The Gospel of the Kingdom versus The Gospel of Me.

The cover of the current Time Magazine asks the always poignant question: "Does God want you to be rich? The debate over the new gospel of wealth". The "gospel of wealth" is not necessarily a new gospel. It arguably began when Simon Magus offered to by the gift of the Holy Spirit from Peter (Acts 8). Paul speaks of those who preach Christ "out of envy and rivalry" as well as "selfish ambition" (Philippians 1:15-17). But perhaps the greatest evidence of the perennial heresy of "health and wealth" is found in Paul's advice to Timothy:

"[There are those] who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." (1 Timothy 6:5-10)

Dear Porn Student…

WARNING: This blog is fairly explicit about the Christian faith, sexuality, and my own experiences. It deserves an "R" rating. Please do not read it if you are under 16 or 17. And if you do read it, please do not complain about the adult content.

This week a person calling themselves "pornstudent" commented on a twocitiesblog which was dealing with child pornography and sexual consumerism. Pornstudent has made it the point of his blog to defend adult use of pornography as "good" and "beneficial". I felt called to reply on his blog. Here it is:

Jesus Camp Cometh

Have you seen movie posters yet for the movie "Jesus Camp"? Are you wondering if perhaps it is some teenage-angst-and-hormone filled cross between "Saved" and "American Pie"? Well, you would be wrong. It is a documentary about a Pentecostal children's ministry camp that is aimed at making elementary-aged children "soldiers for Christ" who will take back this country for Jesus.

It looks like it will: (a) Be fairly biased against conservative Christian believers, and try to paint them/us in a negative light; (b) Make us take a long hard look at the Jesus we are portraying; and (c) Open a great opportunity for dialogue with Christians and Non-Christians about what Jesus is really all about.

Rather than summarize what I have read, let me give you what Wikipedia says (which is pretty good):

God-Wrestling: Struggling with God through Scriptural Ambiguity

[After wrestling with Ya-qov from dusk till dawn, the God-man] said, "Your name shall no longer be called Ya-qov [the Swindler], but Yisra-El [the God-Wrestler], for you have wrestled with God and humanity, and have endured." Then Ya-qov asked him, "Now, tell me your name!" But he said, "What is this that you ask my Name?" And right there [the God-man] blessed him. So Ya-qov named that place "Face-of-God", saying, "I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been delivered." (Genesis 32:28-30, Authors translation)

All who call the God of Ya-qov their God are called to walk in the footsteps of his faith, and wrestle with God in the same way Ya-qov did. After Ya-qov wrestled with God (dare I say fought with God?), he was injured. He limped. But he was blessed by God in a way that he would not have been if he had not fought with him. When I read this passage I think of Lieutenant Dan screaming at God in the hurricane in the movie "Forrest Gump". At the end of the movie, Lieutenant Dan came back from his life-long fight with God physically limping, but blessed and made whole in ways that far exceeded his physical circumstances.

Should the name Evangelical be "left behind"?

2020 UPDATE: I still agree with most of the values and ideals which underlie this 2005 "essay" (which is more of a rant). But I think the way I presented these values here is very ineffective. It is a great example of how irony and sarcasm can work very poorly in print. I leave it up as a reminder of where I was at in 2005 and how I can write better.

I write to you as a bonafide, card-carrying evangelical. I was "born again" in 1992 by receiving a "personal relationship" with Jesus Christ, after which my lifestyle and worldview was radically changed. I was discipled through a minister getting his degree at Dallas Theological Seminary, as well as through Campus Crusade. My evangelical credentials are all in good order.

On occasion, one of evangelicalism's guiding lights will say or do something that makes me cringe to associate myself with the "E" word. Whether it is Pat Robertson's crazy pronouncements, Falwell's animated antics, a half-baked Baptist boycott, or our general drift toward political supremacy and cultural triumphalism... there is always something out there I feel I have to apologize to both God and man for by taking up the name evangelical.

But what do you do when one of the media stars of evangelicalism does something so patently against the gospel that to be associated in the same camp is to be associated with something demonstrably less-than-Christian, or even anti-Christian?

Urban Myths, Educated Gullibility, and the Danger of Christianity

Do you like Urban myths? I do! Snopes.com, the premier urban myth debunking site on the internet, is a source of endless enjoyment for me. Have you heard the one about how internet users can receive a cash reward for forwarding messages to test a Microsoft/AOL e-mail tracking system? Myth. Or about how chewing gum takes seven years to pass through the human digestive system? Myth again. Or how about the fact that Finland once banned Donald Duck because he wears no pants? Myth. And then there is my favorite genre of myth: Christian scare tactic myths. Everything from "If you don't forward this email you are denying Christ!" to "Did you know that Atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair is circulating a petition to have religious broadcasting banned from American airwaves?" All myths.

Big Bang or Big Bounce?

DISCLAIMER: This essay was written in 2006, prior to my graduate school, and prior to a career working in Episcopal Schools. Although I think much of the content here holds up as a theological meditation on cosmology, I am sure that the scientific nomenclature used, and perhaps even the underlying science presupposed, has changed since then. So, please consider both the time it was written and the purposes it was written for.

One of the major headaches (and blessings) of having really smart kids in your youth group is that they ask really tough questions. Today, I got one from Marcus. Really, it wasn't so much of a question as "Whaddaya think about this? Huh?" You see, Marcus, just for fun, was looking at articles on quantum physics and the origins of the Universe (yeah, that's what kids in my youth group do). And he came across an article about a new hypothesis put forth by Penn State quantum physicist Abhay Ashtekar, in which Ashtekar says that as the universe eventually implodes on itself into an infinitely small "ball" of matter-energy-space-time, certain "tears" occur in the multi-dimensional fabric of space time, which actually reverse the force of gravity, and turn it into an explosive force. This results in what is termed the "big bounce", in which the universe bounces out from the "ball" and creates a new universe. What this theory implies is that the universe and space time are infinite, and every time the universe "dies" in the "big crunch", it is "re-born" in the "big bang".

A Raging Moderate Searches for Truth, part 1: On the limitations of scientific knowledge

Over the centuries, many great Christian thinkers have either taught that theology is a "science", or that "scientific methods" can be used to established the truths of theology. While theology can be construed as a sort of science (i.e. following the lead of Aquinas who defined it as a "sub-altern" science), I think that to hold theology in bondage to the "scientific method" is to deeply damage both theology and science. They are simply different kinds of knowledge and different kinds of knowing, and to conflate the two, or to use one to back up the other is simply wrong headed. One look at the creation-evolution debate is a good example of how neither science nor theology come out winners when used to "validate" one another.

On Tolerance, Scripture, Historicity, and Truth

A friend wrote this to me tonight:

Great program on Terry Gross’s Fresh Air segment on NPR today.  The guest was Bart Urman (sp?), author of Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene, the early followers of Jesus and New Testament and Gnostic Gospels historian and authority at University of North Carolina.  He spoke a lot about The Da Vince Code as well as the Gospel of Judas and other relatively recently discovered Christian writings... At the very end of the program he had a great couple of statements about the importance of today’s Christian realizing the diversity that even the early Christian church exemplified.  He sounded mightily Episcopalian, though I’m wary of religious academics tenured at state universities.  

Thanks!  Actually, I heard 5 minutes of it while going to Sr Hi Bible Study tonight, and one of the students also heard it.  He brought it up at Bible Study.  So, we talked about aspects of it tonight.  Must've been something God wanted me to be aware of and talk about!  I also heard the tolerance message at the end of it as well... And it brings me to a subject I have been wanting to write about for a while, so I am going to write about it if you don’t mind ;-)

My feelings about the tolerance part is paradoxical. I have just enough conservative Evangelical in me (as well as open-minded liberal), that I am both wary of, and sympathetic to, such calls for tolerance. Going to a liberal mainline seminary has taught me that for many future pastors and academics the core of Christianity is not Christ and his work, but a politically correct tolerance of anyone, as long as they have no firm opinions on anything. As soon as someone has firm opinions and is willing to identify something as "right" and something as "wrong", they are labeled as a "fundy" and excluded from "polite" conversation.  In such a climate a theological conservative has to know the presuppositions and arguments better than anyone else to even get a hearing.

Can we pray for the past?

I got a great question from one of my students. I thought I would throw it out for consideration and debate:

-------------------------------
If God is part of a separate time where he is both the past present and future all at the same time, why is it that we only pray for two of those time frames the present and the future? Is it possible to alter the past by praying for a past occurrence? I'm not talking about praying to learn from one's mistakes so as to not continue to do it in the future but actually praying for something to change in the past and actually receiving your prayer?
-------------------------------

Actually, this is fairly easy to answer, while also being very speculative:

Students Standing Strong for Plastic Trendy Jesus?

This is one of those posts where I know people are going to hate me, but if I am going to be true to the Church I minister in, the students I serve, and the Bible-belt culture I live in, I have to write it.

I was watching the news tonight and they were talking about a Christian student group at Colleyville-Heritage High School "fighting for their right" to worship after school at Colleyville High School. This group "Students Standing Strong" apparently brought in the strong arm of the lawyers to get the school to allow them to worship in the gymnasium.

The way it is being reported on Fox 4 news, I get real mixed feelings about it... but they could be presenting it in a bad light (news often does). But, since I am a youth minister about 15 miles away from this school, I thought I might ask one of my students in that school district what they knew of the group.

I asked this person: What do you know about this group?  Is it a good thing?  What are your feelings about it all?  Honesty is appreciated...

Here is what they wrote back (their words, not mine, but names and genders are deleted):

WWJD: What would Judas do?

Well, it is apparently time for us all to answer the question: What would Judas do?  A couple of my students and families at Church have asked me about the newly translated "Gospel of Judas" that has inspired much media hype, and yet another run-of-the-mill "groundbreaking" historical documentary on the National Geographic Channel this Easter Sunday. If you don’t know what I am talking about look at these online resources: either go to Wikipedia and type in "Gospel of Judas", or check out this collection (which includes a complete translation) at tertullian.org, or if you can read ancient Coptic, check out the text and translation here.

The questions I am getting are all versions of this well-thought out question by Matt:

Ask Nate: On Faith, Prayer, Mountains, and Seas

This week on "Ask Nate", Jake asks:

--------------------------------
Hey Nate,

This is one of my Biblical questions.

Mark 11:20-25  
In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!"  "Have faith in God," Jesus answered.  "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him.  Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.  And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."

If our faith will let us move a mountain, why can't we do that?  Why can't I pray to God to fold my laundry?  Is it using God as a tool?  

Or are there doubts that I am just unaware of?  If I was to repeatedly say "God will allow someone to find a cure for cancer" does that mean that eventually I will believe it so whole-heartedly that eventually I will have no doubts of it?

I was just curious as to why we can't move mountains.  Do we have doubts that we'll never overcome or are we testing Him? Take your time in getting back to me.
--------------------------------

My first response is "Why didn't you ask about the fig tree?" I have never figured out to my satisfaction why Jesus had to curse a poor innocent fig tree to get his point across!  Some things I will just have to wait for heaven to find the exact answer to.

Revolt!

Time to come clean. I am obsessed with consumerism, because I think that consumerism will be the spiritual force to recon with in this century (maybe longer). I believe it will be the "delivery vehicle" through which the enemy will try to accomplish what CS Lewis calls "the abolition of man". The enemy used nationalism, fascism, and communism as his primary delivery vehicles in the 19th and 20th centuries. But, now consumerism is trying to consume all human society and make humans into the perfect renewable resource. It has a vested interest in destroying families, churches, and every other "support structure" in our lives so that we have to rely on purchasing products to be "whole" people (wholly addicted, that is). I really think that consumerism is one of the powers that makes Christianity so powerless in our society.

On Bouffant Hair and Bad Theology: Random thoughts while watching TBN

OK, I admit it.  Sometimes I watch TBN.  For several reasons:

1. It's just flat out entertaining.  Folks with way too much makeup, gaudy sets, and crazy hair-dos with hands raised to the ceiling, praising God, pronouncin' blessing, and claimin' the anointin' of the Holy Ghost.  And, I gotta admit: Watching Rod Parsley and "Bishop" TD Jakes is incedible.  I mean, I think Rod's prosperity theology is waaaay wacked, and TD has some questionable doctrinal areas too, but the dudes are used of God, changing their communities, and bringing people to love Jesus (can I get an Amen?).  And they are just flat-out dynamic, quirky, and fun to watch.  It's all a freak show... and it reminds me that Jesus LOVES freaks!

On using political-economic power to convert people to "Gospel Values"

My buddy Matt over at Two Cities Blog has written a great article on whether Christians should boycott "Brokeback Mountain" to send a "message to Hollywood" supporting Gospel Values. I think this article highlights an implicit tension and contradiction in Christian mission and social action: Christians using coercive power to "make" people change into "good" people.

Specifically, is it ever effective or right to use coercive power to make people "convert" to the values of the Gospel? Let me explain:

What is Truth? On the evaluation of the Truth of Doctrinal Systems

My buddy Matt, who I write on "Two Cities" Blog with recently wrote a great article on being Ecumenical. He is Church of Christ, I am Anglican, and we have a whole bunch of discussions about this kind of stuff. His article is posted here.

During the discussion, I wrote a reply about how we should evaluate the truth of doctrinal systems. I want to share that here:

New Wineskins and New Cloth

I got a good question from Lori I thought I would share:

---------------------
Today, I was reading the lessons for today, and I have always been confused by these 2 verses (21-22).  I don't understand how they go with the previous verses. Do you know how they go together?

Mark 2:18-22  
Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, "How is it that John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?"  Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them.  But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.  

"No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse.  And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins."
---------------------

There are a couple of different takes on those verses, but I don't have time to tell you all of them... So I will just tell you my take...

Just what was the philosophical justification of splitting the Church in the Reformation?

In response to my last post, Matt asks a great question:

I have one question: You mentioned that if the Catholic Church would have listened to Aquinas, Augustine and others the Reformation may have been avoided. However, many Protestants believe that a major part of what sparked the Reformation was the scholastic synthesis of faith and reason achieved by Aquinas and exaggerated by Averroes and Ockam. Some believe that the problem of the Reformation was caused by Aquinas's "secularization" of faith. What would you say about that? Just curious.

In response to Matt:

We fixed the wedding, now let's work on the marriage

Isaiah 62:5 ...As the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you.

After a decade of self-study in historical and systematic theology, a year of graduate study of Christian history, and another year of graduate study in the history of doctrine, a thought has crystallized in my mind: The Protestant reformation largely fixed the problems of our "wedding" with Christ, but it is not sufficient to fix the marriage.  Let me explain...