Think Christian Welcome to ThinkChristian.net, where we talk about Christ, culture and the ways that faith plays out in everyday life. We want to exercise our faith in every aspect of our lives: heart, soul and mind.
In this Walk the Way video, Pastor Jeff Klein is talking about how his 8-year-old son was embarrassed to write a simple sentence for his spelling homework. He was tasked with using the word saved. Jeff suggested, and his son quickly rejected, the sentence: "Jesus saved me."
It brings up a lot of questions. Where does an 8-year-old learn to be embarrassed by his faith? As Christians, why do we get embarrassed to mention we're Christians? If we're so willing to share other trivial things about ourselves, why not share the most important piece of our lives?
I think about this a lot lately. My church has been going through a sermon series about being a body of transformers in our community. It's time to get out of the sanctuary and into our surrounding neighborhoods. I'm so on board with this, but at times when I'm truly honest with myself, it does make me a little uneasy. I know I'm not alone. I've heard the statistic that only 1% of Christians will actually present the gospel to someone in their lifetime. Reaching out is being vulnerable. There's a fear of rejection by friends, co-workers or even complete strangers.
I'm not embarrassed by my faith and I'll openly talk about it. But I can say there have been times where I've held back on saying something about God or church in a conversation because I didn't want to create awkwardness with people. (In reality, this awkwardness is probably all in my head.) So in some ways, I'm like Jeff's son. I have work to do.
How about you? Have you ever been embarrassed to be saved? Have there been opportunities missed by hiding who you really are?
The television commercial for the end-of-the-world extravaganza '2012' - complete with images of the earth being covered in a flood - prompted the following theological discussion between my 7 and 4-year-old daughters.
'Look at all the water,' the younger one observed, her big eyes even larger than usual.
'Don't worry,' the older one reassured her. 'God promised Noah that would never happen again.'
I wonder what she would have said if she actually saw the movie. '2012' embraces the Noah reference and even tries to one-up the Bible story '" the climax features a whole fleet of arks. Considering, as my daughter pointed out, this is a direct rebuttal of God's covenant, could '2012' be considered blasphemous?
Perhaps, but it's hard to get worked up about yet another cheesy disaster movie from noted landmark basher Roland Emmerich (the Statue of Liberty took a hit in the director's 'The Day After Tomorrow,' while the White House is only one of the iconic victims here.)
The movie did make me wonder, though: Is there any value in surmising the apocalypse?
This isn't only a secular pastime. Sure, popular fiction often deals in this sort of stuff '" this month we'll also get the big-screen version of Cormac McCarthy's bleak 'The Road' '" but many Christians have made it a hobby, as well. God seems to have felt that Revelation provided all the information we need about the end times, but the often mystifying visions in that book only feed our appetites for destruction. We pore over those passages interpreting symbols, finding contemporary parallels and even, in some cases, trying to make God's Word follow a human calendar.
Can anything fruitful come of all this? Can it simply be written off as an understandable curiosity about the future, or is there a danger in imagining, as '2012' does, the end of the world as we know it?
Item Category: Film Item comments: http://www.thinkchristian.net/index.php/2009/11/19/2012-and-our-apocalypse-obsession/#comments
Protestants used to claim that Roman Catholics were idolaters because they had statues in their buildings. A couple of years ago an elder from a conservative Protestant denomination explained to me how Vietnamese people more easily came to Roman Catholicism from Buddhism because both religions worshiped idols. A new wave of literature is no longer so facile on this, understanding sin as idolatry is something deeper than carvings of wood and stone. Idolatry is making a publishing comeback. Tim Keller's latest book "Counterfeit Gods" puts in book form many of the themes his sermons have had for years. G.K. Beale, a New Testament scholar recently authored "We Become What We Worship: A Biblical Theology of Idolatry" where traces these themes through the Bible. Jewish scholars Moshe Halbertal and Avishai Margalit have their own book from Harvard University Press on the subject.
For most today self-definition and determination is seen as a foundational birthright of our existence. Not only does nobody put baby in a corner, but unless baby is defining herself and keeping herself out of a corner, she is failing to live up to her existential mandate. Most self-help remedies for a variety of identity ills prescribe self-definition through self-assertion. I must take control of my life by constructing a preferred identity, living that out maximizing individuality and authenticity.
If one pursues this long enough they begin to realize that this is a incredible amount of work and a tremendous burden. Not only do we have to construct this from the cultural materials available, but the merchants of cool are perpetually infusing every fresh cultural wave with yet more artifacts and options to add or replace what we've already accumulated. We are crushed by the pace of fashion, unable to strip ourselves fast enough of yesterday's dowdy threads and incapable of assimilating quickly enough tomorrow's new authenticity. We stand naked in the whirlwind trying to build a life from the debris blowing around us.
Such desperation drives us to turn good things into ultimate things. We begin to look to our jobs, our familial roles, our attributes, our gender identities, the brands in the market place for permanence and meaning. GK Beale's title is a short cut. We need to become something so locate our selves in the roles we must play or the things we buy or the communities we choose and the daily maintenance of those things becomes our worship even if we don't call it that. Habit and worship unites and we get what we asked for. We asked these things to fill us and now they have and will finally displace us. In CS Lewis' "The Great Divorce" the shadows of hell were once people with attributes, but the identification has gone so far they are merely the attribute.
God is the only safe thing to worship because only God is secure enough, wealthy enough, self-sufficient enough to not need to consume us. See CS Lewis' description of distinction from Screwtape Letters. Idolatries never satisfy and always enslave. Identities are received, not achieved and there is only one ultimate giver of our identity that will not only satisfy us, but fill us without consuming us.
Item Category: Art & Culture Item comments: http://www.thinkchristian.net/index.php/2009/11/18/lightweight-identities-seek-stability-in-idolatries/#comments
For western Christianity the question for which Jesus is the answer was guilt. A much deserved hell was a clear and present danger for the general population and the church offered forgiveness and release from that threat. Money poured into the church through the sale of indulgences. Luther transformed the church when he discovered that our release had already been purchased. The audience glued to Jonathan Edward's sermons saw themselves as that spider dangling above the pit of hell suspended only by God's grace-filled self-restraining effort to not react to its rebellious loathsome appearance. Much has changed.
Harold Bloom quite correctly assesses that contemporary American culture bequeaths an instinctive assumption that God finds us amazing as we are and is dying to get close to us. We've all heard about helicopter parents also called "lawnmower parents" who mow down, smooth and remove all obstacles out of our paths. This is the God most people I meet are looking for. With such a God his children can do no wrong. Ron Nydam who teaches at Calvin Seminary says that for most adults today guilt is an achievement.
This change has become a challenge for conservative Christians. The 20th century staples of evangelical evangelism no longer grip. No one imagines God would ask anyone to justify why He should let them into his heaven. "Just as I am" is a birthright, no plea is needed.
Mark Noll has noted that one distinctly American contribution to the history of the Christian church is the entrepreneurial pastor. American pastors adapt quickly and some have simply embraced the lawnmower God. John 10:10's offer of abundant life seemed to become the vision text for every new suburban church hoping to be the next evangelical big box. They might be a bit chagrined if they realized that this can be eerily similar to what new age guru Wayne Dyer offers when admonishes that we "reconnect with the source".
More conservative pastors discovered that when this guilt eliminating hammer was the only tool in their box given by their European forefathers they were quickly left having to hand out nails. If people don't have an instinctive visceral fear of hell given by their culture, they'd have to offer this themselves through scary signs and scary plays. Before you can convince the public of the good news you first have to convince them of the bad news.
Even though release from guilt is not the cultural felt need it once was, westerners are still looking for something, their selves. In February 2009 Miroslav Volf, professor at the Yale Divinity School preached at Bob Schuller's glass house in Southern California not about guilt, but about identity. Tim Keller, the senior pastor of Redeemer Pres in NYC likewise find that identity issues connect with his audience in ways that guilt issues don't and makes our new identity in Christ as key element of his theological narrative. We can also note the rise in popularity of Orthodox denominations in the West for whom understanding salvation through identity transformation has been a key theological contribution.
Seculars struggle less with guilt than with their place in the universe. When identity is no longer received by one's village, family or god but has to be constructed from the pastiche of cultural artifacts, the unbearable lightness of being can be acutely felt. For those finding their poorly self-sown identity wearing thin, identity in Christ can be a tremendous relief. Identity is the new guilt.
Francis Collins is one of the most accomplished scientists in the world. A pioneer in the field of molecular human genetics, Collins developed a genetic mapping technique that enabled his research group to identify the gene that is mutated in cystic fibrosis. His continued success as a geneticist led to his appointment as the director of the Human Genome Project in 1993, and he famously guided that effort to phenomenal success. He is a well-spoken advocate for science, one of the few truly outstanding scientists who can communicate effectively with lay audiences.
This past summer, President Obama nominated Collins to be the new director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the nation's premier biomedical funding agency. Collins was confirmed in August, and is currently leading NIH effectively. But interestingly, there was significant unease, even controversy, surrounding the nomination. Why?
Well, you may know that Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian and an outspoken defender of the compatibility of science and Christian faith. You may know that he wrote a fine book (The Language of God) on the subject, that he co-founded the Biologos Foundation to advance the ideas in the book, and that he is regularly attacked by various prominent atheists.
And so you may wonder if the controversy surrounding the nomination could be attributed to anti-Christian bias '" you know, the antipathy toward faith that seems to be so common among scientists and especially among loud scientists.
Well of course that's part of the story. But I'm not sure it's the most interesting part of the story. Because I think some of the criticism of Collins is valid, in the sense that it ought not be dismissed as mere anti-faith ranting.
Consider the complaints of the often-obnoxious Sam Harris (in an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times in July). Harris seems to raise two objections to Collins. First, he doesn't like the idea of science and religion together, and so he mutters darkly about religion making scientific thinking more difficult. He might be right about that, but it's hardly a legitimate reason to questions Collins' nomination. But second, he notes that Collins seems to have roped off certain aspects of human nature (morality, in particular) and identified them as lying beyond the purview of science. Harris concludes: 'Must we really entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible?'
Harsh? Shrill? Even insincere? Perhaps. But that second concern is a valid one, I think. It's one thing to identify aspects of the natural world as specially connected to particular works of God. It's another to claim that those things cannot, in principle, be explained naturally. Maybe Harris has a point. And maybe we Christians should all think more carefully before we talk like that.
I've written here before about why I believe family focused talk in churches is alienating and excluding Christian singles and childless couples. I was thinking more on the topic recently, and thinking about how family focus also devalues other kinds of important relationships.
For example, I've lived with the same roommate for the last 2 years. We are not just roommates, but also colleagues. We have a relationship that is based in trust and mutual support. We celebrate each others successes and commiserate when things don't go the way we'd hoped. We share bills, but also meals, trips, ideas and resources. Even though we do not plan for our relationship to stay the way it is for our whole lives (so in this sense it is unlike a marriage) we do plan to always have a relationship, and my relationship with her is an important part of my life. This kind of close friendship, though, is not something that is valued in public the way family relationships are, even though my roommate is like family to me.
Is there a way the church can support and encourage the kind of love that exists in non-sexual, non-permanent partnerships and relationships? What about actively working to build family-like relationships among church members?
I was thinking about where the term 'church family' comes from, and I realized that in the New Testament, the church is described as brothers and sisters and children of God, and even more intimately, as a body. Being in the same body, to me, implies an even closer connection than shared DNA. Jesus said in the book of Luke, 'If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters'-yes, even his own life'-he cannot be my disciple.' This also suggest that our relationship to our spiritual family is more important than our biological one.
Yet, in spite of all of these things, we regularly bemoan the collapse of the nuclear family, and spend so much of our church time elevating family-ness. Maybe what we should be doing instead is working toward a church family, a church BODY that supersedes biological ties.
One reason I'm thinking about this is because my parents recently published a book about faith milestones and how we can celebrate together as a church family. Celebration is definitely a part of what I'm getting at here. ( There is a little irony that I'm getting these ideas from conversations among my biological family).
I also think we need to worry about taking responsibility for each other and spending time together in the times when things aren't dramtically good or bad. I can think of lots of examples of what I'm talking about from my life and the lives of others, but I wish it was more common and more expected. For example, you would expect your biological family to be there when you have to move, or when you are stressed out, or when you are looking for a new job.
I think being in a big church makes this harder, because there are so many people with needs that it's not possible for one person know and care about all of them. Sometimes a thriving small group program solves this problem, but it definitely requires a commitment from a person for them to get cared for. How might we promote and support this attitude within our churches, and toward others outside the church? How do we work toward a world where CHURCH family comes first?
Item Category: Family Item comments: http://www.thinkchristian.net/index.php/2009/11/11/church-family-first/#comments
A friend of mine is a chaplain for a NFL team. He and his wife spend time with players and their families. He prays with them, mentors them, encourages, challenges, and teaches them.
He's not mentioned in Time Magazine's recent write-up on NFL chaplains, but the roles sound similar.
The Time magazine piece seems to emphasize the lighter side, like wearing team colors and wringing hands over the theological questions of competition. Does God want us to win (and them to lose)? Does God make the goal or do I? What if it's a fumble-it is God's fault?
But the real work, at which the piece hints, is with the players who have real struggles, even in success. What do you do with sudden fame and fortune? When do you say no when everyone wants you? How does your family survive stress, the public spotlight, and the potential for major injury?
I think Time has a little too much tongue in its cheek, portraying chaplains as mascots.
I've long had a heart for marketplace ministry, wherein chaplains are hired to staff corporations and factories as a benefit to employees. For the organization, a spiritually grounded employee should be a more productive employee. For employees, there's somewhere to go when private questions and tragedies overwhelm the workplace. And for the Chaplain, what better venue to minister than where people spend most of their creative energy?
But I suppose the real comparison to NFL chaplaincy is military. The questions become not 'Does God want me to win' but "Does God want me to kill?' Rather than life crises due to success excess or sports injury, the dangers are death by IED, maiming by RPG, long-term effects of horror and PTSD.
So I have to salute all chaplains. They've always seemed to me to be under-appreciated ministers on the front lines, sometimes quite literally.
Item Category: Entertainment Item comments: http://www.thinkchristian.net/index.php/2009/11/09/god-wants-me-to-win/#comments
We have occasion to ask because yet another edition of the 1939 classic has been released on DVD, this time to celebrate the movie's 70th anniversary.
'The Wizard of Oz' has maintained classic status for all those years because kids return to it as adults, both to share the movie with their own children and to revisit a seminal childhood viewing experience. And it's as adults that we notice the picture is not simply a children's fantasy, but also a wondrously malleable allegory. Its imagined universe is so rich and vast that you can read almost anything into it.
From a certain angle, 'The Wizard of Oz' is a celebration of humanism. After all, this is a story full of false gods. Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion are fantastical figures, but in reality they're only Dorothy's farmhand friends back in Kansas. And what of the 'great and powerful Oz,' who conjures an aura of omniscience with literal smoke and mirrors? He's nothing but the original man behind the curtain - emphasis on man.
True power, then, lies not with this wizard but within us. In order to defeat the Wicked Witch of the West, Dorothy and her friends summon the intelligence, fortitude and bravery within. Human ingenuity '" not divine grace '" saves the day.
Yet you could also describe 'The Wizard of Oz' as agnostic. Throughout, characters wonder how anyone can be sure of the existence of Oz. When one of the gatekeepers of the Emerald City tells Dorothy that no one has ever seen the wizard, she reasonably asks, 'How do you know there is one?'
And then there are the redemptive interpretations of the movie. Doesn't Glinda, the good witch, represent a beneficent higher power, one that triumphs in the end? Remember, it is she who ultimately shows Dorothy how to get home.
These are only a few possible readings; I'm sure there are dozens more. And so I'm curious - where does the yellow brick road lead for you?
Item Category: Film Item comments: http://www.thinkchristian.net/index.php/2009/11/05/%e2%80%98the-wizard-of-oz%e2%80%99-and-yellow-brick-roads/#comments
Tim Keller quotes Tom Shippey in Counterfeit Gods as calling Sauron's ring in The Lord of the Rings 'a psychic amplifier'. They take our heart's good desires and amplify them to idolatrous proportions (pg. xv)
In this one minute piece HTC promises that its newest phone will amplify the passion and the poignancy. It reminds me of an obviously effective Kodak commercial in the 70s that used a Paul Anka's song encouraging people to take Kodak pictures to remember 'the times of your life'.
These pieces don't just amplify, they shape. Through the artistry of the presentation they invite 'you' (through the ever-present assistance of their product of course ) into another level of life. The product invites us all into an aspirational 'you' that is younger, cooler, better looking, has more friends, is clearly living an upgraded narrative at a hipper urban address.
I find marketers to be some of the most insightful cultural exegetes. As a pastor part of me is in awe of their skills. The commercial doesn't so much draw me to their phone, but draws me to their craft. I want to have this power to deeply hook people by their aspirational narratives so that they will embrace what I am offering. For me, that skill is the power of the ring.
'The ring is treacherous' as Frodo warns Gollum. It is ironic that the one who kept the ring a short time needed to school one who had it for centuries. There is a lesson there. What the ring amplifies is a skewed 'you' and we crave amplification usually at the expense of a more realistic, clearer, less airbrushed 'you'.
Jesus comes and tells us that the only safe amplification comes after personal mortification and is uniquely God's work. He then goes on to model it as Philippians 2:5-11 points out.
I don't think buying a smartphone presents a moral hazard to most of us. Even a shiny new HTC Android phone is a weak idol that soon simply becomes a personal appliance we're likely to curse, ignore, sit on or drop in the water. The really smart marketers, however, if we listen to them at an angle, might school us on the idols we hold in our minds more than the ones we hold in our pockets.
Item Category: Media Item comments: http://www.thinkchristian.net/index.php/2009/11/04/smartphone-as-the-ring-of-doom/#comments
We liked him so much when he guest posted, we've asked Paul Vander Klay to be a regular Think Christian contributor. Thankfully, he said yes! He's no stranger to TC as he's been hanging out and commenting on posts for some time.
Paul is the pastor of the Living Stones Christian Reformed Church in Sacramento, California. He grew up in Paterson, NJ in an urban church planted by his father. He is a graduate of Calvin College and Calvin Seminary and spent 6 years as a missionary in the Dominican Republic. He likes playing with technology and theology on his blog and Twitter. Paul says he gets excited talking about the end of the age of decay, creation 2.0 and being a gospel word gardener of the age to come.
Item Category: Meta Item comments: http://www.thinkchristian.net/index.php/2009/11/04/welcome-paul-vander-klay/#comments
