getting free

A mirror blog . . . kind of.

2009-06-09T10:41:00.003-04:00

I probably should leave well enough alone . . . but I'm not gonna.

I'm starting a new blog at http://gettingfree.wordpress.com/. Whether it becomes my new permanent blogging-almost-once-a-month home remains to be seen. But I will be posting there a bit for a spell.

It's got more columns. Which is what I really need in my life. More columns.

AA, the Church, and the Mission of God (pt. 3 - AA & the Gospel)

2009-06-02T09:43:00.005-04:00

I think being raised Southern Baptist has helped give me a lifelong curiousity in 'the gospel' and I hope to always keep it. As I implied in the last post, I have come to see Jesus' gospel of the kingdom--the news that the government of God has come near by virtue of Jesus showing up to assume his rightful role as the 'Christ'-ened Lord of heaven and earth)--as the central message, with Jesus' own story (a.k.a., the gospels) as the specific reports of how he, among other things, took that rightful place without immediately judging all of humanity for their ages-long resistance to his rule of love and selflessness. Thank God, Jesus comes announcing how we can be transformed into his cooperative friends, restoring the whole creation with and through him, rather than continue to be part of its destruction in large or small ways.

Now, you may notice that a fair summary of the gospel I've described in this post and before has the feel of a story of a very gracious king coming to his people who had been in various stages of rebellion against him. Instead of giving them the penalty for their treason and their other crimes against him and others, he took the consequences of their rebellion upon himself in the hopes that his people would cease their destructive rebellion and finally join with him in caring for each other and the whole creation as he envisions. Or, to put his hope another way, that they would 'repent and trust him' as his apprentices and constructive co-workers, that they would 'enter' and 'receive' his government as grateful and willing participants, joining his family business of making all things new though his love and power.

What you may notice is lacking from this description is any central concern about where one might be headed after death. My summaries of the gospel are focused on bringing humans back into participative, and increasingly constructive cooperation with God's chosen king--right now in this life for the good of all we effect. Now, the implications for the after-life are clear enough. As Todd Hunter has said, if there are two options for the after life, where do you think God takes his friends? With him, of course, to finish what they have worked toward together--the new heavens and new earth. And the negative implications are also clear: what of the person who has remained hostile to Christ and to his rule of love and self-sacrifice? Out, tragically, with the rest of the trash that is committed to death. But--and this is the salient point--the focus of the gospel of the reign of God is how one wants to go forward in this life. Specifically, the issue is whether we want to 'receive' the new management. Do we want to actually ask God to let his name be honored above all (including ours), his government to come (not ours), his will (think, great commandments) be done in our particular corners of the earth--at least through us, or do we want to pray for and continue to seek our name, our reign, our will be done. It is a directional choice. It is a 'how we want to live and for what?' choice. It's a day-by-day choice. It's the choice God has laid before us when he sent his son proclaiming that 'The time has come. The reign of God has come near. Repent and trust this good news' as he healed and took apprentices, teaching them his Way.

Now, as that gospel started to get hold of me, I started looking at the 12 steps and thinking, "Is there a better way to respond, or rather, follow through in response, to that gospel, then this?" I encourage anyone to think about this gospel and what God is seeking to do in the world--really search the whole NT on that question-- and ask the same question. I will go into some of the specific strengths of the steps as a kingdom-gospel response in later posts, but for now I will simply say that the steps are, in a nutshell, about turning the practical reigns of our lives over to God, especially as they inevitably involve our dealings with others. What's more, the path of the steps aren't taken alone, but in truly helpful relationships with others who are on the same path. The steps are about learning to actually live the way Jesus lived and taught, not just hear about it. They are a communal path to entering the reign of God, one day at a time, ceasing to be an instrument of other, darker powers such as our own selfishness and the idols we've counted on and followed for so long.

AA, the Church, and the Mission of God (pt. 2 - the Gospel)

2009-03-02T12:01:00.003-05:00

About 9 years ago, my wife and I were preparing to leave Gainesville, Florida, and the Vineyard church we had come to deeply love was preparing to host a regional pastor's conference. I was finishing a long academic career with a take-home final exam the very same week of the conference. Needless to say I couldn't attend the meetings, so I got the tapes of each session. Four of these tapes focused on the kingdom of God, but in markedly different ways. Two of them were from Don Williams in which Don combined (i) N.T. Wright's scholarship, particularly regarding God's work in the Exodus as a prototype of God's kingdom with (ii) his personal and pastoral experience with the idols of our day, which are often better understood and dealt with as addictions. The other two sessions dealing with the kingdom were from Todd Hunter, who had been serving as the head of Vineyard USA, and in fact was just announcing his resignation from that post. Eugene Peterson and Dallas Willard had been influencing him strongly, and he gave a session on the Pastor's inner life, calling pastors to learn how to draw their energy from Christ and his kingdom (and warning of the addictions and infidelities that inevitably come if we don't), and another to the youth—the PKs—challenging them to ponder whether they really had ever heard or positively responded to the gospel that Jesus announced—that of entering the Kingdom—or if they had instead been trying to receive 'eternal life' without any intention of letting Jesus actually reign over them in this life. Now, although I had been part of a Vineyard for years, even leading small groups and eventually the college ministry, those tapes, which I nearly wore out, made me realize that, despite being in churches and/or Christian schools my whole life, the topic of the kingdom of God was a giant, giant hole in my understanding of Christianity generally and Jesus in particular. It knawed at me. So, as I began my career in the practice of law and felt the pain of separation from the church that had become my home, I read. I read Dallas Willard's Divine Conspiracy (and later, Renovation of the Heart & Hearing God), I read Missional Church by Guder & friends, I read N.T. Wright's Challenge of Jesus. I read Eugene Peterson's pastoral books and much of his Message. I read Andrew Murray's Humility. I read Don Williams' Jesus and Addiction. Some friends and I visited the Servant Leadership School a la Church of the Saviour in D.C., so we listened and read some from them, too. I'm pretty sure there are others that I'm forgetting. But what all these folks said in common, and often emphasized, was that

the kingdom of God is not a place but a dynamic.

Specifically, it was an intimate and productive dynamic with the Father and his people in which God got to actually lead and provide for humanity in the way he intended. Looking at the verbs of the NT, it was a dynamic with God and others, which we entered, or failed to enter, received or failed to receive. It was a dynamic that Jesus perfectly modeled for us and invited us into as his apprentices. The government of God had come and was looking for a people to govern and provide for.

This was amazing to me. I'm still dealing with the implications. But my first question was where does the cross fit in? As I read, I became aware of a long-running debate of which I had been totally ignorant—was it Jesus' gospel (the kingdom) or Paul's gospel (forgiveness via death and resurrection) that was the gospel? How exactly does "The kingdom of God has come near" fit together with "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures?" Where does forgiveness of sins fit in with the kingdom of God, or vice versa? One of the benefits, though, of coming late to a debate is that you get to hear, immediately, some of the better ideas that often only come after others have done much work. Another common theme that kept popping up in my reading was the narrative flow of Scripture. God doesn't do everything all at once. There is a story at work here, with characters, large and small, along with plots, subplots and more than one twist and turn before the end. As this big picture started to sink in, I began to see Jesus, his kingdom, his cross and his resurrection within this Story, and everything started to make sense. First the central character and the basic context of the NT: one cannot talk about the Jewish "Messiah" or "Christ" without simultaneously talking about "the kingdom of God" he is "Christ-ened" to lead. The Christ is a king, the King, who was to come, "restoring the kingdom." Jesus tended to talk about the kingdom (implying he was the Christ), while Paul focused on the main character—Jesus is the Christ!—assuming that everyone knows that the "Christ" leads a kingdom, the kingdom, God's kingdom. I started to understand that the historic connection between Paul's "Christ" and Jesus' "kingdom" is strong enough to bring substantial congruity all on its own. Second, though, the (messianic) plot: this king will, among other things, rescue God's people from their enemies, rebuild God's temple, bring God's justice to bear on the whole world . . . but how? The way I have come to see it, the early church saw the cross and the resurrection as the guts of the "how." It's how God's choice of king saved humanity from the dominance and fate of evil. It's how he rebuilt the temple of God. It's how he fulfilled the calling of the Jewish nation in general and the vocation of the Messiah in particular. It's also "how" a holy God can invite ordinary, messed up humans into an intimate collaboration. It's how Jesus brought the government of God near to humans in the form of an invitation instead of a death sentence. The cross and resurrection is the big climax, the ultimate surprise plot twist, of how the kingdom of God came to earth with peace and goodwill instead of a sword, even while the enemies of God and humans were completely dismantled! It's also the heart of how people will follow this king and become his people in this world, living examples and agents of his ongoing (and growing) rule. It is also the sign to the whole world, just as the Exodus was through superpower Egypt, that Yahweh is more powerful than the ultimate weapon of the most powerful human government on earth. God turned the symbol of Roman power into the ultimate ad campaign, into another stepping stool: Jesus is Lord with a capital "L.", everyone else should govern themselves accordingly. Jesus and Paul were indeed telling the same story of God's kingdom coming to earth, telling the same "good news" but Jesus was himself the main character--the king--living through the unexpected and intense climactic battle, and Paul was telling his story--which he understood as the story of the kingdom of God coming to earth, rescuing peoplefrom the kingdom of darkness.

And what was "the gospel" of the Old Testament? "How blessed are the feet of those who bring good news, who say to Zion, your God reigns." There are many gods and powers in the world, neutral at best and hostile at worst. The people of God in the OT and NT come to Yahweh and his Christ, enter and receive his reign over and for us, in substantial part, if at all because they believed he alone can treat the great powers of the world as podiums to stand upon or whatever else. He is the ultimate and highest Power in the world. He reigns, not least of which over the things which are the most menacing to people. And we rejoice, and jump at the chance to enter his government, his society, his never-ending administration on the earth. Eventually, it will be the only administration/society at work on the earth. Next will be how AA relates to this "gospel."

AA, the Church, and the Mission of God (pt. 1 -Introduction)

2009-02-19T14:31:00.006-05:00

Convergence. In a word, that's what I've been experiencing—and been amazed by—over the last couple of years. The Christian faith contains many mysteries, some of which are intended by God himself, while others are just unfortunate failures to understand, hear or communicate what God intends to be obvious. I feel as though most of my questions of the last decade or so fall into the latter category, but have been substantially addressed by a variety of people whose insights and experiences have converged to help me see—and enter—the whole Christian faith in a different and much more cohesive and compelling way. The 'gospel' of the Old Testament, the gospel of the kingdom of God, the gospel of Paul, the invitation to discipleship, the Great Commission, the greatest commandments, the cross and resurrection, the larger mission of God led by Jesus, the new (and old) monasticism, holiness, worship, service, idolatry, addiction, righteousness (or justice), the practices of the Church, and even the work and methods of Alcoholics Anonymous—to name a few—all of these have a much deeper, complementary, and more mutually refining relationship than I ever would have imagined when I first encountered them individually. In fact, some of these things were totally mysterious to me when I first heard and thought about them, whether separately or as part of a larger whole, and it has been wonderfully satisfying, not to mention extremely helpful to see each of them fit together, overlap and even explain each other in often surprisingly simple and inviting ways, ways that shed substantial light on the heart of God's own intentions as well as the most typical of human problems and obstacles.

For those in the Church, especially those who have not personally been part of a 12-step recovery group, AA's inclusion in the above list of topics is likely surprising, and maybe even suspicious. As one who grew up chiefly in the Southern Baptist camp of Christianity, I think I understand at least some of that surprise and suspicion. Perhaps mentioning 'the gospels' (plural), of the Old Testament, of the kingdom of God, and of Paul only adds to the suspicion! If so, my point (which I'll eventually post about) is that each of these, while seemingly very different in their bare verbal content, contain much, much more of the same substance than most Christians realize. Indeed, the various ways 'gospel' is used in the scriptures have no conflict at all, but come from different angles and from different points in the story of God's good actions, often with more details of God's work available at the later points of the story. And it's when that shared substance of "the good news" of what God is doing is understood that one can better appreciate why AA's program has worked and continues to work so well for so many people around the world, and why AA can repay a very old favor and help the Church, particularly in the West, with her current task. In essence, each post in this series will discuss a different way in which one or more of the above highlighted topics converge or fit together, often in a way that ends up making AA's program, with surprisingly few adaptations, look more and more attractive as a way to respond to God, faithfully, appropriately and with the kinds of results God is seeking.

In the fashion of classic Christian witnessing (and AA tradition), this series will not be the explanations of an expert in any of the areas mentioned. I'm sure I've misunderstood some things and not yet even seen other important pieces. But these posts will be the reports of my own experiences, my own testimony of what I, a person in the process of following Jesus, think I have seen and heard, offered in the hope that they may be helpful to others and even generate conversations that will help me make progress in the Way.

The next post will look at the way the Old Testament and the New Testament talk about 'the good news' or 'the gospel', some of how they fit together, and what that might mean.

Dallas Willard on the Steps

2009-01-22T10:15:00.004-05:00

For some time I've thought of putting together some quotes from Dallas Willard relating to using the steps and workout groups in the way we are (as a communal path toward Christlikeness), and then Jim put me over the edge with his comment to the previous post. Because of his depth of work in the areas of (trans)formation, spiritual disciplines, what being a disciple of Jesus means and requires, the gospel of God's government, and how all these interrelate (not to mention his experience in living these things out), few people have been as influential on me through their writings as Dallas Willard. So, here are just a few excerpts from Dallas' works (there are many, many more), which I think help explain how the steps can help people with receiving and entering the Government of God; the strength of the first quote--especially given Dallas' depth with the disciplines--really surprised me the first time I read it, and has stuck with me ever since:

"Any successful plan for spiritual formation, whether for the individual or group, will in fact be significantly similar to the Alcoholics Anonymous program." Page 85, Renovation of the Heart [hereinafter, Renovation].

The following adaptation of the 12 steps is found in the Renovation of the Heart Leaders' Guide, page 5A:

I admit that I am powerless over sin and that my life has become unmanageable.
I believe that God—through His action and those of His Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit—can restore me to sanity.
I will turn my will and my entire life over to the care of God.
I will make a searching and fearless inventory of my life to discover all the ways I have engaged in self-worship (by being in control instead of living surrendered to the will of God).
I admit to God, to myself, and to another human being the exact nature of my
wrongs.
I am entirely ready to have God remove all the defects in my character and replace them—through His presence—with the thoughts, emotions, will, behavior and relationship patterns of Christ.
I humbly ask God to help me become willing to deny myself—and the desire to live life on my terms—and to remove my shortcomings.
I will make a list of all the people I have harmed and become willing to make amends.
I will make direct amends to all I have injured.
I will continue to take personal inventory, and when I wrong someone, I will promptly admit it.
I will, through prayer, meditation, and the practice of other Christian disciplines, attempt to improve my conscious contact with God.
Having experienced some measure of authentic transformation as a result of surrendering all aspects of myself to the power and presence of Christ, I will carry this message to others and continue to practice these principles in all my affairs.

"The familiar means of the traditional AA program—the famous "twelve steps" and
the personal and social arrangements in which they are concretely embodied, including a conscious involvement of God in the individual's life—are highly effective in bringing about personal transformation." From Living A Transformed Life Adequate To Our Calling, http://www.dwillard.org/.

"So the problem of spiritual transformation (the normal lack thereof) among those who identify themselves as Christians today is not that it is impossible or that effectual means to it are not available. The problem is that it is not intended. People do not see it and its value and decide to carry through with it." Renovation, p. 91
"Now I must say something you can be mad at me about. A fundamental mistake of the conservative side of the American church today, and much of the Western church, is that it takes as its basic goal to get as many people as possible ready to die and go to heaven. It aims to get people into heaven rather than to get heaven into people. This of course requires that these people, who are going to be "in," must be right on what is basic. You can't really quarrel with that. But it turns out that to be right on "what is basic" is to be right in terms of the particular church vessel or tradition in question, not in terms of Christlikeness . . . . As a result they actually fall far short of getting as many people as possible ready to die, because the lives of the "converted" testify against the reality of [Christ's power and character]. The way to get as many people into heaven as you can is to get heaven into as many people as you can - that is, to follow the path of genuine spiritual transformation or full-throttle discipleship to Jesus Christ. When we are counting up results we also need to keep in mind the multitudes of people (surrounded by churches) who will not be in heaven because they have never, to their knowledge, seen the reality of Christ in a living human being." Renovation, p. 239, 239

Reconciliation to a God on the move

2008-11-10T08:51:00.003-05:00

"Be reconciled to God!" Paul urges, and the Church has long echoed him. Many have said that the key here is to accept or appropriate Christ's sacrifice through a prayer to God. Essentially, "the gift" of God is forgiveness (which can be important coming from the God who made and fills heaven and hell), and our job is to simply receive this gift. That's it. That's the "good news." And if God wasn't an object in motion, and we humans weren't objects in motion, I'd pretty much leave it at that myself. But we are all on the move; and not just random movements, either. Does "reconciliation to God" have anything to do with the nature and direction of my movements in life compared with his?

Years ago my wife and I had a long, good talk about intimacy. Specifically we talked about whether our intimacy level as husband and wife was limited by the extent that our direction or goals in life differed. Essentially, we agreed that it was. I keep thinking about this regarding God. If God had no particular goals for the world or for me; no real agenda for what I became, what I love, what I trust, what I hate, what I do from day to day--absent, say, really harming someone--then getting a blanket of forgiveness for any particular offenses in the past or future would pretty much complete, our 'reconciliation'. I'm okay, he's okay, we're okay--reconciliation done.

But God does have a very definite goal for me--and not just me. He has a dream for the whole world and heaven as well, and he is passionate about it, willing to go through the crucifiction for it. He has a clear direction and he is very, very active--every moment, around the world--in bringing his dream to pass, training and working with those who become his children and co-workers in his great dream.

So, I agree, "Be reconciled to God!" But I'm convinced that's going to mean more than just receiving his forgiveness for past and future wrongs. It's going to mean learning to love what he loves, learning to work with him for his dream and making it our own, giving up our alternative plans and dreams that don't fit in. It's going to require following his lead. In a nutshell, it's going to require a process of becoming, or discipleship. Because we all, God willing, are going to continue to live and act in this world, affecting everyone around us in various degrees, towards various ends. So is God. The question is, are we working with him, towards his goals, or not. Jesus put it this way: "If you're not working with me, you're working against me. Either you're helping me gather things together, or you're scattering them further apart." Let's learn to be part of the Solution, and learn to stop being part of the problem. Also, let's know that this is what it means to be reconciled to this God who is in motion--receiving his forgiveness, absolutely, within the context of learning to move and act with him, from his Son who knows all about his Father's intentions and plans and ways of acting.

Prayer & Meditation

2008-11-04T07:59:00.003-05:00

Alright. Let me just say that step 11 has been a surprise. I'll be straight up honest. I kind of expected, as a long-time Christian now doing the steps as a tool in my apprenticeship to Jesus, that I had already been working step 11 for years, so I'd just kind of jump right into 12 once I got there. Then I got to step 11 and felt like God just made it an inescapable question: "Don't you need to improve your conscious contact with me? Hasn't your inner life gotten weaker and weaker over the years in many ways?" The Holy Spirit and the habit of greater honesty with God and myself that the previous steps had just instilled has kept me from saying "no" to either question. So I'm now in the middle of seeking to improve my conscious contact with God through prayer and meditation. And I'm very grateful to be doing so.

On that front, some of the online Christian Classics, particularly Jeremy Taylor's Holy Living, has been really helping me, along with listening and reading the Message, as well as a more typical bible.

Willard on using the Bible safely

2008-10-17T09:36:00.006-04:00

A blurb of wisdom from Willard's Hearing God on how to approach Scripture usefully and safely (HT: Todd):

We will be spiritually safe in our use of the Bible if we follow a simple rule: Read it with a submissive attitude. Read with a readiness to surrender all you are—all your plans, opinions, possessions, positions. Study as intelligently as possible, with all available means, but never study merely to find the truth and especially not just to prove something wrong. Subordinate your desire to find the truth to your desire to do it, to act it out!

I may spend a long time with that last sentence: "Subordinate your desire to find the truth to your desire to do it, to act it out." This priority (and the plan to implement it) was one of the first and most striking differences between every bible study or small group (or worship service) I've been a part of and working the steps with John. In my previous bible studies or small groups (several of which I was leading) the weakest point was the follow-up and follow through on the 'doing' of what we learned. By definition, perhaps, the focus of a bible study is information intake. Sunday service was often the same in evangelical circles. We were always on to the next topic next week, regardless of how well or how poorly any or all of us had really implemented and made a habit of what we learned last week. The process of follow up or follow through was spotty to non-existent. It was left largely to the individual. 52 isn't that many 'truths' to learn in a year. It seems like an inhuman amount of new habits to form without intelligent and community-supported follow up and follow through.

By contrast, I've thoroughly enjoyed how John and I, though we began working the steps at the same time, are not currently on the same step, because our goal has not been to get through the steps either quickly or in lock step, but to let each step do its work thoroughly and completely in each of us, each of us working individually with support from God and each other to make each step fruitful in our actual lives, which is a similar but unique experience and work for each of us. Also, because of the size of our group (2), we don't have to limit our conversation to a certain topic (e.g., "Tonight we're discussing step 9."). We have the time to be person focused, purpose focused, process focused, rather than topic focused. I've heard for years in Church circles "I'm educated way beyond the level of my obedience." I think Church as we've known it is pretty much designed for that outcome, hence it's prevalence. Should we do anything about that, or just accept it?

Many Christians assume that communal attempts to focus on implementation of truth become inevitably legalistic and judgmental. I wonder. AA seems to let the communication and discovery of truth be subordinate to (be a servant of) the implementation of truth, and they seem to be (in)famous for being full of people more welcoming and full of grace than most churches--and more honest at the same time.

The Steps Toward Humanity Akin to Jesus Christ

2008-10-13T09:54:00.012-04:00

This isn't finished. I'm not finished. But after wrestling with Jesus and the steps and Dallas Willard and God knows what all else for years, here are the steps as I've been using them for the last several months, more or less, and plan to continue for some time to come.

As with most things, the precise phrasing isn't as critical as the implementing the spirit behind the words, to the extent it is the spirit of God. Your feedback is welcome.

Teresa of AA-vila

2008-10-10T13:03:00.003-04:00

Today, I'm throwing in some help from Teresa of Avila, on the role of self-examination, and of prayer and meditation in the task of becoming akin to and more intimately involved with Christ. As with William Law, I get really jazzed to see this stuff in so old and trusted a source as Teresa of Avila. It amazes and thrills me to see so much of the means and goals of the steps in so many Christian classics.

This passage from her classic work, Interior Castle, underscores the necessity of what AA would much later call steps 4, 10 and 11, and offers some wisdom on their relative importance. Both self examination and more 'vertical' prayers and meditations are necessary in making all the rooms of our "interior castle"—Teresa's image of the multi-tiered and compartmentalized human soul—into a beautiful and functional home for the true King.

Mark well . . . that self-knowledge is indispensable, even for those whom
God takes to dwell in the same mansion with Himself. Nothing else, however
elevated, perfects the soul which must never seek to forget its own nothingness.
Let humility be always at work, like the bee at the honeycomb, or all will be
lost. But, remember, the bee leaves its hive to fly in search of flowers and the
soul should [often] cease thinking of itself to rise in meditation on the
grandeur and majesty of its God. It will learn its own baseness better thus than
by self-contemplation, and will be freer . . . [.] Although it is a great grace
from God to practice self-examination, yet ‘too much is as bad as too little,’
as they say; believe me, by God’s help, we shall advance more by contemplating
the Divinity than by keeping our eyes fixed on ourselves, poor creatures of
earth that we are.

I do not know whether I have put this clearly; self-knowledge is of such
consequence that I would not have you careless of it, [because] though you may
be lifted to heaven in prayer, while on earth nothing is more needful than
humility [emphasis added]. Therefore, I repeat, not only a good way, but the
best of all ways, is to endeavor to enter [the work in the soul through prayer
and meditation] first by the room where humility is practiced [i.e., the room of
self-knowledge], which is far better than at once rushing on to the
others.

In a process of apprenticeship and change, it is necessary to look at and even meditate on (think about) both our own ways as well as those of the Master we are seeking to emulate. The beginning of our transformation will be weighted more to the former, while we will eventually focus more and more on the latter. Eventually I imagine we become so one with Christ that these twin tasks become quite fluid, like the way we subtly and even unthinkingly checking our speed and how much gas is in the tank, and adjust the AC, the steering wheel, the brakes and accelerator, even change gears, all while keeping our eyes down the road where we are headed, even though, when we began driving, we had to pay much more attention to our own actions with the car, than where we were going. Accurately assessing one's own life and Christ's are both wonderful gifts from God, and are both essential to the task at hand, but as Teresa has said, "we shall advance more" in the long run by contemplating Jesus—he is our chief subject—than by assessing ourselves alone. Let us examine ourselves initially and regularly, but all the while learn to fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfector of our trust.

Some resources for working the steps

2008-10-09T14:32:00.000-04:00

For those that are interested in using the 12 steps explicitly for pursuing Christian growth, here are some resources I can recommend: First, I've been using One Day at a Time by Trevor Hudson. The book is short, to the point, and has had several helpful tips for working each step, which has been particularly helpful with certain steps. I've been working the steps with my friend, John, and he's using Keith Miller's Hunger for Healing Workbook, so each of us are getting exposure to both authors' tips, which have really helped flesh out how to go about each step. Keith Miller appears to be the godfather of using the steps explicitly for Christian growth; I plan on getting his book Hunger for Healing after seeing John's workbook for it. 12step.org is a free online resource that is absolutely fantastic. They give summaries and excerpts from the Big Book of AA, from AA's 12 and 12 and from other recovery groups for each step, scriptural passages for each step, worksheets, etc.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I suggest doing the steps with another person, preferably someone who has done them with good results. Since neither John nor I have worked the steps before, I frequently talk to other friends of mine who have worked the steps through AA or Al-Anon, to get their input. Remember, the steps aren't a race. I'll be posting the version of the steps I've ended up with in my head, having adjusted them slightly for the goal of growth in Christ, soon.

What's this Christianity thing about, anyway?

2008-10-06T10:47:00.003-04:00

One can sometimes get the wrong impression from how Christianity is often practiced as to what God's priorities are for his people. On that note, a word from our enviably named brother, William Law, from A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life (does this guy know how to name a book or what?):

[T]hat religion or devotion which is to govern the ordinary actions of our life is to be found in almost every verse of Scripture. Our blessed Saviour and His Apostles are wholly taken up in doctrines that relate to common life. They call us to renounce the world, and differ in every temper and way of life, from the spirit and the way of the world: to renounce all its goods, to fear none of its evils, to reject its joys, and have no value for its happiness: to be as new-born babes, that are born into a new state of things: to live as pilgrims in spiritual watching, in holy fear, and heavenly aspiring after another life: to take up our daily cross, to deny ourselves, to profess the blessedness of mourning, to seek the blessedness of poverty of spirit: to forsake the pride and vanity of riches, to take no thought for the morrow, to live in the profoundest state of humility, to rejoice in worldly sufferings: to reject the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life: to bear injuries, to forgive and bless our enemies, and to love mankind as God loveth them: to give up our whole hearts and affections to God, and strive to enter through the strait gate into a life of eternal glory.
This is the common devotion which our blessed Saviour taught, in order to make it the common life of all Christians. Is it not therefore exceeding strange that people should place so much piety in the attendance upon public worship, concerning which there is not one precept of our Lord's to be found, and yet neglect these common duties of our ordinary life, which are commanded in every page of the Gospel?

Sound daunting? It is!! (even if our brother Law slightly overstated the call) In fact, without the help of God, the Way of Christ is impossible. But Christianity is about coming to do our actual life with and through Christ and his power, in the way he knows it should be done for the good of all. It's about learning how to let God, through his annointed leader, actually run things. The time has come. The government of God (through it's King) is near. Change your plans, your direction, and trust this good news. Receive the governing of God through Christ. Enter it. Follow Christ. Learn to live in this Way. These are the invitations of the New Testament. If you want to say "Yes" to this, and you want a prayer to pray, pray the Lord's prayer, then follow it through with something like the steps: Learn to stop letting sin reign in your body; instead, learn to let Christ heal and reign through every part of you. How can we do this without honestly taking an inventory of ourselves and our patterns of action, and then seeking the help of God and other followers? I love the steps because they are about actually identifying where sin has reigned in us and seeking God's help for that to stop (and they've helped me see that come to pass in my life).

Lord, let your government come; let your will be done on earth, just like it is in heaven.

Habit Forming

2008-09-30T13:40:00.004-04:00

I'm on vacation with Kim, Ruby & Brooke, and I'm happy to say I've not been on the internet much at all!

But the steps are still helping me . . . and I figured I'd post an observation or two while they're fresh. I've noticed that the steps are really habits, specifically, they're habits that facilitate progressive humility, trust in God, and general improvement of character. Just look through the steps, and it's not hard to realize that these are not things that someone just does, never to repeat, normal ebbs and flows notwithstanding. If you do them even once sincerely, they give you benefits that are hard to walk away from. That seems only fair play for AA's to fight fire with fire. The Big Book says something to the effect of alcohol abuse being only the symptom: it is merely the vehicle that alcoholics use to run away from the pressures of life. The steps are the solution because they teach a person how to successfully deal with life: by humbly taking our place with God, taking advantage of his many benefits. "Taste and see that the Lord is good." Similar to alcohol, one experience of God can lead to another.

It's hard for me to say enough how much God is ready and willing to recreate a willing human being (even one that is extremely screwed up) into someone akin to Jesus. The issue isn't God's power or willingness on this point, it's ours, which the original AA's were desperate and fortunate enough to discover.

As for my current step 'location', I have made some of my amends of step 9, and still have work to do. In fact, I've got my biggest 'amends' yet to schedule once vacation is over. I pray it goes well. And I find myself doing steps 10, 11 and 12 as well already, though without any prompting.

Two birds, one post

2008-09-22T09:48:00.004-04:00

The below is a comment I left on Scot McKnight's blog, on the first post of what should be an excellent study on the word/concept of "gospel" in the bible. His post today focused on the Old Testament 'gospel', I think it's also strongly related to my experience with Step 2 of the 12: "We came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity":

Alright! The mother of all series! Very much looking forward to this one, Scot. Just to be explicit about something that is implied in all of your points: God’s great power or abilities (which he uses for good), especially relative to others. Especially the Isaiah passage (who says to Zion, “Your God reigns”, emphasis mine) says to me that the chief power in the world is their God. I realize this is implied, but given people’s general tendency to trust other power sources (money, governments, persuasive people, etc.), I think it’s worth being explicit: No one, no thing has more power on the earth than God (specifically Jesus). The fact that saying it might be controversial even among Christians proves the point. It also happens that in many, many circumstances, one’s conclusions about who the most powerful person in the room is will dominate one’s course of action. If the earth is a ‘room’ where God has little power, our ethics will show it.
Even the Exodus speaks loudly about this ‘power’ issue to the whole world, to the extent pharoah and Egypt were perceived as the world’s greatest power. Foundational to trusting God instead of other things is believing he is able to help, more able than other things we could trust. (BTW, I’m looking forward to the book Salvation Belongs to Our God, for this reason)

My point being that God's power, and specifically Jesus' power, to help people on the earth is part of the gospel itself, and a critical part at that. If he did not have power to help, we would not bother coming to him; we'd go to someone or something else. We just don't--and shouldn't--trust things or people that can't deliver. Even people we hate, if we think they have power to do something, we are inclined to listen to what they say, perhaps do their will. Trusting God's gospel about Jesus is, in substantial part, coming to believe that he has the ability to come through in the ways we need. We need to know he has power on the earth to help.

For me, knowing Jesus has power, saying to myself "Jesus is Lord" puts my soul at ease. So many "what ifs" become quieted within me. More on that to come.

Observation 1: If your goal is transformation . . .

2008-09-21T16:36:00.007-04:00

As I've been working the steps (slightly modified), and talking to various friends and church folks about them, I've noticed a common reaction, typically non-verbal, which I guess can best be summarized as 'perplexed'. After I confirm I don't even like alcohol and don't have any 'bad' addictions, the question on their faces seems to be: "Why would a Christian without an overt addiction problem do the steps?"
Obviously, some of these questions stem from an ignorance about the steps and what they're really designed to do--but that's for another post. Another reason for the perplexity is a general idea of what we think God is hoping to accomplish in the world through Jesus, and we don't see how the steps figure into that. In a nutshell, if Christianity is--at its core--about 'getting saved (from hell)', why go through the steps absent a typical-kind of addiction problem? And from that standpoint, I'd have to agree; the steps would be tangential at best to Christianity, though extremely practical for living well.

But what if God's goal and hope in sending Jesus is not just to save us from the ultimate consequences of our sin, but from "our sin" itself? What if his goal is to get his way on earth more like he does in heaven; to make human rebels into happily cooperative family; to overthrow the functional leadership of self, money and all that causes evil? What if re-creating people into the character of Jesus is the goal, and honest, maybe even desperate, communities of people are the best raw materials? What if a gospel 'response' is about saying 'yes' to God's leadership through Christ, then learning how to actually live that 'yes' out with God and other folks on the same Path?

I want to throw out the thought that to the extent that one becomes gripped by a gospel of the latter kind, by the thought that how we learn to live is the only kind of worship that matters, the AA program in general will start looking like one of the most logical ways an individual and group could respond to what God has in mind and what he offers. (For me, becoming really centered on the latter instead of the former was a process that took several years.) Ironically, in this effort of transformation, one becomes especially thankful for God's amazing forgiveness for falling short, because that forgiveness is put into a dynamic context and pursuit of a very high goal, issuing from the very heart of God: re-creation in the likeness of his Son, letting God reign on earth, through Jesus, just like he does in heaven.

More on why the steps are so appropriate and functional as a response to the gospel, and on my own experience with them, later.

(Another) Long Time, No post

2008-09-20T12:31:00.003-04:00

Well, for anyone that still visits here on occasion, I am alive. And silence has not meant inactivity.

To continue where I left off, I started working the 12 steps with my friend John as a 'workout' towards transformation, towards Christlikeness, towards functionally entering God's reign through Jesus. (A hint re: future posts: the steps aren't really about drinking.) I'm not done with them yet (or, better, they're not done with me); and I don't know if that will ever happen, though I'm excited to go through the 12th step soon, which I'll talk about more later. As many who have worked the steps know, they're not a checklist to be 'completed' and left for the next thing; they become a way of living with different goals, different motivations and different means of handling each day.

I really can't adequately say how grateful I am to God and his people for this little program of transformation and healing, though I hope my life will show it for years to come. The next several posts will be attempts to share some of my own experience with the steps, and also some larger reasons why the wider Church might want to listen to these humble "suggestions" offered and practiced by broken people around the world who wanted real change for themselves, and often found that and so much more. For those interested in the so-called 'new monasticism' dawning in the evangelical church, don't forget to listen to the wisdom of the enormous fellowship of 'drunk' monks, quietly and anonymously working around the world, among and as some of our society's most broken people.

Making Disciples of Jesus

2008-05-13T08:57:00.005-04:00

After some delay, below is the plan that we're currently using as we re-launch Bow Down, a community in the inner-city of West Palm Beach, looking to become and make disciples of Jesus. Each item is in order of priority, more on that, and on each element, later:

Workout Plan with Workout Partners. Our first and foremost shared activity will be some sort of spiritual "workout" plan with two or three other people. A workout can be virtually any plan--a set of spiritual and not-so-spiritual disciplines--chosen by the workout group. It's not rocket science, but neither is it too common, for a group of professing Christians to look honestly at Jesus and ponder, "What practices would lead me toward becoming like him?" A group of 2-4 folks just have to prayerfully ask that question and see what seems good to the Holy Spirit and to them, and then do it. A few points on this practice: ~ There is no official workout of the church; there are virtually an unlimited number of good options (some are already using a modified version of the 12 steps, or the Daily Office, for example). ~ Each group can determine the appropriate length of the workout plan ("until we've all finished the 12th step", or "for six months", etc.). ~ As each group comes to a close, we encourage each person to begin again the process of finding workout partners and a workout. ~ We recommend that each workout group plan on meeting or talking together at least once a week to give each person a couple of partners in their process of being Jesus' disciple. ~ Everyone should take time, before beginning a workout with a group, to think and pray about whether they are really ready to give the time required for a workout and to be in relationship with the partners, and what, in a broader sense, they think being Christ's disciple will require; ~ Finally, we encourage that every other weekly meeting of the workout partners be at one of the small groups:
Small Groups. A few venues, meeting every other week, will be created where a few workout groups can all get together for a more typical small group meeting, where everyone can eat together with communion, sing together, pray for each other, and talk about what's going on. In this way, people can get exposure to some of the workouts that others are doing and get some meaningful connection with people within and outside of their workout group. One of the elders will facilitate each small group.
Worship service. Our final shared practice is our worship service. This will be a service not significantly different from many evangelical/charismatic congregations, though we may be more urban in our music, give more time for testimonials, talk more about the process of discipleship, and be more plural in our teachers. On the teaching front, it is the express goal of those currently involved in teaching to bring others into the work as gifting and character allow.

As I mentioned, we're going to attempt to make the above practices a priority in the order listed. The main reason being that we think our chief job is make mature disciples of Jesus (and become such ourselves). We need more Christ-like people and families downtown. We have had many converts, but see few "little Christs." Like many of the monastic orders or even like many educational theorists, we don't think that a typical worship service, as the express or implied chief communal practice, is going to result in significant progress toward this end, though it can be helpful toward that end as a lower-tier activity. Each person must respond to the call of discipleship and take intentional, if not aggressive steps if they intend to actually be a disciple of Jesus who makes progress in the effort. At the weekly service and elsewhere, we will routinely announce Christ's invitation to be his apprentice and how we at Bow Down are structuring our response with workouts in micro-communities with the Holy Spirit. Responsibility must be taken by each disciple for what they are becoming, and the process must be undertaken together and with God's direct help.

In a nutshell, after asking what practices would lead us toward "Christ fully formed within", we have come up with the above plan of action. Your comments and feedback (even the "You're crazy and a heretic!" variety) are welcome.

Blame Kyle

2008-04-24T10:13:00.003-04:00

Below is a response I was going to leave in the comments to the last post, BUT, after thinking about it, I wanted to (i) highlight Kyle's comment (because it's highly informed and thoughtful, and he has his own significant learning and teaching experience which is different from mine), which you can read in the comments of the previous post, and (ii) give my thoughts on it separately here:

Yo! Kyle,

You can opine here anytime! I'll take your comment above all as a double compliment: 1) that my post was interesting enough to read through and comment thoroughly upon, and 2) you must believe my attention span to be above average. :)

Really, thanks for interacting with some really good stuff (how's that for an educated vocabulary?). This was my favorite quote: "The pedagogy of the early third century Eastern theologian, Gregory Nazianzen, was, 'let us teach dogmatically today and discuss tomorrow.' I'm with you on not dismissing lecture altogether (which you'll see in the next post). I just lectured a little last night, as a matter of fact. (Though, I wonder if Gregory would substitute a reading assignment for a dogmatic lecture if his entire church had access to what we have access to . . . just a thought.) For me, the issue of teaching is at least significantly one of emphasis within all our formational practices, and what we're hoping to accomplish when we teach. That will affect how we teach and many other things. I think teaching is important. That said, the sermon/lecture has become the evangelical sacrament in many, many circles (faith comes by hearing, and that of the word of God), sometimes an end in itself, rather than one of many tools to assist in the making of mature disciples.

Relatedly, having a "head pastor" has become the chief necessary ingredient in Evangelical ecclesiology. To quote or at least paraphrase John Wimber, "The modern era has been a blessing in many, many ways, but it hasn't done much for our pneumatology." Similarly, it's also created distinct and easily recognizable problems in our ecclesiology and our soteriology especially. These all affect what churches pursue in the world and in their own people, and how. For example, I don't think that you should be saddled with the burden of a 'holier-than-other-Christians' title in order to be given space in your community to use your gifts and training with passion and as often God inspires within broad communal boundaries. Why can't there be multiple people whom the community has recognized as having a particular gift to teach? These folks can work together and sharpen each other and the community. Can't they, in turn, train and involve others in their discipline and work, all within one community? Certainly. And when it comes to decision making in the body, the Quakers, some monastic orders, and even AA have, in my view, embodied a more biblically sound practice and government, namely, a "pneumocratic" body of brothers in which the members discuss and discern together, looking for consensus, not mere 'majority vote' on what God is doing in a particular situation. Of course, some voices will carry more weight than others, which is appropriate, but the Spirit can also speak through the most unexpected sources, and many will recognize his voice when they hear it, no matter the messenger. There is more here, but you get the idea.

Though, clearly, modernism has not and does not stop God from accomplishing wonderful things in the most modern (and lecture oriented!) churches, many times over. To not see this is a mistake.

But the splinters remain for me, both from experience and from what I see God doing (and how) in the scriptures. BTW, my favorite take on a functional approach to church decision making is stated nicely in a brief study by the Center for Parish Development, called "Gathered Together to Seek and to Do God's Will."

Hope you all are doing well. I'll roll out the next post soon.

A little background . . .

2008-03-13T09:33:00.005-04:00

Hopefully, this post and the next will help to make more sense of some of the last few posts. First, a few bits that shape my perspective, in no particular order, so you know some of where I'm coming from when it comes to the subject of teaching and learning:

I've grown up in the evangelical church and never left. My mother took us to Southern Baptist churches growing up, I went to a Lutheran grade-school, a non-denom evangelical middle school & highschool (bible class every day, chapel once a week), attended and led small groups & then college ministry at a Vineyard in college & law school. Since then I've been a part of two evangelical church plants. (My point: I've heard a moderately high amount of teaching in the evangelical format, and even given my share of it.)
As far as non-religious schooling goes, I've had about as much as I can get without changing fields of study. I have a B.S. in Business, a law degree and a master's in tax law. I've also been working as an adjunct professor at a local Christian university for two years. My classes, two per semester, have approximately 30 students each. (So I've also heard a relatively high amount of teaching in the academic format, and even given my share of it.)
FWIW, in the academic setting I generally got great marks as a student and as a teacher (at least in the academic setting, you get formally evaluated on these things). Whether as a small group leader, college minister, professor, etc., I really have cared about what people who were part of these groups were taking away from them. Though questions about teaching have been in my mind for decades, doing the teaching/leading work myself kicked them into high gear as I attempted to help people learn and see something, and even be shaped differently.
The current church plant that I'm a part of is coming out of a parachurch ministry in downtown West Palm Beach--Urban Youth Impact ("UYI"). It's largest program is an after-school tutoring program, but it also does a variety of evangelical outreaches, bible studies and community service projects on a regular basis, and has been in the community for over a decade. Like most strongly evangelical organizations, UYI's outreaches were typically designed to get conversions--getting kids to say a prayer so that they can go to heaven instead of hell whenever death inevitably comes. UYI has gotten several thousands of these conversions over the years, which they sought to "follow up" with bible studies and the like. But here is the fact: UYI can only point to a handful of people who show substantial change toward Christlikeness out of the thousands who have "converted."

So what? Well, obviously I've not studied learning theory (yet), and have no formal education training. My experience is only as a congregant, a disciple of Jesus, a 'secular' student, and as a church leader and professor. But each of these undertakings have been wonderfully helpful and also left some splinters in my mind about the learning process, specifically as it applies to our apprenticeship to Jesus. Here are some splinters, again, in no particular order, that I haven't yet fully dug out (the next post will be the tangible structures that the current church plant is adopting that these splinters helped shape):

In all the above experiences (and as a parent), I've seen lots of ways one can teach, and lots of ways one can learn. Some ways of teaching are less effective (i.e., less likely to change the hearers intellectually or more thoroughly) than others. The evangelical church tends to emphasize, even revere, the least effective form of teaching of which I'm aware--uninterrupted lecture by the same person.
Jesus, speaking to the apostles, whose 'teaching' responsibilities were only going to increase, told them not to let anyone call them "Teacher" or "Father", and gave essentially two reasons: There was only One worthy of such titles, and they, the apostles, were all equals with anyone they'd be 'teaching'. I have no doubts that changing the title to "pastor" or some other term designed to honor and distinguish a servant from the other brothers somehow remedies what Jesus was trying to prevent here.
Relatedly, being given the task and gift of teaching by God is different from letting people put a title on you. Gifts give energy and life to the giver and the recipient. But few things in life are heavier than a religious title, whether for the individual or the individual's family. Do your leaders a favor: call them by their first names, and think of them that way.
The longer one stays in academia, listening to experts give lectures, the less one feels qualified to do anything. One has to actually do something themselves and see it work to build confidence with the subject matter.
Parents whose goal is maturity don't primarily teach by lecture; talking is just step one.
I don't think we're making as many disciples of Jesus as we think we are.
While I realize that "not many" should aspire to biblical teaching (for the harsher judgment and the general challenges of the tongue), didn't the early churches enjoy a plethora of teachers (how could Corinth play favorites if they'd only ever heard one guy; how could Timothy know if a potential elder is "able to teach" if the candidate has never done it; if the Jerusalem church "devoted themselves to the apostleS' teaching, that church had at least a dozen teachers, not even counting James, Jesus' brother, and some other folks who likely also taught; if "two or at the most three" prophets would speak per gathering in Corinth, do we really think it was the same two or three every gathering, etc., etc.)
Guest speakers in my class have a big advantage in being effective just by having a different voice and face and personality than my own.
Prioritizing "new births" over "Christ fully formed within" will play itself out in actual living results.
Students tend to retain a lot more if WE discuss, than if I lecture.
I learn a lot by prepping to teach. I learn even more if I ask the students good questions and listen to their answers and questions.
No amount of lecture (or even discussion) can make up for a student who doesn't really want to learn what I'm teaching.
Creating learners is more helpful than teaching, and there is a difference between the two.
A truth discovered sticks and shapes several times better than a truth heard.
Seeing and doing something in action (apprenticeship) is so much better than classroom "learning", it's hard to even compare them, but apprenticeship is much slower and requires a lot more "teachers", and a lot more work by the student.
Would the apostles be horrified by our near permanent "delegation" of the teaching to one person per church, with lecture being the typical method?
As Dallas Willard has suggested, are we getting the results we now have not despite our efforts but at least partially because of them?

As I said, next post will be the structures our new church plant is adopting, which have been shaped in part by these splinters.

Maturity and "teaching"

2008-03-11T09:35:00.005-04:00

Here's a comment I made on one of Brant's posts. His issue was more general, about babies and bathwater in the church and which is which. My comment was specific to the relationship between teaching (as we typically practice and prioritize it) and maturity:

[I]t's fairly defensible that the "end" God has in mind is fully formed, fully functional Christ-likeness, writ-large. If that's where we're headed (or where God would like to lead us), what shared, corporate practices are likely to lead us there? I know you're a fan of [spiritual disciplines], so there's much positive to be said here. On the negative (bath water) side, though, I think that delegating the vast bulk of the teaching to one "expert" person on a near permanent basis, and, secondly, having our teaching be almost exclusively without dialog are likely to help the very young in the faith for a while, but will actually hinder the maturing process after the infancy/child stages. Why aren't pastors typically multiplying themselves out of a job asap? Don't our biblical examples tend toward that kind of multiplication? Our "ecclesiology" is currently best designed to produce babies (converts) and minister to those babies in the faith. It is difficult to argue from typical church practice (centered on lectures, usually by one "expert") that we are geared toward maturity. Our priorities of practice, our ways of doing teaching, etc.--bathwater. Not necessarily bad, but definitely best used for babies.

I hope I'm being clear that I'm not opposed to teaching. I do, though, from a biblical and practical perspective, question how we do it, how we (generally fail to) train others to do it, and how both of the above tends to produce spectators of the faith rather than ambassadors of it. So, are there any biblically faithful alternatives to our typical "plan"? What and how so? Is an alternative approach really necessary at all? I'll be posting on an alternative we're working on at UYI very soon.

I'm not writing you a new orthodoxy but an old one

2008-02-20T09:01:00.008-05:00

This post (and the others in this very interesting series) by Michael Patton got me thinking about "orthodoxy." The term literally means "right teaching" or "right thinking", though Patton gives some more thorough definitions according to various camps of Christianity. If you look at the lists of beliefs that constitute orthodoxy in Patton's post (and he did a great job assembling these), you can see that most Christian camps refer to "orthodoxy" not really as "right teaching" of Christianity as a whole but rather right teaching of specific, so called "essential" teachings of Christianity. Several questions immediately come to mind, but a few that I want to discuss here are:

What teachings, thoughts, beliefs are "essential" to Christianity?
How (and by whom) are such "essentials" to be determined?
How are people's beliefs to be determined for purpose of measuring them against the orthodox ones that are selected?

Along these lines, here are the guts of my comments at Scot McKnight's blog about this:

I fear that [these lists] represent what I hate to see (but frequently do) in discussions of “orthodoxy”–we don’t use Jesus’ life, ministry and teachings as the plumb line, we use some favorite [or historical] interpreter(s) of him, which leads to deeper divisions in Christ’s body, just as it did in Corinth and continues to do today. . . These lists of beliefs are, therefore, better used as history of past battles over particular pieces of reality than as wholistically accurate pictures of orthodoxy. Let’s not measure men by lists. Let’s measure men by the Man. The lists, at best, present a very partial picture of orthodoxy. Whereas, the best wholistic picture we have of who God really is and wants to say and do is in Jesus’ teachings and actions. And of course, there are very good scriptural reasons to believe that God will use Jesus own life and teachings as the means of measuring everything that needs measuring. . . . We . . . may not like that putting Jesus at the center messes with our theology and puts more mystery in the whole issue of orthodoxy than we’d like, but let’s at least be express about the plumb line and let the cornerstone be the cornerstone if we’re going to measure who “lines up.” . . . Where on these lists, for example, is the belief that love of God and neighbor are the most important guides to life? Isn’t it at least a little disconcerting that the very teaching that Jesus said was the most important of the entire revelation before him isn’t mentioned in these lists of “essentials”?

What I'm getting at is that one would not likely get the same list of "essential" teachings by studying primarily the teachings of Jesus himself; in fact, some of the teachings that were thematic for Jesus and even the apostles are not considered "essential" to teaching Christianity rightly. I'm thinking, as I mentioned in the comment, of the command that Jesus said summed up all the law and prophets--loving God with every facet of our existence and our neighbors (and enemies) to boot. It is difficult to argue that this was not "essential" according to Jesus' own thinking, or even the thinking of Paul or John or Peter, if their letters are to be believed. One could argue pretty easily based on a casual reading of the New Testament that teaching this "love" is even primary in the faith. And there are others, such as the teaching that one's conduct shows what one truly believes.

So, I'm wondering, first, what would a list of 'essential teachings' look like if we based our list on what appeared to be Jesus' own "essential" teachings and actions (and secondarily those from the rest of the NT). That would be interesting and maybe helpful. But I'm wondering even more, what if we made Jesus himself--his life, his "walk" and his teachings--as our standard for evaluating how far or close a given person or group is to "orthodox Christianity"? Isn't he the plumb line, the cornerstone? Isn't he the walking and talking definition of orthodox Christianity?

If we use him as the Standard instead of a partial list of teachings for determining orthodox Christians, we'd get at least a few benefits:

We'd find that he's the only one being perfectly orthodox in his thinking and acting, which will give us all a more graceful tone when evaluating someone else's "orthodoxy" (which not coincidentally will make us more obedient to one of Jesus' own teachings).
We'd be more appropriately and equally concerned with a person's actions as we'd be with their stated "beliefs" when evaluating what they actually believe (which again, Jesus seemed to think was a good way to think about such things).
We'd be more concerned about our own deviation from the Standard than other people's (yet more obedience to Jesus' teachings).
We'd realize that Christianity is more of a Path, more of a growing (or fading) relationship to a Person, than a checklist of right beliefs that can be verbally affirmed and checked off. More important than a snapshot of beliefs is the direction one is heading and whom one is trusting to proceed with life.
We'd encourage and make more 'learners of Jesus' than 'affirmers of lists'.
We'd be less likely to end up with whole groups of supposedly "orthodox Christians" who are content, even entrenched, to act in direct opposition to several of Jesus' teachings.
We'd be using the Standard that God himself will use to judge us all.

Our response to God's offer, part I

2008-02-09T20:16:00.000-05:00

The twin invitations of entering God's government on earth and becoming Jesus' apprentice beg the question: what is an appropriate response to such invitations? Ironically, if a prayer was going to be the response, it would be the one Jesus taught us to pray (the "Lord's Prayer"). But is a prayer, even that prayer, the kind of response that "Follow me" is intended to illicit? I think prayer is certainly part of what following Jesus means, but prayer alone, even his own or one in which we call him 'lord', doesn't seem to be what "Follow me" is all about. Talk of any kind certainly isn't what the government of God is about; it's about power, right dealings with others, and joy, all through the Holy Spirit. God's invitations are invitations to get oneself on board with a leader, a God, who has a definite agenda and direction. It's about ceasing to be part of the problem and becoming part of God's healing solution through really trusting and following his son.

While there are perhaps an unlimited variety of plans of action that embody a wise response to God's kingdom/discipleship offer (for a fantastic article on the subject, check out this one from Dallas Willard; it's a really a short book, but really worthwhile), the 12 steps continue to impress me in so many ways as an appropriate and thoughtful response to the invitations into Jesus' kingdom and apprenticeship. The steps are about changing one's path and who controls it. They're about honestly facing the causes and effects of our own management and acquiring the humility on which all other virtues can be built. And letting God build those virtues is expressly named as a necessary goal. In a nutshell, they're about actually letting God reign instead of us. They're about God having his Way in us.

So, some friends and I (more on that later) are taking some version of the following 12 steps together, slightly modified from the current steps of AA, as a structured response to what God is offering us all through Jesus. The bold words highlight what's different from AA's current version; they're not for emphasis. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the point is not the steps, they're just suggestions, hopefully wise ones. "The goal is Jesus, the means is Jesus."

We admitted that something was wrong, in us and in the world at large, and that we were powerless to fix it.
Came to believe that Jesus has ultimate power, goodness, and wisdom, yet is available to all.
Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of Jesus, God's choice of king.
Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character and become like Jesus himself.
Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings and to give us His Spirit.
Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
Looking at Jesus, we continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
Sought through several helpful practices to improve our conscious and cooperative contact with God.
Having witnessed Jesus' work personally, we shared him with others, and tried to practice Jesus' ways in all our affairs.

First, the gospel

2008-02-09T20:09:00.000-05:00

I said a few posts back that I'd give more on what's been stewing and happening lately. Here's the first bit. Both in time and importance, it starts with the gospel. Actually, the starting place for me has been Jesus, which got me thinking about his 'gospel'. Most that know me know that the favorite message of Jesus, the good news of God's government, has been messing with me for last 6 years or so. Without going into that full journey, here's a summary of where I am now:

The gospel, according to Jesus, is about accepting, trusting, the leadership and provision of God right now. Importantly, this government of God is led by his son, the 'christ'-ened king of heaven and earth, Jesus. Even though God could have sent the representative of his government to judge and toss all the human rebels and just start a 'new heaven and earth' from scratch--one in which the two dimensions were united under his leadership, he opted instead to offer amnesty to anyone that wanted give up their own doomed agendas for life and get on board with the king, Jesus, and the 'new creation out of the old' agenda of his government. To accomplish this, God sent Jesus to do certain things (to be discussed later) and with basically two invitations: the gospel ("good news") of the government of God and the invitation to become Jesus' 'disciple'. To me, these are the same invitation. Why? Because Jesus is the king of the government of God; apprenticeship to him, the king, is to give up your own agendas and ways (repent) and to trust instead that God is working through Jesus as God's own chosen leader for people (trust that the kingdom of God is at hand). Different language, same outcome when the 'discipler' is also the 'king'.

This king showed up teaching, healing, and generally undoing Satan's leadership (instead of, say, executing a just and terrible judgment on a world largely run amuck--this difference actually disappointed some). His goal is still to produce a 'new heaven and earth' that is united and holy and good--completely untouched by contrary leadership and its effects. But in order to include us in this new creation project, the cross was necessary. Thanks to his substitutionary death, all humans can actually be welcomed into this great plan God has for (new) creation instead of being thrown out as part of the problem. We can, thanks to Jesus bearing the cross and death, be given amnesty and become part of God's solution, part of re-creation of the world. He rescued us so that we could be his co-operative subjects and family.

But an important caveat: We have to decide now if we want to enter and receive the government of God personified by Christ's own leadership. "Why call [him] 'lord' and do nothing that [he] says?" Is that what biblical or even practical 'trust' is? Is that what it means to "receive" and "enter" the government of God--to stay hostile to what the king of that government says to do? No one who continues a life of rebellion against God's leading, against his annointed leader's priorities, has any part, certainly no inheritance, in the kingdom of God. "The time has come. The kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and trust this good news!", or, another way Jesus put the exact same choice, "Follow me." To "receive" him is to receive his right and qualifications to lead; to trust him is to do what he says; to love him is to obey him. Those who do the will of God will live forever. Eternal life is to know God, and Jesus whom he has sent, but the one who says, "I know him" but lives contrary to him does not know him.

SO, if the invitation is not to "receive a free gift" of eternal life but to receive Jesus and his government (which has life within) . . . man! Does that change things in church world!! How do we invite people into that--into what Jesus was inviting them into!? Perhaps more importantly, for those of us that want to receive ourselves what God is offering in Jesus, how do we structure our response? To me, Jesus' invitations are more 'path' invitations and require 'path' responses.
The invitation always structures the response. More on appropriate responses to God's invitation soon.

Needed to be said

2008-02-07T15:55:00.000-05:00

I dig this piece; saw it yesterday. And Scot McKnight is looking for feedback on it. For my part, I agree with the guts of it completely. As a registered republican (barely, I admit), I am proud of the ways McCain has, at times--not frequently--bucked his own party. I'm thinking of a few: immigration, campaign finance reform, torture, & certain tax bills. Of all these, his direction on immigration and torture impress me the most. They impress me even more given his personal history and his awareness of the seriousness of the national security issues we now face. His take on torture is historically informed, future-looking, and, frankly, far more respectful of the Judeo-Christian ethic so many of his detractors are so concerned about a President implementing.

Here's something I see going on here as well: many evangelicals voted for W because he was one of us; we had an idea of where he was coming from, how he made his decisions, and we felt confident about someone who made decisions that way. Many such people, myself included, don't trust that reasoning as much now because of several of W's actual decisions, such as his initial decision to go to war (ignoring the advice of C. Powell, who should have had the most clout of any cabinet member in any such discussion), and his support for various torture techniques (the end justifies the means?), and other decisions, even the deficit. I personally was also discouraged by his hamstringing of the bankruptcy code which is a much-needed form of institutional mercy that this country picked up from our Judeo-Christian heritage. At any rate, for various reasons based largely on the actual decisions of the President, many evangelicals aren't quick to vote for someone now just because the candidate is evangelical and can talk that talk. That selection method has hesitations now, and there are as many competing methods now as candidates. Now, a candidate's sincere 'evangelicalism' is just one factor among others, which is unfortunate for Huckabee, but likely a good thing for the Republican Party and definitely a good thing for the country. But as a new selection process settles in, there's a little confusion on the right, and fewer easier answers. We're growing as citizens and voters, even though it results, for now, in many traditional conservative mouth pieces, who have preached their various conservative litmus tests for years, having to accept a candidate who's never had much use for such tests. Change is hard, especially for 'conservatives'. It's harder to make decisions with so many factors to consider. It's also part of growing up.

A guiding principle

2008-02-05T11:12:00.000-05:00

As I mentioned earlier, I'm working with Urban Youth Impact to re-orient our own lives and our ministries around God's goals for people, ourselves included. The result so far has been a shift toward inviting ourselves and others into a shared direction, into similar, practical plans for fruitful marriage to Jesus, rather than inviting anyone into getting singular "decision(s) for Jesus" with plans for marriage that are secondary or tangential or even non-existent. That may not make much sense, but more on that to come. For now, I will share one of my favorite phrases that has emerged as we have been making this shift and contemplating various "workout plans" for healthy living as Jesus' disciples:

"Remember, the goal is Jesus; the means is Jesus."

Kyle made me do this

2008-02-05T10:55:00.000-05:00

I've been tagged by Kyle for a "what are you reading now" meme. So, Kyle, since you're very far away, are expecting your first child, and are now probably brainwashed to never use a 6th grade level vocabulary for more than three consecutive sentences, I will give you two -- that's right two -- answers on this: one business and one non-business.

I'm practically surrounded by books at work, but they are the technical, lawyerly kind. The one that was on top of the stack today doesn't even have typical page numbers. I'm not kidding. The pages are "1-7" (for the seventh page of chapter one), and "2-22" (for the twenty-second page of chapter two), etc. Which means I had to actually do math to find the 123rd page of the book. Well, I don't do math, I do Excel. But you get the point. And here's what the 6th through 9th sentences were on the 123rd page of Practice Under the Florida Probate Code:

Trial courts have jurisdiction over the trustees of a trust when the situs of the trust is in Florida, and both statutory requirements and the constitutional minimum contacts requirements have been met. Chereskin v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 705 So.2d 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). The 1993, 1995, and 2001 legislatures passed important legislation in the area of trust law that significantly changed probate proceedings, relating to certain trusts, and the 2006 Legislature enacted the Florida Trust Code (F.S. Chapter 736), effective July 1, 2007, which created a new body of trust statutes more closely modeled on the Uniform Trust Code. A complete examination of the legislation is beyond the scope of this chapter; the following is a partial summary of the changes.

Just enough to whet your appetite about those changes, huh?
I'll post on from my "home" reading and who I choose to tag next . . .

Caution: Don't Read (part II)

2008-01-31T10:51:00.000-05:00

"Yeah, those bits from Jesus were tough, but what do you expect? He's perfect. Nobody else, not even people that love Jesus, would say or do anything like that." [If that's your best defense against the stuff in the previous post, again, don't read any further--the following was written by actual people who trusted Jesus and his words.]

"But those who want to be rich fall into temptation, a trap, and many foolish and harmful desires, which plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root [a] of all kinds of evil, and by craving it, some have wandered away from the faith (A) and pierced themselves with many pains. 11 Now you, man of God, run from these things; but pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, (B) endurance, (C) and gentleness."
"Now all the believers were together and had everything in common. (AQ) 45 So they sold their possessions and property and distributed the proceeds to all, as anyone had a need. [j] 46 And every day they devoted themselves [to meeting] together in the temple complex, and broke bread from house to house. They ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, (AR) 47 praising God and having favor with all the people."
"But know this: difficult times will come in the last days. (A) 2 For people will be lovers of self, (B) lovers of money"
"For an overseer, as God's manager, must be blameless, not arrogant, not quick tempered, not addicted to wine, not a bully, not greedy for money"
"Your life should be free from the love of money."
"Instruct those who are rich in the present age not to be arrogant (E) or to set their hope on the uncertainty of wealth, but on God, [a] who richly provides us with all things (F) to enjoy. 18 [Instruct them] to do good, to be rich in good works, (G) to be generous, willing to share"
"But the one who is rich [should boast] in his humiliation, because he will pass away like a flower of the field. (A) 11 For the sun rises with its scorching heat and dries up the grass; its flower falls off, and its beautiful appearance is destroyed. In the same way, the rich man will wither away while pursuing his activities. (B)"
"Therefore, it is already a total defeat (F) for you that you have lawsuits against one another. Why not rather put up with injustice? (G) Why not rather be cheated?"
"And I say this, brothers: the time is limited, (S) so from now on . . . those who buy [should be] as though they did not possess, 31 and those who use the world as though they did not make full use of it. For this world in its current form is passing away. (U) 32 I want you to be without concerns."
"For we brought nothing into the world, and [a] we can take nothing out. (B) 8 But if we have food and clothing, [b] we will be content with these."
"You ask and don't receive because you ask wrongly, so that you may spend it on your desires for pleasure. (A) 4 Adulteresses! [a] Do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? So whoever wants to be the world's friend becomes God's enemy. (B) 5 Or do you think it's without reason the Scripture says that the Spirit He has caused to live in us yearns jealously? (C) [b]"
"Do not love the world (W) or the things that belong to [d] the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. Because everything that belongs to [e] the world— 16 the lust of the flesh, (X) the lust of the eyes, (Y) and the pride (Z) in one's lifestyle—is not from the Father, but is from the world."
"If anyone has this world's goods and sees his brother in need but shuts off his compassion from him—how can God's love reside in him?"
"For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ: although He was rich, for your sake He became poor, so that by His poverty you might become rich."
"And walk in love, as the Messiah also loved us and gave Himself for us, a sacrificial and fragrant offering to God."

Is it just me, or do even the conservatives read the New Testament a little less literally when it comes to money?

Caution: Don't Read

2008-01-31T09:48:00.000-05:00

An interesting self-inspection: I'm wondering if what we really love and trust has anything to do with how we 'interpret' these bits from the gospels, mostly from the Man himself:

"No one can be a slave of two masters, since either he will hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot be slaves of God and of money."
"[Jesus] instructed [the apostles] to take nothing for the road except a walking stick: no bread, no traveling bag, no money in their belts"
"Don't be afraid, (A) little flock, (B) because your Father delights (C) to give you the kingdom. (D) 33 Sell (E) your possessions and give to the poor. (F) Make money-bags (G) for yourselves that won't grow old, an inexhaustible treasure (H) in heaven, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. 34 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."
"He also said to them, 'When I sent you out without money-bag, traveling bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?' 'Not a thing,' they said."
"And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of the unrighteous money so that when it fails, they may welcome you into eternal dwellings."
"The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and scoffing at Him."
"Then Jesus said to His disciples, 'I assure you: It will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven! (A) 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.'"
"Blessed are you who are poor, because the kingdom of God is yours. . . .But woe to you who are rich, because you have received your comfort."
"As for the seed that fell among thorns, these are the ones who, when they have heard, go on their way and are choked with worries, riches, and pleasures of life, and produce no mature fruit."
"Someone from the crowd said to Him, 'Teacher, (Z) tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.' 14 'Friend,' [d] He said to him, 'who appointed Me a judge or arbitrator over you?' 15 He then told them, 'Watch out and be on guard (AA) against all greed (AB) because one's life is not in the abundance of his possessions.' "
He also said to the one who had invited Him, 'When you give a lunch or a dinner, don't invite your friends, your brothers, your relatives, or your rich neighbors, because they might invite you back, and you would be repaid. 13 On the contrary, when you host a banquet, (L) invite those who are poor, maimed, lame, or blind. (M) 14 And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you will be repaid (N) at the resurrection of the righteous.' "
"But I say to you who listen: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (X) 29 If anyone hits you on the cheek, (Y) offer the other also. And if anyone takes away your coat, don't hold back your shirt either. 30 Give to everyone who asks from you, and from one who takes away your things, don't ask for them back. . . . If you do [what is] good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? (AB) Even sinners lend to sinners to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do [what is] good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. (AC) For He is gracious to the ungrateful and evil."

I told you not to read it.

Where have I been?

2008-01-15T09:31:00.000-05:00

It's been a while since my last post, but life has been continuing, surging even. I've probably got a few posts 'built up' in me now, so we'll see if I increase my 4 posts-per-year average. Much is afoot.

A few highlights from the last several months, that I hope to explore more fully in some upcoming posts:

On a personal note, I continue to be drawn to the core of Christianity. I love keeping the main thing the main thing. That, of course, begs the question, but more on that later. Suffice it to say for now that Jesus, the kingdom he announced (and leads), the way of living he taught and modeled, the real help he offers in this world and the next--I'm still amazed and pulled by that Core. I love hearing and thinking about what he's really offering us all.
The (12) steps are back. Well, they never totally went away; I just semi-stalled in doing them. The fact that I was largely doing them on my own may have had a bit to do with that, and the return of traveling partners is part of their resurgence. More on that later.
Ecclesiology is also on my mind (i.e., how the heck can we be most helpful to each other? i.e., once we collectively accept a 'get Christ fully formed within' goal in place of a 'get your ticket to heaven' goal, does anything stay the same in corporate life !?!, i.e., if . . . you get the idea). Much more to come.
Relatedly, A new book released by Frank Viola and George Barna called Pagan Christianity? is going to be shaking things up all things 'church' for a while. There's already a lot one can read about it online--it's an explosive book. Personally, I'm not as interested right now in deconstructing typical church patterns and paradigms (the goal of this book) as I am in constructing helpful ones. Regardless, this book is and will continue to be an important piece. More on that later as well.
I've been deepening my connection to the folks at Urban Youth Impact for some time. The small church, of which I am part, that was recently born out of this 'parachurch' ministry is, right now, trying to follow Jesus into restructuring ourselves around a shared goal of maturity, of "Christ formed fully within." We're also finding some ways to pursue this without constantly leading from the top down. Very exciting.

Anyway, it'll be good for me, I think, to flesh a lot of these things out--and soon. Maybe even more helpful to get feedback. And yes, other than the Pagan Christianity bit, all the above are related.

God's love to you.

More than compassion

2007-06-25T10:27:00.000-04:00

Hey, here's an easy question for my fellow evangelicals: What made Jesus so amazing to his contemporaries? What convinced everyone that God himself was doing something with this guy?

While we ruminate on the obvious, let's talk about some words that have fairly big roles in evangelical Christianity: salvation and gospel. What images come to mind when you hear salvation? Do you think of someone 'praying to receive Christ' for the first time? Or of heaven after death? Or maybe God's pronouncements of (by)passage through final judgement when many will be accepted by God because of Jesus. If you grew up like me, 'salvation' is about pretty heavenly stuff, generally speaking. What about gospel? What do you think of when you hear that? Again, if you grew up like me you maybe think of some of the same stuff as with salvation. Maybe something, too, about Jesus' death and the forgiveness of sins through believing he 'died for us'. But now, back to the original question. What made Jesus so amazing to his contemporaries? Was it offering that kind of 'salvation'? His promises of heaven and threats of hell? Was it his forgiving nature and acts? His brilliant (and radical) take on the Hebrew Scriptures? All of these, I would suggest, he could have done and not drawn any particularly widespread loyalty or hatred, though he likely would have been made into an irrelevant outcast himself, given his contrast with the Judaism of his day. What made everyone (even his enemies) take him so seriously, and not just dismiss this Galilean woodworker? If the gospels are to be believed, it was quite obviously his power that drew deep responses. Namely his power to heal the sick, to remove demons, to raise the dead, to control nature, to rise from the dead himself. It was more than good intentions and compassion towards people. Many feel compassion in those times and today. He was more than just "willing" to help--that made him a nice person--what made Jesus the center of the largest movement in history was that he was "willing and able" to save people from this world's brutalities with power so great it had to be from God.

Here's a similar question: What made the small group of poor and uneducated people (who were adding to their non-credentials the claim that their publicly crucified leader had "risen from the dead") so amazing to their contemporaries? What convinced everyone that God himself was with these people of no account? Why did anyone listen to their messengers who had such global claims? Again, while we think on the obvious, let's discuss our terms for a second. First, when the gospel writers talked about the 'healing' Jesus brought people, they used the same word when talking about the 'salvation' Jesus brought people. In the NT writings, Jesus' physical healings and the more heavenly salvation that he offers are related closely enough to use the same word for each. Whatever we think 'salvation' is, the NT writers didn't just think about heaven when they heard that word. They thought about really being helped--whether in heaven or on earth.

Now, in relating 'gospel' to 'salvation', I've always taken the one (gospel) to be the key, the mechanism, for how the other ('salvation') works. In one scripture the apostle Paul puts it this way, "I'm not ashamed of the gospel, because it's the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes." What happens, though, when we stick a NT concept of 'salvation' into that verse? The 'power' referenced in that verse gets appreciably larger--it goes from being a 'power' about heaven and life after death, to a power concerning heaven and earth--a bigger power. Interestingly, it echos something Jesus said about himself, just before his ascension: "All authority on heaven and on earth has been given to me." All authority. heaven and earth. What's more, he said this right before giving what's called 'the Great Commission': "Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations . . ." Even without these particular verses, it's clear from the Gospels and Acts that the 'salvation' people sought and received from Jesus and his disciples wasn't just a heavenly one. It's also clear that Jesus didn't understand himself or his disciples as having no authority over earthly things. They used God's power to save in every possible way, in every possible venue. In that context they invited people to trust Jesus with everything (in heaven and on earth).

Is there a difference between the "salvation" and "gospel" we've announced and the one Jesus and the disciples did? If so, what's the difference? To me, the difference in a nutshell is that we announce a Jesus that lacks power (or willingness) to do things on earth, at least the kind of power that made Jesus' own contemporaries and those of his diciples after him take him and his message seriously. This isn't just an academic issue, either. To misrepresent the power of any king or his kingdom is serious a slander of that king or that kingdom. It might be the most serious slander. It's a particularly effective slander if it comes from that king's own subjects. Before we continue to stand on such a potentially slanderous theology or practice, we ought to have overwhelming biblical support, especially in light of the role that Christ's power to heal played in Jesus' own evangelism, in the disciples' witness, and their disciples' witness (Stephen, Barnabas, etc.). The NT examples are too frequent, the momentum toward practicing the miraculous too strong, to be overthrown on any questionable or scripturally thin theology, and too much is at stake. Out of love for Jesus and the sakes of those to whom we are sent as his ambassadors, we need to honestly ask and seek what kind of 'salvation', what kind of 'savior', that Jesus and his disciples offered the world, compare it to what we offer, and make whatever adjustments are required.

'Cause I'm a lawyer, dagumit.

2007-06-12T00:23:00.000-04:00

In response to this story*, I did exactly what the author invited the readers to do (and made easy to do by creating a wonderful link to the website of the governor of Georgia). Please read the story--it's short and easy to follow. Here's my two bits to the governor (feel free to plagiarize if you want an even easier way to say something):

The attorneys for the State of Georgia who continue to pursue additional prison time and/or the official label of "sex offender" for Genarlow Wilson make a mockery of the legal profession and make the State of Georgia appear to be either completely ignorant of what justice is (which I know it is not), or, worse, willing to to use the power of the State in furtherance of far more disturbing impulses than those which occur at a party between a 17 year old young man and a 15 year old young woman. It would be a travesty regardless of the young man's race, but doing this to a young black man in the South adds fuel to the fires of racism that are still burning, sometimes violently, in every community in the United States, despite much continuing work against them.

I urge you, as the governor of the State of Georgia, to quickly and decisively end the inexcusable pursuits of your subordinates who threaten to further erode the barely existent confidence of the African American community in the American system of "justice." You and your officials aren't just acting for Georgia in this case--in the minds of African Americans accross the country, what you do with this young man will be painted on every prosecutor, every police officer, and every state official for every state in the union. It will either be another reason for distrust and bitterness or a small reason to hope that we are becoming just.

*Caveat: I have not fact-checked the linked story, mainly because it came through yahoo news and not just a blog somewhere. If you want to do more digging before doing anything, cool. I'd appreciate any update on the facts, myself.

Oh, the logical consistency of Jesus

2007-04-12T09:55:00.000-04:00

One of the assignments I gave my business law students last term was to read every passage in the NT that had some logical bearing on how to handle money or business issues, quote in full the passages that struck them, and give a brief comment on those passages as well as any themes that emerged. I highly encourage anyone to do this, that is, if you're a person who wants to be loyal to Jesus and also have to use money. Of course, I then had to grade these collections, which meant I got to read a lot of these scriptures several times, along with my students' reflections. I really never believed my own teachers when they talked about how much they had learned from teaching a class. Now I do. I can't really go into everything I got out of that experience in one post, but one important aspect is the logical connections between so many of Jesus' teachings.

Jesus says to love our enemies, even to love them by giving to them. He says to respond to takers with even more giving.*

He says in another place that to be his disciple, we have to be willing to give up all that we have, even our own life. If we don't we can't be his disciple.

He says in another place, we can't serve, pursue, God's interests and Money's. We're going to have to choose whose instrument we're going to be, which master we're going to trust and obey.

He says in yet another place that the message of God's governing of earth, the good news, can be heard but rendered fruitless--producing nothing in a person--by the worries, cares, and desires of this life.

He says people who don't really know God are constantly concerned with things to wear, eat, and use, but that we should be concerned with letting God lead again, and all that stuff will be taken care of by God's undeserved kindness.

There are more, but do you see the connections?

*Incidentally, it is this feature of Christ's teaching that hasn't exactly caught fire among his "followers." It also happens to be God's plan for overcoming evil. So I guess loyalty to money = no fruitful loyalty to God = evil keeps on truckin'.

True or False?

2007-03-16T09:45:00.000-04:00

Here's a true/false question I put on my most recent test in business law:

Based on the New Testament's examples and teachings, Christians in a business dispute should be primarily concerned with the money that they have been given by God to steward.

Now, I actually don't think the question is that hard. The fun part, I think, is that it raises other questions for Christians in business (not that I expect the students to remotely think about them during an exam): If building and maintaining my stack of cash shouldn't be the primary objective when in a dispute with others, is it ever supposed to be our primary objective from a New Testament perspective? Is money supposed to be our main goal in planning our advertising? In product design? In customer service? In family relations? "Wait a minute," you may say. "Of course not in family relations, but the other examples are different. They're business, and the reason to be in business is to make money." Really? So, if we spend the bulk of our time at work week to week and year to year, whose servants are we? Another way to look at it would be to talk about whom we are called to love. If we say that family relations are about the good of each person (love) and money is a mere object in comparison to their importance, how do we biblically keep that kind of priority structure within our biological families alone? If I owe the same duty of love to all, how then can it be a cheapening of family relations to make them primarily about money and not with other relations? On what basis do we make actions in business that clearly affect other people about (our) money instead about their good, biblically speaking?

You may say to me (as some students have implied), "But T, none of the economic activities you mentioned would happen at all if not motivated primarily by money." I'm sure there are a lot of activities that wouldn't happen without money being the primary motivator (I'd be happy to see a lot of those ads go, to be honest), but there would still be a whole lot of services and goods produced at God's leading and inspiration alone. There would even be ads, though it would interesting to think about what form they would take. It's interesting to think about what activities would disappear and which ones would emerge if God was the Master behind all activities, if Love was our master even in business. We give money too much credit and God too little if we think that nothing productive would happen without money being our main objective. Jesus didn't just talk in parables, he fed the multitudes; he restocked the wine at a wedding; he healed the sick. Paul talks about doing something useful (for others) with our own hands, and he practiced the same. God gave the Israelites the wisdom of letting their soil rest before science revealed the reason. Just imagine what would happen--and what wouldn't--if serving Jesus' agenda was our primary objective in all our activities, including whatever we might get paid for doing.

Further, I don't see how a 'business is about money' attitude is compatable with the idea of God calling us or leading us to our work for the good of the world, let alone compatible with a gospel of the inbreaking governing of God. Either God calls and continues to lead or money does, and whoever is leading will shape and color the whole activity. My thinking here is essentially based on Jesus' statement "You can't serve both God and money" [at the same time]. Money, of course, tells us, as God does, that it must be given top priority--it is the bottom line, the plumb line, for deciding whether an endeavor as successful or not. This is how money has made even God's people its ambassadors and instruments rather than God's for the bulk of their lives. It is this single dynamic that I think is at the root of all kinds of issues that plague the Western Church as a whole and make the international Church so shocked at the severity of our dualisms. We just trust money more than God for life in this world. Money, in our estimation, gets things done. Jesus may be lord in heaven, but money is lord on earth. This is what our lawsuits, our ads, our schedules and our spending scream to the whole world, as routinely as the earth and stars speak of God's beauty and power.

The only solution to Money's current leadership position that I can think of is to individually increase our personal appreciation for what God does right now in the physical world, and decrease our faith in Money. Money doesn't actually make the world go 'round--God does. Money doesn't actually keep me and my family on this earth, but God does. Money doesn't actually give me my brain and everything else I have to use in the world, but God does. Money doesn't actually control the billions of intangible things that keep my life (including my business) from falling apart. God does. Money didn't lead me to my wife, to my current business and professorship, and it didn't give me my daughter. God did. To reimagine an old Psalm, "I look up to the high rises and skyscrapers, hosting the earth's powers. Does my help come from there? No. My help comes from the Lord, maker of heaven and earth." Maybe as we think about all that God does in this world, in our own lives, out of mercy alone--really take some time to wonder about it--we will begin to trust his ability to take care of the practical things and then make his leadership, his reigning, our primary concern. Then, maybe, the activities of the world--even the economic ones--will slowly take a very different shape and character.

Missional Church, part II

2007-01-23T22:47:00.000-05:00

As I mentioned in my last post, I feel confident that focusing on Jesus, as he actually is, is foundational for a church. But is there a focus that Jesus himself had that we should also acknowledge? This is where I recalled the substance of a very short book I read a few years ago called How to Find Your Mission in Life by Richard Bolles. (The book was originally published as an appendix to Bolles' longtime bestselling job hunting / career path book, What Color Is Your Parachute?) The thrust of the book is that each of us have 3 missions in life, or one mission with 3 parts, depending on how you view it. The first two missions are shared by everyone, and they are what Jesus called the greatest commandments. Each person's first mission is to "Love God with all your heart, soul, mind & strength." "Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever" is the way the Westminister Catechism puts it. Once we begin this mission in earnest, we will be drawn inevitably into the second part of our mission, which is also shared with every other human being, and it is to love other people. On this point, a caveat is in order. Just as we have a tendency to remake Jesus in our image, so too with love, especially when it comes to loving other people. We tend to think that we are loving people, but thanks to Jesus, the term 'love' now has more definite content. "A new command I give you," Jesus said. "Love as I have loved you." Just as Jesus is "the visible image of the invisible God" so he is the revelation of what love is. "This is how we know love" the scriptures say, and then point to his actions for us. As we pursue our first two missions of love, we are no more free to reinvent the term than we are to reinvent Jesus and the God he represents. He has given us, in word and deed, the definition of love that he is asking us all to participate in with all of our being.

According to Bolles, the third part of our mission, that we will discover as we pursue the first two parts in earnest, consists of those things, unique to each of us, that God has gifted and placed us to be and do. To me, this encompasses the longer-term 'missions' like my calling to be a husband to Kim and father to Ruby. No else has the opportunities that I do in those ways, and I am designed for these missions. To a slightly lesser extent, my work as a lawyer and professor and friend to others gives me other aspects of my current mission in life. The key is that the first two missions continually serve as the foundation, the reason, the fuel, the plumbline, for the third. Anything that isn't logically related to the first two missions simply isn't my job to do. Mother Teresa said of her work that it was "something beautiful for God." Of course, there are still lots of decisions between lots of good options: Do I marry this person, someone else, or no one? Is this job offer God's will for me? Where should I live? Etc. And this is precisely where being in community with other 'missionaries' who are also learning how to hear from and follow the living, functioning Christ can be most helpful. Also, in addition to these longer term missions, there are the countless other smaller opportunities for being a human representative and instrument of God every day that make up our unique mission in life. This third part of our mission includes the natural--giving a cup of cold water to _______, and the supernatural--letting God use us as instruments of his loving power.

So, after discussing this with the church that meets in my house, we've decided to let these 3 missions be ours, as continually defined and refined by Jesus himself:

Love God with all that we are and have;
Love others as Jesus has loved us;
Be faithful to discover and complete the missions unique to each of us.

These are our missions. We'll ask each other about how we're doing in them, and do things together to train ourselves for our success in them. The point, though, isn't just to understand these missions or even Christ's teachings as a whole, that is just a necessary step. I've had too many encounters this year with thoroughly evil people who teach Sunday School every week. Fulfilling the mission is the goal.

Missional Church, part I

2007-01-16T21:04:00.000-05:00

For a few months or so I've been wondering and reading (hopefully with God) about the little group that meets in my home. Specifically I've been wondering if there is any appropriate way to focus our individual and shared lives to help us all progress in the goals God has for us over the long haul. Our group is very informal, and we know that we're a church, but that's about the extent of the 'focus' week to week. Would a greater degree of focus be helpful? If so, what should it be?

As I thought about these questions, the first place my brain stopped with any degree of confidence was with Jesus himself. Conceptually, this isn't hard to accept--a (Christian) church focuses on Jesus. Learning his priorities and view of things is foundational; it's what makes us "Christian." But I wondered some more, "Is that enough?" Not whether Jesus is enough--he absolutely is. But, as many have noted, we humans have a penchant for being sloppy, highly selective and even partisan in our perception of Jesus. Our ideas about Jesus vary widely. As Gordon Cosby has said, "My Jesus may be your Jesus' worst enemy." Different aspects of Jesus' life and teachings get explained away or ignored in bulk by different parts of the church: Some avoid his supernatural commands and practices that he passed on to the church, others avoid his teachings about tangible mercy, others avoid his teachings regarding the cost of following him, others, the bits about loving and giving to those who wrong us, still others ignore his contemplative (or celebrative) practices, and we almost all avoid his warnings about money. So naming Jesus as our focus should be done with recognition of the widespread practice--within Christianity--of reshaping Jesus as we see fit. Relatedly, the goal God has for us isn't just to learn about Jesus and his teachings--though that is necessary. The goal is to physically embody Jesus and his teachings. I believe it was Kierrkegard that said Jesus has many more admirers than followers. We want to be people whose admiration is such that following is the only logical course of action.

I then wondered if there's any topic worthy enough to be placed immediately after 'Jesus.' And further, what does it mean, practically speaking, to follow Jesus today? Does adding anything at all to 'Jesus' immediately misdirect us to lesser goals? That's my next post.

And now for something completely different . . .

2007-01-07T20:43:00.000-05:00

Congrats to Ohio State and Florida for getting to the "big game" this year. There has been a lot of talk this year (again) about why we need a playoff for college football. "We need to know who the best team is!", it is said. "We need to eliminate, or at least lessen, the role that opinion plays in deciding champions!" And, then--my favorite--"College football is the only major collegiate sport without a playoff!" To all these deft arguments I say, "Baloney, hogwash, hooey, horsefeathers, piffle, poppycock, rubbish, tomfoolery!" (I know, strong language for college football.) But here's why I say so:

To work backwards, who cares if college football is the only collegiate sport without a tournament? It's also the most popular collegiate sport--by far. And it's not just the post-season that draws crowds, viewers and plenty for everyone to comment about (the present controversies included), but the regular season is do or die every week--also unlike every other college sport. Why, exactly, is Ohio State unquestionably deserving to play in the title game? Because they didn't drop a single nail-biting game in the regular season. As USC just demonstrated, that ain't easy--even the weaker teams can and do beat anybody. All the teams know that blanking the loss column is the best possible way to get a shot at the title (and Auburn has most recently proven that even going undefeated is no guarantee--more on that later). What does that must-win-every-game reality do to the regular season? It absolutely electrifies it. Both national and conference titles routinely swing on a single loss. The stakes are high every week. The college football season can be described in three words: drama, drama, drama. Now, if we go to a tournament at the end of the year, does each regular season game matter in the way it does now? I don't see how it could. Sure, people will still go; teams will play hard. Will a tournament, though, be the same, or better for the regular season? As other sports will attest--it's all about the playoffs. 'So long' to the only regular season that has post-season flair.

Now, what about reducing the level of opinion currently in play in determining who plays in the big game? Guess what? First, a tournament will reduce it, not eliminate it (Who gets invited to the tournament and why? Who gets seeded where?) But secondly, WHY BOTHER DOING THAT? Seriously, why do the arguments about SEC vs. Big Ten (and everyone else) rage on year after year? Because every season, like any good drama, leaves so many unanswered questions with a vague, tantalizing hope of solving it next year, or the year after that. But each year just generates new questions as it answers others. Would Michigan have beaten Florida head to head? What about Boise State? Would LSU have won it all if they had gotten to play a tournament? What if Auburn had been chosen to play for the title a few years back when they went undefeated instead of Oklahoma who got embarrassed in the title game? (And Auburn absolutely should have played for the title.) What if, what if, WHAT IF!? Is this kind of 'injustice' and lack of total resolution bad for college fans or the game? Isn't it more like the painful tension for any good ongoing story? Isn't this the exact ambiguity, this unique ambiguity, that mixes with school spirit to make college football so much fun compared to every other sport--even other collegiate sports? (On a side note, the sports media that is currently so bent on complaining about the bowl system are only doing their job. It's literally their job to fan each controversy into flame. Believe me, they will all be harmonizing in lament if the bowl season becomes just another tournament--because that will be the 'controversy' then.)

Which brings me to the final point: "We need to know who the best is!" Really? I know college football is big business now, but college football is still also college football. Those are (by some definition) students on the field. If 'knowing the best' was a goal worth pursuing at all costs, then we should have each team that's matched up in a tournament play several games (or at least for the championship)--like in the NBA--since everyone knows that blowing one game to an inferior team happens routinely. If you want to know the best, that's the path. Do we really think that the best teams never lose a single elimination tournament? But instead of going down that road, let's look at what the afor mentioned "unique" bowl system currently does (aside from usually giving us a settled champion): How many other sports have multiple good teams that end their season with a win in post-season play? Probably as many as have a bowl system. Again, if it was pro ball, who cares about post-season-ending wins for 'losers'? But for college programs, I think this is a major plus. Is the bowl system antiquated? Absolutely. And, like all antiques, that's part of it's charm and a lot of it's value. College football isn't (yet) 100% about beating everyone to be the undisputed champion of all. It's also about (sometimes silly) traditions, songs, ugly mascots, parades, weird ways of clapping, fight songs, conference lore, rivalry games, odd trophies, school pride, nostalgia and formational times in people's lives. Why make college football into the pro game, when we already have the pro game?

So congrats again to Florida and Ohio State for making it to the final game in my favorite big-time sports event--college football--and for adding to the story along the way. And congrats to LSU, Boise State, and Texas Tech for adding to the lore with great and storied farewells. May the stew of college football be as spicy, rich, surprising and messy next year; and, of course, GO GATORS!!!

Trust me

2006-12-28T11:55:00.000-05:00

Gandhi, who had closely observed Christianity as practiced around him in Great Britain and in Europe, remarked that if only Christians would live according to their belief in the teachings of Jesus, "we all would become Christians." We know what he meant, and he was right. But the dismaying truth is that the Christians were living according to their "belief" in the teachings of Jesus. They didn't believe them! They did not really trust him . . . The idea that you can trust Christ and not intend to obey him is an illusion generated by the prevalence of an unbelieving "Christian culture." In fact, you can no more trust Jesus and not intend to obey him than you could trust your doctor or your auto mechanic and not intend to follow their advice. If you don't intend to follow their advice, you simply don't trust them.---Dallas Willard

This kind of trust implies a willingness to bet ourselves and our stuff on Jesus' Way--especially since Jesus' teachings deal with ourselves and our stuff. Along with my earlier posts (and Jesus' statements on discipleship), it's an 'everything' kind of trust. Assuming for a second that we somehow get this willingness to risk everything we have and are on Jesus, what would we really be risking? If we persistently and consciously let go of every 'right', and just accept whatever he gives and takes away through mercy, what do we think we'll lack exactly? Aren't we already dependent upon his mercy for every breath? Literally, aren't I still breathing because he chooses it to be so? Aren't you? What does anyone have that isn't ultimately a gift from God? I know that, for me, the thought that my ongoing life--including my eternal life--hangs completely on the undeserved kindness of Another made me very afraid for a long time. "I'm such a loser. How can I secure (control) his ongoing approval?! There's no way I can make him show me mercy!" I still have a hard time accepting that everything I have now, or will ever have, comes through mercy. I'd rather trust my rights; I just don't think I want what I'm entitled to. Trusting mercy, embracing mercy, showing mercy is just stepping out of denial that I've ever had anything else--in this world or the next. It's stepping into the only reality that there is. It's not really a risk, it just feels like it. God is committed to me--forever--in undeserved love. Showing such love to others, even to my apparent loss, is the truest evidence that I trust this all important fact of my existence.

Muhammed & Jesus - practically twins

2006-12-20T11:19:00.000-05:00

"No way!", you may say, and I agree. But there are many who view them and the religions they founded as essentially the same. This bothers me, especially in light of the simple fact that Jesus taught--and more importantly lived--that the rule of God in the world (his favorite topic) wouldn't come by physical force (neither his own nor that of his followers), but by overcoming evil with good, by turning the other cheek, by loving our enemies. Muhammed, on the other hand, taught, but more importantly lived the exact opposite. For this reason alone, it doesn't surprise me when Muhammed's current followers . . . well, follow him. I don't see how it should surprise anyone, actually, and it seems to require a denial of simple logic to expect otherwise, like expecting children to do what you tell them to do instead of what you actually do yourself.

Unfortunately, I have to admit that the contrast between Mohammed's followers and those of Christ is frequently not as stark as between the leading men themselves. This doesn't really surprise me for the simple reason that Muhammed's example is more appealing to follow than Christ's--even for those who believe Christ is the Son of God. Muhammed's overall story isn't exactly rare, historically or currently--get passionate about the way you think things should be (based on ideas about God or nature, or something bigger than one person), gather the masses around your zealous ideas, and, using the power you've amassed, give your opponents the beating they deserve (then write the bestseller about your opinion on everything). How many times have we seen this story just this century? Wow, if not for the current international politics, Muhammed's life would make a great and typically American hero movie. It's a pattern that many have followed and continue to follow.

But that life story isn't--at all--like Jesus' story, nor is it what he taught. Jesus' teaching and example are about showing mercy--even to the point of spilling one's own blood and money, and even toward those currently smacking you in the face in the name of God or something much less. Jesus' life and teachings are consistent and forceful on that point. Could this be any more different from Mohammed's example? Or Donald Trump's, for that matter? Victory over evil (even evil within one's enemies) through self-sacrificing, physical-loss-embracing, God-trusting love? Here in America and in other places throughout history, though, we've frequently managed to make following Christ about something not centered on this unique focus of Christ's life and teachings. It's sounds like quite an accomplishment, but it's really just a matter of supply and demand. We want to have the option of getting Jesus' blessings without having to personally trust his 'costly' Way of life and love, and such a religion has been supplied. But his example and teachings remain, forever providing the Way to overcome evil in the world and the violence and death it causes. A few actually find and follow this Way, Truth, and Life. And when they do, they don't act anything like Muhammed acted. They're not even typical Americans. They're little Christs, or, at least, that's the Road they're on.

+++ God, May we all recognize and follow your narrow Road to Life without end.+++

On cross examinations . . . of myself

2006-12-18T09:51:00.000-05:00

My attitude frequently does not make any sense in light of what I profess to believe about Jesus. For example, I say I believe that God's mercy, his undeserved goodness, is at work in the world--even toward me. I believe that it will "pursue me all the days of my life." Now, even a minimal appreciation of the implications of that fact would prevent me from getting bent out of shape about pretty much anything--ever. And yet, I bend out of shape. Why? Because I am failing to recognize the significance and breadth of what God is doing, or (worse) just turning a deaf ear to it. I fail to listen to and and contemplate God's good news and instead follow lines of reasoning based on something other than the gospel that I profess to trust.

It's these inconsistencies of thinking that a few well directed questions can bring to light with shocking clarity. Better to shock yourself (to yourself) than leave it to someone else, I think. Here are some questions that I zing myself with to snap me toward gospel thinking when I find myself using something much less worthy:

For use when I'm angry, hurt, etc. about not getting something I want or feel I deserve: "So, is Jesus not enough for me?"
For use when I am enjoying my "right" to be upset, disappointed, etc.: "What does God deserve from me, this moment and always?"
For use when I'm about to run out of patience with anyone: "What kind of love does God have for me? (What does he want shown to anyone?)"

Anyway, there are more, but you get the picture. I find that any scripture or fact about God that I would like to honestly hold can be turned into a question to point out my current rejection of it. Most people, I imagine, talk to themselves for the purpose of self-correction among other things. Feel free to add these to your repertoire and give me some of your own favorite corrective zingers.

Practice Six - Entirely Ready for Change

2006-12-13T09:54:00.000-05:00

Becoming entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character and to become a different person. -- Practice Six

Entirely ready to become a different person. Entirely ready. A different person. Remove all defects of character. To me, this practice is very closely related to my previous post on Jesus becoming enough for us. Being willing to be remade is a willingness to die, to cease to be as I currently am. It's not a denial about who I currently am, but an intention to be something else. That something else is Christ himself. I don't see this happening, biblically or from experience, without a willingness to let go of what I currently am. For those of you who have seen this kind of thing become a repressive, homogenizing reality, I am sorry for that experience, but I have no doubts that letting Jesus have free and total reign in me will do anything but make me the same as everyone else. In fact, it's the inevitable difference, uniqueness even, that I know I embody when I do this (I have done it from time to time in the past), that frequently tempts me away from being willing to do it wholeheartedly 'today'. Sometimes I don't want to be different in the way Jesus makes me.

The thing that strikes me about Christ right now is the utter inability of fear or desire to move him where it wants him to go. That is completely amazing. All desires, even for food, were subject to the desire for the Father, subject to the understanding that God was more than, or included, everything else. That is impressive. Only the Father was 'worthy' of his ultimate loyalty, reaction and obedience at any moment. (This, to me, is what actual worship is.) If I can make Christ the only one I need to please--if I could give the Father even my right to eat when I want, trusting his love, intelligence, and purposes--I would begin to get acquainted with Jesus' sufferings and his power. Peter, I believe, says, "the one who is prepared to suffer is done with sin." I can certainly see that if I'm not prepared--not willing--to lose the things that I want, to have some desires go unsatisfied, indefinitely or otherwise in favor of God, then I'm not prepared to be a exclusively loyal to Jesus. I'm not willing to be his disciple. I'm not ready to become just like my teacher. I'm not ready for real change.

But today, I am ready--in the belief that everything I need is in Christ. Thank you, Lord, for the willingness.

Dying to live

2006-11-27T08:31:00.000-05:00

(For those of you that are keeping track, I'm not off the twelve practices, though I am messing with them as they mess with me. More on that to come . . .)

Some of my current cases for work--some that have been going on for a while--have gotten me thinking. And reading. And thinking. And praying. And reading some more. And talking to pastors. And discussing with my business law class. And on and on. These cases involve conflict--conflict caused by the clear evil of the other party.

I've decided that what Jesus personally modeled and taught regarding overcoming aggressive evil is as clear as it is disturbing. And no one likes to do it, for obvious reasons. Chief among them being we want to save our life and the cash that makes that life fun for us. We don't want to lose either of these. For people who want to 'follow' Jesus, this is a problem. An impasse, even. Not only because Jesus says it's an impasse--repeatedly--but because this 'love your enemies, do good to them, lend to them' advice, is the nutshell version of God's strategy to conquer evil in this world. I hope the significance of the last sentence is gripping to you. This is how God beats evil in the earth--with your blood and money and life and mine, as sheeps to the slaughter, just like Jesus. I don't intend on quoting all of the various texts that make this obvious. The bottom line: He let everyone wrongfully hate him and hurt him, he let go of all rights, and gave his enemies everything, confident in God. In doing this, he won the full on love of many former enemies, and the highest recognition from God. And now we follow the brilliant plan that he taught and modeled. If we're not willing to pick up our cross and follow him, we can't be his disciple--because this is the plan. I'm not oversimplifying it. This is what it means to follow Jesus--letting God's love be enough to let go of everything else. Jesus knew it, Peter, James and John knew it. Paul knew it. Job knew it, Jeremiah knew it, Abraham knew it. This is how good beats evil. I'm feeling a little like a rich, young religious person lately, finding it hard to enter the kingdom of God.

I'm not dead yet . . .

2006-08-21T20:42:00.000-04:00

I'm not dead. I'm just not blogging much. There's a big difference.

Practice Four (& Five)--Part I

2006-07-04T12:04:00.000-04:00

"Making a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves (paying particular attention to our fears, our wounds, our sources of comfort and vexation, and our failures to love.)"

"Admitting to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the contents of our inventory."

Prepare to start getting somewhere. That's what I feel as I start thinking and writing for step/practice four---the inventory of . . . me. Since I'm putting some of the inventory on this blog, and giving the rest to others, I'm also into practice five. Before anyone gets up in arms about only posting "some" of my inventory here, let me just say that I've debated with myself a lot about how much to put on the blog. For now, I've decided to at least apply the limitation that restricts making amends, namely, to refrain when going forward would injure others. Let me add here too that my "sponsor" in this process made a recommendation to include assets as well as liabilities in the inventory. I think I see the wisdom in that, but I'm not going to start with the assets, and I don't know when I'll get there.

As I look at it now, it's easier to start with my "sources"--the things that I use to manage/comfort myself--and to work backwards from them to the motives, and, then I think my failures to love will be obvious. So, some of my "solutions" to life:

Procrastination. This is a big way for me to avoid life in general or specific tasks that scare me somehow. Just put them off. Of course, the more I put them off, the more I want to avoid them. This is one of the things I use to comfort myself instead of the comfort provided by God. I've definitely given away a lot of time and money by running from good things to do. I also get angry by the suggestion that I do something that I'm avoiding, as if it's Kim's (my wife's) fault that X or Y is something I need to do.
Food. Yep. I definitely use food to avoid stuff or just make life about me for a spell.
TV, movies, the internet, books, etc. Distraction is great. I've heard that it's the primary tactic of Satan in America. Well, I guess I'm just another lemming.

I know there are more, but I just realized something: Part of my plan for staying numb to whatever I'm running from is diversification. If I became a heavy user of just one of the above, both the addiction and the fact that I have built my world around myself would be harder to hide (from myself and others). But if I diversify, I can appear to be "normal", maybe even godly with just occasional 'outbursts' of selfishness. It makes denial much easier. Wow. I'm not kidding, that plan was really down in there somewhere. So, for me I imagine that any socially acceptable distraction from life will do. Alcohol doesn't fit because of my personal history, and there are others that I have a genuine hatred for, but you get the picture of what I go to and why.

I'm still working on finding out (with God) what exactly makes me want to use the above things, and here's what I have so far, in no particular order:

Fear. Fear of screwing up someone's stuff. I work as a lawyer so the idea of making a mistake that effects someone else in a big way (much more than it effects me) is a daily concern. I remember on the first day of law school, I think the dean said to all us first-years, "Welcome--you'll never have a good night's sleep again." There's a sense in which that's true for me, just from feelings of responsibility.
Selfishness. Whether it's work, or God, or my daughter or my wife, the selfish part of me only wants to do things it considers "fun" or enjoyable (like sleep). Sometimes, maybe all the time, I'm just all about me feeling good, and if you get in the way of that, you're in the way.
Fear (again). Fear of God, in a bad way. In a way of avoiding the light that sees every part of me--parts I don't want to acknowledge. Fear of shame, of failure. Fear of reality because I don't seem to do well there. Fear of actual life, of participating in the real thing, because I don't trust myself with the consequences.

I imagine there are more, but the above seem to hit, as I look at them, the positive side (desire) and the negative side (fear) of selfishness. All the above have serving me in common.

Well, as I suspected when I started, my failures to love are fairly obvious. I'll get into particular people later, along with some of my wounds. God bless you in your journey of life.

Practice Three

2006-06-05T09:32:00.000-04:00

Sorry for the delay, but the delay has been due largely to me working with practice 3: "Turning our wills and our lives over to the care and unfolding work of God through Jesus." It turns out, God had priorities for me in the last week or so other than blogging.

As usual, my version varies slightly from the original step 3. This time, the changes were really just twofold—I added "unfolding work" and specifically pointed to God's work and care through Jesus. In short, this step is a response to Jesus' good news--the gospel (see previous posts for a few details.) For now, let me just say that the announcement that "God's reign has come near" is an announcement of God's willingness to function as our king again--to protect, to lead, to care for us, and so much more. Step three, to me, is saying "yes" to that. Jesus' character, teachings and healings are all revelations of what God's leadership is like. And God is not a king that sends his people out to be slaughtered as he and his family stay safe inside a huge castle. No! If there is blood to be spilled, if there are feet to be washed, he goes first, and gives us hope that even death can't break his loving care for us, his willingness and power to provide us with life. Life to the fullest. This is God's reign. The fact that we can be in God's reign, be his subjects, his children, his instruments--this is the good news Jesus brings. It's the news he makes possible with his own blood. As the apostles make abundantly clear after his resurrection, he was and is the King with us all along.

Regarding the "unfolding" language, Jesus compares God's reign on the earth to a mustard seed, which, even though it is the smallest seed, it will eventually become the largest tree in the garden. It is also like yeast that eventually works its effects through an entire lump of dough. This world is the garden; this world is the lump of dough. Jesus—his character, his power over death, disease and demons, his love—is the seed, the yeast, doing it's work in the world, until everything is renewed, and at that time he will hand the kingdom over to the Father. This is what I'm surrendering to. This is who I'm giving myself to for complete overhaul. This is a moving, a growing kingdom doing good--the best--in this world. My surrender to God is surrender to a God with legs. Yes, I will have rest, rest like the world has not known for a long time. But I will trust him to care for me and lead me in my getting up and my lying down. Further, I will come to know a rest even in my work with him that is unlike anything of this world, because he will be working with me, or, through me.

Anyway, there's a lot there with the "theory" behind this practice, because this one happens to be a "yes" to Jesus himself and all of God's plans through him. The scriptures literally say that it is beyond what we can hope or imagine. For better or worse, I'm giving my life to Jesus, and we'll see what happens. With him I place my hope for all things.

Honestly, the way this has been playing out for me is that the thought of God's intentions has led me to worship. Not necessarily sing, but worship. The result has been less of me invested in my addictions. More often, though not always, when they call lately, their offer seems smaller, less glorious. I think the glory of God, which I've dared to look at lately, has changed my view. Also, I let God control more of my actions. I had more desire to do so for my own good and that of others. I've also had more desire to learn about what I'm giving myself to in this "Jesus life." I've been reading more of the bible to hear God's voice, get his thoughts and his "ways." I've also been more suspicious of influences that I've tolerated for some time. I haven't done much yet, but I'm feeling suspicion, and I'm thinking that's a good thing.

On a related note, my buddy Ahren and I have been talking about starting a group who will use the steps and traditions as a means of progressing in our life in Jesus. (This has been a long time comin'.) I can't go into all of it right now, but all feedback has been encouraging at this point. We have two different places that are eager to host and get some people involved. We're working on specific times. I'm really excited and thankful. May God's will be done. Amen!

Practice Two

2006-05-18T12:38:00.000-04:00

Practice Two: "Coming to believe that Jesus is God's appointed Way for healing the entire universe."

First, the theory: Depending on how you look at it, this version is significantly different from the original. First off, since I'm doing this for the express purpose of fully entering what God is doing in the world through Jesus, acknowledging him by name seemed appropriate. Further, coming to a conclusion that God is doing something very, very big uniquely through Jesus seems necessary to becoming his disciple (as opposed to someone else's).

Another change was "healing" rather than "sanity." I dig the 'sanity/insanity' language, but I thought 'healing' deals with insanity, as well as all kinds of other things, things that Jesus and his followers have been involved in 'healing' for some time. I want to embrace the full spectrum of God's healing work. This is linked to the final change: instead of talking about God restoring just "us", I expanded it to "the entire universe." I guess my biggest reason for this is that it's true. God is literally healing/recreating the entire universe ("heaven and earth", in biblical language) through Jesus! What began with the resurrection is spreading like a healing virus. And it's not just for humans (though we are the pinnacle of God's creation), even the trees can't wait for God to complete what he began (it's in the Book, really). I'd be happy to go into this further, but there are several very large books already written--email me if you want some elaboration from various informed sources. Additionally, I think it is helpful for me to remember that God is not just healing me. I am very glad that I am part of that universe that he is healing, but he is, in fact, at work in the whole thing. God said of Jesus in the prophets, "Saving Israel is too small a thing for you; you will be a light to the nations." Indeed.

So, anyway, that's the theory. The practice, so far, has been me thinking about God, specifically Jesus, being in control of all kinds of things that I'm not, having power to do things that I can't. It's actually pretty exciting. Admitting my powerlessness has given way to recognizing the extent of his power. I'll report more on this later. So far, so good.

PRACTICE One, cont'd.

2006-05-18T11:59:00.000-04:00

A few quick things to report with practice one. That's actually the first thing to report. Part of the goal of doing these things at all is to give some staying power to what God is doing in my life. The stuff I wrote below about not being God (or his boss) isn't something I want to leave my consciousness. I want to have it with me at all times, bearing fruit in its season; but, I find that it is no sooner in my soul than I can feel it being assaulted by birds of the air, and crowded out by other concerns of life. My spirit replies, "No!! It's mine!! God gave it to me!!! I need this revelation to become like Jesus and really live!!!"

I am now more convinced than ever that I should get in the habit of calling them 'practices' instead of 'steps.' A step, in my mind, is something I approach, stand on for a second, and move beyond. That's not what I'm doing here; nor is it what I think God wants. (Incidentally, it's not how AA uses the 'steps' either.) I want my life to contain each of these practices ongoingly, to be shaped by them. And I actually need practice admitting my God-given limitations--I can do it now sporadically, not routinely.

Doing Step One

2006-05-08T21:11:00.000-04:00

Alright. I've been 'working' step one of my revised steps. As I go through these, I want to share a little of what was behind the changes, if any, that were made to the AA version, as well as how working the step played out for me in practice. Since this is the first post, I'll also deal with the preamble a little: "In order to give ourselves fully to God's dream for us and others, we adopt the following practices:" Essentially, to me, this is about entering what Jesus called "the kingdom of God" which I take as operating here and now, and will never end. Jesus once chastised the Jewish leaders, saying "You have the keys of the kingdom, but you don't go in yourselves, and you prevent others from entering as well." I want my life to be about doing the opposite--entering the reign of God myself, and helping others do the same, to the extent possible. That's what the steps are about to me in a nutshell. See also, Philippians chapter 3. I want to lay hold of that for which Christ has laid hold of me. Now to step one:

Step One: "Admitting that something is wrong—in us and/or in the world at large, and that we are powerless to fix it." Since I'm not addicted to alcohol (I never acquired the taste), I obviously needed to drop that reference in the original version. Rather than mention the things I am addicted to, which would take a while, I opted to be generic at step one. The inventory is coming, anyway. Also, coming to God isn't just about our own issues. There is hurt and evil around us, outside of us that can also send us looking for someone more powerful than ourselves. I felt that admitting that something is wrong in the world is also a valid starting place in our lives toward Christ. Finally, admitting that our own resources were insufficient to the task at hand seemed like a key component in the original step and in our search for God, generally speaking. So that was the theory; now for the practice:

This one surprised me. Honestly, I expected to admit where I was personally off, where the 'world' was wrong as I knew it, and then move on to step two in pretty short order. It kind of started off that way, which was good in and of itself. I recalled a 'big' time with God in which I really got a good look at what God expected from me in terms of doing right by Kim, my wife, and in all the other areas of my life--and I was fully aware of my inability to do it. At the same time, I felt God agreeing with me (maybe I was agreeing with him), and offering to do it through me, if I would let him, which was scary all by itself. It was a great thing to remember and re-experience. Those thoughts have been ruminating now for a while with good fruit.

Then, a few days ago, while a few friends and I were praying for a friend of ours who deals with seizures, I was hit with: "I am powerless over God." I know, no duh. But it's not 'no duh' for me. I can't explain to you the peace that just flooded me when that thought filled my mind. I think I carry some pretty heavy crap. I think that I've been feeling bad/guilty for not being able to get God to do stuff that I or others think he should do. You may laugh--I did (not during the prayer). It literally tickled me that the truth "I can't control God" was somehow news to my soul, and extremely relieving and joyous news at that. I haven't felt something that strong as a result of a truth in a long time. It was nice. Really nice. And it was obviously correct, which was also nice.

Humility, it is said, is the proper estimate of one's self. I don't think that I've achieved the 'proper estimate' yet, but I think coming to grips with the fact that I can't control God is a step in the right direction. Sorry if you wanted something deep. What can I say; I'm not God. Apparently, I'm not his boss either.

That says it pretty well.

2006-04-26T09:33:00.000-04:00

"It is crucial to move from principle to practice — from idea to embodiment. The Word became flesh. And we beheld his glory. The essence, the very being of the ultimate, was there for us to look at, to behold, to touch, to be with. Just as we see God in the historical Jesus, now people will see God in us, as the resurrected Jesus forms us into a literal cell in his own global body. Of the early Christians it was said, 'See how they love one another.' About us will it be said: 'If you want to know what God intended for human life to be, free of the idols which can’t produce, which can’t save us, look at that little group, that little cell. That’s who God is. Hang around with them. You’ll be touched by the divine, by eternity, by the holy'.” -- Gordon Cosby

Amen.

12 steps toward Christlikeness

2006-04-24T16:15:00.000-04:00

Alright. If you want some background about why I'm doing this, see the previous few posts, and feel free to ask me as well. The guts of it is this: God has invited us all to join with him in the renewal and healing of the world. Of course, the first thing he wants me to help him renew is me. (Not really my first choice.) God has highlighted (repeatedly and from all kinds of sources over the last few years) the twelve steps of AA as the means he's chosen for me and some of my friends to bring ourselves to Jesus and learn how to live anew; how to become that which God has died to create.

Below is my working version of the 12 steps, which I have modified to pursue not just a life of serenity, but life in God's will--his reign on this earth through Jesus. For those of you that are familiar with the steps, you will notice that I have changed, among other things, the verb tense from a past tense to a "present continuous" tense. This is more accurate and helpful to me, since I'm hoping to be doing all the "steps" as a lifestyle, long after the first time through, as the steps hopefully become a regular rhythm in my life. Changing the tense has made the original step ten obsolete, which I think was providential for me to be able to include a practice not among the original 12, but has been a necessary part of my (re)formation. I'm totally open to questions and feedback (even the "T, you're crazy!!" kind), including recommendations for changes. So, here they are:

In order to give ourselves fully to God's dream for us and others, we adopt the following practices:

Admitting that something is wrong—in us and/or in the world at large, and that we are powerless to fix it.
Coming to believe that Jesus is God's appointed Way for healing the entire universe.
Turning our wills and our lives over to the care and unfolding work of God through Jesus.
Making a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves (paying particular attention to our fears, our wounds, our sources of comfort and vexation, and our failures to love.)
Admitting to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the contents of our inventory.
Becoming entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character and to become a different person.
Humbly asking Him to remove our shortcomings, to make us into his likeness, and to give us his Spirit.
Making a list of all persons we have failed to love, and becoming willing to make amends to them all.
Making direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
Dwelling on God's loving actions toward us, and, therefore, loving God in return with all of our heart, our soul, our mind and our strength, and our neighbors as ourselves.
Seeking, through prayer and whatever other means Jesus recommends, to improve our friendship with God through Christ, praying primarily for knowledge of His will for us and for his Spirit's power to carry that out.
Having experienced some genuine transformation as a result of following Jesus, we gladly share Jesus with others, and let God continue to lead us in all our affairs.

Allow me to say (with AA) that I am not claiming to live up to these all the time, or even ever. This list makes my stomach flip a little to be perfectly honest, and making it public kicks it up a notch--but even that is a confirmation to me that I'm on the right track. This is a scary and exciting thing. Becoming more transparent is part of this anyway. I'm very glad I expect some company on this road. For the forseeable future, and hopefully longer, this is how I'm going to submit myself for recovery from 'normal' life, into eternal life, the kind Jesus came to bring, until further notice from the One rightfully in charge.

I feel like I'm reaching the apex of the big ascent at the start of a big roller coaster . . . I am nervous and smiling. Lord, help us!!

A plan of transformation (or, for entering the dynamic reign of Jesus)

2006-04-21T09:31:00.000-04:00

As may have been obvious from my last post, or certainly from Mike's post, our little band of disciples is taking a serious look at the twelve steps from AA (watch out for the loud colors). "So who's addicted to alcohol?" you may ask. No one, that I'm aware of--we have other drugs of choice. But AA itself realized that their 12 steps (which were born out of a combination of scripture and experience with alcoholics) might have application in other endeavors besides pursuing sobriety, and they have been right.

I'm not going to go through all the reasons that have led our particular band of Jesus students to look at the steps as a means of getting ourselves on the Way, but let me throw out a few summary reasons why I personally respect the steps as a fully viable way for a group of disciples to guide and examine their supposed discipleship to Jesus:

Helping people to enter the reign of God, which is here and now and will last forever, seems to be the thrust of Jesus' ministry and purpose for us.
"Entering a reign" of any kind involves the submission of our will and our lives to the sovereign, and thereby trusting the sovereign a fairly great deal for wisdom, protection, etc. The overlap between the will of God and "the reign of God" is substantial, to say the least. (See the Lord's prayer) Therefore, entering the kingdom can often be accurately discussed as a matter of entering the will, or activity of God. As Jesus said, "Calling me 'lord' isn't the issue; the issue is doing the will of my Father." This is, in reality, more of a moment to moment issue, than a once-and-for-all event; more about discipleship than what we've tended to call 'conversion.'
The twelve steps of AA deal with alcoholism indirectly, as a symptom of a larger disease.
The larger disease is a life that is lived for self, and by self. It is a life unwilling to submit to the reign/will of God out of distrust, fear &/or pride.
Hence, the steps focus primarily on getting a person to stop doing life their own way, and give their life, one day at a time, to God to run instead--to surrender their little kingdom, with its little rescources and knowledge, to God's kingdom.
AA embraces the reality that what will be needed to stop the particular 'sin' of drinking, is a total overhaul/transformation of the person. Make the tree good, and the fruit will be good, is the way Jesus put it.
If the one who sins is a slave to sin, it makes sense that getting (and keeping) a new master is part of the solution. In this vein, talking about our addictions rather than just our sins seems to be a more helpful and honest way to talk about ourselves.
I've met few people who were more humble, honest and truly transparent than those who were working some version of the steps.

There are more reasons I dig the steps, and I'm open to talking about them or the ones above. The guts of it has been my understanding of the kingdom of God, discipleship, and what God has always been inviting us into through Jesus. I think the steps have a better handle on God's offer and what becoming a disciple means than most churches.

For a couple of weeks, everyone in our group has had an opportunity to look at the steps, and think about what our primary purpose is, as little Christs in the making, according to God. Everyone was encouraged to make any changes to the steps that they felt would be necessary or helpful in light of that primary purpose. We will likely share everyone's thoughts this weekend, and I look forward to some good insights. I plan on making my version of the primary purpose and the steps the subject of my next post.

+++Thank you, God, for leading me again to a place where I can be honest, unashamed, and hopeful--all at the same time. Your love, your leadership, is amazing. Thank you. +++

Step One (and maybe two)

2006-04-12T13:15:00.000-04:00

One of the comments to the last post was essentially, "I agree, Jesus talks to us as addicts when he talks about money. But what do we do about it?" Here are few thoughts in that direction, and I'll probably stay with it for a few posts. (Because of the path our church is on right now, my friend Mike also has some great thoughts on this issue. Feel free to think a few of your own.)

A big reason for making the previous post was to be part of the solution for myself and others: Every addiction is harder, if not impossible, to overcome if you deny that it is an addiction. If we come to terms with the fact that we are in fact addicted to money (and many other things), we have just made our recovery much more likely to succeed. And this is not as simple as it sounds. I'm sure someone will read this or the previous post and inwardly say, "It's not like Jesus, or any of the biblical writers, actually used the term 'addiction'." True enough; they didn't have that language. But go and read the things they did say. I guarantee you their words will not make your denial any easier. You probably won't make it past what Jesus said himself, assuming you start with him. God gets us, and he tells us what he knows. You can build your life on it or not.

The reason that calling an addiction by its name is important is that it changes which actions actually make sense for us to take, and which don't. I don't even know how many of our current actions as individual followers make no sense in light of our attachment to money and other things of this world. We are steeped in society's expectations and practices ("people who don't know God are deeply concerned about these things"--what we will wear, what we will eat, etc.) Images of nice things are the staples of our minds' intake. Our eyes are full of them, and our body follows. They keep us putting thought, energy and time toward taking care of the things of this life. We're cultivating weeds. The seed of God's new creation is being neglected for weeds and thorn bushes.

But what can rival money's images and expectations? Is there a vision that can spur us toward godliness and contentment, toward truly productive lives and actions? There is. And according to Jesus, the image is that of God getting his way on the earth. He called it the reign, or kingdom, of God. It was Jesus' favorite topic; it's arrival was his message, his good news; it's continued emergence is the center of the prayer he wants to teach us. As Jesus made abundantly clear, God has not abandoned this earth to the dark powers. This is his world, and he's decided to keep it, and make it the way he wants it. God has already planted the Seed of his rule in this world, and it is growing. Eventually it will be the largest tree in the whole earth (it may already be). Christians often mistakenly think that this world is getting the fate of the devil rather than the fate of Jesus and his followers. It will be tested, and with fire, but that fire will result in a new heavens and a new earth: all that wasn't planted by the Father will be completely uprooted; all not made with the master carpenter turned to ash. But things made with his gold and precious stones will remain. Healing, removal of demons and their lies, kindness to the poor, and true knowledge of God, these are just a few of the staples of the growing and inevitable reign of Jesus, the King, in the world.

Some may be thinking, "This is great, but what does this have to do with our addiction to money?" Everything. Money has captured us by visions and/or experiences of what it can do and by convincing us that there are no functioning alternatives. It has brought us into a lifestyle which is organized around getting and spending money. It casts a vision ahead of us and our paths are chosen in accordance with that vision. (Jesus' statements about serving God or money are all about this.) God has cast a rival vision and offered a rival path. Money isn't just an object, it's a paradigm, a way of ordering your life. In order to leave the money-ordered-life, you need a wholistic alternative, and you need to know what that alternative can do for you and those around you. The gospel Jesus brings is that alternative. "God is reordering the world around himself. Consider your options and trust this good news." It is not an event; it is a Way. But, assuming that actually living this Way is more involved than praying a prayer to get into heaven, how do actually we jump ship from the kingdom of money in this life into the emerging reign of Jesus? Does God's alternative mean we won't have jobs?

But I think this enough for one post.

"Sure, I'll manage that for you . . ."

2006-03-13T20:55:00.000-05:00

It's unfortunate to me that the word that best encapsulates current evangelical teaching on money is 'stewardship.' I totally dig the reasoning that God owns everything, therefore, I must steward his stuff, not mine. However, we're running by a few steps that Jesus camped out on. I think it's fair to say that whenever Jesus talked about money, he talked like he was talking to a group of addicts. As always, I'm open to hearing some disagreement on that point, but I don't think the guts of his message was "steward it"; the guts of his teaching seems to be "put it down, and then take my hand." Now, what happens when you tell a group of addicts to 'steward' the object of their affection? . . . Something very similar to what we have now in American churches, I think. Of course, our whole lives become an issue of stewardship (being a good, trustworthy servant) eventually, but we've got to give up 'stewarding' our very lives before we're even a student of Jesus (again, according to Jesus). The first issue that must be dealt with, and repeated as necessary, is our white-knuckle grip on our lives, our dreams, our cash. Jesus' counsel is not to steward it, but to lose it, and follow him.

I know this has big implications. But the first issue to be dealt with when it comes to money isn't stewardship or tithing, but attachment, at least according to Jesus.

Serious Devotion

2006-03-07T14:14:00.000-05:00

I don't think I'm done yet talking about money's tendency to hijack people that rightfully belong to Jesus. Maybe I won't be for a while. Oddly, I've actually been thinking more and more about the gospel. Specifically, the gospel of the reign of God coming to earth as announced and practiced by Jesus. The good news is that God, through Jesus, is becoming the organizing center of the world again, usurping and judging the current powers that be. I have to say, it's an amazing thought to me! God's will is going to be done here!! God's power and love are available here!!! The thing is, the more I think about the gospel in this way, the more I see how cash (and the dreams we think it can fulfill) is exactly the often preferred substitute for God and his gospel that Jesus said it was.

There's a (relatively) old song from nine inch nails (head like a hole) that has stuck with me from the first time I heard it. Something about the juxtaposition of 'god' and 'money' that was cutting, disturbing, and accurate:

god money i'll do anything for you
god money just tell me what you want me to
god money nail me up against the wall
god money don't want everything he wants it all
no, you can't take it . . .
no, you can't take that away from me . . .

god money's not looking for the cure
god money's not concerned about the sick among the pure
god money let's go dancing on the backs of the bruised
god money's not one to choose
no, you can't take it
no, you can't take it
no, you can't take that away from me

Why, again, are Americans so busy? Why can't Americans have meaningful prayer time, or time for loving relationships and selfless service? Because we're devoted servants. We've got to take care of those tasks that serve our master's interests first. He says we can do the rest on our own time, whenever that may be.

Maybe we don't think that Jesus would take us as his servants. Or maybe we don't like or, more likely, don't really understand Jesus' dream for the world and for our lives in particular. Maybe we overestimate the extent of money's power, and fail to perceive the ways in which it will fail us. Maybe we're just unthinkingly doing what everyone does. Here's hoping we all rethink our devotion to money in light of Jesus' message: "The time's finally here. God has come to earth to rule and provide. Reconsider your life and trust this good news."

It's Still "News"

2006-03-01T08:50:00.000-05:00

"God has finally come to rule the earth! Get on board with the real administration!"

If I asked 1000 random people to tell me what "the gospel" is in a sentence or two, I don't think I'd get one answer that has any similarity with the above statement. I think I might get a few like it if I limited the survey to people who identify as Christians. (I'll ask 30 PBA students tonight, so we'll see what turns up.) Now, I am not a guy that thinks there only a few ways to accurately talk about the good news that God has brought to humanity through Jesus--there are lots and lots, and even the best words can't fully capture it. In fact, I would love more people to think creatively about how to express the good news of Jesus. All that being said, though, the fact that even few Christians conceive of the gospel in a way that is at all similar to Jesus' announcement of it is, at least, worth some thought, at least for Christians.

Now, a couple of quick thoughts: Any version of the gospel is still news to me every morning when I wake up. I have to take a little time and effort to hear it right off the bat to have a decent shot of basing my day's decisions on it. I know I'm not alone in this. But what would happen, what would be different, if more and more people who already think about, remind themselves of, and otherwise try to "repent and believe" some version of the gospel started adding this version into the mix? And secondly, what if people who had never heard the gospel heard something like the above as their primary hearing? Assuming someone would still regard it as the best opportunity they had ever heard, what would they feel compelled to do in response? In addition to whatever those responses are, would the Lord's Prayer then become the standard and fitting prayer for new and old believers alike?

For love or money

2006-02-08T11:57:00.000-05:00

Working as a lawyer has been a wonderful and fruitful opportunity for me, all in all, even though I feared it for years. One of the best and worst parts is the in-your-face exposure to people's actual ideas of how the world (and God, if they think he's a part of it) works. By ideas, I'm talking about the ones we actually act upon, the conscious and subconcious conclusions about reality we pick up or make up that we use to choose and navigate our jobs, our schedules, what we do for entertainment and why, what excites us and how often, what threatens us, and how threats should be handled. In my experience, when it comes to business and money, if the gospels are the gospels, then most (American) Christians are not Christians, at least if we use the word to mean "little Christs."

One of the things I'm supposed to teach in my Biz Law class (from a Christian Theistic Worldview) is dispute/conflict resolution. So during our coverage of contracts last week, I brought up the facts of a current case of mine in which an elderly couple has invested their home equity with a guy and he's way, way late on returning it. Issues of even criminal theft/fraud are legitimately in play. All parties identify themselves as Christians. A student asks me, "Why don't you call the police and report him?" I respond with my own set of questions that begin with, "Can anyone give me a reason from Scripture--a story, a teaching--particularly from the New Testament, that might give my clients a reason or desire not to pursue criminal sanctions?"

The discussion that insued began with a vague reference to forgiveness and then turning the other cheek. I took the "turning the other cheek" verse and gave some of the surrounding verses and some similar teachings (including doing good to your enemies, and loaning your money to enemies without expectation of return), and also brought Jesus' personal example into play and then asked my question again for other relevant passages. With no takers (but a growing sense of interest and nervousness in the room), I gave a few more love your enemies examples and teachings. Then I asked someone to give me a reason, from the New Testament's teachings or examples, that would lead my clients to call the police and/or file suit, if there were any. At this point they were pretty disturbed. "I don't think Jesus wants us to be a doormat." It's funny, I've heard that in sermons. But it doesn't really answer the question, so I said that, and again I asked for a teaching or example from the NT, or an argument by analogy. One student offered the turning over the tables story. Without getting into the specifics of it, it gave us a couple of bricks, but no house.

I then offered to my class the following ideas and I invited them to disagree with me (and invite anyone, really), using some example or teaching from the NT: 1. All of Jesus' teachings and his personal example seem to form a clear direction (as opposed to a 'law') that show us how he thinks we should deal with evil people, generally speaking. 2. His way has more to do with the innocent party's blood (or money) than that of the evil person. 3. Jesus is in the business of winning enemies to his/God's side, and this "voluntarily giving them even more than they ask for/take" seems to be the settled method.

Now, it was interesting to me the level of shock in the room at these suggestions. I wasn't really surprised, but I was, after all, standing in a Christian university, in a junior-level class. It just showed me how we have made Jesus in our image. We don't want him messing with our business, literally.

Where is the theology of the cross? We have made it into a teaching that only deals with God and his need to punish sin; it (supposedly) has little to do with our sins against each other. It reconciles us to God and . . . well, that's it. What exactly is "our cross" that we have to pick up in order to follow him? Does his loving us and dying for us while we were still his enemies give us an example to follow? How exactly does a "little-Christ" treat his debtors? How do you show a culture, or better, a specific person, who is willing to hurt you in order to get money, that they are trusting, seeking, serving the wrong thing?

The answer, according to Jesus' teachings and life seems to be: You let evil people have what they want, and then some; you love them more than "it." ("It" being your stuff, of course, while trusting the real king to take care of you). I share this episode of my life because the fact that this was a shocker to my junior-level class at a Christian university (and to many of my adult Christian clients) , despite its obviousness from scripture, makes me want to talk explicitly about the way in which money fosters loyalty to itself over and against God and his son. Of course, Jesus talked about that too--it's part of his attempt to save us, his former enemies.

Brant does it again.

2006-01-20T11:14:00.000-05:00

Being serious for a second, I want to take advantage of an opportunity to be encouraging to a friend, and introduce Brant to anyone who doesn't know him. Brant is a good-hearted and thoughtful guy. He has a strong tendency to use his mind in constructive ways, and to use it often. He doesn't just go off and theorize, he listens to writers and to people that he talks with. He's a guy looking for good thoughts. And he does it all with a great sense of humor.

Oh, and he's not afraid to raise issues and ask questions others won't, or won't do very well. He does both.

Becoming charismatic (again)

2006-01-02T12:30:00.000-05:00

In response to some patient friends who might stop visiting if I don't post some of my life on this blog . . .

I haven't, for several years now, been quite the "charismatic" that I used to be. Not that my theology changed (in theory), I just wasn't living it. I don't know what "charismatic" means to you. Maybe it means rolling around on the floor (which I've personally never done), but here's what I mean by it, in terms of practice and attitude:

My praise and adoration for God aren't just in my head--I put my body and my heart into worshipping God and present myself for whatever he wants, publicly and privately. And I do it regularly and with a certain lack of dignity where helpful. (I have a sense of my own dignity that grows like a weed. I find that being undignified, or being willing to be so, in my worship or service of Jesus helps--Look up the definitions of "extol" and "exalt" or even "worship" if you need some biblical basis, and there's more besides.)
This giving of my emotional, mental and bodily attention and my offer of service to God (my whole being) has pretty nifty side effects. The more I do it, the less I care about my stuff and the more "the peace of Christ rules my heart"; the more I am unoffendable, impossible to threaten with harm. I know where/who my favorite persons are, who and where I am, and who's ultimately in charge of things here. This personal peace means my walls come down. I don't even care about how people see me, nor does bad news typically shake me, though it might sadden me. I become genuinely present and compassionate with people--and I actually see them. Not being consumed with my needs does wonders. I basically begin to just have "extra" love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, etc.--that Holy Spirit is quite the fellow.
This actual caring for others and simultaneously communing with God leads to praying for others' needs and hearing God's thoughts about and for other people. I become a physical location through which God communes with people, and they see and hear from him as well. I become the temple of God. A few important subpoints here: First, of course this praying/listening to God for others includes times when I'm alone, but it's also when I'm with people. I'm really looking at and listening to the person I'm with, and I'm doing the same with God at the very same time. It's amazing the things God has to say to people and the effects are equally amazing, miraculous even. Some might say to me at this point, "Doesn't that make it harder to hear the person you're with if you're trying to talk with God at the same time?" Not once you get used to it. And getting used to it usually means actually coming to terms with the fact that God is always part of your conversations anyway. He always has been, we just don't always acknowledge or believe in or accept his presence in the way we do a physical person. And/or we don't assume he has anything to say, or we assume he only wants to say things that are in tracts, or is limited to quoting scripture. Once you come to terms with the reality of his active, creative presence (whether we like it or not), and that he's got a pretty large vocabulary and repertoire of available actions and emotions, it's just a matter of time. It becomes a matter of not being rude and ignoring someone who's right there; someone who happens to have more insight than either of you, someone who loves you both like no one else does or can. Which brings me to my second subpoint: God's communications are "wholistic", for lack of a better term, just like he is and you are. They've got feeling. They've got a human touch. He grips you with his thoughts and his feelings for someone so that you can communicate the whole package. We don't typically believe God will do this through us, but we long for him deeply to communicate to us in this way. There's a clue there via the Golden Rule. God's best vehicle to communicate himself isn't a billboard or a pamphlet or a book; it's not even the Bible. His best vehicle is a living human being who embodies and obeys him. Obviously, Jesus was and is the prototype, but God's taking on flesh and bone didn't end with Jesus. It just began there. We are his living, acting, thinking, feeling sons and daughters, his vehicles of creative expression and action, or we are those of a much smaller inspiration. God doesn't just want to fill your mind with some logical point to be made in a mechanical fashion. He wants to fill you with a logical point that has unbelievable emotional and physical consequences. He wants empathy, for his feelings and those of others. He wants us to embody, to surrender to, to hear his message(s) with our whole being, and you won't have embodied all that he has to say in a hundred life-times, if you did it every second of every day. And then my final subpoint is a little more painful: he wants us to trust him, which in my experience has meant he didn't feel the need to explain the whole deal to me before directing me to act in a wholistic way on whatever he did give me. I was given the "strong leading" once to just hug a guy I barely knew in the middle of a worship song. Since I care about how people see me, and since this guy had his eyes closed, and probably didn't know my last name, I really wanted to give him a verbal warning like "Hey." or "Hi." first. But I got this sick feeling in my stomach like I was chickening out and disobeying God if I did that. So after sweating through one song and halfway through another one, I reluctantly hugged him, full on. And he hugged me back without ever knee-jerking away. And he broke down. And a tear or two came down my cheek as we kept embracing. For a while. After it was done he told me that his dad is one of those always tearing-him-down types and he was just saying to God before I hugged him, repeatedly, "I just need to know what you think of me."

These are things I've experienced but have let go of over the last 4 or 5 years. There are lots of reasons, but that's another post. I'm pursuing again a kind of wholistic practice of worship and love that I learned from some dear folks who were willing to be called charismatics. I hope to do the label justice soon, and be consistent out in the world that thinks it's alone. Thank you, Father, Son & Spirit, for your patience and for continuing to talk and act for me and for all of us. Thank you, Jesus.

Hilarious

2005-12-22T12:45:00.000-05:00

I wouldn't know, but I hope that doing stuff this funny, even every once in a while, is rewarding for the people who create it for a living.

Go Sailfish!

2005-11-30T09:42:00.000-05:00

Well, it's now semi-official (I met/interviewed with the dean of the business school, Bob Myers, who makes the decision, but the president officially sends the offer). I will be teaching Business Law at PBA starting in January as an adjunct professor. I am very excited, to say the least, especially after finding out what the school wants the students to get from the course. I'm pretty confident this is a God-engineered direction. A few high points in my mind:

The thing the dean was most concerned with was how I planned on integrating a Theistic Christian worldview into the learning process. For example, I am specifically required to deal with things like "what constitutes success", "social responsibility", "conflict resolution" and the like from a Christian viewpoint and not just teach the legal playing field in a business context. The very thing I want to do--point to Jesus in an assumed secular field. Awesome.
I am strongly encouraged to have fun, go crazy, experiment--if it works, great; if not, try again.
I get to communicate with college students, at least some of which really want to talk about Jesus and how to follow him in their careers and elsewhere. I could really mention this one twice it's so good.
It's a 3000 level (junior-level) required course. They fully anticipate not everyone will pass; they expect the course to be rigorous. I don't revel the idea of failing anyone, but it helps me to know that they (my dean, etc.) expect it to be hard, and accept the consequences of that. I get to structure the course however I want, so long as certain topics get covered. I'm thinking of what books to assign outside of the text. It might be The Challenge of Jesus by N.T. Wright.
Assignments, etc., can be given and posted electronically through "e-college." Will learn more about this, but not dealing with paper always excites me.

I could go on, but you get the idea. I'm excited, and humbled. It's a privilege.

This is a test

2005-11-09T13:03:00.000-05:00

This is a test. This is a pics test. I wonder where the pic will show up (if it will at all) since I've never done this, and I'm only doing it now for a friend, who shall remain nameless, who's stuck in his crazy Xanga ways.

Options

2005-10-31T22:47:00.000-05:00

"There are some things in life, and they may be the most important things, that we cannot know by research or reflection, but only by committing ourselves. We must dare in order to know." -- J.H. Oldham, Life is Commitment (1953)

I really dig this quote. I like it even more now than I used to. I am in the home stretch of this book, Colossians Remixed, and the authors (a husband and wife, coincidentally) make this off hand point about one of the traits of post-modern thinking is a desire for keeping options open (being more non-committal than the average Joe) and seeing value in various points of view and various paths. It is a special comfort to the postmodern mind to have, and to keep, all options open. Postmodern or not, I could immediately see how that desire plays itself out in several areas of my life and thinking—most for the better, but some not: I tend look before (and during and after) I leap; I can see some good in just about anything (and am equally convinced there's some bad in most things, too); I am convinced that there are several sides to every story (perspective is a powerful, powerful thing); I am good at many things, but great at nothing; and I tend to think that there are several solutions to any problem. This desire also makes me hesitant about committing full-force to anything, and even if I do, my eyes are constantly noticing should-be exceptions to my commitment or other paths (perhaps with greener grass, or at least with grass that's different in some way that I should experience); so I easily justify jumping ship and making a change of plans.

Like I said, for the most part, I like these traits in me. But when I read this "keeping options open" in the book, I immediately thought of how certain things (like marriage, for instance) require a total commitment to do them well. Basically, I saw how, despite making a decision (that I am happy with) to choose Jesus as my source, first, foremost and always, there is part of me that immediately feels threatened by even writing that—as if I'm going to miss out on something by making a whatever-it-takes commitment to Jesus. I realize that I've tried to live this out without being truly willing to permanently close other sources. I really want to keep my options open on the other stuff that I think must literally make me happy.

Being faithful to Kim is pretty easy for me for several reasons—I dig being married to her; from before I proposed I've had a deep conviction about it (whereby I strongly believe that both God and I were in agreement about me marrying her); I'm excited about where I believe our relationship is headed; I'm convinced of the gut-wrenching pain and heart-sickness of any alternative; and I tend to see the forks in the road that lead to unfaithfulness and tend to keep the heck away from even the forks. But with my marriage to God I don’t have the same watchfulness or care or honor for the marriage. I think it's a lack of vision of the value of the relationship, now and in the future. (It sounds silly and sad saying it, but that's what it is.)

To be committed in a marriage-way requires a permanent and ongoing shaping of your life cycles for and with the other; it forecloses certain options and paths (indefinitely) in order to make all kinds of joint options possible. Ruby is a perfect example of the kind of "things" that are possible for Kim and I together. Just as important, if not more so, there are innumerable "options" for Kim and I to model and explain love to Ruby that have our healthy marriage as a necessary condition. Anyway, this is exactly the way it is with God. He is the source of every good thing. Our exclusive union with Jesus is a prerequisite to having all kinds of options open to us—the kind of options that actually matter, the ones that give life to us and others. (Apart from him we can do nothing, according to Jesus.) But marrying God is just like marrying anyone--at least regarding the kind of decisions that give appropriate honor to the other and lead to fruitfulness in the marriage. I need to embrace this reality again, and happily and eagerly give up whatever it costs to have this marriage and honor this person, Jesus. I really feel like a heel, the way I guess you should when you've devalued a person you've said you love.

++ Lord, help me love you, honor you, as you deserve. ++

Unsettled Dust

2005-10-18T20:50:00.000-04:00

If I wait for things to settle down before I blog again, it might be a few years, SO this will be blogging with dust still swirling.

I'm going to be checking out this site that Kyle reminded me of. Specifically, I'm going to order and read some of their seemingly short (definitely cheap) publications about missional churches. I'm really excited about the path I'm on and our church is on, and I think some of this stuff will be helpful—we'll see.

On a related note, I've been thinking a lot about 'call' lately. Part of the problem with concepts like 'call' is that they have a tendency to become loftily narrow in scope and archaic in feel and, therefore, inapplicable to everyday life and people. All religious concepts tend this way it seems. It's part of our bent (as American Christians) towards deism. It's part of our tendency to think of God as distant to our actual lives. This is one of the things that I am so grateful to the Vineyard movement for working against. God is present. The reign of God is at hand; it's among you. It's God's presence on earth, not yours in heaven, that is the good news of Jesus.

How alive do I think Jesus is right now? This is a question I use to pull myself out of a mindset that doesn't think of God as present and working. The answer sets the stage for thinking about 'call.' Call is literally just a fully alive and functioning Jesus asking people to join him in millions of ways and places all over the earth, to remake us and others into humanity as God intended. He does this everywhere, constantly, because he is alive and well and has this good agenda for his world. We have the choice to follow or ignore his many calls to better relationships, a better mindset, a better humanity. Call is everywhere and constantly happening because Jesus is everywhere and always working, until everything here is done the way God wants it. 'Everything' meaning business, family, friends, money, art to name a few.

The issue then is how we as individuals, families, professionals and organizations grasp and nurture a way of thinking that helps us regularly listen for and follow the voice of the true Shepherd of this world into the plethora of callings he will have for us in this lifetime for the good of all the world. I'm specifically wondering how my little church can do this for our group and each other, and I'm hopeful about hearing Jesus . . .

Giving thanks as a gateway to seeing Reality

2005-08-25T13:30:00.000-04:00

I think the title is enough to think about.

Jesus Creed: Loving God and Loving Others

2005-08-04T10:45:00.000-04:00

I just ordered this book from this guy and it should come in next week. I don't know if the book will be as fruitful as the title has been for me (just meditating on it), but I am mildly hopeful. I've been reading several of Scot's posts and have really appreciated his manner even more than the content of his thoughts. He seems like the kind of guy who I used to assume filled seminary faculties. I'm glad he exists and is helping people think about God and reality in largely better ways.

The message I'm sending

2005-07-28T10:06:00.000-04:00

Evangelism is a great way to refine your theology and worship. When I start to actually talk to people about God, Jesus, etc., I have this strong desire to actually represent him accurately. Because of this desire, when the occasion actually arises, at the very moment I begin I become emotionally then mentally aware of all the gaps between the perception of reality that has been running my life and the perception of reality that takes Jesus into proper account (the one I want to tell someone about). What I'm saying is, I find out all the stuff I thought I believed about God but really don't when I make an effort to tell someone about it or even embody it. The reason I say that I find out emotionally and then mentally is that the first signs of believing anything like what God has done and is doing for the world through Jesus are (hardly containable) relief, hope, joy, love--basically all the fruit of the Spirit just come out all over the place at the moment you actually start to trust Jesus' power and intentions. It's when I've been pointedly called to talk about this king and what he's got going on that I realize (from the total lack of the above "fruit") that I've forgotten about him or dismissed him (practically speaking), and several of the implications of his existence, in my normal thoughts.

But that process, of course, gets me thinking better again . . . and the fruit begins to emerge . . .

Hope

2005-06-14T21:12:00.000-04:00

I almost named this blog "Blatantly Hopeful." (Maybe I'll change it?) Talk about offensive language. I feel like I'm getting angry stares as I type the words. "How dare you be hopeful" is a theme that the enemy of God and humanity is trying to get my generation to pick up. But I am hopeful, and I want to be more so, because it helps me become the kind of person I want to become, and because it's more realistic to be hopeful.

That's right, I said it's more realistic to be hopeful. I'm gonna let that hang. I'll be back.

Sea of Grace (pt. 1)

2005-05-15T20:42:00.000-04:00

Grace is hard for me. I don't want to have to be "forgiven" . . . or "accepted as I am." I instead work to become a person who should, who must, be accepted, and then get depressed that I am not that. There is such a strong sense of law in me. It keeps me from you.

Standing outside

2005-05-12T17:10:00.000-04:00

I don't want to stand outside and evaluate people. I've done this--it's an interior posture--at various times regarding friends, my wife, a church, the church, and I think its wrong. I want to stand "within" at all times. Within relationship, within bonds of commitment, within them, whether I'm talking or even thinking. "We are part of one another." God connects us.

Lines in the sand

2005-04-16T14:06:00.000-04:00

We need more supposedly crazy people. "Crazy" like Mother Teresa. "Crazy" like Martin Luther King, Jr. It's the only way to freedom for ourselves and others. Mother Teresa said that Jesus appeared to her early in life. Too bad someone didn't lock her up back then before she really started acting crazy and loving sick poor people. Maybe she just needed some medication. I have a friend from law school who knows that he knows that God spoke to him in the middle of the night and healed him--he hardly believed in God at the time. He hasn't heard voices before or since. He and his wife are some of the most generous people I know, and he's worked for a federal judge, and now works for a super-high-end law firm. It's supposedly crazy by some standards to believe that Jesus was actually God in the flesh, and that he is for us, and is using the same power at work in Jesus to transform people. It's supposedly crazy to think God is involved with people, constantly, and to plan lives on that. Sanity doesn't really allow for an active, all-powerful God, whatever form it may take.

How crazy is "turn the other cheek"? It's bizarre. Try giving it as legal advice (and it actually is good legal advice.) How many people do that--actually love everybody, even a guy slapping them, crucifying them, confident in God's ultimate care and redemption? I'm not talking about not fighting back out of fear--lots of people do that--but about not fighting out of love for a violent person and out of trust in God's good heart toward us.

What are our fears? The ones that decide our jobs, our giving, our emotional availability; the ones that keep us "sane" in a thousand ways? What do we really value? I guess I could have said "brave" instead of crazy, but can anyone not willing to be considered crazy be all that brave?

Gotta have a starter

2005-04-01T18:03:00.000-05:00

This is just a warm-up. Hey, do these italics work real well? I guess so.

I'll be back.