Deconstruction

·        

“   "I believe that leaving religious status quo unquestioned is potentially destructive. The word destructive is often associated with the word deconstructive, but the association is erroneous. Deconstruction is not destruction, it is hope. It arises from the belief that sometimes our constructed laws get in the way of unseen justice, our undeconstructed words get in the way of communication, our institutions get in the way of the purposes for which they were constructed, our formulations get in the way of meaning, our curricula get in the way of learning. In those cases one must deconstruct laws, words, institutions, formulations, or curricula in the hopes that something better will appear once the constructions become obstructions have been taken apart.” – Brian McLaren

 

On the Mother of God

   
 “Obedience is an unpopular word nowadays, but the artist must be obedient to the work, whether it be a symphony, a painting, or a story for a small child. I believe that each work of art, whether it is a work of great genius, or something very small, comes to the artist and says, ‘Here I am. Enflesh me. Give birth to me.’ And the artist can either say, ‘My soul doth magnify the Lord,’ and willingly become the bearer of the work, or refuses; but the obedient response is not necessarily a conscious one, and not everyone has the humble, courageous obedience of Mary.

     Mary did not always understand, but one does not have to understand to be obedient. Instead of understanding—that intellectual understanding which we are so fond of—there is a feeling of rightness, of knowing, knowing things which you are not yet able to understand.”

-Madeline L'Engle

13 Blogs You Should Follow in 2013

.

 2012 is coming to an end and the new year is upon us. Here are 13 theology blogs in no particular order that are well worth your time to read in the year 2013!

1. Rachel Held Evans Blog

    Rachel Held Evans is the author of "Evolving in Monkey Town" and her new book "A Year of Biblical Womanhood" just came out this year. She is a witty writer who takes gender equality seriously. My favorite part of her blog is the "Sunday Superlatives" she does highlighting the best from around the web each week.

2. Homebrewed Christianity

    Trip Fuller and Bo Sanders serve up the best theological ingredients to brew your own faith on this blog. They also host the Homebrewed Christianity podcast, Homebrewed Christianity TNT (Theology Nerd Throwdown) Podcast, and now have Christian Piatt and Jordan Green hosting the Homebrewed Christianity Culture Cast. The podcast regularly has amazing guests so listen, read and enjoy the brew!

3. Johnathan Wilson-Hartgrove Blog

    Johnathan Wilson-Hartgrove is the founder of the Rutba House in Durham, NC and one of leading voices in the new monasticism movement. His blog over at Patheos is a powerful, personal look into the life of a new monastic.

4. Emergent Village Voice

   This brand new blog over at Patheos is a collaborative of emergent voices. Already the blog has featured Phyllis Tickle, Doug Pagitt, Michael Bobo and more. It could potentially be one of the best blogs of 2013 if they keep bringing in great thinkers.

5. The Work of the People

    These guys bring some of the best videos on the web and they do it with regularity. If you don't believe me check out their Vimeo Channel. Stay updated with the most recent works they put out over at Patheos.

6. The Christian Humanist

    David Grubbs, Michael Farmer and Nathan Gilmour discuss a wide range of topics from philosophy, literature and theology at their blog/podcast.

7. Peter Rollins Blog

   Peter Rollins is a sought after writer, speaker and a master story-teller. His blog always has challenging and insightful posts, as well as updates on what he is up to. His new book "The Idolatry of God" comes out in January.

8. Sarcastic Lutheran

    Nadia Bolz-Webber is a smart and yes, sarcastic blogger. She is also the mission developer for House for all sinners and saints which is "an urban liturgical community with a progressive yet deeply rooted theological imagination."

9. Christian Piatt Blog

    The same Christian Piatt who hosts the Homebrewed Christianity Culture Cast has his own blog. The Epic Church Sign Fails alone, is worth subscribing. It is seriously funny!

10. Theoblogy

    Tony Jones always seems to be kicking up dust on his blog. I really love it when he gets into arguments with Tripp and Bo from HBC. This a fun blog to read if you are looking for a little trouble.

11. ReKnew

    Greg Boyd is one really smart dude. This blog has plenty of videos to watch and more importantly a fair share of good ol' Open Theology, which I can't get enough of. By the way, if you haven't read "God of the Possible" you really should.

12. Slacktivist

   Fred Clark is a self proclaimed "snarky, liberal, tree-hugging, pro-choice, pro-GLBT, peacenik, commie, evolutionist" but other than that he seems like an okay guy.

13. Peter Enns
    Peter Enns is rethinking biblical Christianity and he is doing an excellent job. Enns is a biblical scholar who specializes in the Old Testament and has taught classes at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia), Harvard University, Princeton Theological Seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary, Lutheran Theological Seminary (Philadelphia), Biblical Theological Seminary, Temple University, and Eastern University. Even still his blog is not a bunch of Academic jargon, it makes for a very good read.

If you know if any other blogs you think people should be reading let me know.

Jesus, John and religious pluralism

A conversation that I've been having a lot recently is the conversation about religious plurality and the Christian faith, or to put it very simply how should followers of Jesus think about and interact with people of other religious faiths. Which is interesting because my friends over at Homebrewed Christianity have been having this conversation as well.

In a blog post on their website Tripp Fuller brought up that whenever Christians try to have a reasonable conversation about how plurality and the Christian faith someone always brings up John 14:6 and uses it as a trump card. As someone who has been a part of these kinds of conversations I find that troubling, because in my experience the way that verse is used is often as a conversation ender. Basically someone will say, "well Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life and no one comes to the Father except by me.'" And act as if that's all that needs to be said about other cultures and religions.

So for that reason I want to engage with the John 14:6 text and explore what it really has to say to the issue of religious plurality. I want to start out by looking at the immediate context of the verse, and believe it or not Jesus wasn't talking about muslims or any other religion. Jesus is not looking to say which religion is right and which are wrong Jesus is simply saying that wherever I am present people can experience God.

The other problem I have with the trump card usage of this verse is that it assumes that Jesus is automatically not present in other cultures and religions. But consider what Paul says in Colossians 1:

       "The son is the image of the invisible God,

        The one who is first over all creation.

        Because all things were created by him:

        Both in the heavens and on the earth,

        the things that are visible and invisible.

        Whether they are thrones or powers or rulers or authorities,

        all things were created through him and for him.

        He existed before all things,

        and all things are held together in him."

Paul makes it very clear that all of creation was created by Jesus, in Jesus and for Jesus and Jesus is present in all of creation. Paul goes on to say that Jesus is in the business of restoring all things in creation, and that means all people, cultures and religions.

So I'm totally okay with saying Jesus is the way, truth and life and no one gets to the Father except through him but I also have to believe that Jesus is in at least some ways present in every community and Jesus is actively working towards every community being restored to how God intended creation to be all along.

And I think that distinction matters when it comes to the way we think about missions. Whenever you find yourself in a community of people who have different religious beliefs than you rather than assuming you have an absolute monopoly on truth; what if you took the time to be patient, listen, pay attention and pray to try and discern the ways in which Jesus is already present and working to restore this community to the way God intended it to be. Then once you start to get a good idea what that is you can participate in what Jesus is already doing.

Grace & Peace

The God Void (Audio Clip)

This is a short talk I gave at Crossings Knoxville in June. 

It was part of a series they do called 'My Most Important Question' in which people in the community come up and talk about the big questions that they have been wrestling with. It's worth pointing out that I reference a book called 'Insurrection' by Peter Rollins when what I meant to say was 'How (Not) to Speak of God' by Peter Rollins

a creative reordering...

"It is incumbent upon us, therefore, to relate the actual order we find in the world to the redemptive order which lies at the heart of the Christian message. In the Christian faith we look for a new order in which the damaged order, or the disorder which inexplicably arises in the world, will be healed through a creative reordering of existence as it is reconciled to its ultimate ground in the creative love of God." - Thomas Torrance, Scottish Theologian

In what ways are you promoting the 'damaged order' of the world?

In what ways are you participating in the creative reordering?

Parable of the Temple

It has been said that there once was a man of God who lived and preached in a small rural town. One day this man received a vision in a dream, that he believed had come from God. In the vision a great voice told him to construct a magnificent temple of worship so that people from all over the world would be drawn to the one true God.

Up until this point the preacher's small congregation had been meeting in an old wooden barn that barely, if at all, kept out the wind and the rain. And even though they didn't have much money the preacher excitedly set about the work of the Lord, trusting that He would provide for them. The church raised the money very quickly and within a year they had built a wonderful little chapel with a beautiful high-vaulted ceiling and ornate, handmade stained glass windows.

During that same year a factory was built in that same small town. The factory brought in a lot of workers, most of which were poor immigrants. The workers suffered greatly in the factory and since many of them were not legal immigrants and only a few spoke English they could not speak up about the poor working conditions or the unfair wages.

Many of the people from the town distrusted the surge of immigrants. After all these people didn't speak English and they were taking away jobs from good, hard-working locals. And they worshipped the wrong gods as well. Most locals thought the religion of the immigrants was suspect at best.

After seeing the poor working conditions and unfair treatment that the immigrants received the small town preacher became overwhelmed with compassion for them. Upon realizing that this group of people had no money and could not afford to build a place of worship for their religious services he made a brash and hasty decision to give the brand new chapel that his church had built to the immigrants, asking nothing in return. They gladly accepted the offer and immediately set about taking down the crosses and other Christian decorations around the chapel and replacing them with their own.

When the congregation saw this happening they inquired unto their preacher as to what was going on. He explained what he had done and informed them that they would have to continue meeting in the old wooden barn for the time being. The small congregation was confused and a little upset by this news. Some people said that it would be better for the immigrants to come and worship the Christian God with them in the new chapel if they wanted to, but giving away the building was foolish. Those same people decided that day to go find a more reasonable church to worship in. But most of the people just shook their heads and went about their business.

The preacher left feeling defeated and unsure of himself, after seeing the people leave his church. That night as he was sleeping he received another vision. Once again a great voice told him to construct a magnificent temple of worship so that people from all over the world would be drawn to the one true God, This time more sternly.

So the next Sunday the preacher spoke about his vision to his congregation and announced that they would once again be starting on a new building. So they set about raising the money and started the construction. Once again the Lord seemed to provide generously for them and in about a year's time they had built another beautiful chapel, this time bigger and more ornate than the last one. The congregations disappointment about the old chapel quickly gave way to excitement about this new one.

But in that same year two more factories were built in the town and the population began to boom. More and more people, again mostly poor immigrants, poured into the city to take jobs at the factory. This new wave of immigrants was from a different part of the world and followed an entirely different religion. Once again the preacher's heart was overwhelmed with compassion for these immigrants and once again he offered the new chapel his church had built to them, asking nothing in return.

As the years rolled by the preacher continued to have visions in which a great voice told him to construct a magnificent temple of worship so that people from all over the world would be drawn to the one true God. The town continued to grow as more and more factories were built and so more and more workers from all over the world came in search of jobs.

Every time as a new building was being built by the small church a new surge of workers would come into town, and every time the preacher (and his congregation over time) would see the poor conditions and unfair treatment of the workers they would be overwhelmed with compassion. They they would give away their new building to them, asking nothing in return.

They say that to this day in this town full of factories and beautiful places of worship for every religious group under the sun, there is still a small congregation that meets in an old, falling apart barn just on the edge of town. A small church that joyfully continues their calling to construct a magnificent temple of worship so that people from all over the world would be drawn to the one true God.

Bombs & Jesus

"You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.But I say to you that you must not oppose those who want to hurt you. If people slap you on your right cheek, you must turn the left cheek to them as well."/Matthew 5:38-39

“You have heard that it was said, You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who harass you so that you will be acting as children of your Father who is in heaven. He makes the sun rise on both the evil and the good and sends rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love only those who love you, what reward do you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing? Don’t even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore, just as your heavenly Father is complete in showing love to everyone, so also you must be complete."/Matthew 5:43-48

I want to ask a serious question...

And I know that it deals with some seriously sensitive subjects, so I don't want to be callous. But it's a question that I can't just overlook...

Why is it that in the evangelical church it is widespread for people to use the Bible to support homosexual marriage not being legalized, and yet we gloss over the teaching's of Jesus that would suggest that Christians should not support war?

If we are going to argue that some archaic laws from Leviticus and a couple of lines from Paul are enough to define what our nation's policy should be towards gay marriage, then shouldn't Jesus' clear teachings on non-violence define our foreign policy?

What if we 'turned the other cheek' when people attacked us?

Wouldn't anything else be inconsistent?

And Jesus didn't just teach 'turn the other cheek' and 'love your neighbors', he lived it. Jesus sets a radical and yet clear example with his life and death that in God's Kingdom love is infinitely more powerful than violence.

Jesus doesn't try to kill those who oppose him. Jesus lets them kill him. He is willing to die rather than harness his power against his murderers, even though he was innocent. 

As followers of Jesus are we not called to be willing to do the same?

Are we not called to love and pray for terrorist rather than try to kill them?

And I know that some people will say that if we don't kill the bad guys they will come kill us. We have to use violence to keep ourselves safe.

But doesn't Jesus call us to be a light into the dark world? 

Using violence on others to protect yourself from violence sounds a lot like trying to overcome darkness with more darkness. What if when the world threw darkness our way we refused to resort to darkness ourselves?

If vengeance belongs only to the Lord then how can a follower of Jesus take it upon themselves to kill another person, rather they deserve it or not?

Let's not forget that Jesus was willing to die for every single terrorist that ever lived.

Let's not forget that Paul himself was a violent terrorist who specifically attacked Christians at one point in his life. Not even the most ardent extremist is beyond the reconciling power of God's love.

I grew up believing that violence and murder were the only reasonable answers to violence and murder. But nothing about that sets me a part as a Christian. We are called to be set apart from the world by our unlimited, unreserved, grace-filled, Christ-like love.

That's how the world will recognize us as followers of Jesus.

Grace & Peace

Burning Man

"Hurtling down the road to the Black Rock Desert, the colors paint themselves like a spice cabinet — sage, dust, slate gray. Maybe you're in your trusty car, the one that takes you to and from work every day. Perhaps you've got a spacious RV, your Motel 6 on wheels for the next days in the desert. Or you're driving your glittering art car, complete with poker chips and mirroring to do a disco ball proud.

The two-lane highway turns off onto a new road. You drive slowly onto the playa, the 400 square mile expanse known as the Black Rock Desert. And there you've touched the terrain of what feels like another planet. You're at the end — and the beginning — of your journey to Burning Man."

These are the words of Molly Steenson describing her experience at the massive 10-day festival that over 50,000 people will attend this summer in Nevada's Black Rock Desert.

The infamous Burning Man.

Burning Man is basically a huge gathering of people seeking to experience an alternative way of living. The gathering is guided by a set of values known as the ten principles. They are as follows:


Radical Inclusion,


Gifting,

Decommodification,

Radical Self-reliance,

Radical Self-expression,

Communal Effort,

Civic Responsibility,

Leaving No Trace,

Participation

and Immediacy.

And every year thousands of people drive all the way out to the middle of nowhere to be a part of a community built around these values.

Every time I look at this list I think to myself that there is a reason so many people go searching for this out in the desert. This radically alternative lifestyle is - in a lot of ways - very much in line with the lives I think God created us to live. Now of course, I would not say that everything that happens at Burning Man is okay. But I also don't think that should stop me from celebrating glimpses of beauty, creativity and wholeness when I see them. 

Which is why I want to set out to find what the Church can learn from Burning Man.

What would it look like to be a radically inclusive community? Where we not only welcomed people who looked, thought, and felt differently than we do; but also did not seek to invalidate there opinions and experiences?

What if we thought of our communities as a place where one does not come to consume a message or a good feeling but rather to participate in and be consumed by the life God created us to live?

What would it look like if we truly looked out for the people in our communities and neighborhoods? What about the 'least of these' by the world's standards? What if we personally invested in people's lives rather than relying on 'the system' to help people who are hurting?

What if the reason so many people are drawn to Burning Man every year is because it's a glimpse of what God's Kingdom coming here to earth looks like? 

The very Kingdom that we are called to help usher in...

Grace & Peace

Psalm 22 (a visual liturgy for Joplin)

This is a short visual liturgy I created in remembrance of all the people affected by the tornadoes in Joplin. It's a lament based off of Psalm 22. The Music is 'Mary" by Yellow Ostrich.

Creation Care (Video Liturgy)

This is a short video liturgy I created that highlights the Church's long and diverse tradition of caring for  God's creation. The music is 'The Earth is Yours' by Gungor.

I do not condemn you

In John 8 we see a story unfold in which Jesus has just retured from the Mount of Olives and goes into the temple. He is greeted by a group of pharisees who are dragging in a woman who was caught in the act of a sexual sin.They throw her on the ground before Jesus and then they remind him that their religious laws require that they stone her to death. According to John they are trying to trick Jesus.

At this point I imagine Jesus looking down at the humiliated, and likely still naked woman who is on trial for her sexual sin.

Then Jesus does something amazing,

He bends down next to her.

Now any one who knows much about communications will tell you that non-verbal communication speaks much more than what we say. And by bending down right next to this broken, sinful outsider Jesus is saying a lot.

Now Jesus could have stood tall and proud against this sinful woman. After all sexual sin is an abomination to the Lord right? The religious laws that the Jews followed gave them every right to stone her.

Jesus could have stood defiant against this sinful woman.

He could have made a bold and clear statement that God hates sexual sin and the law is there to enforce God's will.

But Jesus does things all wrong doesn't he?

He doesn't stand tall... he lowers himself. With his physical posture he places himself on the side of the outsider. He finds himself shoulder to shoulder, eyes down, hands in the dirt with a sexually sinful person.

But the religious law-keepers keep pushing the issue, so Jesus stands up. But at this point when he stands up it's not against the sinful woman is it?

He stands up for her!

Jesus stands up against the people who are supposedly on God's good side, and he stands up for the sexually sinful person who is supposedly not on God's good side. And then he reminds the religious law-keepers that they are just as messed up as she is and that they have absolutely no right to be so harsh.

And then, as the law-keepers are walking away Jesus looks down out the woman and says something truly amazing:

I do not condemn you.

Once again Jesus has a chance to stand firm against this sexually sinful woman but he doesn't. I imagine as he is saying this he reaches out his hand to help her up.

And then (and only then) after he has

lowered himself to be by her side,

stood up for her,

and made it clear that he does not condemn her,

does he look her in the eye and invite her to leave her old ways behind.

Now I don't know what happened next with that woman but I have to imagine that she took Jesus up on his invitation.

Why?

Because Jesus loved her.

He earned her trust.

He didn't try to threaten her with wrath or punishment.

He didn't even condemn her.

It's that kind of love that has unbelievable power to change people's hearts.

It's that kind of radical love that allows people to get to a place where they can accept God's grace and allow God to transform them.

It's that kind of love that we, as followers of Jesus, are called to embody.

Lately I've heard a lot of people talking about defending God and standing up for God. We are very insistent that we stand up and exercise our political power and privilege as the people on God's good side.

But Jesus says the way we treat outsiders is the way we treat Jesus himself.

And all of this is critically important right now because there are people all around us that have been hurt by Christians in our state exercising their immense political power. Most notably the lgbt community.

These people are not going to come seek us out. They are not going to come to our churches or show up at our campus ministry meetings. There is just to much pain and tension standing in the way.

But Jesus calls us to GO make disciples of ALL people.

Which means now is the time that we have to go to them. Sitting back and doing nothing is simply not enough. We have to go and reach out to them.

Be with them.

Love them.

Stand up for them.

Not condemn them.

Be Jesus to them.

We can no longer view them as enemies who are against us and our way of life. We have to see them as God's children (just like us) who need Jesus (just like us). Because God loves all of us.

grace & peace

Emptying of the Divine (the Predicament of Belief blog, pt. 2)

"Human reason inevitably finds itself confronted with questions it cannot answer empirically. One cannot prove that these broader questions are answerable, of course. But nor can one prove that they are meaningless or inherently unanswerable, since trying to do so entails resorting to the very kind of arguments one is trying to place off limits." (pg. 27)

Like my last one this post is a part of a blog tour through Philip Clayton and Steven Knapp's the Predicament of Belief, which I am taking part of with the guys at Homebrewed Christianity who on March 15th will be hosting a "Theo-nerd book party" with Philip Clayton, giving readers and listeners a chance to throw some tough questions about the book and the Emergent village podcast (which can be found at the Homebrewed website) to Philip.

In this chapter the authors take upon themselves the task of establishing a minimalist understanding for what they call an ultimate reality or "UR". They do so in a way that tries to maintain a position of respect for the scientific advances of the modern era. They go about establishing there arguments in a sequence of building blocks, so far not unlike a more postmodern version of  C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity". 

They make it very clear that they are not trying to establish a sort of empirical apologetic set of evidence that proves the existence of some sort of divine or ultimate reality. Instead they are using philosophical questions to argue that the existence of the before mentioned is minimally more likely to be true than false. This approach leaves room for doubt as well as committed faith (at it's best, of course.)

The authors pose the question of "Why even ask about the ultimate?", and then go about saying that these kinds of questions are worth asking and worth trying to find the answer to. Science, while having made vast progress of late, cannot answer every single question and is not infallible. "It doesn't take much reflection, however, to realize that precise empirical results are achievable only if the investigator makes certain assumptions about the nature of the reality being studied." (pg. 26)

They first propose a "mind-like" UR that could be coherent with a singular universe theory or the multiverse theory.

If this is the only universe then the largely improbable odds of the universe being governed by fundamental laws that allow for the expansion of life as we experience it. This approach (I'm assuming) is still arguing for a minimalist approach that says that theories about a mind-like UR are slightly more likely to be true than false, as opposed to an argument like intelligent design which says (according to an end-note from the authors) that the evidence supports that idea that a mind-like UR must exist.

Their response to the multiverse theory is similar in that it relies on some fundamental governing laws in the universes that could best be described by a mind-like UR.

From there the authors propose that the mind-like UR is probably an agent of action, in that (if my understanding is correct) it acts intentionally. This argument of intent is not hard to see from the singular universe theory, and they make the argument for the multiverse theory as well.

And this is where it gets interesting...

So if (the authors propose) this UR is mind-like and agent like and created this universe with some intention then wouldn't the creation of finite persons from an infinite being require a limiting of the infinite self or reality? They point to the Christian concept of kenosis, which is a Greek term for "an emptying" and is employed in Paul's description of Jesus in Philippians 2:7.

And what reason would an infinite (therefore lacking nothing) reality have of emptying or restricting one's self to create something finite? The authors argue that it must be something similar to the Christian concept of agape love.

Finally they close the chapter with a discussion of what they call the "divine lure" and what sociologist Peter Berger called "signals of transcendence" that, while providing no empirical evidence, seem to at least point in the direction of an ultimate and benevolent reality.

From this philosophical ground they have created the framework for a not less than personal and benevolent ultimate agent, which they admit still has a long way to go before being truly consistent with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and further still to the strictly Christian God that acted, in some way, through the person of Jesus. But that's saved for the next chapter.

Doubt, Agnosticism and Christian Minimalism (the Predicament of Belief blog , pt. 1)

"This is a difficult era for those who find themselves committed to the the values of scientific rationality and yet moved by the claims of  religious tradition... it is hard to decide what parts of one's tradition it makes sense to reject or retain." (pg. vii)

For the next couple of weeks I will be blogging through "the Predicament of Belief" by Philip Clayton and Steven Knapp". But before I jump into that a few quick words:

Big thanks to Trip Fuller and the guys at Homebrewed Christianity for my introduction to Philip Clayton and hooking me up with the book. I want to encourage anyone who's curious to check out the blog and podcast here, which includes Clayton's talk at the Emergent Village Theological Conversation. On the blog you will also find information about a live streamed "theological nerd book" party on March 15th.

Also, I want to admit something: I am in over my head here. I know this based off of reading the comments on the blog and listening to the podcast talk. I've never been to seminary and I'm certainly no scholar ( I attended one year of Bible College fresh out of high school, but that's it). So as I blog through the book don't expect in groundbreaking insights, just my struggle with this book. And by the way, when I say blog through the book I mean I will be posting as I am reading. I'm not reading ahead I'm posting at the end of each chapter I read, which means I may occasionally pose questions that will (hopefully) later be answered.

And now to chapter 1: Reasons for Doubt

In the first chapter the authors outline what they suggest are the five best reasons to doubt traditional Christian claims today. They are as follows:

1. Science: We now understand natural reasons for phenomenon that in per-modern times would have been attributed to the divine.

2. Evil: "this is the problem of reconciling the hypothesis of a good and powerful God with the experience of bad things that such a God , if this being really existed, would be expected to stop or prevent." (pg. 8)

3. Religious plurality: Since other religions claim knowledge and experience of the divine and have led to achievements in art, individual moral behavior and social reform how can Christians claim to be correct?

4. The state of historical evidence: How do we know we can trust our later manuscripts of ancient writings that seem to contradict each other and make outlandish claims regarding the gospel story?

5. The claim of resurrection: This one to me seems to actually embody the previous four reasons for doubt in a singular incident. Why should one affirm resurrection considering advances in our understanding of the way the human body works (1), lack of current evidence to support the traditional claim that God was setting the world right or achieving justice and victory over death in that specific act (2), questions over why the divine would act decisively in one human from one religious tradition and claims of resurrection from other traditions (3), and the lack of what moderns would consider definitive evidence to support such a claim (4). This makes this crucial claim one of the most troubling of all.

The authors pose these doubts as an attempt at honesty. Why shouldn't Christians engage the serious questions that relate to our faith without dismissing them as attacks on our faith? In my personal experience even when I try to dismiss them they have a haunting effect (especially number 2) in my mind. Even when I don't want to ask these questions I still do. So why should I run from them? 

From what I have gathered this book sets out to do just the opposite...

It attempts to engage these questions...

I want to engage these questions.

But in the light of these reasons to doubt another important question surfaces. Why not just be an agnostic? But, that would assume that we cannot, and should not try to answer these questions so why engage them?

I couldn't be an agnostic even if I wanted to, I think, because these questions would still haunt me.

Maybe the doubts are worth engaging, but in a more honest and thereby humble way...

Which is why the authors propose "Christian minimalism" or the idea that the beliefs we affirm or only minimally more likely to be true than false. In other words what changes is not whether you hold the beliefs or not but the certainty with which we hold them.

For me the first and most obvious implication of this is that it doesn't allow for the "tight fisted" holding of dogma that is a common trait in many fundamentalist types. This means you can believe in something without holding it in a way that makes you want to use violence against those who would disagree with or challenge your beliefs. I like that...

But another implication is what keeps this from being practically agnosticism? As the author points out it's basically similar to saying we can't really know with any certainty if these claims are worth affirming. Why would I act on a conviction that is only slightly more likely to be true than false? How could that conviction transform me?

I'm not saying that it can't but how would that work?

I appreciate the attempt to find a middle ground between the extremes of blind fidelity and agnosticism ( as well as the other alternative of outright rejection) but what does that look like for me? What does it look like for my engagement in my faith community? What about in a leadership role?

That's what I'm working through right now. Listening to the podcast talk helped a little but it raised a lot more questions than it answered (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it can be a little frustrating).

Anyway, that's all for now but be on the lookout for more posts soon ( I can't say when because my reading schedule is basically whenever it fits into my work and school schedule).

Grace and Peace

becoming human

"God created humanity in God's own image, in the divine image God created them, male and female God created them."
-Genesis 1:27

"From the very beginning, we humans have wanted to escape this world, to become like gods. We have wanted to escape the limits we feel and gain a gods-eye view of the universe. Yet what do we find in the Gospel narratives? We find the unique idea that God became human and dwelt with us. The desire to escape our humanity and become like God is twisted and turned on its head, throwing us back into our humanity. The incarnation tells us that if we want to be like God, then we must be courageous enough to fully and unreservedly embrace our humanity."

-Peter Rollins, "Insurrection"

.          .          .

I have said it before and I will say it again:  It's time for us evangelical Christians to redeem our view of humanity. 

Because I have to admit that I occasionally grow weary of much of the language and ideology that has infected the evangelical church when it comes to this subject. And it seems to be everywhere. One of my good friends not long ago made that statement that people are "trash in the sight of God."

To which I responded, "but God created us... and in God's image!"

As Michael Card points out when we are first introduced to God in the Bible it is as the creative artist. 

And people are an integral part of the artist's masterpiece. One part fertile soil from God's good earth, and one part breath of the creator God.

So where did we get this idea that saying people are trash somehow brings glory to God? Wouldn't that be a bit like telling a master painter that you think her paintings are trash and expecting her to take it as a compliment?

And I bring all this up because I think it's not only a incorrect idea but a dangerous one.

When we refuse to see the inherit worth in all of God's handiwork - when we see people (or any other part of God's good creation) as trash then it can lead to oppression and abuse.

.          .          .

One of the prominent ways this surfaces itself is in the way the Evangelical church (and many other faces of the Church throughout her history) thinks about women. When we refuse to see all people, male and female, as inherently valued on the grounds of being created in the image of God then we end up trying to  devalue some people in order to feel better about ourselves. We put up barriers to separate "us" from "them". We end up spending a lot of time focusing on figuring out what God's planned role is for different genders.

Now at this point someone always ends up pointing out that men are different from women.

Which is true...

But isn't it also true that men are different from other men, and women different from other women?

In my experience all people are different.

.          .          .

I'm not interested in constricting myself to a sort of one-size-fits all role for being a man. I am interested in what God's role is for being Ryne. I want to be the Ryne that God created me to be!

So I'm okay with having some characteristics that would traditionally be considered feminine. In fact I've never met a single person that didn't have both masculine and feminine characteristics. Which comes as no surprise to me considering that I believe we are all created in the image of a God who the Bible describes in both masculine and feminine terms.

.          .          .

It is my sincere prayer that we will figure out how to work together in the journey God brings us on.

And along the way we will all stumble and fall and knock each other over, then we will cry together and then laugh together, and help each other up just to fall down again.

And we will recognize the journey, with all its ups and downs, can be deeply beautiful and sacred if we only allow it to.

And somehow, through God's transforming grace we will learn what it means to be the people that God created us to be.

Then we will be human again!

Grace & Peace,

Ryne

when wine turns to water (poem)

Seagulls flock,

or doves,

which ever you prefer.

-this is,

after all,

Your story

isn't it?

I won't lie

but, even then

the truth

can be creative.

You can only

really

do one miracle

when you are dead.