Fragments

CCDA: You've Got to Try It

2009-10-25T21:06:00.006-04:00

Just got back from CCDA, one of the largest evangelical conferences on redistribution, reconciliation, and relocation in our country. In short, picture 3 thousand community development workers who have devoted their lives to neighboring in the ghetto, ministering to prostitutes, and experiencing the realities of our immigration complex first hand.

Primarily, I'm most impressed with the group's stark honesty disclosed about working with the 'poor', the rootedness in the biblical witness, and the stunning example of racial unity and love. The organization, in it's ripe 20th year of work now attracts to its conference recovering drug addicts right off the streets to former prostitutes now working to help free their sisters from the lifestyle. One man, noticeably uneducated, stood up to comment in one session. He tried to give words to his overwhelming feeling of joy at the abounding level of interethnic love. "I'm so happy", he noted,"there are Chinese people here, white, black, spanish. I feel like I've won the lottery!"

The sessions challenged me to think more closely about how I spend my time and how I engage with even the six families that live on each side of me. Combining a busy lifestyle with a subconscious perception of just how messy a relationship with our neighbors might actually get, results in a subtle avoidance of the humanity around me.

There's a lot to say. I'm grateful for the experience. To sit at the feet of civil rights hero John Perkins, ordinary radical Shane Claiborne, Reconciliation Guru Chris Rice, Sojourners Master Jim Wallis, and Princeton Prof. Gabriel Salguero was a truly marked experience. I perceive deeply a just noticeable shift in my heart, one that adds to the myriad of subtle shifts, in which I am experiencing profound life transformation. If you ever have a chance, you've got to go!

Asbury Abolitionists 1.3

2009-10-09T16:10:00.001-04:00

Asbury Abolitionists 1.3 from Keith Jagger on Vimeo.

Asbury Abolitionists :: Day 1.2

2009-10-09T12:21:00.000-04:00

Asbury Abolitionists Day 1.2 from Keith Jagger on Vimeo.

Asbury Abolitionists Day 1.1

2009-10-09T12:13:00.002-04:00

Untitled from Keith Jagger on Vimeo.

NFS Video 1

2009-10-08T18:42:00.000-04:00

NFS Atlanta Airport from Keith Jagger on Vimeo.

Reach

2009-04-14T16:09:00.002-04:00

Unfolding Life
Reaching to the sun
Reflecting its rays
Soaking its light
Growing night and day
With hidden life of the mystery
Waiting to be noticed

Undeniable Quotables

2009-03-01T13:11:00.004-05:00

"Age is no better, hardly so well, qualified for an instructor as youth, for it has not profited so much as it has lost.

"One may almost doubt if the wisest man has learned anything of absolute value by living. Practically, the old have no very important advice to give the young, their own experience has been so partial, and their lives have been such miserable failures, for private reasons, as they must believe; and it may be that they have some faith left which belies that experience, and they are only less young than they were.

"I have lived some thirty years on this planet, and I have yet to hear the first syllable of valuable or even earnest advice from my seniors. They have told me nothing, and probably cannot tell me anything to the purpose. Here is life, an experiment to a great extent untried by me; but it does not avail me that they have tried it. If I have any experience which I think valuable, I am sure to reflect that this my Mentors said nothing about."

-H.D. Thoreau, Walden

I paste this excerpt here not because it resounds fully within me but because of the way it strikes me. I cannot help but read herein a profound self-absorption too unaware of the shoulders on which he stands. At the same, I cannot help but co-lament on the profound disappointment I've felt with the generations to prepare me for this life. Admittedly, I claim ignorance to Thoreau's tone here. Is he serious? Overstating? Producing some unforeseen irony?

Still, its meaning resounds. But, I catch the echoing complaints and harness them under the disposition of gratitude; for one thing, I lament my un-oriented youth; for another, I appreciate how my elders have tried; for the third, I have experienced in some select instances wisdom emanating from the corners of some, from the peripheries of others, and from the core of true life masters that I've been graced to know and under whose tutelage I've found rest.

Undeniable Quotables

2009-02-25T19:06:00.003-05:00

Father Adrian van Kaam:

"Jesus' whole life was an uninterrupted chain of appreciative abandonment options"

-Formation Theology, pp. 176

?

2009-02-24T14:19:00.001-05:00

Question: If Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi, why haven't I sought out friendship or gotten to know any contemporary ones?

Curriculum Vitae

2009-02-01T23:19:00.004-05:00

Curriculum Vitae

Education:
Epiphany Certification Program: Certificate in Formative Spirituality, May 2010.
M.A.B.S., Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky, May 2008.
B.A., Augustana College, Rock Island, Illinois, May 2004. Major: Religion; Minor: Classics; Minor: Music.

Professional Experience:

Academic
Graduate Research and Teaching Assistant, Asbury Seminary, 2008 – 2009.
Research Assistant, Augustana College, 2003-2004.

Administrative
Manager of Multicultural Ministries and International Students, Asbury Theological Seminary, 2006-2009.

Teaching Experience:
Wilmore United Methodist Church: Sunday School and Young Adults, 2007-2009.
Potter’s House Campus Fellowship, 2000-2004.

Professional Academic Organizations:
Context Group (Biblical Literature in its Social-Cultural Context), since 2008.
Society of Biblical Literature, since 2008.
American Academy of Religion, since 2009.

Honors, Awards, Grants:
Eta Beta Rho: Hebrew Honor Society, since 2007.
Gamma Sigma Alpha: Greek Honor Society, since 2003.
Freeman Association: ‘Building Bridges’ Asian Exchange Program, 2004.
Carlson Scholarship for Music, 2000.

Unpublished Articles:

Academic Articles:

“Untangling the Taceat: 1 Corinthians 33b-36 and Paul’s Rhetoric on Women’s Voices.”

“Sinner Come Home and the Edge of the Curse”: A Theological Review of Apostasy in Hebrews and James.”

“Capturing the Unconscious: Lessons from Anthropology, Classical Studies, and a Social Scientific Criticism of Biblical Literature.”

“Foundations of Christian Formation: Unexpected Life.”

Book Reviews:

Review of Christopher Bryan and L.T. Johnson on Romans (Comparison: The Force of Classical Studies), A Preface to Romans: Notes on the Epistle in Its Literary and Cultural Setting (Oxford: O.U. Press, 2000) and Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon: Smyth and Helwys Press, 2001).

Review of Andrew Chester and Ralph P. Martin, The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude. New Testament Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1994).

Review of Peter H. Davids and Richard Bauckham (Comparison: On Their Own Terms, A Comparative Analysis of Comments of 2 Peter and Jude), The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. The Pillar New Testament Commentary Jude, 2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary no. 50 (Waco: Word Press, 1983).

Review of John H. Elliott, What is Social-Scientific Criticism? (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993).

Review of John H. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless: A Social Scientific Criticism of 1 Peter, its Situation and Strategy, 1990 (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2000).

Review of Ben Witherington, III., Paul’s Narrative Thought World: The Tapestry and Tragedy of Triumph (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994).

One Scripture to Rule them All

2009-01-25T15:12:00.002-05:00

I am often amazed at the power of scripture in our society. As a scholar of religion and as a practicing Christian, I dwell in these texts as words valuable to interpret and which interpret me. Buried in the pages of ancient holy writ, I often loose sight of their potent force in today’s culture. Like a father who spends every day with his growing child, great beauties lose their mystery in the mundane.

So, when during the inauguration events (a rare moment of cultural display in the U.S.) both Rick Warren and President Obama referenced “the scriptures”, they had my attention.

To quote Krister Stendahl, "God may be one", but there are many scriptures, and the Bible is one permutation among many existent writings. More so, when you say ‘scripture says’ rather than ‘the Bible, or Koran, or Zohar says’ you are saying something quite specific about the set of writings you reference. You are moving beyond the particulars of some collection of ancient human writing. You have appealed to that writing as authoritative at least in its direct ability to speak to and guide us and at most as a transcendent text given to us from the spiritual and divine beyond.

So, for the pastor and the president to both appeal to the ‘scriptures’, we must ask: how did, on that day, the Bible find its place as an authoritative text, and what does it mean for us living in this pluralistic post-Christian society?

In his invocation prayer, we expected Pastor Rick Warren to appeal to the Bible as scripture. Regardless of your personal impression of his performance or content, we must observe how strange it seemed to have Christianity cozied up against the U.S. Government. And for all those who misunderstand the separation of church and state, this was not an instance of government sponsored religion, though I could see how it seemed so. No, it was President Obama’s free choice, religious or political, to express his religious convictions by appointing Warren. And yet, strange it seemed.

Warren, in his opening, began by saying, “Scripture tells us ‘Hear oh Israel, the Lord is our God; the Lord is one.’ And you are the compassionate and merciful one, and you are loving to everyone you made”. He began with that foundational section of Moses’ sermon ushering his people into unwavering monotheism (though that’s not how things turned out). He also chose to leave out the second half of Moses’ point which Jesus reinterprets: “You shall love your God will all your heart, mind, spirit, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourselves”. Warren replaces this second half with his conviction that God is compassionate and merciful to everyone he made. I have no doubt that Warren meant “to the horizons of humanity”: every living person. Rather than placing responsibility on humanity to react and relate correctly to God and humanity, Warren used the opportunity to say more about the character of God.

So, Warren appealed to the scriptures as if it were an autonomous voice: “Scripture tells us”. In his view, scripture (in this case Jewish and Christian scripture) speaks to us and offers some piece of sage advice that we would do well to take into account. After all, the Hebrew word for ‘hear’ carries the meaning of ‘listen, obey, understand, test, or examine”. Warren was inviting, like Moses, his audience and particularly the now President Obama, to embrace, try on for size, just see what happens, if you give the Jewish and Christian God a chance. And his emphasis was on the character of that God. Incidentally, Warren believes that the God of Israel created all humans.

So, Obama and Warren, by giving Warren the chance to pray, exercised their freedom of speech and religion on one of the biggest national televised events of the decade. I understand Warren’s move, though it did make me feel a little awkward. Because I value the freedom of religion and its ability to allow me to freely worship whomever I please, and knowing that the line between sponsorship and expression is very delicate, I get uncomfortable when we are on that line. So what seemed expected and uncomfortable with Warren turned into a strange surprise when President Obama himself appealed to ‘scripture’. And again, it was an appeal to the Christian scriptures.

President Obama is a Christian and is able to choose his own religion just like everybody else. But when he used ‘scripture’ to appeal and persuade this nation, my ears immediately perked. Here’s what he said:

“We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things, to reaffirm our enduring spirit, to choose a better history, and to carry forth the promise that all are equal, free, and deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness”.

Our President appealed not to Paul, or the Bible, but to Scripture. He chose a less forceful understanding of scripture. Rather than it containing its own voice that we would do well to try on for size, he presented Scripture as ‘words’ for us to examine and explore. Of course he was referencing Paul’s great oration on love in I Corinthians 13. After Paul muses on the true nature of love (versus the Corinthians’ version of Spiritual Power Playing), he begins to talk about the judgment day.

A great day will come, says Paul, when everything will be exposed for what it truly is. In the case of Obama’s vision, a lazy and weak spirit will be revealed for what it is even if we pretend we are now strongly enduring. If we have chosen the low road in this age of globalism and terrorism, says Obama, one day we will not be able to pretend that it was the highway. And if we as a country have renigged on our promise of equality, freedom, and the open road to happiness, then we might be able to pretend for now that we are the beacons of liberty in this world; but, a day will arrive when we will be exposed for what we truly were, the greatest perpetrators of inequality, captivity, and oppression in the world.

Obama does not make this case; he does not go that far. He merely implies that we shouldn’t fool ourselves into believing that we are something we are not. We should become what we say we are. We should walk the walk of liberty, rather than talking the talk.

Now, for Paul, coming of age symbolized the end of days. So to mature was not something we do on our own, but happens to us when God makes all things new. And his point is this: some day God will set things right. You will be known better than you’ve ever been known. Many things will fade away: injustice, pride, broken relationships. Our temporal faith and hope will morph into some thing else. If now we have faith without sight, then we will believe because we see clearly. If now we hope in a hopeless night, then we will hope in the fullness of day. But, one thing will not change: love. So, let’s go about learning to love immediately, because it is the only way we can bring heaven to earth in the here and now. And Paul thought we could do so. Paul thought we should do so. Paul encourages us to bend our minds to learning the way of love.

Does Obama’s vision match up to his reference in scripture? Perhaps. Equality, Freedom, and Happiness (the root of this virtue being holiness), will stem from a society of great lovers. But will our political and national vision of human greatness bring about God’s kingdom. Perhaps not. If we could match Obama’s political vision in step with a national movement of genuine love, perhaps. But then again that would be the derailment of the American dream of manifest destiny and replacing it by embracing our destiny to serve.

In the end, both men appealed to scripture in an authoritative way. Warren did so to highlight the character of God, to acknowledge Jesus before humanity. President Obama did so to persuade us to become our higher selves and to begin to walk the walk of freedom, equality, and happiness. Both did so with the help of scripture. The difference is that Obama appealed to the heart of a society once Christian; Warren appealed to a world ‘not yet so’.

What does this mean for our nation? Perhaps we are not as far beyond our Christian heritage as Christians and evangelicals now lament. Perhaps there is still room for Christians to appeal to the Bible as a valid authority and make their case. Maybe they should do so with creativity and care, but there might be room yet. And perhaps this means that the authority of the Bible might just endure through the era of enlightenment and critical scholarship, maybe because it speaks directly to the human experience in a profound authoritative way.

For Warren, his way was noble, but was not, I dare say, our beacon of hope. Warren, even with relativized prayer, “as far as his conscious would allow”, still seemed to be saying: “You need to know this merciful God; but you can’t know him except through us”. We need a larger vision of God’s work in this world far beyond our perceived borders, far beyond the work of our hands. Paul was indeed right when he said to the Romans that God had worked upon the heart of all who have lived. We must join him there.

Mostly, this all says to me that there exists, in our midst, a book of wonders. At least we should mine its pages for the wisdom of those who have gone before us. For others, we should consider more seriously its potential to guide our civilization down the path of truth and justice. At most we should consider its logic as that which springs from the mind of the creator God who did, it seems, create us all.

Duty, Charity, and Poor People

2009-01-18T14:58:00.006-05:00

Has anyone thought to rename this era, “The Humanitarian Era”? World Vision, World Justice Organization, World Hope, World Faith, World Love, World Peace, Joy, Patience, Kindness, Gentleness, and Growth…how can a person keep the non-government world straight?1 To top that, our millionaires are not as stingy as many would imagine. Bill and Melinda, Oprah, Rockefeller, D. Macarthur, Eli Lilly, and so forth confront us daily with the image that we as a people are a compassionate and giving people. Although our society doesn’t customarily expose our financial incomes and rates of giving, I bet it would reveal a lot. Either it would reveal that our society is filled with philanthropists, or it would reveal that the majority of our people are lousy givers out to make a killing rather than a living. I'd be curious to see.

Regardless, the fact is that, in the area of communal giving, we live in an environment filled with smoke and mirrors. Are we to listen to the humanitarian agency that makes us appalled at how much we own in comparison to the starving children in Africa? Or are we to heed the impulse that would pat us on the back for our generous national giving? Are we to burn with anger and deplete our personal savings as we watch the myriad of images blitzing the screen of starving children, child soldiers, and fly encrusted faces. Or are we to advance the causes and morale of our society in the face of the generosity of the country’s millionaires, professional athletes, and philanthropists? For a person interested in doing their right part in helping humanity, where do I even begin?

It seems to me that we need to temporarily shut our eyes and ears to the constant hum drum of rhetoric and listen carefully to our hearts. Stop worrying about false guilt, and focus for a minute. You may find that you are on good footing to take a few steps forward. And if you find your foundation rests on shifty sands, you need to reevaluate your base. It may be the very reason why you care so much and make so little progress in righting the wrongs of the world.

“What are these foundations”, you may ask. Basic logic. We base our lives on so many unevaluated assumptions that we are often ignorant to the mixture of contradictions that operate in us daily. So, in the arena of giving money, we need to start at ground zero.

In his 1971 article, Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Peter Singer raises the important question of human responsibility for the impoverished world citizen. He implies that our fundamental obligations to humanity have often been masked as moments for optional charity.

“Generally Speaking, people have not given large sums to relief funds; they have not written to their parliamentary representatives demanding increased government assistance; they have not demonstrated in the streets, held symbolic fasts, or done anything else directed toward providing [the] refugees [of natural disasters] with the means to satisfy their essential needs.

Australia’s aid to the crisis in Bengal amounts to less than one-twelfth of the cost of Sydney’s new opera house.”

So we must begin, with Singer, at square one. Singer begins with the assumption that, “Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad”. If you disagree with this point, you can probably stop reading now. Go check your pulse.

Point two is this: “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance,” it is our human responsibility to do something about it.

Singer uses the metaphor of a shallow pond. If you see a child drowning in a deep puddle or a shallow pond, you ought to wade into it and pull the child to safety. You may get wet and dirty, but that is nothing in comparison with the possible death of that child. If you agree that the death of a child is worse that getting your clothes dirty, keep reading.

Of course we are now getting to square two or three, so naturally you may have begun to ask a number of questions. My biggest question is, “What if it is not in my power to prevent the drowning?” I cannot go to Africa and administer care for Malaria, because I live in the US and I have no medical training.

Let me offer another question. Do you accept a principle of impartiality, that all humans are created equal? If you do, you cannot discriminate against a person simply because they are far away from you or that you are far away from them, especially if there are doctors available or that exist at all. Distance does not lessen responsibility.

Another question you may be asking is: “Is it not the place of the government, rather than its citizens to make sure our taxes are going to needy parts of the country and world?” This question belongs to a whole web of questions that ask about responsibility: whose it is, what is the place of circumstantial judgment, and how much is required. Another question that belongs here is, “what if by helping a person to eat now, we are extending issues into the future, as in the case of booming populations; a mouth fed now will live to create four more hungry mouths”. In a world full of drowning children, is it our responsibility to blindly work full time pulling them out?

Concerning the question of governmental responsibility, I agree with Singer, that governments and elected leaders move by the winds of popular opinion. These want to get elected and stay elected. If they see their population investing their resources in one area, they will follow that perceived value and invest your taxes there to replace your personal giving. The tail does wag the dog, and it is our responsibility to put our money where our mouth is to highlight our values. In terms of the population control objection, your marvelous insight does not take your responsibility away. Instead of giving to the world food bank, you should give to organizations that teach birth control, abstinence, and general population awareness.

In regard to the larger question about how much we are to sacrifice and how full-time are we supposed to commit ourselves, we must keep in mind the principle of non-sacrifice. For example, I should not devote myself to full-time unpaid humanitarian work leaving my family of three, five, or six at home without support. I need to work, and they need to eat. Our family should not give $1200 dollars per month to humanitarian work if it takes us $1000 per month to make a living. We must heed our physical, emotional, and thus moral limitations.

Yet, after traveling to square five or six, here is the main, personal, and heart issue. We need to re-evaluate what it is we need. Singer writes," It follows from what I have said earlier that we ought to give money away, rather than spend it on clothes we do not need to keep us warm." To do so is not charitable, or generous. This means more than "we ought to give the money away"; rather, it is wrong not to give the money away.

St. Ambrosias once rightly said, “The bread which you withhold belongs to the hungry; the clothing you shut away, to the naked; and the money you bury in the earth is the redemption and freedom of the penniless”. Ultimately the idea that it is an optional charity for a man or woman living in affluence to give to save someone else from starvation is fundamentally flawed. It is their duty.

But questions remain. “Just how much money are you suggesting I give”. “You don’t know what I’ve gone through to get financially stable. Are you asking me to go back to poverty?” “Even if you are right, how do you suggest that we turn a whole population living the American Dream toward the foundational values of duty?” “Your words and logic are nice, but what does God have to say about this?”…

1. This article, in essence, is a dialogue with Peter Singer's article, "Famine, Affluence, and Morality."

MLK Sermon

2009-01-13T11:35:00.002-05:00

1/14/09

This is a sermon I'll be delivering tomorrow at Asbury's annual MLK chapel:

We too should find the higher way: Love in the 21st Century

It is an honor to be speaking here today with you in a chapel named after such a great speaker and after such a lover men and women. Dr. King had a deep love for all peoples, but I am often struck at his Christ-love and death for his fellow Americans. And it is for that reason, it is for his striking resemblance to Christ, why we honor every year his birthday. So, it is an honor today to be speaking amidst the memory of this great human. But I suppose I count it an even greater honor to be alive today living among you. There are faces among you that I recognize well, and there are others that I look forward to recognizing. I can’t help but mention those that have become my dear friends who deserve credit for this sermon and for helping me become my better self. To Scott Cozart who directed me toward Dr. King’s love and who teaches me about love every time we fellowship. To Doc Gray who has given me selfless support and introduced me to Dr. King’s beloved community. I am truly humbled to live among such brilliant and gentle humans and the countless others who have shaped me and who I lean upon.

I am not great scholar of Dr. King. I cannot tell you the name of the street where he grew up, what kind of gum he liked to chew, or what books were essential in forming the man. But I would call myself his student. I study Dr. King because he inspires me. I study him because his life and his words are possibly the most Christ-like that I have ever come upon.

You see, Dr. King found the higher way.

Many have said that if Jesus were to show up in our day bringing his message of love and salvation we would barely recognize him, if at all. While Dr. King was not Jesus nor did he claim to be a messiah, it seems to me that if we were to find somebody whose life most resembles Jesus is our day, we would do well to look at Dr. King. And even more so, we would do well to listen to his message and take seriously the things that he took seriously.

While we live in a day that is very different from Jesus’ and even Dr. King’s, a day of vast globalization beyond what Dr. King could probably imagine, we are not so very far removed from the issues that Dr. King so truthfully interpreted. In fact, Dr. King found the higher way of love in the twentieth century. We find that higher way in the 21st.

The pressures of globalism, of ethnic dialogue and interaction between peoples of many different kinds are no longer issues reserved for statesmen and missionary anthropologists. We can now not help but relate with the ‘other’. We can no longer chose to ignore the man or woman who is so different from us that it causes us physical anxiety to even be near them let alone strike up with them a meaningful conversation. We must find the higher way of loving our neighbor in this diverse setting. If we cannot, God only knows what tattered future we have before us. Let me share with you a couple of personal examples:

As we pulled into the snow-banked driveway, I had to do a double take at our destination. It was a farmhouse of old, quite smaller than I could imagine would fit the party we were expecting. It was the only house nearby and was back-dropped with snowy fields and the dead stumps of last year’s corn stocks blowing in the wind. If I’ve ever experienced rural America, this was it. On the house, the paint was chipping, there were no right angles perceptible, and as we stood outside the doorframe, I felt as if I were literally half the height of the house. I ducked through the doorway and was transported to an age past.

We entered to greet our never-met-them family, two middle aged women in their Christmas sweaters and one elderly lady full of smiles and happy to see my two year old daughter. As she bribed her with Christmas chocolate I was struck how much she seemed to fit into the backdrop of this place. It was almost as if I were looking at a painting of some old fashioned Christmas with the old lady in her rocker. I expected to not chat with her.

I hadn’t realized how struck I was at how much she was speaking until well into her monologue. I was surprised how verbal she had become and even more so when she began talking about her little Korean neighbors and how they loved to visit and bring her gifts. She talked about their black hair and dark eyes. I could tell she had a good experience with these little ones. I appreciated her willingness to interact with these little Asian children, and I wondered if she got the chance to really know them or their parents.

Globalization had hit this rural place. This rural American family was interacting daily with people who were very different from them. And if, in our day, the issues of new intercultural contact are not enough we have yet to really, in a deep way, deal with the intercultural sins of our fathers.

A second example: We pulled in to LaFayette Square mall in Indianapolis mostly by accident. We were on our way back to Wilmore from Wisconsin, and Eve had in mind to get a new shelf for Claire’s toys. Ignorant to the Indianapolis landscape, we stumbled upon this mall just off of I-65

As we pulled in the entrance, I began to understand where we were. I think I said to Eve from a distance. ‘We’re at a Black Mall’. I didn’t realize yet what I meant (I probably still don’t), but I could see from a distance that we were going to be the minority in this place. Of course there were a number of ethnicities in the mall, but I saw only one other white for our whole three hours. As we walked through the cold November air to the entrance, I began seeing the looks. What was it? Our dress? Our skin? Our demeanor? What was it that put us as a whole on the outside of this culture? As I walked through the doors, that feeling you get in your stomach, that, I’m-a-minority-here, feeling punched me square in the gut. The situation set me immediately into high sensory mode as my ugly stereotypes and collected bits of racism flooded my mind.

In a recent IndyStar e-article called, “Closures Plague LaFayette Square Mall”, I was not surprised to read the 77 comments written in response to the ‘emotionally neutral’ journalistic article. One commenter said,

“This whole mall has turned into nothing but a ghetto area with crime, drugs and many other problems all because the mall lost total control of security enforcement! This place is now nothing more than a rag tag flea market selling bling watches, cell phones and gold teeth! The sooner this place is bulldozed the better!”

Another man commented:

“Call it as it is, the area has gone downhill since there has been an influx of the intercity gangbangers and other trash that follows. The bow tied Muslims who stand on the corner at 38th and Lafayette Rd trying to sell me bananas or apples in the morning, the Hispanics who can't speak a lick of English who shoot themselves down closer to 465

This is not how this neighborhood was and doesn’t deserve to be. Reinvent LSM by tearing most of it down, adapt to the shopping desires of people and with enough policing, the thugs will roost somewhere else and we can get back to a better way of life.”

Well, once we stepped inside the door, the impulses began almost controlling my actions: Don’t make eye contact. They’ll think you’re picking a fight. Pick up Claire. Who knows who will kidnap her or hurt her because we are white.

By most standards, the mall itself was in disrepair. Perhaps half of the shops were open. Most selling clothes, shoes, gold. I was honestly in culture shock when we came across the poster merchandizing teeth grills. I was fully out of my comfort zone, and this mall was outside my mall experience. I suppose the one difference between me and these commenters is that I didn’t get back in my car and pull away. And I’ve been in the diversity ball game long enough to ward the false shame that follows the activation of racist thoughts. I began to combat these internal forces that would slander the men women and children walking by.

After we finished our meal I was doing well combating these learned prejudiced instincts and was loosening up a little bit. We let Claire run around in the mall play area with about thirty other kids. I saw in her interaction the way things were supposed to be. Complete awe and joy and playfulness without thought to who she was sliding with, what color the driver was in the little foam car she was sitting shotgun in or what clothes she was or was not wearing. In my experience, it is these moments when the adults’ walls go down as we supervise our future around the play areas, where her Mom picks up my fallen Claire from the foam floor. Where I make sure his little boy doesn’t fall off the giant toy train’s smoke stack.

There are ethnic fault lines all across this country where we as a population have no idea how to give the love it will take for our country, this world to make it through this era. We Christians need to be the first to do so. We too need to find the higher way, and that should begin in all places with a set of pastors and Christian leaders.

Love from the beginning has been a hallmark Christian virtue. But how are we supposed to love the ‘other’ when secretly we struggle with a racism that betrays our principles of equality? How are we to love when the new people are so foreign, and the old issues so entrenched? How are we to love when the very people who we would like to trust end up bombing and killing our families? How are we to love them when our neighbors can’t even speak our language? How are we to love and minister to them who are so different from us. And in a globalized world when so many new and different people come before us, what does it really mean to love them? And ultimately our question, our cry to God, is this: God, how would you love the ‘other’ in a day when the diversity of your human creation has begun to interact so deeply that we can no longer ignore one another? Any advice?

Spiritual Master, Pastor, and Japanese statesman Toyohiko Kagawa, in his 1929 book, “Love: The Law of Life” writes:

Child, search not for springs of love in the deep valleys, nor yet in the bosom of another being. The spring of love, ah, it must well up in thine own heart. Therefore, I do not lose hope, nor do I fear when I see this drought [of love] in the land. I shall dig down deeper, still deeper, into my own soul, and there, in my heart of hearts, shall I find the spring of love which can never be found on the surface. I shall dig down to God who is within me. Then, if I strike the underground stream that murmurs softly in the depths of the soul—so rarely found—and to it will I lead a few thirsting comrades. In just the same fashion we must reach toward the thought that love for our enemies has a direct relation to some great impulse from an unseen part of the cosmos. If so where is the love to be found? This question demands our study”.

I believe Kagawa is right. We must dig deep into our often-deformed spirits, and in the spirit-numbing moments when we are presented with the choice to love, our wellspring pushes us to make the right choice. Only the God that lives in our hearts, distinct from our spirit, can bring us to the higher place of love.

But anybody that has tried to relate across cultures knows well enough that a deeply sincere heart full of seeming love is often not enough to create deep friendships that stretch across race, nationality, and ethnicity. Dr. King knew this when he preached on having the heart of a dove and the mind of a serpent. Dr. King said,

“Soft mindedness is one of the basic causes of race prejudice. The tough minded person always examines the facts before he reaches conclusions; in short, he post judges. The tender minded person reaches a conclusion before he has examined the first fact; in short, he prejudges and is prejudiced. Race prejudice is based on groundless fears, suspicions, and misunderstandings. There are those who are sufficiently soft minded to believe in the superiority of the white race and the inferiority of the Negro race in spite of the tough minded research of anthropologist who reveal the falsity of such a notion.

There is little hope for us unless we become tough-minded enough to break loose from the shackles of prejudice, half-truths, and downright ignorance. The shape of the world today does not permit us the luxury of soft mindedness. A nation or a civilization that continues to produce soft mined men purchases its own spiritual death on an installment plan.”

No, we are called to a higher love. In the unfamiliar face of our new neighbors, in the unfamiliar skin of our old, we are now called to, like Dr. King, find the higher way. And who better expound on this love than the inspired hands of jailed, beaten, and martyred St. Paul.

In I Corinthians Paul writes to a fractured church enthused by their newfound spirituality. And, the latest preacher to ride through Corinth mutually impressed each. In a larger bid to campaign for tough-mindedness in the Christian communities where zealous and perhaps foolish hearts full of good intentions were driving the Corinthian church to splinter and self-absorption, Paul gets to the root of their issue by elevates his speech and delivering one of the greatest orations on love that our scripture offers us. ‘Do you want unity in Christ while becoming a spiritual giant, a truly powerful Christian community’, asks Paul, ‘you must learn a higher way’.

So let me share how God would teach us to love in the face of difference by way of chapter 13 and lessons I have learned on my journey of love.

Verses 1-3 open the chapter and silence our smooth talking, put a check on our well educated minds, and put on trial our so called acts of sacrifice. When all is said and done, when the Lord asks us how we treated those most unlike us, when he asks what we did with the stereotypes that tempted our imaginations, when he asks us how we loved another ethnic or national group, many of us will have a long list of the ways we gave our money, time, furniture, and of all that we studied of the complexities of race in our land. But none of this will compute, none of this matters if we have not found the higher way.

I once went to the hospital while moving furniture for an incoming international student. I crushed my finger under a falling dresser. But what really mattered was not they way I submitted my body to suffering, but it was the conversation I was having in the truck prior to that with my Kenyan brother. We laughed together as I asked him about his wife and family. In turn he taught me about his favorite local bread. If we had not taken time to love one another, if I had been in and out to get a job done, then Paul would have been right. I would have gained nothing in my heart. I would have gained only a crushed finger.

Love is patient. It learns to listen to broken English and asks a person to repeat what they said, because you didn’t catch their accent. It doesn’t press relationships for the sake of having a friend who is different than you. It waits and persists when countless lunches fall through, because you value that person for who they are and know that the Lord works even in the times we don’t connect.

Love is kind. It finds ways to connect deeply with its neighbor. It learns their language and culture and learns to sing their heart songs. I was blessed with the chance to sing in a black gospel choir in college. I could not make it too long in the group, because they only needed tenors, and I was beginning to overstretch my thoroughly bass voice. But I learned the basics of gospel, how to shape the vowels just right, and how to sing, sway, and clap all at the same time. And my heart is richer to have learned the art. Love learns who the ‘other’ is. My Nigerian brothers here have taught me to ask questions upon our greeting. Not just the rote, ‘how are you’, but the thoughtful questions about their lives, families, and current experiences. I have also learned to participate with them in the gift of laughter, a human experience not utilized as much here. I have also learned that a good way to leave a conversation is merely to say, ‘thank you’. So, I do these things submitting to their culture in kindness to them, in love.

On the other hand, love does not envy. Love is when you are faced with the beauties of other peoples and cultures and you do not throw out your identity and seek to become the other. And when you come face to face with the glories of another culture, love does not diminish and envy them because in some ways, the beauties of their culture dwarf yours perhaps in rhythm, art, science, or dance. Love allows you to thoroughly enjoy your own culture and seek the ways that yours outshines the rest.

And when you find those beautiful aspects of your culture, for mine it is our proficiency and ability to produce, love uses that gift to serve others. Love does not boast and it is not proud in the sense that we should not flaunt our God-given gifts for the sake of our own glory. Isn’t this what Paul was trying to say in the whole of the later part of I Corinthians? Your gifts were meant to build up the church, not for your own moment or life in the spot-light.

Love is not rude. Love puts aside politics as usual to celebrate the historic moment for us all in the first black president. It does not paste bumper stickers on its car saying, ‘We could have got a hero. Instead we got a zero’ with a big red x over Obama. What message do you think that sends to your black brothers and sisters across this nation about how you perceive their achievement here? Love is not rude, but it is sensitive in the words and actions it communicates to our fellow humans.

Love is not self-seeking. This may be near the root of our biggest hurdle in America. American values, at their core, promise us each our own self-actualization if we just work hard enough. When we all go about seeking our Manifest Destinies, we will travel to shameless reaches to become the great pastor, speaker, or missionary that God ‘intends’ us to be. The synergy of such self-seeking produces a potent force when mixed with manifest destiny. It has created in our midst one of the most oppressive beliefs that could ever exist: that people groups are poor only because they are lazy. This is not a Christian principle. Love sacrifices of the self and allows space for the ‘other’ to shine in all of their glory and brilliance.

Love is not easily angered nor does it keep a record of wrong. This is an important one. I’ve struggled over the course of my life to have meaningful relationships especially with Hispanic and African American men. For some reason, my defense levels have always been high in these relationships. And we have so many often unspoken assumptions about one another, that we are bound to fumble our way through acquaintance and early friendship. I lived my freshman year two doors down from one of the few black men on my college campus. I struck a small friendship with him at the beginning of the year, and one night out of nowhere he let me have it. We passed in the hall. I smiled at him, nodded my head, and he let me know with multiple expletives what I could do with myself. I could see no reason for his outburst. And there it was, a possible moment where I could have hated black men for the rest of my life. But love got a hold of me in Christ, in time. We struck up a small friendship again three years later in our African American Religions class. I remembered that freshman moment every conversation that we had. And though he clearly had no memory of it, I learned to empathize and chose to love.

And being not easily angered and keeping no record of wrongs become quite a tricky moment for ethnic relationships, especially given the history of our culture. Love keeps no record of wrongs, and it does not become easily angered when another person does keep that record. Furthermore, love acknowledges the record of wrongs that is brought against my people and me. When I began to understand and embrace the realities of my historic privilege and historic money, my ability to relate well with black, Hispanic, and first nations people tripled.

Which leads to the fact that love does not rejoice in Evil, but rejoices with the truth. Historical privilege and money is the truth that my grandmother and great grandfather had more of it than many other people group’s had at that time. Historical money and privilege impacts today, and while it so often is a set of issues that divides us, it is the most powerful reality that could bring us together. There is a new wind blowing in our country, but our past will haunt us until we see it for what it was. Any movement that denies our naked history will sound like a self-seeking enterprise that is out to safe-guard its own privilege. Love is not self-seeking, but it rejoices with the truth.

Love Protects. When mutual hurts of prejudice and stereotype administer their sting, when hurt turns into violence, it is then when love acts. Love protects against slander, against profiling, against injustice. When push comes to shove, love protects people from the discriminatory slander and hatred birthed from soft-minded misunderstanding. This area is too sensitive for me give examples from especially given the nature of my position, but it has often been one of the most difficult and self-giving opportunities for us.

Love trusts, hopes, and perseveres. Anyone who has ever tried to work on deep and meaningful relationships knows that this may be the most difficult aspect of love. Any married person especially knows that all too easily the messy closeness of two recovering sinners can often create some pretty dark moments. We can take each other for granted or interpret veiled comments or actions negatively. We can lose trust in our closest of companions. We can lose hope that there can be any future for us when poorly chosen words or moments reveal our profound ignorance of one other or our tendency to diminish the ‘other’. Yet, love preservers. In marriage it preservers and especially in inter-ethnic relationships it perseveres.

Love never fails. For all the budding IBS folk out there, I believe this statement is a conclusion that encapsulates all Paul was saying about love into one principle. When I’ve wanted to engage in interethnic or intercultural relationships and have feared to know how. I’ve learned ways to love. The skills do come. When I’ve tiptoed around shallow relationships, love has got a hold of me and allowed me to go deeper. When I’ve experienced the pain of fractured relationships and misunderstandings, I’ve learned to ‘search deep down inside of me for that underground stream that murmurs deep within’ and I’ve let love capture me. God has much to say about our globalizing world. He says,

‘I’ve shown you the higher way of love and it does not fail. For you’ve seen my love in my Son, and you know that a day will come when I will gather my church from every nation, tribe, and tongue, and you will be known then better than you’ve ever been known. Your eloquence, your education, your theological and spiritual insight will be burned up like the autumn leaf, and God’s diverse creation will again live in unity unlike the veiled version we know now. So put away now your childish self and find the higher way; put on love now. Faith and hope may remain for eternity in a modified fashion, but love will endure throughout eternity in its current form. Tap into love now and watch God’s diverse creation unify in this age. You do not need to understand all cultures and each specific world group, your great service to other people will not take us there, and it will not take your PhD to make it happen. Unity will take love.’

I hope at this point you are beginning to ask what this means for you. For some, you may have dwarfed me in your journey of realizing King’s beloved community. Others may be asking what the Beloved Community is. Some of you may be miles into their journey. Others of you may want to begin it today.

For some to find the higher way means that you should begin the process of healing and forgiveness in your intercultural relationships. For others you need to let perfect love cast out your fear, and you should become intentional about the relationships you create on campus. Make the eye contact, introduce yourself, give your name, ask if you could eat lunch together. You must be intentional. Let the color of a person’s skin and shape of their eye attract you to a relationship, but let that relationship be about the human you are encountering, that God-imaged glory-filled distinct person.

If you want to know more or put yourself in an intentional place of intercultural formation and in the tradition of justice, come to the Multicultural Ministries. This is where I give my shameless plug. We have arenas set up for you learn. We have seminars set up for you to experience. We have small groups running that will expose you to transformation in the area of justice. You cannot miss us if you eat on campus. Our office is right near the new entrance to the cafeteria’s register.

For our community, we can begin this process of unity together this Monday. You are off of work and out of class on this celebration of Dr. King’s birthday. Come to the celebration and service events. Take home your bulleting, and pin it to your board. Come to the breakfast and listen to Dr. Kalas and other share about their impressions and memories of Dr. King. Join us for the march and rally in Lexington. Help serve the Wilmore community from 2-5 at the community center. And come to the worship service and hear Dr. King himself as we meditate on the Christian prophetic tradition. This is a real way to begin, and it is coming within the week.

I sometimes lay awake at night and ask myself, ‘what if’? What if our community got it? What if our global community here of future and Christian leaders became Dr. King’s beloved community? The world and our country are on a bullet train toward multiculturality. Are our hearts ready? What if we at Asbury became a campus full of great lovers of humanity in all its diversity? What if instead of fearing the potential conflicts among the ‘other’, we as a community began begging for this place to become more diverse? What if we made the extra step to create deep and meaningful relationships inter-ethnically and inter-culturally and did so with the sharpest minds and deepest love we could muster? What kind of healing would our campus experience? What kind of witness would we become? What kind of theological seminary would we produce? Would we be the bridge seminary that moved along side of our globalizing world and truly offered the premier product for globalized ministry? If the world is our parish, then I hope we can. What if we became the theological seminary that Dr. King would have called the successor of his vision, the Joshua of his Moses, and the realizing force of his dream? What if we too found the higher way? Dr. King knew what it would take for this vision to become a reality. He knew the type of person it would take for our world’s ethnicities to live together in harmony. He wrote:

“Only through inner spiritual transformation do we gain the strength to fight vigorously the evils of the world in a humble and loving spirit. The transformed nonconformist, moreover, never yields to the passive sort o f patience which is an excuse to do nothing. And his very transformation saves him from speaking irresponsible words which estrange without reconciling and from making hasty judgments which are blind to the necessity of social process. He recognizes that social change will not come overnight, yet he works as though it is an imminent possibility.

This hour in history needs a dedicated circle of transformed nonconformists. Our planet teeters on the brink of atomic annihilation’ dangerous passions of pride, hatred, and selfishness are enthroned in our lives; truth lies prostrate on the rugged hills of nameless cavalries; and men do reverence before the false gods of nationalism and materialism. The saving of our world from pending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority.”

I want to close today with a song from my heart. Nobody truly knows the trouble that Dr. King experienced in this life. Nobody knows the pain he endured birthing the movement that we now embrace. Nobody but Jesus. As I am beginning to learn, the great gospel singer Mahaliah Jackson inspired Dr. King and represented the sentiments of the movement of which Dr. King was a prominent leader. Jackson often sang these words. Only Jesus truly knows the man that gave his life for the America he loved so dearly…

Nobody knows the trouble I’ve seen
Nobody knows my sorrows
Nobody knows the trouble I’ve seen
Glory Hallelujah

Sometimes I’m up
Sometimes I’m down
Oh, yes Lord
Sometimes I’m almost hit the ground
Glory Hallelujah

Nobody knows the trouble I’ve seen
Nobody knows but Jesus
Nobody knows the trouble I’ve seen
Glory Hallelujah

Matthew 1: Unbelievable Stories

2009-01-04T14:43:00.005-05:00

Sometimes in our lives we meet extraordinary people. Theirs are stories to remember. Some of them approach unbelievable. I once knew a man at a restored Colonial Village. The Village sparked superstition in us all, and he catered weekend meetings for guests. I often heard him tell one ghost story that sent the blood from most faces. His tale was of an eighteenth century spirit who revealed herself to him once he invoked her presence. I knew him well enough to see that mischievous sparkle in his eye and saw that chuckle which betrayed his fable. His provocative stories were built upon no more than his admitted imagination.

Yet, in the course of life, if you listen careful enough, you’ll meet some man or woman wise in years or spirit whose stories are of another kind. You’ll find no rascal sparkle, and if pressed, these sages would give their lives to make sure you heard their message. These are truth tellers, and their tales are crafted with skill. You’ll know which is the sage and which is the rascal by their fruit. Listen to their tales, look beyond your expectations, and you may find that their story is your story. Their message will teach you that this world is so unexpectedly larger that your wildest imaginations.

Let your ears decide between truth and fiction. Examine your experience with honest abandon. You’ll know then. You’ll know whose unbelievable story smacks of supernatural myth and whose brings you the view of a world that stretches far beyond where our senses can reach or our information can develop us.

If you do, you may find a world of angels, magi and magical stars, yet filled with kings, and power, and heartbreaking relationships. These stories will speak of mystical things that relate step by step with the character of real human life; there will be death and murder, deception, rape, corruption. Yet, when the truth teller speaks of a larger reality expanding slowly from within ours, quietly breaking into human history as if springing from the very kind of seed that birthed ours, you may find our world as is should have been. You’ll find your release from oppression, a perspective that again captures your awe. And you may find a window that peers itself into your very living room. You’ll realize then that the story of the sage is your story and that your life too is captured within an unbelievable drama being woven and formed even as we speak.

For generations many have told the story of the Christ. The book that most know as Matthew gives us the unbelievable story of this man caught in the drama of human history yet living out a divine narrative. The author’s goal in this book is to reveal to you the truth about this man Jesus. When we open page one, we are swept across time and space not only by his birth narrative, but also by the opening few paragraphs, “This is the book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ a descendent of David a descendent of Abraham”. The words pull us into an expanse of history calling to mind the mystery of men and women emerging into this world formed as little people that grow into adults. For the ancients, the mystery of birth was found within the woman, “‘Before you were born, I knew you’, said the Lord. I knit you together in your mother’s womb”.

Yet, the author has much more in mind than to list an arbitrary list of grandfathers. He tells the story of identity, Jesus’ identity intricately intertwined with his people’s. It was made of divine encounters, a complex religious system, and lives lived in messy scandal.

If prudery were an ancient virtue, the author misbehaves unveiling the skeletons of Jesus’ family. Of the fifth generation of Abraham, the author includes information about a woman who was raped by her own brother. Listed here, Solomon here was not born from David and Bathsheba but from David and “the woman wed to Uriah”. His family had led the people away from their promises, and their nation was carried into exile invaded by another king. And the story of Jesus’ parents would seem at this point to fit in with the complex shame-filled history of Jesus family, “Jacob conceived Joseph the husband of Mary that delivered Jesus, the one called Christ”. This is not Joseph’s son. Yet, by giving the numbers fourteen in chunks of three, the author wants you to know that the heartache of this human family would watch in it born a prince among men. Of kings and empires this Christ, this “anointed one” would rise above his fathers to be given all authority on heaven and earth (Mt. 28). His rule would be a variation on that of his descendent David:

“Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One. ‘Let us break their chains,’ they say, ‘and throw off their rules’. The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord is amazed at their pride. Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying, ‘I have installed my King on Zion, my holy hill. I will proclaim the decree of the LORD’. He said to me, ‘You are my Son,’ today I have become your father. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. You will rule them with an iron scepter; you will dash them to pieces like pottery. Therefore, you kings of the earth, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him” (Psalm 2).

And this child, Jesus would be called the prince of peace, love incarnate, and the sage f sages. His variation would transcend his grandfather’s in expanse and quality. His kingdom would be of an earthly quality but transformed into a divine rule. And his life here would begin and end adrift in the power of Kings and empires.

Even if you were to have seen the birth of this prince, you wouldn’t have believed it either. The circumstances were unbelievable. Two young engaged Judeans in a small corner of the world themselves in turmoil. Their crisis would cleave them in two, and if it were for the intervention of parents, theirs would be a story of an aborted marriage.

Childhood and Spirituality

2008-11-09T18:01:00.004-05:00

Am reading a book on spirituality called, "Looking for Jesus" by Adrian Van Kaam. The premise of the book is that Jesus' speech in John 14 exists as Jesus' main directives on the spiritual life while awaiting his return. Came across one of those gotta-memorize paragraphs:

"To live spiritually is to preserve the spirit of childhood within myself, to regain it when it is lost, to restore its power when it is weakened. The opposite is pride. 'Every proud man is an abomination to the Lord; I assure you that he will not go unpunished.' (Pv. 16.5) His punishment is the loss of wonder and openness, of the sense of adventure that is the salt of life and love."*

I was particularly moved by the last sentence. The absence of wonder, openness, and adventure seem to me all parts of the shadow of discouragement, monotony, and then depression. Am slowly learning to step away from these damp places.

Would love to hear your thoughts. How do you remain in wonder, openness, and adventure?

*Adrian Van Kaam, Looking for Jesus (Denville: Dimension Books, 1978), pp.28.

Thought on Election Day

2008-11-04T15:54:00.002-05:00

I almost forgot how much energy an election day can create. Just on my way to work this morning I was walking through an intersection and passed by a sandwichboarded lady who first asked me what was in my lunch pail; then she asked me if I had voted yet. When I responded in the affirmative, she responded with an enthusiastic, "God bless you!" A few more steps and I had to stop to read a piece of white paper fixed to the staple-studded electricity pole.

"You can't trust Obama", it read. The paper filled itself with misquotes and the fear garbage so prevalent today. Most work-goers were in their cars anyway, so I'm sure not many saw this locally sprung initiative. Along with the closing of select institutions and the relvary of the 'I Voted' sticker, the day has already made some lasting memories on my mind. Finally, I have loved the small conversations here and there with the co-worker and with a friend over email. So much to take in and say all in one 24 hour festival.

Then, as chance would have it, I spent much of my day listening to Shane Claiborn speak. He and a few friends came through town today to offer their 'Jesus for President' message, which included a strong push to focus our attention back upon the church and to stop expecting the government to fulfill her role.

As I listened to Shane and company speak, images of the last two years came pouring through my mind and clips from last nights 'SNL Presidential Bash'. I thought of the election eight years ago as I was fined for staying past midnight in the girls dorm to watch the end of the election coverage with a group of friends. I thought of the election eight years ago, as Paul, Mark, and I convinced the airport worker in Athens Greece to play CNN all night long on the terminal tv so we could watch the blues and the reds come in. I thought of my slow journey from firm support of the Republican party to my slow support of the Democratic (that is a topic for another day).

And, the day is not over yet. In fact the best is yet to come. I look forward to the coming results tonight, but I look more forward to the next four years as I put together in my mind more of the fragmented thoughts over church-state, civil engagment, and political power that have yet to combine into one coherent theology for me. And, for the time being it is nice celebrating the freedom to vote in a good country.

David and Goliath via Timothy Keller

2008-10-27T21:56:00.003-04:00

I've heard two of the best sermons of my life in the last three weeks delivered by Manhattan Pastor Timothy Keller. Go here to check out his church: Redeemer Presbyterian. I was in New Jersey this week, an hours trip away from listening to the man himself. Unfortunately time did not allow. I really dig what this Presbyterian pastor has to say. Thus inspired, I wrote a little outline of his sermon on David and Goliath.

Keller begins with an observation: the coming of the Spirit is almost always associated with courage. His whole point, actually, is to show how this story points to true courage. He does so by subverting the majority reading of the text. Real courage, he claims, is not based on mustering enough confidence in oneself. Rather, it is the presence of joy. Real courage, Keller notes, is slowly kindled, not based in adrenaline, and is borne from wonder. His sermon is based in three sections: Saul (missing courage), Goliath (counterfeit courage), and David (true courage).

Like the rest of Israel, Saul had lost courage in the face of Goliath. Courage, notes Keller, is being able to do the right thing regardless of the danger and regardless of the consequences. Saul buckled in fear. Some say that our day is not in need of courage. Keller disagrees. Do you want to know about fear? Look at your nightmares. Courage is facing your greatest nightmare. Some are scared of death. Others are scared of loosing face and of humiliation. Some are people-pleasers based in their fear that they will not be loved. Our cowardness is everywhere. Fear, thus makes us self-absorbed and is the opposite of love.

Next, Keller outlines Goliath. He begins by overturning the majority interpretation. Most, says Keller, try to say that David is the example of courage and that if we just muster up enough faith in God, then we can beat him. No, he says. If you are really dealing with fear, and someone says, ‘Be like David’, you know it is a way too simplistic reading.

Modern readers, says Keller have a problem with this text, because we expect the detail-filled genre of the modern novel. Ancient Hebrew literature was quite the opposite; it worked hard to be narrativaly sparse. Yet, Goliath is given a very detailed description. Goliath, says Keller, moves into battle armored and as a mechanical definition of power. Thus the author of I Samuel outlines two different approaches to courage and dealing with fear in order to help the reader know the right way to be courageous. Goliath shows the world’s standards: he has physical strength, he is high tech, and he has self-esteem. Banishing fearful thoughts, like Goliath, and looking at yourself with confidence, is the example of what not to do. But this is defiantly the way the world does it. Visualize success. Think positively. But this type of thinking, says Keller is out of touch with reality and does not perceive danger well. Furthermore, he says, this type of adrenaline courage will not get anyone through a long-term experience that takes courage to make it through. We need something that overwhelms our fears, offsets our fears, and gets us to do things well in the swift moments of decisions.

Thus Keller lifts up David, as the author’s good example of true courage. David says, ‘I come against you in the name of the Lord almighty. It is true that we must have a David-like faith, but this is unhelpful. To chose this route, says Keller, would actually be a spiritualized version of Goliath’s faith.

Keller advises that we enter the story at the right place: not as David but as the cowardly Saul and all Israel. We are the cowards. Thus, God does not send an example for the cowards, but God sends a savior. In this way, the story is totally subversive from the usual interpretation. And this story lays the foundation for the future messiah. A savior is weak, and he is successful not in spite of his weaknesses but through it. He saves us through his weaknesses. Furthermore, the savior is representative fighting as them not for them.

The author of Hebrews points out that we should remember David, but we should fix our eyes on Christ (the champion). Jesus went to the ultimate valley of death and faced the nightmare beyond nightmares: having to face God with all the sinfulness and selfishness of humanity. Some would say, ‘If I’m brave, God will save me’. No, says Keller. This is the opposite of what the story is trying to tell us. Courage is not the absence of fear but the presence of Joy. If Jesus can face the ultimate fear, then we can face our tiny ones. Thus, Real courage is slowly kindled, not based in adrenaline and is borne from wonder.

Color Lines

2008-10-12T20:57:00.006-04:00

I've been thinking a lot about race and racism lately and came across this interesting exercise. It is supposed to get us thinking about the subtle ways that we participate in groupings and racial perceptions.

So, try it out.

To make the exercise most effective, ask yourself the following set of questions, then try to spend time examining your emotional reactions, and then try to capture your rawest thoughts as they unfold:

1. Do you believe in the segregation of races?

2. Do you believe that students should be bussed across county lines to create diverse high schools?

3. How would you feel if you had one neighbor who was from another race?

4. How would you feel if you lived in a neighborhood where you were the only member of your race?

------------------------::

Well, the questions are supposed to be progressive, as you can see. The first question seems antiquated, but only fifty years ago this was the conventional wisdom of our society.

The second question pushes the envelope some more. It gets at a person's willingness to intentionally create a diverse and multicultural society. I found myself more saying yes, thinking that the value of intercultural relationships is more important than convenience (a core value of our society).

The third question should also seem like a no-brainer. Again, this was one issue no long ago that conjured up volatility in our communities. I suspect while our general attitudes have changed in this area, the issues of interracial neighborhoods lies active and awake just beneath the surface of our society.

This fourth question packs the most punch. If your answer was something along the lines of, 'it would not bother me', you are either one of those rare new globalized people or you are somehow fooling yourself. For me, to ponder this hypothetical conjured up a host of emotions of which I was completely unaware. The vivid sense of otherness that I imagined placing upon my majority neighbors reminded me that while I believe in equality and fairness for all people, my perception of other peoples is fully loaded with fears and stereotypes that I often avoid in my small white rural town.

I wonder, how were the questions for you? What did you find? Were the questions though-provoking, or did you find them unhelpful?

picture from: http://theblacksentinel.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/band-aid.jpg

Our Evening Adventure

2008-10-04T23:13:00.001-04:00

Since Eve was off doing her youth ministry duties tonight, Claire and I made the most of our time together on this fall Saturday.

Our first stop was after her nap. We went to the local Mexican joint where we shared a booth. Her awareness for our business there was betrayed by her exuding speech, “Food…food here…dinner” as if to say, “Dad, do you know that we are going to get to eat here!”. She added unabated clapping to her monologue. And she was even more excited when I told her that we were going to get chips and dip (‘bip’ as she would say). I knew I was scoring big with her and things were off to a swimmingly well start. She did choke on a chip for a moment, which sent my pulse racing, but after she got the chip particle back up, she graciously offered me the soggy culprit.

The food was great. We both agreed. And when all was said and done, we left an empty plate once filled with a giant chicken-bean-rice-cheese burrito. My white t-shirt was surprisingly unstained and her brown frilly shirt was unsurprisingly soaked. She needs some more practice with a straw.

With dinner behind us we were off to the P-A-R-K. We arrived singing the ‘Wheels on the Bus’ song and chanting ‘park’ again and again. She fled from her car seat and the vehicle straight to her park appetizer: the swings. She always begins with the swings. This time was a little different, though. She had to try them all before heading to the slides. I’d buckle her in to the kiddie seat, and she’d take a few swings before pointing aimlessly and saying, ‘this one’. I think that’s what she was saying at least, confirmed by her contentment when I moved her one swing over. She tried them all on for size this day.

After our excursion to the slides and the rest of the playground apparatus, we headed for the nearby bridge (this is always next on her list). I think my favorite moment on the playground was when this adoring five year old girl stomped up to me and said, “sir, you know this is the big kids play area”. Not knowing if she was chiding me for intruding on this non-adult space or warning me about the lack of Claire’s age, she confirmed my confusion by then stating, “you know she could get hurt”. Half defensive, I struck back, “Well that is nice of you to care, but I’ll look after her”. Already doubting my ability to guide Claire safely atop the jungle-gym, now visions of Claire stumbling off the side of the playground haunted my thoughts. Funny how a nosy little girl can strike up such emotions in an ‘adult’.

Piloting Claire to the ground we were now off to the bridge. She ran onto the bridge and them past it heading for the open fields. She glibly noted the presence of the afternoon moon as its transparent shape was beginning to emerge in the light blue sky. How does she always notice it! I think: ‘right Claire. The moon in broad daylight. There goes your imagination again’. But assuredly, when I look up, there it is emerging in the east. I love having her around if for that one reason. She reminds me of the world I so often miss lost in some ‘important thought’.

In the field, the dusk came upon us quickly as we tumbled to and fro catching grasshoppers in our hands. Well, I was catching them and she was refusing to touch them. I forgot how far a grasshopper could jump for its size and the way it can tickle the inside of a closed fist-cage. Claire would tease me by opening her hand and saying, ‘touch, bug, too’. So I’d catch another one thinking that I could begin early avoiding in her the fear of bugs. So, I’d catch the hopper and say, “ready to touch?” “NO!”, she’d turn and run. I found myself wondering if she’d already learned fear of creepy crawly things or if it is just an innate human response. After the rousing session of hopper- clasping was through, I laid down in the field upon the prickly drought-scorched Kentucky grass and let her wander some. She’d explore, and I’d hear a hundred distant “Daddy’s” until she would come back with her find. I thus found myself with a handful of pretty flowers and dirt clods.

Of course we had our terrible-two’s moments along the way, but those didn’t matter compared to the quality time we spent. Laying down and looking at the fading blueness above me, I loved just seeing her with the trees and sky framing her spirally hair and the little pony tail erupting from the left-top of her head. She laughed and ran amidst the countless bugs in the air as the coolness of autumn was making one of its initial appearances.

We left with the good-byes to the park and the slides and the bridge and the field and the bugs and the moon. She had to kiss the swing before she’d let it go. She wouldn’t get into her car seat after making it clear that she wanted to ride home on my lap. I wanted to get on the move, so I struggled her into the apparatus with her tears accompanying the scene. This was perhaps the only blatant bad parenting that I produced, but I learned that I need to be more creative with getting her into her seat. But, a rousing round of the bus song calmed her down and re-focused her attention on the short ride home.

We ended the evening watching some t.v. together, and I put her to sleep after taking her on a short walk to see the now-blackened sky and its luminaries shining brightly. The moon, the stars, a distant plane with its blinking, and the breeze blowing through her de-tailed hair capped off our daddy-Claire time. “Good night moon. Good night stars. Good night sky. Good night outside”, she proclaimed.

As I kissed her goodnight in her crib and closed her door, I whispered “good night. I love you”. Through her pacifier she mumbled, “Love you too”. I tossed myself on the couch exhausted but thinking to myself, “I love being a daddy to a little girl”.

Schillebeeckx' Charge

2008-09-18T08:29:00.002-04:00

Edward Cornelis Florentius Alfonsus Schillebeeckx might boast of the coolest name among Belgian Dominican Roman Catholic theologians.

Pheme Perkins, a Roman Catholic scholar herself, might come in a close second. In her book about the life of Peter, Perkins concludes her introduction with this quote:

"The theologian's task is always finally apologetic. She or he must make Christian faith credible. Shillebeeckx has reminded us that credibility is not won by ignoring our history. Rather, we must recover from that history a credible, living memory to sustain the present and guide us into the future."

Trying not to miss Perkins' point as I dazzle in these great names, I began to think about the Christian's task of making faith credible. Do Christians really need to defend faith, or does God want to do that himself? What is the difference between defending faith (making something credible) and proclaiming the gospel faithfully? These are the questions of our times, yet at the same time they are not new.

Take for example the nineteenth century movement to defend Christianity against the rising tide of the enlightenment. Friedrich Schleiermacher (another cool name) helped launch a movement in the mid 1800's to preserve Christianity. The rise of the sciences offered new grounds on which to question the claim of Religion. So also did the general European culture begin to question the supernatural assertions of Christianity in particular. The shift of the European culture was so strong in the direction of reality based on the scientific method, that either Christianity would have to change its assertions or it would be in danger of becoming some folk religion relegated to the uneducated and dismissed as a credible system of life.

In order to preserve Christianity from such a fate, Schleiermacher and others began to discuss Christianity in light of the scientific method by harmonizing supernatural claims with scientific discovery. Ultimately, he spoke about "God Consciousness", a personal, spiritual, and emotional sensing of God. In the process, he would largely dismiss miracles, the resurrection, and other unscientific claims, but he helped preserve the image of faith from character assassination. He "made Christian faith credible", and the branches of liberal theology stretch into the twenty-first century and are alive and well today. Of course the roots of Christian fundamentalism begin in this age as well as other reactions to the cultural trends of 19th century Europe.

The fundamentalist movement reacted in the opposite direction as did the liberal theologians. They shunned scientific thought and held enlightenment questions at bay defending the detailed structures of Christian teaching as authoritative in itself. American fundamentalism began with the protestant Orthodox teacher Francis Turretin at Princeton Theological Seminary. Turretin, later succeeded by Charles Hodge, helped lay the foundation for the more radical forms of fundamentalism, even if they did not anticipate fundamentalism itself. While fundamentalism has seen its hay day, the branches of fundamental thought stretch into the twenty-first century often under the name of evangelical orthodoxy. While all evangelicals are not fundamentalists, movements such as Jerry Falwell's Liberty University and James Dobson's Focus on the Family exist as thriving fundamentalist evangelical institutions. These are passionate about preaching the gospel faithfully.

Of course the neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth funded by the thoughts of Soren Kierkegaard existed as the nineteenth century middle ground between liberalism and fundamentalism. Barth and the neo-orthodox movement tried to retain the themes of human corruption, salvation by faith alone, and the wholly otherness of God. At the same time, they embraced the use of historical and literary methods to examine the Bible and other key Christian theological texts. Furthermore, the neo-orthodox movement rejected the claims of natural theology and held on to "God's Word" as the source and norm of Christian theology. In their own way, they remained faithful to the proclamation of the gospel and tried to convince their age of the Christian faith. The branches of neo-orthodoxy also stretch healthily into the twenty-first century.

So what does this mean? Should our task be to make Christianity credible, or is ours another task? Surely the answer does not lie in the branches of fundamentalism. It is not enough to say merely that the Bible and Christianity are authoritative just because they are (although I believe that and more). The dangers of neo-colonialism are too great, and often this type of claim seems to me to be against the grain of Jesus' whole ministry. Rather than claiming authority based on his being, he came to demonstrate and convince. It is also probably not the best solution to try to make Christianity credible by adjusting its claims to fit a culture's trendy requirements.

Yet, I do think Perkins is right that the theologian's task is ultimately apologetic. The Christian task is to persuade that his or her faith experience and the set of Christian claims are the best way of life and that the gospel reflects the new creation that God is instituting on this earth. Schillebeeckx' point is well taken, that we should not do that by trying to cover up the past like some selfish politician. The Postmodern challenge to metanarrative exists for a reason: largely because of the human and the historical Christian use of their claims with motives of power. So we should take care not to only keep telling the story (the grand Christian metanarrative) but to live lives of love and to grow out of our narcissistic patterns of living and relating. Of course this is easier said than done.

At the end of the day, we have to come to terms with Christianity. The sorrowful strictures of fundamentalism and some strands of orthodox evangelicalism should not be our stumbling blocks nor should the wind-tossed branches of nineteenth century liberal theology. God does not need Christians to defend Him, but what he does ask for are disciples that will experience and embrace His new reality and faithfully convince others of the primacy of Jesus' way. If this is what Perkin's envisions, then I heartily agree with her and the good Father Schillebeeckx.

A Friend of Grace and Truth

2008-09-13T14:14:00.009-04:00

While reading through J. Alexander Findlay's Portrait of Peter today these words halted me:

"In the last chapter of the fourth Gospel we have a vivid story of Peter's

last personal encounter with his Master before the ascension. Jesus

had bidden the eleven to back to Galilee, where he would meet them,

and revive old associations before he left them to be with them forever"

Findlay, pp. 135-6

'He left them to be with them forever'. I've been thinking about the historicity of Christianity lately. Its roots within time and space make it, in ways, distinct from other world-religious claims. But that point aside, I've been fascinated with those who knew the earthly Jesus, ate with him, wondered at his apparent authority, and watched him relate to all levels of people (see Acts 10.39-43). We know that his followers and friends were struck by his person: "and the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father's only son, full of grace and truth" (Jn 1.14).

We can say a lot about Jesus' relationships, but what strikes me is how he enjoyed the company of people and infused his life into theirs; he said hard things, creatively challenged their patterns and assumptions, captured the attention of strangers and the devotion of his followers. Of course when they deserted him during his arrest, this casts a great shadow on things. Still, the extent to which they gave their lives for him before and after his resurrection is almost unbelievable. It seems to me that the love they felt from him was bolstered by their sense of fulfillment. Not only were their relational needs fulfilled in his presence, but his followers sensed a greater cosmic fulfillment both in their pre and post resurrections encounters of Jesus.

Given that these men and women regained Jesus in the flesh just after they witnessed his bloody death and they buried his cold body, you can imagine their sense of loss when they realized he was leaving them again. These knew the pain of gaining back their whole world in one day only to see it slip away next. Their son, brother, friend, teacher, healer, cousin, fellow human; their grace and truth incarnate drifted beyond their grasp.

'He left them to be with them forever'. There have been a handful of people in my life that have offered me consistent grace and truth, and it breaks my spirit to live thousands of miles from their eyes and ears and words. I suppose what strikes me about Findlay's comment is how it conjures both pensive sadness and immediate promise. 'I will be with you always' and 'he went to a place they could not go' is a harsh tension to live. Yet, to dwell in the reflections of these fortunate humans who lived with Jesus proves quite powerful. To hear their stories about him and hear what they wanted others to know about their bygone friend helps me tremendously.

When experiential religion spins me around and confuses my brain, it helps me to listen to the claims of these who cooked for Jesus and watched him enjoy- or pretend to enjoy- their recipe. When a 'relationship with Jesus' frustrates me because it is not tangible, I turn to these stories and learn who he is from their experience. It teaches and reminds me that he was and is a friend of unmatchable qualities.

What do you think? Does the experience of the eyewitnesses do much for you? How do you cope when an experiential relationship with Jesus seems hollow?

Neo-Nomads

2008-09-11T16:12:00.003-04:00

Following up from the last post, I wanted to write about one further thought.

Joe Myers makes an interesting claim that our society (likely the whole of the West) finds itself transitioning back from an agrarian society to nomadic. What he means is that we are in a crisis of belonging. When the family unit no longer lives 1.2 miles down the road with our farms stretching between, how then does a family stick together? Moreso, when they do not, how do we belong in our new and old nomadic groups?

I have experienced this dynamic at work, and likely you have too. Some chose to unfold their lives in the very place they were raised, but many, if not most, choose to leave. And for those who stay or return, they find that their cities and towns are full of new nomads.

How many times have you uprooted yourself and planted yourself anew? For me it has been a handful of times. Arriving to a new place with totally new people, have you struggled like me to know who you are or where to belong? How many times did you ask yourself, "where are all the people I connect with? Where are my potential friends?", only to spend a year or two establishing your lasting relationships. My wife felt the full impact of new nomadism as she began to raise our infant?

She was facing a real dillema. With no family or grandparents around, how was she to raise this child? The community of peers was great, but there is still a social taboo with expecting non family members to raise your child. Furthermore, she had to navagate the patterns of exclusive nuclearism that the agrarian society promotes. We lived in an area with three or four other new moms who all stayed to themselves, for the most part, as they raised their children. The social taboo of showing up uninvited was too stong to lend the women to expect surprise visits. This of course, puts pressure on the marriage unit as well leaving working fathers with more a load given the absence of his mother, father, sisters, and in-laws.

I, like many others, also have had an extended backpacking experience. Other friends of mine have lived three, six, twelve, or more months in a completely different country.

Myers would say that our crisis is one of belonging. How do we deal with a nomadic lifestyle, where family gets defined differently than when you are planted in the earth aside your nuclear family? Who then is your family, and how does a person find family-like intimacy on the move?Myers brought up a great point illustrating the ancient shift from nomadic life to agrarian. Theirs was a similar crisis, but with opposite circumstances. Think of some ancient stories.

Once, records Luke, when Jesus was visiting Jerusalem, his (nomadic) family left town without him. And how long did it take to realize he was gone? A whole day! Imagine parents, not seeing your child for a whole day. Well, the family had him, or so Mary and Joseph thought. Today in the West, if a child were traveling with his parents, if Jesus were missing for a half hour, his parents would have had local authorities involved immediately.

Myer's point is that we are transitioning back to a nomadic life, and we need to figure out what that means, and where and how to belong.

What do you think? Do you agree with Myers? If not, why? If so, what does this mean for our family and belonging? We need the support.

Are You My Best Friend?

2008-09-09T20:22:00.007-04:00

I went to a retreat this weekend that shook me to the core. The topic was "Belonging and Community". The speaker was Joe Myers author of "Organic Community" and "The Search to Belong". Joe challenged many of my assumptions about patterns of making friends and patterns of manipulation in intentional communities (like the church).

I'll start with the latter. Joe outlines (from his international research) four major areas of belonging: public, social, personal, and intimate. Each space has its own validity and purpose to fulfill our need to belong. Furthermore, the harmony of spaces should be weighted heavily on the public end; a healthy person will count on eight public experiences/spaces to every six social, two personal, and one intimate. If the balance tips the other way, according to Joe's research, with few public experiences and a good handful of intimate relationships, in each case the subject had a severe clinically diagnosed mental disorder.

Each space has its own function. Public space serves for us to exist safely without the expectation of social growth (like an NBA game. You are not expected to get to know those people who are sitting next to you, unless you came with them). Social space functions to remind us and to teach us who we are in the present community (a valid reason for just hosting a party). Personal space exists to support one another in our journey (think small groups). Finally, intimate space exists to fulfill the need for trusting our lives with another person (think one-on-one). The difference between personal and intimate is that of content. If a personal friend reveals some information you shared to them to the community you are embarrassed but not scarred. On the other hand, if an intimate friend reveals something you shared with them, you are embarrassed and even wounded by their deception.

The payoff is this: each space has its validity, and we should not try to manipulate one space to 'create community'. Down with ice-breakers! When we try to make a social space into personal space we violate the natural relationships growing in the room and drive people towards a more intimate space even if they do not want to.

Joe Myers has much more to say about this, but his bottom line is that these spaces exist, and we should do our best to create a natural harmony of spaces not forcing personal intimacy where it is not needed or wanted. We should be okay with having a party now an then, actually six parties. If we push the whole community towards intimacy as the highest level of friendship, our community will start filling itself with insane people.

Now about the pattern of making friends, Joe really sent me to bed on Sunday night frayed. Here is what did it. Part of his research included asking person "A" who their best friends were, and then he asked those 'best friends' if they would call person "A" their best friend too. According to his research, 70% of people call someone their best friend who does not reciprocate that sentiment.

I started thinking through my 'best friends' and realized very quickly that I am probably without much doubt in that 70%. This was a crisis for me. My gut reaction was to baton down the hatches and throw out my 'best friends' for good. But Joe's next point was very profound to me.

In the case of belonging: you do not chose who belongs to you; they do. If a person wants to belong to you, they do. Often the people that you want to chose you will likely not, while the people that you would like to hold at bay will chose you. In fact, there are people choosing you all the time. If you are like me, something about this gets under your skin and wiggles around a little bit.

The best gift any one can ever give you is the gift of their lives, to chose to belong to you. What a responsibility! Especially about the people I don't want hanging around. But how dare I, in my subtle ways, when a person choses to belong to me, transmit this message: you don't belong. And yet, isn't this what I do all the time!

Now, another of Joe's points is really important. When someone chooses you at an intimate level, you should not feel the burden to reciprocate at the same level. If a person wants to divulge their lives to you to fulfill that need in their life, it is okay for you to find only your social need met with this person. This pattern of belonging does not depend on reciprocity.

At this point I really struggle. I know one, maybe two people in my life that I could say, "sir, you really jive with me. When I'm around you, I could reveal all of me and more". But because I don't know if they will reciprocate or I know that they won't, I cut off the relationship. Now the criteria differs for each person, but everyone connects deeply with a certain type of person. For me it's something like a person who will listen to me, hear me out, ask questions, and who I feel is right there with me. They don't have to agree with me, but they at least could give me an 'Amen' and a challenge to any places where they disagree. I also like a person that I can adventure with.

Anything less than that, and I probably won't give them much access. But the challenge is this: what if I find that person, and I do not fulfill their friendship needs? Should I still try to pursue that friendship? Joe would say yes, and to be okay with that. Now, that is difficult for me to swallow but extremely freeing.. Joe's only advice: choose well. Choose somebody whose humanity is so great that they will let you pour yourself out on them and keep it secret. Choose somebody whose humanity is so great that when you choose to belong to them they will say, 'yes, you do belong'.

And if what Joe is saying is true, then what does it mean that God chose to belong to us? Despite our acceptance of him, despite our willingness to receive him, what does it mean that "I chose you first". If belonging depends not on the acceptance of any person but the one who chooses to belong to you, if the full weight of belonging depends on the one choosing to belong, how unbelievable is it that God would chose to belong to us? This is a new understanding of election. Even for those who say to God "You do not belong to me" that makes utterly no difference to the reality that God still chooses to belong to them.

This goes beyond our normal understanding of belonging, but then again the psalmist knew this already in ages past that 'the earth is the Lord's and everything in it'. It seems to me that this also was the great and core work of Jesus as he skewed patterns of ethnic bifurcation and revealed the potent reality that those who are in and those who are out will someday be an utter surprise even to all involved (cf. Matt 25). Of course if you take the Bible and the gospels to be close reflections of Jesus' words, you know that he spoke of an end day when there will be a great separation, but he also taught that we are not the ones to make that judgment (remember the parable of the weeds and the wheat. He has others chosen to distinguish between the two).

How do you react to all this? I would love to hear some thoughts as I process through Joe's work. What do you think about the four spaces and patterns of making friends? Do you think that belonging was Jesus' core work?

Pants to Hug a Waist.

2008-09-04T19:10:00.007-04:00

Things are changing in the Jagger's world.

Eve started her classes this week, somewhat happy to be back in school, somewhat worried about leaving full-time motherhood. Although she never wanted to be a stay-at-home mom, I know she is worried about making the switch back. She will do swimmingly well.

I am working full time with the multicultural ministries on campus, challenging the culture here towards a healthy interculturality. This is both a humbling and challenging task, but one that is pressing my skin to greater levels of thickness.

Claire is transitioning into toddlerhood, potty training herself, and learning the ropes of sharing...no small feat. I am constantly speechless at the amount of delight she can bring to me on her worst day.

We are all trying on communal living for size, sharing a ranch house with Tony and Kelly Grace. We get our own bedrooms of course but share living room, kitchen, food, study, and yard space. While the pitfalls of this experiment are many, we are absolutely loving the experience. We, in fact, like living this way more than we do alone. This in itself should provide for many good insights about community, individualism, and our patterns of relationships.

In the mean time, I am getting a type of two year sabbatical. Who knows really what is coming next? I am often pulled between the forces of the academy and the need for good teaching in local communities. We'll see where that leads.

For now, here is a good story that should make you laugh. Sitting at 'New Couple's Orientation' this year, Eve and I listened to the director's famous 'transition talk'. This is probably the third time I have heard it, and I never get tired of her wisdom about transition woes; moving from belonging, through displacement, to relocation, and through the patterns of reestablishing indeed does put you through the emotional car wash.

This time around a new element of the talk stood out: superficiality during replacement. The thought this: one way to deal with the emotions of reestablishing yourself is through patterns of superficiality.

I was struck funny when I realized that I was sitting there in my new Express for Men's pants. Never setting foot in that store before, the 32/34 pants were a rare find, fitting my waist better than any 34/34 pants I always buy under the pretense that, sometime soon, I plan to significantly grow my waistline by way of bulging abs. I finally gave that dream up, and am much more satisfied now with pants that really fit. Yet, after striking-out with Goodies and Kohls, I went to the Mall...

Confessions aside, I realized that I was drinking deeply in the wells of superficiality, and what can I say, it kind of worked. Superficiality probably isn't the best way to cope, but life is coming pretty quick, and I am learning to embrace it more in the process, just about as much as my new tight express pants are embracing me.

Further Response to Paul's Obama Thread

2008-07-11T12:30:00.003-04:00

Although, I would like to comment extensively on all that has been said recently, I want to state a few short points before some of the views posited are passed off as Christian. I am mostly concerned about what has been written on

1. Christ's relationship with government(s)

2. Perspectives on the nature of government

3. Judging Obama's testimony.

4. Rhetoric demeaning youth

First, two points. I affirm Jesus' Lordship. Second, I agree that democracy is the best system that we've got right now. Along with that, nobody is going to disagree with the point that humans and our system are imperfect.

1. The thought that Christians should somehow be -as much disengaged with this world as possible in hopes of a more perfect order coming someday- is more in line with the ancient gnostic movement than Orthodox Christianity which has strongly rejected gnostic dualisms. Some call what J.A.M.E.S suggests of Christians as a "Christ and Culture in Paradox" view, asking "what has Christ to do with this world"?

The Christian answer: everything and now. Paul even suggests in Romans 13 that government leaders are God-appointed and that we should obey them so as not to be punished by them. The earliest Christian response is that Christ will transform culture now through his people and often times despite his people. True, the early church (2nd-3rd centuries) chose not to participate in the army, in public office, or other general societal functions, but that is because to do so they had to repudiate their faith and bow to the emperor. We do not live in that same situation. Our government gives freedom of religion and allows us to participate without having to repudiate Christ.

Crifton gets it right. Christians are to participate in the transformation of culture, but I sense fear in his response, a hesitancy that our doctrine is somehow not ready for the task. This is not true, and we know that God already is working feverishly to transform the culture. I will suggest that we should try and choose a candidate that best resembles Christ, and the church should do its best to try get on board with God's transforming process. Neither candidate will fully resemble Christ, and we as a church have to weigh this.

2. I am concerned about J.A.M.E.S' views on the nature of government. First, to say that it is 'our observation and experiences show us that a more conservative position results in a higher standard of living for the people' means almost nothing to me. I have a big issue with this statement. Who is 'our', and what 'experience' are you talking about? In my estimation, this is only true for those who have the money to live the lives they want. And do not forget that it is the contemporary conservative political movement that plans to strictly impose its moral regulations upon the society, creating an environment quite opposite to your vision of freedom of life.

3. And in regards to judging Obama's testimony. Let the church be most careful here. We mustmbalance and weigh the words, actions, and beliefs of our brothers and sisters before we glibly dismiss their testimony. This is called a 'sin against the Spirit' if we are wrong. This is all the more important, because Obama has given testimony that he is a Christian. And to say that he is not a Christian because he judges wrongly on abortion is not enough to reject his testimony. It is our job to pray for him, confront him, and speak fluently in the many facets of the abortion debate. This is more important than any of us can know.

4. And content of the conversation aside, about J.A.M.E.S' rhetoric against youth, I find this inappropriate. You should realize that rhetoric like this gives disservice to your content. When I see you using rhetoric like Churchill's quote and chalking things up to phases, I think, 'you do not know my age nor my political views, nor my context for that matter'. It makes me feel insulted and sad, and I hope that you do not actually think your statements about youth and phases are true, because there are other factors involved in this election other than hype. It seems to me J.A.M.E.S. that you do a disservice to your good mind by speaking this way.