I think so. I think sometimes we need to learn to pick our battles, that is just common sense, something else severely lacking in our nation.
What can we do? We have a lot of work to do, we must get going and start showing the world what we are for, and that is human rights, the love of our neighbor, and taking care of God's world.

Entitlement

I think probably one of the most destructive attitudes in the United States today is that of entitlement. You cannot walk down the street without running into someone that thinks they deserve better than what they have. We cannot abide to live in less than luxury, so we spend more money than we have on cars, clothes and furnishings. We live in a way that cannot possibly be supported, and we think that all of this is everyone's fault but our own.
I have to wonder what that attitude says to God. What does that attitude say to those who live on less than a dollar a day? What does that attitude say to our parents and grandparents who sacrificed so much so that we could live such trite lives? We live completely stressed out because we buy things that we can't pay for, then we get used to that lifestyle and have to buy more crap we can't afford and we are caught in an ever deepening trench of debt and greed. It has to end somewhere. If we don't get our crap together, if we don't realize that we are not entitled to live like those shallow imitations of humanity we see on tv, we are destined to get exactly what we want. We will sacrifice friendship, family, good health, integrity; all at the altar of getting what they have. We will give away our humanity simply to have whatever we want now, and it just is not worth it. I hope people will wake up soon, realize they don't need everything at the store, they don't need a new BMW, people have survived, even thrived on much less. Maybe we will all be a lot better if our country goes broke, at least then we will be able to focus on what really matters.

Going Home

50th and Barnes. Penn. MacArthur. 23rd and Drexel. 36th and May. I used to know these streets. I used to drive them and walk them daily. In fact, it was rare for me to be anywhere but them. They used to be home.
The first year of college I would go there and it was still home. I would travel those streets like I was just there yesterday. The storefronts were familiar, the phone rang off the hook with people wanting to hang out. Everything there was home then. Things began to change, gradually. "Home" got more fuzzy. I couldn't remember the streets as well, people didn't call as much, no one knew if I came home, something, at some point, changed.
Now home is Forrester, Martin Luther King Drive, Lakeshore. I am not an integral part of any community, but merely a nameless face in the crowd most days. Everything has changed. I don't go home to Oklahoma City anymore, I go visit family, and a couple friends. I still consider myself an Okie, because it is almost unbearable to consider myself a Texan, but in reality, my prime years have all come in Texas. I graduated college, will soon, God willing, graduate seminary, I was married here. I preached my first sermon, and ate at P.F. Changs for the first time here. My wife is a Texan, so there is a certain affinity there, soon we will both be Colorado(-ans?). Things change, and that is a hard realization, but I feel very fortunate to have a few people in my life that, though they change and grow and mature, will be there.
I realize that instead of identifying myself by Barnes, or Lakeshore, or Forrester, or Austin, I can identify myself with Robin, and Grant, and Abby and Ginnie and Roberta and Desiree and Tyler, Erin and Bethany, Chris and Casey. People are what matters and what is comfortable, what is lovely and worth living for. I am so blessed to have been the places I have been, but those places only matter because of the people there. Soon the places I know now will be the past, but I can pray and hope that the people I love will still be where I am and that will make it home.

finishing

I guess I haven't posted much lately, bigger fish to fry you could say. Such as a 20 page paper, multiple exegesis, translating the end of Isaiah, things like that.
As I am trying to finish up seminary, I have found new challenges. I am not overly busy now, but I still struggle with the ability to focus enough to get my stuff done. I am not on the verge of burnout, but I do get to the point where I would like some interaction with people that aren't Christians, or on their way to being professional Christians. Many times I find myself just wishing that there was some way that someone could just beam all the information I needed into my head, but I think that would really deprive me of a large part of the journey. I think part of the preparation of seminary is that difficulty of doing on a consistent basis that which you don't really want to do, but know that will help you on down the road.
I hate memorizing vocabulary for Hebrew, but the more I memorize the easier translation gets. Odd I know. I think in some strange way, God is preparing me, and Robin as well, for part of our life when we are working in some way on a church plant, that maybe we do things in the beginning that do not pay off immediately, but we can see that down the road, God will reward our diligence. I pray that this is the case.

story

when i was a kid, i would often sit in my bed for an entire day and read. sometimes i would skip meals, delay going to the bathroom, or refuse to shower all because i was so wrapped up in these wonderful stories. most of the time the stories were about warriors and dragons, although sometimes they were about jedis or xmen. inevitably, i would reach the end and i would become incredibly sad. i was reminded of the feeling as i finished the last harry potter book. the feeling that this wonderful universe full of characters that you loved and knew is gone. the feeling that these loved ones are no longer available to you.

i suppose i was always so wrapped up in these stories because it gave me an escape from a life that i wasnt too fond of. i didnt like my family much, i felt like they just existed to make my life miserable (unfortunately it took me until college to realize just how good my sisters were to me, and how hard my mom always worked for me). so, instead, i immersed myself with characters that fought battles that mattered and people whose lives were full of impact, while mine, mine was simply me reading a book under my covers.

the reason i think endings make me so sad is that it just isnt natural. science, history, fact tells me that endings are a part of the world. people come and go in this world and that is always the way it has been and always the way it will be, until the universe itself goes. but when i compare that to the bible, i find a different story entirely. i find a book that tells me that life was not always on the verge of ending. and i find a book that tells me that someday, life will go on and on. someday, i will not have to be sad about endings, because they will merely, truly be new beginnings. that our creative creator will someday consummate his creation completely, will turn us into beings that will no longer have a finite timeline, will take us to a place that has not been ruined by our blaise sinfulness. i think we are always sad when things end because our hearts were made for eternity, and our god has intended for us much more than we currently are. we are discontent with our current lives for a very good reason, there exists for us a reality which we cannot even imagine. a place and a time that will not end, and that will not lead us to want to escape to fictional worlds or characters because the world in which we will live and the character which we will be will be the one designed for us from before the world. this is the hope that we have as christians, let us hope that he comes quickly.

the mirror of erised

i love the harry potter books, love them, and one of my favorite parts is that there is a mirror in the first one called the mirror of erised. in this mirror the person will see whatever is the deepest longing of his heart. dumbledore says that the happiest person in the world would look and see himself exactly as he is. i wonder what i would see?
many times i think i would see myself with a normal life, a life without so much difficulty, a life that i could grow up like a normal kid, knowing my dad, not living so afraid of being betrayed, afraid of being hurt. and then i think about some other people, and i think they might very well wish they had my life. they may have grown up without friends, they may not have a spouse who cherishes them deeply, they may not know their creator as a friend. i think what i would see is myself leading an easy life, but then i think about what god would wish me to see.
i think he would want me to see myself, standing very closely with him, and whatever it would take to get there.

moving on

it is always difficult to move on. we recently completed a move from a church we helped to start to a town where we are pretty much anonymous. this is a change. i am enjoying it so far, but we only have really one friend a piece here, so it will be a challenge. there are plenty of people i enjoy here in waco, but not a ton that i can really confide in, or talk to. so now we start afresh. we will have to learn people again, find a new place to belong and find new places to do what we like to do.
my heart is really in denver, and i know i should do my best to put all my energies into finishing my education in the coming year, the whole reason we moved in the first place. that will also be a challenge.

evangelism

for the two of you that regularly check out this blog, sorry for the delay in posts, i have felt uninspired lately. i need a change of scenery.

something that still provides me not only with regular mental exercise, but also an opportunity to share who god is are two of my coworkers at starbucks. their names are jimmy and chris, and i would ask if you know them to please not mention this blog. i value them for their friendship and i would never want them to believe that they were a project to me. however, they both claim to be atheists, and have a very bad taste for christianity in general.

chris grew up in a christian home, but somewhere along the way he was wounded by christians and turned his back on christ. jimmy didnt grow up in a christian home, but also has been wounded and negatively affected by christians in general. i feel like with both of them i have reached a level of relationship that i can be honest about what i believe, and know that they can be honest about what they believe. both are extremely intelligent and do not feel the need to pretend to be something they are not. this is the thing that breaks my heart about both, i asked each seperately if they would have an easier time believing in christ if christians werent such idiots so often. both said yes.

we each have to ask ourselves if we give people like this bad tastes in their mouths, or if we are sure that we represent christ accurately. only when we have done that, when we have earned the right to be listened to, can we share that the god of the universe loves these people, and that he wants desperately to know them and for them to know him. if we do not live as christ does, we do not earn that right.

faith

as robin and i begin to walk in what seems as if it will be a difficult time. i am reminded of faith. it seems like a very difficult thing, to believe in this god that is, at times, very much invisible and untouchable. i want very much to call him out, to say, hey do you realize the difficulty you are putting my beloved through, the agony she is feeling, the hard time she is having. but i know already at least a part of the answer he would give.

ye of little faith.

i doubt him after he cared so intensely and unfailingly for me and my family as we lost our primary provider, i doubt him after he has faithfully and completely provided for several mission trips that he called me to, i doubt him after he has gotten me safely thus far, still i doubt. but i can affirm, that every time, my faith, my relationship to this invisible god has been reformed, sharpened, galvanized by the crushing hammer strokes of difficulty, my faith has been shaped and molded by the adversity i have felt, why would it be any different for her?

she is on her journey as well, i believe he would say, she must have times that seem crushing, she must have times that seem like the end, otherwise she would not be refined, she would not be changed. that does not mean it is easy, no change is. but it does mean that in the end, we will look back and be grateful that we do not serve a god that promises the world, but a god that promises that some day, we will be made too great for this world, and we will only be fit for a new creation, one so fantastic that our current limited bodies would not be able to take if shown but a glimpse of it now.

that is the hope i hold, and although sometimes it feels much more like doubt, that is the faith i cherish.

humility

i read quite a few blogs, some just for what a friend calls "irritainment" and some for inspiration. most of them are christian in nature, and the thing that i come away with much of the time is, how arrogant can these people be?
i recently read a sign at starbucks, about ten minutes before i tore it down and threw it away, about a debate between ray comfort, kirk cameron and a couple of atheists. the sign talked about this debate and said that the audience was evenly divided between christians and atheists, but that the christians were very polite and well-mannered, while the atheists were rude and inconsiderate. my first question is, what relevance does that have? are we right because we were better behaved? i also want to know how they even know that.

so i guess what i think we have a problem with is that all too often we think we have it all figured out. as christians, people would be much more receptive to our message if we acted as if we didnt have it all figured out. we would all benefit quite a bit from larger doses of humility, we wonder often why jesus was so well-liked, but most churches are not. maybe its because we are so arrogant.

hell

c. s. lewis writes that hell is locked from the inside. the very essence of hell, according to lewis, is that you get your own way, you are left alone by god, to be alone. i think there is a lot to that.

maybe hell is not so much about god punishing us for what we have done, but more about allowing us to live with our choice. or i suppose, to die with our choice. when a person chooses against god and chooses against his eternal life, that person is choosing solitude, but when a person chooses eternal life, he is choosing community, relationship.

now it is certainly possible to choose relationship from a selfish standpoint, but i just wonder if that is even true relationship. is it possible to continue to progress in a relationship if it does not continually become more about the other person and less about ourselves?

i realize that according to some this may be venturing into the arena of heresy, but those people probably dont read this. i think it is very possible that hell should not be viewed a punitive in nature, but as the necessary option for those that do not wish to die to themselves, those who do not wish to choose relationship over self.

success

how does a person define success? sometimes it is winning an argument (speaking personally), sometimes it is being right (again guilty), sometimes it is being well-liked by everyone, sometimes it is being disliked by everyone, sometimes it is growing a large church, sometimes it is doing everything yourself. some value money, some value pride, some value popularity. the question we have to ask, as the church is in a huge paradigm shift, is; how will we define success?
for previous generations it was no doubt the mega church. for some during the same time it was being so counter-cultural that they would never be a mega church.
i would define success for us during this shift in much the same way leonard sweet defined it while he was here a few weeks ago lecturing. we must leave behind the extraneous things, those things that have become cumbersome, those things that are not enhancing or developing anyone's personal relationship with christ jesus. we must remember our task as the church, and that is to win as many as possible.
we cannot win them in the masses, but in the individual. i have a great friend now, he started as just a coworker. when he first started working with me his life was a mess. but somewhere on the way god broke into his life again, reminded him that he was a beloved child, and helped him back onto the journey of life.
each of us needs that reminder. we need someone in our community to speak words of value into our lives, or to show that we are valuable by spending time, or money, or energy. this happens in community. if people are outside of the community, but can then be incorporated in, it opens them to hear the words of value that god wants to speak to them. we can only be available, we cannot make someone hear, and we cannot make our numbers increase, but success should be defined by reminding people of their value, value that the enemy wants desperately to strip them of, to discourage, and to kill. i think that is success.

interesting quote...

on the emergent church that i read this week. i have received two emails of the same thing, but it is essentially a newsletter from jerry falwell. one of the accusations against the emergent church, at least in this newsletter, is that they (we) wish to "reanalyze the bible against the context into which it was written." god forbid.
this is one of the basic tenets of biblical hermeneutics. one of the primary goals is to attempt to find what the original meaning was to the original author, the original audience and only then can we take it and ask what it can mean to us today. it was not written in 2000, for us to understand in our context, the bible is a product of antiquity, and so there are indeed some things that do not make sense out of that context. it is the most phenomenal book ever assembled, it still speaks so much into our context today, but it still has an original meaning, and we would do well to try to find it.

there are many legitimate concerns about the emergent church, many problems and issues that we will face, what church doesnt? but if being accused of trying to find the original context of the bible is one of the worst things leveled against us, i think i can deal with that.

community

robert webber says that community is the new apologetic. he claims that no longer do we need to have some sort of argument that "proves" that christianity is right, but now people will believe if they are a part of the community of faith, if they belong before they become.

so what does this mean to us today? i would say that this has probably always held true. i have heard it is easier to change what a person believes than what a person values. when did those cease to be intrinsically related? i think the problem is that for a long time we tried to change beliefs first, then believed that values would follow. they of course, should follow, but they didnt. if people made a confession of faith, they would then go on to not change a single thing about their lifestyle.

however, if someone got so involved in a community, if someone is loved, cherished, treasured because they are a part of god's creation, if they knew they were missed when they missed, that they missed the small talk, the large talk, the heavy talk, the breaking of bread and the community learning, if they began to value that community, would they not begin to believe that jesus is true? of course, belief and value should be intimately related, but in our strange world they are often not.

so when robert webber says that community is the new apologetic. what he is saying is we should help people connect. help people realize that there is a chance to participate in something much larger than themselves. we should cease to be so dogmatic about the way we think the bible should be interpreted, and help people to come to those truths as they are participating in the body of christ. after all, our savior had a bunch of fumbling, useless disciples that clearly misunderstood the messianic purpose, but they changed their perspective because they belonged to eachother. but what do i know, i dont belong to a dogmatic group. so my values may be a bit different...

the nature of truth

"there are things we can know absolutely and objectively."
this is a statement rejected by most of the postmodern world. why is this so difficult for those of us that are postmodern? i guess you could start with the definitions of the words "absolute" and "objective."
"absolute" as a noun is defined- a) something that is free from any condition or restriction--- b) something that is independant of some or all relations--- c)something that is perfect or complete or d) something that is not dependent upon external conditions for its existence or for its specific nature, size, etc.
as an adjective a) not mixed or adulterated--- b) free from restriction or limitation--- c) viewed independently, not relative or comparative--- d) positive, certain.

"objective" a) not being influenced by personal feelings, interpretations or prejudice--- b) intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind

now, the difficulty here is that some definitions for these words are very acceptable. and, indeed, when having a discussion with someone, they very often switch their personal definitions of these words at will without even consciously acknowledging it. for example, someone will say that something is "absolute" such as, "it is absolutely wrong to rape." in one sense, this is true. "it is positively wrong to rape." however, if one said, "it is free from condition or restriction wrong to rape," you have inherently contradicted yourself within your sentence. the word "rape" is a conditional word. it means "forced sex" so there is within the word a condition or restriction. so this absolute statement in that sense is very relative. and so it goes.
now the difficulty is that most do not realize the definitions that they use. they try to oversimplify their language so that things are easier to grasp, easier to understand, less of a struggle. but in fact it is the struggle that improves us as people. the struggle is the very thing that draws us closer to the heart of god. when we acknowledge that we cannot figure it all out, that we cannot reduce the world to "absolute" statements, we are admitting our own limitations. indeed, it almost sets us on the level of the creator to believe that we can in fact know things "absolutely" because we are very much not "perfect or complete."

"objective." it is very much possible to know something as an object. i see my laptop. i see the coke machine in front of me. those are objects. however, to know something "objectively" is very different. is the coke machine that i see the same as the one that a man with colorblindness sees? in a way, but in a way, it is completely different. it is impossible for us to be "objective" in regards to truth, because we ourselves are never objective. i can only see the world through my eyes, with my brain, feel it with my hands, smell it with my nose. the only past experiences i have to draw on are my own. i can indeed, hear of another's past experience, but that is only heard through my personal ears, then filtered through my brain, by way of my past experience with the world and how it works. so, when one speaks of being "objective" it is a great thing to strive for, but something completely unattainable.

as a postmodern, i reject things like certainty, because i am not sure how i can be certain. i can be pretty sure, but as long as i live from a flawed flesh, how can i trust it? or in another way, if i could be so certain that god was god, that jesus loved me, where would faith come in? if i could be completely certain that my wife would never leave me, which i am fairly certain, why would i ever have to trust her? indeed, we would never have to risk if we could be so certain. and indeed, it is very natural to not want to risk. however, it is necessary. we must stake all we have on the promises of jesus, on the hope that he was telling the truth that he will in fact return to redeem us fully, because if we could be certain, we would not require faith or trust.

then again, i could be wrong. i do question certainty.

the infallibility of scripture

"if any part of it is untrue, then the whole thing is untrustworthy, we cannot believe any of it"
this is frequently the argument i hear of the infallibility of scripture. there are quite a few things wrong with this argument.

1. there are parts of the bible that contradict one another. in the simple story of the woman annointing jesus with her costly perfume. each of the gospels records this particular event, however none is exactly the same. this either means that there were four accounts, or some of the details in some of the accounts are wrong. if there were four events, then there is not much of a problem, however, i have read zero commentaries that truly believe that. in fact most believe that there were two events. the details got somewhat confused, but the majority of scholars believe that john, mark and matthew record one event, while luke speaks of another. so then there must be some error in that not all the details corroborate.

2. this argument is never used with things such as science books. i would guess that 95% or more of the current science text books speak of pluto as a planet. guess we better throw out the part about gravity too then huh? there are parts of the bible that speak of the "four corners of the earth" there was a prevalant belief up until, i believe, the 1400s that the earth was flat. seems as if the writers of the bible agreed. guess we had better throw the whole thing out huh?

3. this really depends on definitions. we have a different definition of truth that those that wrote the bible. many times we define truth from a modern mindset, that is concrete, and scientific. however, when the hebrews would write something and use numbers, they would often not use the actual number, they would use a number that was symbolic. they would be saying something much more than at the surface level. they were no symply prone to hyperbole, which they were, they were also prone to use numbers that meant something else to them. 12 for example, symbolized god's people. so when john wrote that 144,000 people would be saved in revelation, he probably just meant that all god's people would be saved. not that people would have to take a number, and if theirs was greater than 144,000, might as well step out of line and go home.

these are just some of the reasons i think that argument is funny. these people have missed the purpose of scripture. it is the written account of god's revelation. no more, no less. it is divinely inspired, but not as a history book or a science book. those things are unimportant to its message. we should not expect it to do something for which it was not intended.

what if the world was created millions of years ago, and god used evolution to create man, would that make him any less god? no, but it would cause a lot of us to reevaluate the expectations we put on the bible. it would cause difficulty for moderns, who expect the writers of the bible to know things about science that were not discovered for 3 or 4 thousand years after they wrote. does that mean god didnt understand them? of course not, but how could he possible explain gravity to a people who had a hard enough time figuring out that the earth was round?

the bible is a wonderful gift from god, but lets not try to make it into something it is not, and that is a science book, or a history book. it is a religious book, it tells truth of how we can know god, how much god cares for us, how god has worked in his people in the past. moderns...

hot chocolate

this past week i had the opportunity to help some people in NYC. one of the jobs we did was to help a portable soup kitchen. they had renovated an old school bus, turned it into a soup kitchen on wheels. they would pull up and just give away soup, bread and hot chocolate. these people were regulars. the guys that worked the bus knew several of them.

one man was named tony. tony was drunk, and high. he looked on the verge of collapse. steve, who worked regularly at the soup kitchen, pulled me over and pointed to a crack in the wall. "that is where tony lives," he said. tony used to be a cop, but then 9/11 happened and he fell apart. tony was so hurt by the massive loss of life, the massive pain he felt, he turned to heroine and alcohol. tony barely knows who he is now. this is one of casualties of the spiritual war going on around us. hearing about tony was the low point in my day. what good is there in such suffering?

an hour or so later, we were almost out of hot chocolate. i handed out the last full cup. and as i did so, another man walked up and wanted some. "sorry sir, we're out." the man was very disappointed. then something wonderful happened. the man that got the last cup poured half of his hot chocolate into another cup and shared. this man had nothing, he was homeless himself, he had every reason to horde and to take all he could, but he in his poverty shared.

there is much to hurt about in the world, and each of us is in pain, but the grace of god is that we can share the bountiful goodness of him. we in our poverty can share the free gift god has given us. there is no law against this.

"in christ"

i have recently been contemplating what it means for someone to sign something "in christ." what are the ramifications of that? what does this mean to the people that read that particular signature? what responsibility does it carry?

it is funny to me that people will wear a shirt that says "jesus loves you" but at the same time proclaim with their sign that "god hates fags." i have a hard time reconciling those two statements. there seems to be some sort of disconnect between our actions and our speech.

seems like jesus faced the same issues. which is why he said things like, "if you claim to be in me, you must walk as i do." "is it possible to have both good and bad water come from the same fountain?" james asks. so is it really possible to claim with a bumper sticker that "jesus saves" while at the same time proclaiming that the person behind you is worthy of the one finger salute?
i guess that begs the question. is it possible to fill a message or a blog with all sort of condescention and derision then to sign it "in christ" believing that makes it ok?

the obvious argument is that these people are being corrected, so since jesus stands for truth should we not correct them? i guess i look at the instance of the woman caught in adultery for that. jesus is anything but harsh with her. he is anything but harsh with peter later. i have hard time believing that people can be corrected in their doctrine by someone who corrects them in a very unchristlike way.

i guess maybe we should just all evaluate a little better what we wear, what we put on our bumpers, how we sign blogs and emails. we should represent the one we claim to represent, with actions before words.
in the flesh.
chris

know it alls

i have recently come up against many people that are vehemently against the emergent church. these people write awful things in an attempt to disqualify the movement. i am always needing to be reminded that i should not decide what i believe about something before i have sufficient evidence.
that being said, i think many of the times, these people make a decision about the emergent church without really being informed of the content of the movement itself. many times they will hear what a favorite speaker has said about it, or what a particular theologian says about it, then formulate their opinions as a result. this would be like me saying that martin luther is a raving idiot, without ever having read his work for myself. my pastor told me he is dumb, so i know that to be true.
i would venture to say that people like that live a miserable existence. they have no ability to see things from the other side. there is no sense of dialogue for these people, there is not any possibility for growth either. this, i find is a very closed minded, foolish approach to theology.

grow up son

my time in the world of xanga is coming to a close. i feel like now is the time to move forward and begin a blog with a little more maturity. there is a lot i would like to discuss, but i think since i have already surfed the internet for the first hour and ten minutes of class i should at least listen for the last ten.