In Memory of Dr. Robert H. Schuller

A couple of weeks ago, I discovered I would soon be at my 400th blog post. I was trying to think of something significant for it. Then last week, Dr. Robert H. Schuller died, and I can think of no better way than to honor him with this post.

I have long thought that besides my immediate family, Schuller and his ministry has been the biggest impact to my theology, spirituality, and ministry. And that's, obviously, not a small thing to say. It's taken me a few days to put this together because it's hard to express even some of my thoughts and feelings in a coherent manner. Here's my attempt, probably more for my own processing than for anyone else.

-------

A brief personal history summary first, for context.

My knowledge of Schuller goes way back to childhood, before I became a Christian. My grandma would watch the Hour of Power, although I wouldn't pay much attention. My mom remembers my grandparents taking them to the drive in church when they were little and appreciating getting to stay in their pajamas for church. My grandma has a memorial brick in the newest campus building. It essentially functions as her memorial location for me.

My awareness of his ministry increased in high school after I became a Christian, but it was really my first year in college at UC Berkeley that made things connect. Going from a little mountain town to living in Berkeley was a culture shock, to say the least. And finding a church wasn't easy. I started receiving Schuller's daily email devotions, which helped keep me motivated, hope-filled, and focused on my priorities and central identity as a Christian in the midst of a lot of worldview challenge. Berkeley culture doesn't confront worldview in a kind way, but one of the things that was central to Schuller's approach and theology was being welcoming and inclusive, finding common elements of agreement among differences in worldview in order to improve the world. This helped give me strength and change my distaste for Berkeley's aggressive cynicism into something incredibly defining in my life, building a more dynamic, rich faith. When I was asked to speak about my experience in Berkeley for graduation at my church, I quoted one of Schuller's pithy sayings to represent how he helped me keep hope and tenacity.

When I moved back to Southern California for my doctorate, I heard about a new college/young adult ministry starting at the Crystal Cathedral, only about 45 minutes from where I lived, and I thought no harm in trying it out. In fact, I'd love to be able to actually be a part of that congregation. There, I met someone who would soon become a great friend, Bobby Schuller (grandson of Robert H. and now lead pastor of Shepherd's Grove and Hour of Power). Over the next few years, I helped build The Gathering, a emerging church-inspired "church-within-a-church" and even came on staff of the Cathedral for The Gathering. Obviously, Schuller's theology and intergenerational influence was felt throughout our work.

We at The Gathering had a very different style, but the foundational stance of hope and encouragement that Schuller promoted was pervasive and drew people who had been hurt by other institutional churches (frankly, not unlike some of Schuller's then-unconventional approaches). Eventually I moved out of the area and so had to find a more local congregation.

Suffice it to say that Schuller's ministry and my life have crossed paths in deep, meaningful ways for most of life.

-------

With that context, these are some reflections on how his ministerial approach and theology have impacted me.

While criticisms have been and will continue to be made about the Crystal Cathedral campus due to opulence, extravagance wasn't really the goal. Rather, Schuller's first intent around unique church structures was practical, to be inclusive of those who couldn't be a part of a traditional congregation. Guideposts' memorial is a good summary of much of his original ministerial intent. Schuller's point was to create a physical space that would help people feel a sense of holiness and grandness of God, especially via connecting to the natural world. For me, that's exactly what I felt around the campus. I loved spending hours studying or just meditating in the gardens. The stairs at top of the Tower of Hope, just outside the Chapel in the Sky, was my favorite place on the whole campus because of its balance of connecting with the natural world, feeling close to God, while also looking out over the community and remembering the mission of being in the world. My wife and I had our first kiss, got engaged, and were married on the Cathedral campus. My bachelor "party" was spent walking around the campus with my best man having some good, reflective conversations. So I have good memories there even apart from the relationships built via The Gathering. I'm regularly saddened by the fact that I feel like I have to apologize for misunderstandings of intent around the grounds. But personally, Schuller's architectural efforts help me reconnect to God whenever I roam the campus. I see this nonverbal piece of his message particularly influence my incarnational theology that is so central to my faith.

In hindsight, I can see so many impacts Schuller's theology and approach have made on me. His valuing of psychology likely had some influence on my profession, and I know his regular referencing of Viktor Frankl particularly triggered my interest in studying Frankl's work, which continues to be the foundation for my psychological worldview. I would regularly cite Schuller in my graduate school papers reflecting on my worldview and theology. His words and thoughts were gateway into deeper theological exploration and reflection for me.

A fundamental positive, encouraging theological stance is central to my theology, and I doubt that's coincidental. I'm sure his approach influenced me not only directly, but also via my grandparents and mom. This was and is a major distinction of Schuller's approach, which was often controversial. Central to my ministry and passion is helping people see and experience God as loving and accepting. Schuller helped give shape, theology, and purpose to this focus. A few recent articles have quoted him from a Christianity Today interview, saying, “I don’t think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality and, hence, counterproductive to the evangelism enterprise than the often crude, uncouth, and un-Christian strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition.” There are many in the world who would consider this heresy. However, I increasingly agree with Schuller completely. Most of the greatest criticisms of Christianity and religion are from those who believe in the unbiblical wrathful God supporting retributive justice. Schuller has helped rescue millions from this spiritually and psychologically damaging perspective.

Many people don't realize Schuller's contributions to international dialogue and building bridges across groups. He helped open dialogue with the USSR (he was the first Christian to be on TV there, and Gorbachev was even a guest on the Hour of Power...). His son, Robert A. Schuller, has continued these efforts, engaging in regular interfaith peacemaking efforts. I believe his efforts to find peace among and value in diverse spiritualities influenced my ability and value of promoting the same. My dissertation was focused on exemplar Muslim and Christian interfaith peacemakers. As chair of the spirituality subcommittee at a public department of behavioral health, a lot of my efforts to open inclusion of spirituality are focused on reminding/teaching people that interfaith work can not only function, but it can be powerful, beneficial, and respectful. Schuller never abandoned, minimized, or apologized for his Christian faith in this interactions. Rather, he exemplified that living as a follower of Christ was the cause for these efforts.

Despite whatever fair or unfair criticisms people may have of him, at his heart, Schuller cared about people. He loved his family deeply and well (and I know they loved him back). He wanted to bring the hope of Christ to a hurting world. He helped reshape the structure of church in a way that met people where they were at in a new culture. Even Christianity Today recognized this influence in their tribute. He helped build cultural and religious bridges to build a better world. His methods may seem cheesy and dated to us now, but they were revolutionary and effective at the time.

We could do well to remember and continue the intent of reaching those ostracized by churches and broken Christianity in creative, hope-filled, and life-giving ways. Schuller's message was one of grace and love, and I will forever treasure him for it.

Do People Actually Reject the Living God?

With the prevalence of social media, it is easy to find people very vocally proclaiming why they do not believe in God. Oftentimes, it is because of how other people have presented God or done things in God's name, usually connected to hate, violence, and vengeful wrath. Rosaria Champagne Butterfield shares many examples of this from the LGBT community in The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert. These individuals say they could never believe in a God like that. In The God-Shaped Brain, Tim Jennings shares an anecdote of a patient saying that, to which he responds, "Good for you. I wouldn't believe in that God, either."

The traditional Christian response is to assume that these individuals are truly atheists or agnostics and do not love and appreciate the Living God. But I've been wondering if that's necessarily true. In these types of situations where the only explicit exposure someone has had to the construct of the Divine is this negativistic view of God and this construct is rejected, are these people necessarily rejecting the true God? Or are they simply rejecting a false, man-made God? Is it possible that they, in fact, recognize, appreciate, love, and even worship the Living God who transforms people's lives but just don't recognize him by name because of what they've been taught?

When labels and categories can be so destructive because of stereotypes and misrepresentation, is the label someone gives God necessarily important if they recognize him and relate to him anyway?

The Brain and Theology

Tim Jennings' new book, The God-Shaped Brain: How Changing Your View of God Transforms Your Life, is advertised a bit as the newest exploration into neurotheology. As a psychiatrist, he has appropriate qualifications into the discussion, similar to Curt Thompson and his Anatomy of the Soul, which I reviewed a few years ago. In short, there were a lot of great points made in the book, but they weren't neurotheology or even centrally about the brain.

Jennings' work seems more to be a consolidation of his personal theology with examples from the Bible, his patients, and some neuroscience. His rationale for a loving God is frequently compelling, especially in the context of real-world relationships. He takes quite a literal view and interpretation of the Bible (or at least approaches it that way in his book), but he comes to very different conclusions than many biblicists, which I greatly appreciate. There were many explanations of biblical passages that he offered that were new to me and very moving and compelling. I hope more wrath-focused biblicists would read this book to offer a different option on how to still value the holiness and authority of Scripture while understanding it completely differently.

Ultimately, though, the title of the book seems like a bit of a false advertisement. Jennings definitely has neuroscience in the book, but that really wasn't central. Some of his theological theses weren't even supported by neuroscientific findings or interpretations. It seemed like he had many more anecdotal examples from his practice than brain science. That's not to say the anecdotes were bad; they were excellent and compelling. I found them excellent examples of the importance of paying attention to spiritual concerns while engaging in mental health treatment.

The narration by Sean Runnette was good (I've liked his stuff in the past). He kept me engaged and interested to continue listening. Although I wonder if there would have been a different nuanced emphasis if Jennings did the narration himself. I regularly prefer nonfiction read by the author, especially with texts that can be so personal, as with this one.

Overall, Jennings' work gives some good, multifaceted arguments for a loving, non-wrathful God that desired a relationship with each of us. I've heard many reasons for this theology in the past, but he offered several new narratives that are more moving than mere theology. Unfortunately, the book was lighter on neuroscience than the title advertises, and I wish he wasn't so dependent on a very literal approach to the Bible, which I personally find unnecessary and unsustainable. But this approach may be effective in reaching the people least likely to experience the loving, living Lord.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

What Makes Faith Legitimate?

One of my favorite courses in my undergraduate career (or ever, frankly) was Sociology of Religion, taught by a professor at the Jesuit school of theology at the Graduate Theological Union, which had partnerships with UC Berkeley. The first lecture was a discussion emphasizing the challenges of creating a universally-applicable definition of religion. (As I'm writing this, I realize it was one of the most memorable lectures I've had.) Suffice it to say, the definition is challenging. The 1972 definition by anthropologist Clifford Geertz we learned is dense, but remarkable. And I still use it to this day (I cited it in my dissertation and will be using it in an introduction to spirituality and mental health treatment cultural competency training I'm developing).

What I appreciate about the definition is it is functional, rather than focusing on specific elements of belief. Too often, people get caught up in these concrete elements (i.e. Is there God? Is there a congregation? Are there rituals? Is there Scripture?). And then this emphasis leads to dismissal of beliefs as legitimate religion, essentially invalidating the individuals' experiences of meaning-making.

Whether or not we agree with a set of beliefs doesn't give us the right to dismiss those beliefs as not a real religion or faith, in my opinion. In many ways, that is what some people are arguing from the tradition of Jediism. Yes, as in Jedi. As in Star Wars Jedi. I read a fascinating, pretty objective, descriptive article exploring the Church of the Jedi. And frankly, I believe it meets all the criteria of a bona fide religion from a sociological perspective.

Just because we agree or disagree with a belief system doesn't mean that followers of a perspective don't have the right to do so and be considered a religion. There's plenty of religions that people consider completely absurd while also not questioning whether those set of beliefs would qualify for the label of religion. Frankly, one of the best ways to help a religion grow is by persecuting and discriminating against its followers. Look at some of the biggest growth time for Christianity, for instance. So by removing rights from a group, we may ironically be giving them more moral support.

In reading the article, it also made me realize as Christians, we need to be humble about our origins, especially as others see us. One line that really struck me was, "So it's based on a movie. Christianity is based on a book." While most Christians would argue the Bible is more than a book, many hard core Wars fans consider the series more than a movie. And frankly, the parallels are striking.

Unsurprisingly, it comes down to faith. Faith that there is meaning and Truth in our system of beliefs. And experiences that make it all "seem uniquely realistic." That's why I'm a Christian and don't follow another faith. But I can't necessarily prove it beyond someone else's shadow of a doubt either. And that's okay.

Dealing with Controversy

Controversy is no stranger to the Church. Some would argue that God made it that way. However, how we handle controversy is key. Much of the Christian Church sings the hymn, They'll Know We Are Christians By Our Love, but many of those congregations would not be recognized by love.

Back in July, our pastor was addressing various questions posed by congregants. One of the Sundays addressed how our congregation deals with controversy. It was one of the best sermons I've heard. Ever.

With the bulletin was a document entitled Controversial Issues and the Church's Ministry. Here is a copy (used with permission):

Controversial Issues and the Church's MinistryAffirmed by the Executive CouncilThe First Baptist Church of Redlands, CaliforniaAdopted on May 7, 2002 and revised on June 28, 2005 

Members of The First Baptist Church of Redlands like Christians elsewhere are not unanimous in their understanding of many social and personal issues. Several guiding principles therefore become important when considering controversial issues and the ministry of Christ's church. 

a) All people are received into the membership of The First Baptist Church of Redlands on the basis of their confession of faith in Christ and their commitment to support the ministry God has given us as a congregation both locally and globally.

b) Members of this congregation struggle with a number of personal and spiritual issues, and we humbly acknowledge that we all fall short of God's glory and are dependent on God's grace in every area of life. 

c) We all are challenged to study the scriptures using the best knowledge and interpretive principles available to us as we follow the leading of the Spirit, upholding as a congregation the historic Baptist principle of soul liberty in matters of faith and practice. 

d) The mission and ministry God has given our congregation is greater than any one issue. We must not allow the divisiveness of this age to divide the church, but (as Jesus teaches) trust God to separate the wheat from the tares (Matthew 13:24-30). 

e) The ministry of Jesus stretches us beyond our comfort zones as we reach out into our community. We must, therefore, guard our hearts against prejudices and false stereotypes cast upon minorities in our society and instead base our perspectives on convictions that build community and trust.  

f) Everyone is to be treated with the respect due one for whom Christ has died. No one is to be abused or harmed by either words or actions. Disparaging remarks, unkind comments, and abusive behavior have no place in the body of Christ. 

g) When considering leadership openings all character issues are relevant and may be taken into account in any and every situation.

While I'm of course biased, I love this. There are so many things that could be said for each point, but the thing I appreciate the most is that this statement reminds us of our priorities. Rather than getting bogged down by the minutiae of theological debate, this perspective keeps us focused on the greatest commandment: Love God and love others.

This statement is more about character and identity than about doctrine, and I think that's what makes it so Christian. And so hard to live up to!

During the message, my wife leaned over to me and said, "Now, that's something I would like to see posted on the door by the sanctuary!" She was referring to a past congregation we attended where they posted a huge sign at the sanctuary entrance, stating, "As Christians, we believe..." with their statement of faith. This move was one of the last actions that let us know we no longer aligned with their vision. As I explained to one of their pastors, trying to understand their decision-making process of the sign, I didn't even necessarily disagree with the content. By putting something up like that, they were sending the message that only people who agreed with that long list (very little of which would be salvific, in my opinion) would be welcomed in that congregation as a Christian. That process is what I have a problem with. And our current congregation's above statement reflects exactly the opposite sentiment. We are here on a journey of life. And life throws a lot of curve balls of confusion. We will do our best to be faithful in word and deed, but how we go about finding and living out truth is critical.

As our pastor told me one of the first times I met him, "We don't want doctrine to get in the way of doing what's right." That in itself could be a controversial statement, but I agreed with it then and agree with it now. It doesn't mean we don't stand by right belief. But we don't use it to clobber others. The right thing to do is to love people. No matter what. That doesn't mean excusing behavior. But not excusing behavior also doesn't mean condemnation. Ultimately, this approach is using the Bible as the center of the Christian faith.

I've experienced our congregation to demonstrate that delicate, holy balance. I've heard that our pastor has been accused by other community churches of being "too loving." I can only pray I receive that condemnation some day. Frankly, it's the same one the Pharisees gave Jesus...

Is the Bible Necessary for Faith?

I've been noticing statements of faith more frequently recently. Such statements can be for churches, universities, nonprofits, and even individuals. One of the things I've seen is that the authority of the Bible as inspired or inerrant usually is placed rather high on the bullet points of faith.

Of course, the inerrancy v. infallibility v. other options debate is something on its own, and making a position on that spectrum is probably part of the purpose of this part of the statement of faith. Yet I think this debate also reflects onto the presence of this element of such statements of faith.

People frequently question the authenticity of others' faith if they do not view the Bible in the same way they do. The new president of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, for instance, has been implying that people may not be true Christians if they do not take inerrant views of the Bible that support Creationism.

However, does believing in any form of biblical inspiration necessary for faith and a relationship with God?

I'm inclined to say no. Obviously, millions and billions of people over the millennia have had no Scriptures. It really wasn't until the Protestant Reformation that the Bible became more accessible and widely known. People who don't have access to the Bible in their language do not have any less faith.

I think this drive toward the demand of biblical authority is for everyone to have a single document to be able to root their faith. This is fine and even good. However, I think many times people use it as a proof text, needing something to prove a belief system "beyond a shadow of a doubt," which I simply believe is not possible.

At the same time, could someone be a Christian and not believe the Bible was divinely inspired? They might agree with it wholeheartedly but only see it as a reflection of several humans' journeys. It can still be something to root faith in, but not as something to defend oneself against those they disagree.

While I do believe in biblical inspiration (infallibility, not inerrancy), I also wouldn't necessarily question someone's faith if they did not have faith in the Bible. Communication from God occurs in many other ways, too. And as others have said, the Holy Trinity is not Father, Son, and Holy Bible. And then there's the whole controversial history of what's considered canonical...

Assumptions of Belief

This week I've posted a lot about doctrine and beliefs. One of the things that bothers me most is when I perceive people to be assuming what I believe. This drives me nuts, particularly when I don't hold that belief.

There's times to correct it and times not to correct it. However, recently, I've been hearing some beliefs with which I disagree be presented so frequently and unilaterally that I feel the desire to say, "I don't hold that belief!"

Has anyone else been there?

I'm not sure asserting my belief would do that much good. It could easily come across as antagonistic and put me on the outside of a group.

On the other hand, it could validate others who are in the same position as me, and that's very valuable. Additionally, there may be many people who do not have a firm position on a belief, and presenting and considering an alternative is a very important way of developing a solid, true belief system. Additionally, it is important for everyone to remember that their beliefs are not universally held, no matter what they are.

What do you think? When is it useful and effective and worthwhile to assert one's own beliefs in contrast to others'? What's the appropriate forum (obviously depends on the context)? Short blog post? Tweet with a summary?

Celebrating Christ, Not Doctrine

The issue of doctrine has come up recently for me in a few forms. I've been in a variety of churches with varying levels of theological conservativeness and liberalness. Some have had no statement of faith, while others have had very detailed statements.


I've recently been hearing some people saying it's important to stay true to doctrine. This seems related to Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears' new book, Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe. I had the opportunity to review it, but declined because I've heard very little come from Driscoll that I think is biblical, so I didn't want to waste my time.


I'm regretting that a bit now, as I want to know more details of this assertion of orthodox doctrine. From looking at the summaries of the chapters on the website, it doesn't look like it includes most of Driscoll's more unbiblical beliefs. And it's focused more on the essentials.


Many an argument and book have focused on what is considered essential to be a Christian and what should be included in a statement of faith. Therefore, I won't really delve into that. However, I would say that it should be relatively general. I'm not sure how useful very detailed doctrinal dogmatics are except to alienate people and draw arbitrary lines in the sand to make us feel good and others feel bad.


Scripture and Jesus are really more focused on relationships and loving God and others than on right belief. The texts really are helping readers develop a closer, stronger relationship with God. Understanding God accurately would be part of that, but I believe it's less important than others believe.


I really appreciate Azusa Pacific University's statement of faith. It is specific enough to identify clear Christian beliefs, but it not overly specific, allowing for a good ecumenical community. I personally prefer that way of defining doctrine, in contrast to more detailed statements, like that of Biola. I find it interesting that Biola doesn't even have a statement of faith. It is a "Doctrinal Statement." In contrast, APU only has a "Statement of Faith."

Both have pros and cons. In an academic setting, I'd prefer an APU model. I think I would prefer that in a church setting, too.


On November 11, 2010, T. Scott Daniels, PhD, discussed APU's theological heritage. He closed his talk by quoting Dr. Felix, a prominent proponent of APU, as saying, "where other places, their emphasis is on defending Christ, the emphasis here is on celebrating Christ."


I think that is just beautiful. In my experience most doctrinal statements and statements of faith are more focused on some sort of defense. I don't see that in the Bible. Rather, I see a call for celebration. That's what I want to do.

Sola Scriptura History

There was a question about Sola Scriptura from another post of mine, and my response became so long, I decided to make it into another blog post. So here it is:

There are people who would only believe something if it were stated in the Bible. The problem is that is not the original intent of Luther's Sola Scriptura.

Luther's development of this theological point was in reference to the Roman Catholic Church asserting various theological truths based on tradition. This was usually done with a political purpose, including maintaining the power of this institutional church and its leaders. As Luther began investigation Scripture, he argued that not all of these theological points were accurate, but the church once again argued against him based on tradition and threatened his life more than once.

Therefore, in contrast to a tradition-based theology, Luther went to the other spectrum, stating that we should only develop theology based on Scripture. That's why he also advocated for all people having the right to read the Bible (previously, only priests were able to do so). He made the first German language translation in order for the masses to be able to read the Bible and therefore challenge beliefs based on tradition.

This is the origin of why many Protestant churches advocate that everyone own and read the Bible and why many Protestant denominations are less hierarchical than the Catholic Church.

The problem is that many people have taken it to the extreme, arguing that if it is not in the Bible, it is not truth. Further, interpretation of the Bible is done out of context. Again, if we hold literally true to Sola Scriptura, then we need not understand other things like psychology, sociology, history, biology, physics, etc. in order to understand Scripture. This obviously creates many theological and interpretation problems, yet many Christians do not even realize they have faced these problems. This article describes some of these problems, too.

We need to interpret the world around us through the lens of the Bible, while interpreting the Bible with the information gleaned from the world.

Moralism

This is a guest post by my friend, Calvin Thomsen. He has two doctorates: Doctor of Ministry and PhD in Marriage and Family Therapy, plus he's a great guy!

In addition to being a part of a local congregation I also enjoy visiting other churches and listening to a variety of sermons. I’ve done it for decades. Over the last several years I’ve noticed a trend in evangelical churches towards something I call "moralism." It can take good concepts (like a high view of Scripture or a desire to promote Godly living) and put a twist on them the makes a sermon more like a scolding or lecture than a proclamation of good news. After listening to a recent sermon in a church I was visiting for the first time I developed what I call a “moralism checklist” to help me recognize the eight key components of moralism.

1. Enemies. The crux of this is, "Isn't it horrible about the.....[pick the evil of choice--humanists, socialists, gays, heretics, Buddhists, Paris Hilton, Oprah, naturalistic scientists, etc.]. Lots of energy is focused on the creation of enemies and a lot of the firepower of the sermon is generated by the emotions that "enemy talk" can generate. Three things you do with enemies. a) blame them for all your problems, b) run away from them, and/or c) "fight them."

2. Misguided Attribution. What are the principles of "cause and effect" in this sermon? Are bad things that happen to people inappropriately blamed on things people do or don't do that probably aren't the real cause? Lost your job? Probably because you didn’t tithe. An earthquake in Haiti? Must be because of voodoo. Sometimes the sermon includes false promises of "rewards" that may not be realistic (i.e. if you don't have sex before marriage you will have endless erotic and relational bliss once you say "I do.").

3. Biblicism. Are there references to "The Word" that suggest the instant answers to all questions, the final word on science, a kind of magical power, or recipe book? Is there a wooden, literalistic approach to the bible that always assumes we know what the true "Biblical" answer is and that all other sources of insight or knowledge must be trumped by your particular interpretation of what the Bible says?

4. Gnosticism. This refers to the belief that the crux of Christianity is "being right." Having the correct belief on any particular issue is the key to authentic Christianity. Sometimes this plays out in terms of "my religion is better than your religion" and disputes between different Christian groups or groups within a church. A lot of theological warfare is of this variety.

5. Triumphalism. Is the portrayal of Christianity and the work of Christ such that creates a triumphalistic, "we're right and everybody else is wrong" perspective. This can also apply to aspects of "the American way" as well.

6. Denial. Are there hints that "good Christians don't have these problems" (or they have them only if they are "being wicked")? Are there quick fixes or easy formulas used for complex human problems such as divorce, sexuality, addiction, the dark night of the soul, etc.? Does the sermon set the stage for people to shove certain problems underground or only talk about them with disclaimers (i.e. "I know that Lord is giving me victory over this") instead of an honest exploration of feelings?

7. Privatized Behaviorism. Do "private sins" (i.e. lust, gluttony, etc.) loom so large that they overshadow more collective approaches to systemic evil in the world? Is it worse to look at a racy website than to do an "Enron" or "AIG" that nearly brings down the world economy? Or to ignore policies that increase poverty? Or be indifferent to environment because "when Jesus returns he will clean up our mess"?

8. Imperative-ism. Is more of the gospel about "oughts" and "shoulds" rather than what God has done and the initiative he has taken in Christ? How much scolding and lecturing factors into this message? Sometimes it includes statements such as "God may be a God of grace but if you don't get you act together in the following way you will go to hell."

Purpose of Church

What do you look for in a church? As my wife and I have explored options since we moved, I had an interesting conversation with a pastor, in which he noted that we have the desire to connect, and he asked for clarification if this was to connect with God, other people, or what.

I hadn't thought of it in terms like this, but I realized I do not feel like I really need church to connect with God, per se. I feel like I connect with God very well on my own and with my wife. I do not need a church to do that. This particularly true with contemplative techniques. For me, they feel more effective in solitude or with a small group than with a large group.

In contrast, church seems, for me, to be an opportunity to connect with other believers and experience God incarnationally. Now, this is therefore a way of connecting with God, but it is a slight difference from directly connecting with God.

The relationships among the Church body are important. They give us life and help us remember our priorities.

Church organizations are not necessarily needed to connect with God, I don't believe. That is not to say church and Church (the former being the organization and the latter being all believers) is not important. To the contrary: It is quite important, but not necessarily for the reasons we often are told about church.

This is definitely a distinctly Protestant view, of course. What do you think?

Following God & Hearing God's Voice

I heard a message this weekend on John 10:1-21. This is the famous passage about Jesus saying "my sheep hear my voice." I've heard this passage be preached on many times, and honestly, I've never been particularly satisfied with any interpretations.

Namely, most messages on this seem to be quite an oversimplification. Most people do not address the complexity of following God and hearing his voice. This is an incredibly nuanced aspect of our relationship with the Lord. Frankly, it's something that probably cannot be adequately addressed in a single sermon. Full books are written on the topic and still seem like an oversimplification.

Have you encountered this also? Have you heard a good message on the topic that addresses the complexity and richness of following and listening to God?

Social Justice Tithing

Yesterday, I posted a review of Francis Chan's Crazy Love. One of the ways this book has practically impacted and challenged some of my beliefs is the topic of tithing. Readers of my blog know that I have not easily accepted the standard message of tithing.

Chan does not really address tithing directly. He does discuss living modestly and simply in order to be able to give money to others. Should we be living in massive homes while someone else is literally starving? What about a reasonable home and giving several people meals?

I've struggled with giving money to organizations (including churches). That doesn't really feel like giving it to God. It's more about giving it to people. This is a controversial statement and not unilaterally true, but I think it's unfair to say that if we don't give money to a church, then we're not giving our money to God.

However, giving money to organizations that engage in social justice actually is a way of acting out of love to me. So I'm currently redefining tithing in my mind away from giving a predetermined amount to a human-driven organization to giving money for social justice. That seems quite worthwhile.

Do you think that qualifies as "tithe" or is something else?

Another piece of the tithe question is what kind of organizations would qualify as something to tithe to. Does it have to be explicitly Christian? My initial reaction is I don't think so. Does it always have to be for human support, or what about for animals or the environment, beings that truly have no voice and are definitely a part of God's creation? I also initially don't think it has to be for only human support. We need to care for all of God's creation. That's a nice way of giving our money back to God (or acknowledging that we never owned it in the first place).

Crazy Good Crazy Love

I recently finished listening to the audiobook version of Francis Chan's Crazy Love. It was not as part of one of the reviewer programs, although I did get it free through christianaudio's monthly free audiobook title (something I highly recommend everyone take advantage of if you don't already).

This is an absolutely wonderful book that I highly recommend (although I don't want to say too much and make people's expectations too high--that causes problems, too :) ).

One of the best parts of this audiobook is that Chan read it himself--a problem I noted in Piper's A Sweet and Bitter Providence. I've started listening to his next book, Forgotten God, and that starts with an interview with him, where he admits he is not a great reader. I have to agree--it sounds like he's reading most of the time. However, I would not want it any other way because you can hear his passion, and that's more important than other benefits of a professional narrator.

To the content of the book: This is one book that has made me remember to worship God. Those words sound so flat as I write them because they are overused and misused. But Chan does a phenomenal job of making this a bit of a devotional. Really, I think this book is best described as a devotional. You can get a sense of this from the videos on the Crazy Love website, which Chan integrates into the book creatively. As he says in the interview preceding the other book, one person introduced him at a speaking engagement by saying what he talks about is so simple. It's reminding us of the basic, fundamental things about life and God.

The premise of the book is that God is in love with us and wants us to love him. As I'm writing this, again, I'm finding my review sounds so lame and does not express the true beauty of Chan's words and God's creation.

Chan's argues that we need to respond to God with "crazy love," meaning actions that may seem "crazy" to the world because we are relying on God for everything. Not that we should be actively looking to be crazy, but that we should be willing to be radical. Honestly, some of Chan's examples of crazy love seem truly crazy (i.e. a missionary physician getting all of his teeth pulled so that he would never have to leave the mission front due to teeth problems again--I'm not sure God would actually ask us to do that). However, he also says that these are not prescriptions for what everyone has to do--we all have to listen to what God has called each of us individually to do. I appreciate and agree with that.

One of the points that I particularly appreciated from his book is that it helped me remember to act out my priorities. Many of us can say God and family is first, but what does that actually look like? It can have quite a few definitions, all of which can be good and valid. However, one of the things Chan reminds his readers is that all they do will basically be forgotten in 50 years. There's some exceptions, but at least for me, that helps my anxiety about feeling like I have to do something big, as I have discussed in an earlier post. Chan also states we should not be asking why God has allowed hunger and suffering in the world. Instead, God should be asking US why WE allow hunger and suffering in the world.

The way he approached this made me think of it in a new way that motivates me to act more and live out of love. It's hard to describe, maybe in part because I'm still processing. One of the ways I'm processing it will be in another post tomorrow.

Overall, this book does a great job of challenging our fundamental beliefs of how we act in response to God. Again, he does not necessarily say anything new that most of us haven't heard before, but for me, he says it in a way that feels quite new. Most of my posts focus on existential, cognitive beliefs related to faith, not necessarily how we live out our faith or believe we should live out our faith. This book tackles that in the best way I've ever seen.

Annoying Biblical Mis-assumptions, Part 2

So in following up from Friday's post, here is my other annoying mis-assumption. As I think about the Parable of the Ten Bridesmaids (Matthew 25:1-30), I can only think of hearing it interpreted as, "You better be ready for the Second Coming, or you'll go to Hell." Pretty scary. So if I fall asleep or have a bad day, and Christ returns, then I'm screwed.

I can see this interpretation. If the passage stands on its own. I read it a little over a week ago during the Advent season in my Mosaic Bible. The theme of the week was Preparation. Such a theme makes sense in the week leading up to Christmas. And this passage does address being prepared for Christ.

However, what does "being prepared for Christ" actually mean? I usually have heard it in terms of having right belief (see my post from last Thursday regarding that mis-assumption, too). However, taking the parable in context, particularly paying attention to the following parable, may lead to a different interpretation. The following parable is that of the Three Servants (AKA the Parable of the Talents).

Both parables begin with Jesus stating, "the Kingdom of Heaven will be like" or "the Kingdom of Heaven can be illustrated by." Sure, that can mean post-death, but there's a lot of evidence that the Kingdom of Heaven is also present on earth right now. Think of the Lord's Prayer: "Your Kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven."

I think a more appropriate interpretation of these two parables is actually more works-based than faith-based: Christ is calling us to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to earth now, not to simply wait for him to return and to change it. We won't do a perfect job, but we need to do what we can. That's where the beauty of faith, life, and the Kingdom is.

What say you?

The Unimportance of Belief

So I've been going through The Future of Faith slowly, as it's pretty dense, and Cox has so many excellent things to say. I don't mean "dense" in a negative way--one could easily skim over some of his words and still understand the whole context. However, I really like what he has to say. He writes it well, in a very clear fashion, and his conclusions make a big difference in understanding our faith.

For example, a central thesis for Cox's tome is that we are moving out of the Age of Belief into an emerging Age of the Spirit. To understand this, we have to know what the Age of Belief is and what preceded it (yes, something else came first).

Cox argues that beliefs were not central to Christianity until around the time of Christianity becoming an official state religion with Constantine. Cox states:

Creeds are clusters of beliefs. But the history of Christianity is not a history of creeds. It is the story of a people of faith who sometimes cobbled together creeds out of beliefs. It is also the history of equally faithful people who questioned, altered, and discarded those same creeds. p. 4

This time was what Cox called the "Age of Faith," when Christianity had more to do with living a life rather than believing certain things. The "Age of Belief," when particular beliefs became central to Christianity arose when Christianity essentially became owned by the State:

Christianity, at least in its official version, froze into a system of mandatory precepts that were codified into creed and strictly monitored by a powerful hierarchy and imperial decrees. Heresy became treason, and treason became heresy. p. 6

This makes a lot of sense to me, as I have discovered that a strict set of beliefs and proving them seems rather futile and unhelpful in my faith. It has become something that I have become rather frustrated by in hearing other people discuss.

I agree with a quote from the Science & the Sacred blog:

God does not leave an empirical bread crumb trail in order to demonstrate His existence. Rather, the only way we can really know God is through the gracious work of the Holy Spirit, who illuminates to us what God has revealed about Himself. It is only by the Spirit that we are able truly to hear the “speech” and “knowledge” poured out by the heavens God created (Ps. 19). Only by God’s gracious self-revelation can we understand that all of “nature” is in fact creation.

In this light, our apologetic task is not primarily to identify statistical anomalies and gaps in the created order that could be filled by some amorphous “designer.” Our task is boldly and joyously to point people to the God revealed in Jesus Christ as the only possible source of all of creation. Here, we can suggest that the deep structures of creation, including many of the remarkable coincidences and convergences of life’s development, cohere with our admittedly limited understanding of the God whom we proclaim is creator of everything.

While this quote deals with science explicitly, it is related to the idea of specific beliefs. If the system of unquestionable beliefs never arose, the whole debate over science versus religion, creationism versus evolution, may never have arisen in the first place. If we do not feel like we have to have absolute evidence for every belief, then we may be able to better deal with ambiguity and therefore also modify our beliefs when appropriate.

But is this understanding of the development of these so-called "Ages" important. It is. As Cox states, "It frees people who shape their faith in a wide spectrum of ways to understand themselves as authentically Christian, and it exposes fundamentalism for the distortion it is" (p. 14).

This is just a fabulous quote that so much could be said about. But ultimately, Cox asserts (and I completely agree) that understanding the history of Christianity really helps those of us who do not ascribe to fundamentalist traditions validate our experiences and our belief. And ironically, it helps provide evidence for our beliefs...