image: Fractal Blues (cc) Fábio Pinheiro

I've recently started playing my electric violin for worship services at my church. We've been attending Redeemer's Church in Reedley, California, and it's nice to be involved with another church that is interested in taking care of the poor, and whose leadership believes in challenging theological assumptions. It's comforting to worship with my music and spend time with people who share some of my theological perspectives.

Between the two services this morning, I chatted with some of the other members of the music team about last week's guest speaker, Bart Campolo (son of Tony Campolo, whose writings were the catalyst for the creation of this blog). One of the things that came out of that chat was the idea of a gospel message that's relevant to today's culture, and at the same time isn't trapped in today's culture. This idea was best illustrated when the band leader said that, when he was growing up, his Christian parents taught him that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was evil, on account of being black. The white-only culture in which his parents were raised dominated their worldview, to the point of poisoning the gospel message. The Christianity of his parents' time was so entrenched in the culture that it couldn't see past the expectations of white society.

It's really from this notion of cultural poison that post-modern Christianity emerged. Believers who gravitate towards an anti-establishment worldview look for a theology that's free from the constraints of relative cultural norms, while at the same time cling to the moral objectivity that's found in the scriptures. The post-modern Christian generally rejects limitations on expression of faith (electric guitars, tamborines, and interpretive dance are all acceptable), and "sinful" lifestyle choices are seen as a consequence of sin, and not simply isolated cases of sin themselves. For example, the post-modern interpretation of Romans 1:18-32 sees a people arrive at a normative view of homosexuality as a result of the rejection of God over a period of time; God's response to a culture who turns away from Him is to "give them over to shameful lusts." (vs. 26) While traditional Christianity tends to focus on the the individual's homosexuality, post-modern Christianty would suggest that rise of homosexuality is a symptom of a widespread cultural problem, perhaps starting with a previous generation of believers who failed to live by faith.

I tend to agree with the post-modern view on many issues. I will say, however, that there is a clear difference between an healthy post-modern Christianity and an unhealthy one. As one of the singers of the band said during our chat, we are just as susceptible to being chained by the norms of our post-modern culture as the people in the previous generation were to their own; the gospel of Christ has the power to be relevant to every generation, and it can also be rendered ineffective by every generation by our manmade traditions, theologies, and idols. It is critical that post-modern Christians see themselves as Christians first; that is our primary identity. If cultural expectations run against our Christian faith, our first order of business is to dump the culture; we don't redefine our faith to fit social norms.

A healthy post-modern Christianity sees a Jesus who eats and drinks with tax collectors and prostitutes, and sinners of all colors, Jews and gentiles alike. The Redeemer's Church community speaks to this, and I look forward to continuing to grow in this community.

comments [0]

image: Neighborhood (cc) R. Cao

Carman, from Revolution, wrote this brilliant and cuts-to-the-heart post regarding the shutdown of a San Diego Bible Study group, which picked up nationwide attention.

The incident in San Diego where the authorities demanded that a home Bible study shut down because it was in violation of local codes has attracted nationwide attention. The last I heard was that the authorities backed down because of the firestorm that was created by their prohibition of the Bible study.

This Bible study was brought to the authorities' attention when neighbors complained about all the cars that were parked in the neighborhood by those attending the Bible study. It was far too congested as far as the neighbors were concerned.

I wonder if those who are hosting the Bible study have any healthy relationships with their neighbors. Do they host anything for their neighbors, like backyard barbecues, Super Bowl parties, birthday parties, etc.?

What would happen if all the people who were driving into this one neighborhood for a Bible study would start gathering with people in their own neighborhoods, developing friendships whereby some of their own neighbors might become interested in checking out the Scriptures together with them? One thing for sure, there would be no congestion or parking problems because everyone lives within walking distance of each other's homes.

Perhaps this San Diego incident is indicative of the mentality that is so predominate in western Christianity. We will travel miles to gather with other believers ensconcing ourselves deeper and deeper in our Christian bubble while ignoring our neighbors that live right in our own block. So how are we advancing God's kingdom on the geographical turf where he has placed us?

Brilliant.

It occurs to me that even when Jesus fed the 5,000, the disciples (good stewards that they were) did the job of cleaning up all the leftover food, which helped to ensure that a public outcry over molding bread and rotting fish never happened. Being a good neighbor seems to be part of Jesus' MO.

comments [4]

image: I wanna hold your hand (cc) batega

An old friend of mine recently posted a link to a youtube video on his facebook profile which posits the absurdity of a belief in an intangible God who appears to be perfectly absent.

Here's a link to the video. It's well done, actually, but I enjoy sarcasm.

The video includes all sorts of requirements for a deity to demonstrate its own existence -- stopping bad things from happening, having bad things happen to believers in a disproportionate manner, etc. Basically, the video provides a test of validity, and names the conditions of that test. This is fine, but given the nature of the relationship between God and those who walk with Him, I think that such a test is meaningless, much like the test one might use to "prove" one's love for another.

I love my wife. I can't prove it to her, but I continually try to demonstrate that I do. But in the same way that somebody can explain away God's plague of frogs on the ancient Egyptians as a freak natural occurrence, my wife can view my gift of assorted flowers as a self-serving act, meant only to be used as leverage for some favor; it wouldn't prove that I loved her. My words, my actions, my reactions... they could all be explained away as the result of physical and mechanical processes: chemistry, biology, and psychology. Likewise, my wife is quite capable of compiling a list of requirements for me to demonstrate my love for her (doing the dishes every day, folding all the laundry, changing every poop-filled diaper, etc., etc.)... but I could easily do those things without any sense of affection towards her. Her test of proof has no meaning; one cannot actually prove that they love someone else.

The proof requested of God to show his presence is identical to a request for proof that a spouse or friend demonstrate their love; God is love, after all.

So what does this test actually do?

I wonder if such requests for proof (impossible that they are to fulfill) are not actually a request for any such thing. Because the requester should be fully aware that such proof cannot be obtained, perhaps the request is merely seeking justification to disbelieve and to disregard. For example, the man who demands that his wife prove her affection for him, and yet remains dissatisfied at her every genuine attempt, does not actually seek her affection. He simply means to place her in front of an impossible challenge. The woman, in this example, mirrors the heart of God who pours out His love to a rebellious people who deny His very presence and His desire for them.

In the case of a healthy and loving relationship, this thing we call love is intangible. It cannot be seen, it cannot be touched. Yet we walk hand-in-hand with our spouses and loved-ones, connected by more than just the flesh that covers our bones - there is a sense of hallowed ground between the people involved. And walking with God is the same -- we are connected to our creator by this love, and it is in this love that we exist and find purpose. This love is the prime mover in the relationship, and we reciprocate that love with our actions. And yet... the actions themselves are not the proof of that love. They are simply manifestations of it.

Those who wish to explain love away as the simple turning of cold gears within the machine of the mind perhaps have never felt love's warmth. And for that same reason, they perhaps have never felt the presence of God. I don't doubt my wife's love for me, and I don't look for proof of it. Likewise, my God is not so absent.

comments [8]

My oldest daughter is five years old. Because of her level of comprehension (stellar, as far as 5-year-olds go), my wife and I have made a conscious effort to pour a lot of reality into her head. We've taught her that there is no Easter Bunny, no Santa Claus, no Tooth Fairy, and in the process of doing so, we've taught her to be conscious of behaviors built around imaginary figures -- figures she can't touch or feel. While she still embraces imagination (we often play "adventure," which is basically like playing a tabletop role-playing game, but without the paper and dice), she's very good about understanding the difference between reality and fantasy.

This, of course, makes conversations about God rather strange. I can't help but think that the mental myth-filter we've instilled in our daughter to rule out Santa and the Easter Bunny can be applied to a deity she cannot touch and cannot see. And it's around this deity that we base much of our lives - we attend a church service, we facilitate a mid-week bible study, we pray regularly at home, and as one might expect, a crisis of belief eventually surfaced.

In our home, we are quick to apply some negative reinforcement around particular behaviors. One of the things we've been teaching our children is that lying is unacceptable, and that it merits quick and stiff consequences. In a recent event, our daughter exclaimed, "I asked God to help me to not lie, but it's hard, because I can't hear God!"

...

How do you explain the presence of an intangible deity to a child? Or to an adult, even?

Perhaps the way we read God's references to Himself in the text is enough. The text describes God as a rushing wind... as light... as a consuming fire. We can't see the wind, but we can see its effect on things. We can't see light, but with light, we can see the things around us. We can't hold a flame, but we can feel it when it is near. And while these don't "prove" the existence of God to anyone, for the ones who already believe, it accurately describes the way we relate to this God who eludes our senses.

So I explained to my child that God lets us lie. He doesn't stop us from doing things we shouldn't to do. Often, He lets us suffer the consequences of our actions so we will understand why our actions might be wrong. Sometimes, we have to see that our words and actions can hurt people. From that, we can learn to work towards strengthening relationships instead of tearing them down.

And in fact, the scriptures are not a summary of people who made good and moral decisions. It is not a book of righteous people; quite the contrary. It is a summary of God's relationship with people who make terrible decisions, and a demonstration of God's faithfulness in spite of their sinfulness. And that is the heart of the Gospel. And I think that's the heart of parenting as well -- we know our children will make poor choices, and we choose to care for them and love them unconditionally, regardless of those choices. And it's only in such a relationship that faith and trust make any sense. This is the childlike faith Jesus longs for from His people.

comments [2]

image: Jesus and the Samaritan Woman (cc) tribalicious

There's a story in the Scriptures of a woman whom Jesus meets as He and His disciples passed through Samaria - a city on the way to Galilee.


Now [Jesus] had to go through Samaria. So he came to a town in Samaria called Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. It was about the sixth hour.

When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, "Will you give me a drink?" (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.)

The Samaritan woman said to him, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?" (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.)

Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."

"Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?"

Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."

The woman said to him, "Sir, give me this water so that I won't get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water."

He told her, "Go, call your husband and come back."

"I have no husband," she replied.

Jesus said to her, "You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true."

"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."

Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."

Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."

~ John 4:4-26 NIV ~

For those unfamiliar with the tension between the Samaritans and the Jews in the text, it must be noted that the two groups are separated by more than just ethnicity. The Samaritans were of Jewish descent, who later became "impure" on account of their intermarrying with Assyrians and other non-Jewish people after the Assyrian conquest of Israel. The Jews of Jesus' day laid claim to a "clean" bloodline, tracing their lineage back to the tribe of Judah or the priestly bloodline of Levi - these Jews did not intermingle, but kept their traditions and culture in tact, even after the Babylonian conquest of Judeah. Because of the physical divide between the people of Samaria and Judeah, the Samaritans eventually built their own temple on the mountain in Samaria to worship God, whereas "true" Jewish worship (according to the Scriptures) could only be conducted at the temple in Jerusalem. The Jews knew this, and from the Samaritan woman's words, she too understood that the Jews laid claim to both ethnic and religious purity.

It's interesting to try to project ourselves into the text. Some people find themselves viewing the story from the perspective of the woman at the well -- rejected by people due to her ethnic background, rejected by society on account of her relationships, carrying the burden of shame. And from that perspective, they see the hand of the Messiah extended to them, offering them living water.

I wonder if the text should also be viewed as a cautionary tale for today's believers who, like the Jews of the day, believe that there is only one place appropriate for worship (the temple of their denomination). Perhaps today's believers shun entire groups of people for being impure, and for failing to adhere to established religious rules. And maybe believers today are technically correct, but fail to see the bigger picture of the living water offered by Christ.

Jesus' own words: "You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews."

Jesus affirms that the Jews are "doing it right," and that the Samaritans are worshipping "what they do not know." They're doing it wrong. But Jesus doesn't draft up a 3-point sermon outlining the way in which the Samaritans should clean up their act. He doesn't bring out The Book and spell it out for her. When she says, in her purest cry of faith, "I know that Messiah is coming. When He comes, He will explain everything to us," Jesus declares, "I who speak to you am He."


How, then, should belivers view people who call themselves believers, but don't look or act like it? Have we, like the Jews of Jesus' day, become spiritually ethnocentric, believing in error that our way of worship is the only way? Or can we accept that the Samaritan woman's simple act of faith -- a simple statement of belief that the Messiah will come and fix things -- is sufficient for salvation?

Believers today are called to worship God "in spirit and in truth." What does that mean in this context?

comments [6]