How did Salvation take over the Gospel?

Here is something from "The King Jesus Gospel" that I found particularly fascinating. Enjoy!

     What happened? How did we develop a salvation culture out of a gospel culture? How did "evangelicals" become "soterians"? Or, when did the "gospel" become the Plan of Salvation? It began in many ways with Augustine, but its more focused beginning was in the Reformation, though it did not happen during the Reformation. We can pinpoint the documents themselves that both provide evidence for the shift that was underway and that also provide the foundation for creating a salvation culture. Those two documents, one from the Lutheran wing and one from the Calvinist/Reformed wing, are the Augsburg Confession and the Genevan Confession.
      But before we get there, my own confession. Cutting out the inevitable nonsense that accompanies everything humans do, including Calvin's wretched decisions that led to the burning of Servetus, Luther's wretched beliefs about Jews and his wretched decisions about the Anabaptists, and wretched tendencies of the Anabaptist sectarian to think of themselves as the only people of God, I believe the Reformation was a profound work of God that both enlivened the church and altered Western European history for the better. the singular contribution of the Reformation, in all three directions -- Lutheran, Reformed, and Anabaptist -- was that the gravity of the gospel was shifted toward human response and personal responsibility and the development of the gospel as speaking into the responsibility.
     This is not to deny the important and real differences between these three movements, but it is to say that the one things that emerged in each was a heavy sense of the need for personal salvation. I do not mean that such was not found in Roman Catholicism; rather, the Reformation said, in effect, that the "gospel" must lead to personal salvation- and the rest is history.
      But with that emphasis, regardless of how important is was and remains, came a price. The gospel culture began to shift to a salvation culture. Our contemporary equation of the word gospel with the Plan of Salvation came about because of developments from and after the Reformation.

"When I read todays thin and superficial reductions of the gospel to simple points, I know that that could never have happened apart from the Reformation. I also know that it didn't happen during the Reformation itself but as a result of the Reformation's reframing of the apostolic gospel-become-creed."-Scot McKnight

Now, briefly, the two documents mentioned above. I begin with the Augsburg Confession. The Reformation statements focused on the elements of the Christian faith that led to their differences with the Catholic Church, but in so doing the Reformation churches did not deny the Nicene Creed. Instead, they reframed the faith in ways that provided a lens through which they now saw the creed itself.
     In 1530, Philip Melanchthon presented to Charles V at the Diet of Augsburg a confession built of conclusions that were forming among the Lutheran Protestants. I draw attention here to the order and substance of this confession, which need to be seen over and against the classical order and substance of the Nicene Creed. Nicea framed things through God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, and the God the Son articles were derived from 1 Corinthians 15. The Augsburg Confession converted the order of the "articles" into sections on salvation and justification by faith. It is precisely here that a "gospel culture" was reshaped into a "salvation culture" or, better yet, "justification culture." Here are the central categories of the Lutheran Confession:

God as Triune [as at Nicea]

Original Sin [major reshaping idea]

The Son of God [as with Nicea and Chalcedon [propitiation of God's wrath]

Justification by Faith

Then the Augsburg Confession covers the office of ministry, the new obedience, the church, baptism, the Holy Supper, confession, repentance, sacraments, order in the church, church usage, civil cause of sin, and a lengthy discussion of faith and good works, and it concludes with the cult of the saints before it discusses matters about which the Reformers were in serious dispute. I wish to make only one point: the Lutheran Confession framed the gospel in terms of salvation. It would not be inaccurate to say that the gospel "story became soteriology," or the story of Israel/Bible/Jesus became the System of Salvation.

     The Reformation did not deny the gospel story and it did not deny the creeds. Instead, it put everything into a new order and into a new place. Time and developments have somehow eroded the much more balanced combination of gospel culture and salvation culture in the Reformation to where today a salvation culture has eclipsed the gospel culture. What is important is that the genius of the Reformation's focusing of the gospel on salvation by faith alone comes to the fore also in the Genevan Confession. Like the Augsburg Confession, the Genevan Confession is framed even more by a salvation culture. 

-Scot McKnight "The King Jesus Gospel" pg 70-72

15 things I learned in 2011

Today I turn 25! Seeing as my birthday in near the end of the year its always rather easy for me to recap my year. Here is a little bit about what I learned in 2011 ...

(In no particular order)

1. Faithfulness is not the equivalent to practicality. Sermons and bible studies are always climaxing with a practical point. I found that their are aspects of following Jesus that aren't going to be all that practical.
2. I am a pacifist. Those who know me are probably surprised by this but I aspire to be free from violence and aggression. Its been quite hard! Like my pastor Dru says, "you can't solve the problems of this world with the solutions of this world." This has also effected my stance on the "pro-life" issue as well. Life is life! Fetus, infant, child, adult, soldier, civilian ... life!
3. Premillennial rapture theology is just silly. Especially zionism!
4. I let my guard down with Genesis 1-3. I am not defending creationism, I am not advocating evolution. But, I am not convinced that the creation account is defending one position over the other quite yet.
5. I learned that my feelings, and my desires are not bullet proof guides in discerning God's will. There is far to much assuming the goes on in relation to knowing and discerning God's will. People treat God as if he is either a determinist, or a deist. In typical Seth fashion ... I disagree.
6. It is unfair for me to generalize women based off of the women I know.
7. ALL relationships are valuable. Don't ignore your relationships with friends of the same sex because the lessons you learn from them will probably be priceless if you ever get married. Of course, from me this is mere speculation.
8. I have gained more peace about the possibility of not marrying. What I understand marriage to be is something I want but, within my culture and, what marriage means to most, it is often not the same. 
9. Music doesn't matter all that much to me anymore. If I couldn't use music to proclaim and announce the Kingdom I would want to find something else to do, even more than I already do! I still love music, its just not the "end all be all" it used to be.
10. I actually care about politics. I found a candidate that I believe in and support, Ron Paul!
11. I don't believe the official repost about 9/11. I am not convinced that the terrorist who carried out the attacks of 9/11 were middle-eastern, radical muslims. I don't believe both WTC towers fell because a Boeing 757 hit each one. I don't believe an office fire caused WTC 7 to collapse. And, I am skeptical that a plane even hit the Pentagon. 
12. I enjoy soccer. Especially USMNT!
13. I have soul! The Lord has really helped me become a bass player this year. ... I play blues!
14. I am learning not to be defensive. I have very little to defend and as soon as I get on the defensive, I am in big trouble and I alienate people and their points of view.
15. Sometimes people will walk away and leave you, even whole families. It sucks! But, you can't strong arm people into reconciliation. It may take months or years - it may never happen - but you have to maintain that willingness to reconcile so that when it does, you are ready and willing.

"The cosmos is a temple"-John H. Walton

In some of the ancient near eastern text, a temple is built as a conclusion to cosmic creation. But typically these are distinct through related acts. The natural association between them is that the creative acts are expressions of authority, and the the temple is the place where authority will continue to be exercised. Beyond this textual and ideological association, we can see that texts like creation and temple building by noting the absence of temples along with the absence of cosmic order as they recount the acts of creation. Thus the absence of  temple was sometimes part of the description of the pre-cosmic condition.

... Across the ancient Near East the temples were considered primordial and that cosmic origins at times were defined in terms of a temple element. It is important to reiterate that I am not suggesting that the Israelites are borrowing from these ancient literatures. Instead the literatures show how people thought in the ancient world, and as we examine Genesis, we can see that Israelites thought in similar ways.
    We can draw the connection between temple and cosmos more tightly when we observe that temples in the ancient world were considered symbols of the cosmos. The biblical text as well as the literature of the ancient Near East makes it clear. Ancient Near Eastern evidence comes from a variety of cultures and sources.

Both Sumerian and Egyptian texts identify the temple as the place from which the sun rises: "Your interior is where the sun rises, endowed with wide-spreading plenty." The egyptian temples served as models of the cosmos in which the floor represented the earth and the ceiling represented the sky. Columns and wall decorations represented plant life. Jan Assmann, presenting this imagery, concludes that the temple "was the world that the omnipresent god filled to it limits." Indeed, the temple is, for all intents and purposes, the cosmos. This interrelationship makes it possible for the temple to be the center from which order in the cosmos in maintained.

In the biblical text the descriptions of the tabernacle and temple contain many transparent connections to the cosmos. This connection was explicitly recognized as early as the second century A.D. in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus. who says of the tabernacle: "every one of these objects is intended to recall and represent the universe." In the outer courtyard were representations of various aspects of cosmic geography. Most important are the water basin, which 1 Kings 7:23-26 designates "sea," and the bronze pillars of the earth. The horizontal axis in the temple was arranged in the same order as the vertical axis in the cosmos. From the courtyard, which contained the elements outside the organized cosmos (cosmic waters and pillars of the earth), one would move into the organized cosmos as he entered the antechamber. Here were the Menorah, the Table of Bread and the incense alter. In the Pentateuch's descriptions of the tabernacle, the lamp and its olive oil are provided for "light" (especially Ex 25:6; 35:14; Num 4:9) The word for light is the same word used to describe the celestial bodies in day four (rather than calling them sun and moon). As the Menorah represented the light provided by God, the "bread of the Presence" (Ex 25:30) represented food provided by God. The altar of incense provided a sweet-smelling cloud across the face of the veil that separated the two chambers. If we transpose from the horizontal axis to the vertical, the veil separated the earthly sphere, with its functions, from the heavenly sphere, where God dwells. This latter was represented in the holy of holies, where the footstool of the throne of God (the ark) was placed. Thus the veil served the same symbolic function as the firmament. To review then, the courtyard represented the cosmic spheres outside of the organized cosmos (sea and pillars). The antechamber held the representation of lights and food. The veil separated the heavens and earth- the place of God's presence from the place of human habitation.
     Scholars have also recognized that the temple and tabernacle contain a lot of imagery from the Garden of Eden. They note that gardens commonly adjoined sacred pace in the ancient world. Furthermore the imagery of fertile waters flowing from the presence of the deity to bring abundance to the earth is well-known image.

"The garden of Eden is not viewed by the author of Genesis simply as a piece of Mesopotamian farmland, but as an archetypal sanctuary, that is a place where God dwells and where man should worship him. Many of the features of the garden may also be found in later sanctuaries particularly the tabernacle of Jerusalem temple. These parallels suggest that the garden itself is understood as a sort of sanctuary."

So the waters flowing through the garden in Genesis 2 are paralleled by the waters flowing from the temple in Ezekial 47:1-12(cf. Ps 46:4; Zech 14:8; Rev 22:1-2). This is one of the most common images in the iconography of the ancient world. Consequently we may conclude that the Garden of Eden was sacred space and the temple/tabernacle contained imagery of the garden and the cosmos. All the ideas are interlinked. The temple is a microcosm, and Eden is represented in the antechamber that serves as sacred space adjoining the Presence of God as an archetypal sanctuary.
     From the idea that the temple was considered a mini cosmos, it is easy to move to the idea that the cosmos could be viewed as a temple. This is more difficult to document in the ancient would because of the polytheistic nature of their religion. If the whole cosmos were viewed as a single temple, which god would it belong to? Where would temples of the other gods be? Nevertheless it can still be affirmed that creation texts can and do follow the model of temple-building texts, in this way at least likening the cosmos to a temple.
     In the OT, polytheism would not interfere with the association of cosmos and temple, and indeed the connection is made. Isaiah 66:1-2 is the clearest text.

This is what the Lord says: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be? Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?" declares the Lord.

Here we can see the elements of a cosmos-sized temple, a connection between temple and rest, and a connection between creation and temple. This in itself is sufficient to see that the cosmos can be viewed as a temple. That is precisely what we are proposing as the premise of Genesis 1: that it should be understood as an account of functional origins of the cosmos as a temple. Other passages in the OT that suggest the cosmos be viewed as temple include 1 Kings 8:27, where in his prayer dedicating the temple, Solomon says, "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain you. How much less this temple that I have built?" In another, Isaiah 6:3, the seraphim chant, "Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord Almighty, the whole earth is full of his glory." The "glory" that the earth is full of is the same as that which comes and takes up residence in the holy of holies in Exodus 40:34.

1. In the Bible and in the ancient Near East the temple is viewed as a microcosm.

2. The temple is designed with the imagery of the cosmos.

3. The temple is related to the functions of the cosmos.

4. The creation of the temple is paralleled to the creation of the cosmos.

5. In the Bible the cosmos can be viewed as a temple.

     When this information is combined with the discoveries of the last chapter- that deity rest in a temple, and that therefor Genesis 1 would be views as a temple text- we gain a different perspective on the nature of the Genesis creation account. Genesis 1 can now be seen as a creation account focusing on the cosmos as a temple. It is describing the creation of the cosmic temple with all of its functions and with God dwelling in its midst. This is what makes fat seven so significant, because without God taking up his dwelling in its midst, the (cosmic) temple does not exist. The most central truth to the creation account is that this world is a place God's presence. Though all of the functions are anthropocentric, meeting the needs of humanity, the cosmic temple is theocentric, with God's presence serving as the defining element of existence. This represents a change that has taken place over the sevens days. Prior to day one, God's spirit was active over the nonfunctional cosmos; God was involved but had not yet taken up his residence. The establishment of the functional cosmic temple is effectuated by God taking up his residence on day seven. This gives us a before/after view of God's role."

(Taken from "The lost world of Genesis One" by John H. Walton. Proposition 8: The Cosmos is a Temple. pages 78-85.

This video will get you in the ballpark with the position that John Walton so vigorously proposes. The bibles narrative, along side ancient cosmology, explains functional origins, not material origins. 

Which terrorist are to be held culpable for 9/11?

Last night I watched this documentary called "Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup"

In this film they diagnose the facts surrounding the events of 9/11 from multiple angles and what they have discovered is unnerving. I would really encourage all of you to watch this documentary. There are many unanswered questions surrounding the events of 9/11 but the most unanimous assumption surrounding those events is that it was a terrorist attack ... but who exactly are the terrorist? This is far to compelling to simply be brushed aside ...

Also, hear what the worlds leading architects have to say about the collapse of WTC 7:

What do you think?

Marriage vs. singleness?

First, the episode within Matthew 19 depicts Jesus' response to the Pharisees questions concerning divorce- ironically we have, and can, gain insight as to what Jesus believes marriage is- and is not. But, let us remember that Jesus is addressing divorce- not marriage and singleness. This passage is often quoted by many single men and women within a ministerial position to justify their status (or so I have noticed)

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I  say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. (Jesus is responding to the Pharisees here, so there understanding of the law needs to be taken into view)

Now the disciples are intrigued as they are looking on and listening to Jesus' current run in with the religious order of the day- their questions engender a sort of appeal ... sounds more like a dummy check to see if they understood what Jesus was saying.

      The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”-(Matthew 19:1-12 ESV)

Correct me if I a wrong but the "saying" that Jesus is referring to, the one that not everyone can receive, is that "it is better not to marry." It would be hard to imagine Jesus giving a position that was against marriage- but it would be equally as odd to imagine Jesus stating that one way (singleness) was better than the other (marriage). Jesus then makes an example out of the eunuchs and explains the different means to becoming a eunuch:

1. Eunuch from birth.
2. Eunuch due to castration.
3. Eunuchs due to celibacy (self control).

All of these forms of eunuchism are understood to be for the sake of the Kingdom, but the odd detail is that the aspect of his polemic that is it understood to be something that "not everyone can receive" hinges upon the individuals sexual desires and sex drive- leastways, that is the impression that I am getting. At this point the conversation moves into a broader framework for me- the Kingdom is comprised of both married couples and singles. Indeed, single individuals are a byproduct of sexual intercourse between 2 individuals and the only way for that to be ordained within God's good creation is marriage. At multiple points in Israel's history God commanded his people to be fruitful and to fill the earth and subdue it.

So, my position dwindles down to this. I am not convinced that singleness is more "Kingdom" than marriage. However, I am not comfortable saying that for every individual the choice is exclusively their own- as a christian, Jesus is Lord. He wants to partner with us! If we are the church and Jesus is our head then the pathway through life, whether that means by way of singleness or marriage, needs to be something the Lord ordains and arranges- and we submit to. I don't think its healthy to emphasize the need for one and not the other as they are both positions advocated by both Jesus, and Paul. My personal struggle is not to adopt a superiority complex now that says "I am single, and while you married people look happy, you shouldn't be because you are a spiritual failure (as one blogger has put it) rather its allowing the fruitfulness of God's mission for creation to be unraveled within the interesting relationships of the church body- comprised of both married couples and single individuals. Also, if I assume that position (and I will not) I would potentially be placing myself between a rock and a hard spot should I feel called by God to enter into a marital covenant in the future. Whoops! I think a big problem for us within this culture context is that marriage is something we have entitled ourselves to (we even believe that God has someone for all of us) We live in a society where the government will better meet your needs if you are married, and most churches won't hire you into a full time position unless you are married. The seems to be an emphasis upon the wrong vision.

A key point for me to remind myself of is that marriage is NOT about sexual desires, or romantic desires. Rather, marriage is about partnering together, committing ourselves to one another in order to establish God's kingdom in the here and now. Intimate relationships exist outside the confines of both marriage and sexual intimacy. However, for the purpose of procreation within the context of God's Kingdom the 2 must be married.  Obviously, this conversation is quite slippery! I haven't even introduced Paul's writings into this conversation BUT we need to learn to interpret Paul through Jesus' eyes ... not vice versa!

Indeed, it is not good for man to be alone but thankfully we have one another- marriage certificate or not.

Did Jesus preach the gospel?

These videos will get you in the ballpark as to what Scot McKnight has been kicking up so much dirt about as of late in his new book "The King Jesus Gospel" Though I have not read the book yet I have been following the dialogue surrounding the book rather closely. He ask a simple question: did Jesus preach the gospel? McKnight is confronting the tendency of so many people to interpret Jesus by way of Paul instead of interpreting Paul through Jesus. So, the question still stands, did Jesus preach the gospel? This gives rise to the obvious question of what is the gospel?

Dilemna: Nationalistic patriotism and the call of the Kingdom (Part 1?)

I would breifly like to get somethings off of my chest but before I start I want to make it clear that I am deeply sympathetic towards those who lost loved ones on September 11th, 2001 ( as well as every other day of the year) and I wish that this had never happened at all. But, the current dilemma is that it has actually happened and we now find ourselves in a time of distress.

In the wake of the 10 year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks I can't help but marvel at the actions of not only the typical christian laymen within America, but also church officials. There is so much noise in the areas of theology that in this day and age it is so often times a challenge to hear the truth for having to navigating through not only the various teachings of the day but also the biases implanted in our thinking- which are otherwise a product of growing up in such a society as we do here in America. I am learning this lesson on a daily basis! So when it comes to such things as terrorist attacks on "God's most favored nation", the practice of military advance, or protection, through force (more specifically the act of killing), or the recitation of the pledge of allegiance during a church service, you can't help but feel the tension that you are now engaged in an internal battle to separate what God envisioned for the world in Jesus from what political systems of the day expect of us. Most will often cite Romans 13 as vindication for pledging ones allegiance to their political power but does one ever stop to ponder how this mentality hurt christian men who found themselves subject to the governing authorities of the 1930's and 1040's in nazi Germany? Surely the forest has been missed for the trees when one exegetes Romans 13 and dismisses Romans 12.

There are deterministic theologies out there that say that God is sovereign over all and through all- thus, God is the cause of all things both good and bad. I, as well as many others, label this as a fatalistic theology precisely because that is what this branch of thinking facilitates. Clearly, Jesus never taught that God was the CAUSE of all things- but this is not to say that God is not sovereign THROUGH all things. Prominent eschatologies, especially in America, seem to give the impression that things must get worst before they can get better (enter: the second coming OR the "rapture" if you lived after 1860) and so we are alright praising God for the bad because eventually it will get so bad that Christ will have to return but we (the church) will be spared of all of this. This interpretation is often dubbed "escapist theology". Perhaps there are American soldiers fighting right now who have been heavily influenced by such despensational, premillenial theologies that, given their theological positions, they only seek to embolden young men and women who are engaged in the war on terror (what a silly idea) because, as such Zionist ideals play out, the middle east is the real enemy through whom the anti-christ will enact his final attempts to usurp the people of God, aka America. Where does this fit into the person of Jesus? The same Messiah who commanded us to love our enemies, pray for them, feed them, and clothe them is going to predispose his return with a military advancement upon the enemies of America? ... it simply does not fit! I am not calling for what some call the "abolition of war" as I recognize that we live in a world of war and conflict. I truly wish to entertain the question, with serious inquisition, as to what is the christians role in all of this? I fear that we cannot end war all together but we can do something about christian involvement in such things.

"Jesus is Lord"

Such a proclaim is remarkable. It is obvious that so many of us often lose sight of the fact that proclaiming Jesus' Lordship over our lives has immediate implication for our lives as ambassadors of another kingdom in the here and now- not just in America but all of the earth! "Lord" is an empirical term- it recognizes headship and authority. If you are a christian than Jesus is your king and you represent this kingdom! How is it that we lose sight of this as soon as the world's largest political power goes to war or experiences a moment of vulnerability?

What an odd response that so many came up with in light of the deaths of innocent men and women when a terrorist attack finally penetrated the shores of America. What did we do? In 2001 the American people were encouraged to go shopping and, in 2011, on the 10 year anniversary of that horrible event, we find ourselves pledging our ALLEGIANCE to the flag of America ... in our churches! Do we really believe that those trapped in the twin towers on 9/11 died FOR America? Rather, did they not actually die BECAUSE of America? And our response to all of this? We wave flags, salute America, and proclaim "God bless America!" What about the rest of the world? Are we not reverberating the same ideals of the Israelites when we put our nation above the rest? I just don't get it! It hurts my very being to see such uncritical patriotism at play in the world and in our churches! Further more, I don't see anyone ever being able to forget about the acts of violence America experienced on 9/11. No one forgets the very people they hate and despise! I feel that most Americans wish horrible things for middle easterners- instead of praying for them. In the hours following the assassination of Osama Bin Laden I was confronted by a woman who was opposed to my opposition of christians rejoicing in his death. Her response was this: "I wish we could have arrested him so we could have shown him a bit of hell before we sent him to hell!" ... Is this how Christ would speak of ANYONE?

I do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater here so I will state that there are times when our governments enact Christ-like justice, and there are times when we meet the needs of the downtrodden. However, to me, it is more about what we do when they fail to do these things? Do we simply bypass that reality in light of the times that they did good? It surprises me that I find myself in the minority amongst Christian's that believe violence and killing is anti-Kingdom! Actually, most people I know believe murder is a sin but, when in war it is permissible. If there was any point that Jesus made clear it was that killing was a sin, and violence was not the way of the Kingdom of God.

So, I have pledged my allegiance to the Kingdom of God. The recitation of any other pledge, in church or out, is strictly prohibited. Evil is real and and it is present in our world. As the Kingdom of God we are called to be the light and salt of the Earth- a light that reveals the nature of God for the Earth and the salt that preserves it!

Jesus is Lord therefore Caesar is not!

So, i've been reading Bonhoeffer as of late ...

"The followers of Christ have been called to peace and they must not only have peace but also make it. And to that end they renounce all violence and tumult. In the cause of Christ nothing is to be gained by such methods. His disciples keep the peace by choosing to endure suffering themselves rather than inflict it on others. They maintain fellowship where others would break it off. They renounce hatred and wrong. In so doing they over-come evil with good, and establish the peace of God in the midst of a world of war and hate."-Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Living amid the fragments of insufficient ethics.

"One of the ironies of the current situation is that the attempts to deny that ethics responds to the peculiarity of our current social and historic situation only makes us more subject to that situation. We are told that we live in a morally bankrupt age. People think what was at one time unthinkable; indeed they do what was once unthinkable ... We experience our world as so morally chaotic that we now feel our only alternative is for each person "to choose," if not create, the standards by which they will live.

I suspect that the experience of the world as morally adrift has a more profound source than the mere observation that people are permitted to do what was once unthinkable. Our disquiet about morality more likely arises from within us. Even though we feel strongly about abortion, divorce, dishonesty, and so on, we are not sure why we feel as we do, And the less sure we are of the reasons for our beliefs, the more dogmatically we hold to them as our only still point in a morally chaotic world. Ironically, our dogmatism only masks our more profound doubt, for although we hold certain moral convictions adamantly, we secretly suspect that we believe what we do because we have been conditioned. We hold certain beliefs as if they are unconditioned, yet are impressed with the knowledge that all beliefs are the result of environment, and thus at least potentially arbitrary. That very acknowledgment seems then to reduce all moral disagreements to subjective opinions about which there can be no argument.

This lurking suspicion that we really have no firm grounds for our beliefs makes us all the more unwilling to expose what we think to critical scrutiny. We thus take refuge among others who think as we do, hoping sheer numbers will protect us from the knowledge of the uncertainty. Or sometimes we suppose that if we think deeply and critically about our moral convictions, we will be able to supply adequate justification for what we believe. In both cases we assume that "ethics' must be able to provide the means for preventing our world from falling into a deeper moral chaos.

... Underlying such a view of morality is the presupposition that we are required by our own predicament to make up our "own minds" about what is good and bad. Indeed, those who do so with determination are seen as morally exemplary because they act autonomously rather than uncritically accept convention. But the very notion we are "choosing" or "making up" our morality contains the seeds of its own destruction, for moral authenticity seems to require that morality be not a matter of one's own shaping, but something that shapes one. We do not create moral values, principles, virtues; rather they constitute a life for us to appropriate. The very idea that we choose what is valuable undermines our confidence in its worth. In many ways the current popularity that "ethics" enjoys is odd, for most people most of the time would prefer not to have to think about what is the right or wrong thing to do. They simply want to get on with the living of their lives: to fall in love, raise families, have satisfying professions, support decent and worthwhile institutions."

Taken from: "The Peaceable Kingdom: A primer in christian ethics" by Stanley Hauerwas

The insufficiency of ethnical shaping to which Hauerwas is appealing to is something I have seen all to often in our culture. Can we critically come together and be a people who are shaped by our moral and ethical convictions? In an interview, Hauerwas has this to say in response to his "impractical and unlikely" claim as a "christian pacifist" a position in which he thinks that one cannot exist without the other:

"I fear that one of the reasons non-violence isn't given the time of day is because so many American Christians think they can have a relationship with Jesus that doesn't have immediate implications for their lives."-Stanley Hauerwas

I would only add that many American christians cannot clearly see the dichotomy of "american" with "christianity" because so many of these individuals read scripture, and understand Jesus, in light of their uncritical patriotism and nationalism. Howard A. Snyder muses upon this point in his book "Salvation Means Creation Healed: The Ecology of Sin and Grace," He says ...

"Uncritical patriotism is a long-standing dynamic in American history- as it is in many places in the world. Love of country is good and proper, of course. But, when it leads to disregard for the welfare of other lands and peoples, it becomes a plague. When patriotism or nationalism turns into ideology, and when criticism of our own government becomes unpatriotic, we are in grave danger. Uncritical patriotism leads to idolatry."-Howard A. Snyder

Been thinkin' as of late ...

I just spend the last 3 weeks on the road. I traveled up to Bushnell, Illinois for Cornerstone. From there we traveled through Chicago, Wisconsin and Minnesota to play a few shows and work with the local churches there. It was a great encouragement to see the kindness and generosity of people- even complete strangers. From Minnesota I flew with my friend Bradley to Houston in order to lead worship at a camp. The purpose of this blog was inspired by my observations made along this journey, some of which were confirmed by spending around 20 hours in 3 different airports consecutively and simply watching people.

Let me start this off by saying that I feel that the reality of the Kingdom of God, the fusion of Heaven with Earth, includes more than just a "spiritual awakening to an invisible Creator" that, by which, inspires me to live a better, more moral life. I wouldn't throw out this aspect of this reality but I would not dare to replace it with such. The kingdom of God is evident in our hearts, our minds, and our actions- its exactly how the Kingdom is being established in the here and now. We are in fact ushering in that "appearance"...

For a few years now, and more intensely as of late, I have been pondering the "imago dei". As I see it, this is essentially the basis of any model of "in Christ" rhetoric that is said to be a present reality foreshadowing a future hope. This has been the question I have continually asked myself concerning all of my life decisions. Can I do ___ and still bear the image of God in Christ? This is a hard thing to weed your way through, especially when we live in such a narcissistic society that masquerades such self-centeredness around under the veil of entitlement. So I ask myself these questions now ...

Can I still bear Christ' image and take the life of another?

Can I still bear Christ' image and go on vacation?

Vacation is such a staple in our culture. But, I wonder if people ever think about the idea of being served, and consumed with yourself and your desires, to ever be at conflict with the person of Jesus? I have only met a hand full of people who would share this opinion with me but this does not surprise me. Now, I must fight against the legalistic stereotypes while not allowing the labels of society to deter me from asking myself the tough, and necessary questions that need to be asked.

One of my favorite chapters in all of scripture starts off with the idea of surrender.

"I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect"-Romans 12:1-2

Give me your input and lets see where and how we can sharpen one another.

Love,
Seth

Crucify the bastard ...

Lately I have been asking myself a question; a question that is becoming more and more necessary for me to ask. I truly want to reflect Jesus and I want to experience that transformation from self-consumed indulgence to an "other-oriented" heart and mind. Here is what I do not want: I don't want to fool myself into believing that to achieve this means that I must simply swallow how I truly feel, at which point this transformation will come because I have exemplified some form of pseudo-ignorance. I want the real thing- not the emotional manipulation that we are used to. I don't want to feel one way and act another way. Most of all, when I am hurting, I do not want to feel obligated to just smile- I want to desire to smile. I don't want any faking ... from myself and from others. I want the things we talk about to be true. I want the people we are to be true. No obligations.

There is a bastard in me- a person who wants revenge, who wants to achieve great things, He wants comfort, and He wants to be respected. This person wants to be right, and he wants to be left alone. But, this person is raging war with the true person I want to be. (sounds like dualism on a personal level) I find myself crucifying this bastard all of the time. He is not wanted and I have no desire to keep him and nurture him. I want him dead, on a cross- a sport for the crows.

I have to constantly sift through my thoughts and emotions to avoid this bastards influence. So, I ask you: Who is the bastard in you that you need to crucify?

Knowing ...

I have been thinking about this recently and I guess its about time I wrote a blog about it. 

Have you ever wondered what it meant when the writers of Scripture used the term "knew" like in Genesis 4:1; 1 Samuel 1:19; or Matthew 1:25? In this context it is speaking to a sexual intimacy but I want to stretch this a little further and suggest that "knowing" another, sexual intercourse aside, is exactly what God wants for us and the communities that we inhabit. This vernacular of "knowing" is how I understand foreknowledge when it is spoken of in the NT- "God fore-loved us before the foundation of the earth." I think all of us can agree that there is a bond that happens between 2 individuals when they are honest and vulnerable with one another- within the context of these verses we could use the word naked. I think that there is something to all of this that we all may know but may not realize- I am walking into this realization myself- that is this: because of Jesus' death we have been reconciled back to God, we do not need a high priest to offer up a sacrifice for our sins now because Jesus was the high priest who became the spot less lamb that justified us despite our sin. We can know God directly because of Jesus. Most of the time when I read someone's religious views on facebook it says something to the effect of "its not a religion, its a relationship" and I agree. So if we use this relationship between God and man (which is the definition of theology) to model the rest of our relationships, how then should we model our relationships, which are intended to be a reflection of the triune love of God? I think most of my failed relationships have been the product of someone who isn't being honest. Please do not assume that because I write this blog that I am always forthcoming with my emotions and feelings. I try ...

The reason I pose the question is because I realize how scared we all are. We all have baggage and we are all scared of what people will think of us if that baggage is made known. This isn't intended to be directed at any certain type of person- it is intended for all people. If you are completely open with our hearts- great. But, if someone is open with you about their heart- guard it! It has been my growing conviction that when people expose their baggage to me it only amplifies the love and affection I previously had for them. Remember we are called to humble ourselves, serve others, and associate with the lowly! I want to love and be loved; I believe this is what God made us for. Sorry, Chris Tomlin! (not really) 

This is an encouragement to remember that God knows us and we are to know God. We are to bear his image. Maybe we can work towards being vulnerable with one another, thereby, bonding together! I just know that there is something to be learned from all of this. 

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’-Jesus (Matthew 7:21-23)

WARNING: You may not like what you find ... love them anyways. If you can't do it in love, don't do it! God, I need to hear that as much as anyone!

Seth

Pebbles and hot irons ...

I found my old video camera recently and decided to watch some of the old videos I had made over the years. There were videos of me in different studios, road trips, hiking adventures, and shows. I remember thinking a couple of things- First: damn I was a fat dude. Second: I look so carefree.

Its so hard for me to remember so much of who I was. It sounds sad but the way I utilize my time and my thought process are so completely different now. I know one thing was for certain- I was all about me and my goals. All I knew back then was that I wanted to play music. I didn't care so much about others- I only really cared when they got in my way. I was all about me- me, me, me! But, what really upset me was that as I thought about who I used to be I started to think of people I know now- older, same age, and younger.

Nowadays so much of who I am in centered on others. I observe people and im always looking for solutions for myself and the people I meet. I wont lie, or even pretend- life is as hard as hell now. I thank God for this change but at times I often wish for a reprise- a chance to come up for a fresh breath. Maybe I am some sort of glory whore in the sense that I wish I had more like-minded friends- to assume that my mind is the way a mind should be: no, not all together. It is such a bummer to know that the one thing you want to talk about is the one thing that others will barricade themselves from really talking about.

All of that to say this- this morning I found this video and it made me realize something about my video camera. The puddles that the author had thrown his rock into were actually me. It was my puddle, my rock, my toss. It just look a second take for me to feel it. Did I do this to myself?

Go to vimeo.com and search for "Reservoirs of Grief"

Perhaps I am fortunate to have had this camera and to have been able to document this stuff unknowingly ... right now it feels like I have a parking garage strapped to my back.

Gender bender ...

My hope for this blog is that it will become a vessel for conversation- by conversation I mean exactly that. What I am about to propose in this blog may hit people in an odd spot but for the most part it is a conviction of mine that I am only going to vaguely paint for you- and I will be using very broad strokes in so doing. There is faith and reason on the one hand and in the other we find imagination and emotion on the other ... the tricky part is find a bridge between the 2 so that they become coterminous, where it is appropriate, while retaining separate where is it necessary also.

*disclaimer* DO NOT assume that I am pointing a finger, rather, I am trying to become more clear on this topic and would love your involvement. Lets seek truth together.

It is my conviction that, for the most part, based off of what I know, the sort of theology that is being taught to young men and women, in relationship to the opposite sex, on either a cordial or an intimate level, is harmful because it seems to be dissonant on a pretty elementary level and its surprising to see the amount of passivity towards it.

Let me explain ...

I have heard many women portray both the "men and women are equal" and "men are the leaders" ideology in the same conversations. I will admit that when discussing this topic there is, to a degree, a bit of ambiguity. But, I am not so certain that this "cognitive dissonance" is without blemish and can remain innocent. And this isn't even my point ...

The cognitive dissonance within this topic takes yet another step in an unhealthy and ambiguous direction when it says that "the perfect man looks like Jesus" ...

Let me explain ...

The goal of submission to Jesus' Lordship is for us to bear God's image as Christ did- the Bible gives us multiple examples of this "divine image"- for by so doing we reflect the Kingdom of God and participate in the establishment of that Kingdom in the here and now.

1. I am uncomfortable knowing that women say "the perfect man looks like Jesus" as this seems to ignore the fact that we are all called, as followers of Christ, to deny ourselves and take up our cross daily, put off the old self, discern good from evil, etc. We are ALL called to reflect God's image.

2. From this standpoint, and from my interactions with multiple females on this topic, I am noticing that in our society we believe that women represent purity and by so assuming this we become enamored by the cultural assumption that women are pure and innocent. Is this true? ...

Given these 2 variables (foundational variables as they are so taught) I think the tension is becoming clear. Men are taught to be Christ-like (roughly) and women are taught to find Christ-like men. Two problems arise in my thought process immediately: 1. Men are taught to pursue Holiness (some form of pseudo morality leadership amplification program rather) while women, as it is the cultural assumption, are already there by default (enter the pure and innocent generalization towards women) ... I don't believe anyone is pure and innocent. 2. Men are finding value and life in the females acknowledgement to their "Christ-likeness" ... I think these ideals lack grace and humility too an unnerving degree and, by enforcing this theology, both men and women have both become, and made others into idols- this includes both genders. Example: I know of one female who will not marry a man who is not a virgin (???) We live in a society that chooses to pursue God through things rather than going directly to God- it sort of spits on the face of Christ sacrifice if you think about it. I don't like this model because it is way to easy for guys to get hurt and for girls to walk away unscathed and as pure as ever, it also eliminates the part of relationships that is co-labor-some- how do you serve someone when the focus on you being served? . How do we urge young women in that same direction if they are already under the assumption that they represent purity and innocence? In the context of Ephesians 5, Paul speaks of marriage as a means of sanctification- a means of holiness, a process. Are we actually hurting ourselves when we have been taught that this is how we are to protect ourselves?

"Sanctification- the state of being sanctified. The state of growing in divine grace as a result of Christian commitment after baptism or conversion."-Mirriam-Webster

My vision of leadership is not the same as the "flag-ship" or the "reconnaissance" model that so many men and women hold to. I envision the covenant of marriage working best from a side by side model ... not one in front of the other with one leading the way. We are called to participate in the establishment of the Kingdom together, as one!

Again, please remember that the strokes by which I am painting this much broader picture are very broad themselves ... if need be I can clarify things further. But, id enjoy hearing for you.

Thoughts?

The complexity & simplicity of love.

I feel like love is complex. It has been made more and more clear to me that the creation of man was an expression of love and that the redemption of that expression was in fact redeemed by yet another expression of love in Jesus. To say that love is complex probably isn't doing it justice but I wonder how much of love we complicate. How many unnecessary boundaries do we place around love and forgiveness? Even forgiveness is an expression of love. How many of the complexities of love do we over emphasize at the expense of side stepping the "less complex" aspects of being a community that is indeed a reflection of the triune love of the trinity? I am not trying to manufacture anything here or force anyone's hand but maybe our environment has become such that it has enamored us from being more. At this point, judging things from the biblical model in relation to the community I see around me, the communities I periodically come into contact with, and even the global community of God- I cant help but wonder "have we set the bar to low?"

When I was a kid I admired a few bands- from The Smashing Pumpkins, to Radiohead, to Deftones, I was completely enamored by them- especially the guitarist! I would get tablature books for whole albums and try my hand at mimicking the songs note for note. To me, this was the standard for being a great musician. The music they wrote was the only music that mattered, the way they dressed was how "good" musicians dressed, the gear they played was what anyone with a brain would obviously play. But, as I grew older I became increasingly aware that this was just one take of a broader picture within the framework of music and even spirituality. Early on I thought that spirituality and rock music were at odds with one another so depending on which of the 2 I was indulging in I had to suppress my "wild side" The older I got, and the more I got out, the more I became aware that their were people who were fusing both heavy music with spirituality and making great strides in doing so. At this point, and ever since, I have not been so great at separating the music I play from the Lord I have submitted my life to. At points there was music that was completely against my worldview and, as it was dragging me down, I got rid of it. However, with out continually growing in my understanding of music, the world, and people, I would not have ever broken that mindset ... who knows, it could have deeply shaped me in a way that would look totally different that the person I am today.

So what does this have to do with love and forgiveness? Quite a bit! It is important that we never think to ourselves that we have "got it" or that "we understand"or that we have found a more palatable standard by which to gauge these virtues. This all ties directly back into the complexities of love- if we water down aspects of being Christ-like we are neglecting to view Calvary in its proper respect. 

Maybe in our minds we envision love as "this" or "that" and we find the things we want in a person before we can love them with our whole heart. I submit to you that in doing this you are fashioning an idol. This idol may never make its way into your life (in the form of Mr. or Mrs. Perfect), and it may, but you will be diluting your love down to some sort of exclusive affection that, given Christ, does NOT exist. But, I don't want to dwindle love down into the vein of marriage as if it is the "end all be all". But, if that be the case it would be best to keep in mind that we are in a marital covenant with Christ- the body of Christ, his bride! IF marriage is the "complex" side of love to us now lets not forget that as Christians we are already married. Lets leave behind this model in light of Christ and seek to always love and serve one another. 

Love is as simple and complex as we could ever imagine ... no one needs to be reminded as this more than myself. I just want a healthy balance.

Love,

Seth

What's on the ole thinker as of late.

I have been thinking quite a bit about ... A LOT! Im gonna use this blog to just spew a few thoughts and if anyone has any dialogue to add I would love to hear it.

1. I have given quite a bit of thought to the polarization's between the Kingdom of God and our American government. I am at a lost as to how lop sided this argument is BUT, regardless, the people of America who associate themselves with the body of Christ are so easily compelled to neglect the teachings of Jesus and Paul to serve this country and join in some sort of Just war as if justice was ours to administer. I think by having this mindset we set ourselves up to neglect humility and servitude- 2 ethics that are central to Christendom. People often say that John Calvin was the most influential theologian of all time but im thinking that it was probably Constantine. He really set things in motion for the fusion of American values and Christian ethics- this is not to assume that they aligned themselves, this is to say that people often assume that American values are a reflection of Christianity. However, there are those who feel that they are not being biblical christians because they are not submitting to the "laws of the land" ... this is a conversation that the church really needs to have. Christians in general need to become more conditioned to asking questions.

2. Im seeing and hearing of more and more women making criticisms of males. I think this is backwards. I feel that in making these sort of assessments that we forget that we are called, both men and women to reflect God! Holiness and righteousness are the goal. I don't want to fall victim to the compartmentalizing of genders as to neglect in bearing the image of God. The first step in biblical leadership, either male or female, is submission to Jesus' lordship- his rule. Good leaders, from a Biblical standpoint, are lead! Jesus is the way to the Father- we lead people to him! amen.

3. I have come to the realization that despite my natural tendencies and inclinations I, being submitted to Christ' lordship, I find myself realizing that I am a pacifist. Does this mean that I am passive? No! This means that I will never resort to physical violence because it is what Jesus taught ... even as I say that I feel the tension and the weariness to uphold that creep in around me. MY vernacular will remain the same, but it will never manifest itself into a physical attack. Man, if all of my old buds new that I was a pacifist they would be so disappointed.

4. Still working out my thoughts concerning my previous blog- I think I am seeing a few loop holes. I will be addressing them shortly.

Love,
Seth

Here goes something ...

Been trying to think of ways to put this and I definitely want to do some more research concerning this topic but here goes ...

As I imagine it, if you were to draw a soteriological line and look down that line from say creation in the Old Testament towards the second coming you would not be able to see the future Eschaton without looking directly through Jesus. But when people stand, as New Testament believers, and look back towards the ontological end(Old Testament) of this line we see God in the Old Testament kicking ass and taking names. He is commanding armies to kill and He is using acts nature to judge sin. However, in order to apply that theology to the identity of God in Jesus I feel that most people are abandoning the same Jesus that they viewed the Eschaton through in there attempts to peer back into the Old Testament; as if God still uses weather and militaries to enact his judgement and wrath on mankind. It deeply saddens me that people hear of an earthquake, or a tsunami, and say "God is judging them for their sin!" Its hard to reconcile that within the person of Jesus, who died for all sin- past, present, and future.

I think Jesus changed things and when we move the interaction of God with His creation in the Old Testament and try to reconcile that to the present day, post-calvary, Kingdom come, etc. and say that God is STILL doing that I feel that we have abandoned Jesus in that assessment.

Jesus changed things ... don't you think?

Losing my mind?

Most of the time I feel like a madman. I see so many people walking around with a peace of mind that I can only envy. I can't help but view this world through the lens of the Gospel and as a side effect I often ponder everything ranging from a persons possible motives to the mindset that engenders their actions. I can't help but view myself most critically ... It just looks so nice to be able to set all of this aside and just watch a movie- some mindless task, enough to just let my mind rest and let my conscience surface long enough to catch a breath.

I have to pause every so often, take a look around, and wonder "what does it mean?" ... I can't help but consider the cost for everything that we have been offered. Its getting to the point that I can't function socially because I am constantly chewing on something; trying to figure it out or understand it (especially how to apply it to my life) Its an unending journey with obstacles around every corner.

So, I find myself wondering if I need some sort of aesthetic release? Do I need solitude? Do I need help- mentally? What will it take to set my mind at ease? After all, I just want enough time to hear my friends before their words and gestures become lost due to an overbearing conscience! Is this a problem all of my own? Are their others out their like me? It seems like the pursuit of God has stunted my relationships with other believers ... but why?

Maybe, at the end of the day I just want the same things for my friends that I want for myself. I want to know that this is achieving some sort of good within my community ...

The Great Exchange

"I am singing of a violent, timeless mystery; that one would give his life to save his enemies."-Thrice

Not to make a mountain out of an ant hill, but, there was just so much transpiring at Calvary and we may never be able to grasp that. Such love that we are called imitate ...

Divine goodness and the Intolerable compliment.

Little by little I have been weaving the reading of "The problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis through all my other reading. As I look back I have realized that the past 5 books I have read have been attempts to give a thorough theodicy. In chapter 3 of Lewis' "The problem of Pain" he really makes some astounding points, points that find their corruption in the question of pain in our world that is governed by a loving God. The question he is attempting to reconcile is "how does pain exist in a world created by a God who is also good?" Though Lewis is simply commentating on this topic, and never affirms that he considers himself anything more than a layman, he certainly picks the brain. I will admit that his view of love is one very comparable to my own (one I had prior to reading this book) ... maybe that is why I loved this chapter so much? Call me biased. Many christians flock to Lewis for penning "The chronicles of Narnia" but I think that when people get over the magic of Narnia and walk into this mans mind we see so much more.

In Lewis' own words:

Christ calls men to repent- a call which would be meaningless if God's standards were sheerly different from that which they already knew and failed to practice. He appeals to our existing moral judgement-'Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?' (Luke 12:57) God in the Old Testament expostulates with men on the basis of their own conceptions of gratitude, fidelity, and fair play: and puts Himself, as it were, at the bar before His own creatures-'What iniquity have your fathers found in me, that they are gone far from me?' (Jeremiah 2:5) After the preliminaries it will, I hope, be safe to suggest that some conceptions of the Divine goodness with tend to dominate our thought, though seldom expressed in so many words, are open to criticism.


By the goodness of God we mean nowadays almost exclusively His lovingness; and in this we may be right. And by Love, in this context, most of us mean kindness-- the desire to see others than the self happy; not happy in this way or in that, but just happy. What would really satisfy us would be a God who said of anything we happened to like doing, "What does it matter so long as they are contented?" We want, in fact, no so much a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven-- a senile benevolence who, as they say, 'liked to see young people enjoying themselves', and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of each day, 'a good time was had by all'. Not many people, I admit, would formulate a theology in precisely those terms: but a conception not very different lurks at the back of many minds. I do not claim to be an exception: I should very much like to live in a universe which was governed on such lines But since it is abundantly clear that I don't, and since I have reason to believe, nevertheless, that God is Love, I conclude that my conception of love needs correction.


I might, indeed, have learned, even from the poets, that Love is something more stern and splendid that mere kindness: that even the love between the sexes is, as in Dante, ' a lord of terrible aspect'. There is kindness in love, but love and kindness are not coterminous, and when kindness (in the sense given above) is separated from the other elements of Love, it involves a certain fundamental indifference to its object- we have all met people whose kindness to animals is constantly leading them to kill animals lest they should suffer. Kindness, merely as such, cares not whether its object becomes good or bad, provided only that it escapes suffering. As Scripture points out, it is bastards who are spoiled: the legitimate sons who are to carry on the family tradition, are punished. (Hebrews 12:8) It is for people we care nothing about that we demand happiness on any terms: with our friends, our lovers, our children, we are exacting and would rather see them suffer much than be happy in contemptible and estranging modes. If God is love, He is, by definition, something more than mere kindness. And it appears, from all the records, that though He has often rebuked us and condemned us, He has never regarded us with contempt. He has paid us the intolerable compliment of loving us, in the deepest, most tragic, most inexorable sense.


We are not metaphorically but in very truth, a Divine work of art, something that God is making, and therefore something with which He will not be satisfied until it has a certain character. Here again we come up against what I have called the 'intolerable compliment'. Over a sketch made idly to amuse a child, an artist may not take much trouble: he may be content to let it go even though it is not exactly as he meant it to be. But over the great picture of his life-- the work which he loves, though in a different fashion, as intensely as a man loves a woman or a mother of a child-- he will take endless trouble-- and would, doubtless, thereby give endless trouble to the picture if it were sentient. One can imagine a sentient picture, after being rubbed and scraped and recommended for the tenth time, wishing that it were only a thumbnail sketch whose making was over in a minute. In the same way, it is natural for us to wish that God had designed for us a less glorious and less arduous destiny; but then we are wishing not for more love but for less.

Later on Lewis parallels the love of God and man between that of a man and a dog to show the differences in perception of love in the 2 ...

Great merit lies in the fact that the association of man and dog is primarily for the man's sake: he takes the dog that he may love it, not that is may love him, and that is may serve him, not that he may serve it. Yet at the same time, the dog's interest are not sacrificed to the man's. The one end (that he may love it) cannot be fully attained unless it also, in its fashion, loves him, nor can it serve him unless he, in a different fashion, serves it. Not just because the dog is by human standards one of the 'best' of irrational creatures, and a proper object for a man to love- of course, with that degree and kind of love which is proper to such an object, and not with silly anthropomorphic exaggerations- man interferes with the dog and makes it more lovable than it was in mere nature. In its state of nature it has a smell, and habits, which frustrate man's love: he washes it, house-trains it, teaches it not to steal, and is so enabled to love it completely. To the puppy the whole proceeding would seem, it it were a theologian, to cast grave doubts on the 'goodness' of man: but the full-grown and full-trained dog, larger, healthier, and longer-lived than the wild dog, and admitted, as it were by Grace, to a whole world of affections, loyalties, interests, and comforts entirely beyond its animal destiny, would have no such doubts. It will be noted that the man (I am speaking throughout the good man) takes all these pains with the dog, and gives all these pains to the dog, only it is an animal high in the scale- because it is so nearly lovably that it is worth his while to make it fully lovable. He does not house-train the earwig or give baths to centipedes. We may wish, indeed, that we were of so little account to God that He left us alone to follow our natural impulses- that he would give over trying to train us into something so unlike our natural selves; but once again, we are asking not for more love, but less love.


When Christianity says that God loves man, it means that God loves man: not that He has some 'disinterested' because really indifferent, concern for our welfare, but that, in awful and surprising truth, we are objects of His love. You asked for a loving God: you have one. God's love, far from being caused by goodness IN the object, causes all goodness which the object has, loving it first into existence and then into real, though derivative, lovability. God is goodness. He can give good, but cannot need or get it. In that sense all His love is, as it were, bottomlessly selfless by very definition; it has everything to give and nothing to receive. Hence, if God sometimes speaks as though the Impassible could suffer passion, and eternal fullness could be in want, and in want of those beings on whom it bestows all from their bare existence upwards, can this mean only, if it means anything intelligible BY us, that God of mere miracle has made Himself able so to hunger and created IN Himself that which we can satisfy. If he requires us, the requirement is of His own choosing."

-C.S. Lewis

The Adjustment Bureau

"Calvinist angels employed by an Open Theistic God ..."

Last night I went to see "The Adjustment Bureau" with some of my dearest friends. I remember seeing the preview for this movie last year, we saw Robin Hood the night before we left for Chile on May 15th and "The Adjustment Bureau" was previewed there. I remember the impression that the trailer left me with, "this movie is a take of God's sovereignty" and upon actually seeing the movie I can say that that parallel, and that struggle was present in the movie. I will admit, for me this movie was very frustrating and uncomfortable to watch. Now, while I can see why Ed Stetzer and Dave Ramsey were tweeting about this movie being a modern day take on the struggle between Calvinism and Arminianism, if you ask me this movie portrayed a nice re-enactment of the open theistic model of God's sovereignty.  One of the key points of Open Theism is that human and angelic agents are not pre-ordained to make such and such decisions, because both humans and angels have free will- as a result the choices we do make cause a ripple effect through out our lives and the people that, at any point, come in to contact with us or the byproducts of the choices we make. There were points in the movie where the Bureau stalks the couple and says "we have to prevent this from happening because it will create a ripple and this whole thing will be harder to prevent." This is a beautiful, but can often times be demonic, way to show how we have not evolved towards perfection like biology likes to claim, but rather that we are warring against the wills of an unseen force, both Divine and angelic ... but also we are warring against the wills of one another. The second big point of the movie that stresses the open view of God's sovereignty is that Ben's character was thwarting the will set forth before Him. I think this is where the Calvinistic thought process comes to light; no matter the interactions, the emotions, the sheer humanity of this man, his choices had been made for him and he needs to abide to that plan- which is definitely not free will. Maybe we misunderstand God's will in this way?

I think what hit me the most was how much I can relate to the main characters struggle. After I put aside the philosophical articulations of God's sovereignty and human free will I saw different aspects. In the movie "the bureau" occupied a 2 fold position- to some they were the good guys, and to others they were the bad. However, the agents weren't aware of what the plan was, they just knew that they had to follow it. So for me this movie was more of a reflection of spiritual warfare. The warfare motif is something that is amplified and stressed to the max within the view of open theism. I see David's struggle to maintain his drive and focus on what he knows is right despite the opposition from those, who have a considerable advantage over him- id say because of their vantage point. These agents can actually, to some degree, see how the choices he makes will or will not effect him and many others. I can say that I know what it is like to be opposed by a force with a higher vantage point than my own. There were times when the agents would come to David and tell him that the choices he is making are not ones that will make the most of his life or Elise's life (he is a politician with a promise to become president and she is a world class ballerina). But, this is to disregard the unity of the 2 individuals. I am not one to talk about that sort of thing but in the movie the advantage that David had over the Bureau was that he could feel the situation; the agents spoke from a formulaic aspect as opposed to David's very aesthetic standpoint- by this, he struggles to make sense of the 2 opposing vantage points. David decides to abandon his relationship with Elise because he buys into the Bureau's plan, but it was until he finds out that she is getting married that he is once again lifted back up to fight this battle. He grabs Elise in a bathroom before she is to be wed and starts proclaiming his love and filling her in on everything that has happened (which makes him sound crazy), she naturally freaks out, but she follows him as they flee from the pursuing agents who are now out to seize them and erase their memories. At a point, Elise becomes overwhelmed and stops running and says "what is going on? I do not understand?" (she actually asked for an explanation) ... He just looks her in the eyes and says something to the effect of "you can go back through that door and walk away or you can trust me." Needless to say she trust him and they continue running. David decides that the only possible way to make his love for Elise work is to re-write the "plan" so he heads that the agencies headquarters, He is going to negotiate with the "Chairman" (who is never revealed in the movie but is given the impression that he occupies the position of "God").

When ever they reach the headquarters they are being pursued by many many agents and the scene concludes on the roof of the headquarters. They realize that this is it, they are about to have their memories erased, so they make the most of their last moments by professing their love for one another. When they look up all of the agents have disappeared except one. He tells them that because Elise trusted David and chose to follow him (instead of taking the doorway back to regular life) that that decision altered the plan ... the plan changed. The "chairman", despite the choices of David and Elise, and the plan for David and Elise (which separately would have meant very successful lives in their professions).

2 things-

1. the Chairman re-wrote the plan. This is a typical standpoint of open theism. The plan is not set in stone but the outcome is. God is working for the good despite our inabilities.

2. Separately they had 2 different opposing destinies. Together they had 1 destiny that shadowed all the other destinies in light of their love. Maybe i'm a sap but I couldn't help but be drawn in by that. If you remember, the cornerstone that became the deciding factor for the Chairman to re-write the plan was Elise's decision. She could have said yes to David long ago BUT given her enlightenment to the situation, and her determination despite that, the plan actually worked out to her benefit. Also, I think love becomes a more amplified virtue when your free will to love or not to love is reciprocated by another free will that has chosen to love you instead of not loving you. 2 for 1! Maybe what truly re-writes things is that people love one another and work together. Love is not easy and though love is seen as a gain in society (and it is ... in its proper context) it will also cost you quite a bit (i.e. Jesus)

Rob Bell has said "love wins" ... maybe he is right in a less eschatological sense? Thats what Jesus was teaching us ... advance the Kingdom of God by reflecting my light.

"Free will is a gift that you'll never know how to use (I add "for good") until you learn how to fight for it"-The Adjustment Bureau

Our natural inclination, because of sin, is to abuse free will ... maybe we all need to learn to use our free will to fight for what is good and the victory that has been promised to us?!

We all know what it is to intend to do something good & to do something bad instead. Aristotle called it "akrasia" or "weakness of will" ... maybe our intentions and our outcomes need a more thorough reevaluation?


#lovewins

Jesus as celebrity worship?

I have had many beneficial conversations this weekend with great friends of mine. I am always so thankful to have friends, but I am exceedingly thankful that I have friends who can dialogue with me about the things that really need to be talked about. In typical Seth fashion, I confronted a friend about their lack of vigor in the scriptures. What really truly worried me was that this person leads small groups, and Bible studies simply because it is assumed, since they grew up in the church and around christians, that he has the "know how" to facilitate a Bible study. I had always had my suspicions of this individual. You can look at someone's orthodoxy on the premiss of their orthopraxy so often that you really don't have to do as much digging as you probably thought. Some may call this "judging" and it is, using discernment to judge a fellow Christian is neither wrong, nor should it be discouraged. However,  I would encourage you to take a read into what Jesus says in Matthew 7 about judging others. The point of this blog is not to critique any sort of specific principle from a few selected bible verses, or to voice my opinion on a topical matter but its to involve you in my thought process surrounding this individual, and many of the same caliber.

If you have read my previous blogs you know how I feel about the modern view of good and bad. I argue that this assumed backdrop is not based on Jesus, or scripture, but it is rather based off of an emotional response in conjuncture to whatever experiences the individuals have had. The whole idea of good and bad has permeated our understanding of scripture and thus engendered a movement of morality that is, often assumed, equivalent to the Gospel of Jesus. What I have seen is that people are becoming more concerned with looking like Jesus instead of knowing Jesus. One time I had a student approach me after a wednesday night service and confessed that he was having sex with his girlfriend, this situation for him was particularly sticky because she was not a believer. He asked "what should I do?" and I thought for a moment and said "You need to spend more time with Jesus, bro!" you looked at me and said "I know man, I want to! But, what do I do about having sex?!" ... He was surprised to find out that his real problem (not knowing Jesus deeper) was in fact his answer to all his other shortcomings! Now, I don't know that this student took my advice in a practical manner but I told him what I thought the truth was. Afterwards, a youth leader asked me what the student had wanted and I told him about our conversation. The leader became irritated that I had not told the student to stop having sex. Really, the student knew he needed to stop having sex ... but he needed to be reminded of something bigger.

I couldn't help but ponder what good abstinence is, or is not, if the person doesn't know Jesus? I have seen this sort of thinking everywhere I go. This is really a worship issue. The problem is that people have taken a "good" thing and made it an "ultimate" thing ... thus we see idols spring up all around us. But, as a continued this thought I began to wonder how this lifestyle of looking like Jesus and not knowing Jesus was any different that celebrity worship? The whole premiss of idolizing celebrities is that we wish we could be them but we cannot, we wish to look like them in place of actually knowing them, and we are convinced that their live is much better than ours ... they have it all figured out. The problem is that the person (the celebrity) we think we know from a distance is probably not the same person we would admire if we knew them. I think some of the same things can be said about Jesus, as there are many false ideas and backdrops concerning Jesus that people inherently assume. Its one thing to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher ... it is a world of difference to accept Him as the son of God.

The whole idea I am trying to get across to everyone is that idolizing Jesus without knowing Him is no different than idolizing Justin Bieber when you don't know him ... and none of you know J Bieber. A lot of people make following Jesus out to be something easy but, from my experience, the more I explore Jesus and look at this world through His eyes the harder life becomes. Jesus even warned us of these things time and time again. But, I think we may be biased in our reading of the gospels in light of certain attributes that are easier to swallow.

If the goal is holiness, how can you worship Jesus AS He ought while still harboring idols in your heart? I find in curious that Jesus never elevated anyone, he encouraged people, but he also rebuked them and was a bit of a tough nut to them (definitely not the nice guy Jesus I learned about growing up), but he never entertained even the thought of elevating others EVER. The problem in this for so many people is that they think that this praise is a sign of love, and and affection for someone they don't know, but really thats the antithesis of sacrificial praise.

I encourage you to read through Acts 19. The preaching of the Gospel was so affective in Ephesus that the economy was greatly affected and men feared that they would lose their jobs! Can this happen in our society today? I think it can ... but some of us are going to have to be put Jesus back at the right hand of God!

Life makes a hard living ...

Last night a good friend of mine named Justin came through town with his wife and brother on their way to Nashville. He called me up earlier in the day and told me that he would be through and he would enjoy getting together so we could catch up and talk. Of course I was more than willing to cancel my plans in order to see and talk with Justin. Justin and I met this past summer when a band I was playing with played a concert with his band, Life in Rescue. The transmission on their van went out on the way to the concert so they were stranded in Hot Springs for a whole week while they waited on their van to get repaired. Justin and I hit if off really well immediately when we discovered that we both had a thirst for scripture. Though he and I disagree on a handful of things we are always eager to converse about our struggles in all of life, but we also have found that our theological struggles, to a great degree, precede all other struggles. I cannot tell you how valuable and reassuring for me it is to find more people that I can talk with on these subjects, in fact these struggles are meant to be handled in a communal nature according to God. I think that is something that people in my town of Hot Springs, Arkansas have either forgotten, or never really realized. Justin and I are very similar in this sense- we both want the truth! We both will go kamikaze in order to make sure the truth is going forth. This is often called "unmerciful" in most christian circles but I think if you reevaluate that idea you will find that such a label is preposterous. The point I am making is that I, you, WE need this sort of fellowship ... and we cannot make everything a gender battle! If you divide you are not unified!

I told a friend the other day that I felt like I had been playing tea party for so long with people. I would set people in their chair and pour their drink and hope that they would play along ... but just like the little girl who ask her older brothers to play tea party with her, it often involved way too much humility to see any sort of benefit. I desperately want to engage in spirited conversation but it is often met with either a lack of interest, a lack of input, or a pacifistic attitude. I cannot fault someone for having a lack of input all the time but it is my desire to use these moments to inquire of these individuals, and use it as a time of learning and growing. I guess my thought is "maybe I can spark the flint in their mind and pray for a wild fire!" I also sympathize with the people who are scared of theology, doctrines, and orthodoxy. I have seen people use political correction, from within a theological context, to destroy people. If I ever been like this I ask for your forgiveness, if I did so it was not my intent. I just want people to explore God within community, I want people to be open and honest with everything- but, that position is one I have gained from scripture. Let me say it this way ... I am starving for it and if it doesn't happen its not going to be beneficial for me or you.

I have this idea that people are afraid of learning because if they learn too much then they will start to wrestle with their faith, and if they are wrestling then their faith will waver and this will not be beneficial for their walk with God. Unfortunately, its the exact opposite- the more we wrestle the stronger our faith becomes and the deeper our love for God becomes. Listen to me- I can say that because of my studies I have been able to weed out the bad ideologies I had acquired from inherited assumptions that are the byproduct of growing up in this region of America, more specifically- the bible belt. I can say that my faith has strengthened so much because of my pursuit of knowledge and understanding because I have learned humility through it, in that, I can not understand everything about God, there is room for mystery ... and this has worked to strengthen my faith. If I believe but I don't understand I have to have faith in order to keep on believing. I want this for so many people. How do I help facilitate this sort of movement without losing the few friends I have left?

I guess I am at a point of throwing my hands up. I have always been a fighter but I have noticed more and more lately that I am fighting more and more battles that are keeping me from the real battle. I can't display my love for people enough, and though I want to, I just can't spend my time meeting the expectations of everyone ... it is impossible. Plus, its hard to believe the accusations of others that say "you are not loving" when I am trying to measure up to their impossible standards of love. I have committed idolatry in this sense I do believe. Maybe I have become an idol? Maybe instead of showing people the love of God I am trying to show them the love of Seth. But, can I truly be faulted? I bear God's image in the sense that I love, and I want to be loved. Periodically people, girls mostly, will say "what is your love language?" It took me a while but I came to the conclusion that I like spending time with people. I love people and I love getting to know them and I LOVE helping! I think whenever people upset me and I find myself knowing that I need a bit of solitude and that is a hard battle for me because I want people so badly but I can't have them. But, I think I like giving more than time ... in fact I think I want time in order to give. I love spending time with people and seeing that time cultivate a relationship that bears the fruit of honesty. I want to give people the truth (as best as I know it) with a total lack of regard for myself. I am self-sacrificial in this way. I will totally, in the moment, rid myself of myself in order to proclaim the truth ... often times it is NOT what a person wants to hear, thus- I am labeled as an asshole. This is the hardest battle for me. Lately in life I have wondered more and more how it is that I can set out to love people and have them run from me. I can try to rationally reconcile all of this as long as I like ... but at this point I think I would rather just accept the humility and count my losses.

I want to run away from and into community ... what the hell is going on?