I don't like John Piper

After hearing him, listening to him, reading him and hearing so many others talk about him, I've decided I don't like John Piper. I've just had such a hard time with this brother for so many reasons and have struggled to appreciate the good of his ministry with the bad. I know, I know, we aren't supposed to get to the point of saying that we don't like someone this coldly. But I've been learning that it's necessary.

Lately God has been opening up my heart to the fact that I have harbored unforgiveness towards people and communities in my life. I know how damaging this is to all those involved including myself.  I have taken graduate level courses on forgiveness, love and reconciliation. I've been trained in the Greek, the Hebrew, the language and lives of experts on this field and have devoted my life to the message of forgiveness, I've preached it, taught it, lived it, counseled others to embrace it and have judged those who don't - but now the radiance of my own guilt has reached my own eyelids.

Let's give a toast to the blindspots and ask God to show them to us in good time. I have them, you have them, we all have them. It's not enough to just say I have them, I need to know them. I dislike John Piper because he thinks differently than I do, says things that disagree with my fundamental convictions about how important statements should be said regarding God, convictions, tolerance towards those I disagree with in and outside of my beliefs, etc... I don't like feeling like he is right and I'm wrong because I think differently than he does.

But, even with people whom I agree with, I find that I still don't like what they say at times and how they say it. I'm willing to put up with these aspects because of my resonance with their way of thinking. I guess John Piper frustrates me because I want him to be kinder to those who disagree with him, to those who's theology is not his. I believe that after sitting and having tea with John, I would like him on a personal level but I know that I still would be frustrated.

Lately, I've learned that the best of friends are the ones that are frustrated by me, yet they stick around. Or, they frustrate me and I stick around. What about the people who disregard your humanity, step on your dignity, dislike your personality or just plain abuse their power over you? What if they didn't begin as your friend or even worse they did and then seemingly betrayed you? What if they give you benevolence without respect or lip-service without action? What do we do with those people?

Boundaries anyone? I think boundaries are necessary - first to understand that boundaries do exist and then the needed navigation of how to set up, maintain or even at times remove them. I want respect, health, balance, passion and consistency in my convictions and relationships. But life isn't that straightforward or simple. I have learned a lot about how to have boundaries and self-respect through many broken relationships but what about those broken relationships? What do I do with those? Many of them still effect me and though I can ignore some, others I know I can't.

I feel as if the lessons I've learned about being a person of health by maintaining healthy boundaries and being patient in relationships could have a detrimental effect on the softness of my heart. Could it be that the pursuit of healthy boundaries has turned into an effort to cortisone my heart off into a safe but lonely corner where the brokenness of the world cannot break in? Have I renamed the status of an "unforgiving heart" to accomodate what I want to hear - maybe - a "heart with boundaries" might sound better...

What about John Piper? Have I justified disliking him in spite of the fact that he's a brother? I disagree with him but my frustration with him is beyond that because I know that if he decided that he was going to change the things that I was upset about - I would be disappointed and would need another figure to pin my frustrations upon. Anyways - Unforgiveness has immobilized so many potentially beautiful relationships, friendships and learning communities.

I want to be filled with love - not just for people that I agree with, am in community with but with those who I owe nothing to, to those who owe me something, to those who have wronged me beyond recognition and to those who I have unconsciously hated. Unforgiveness - it's a cancer that we harbor.

Christ said to love our enemies - what he didn't tell us was that that most of our enemies we create on our own. They are people who may or may not have harmed us, but the choice for them to be an enemy is ours. We create them, feed them, cage them and expect that our bags of stones are justifiable.

Christ may have said to love our enemies but I'm discovering that my enemies, at least most of them, are really not enemies, just people who I chose not to forgive.

 I'm sure he knew that, so in his infinitely wise way, he allows us to call them enemies so that our feelings can be named and then he commands or coxes us - however you want to hear it - to love them.  To love them - why - so that what we have done in our hearts to make them an enemy can be undone.  We are our own best propagandists.  Vilify for victory, right?

No, not right

They are not enemies - most of the enemies we are called to love are really our family members, our loved ones, our brothers and sisters, our friends, our children, our confidantes, our ex-husbands and wives, our ex-boyfriends and girlfriends, our own flesh and blood. A few really are people who despise us for no reason but most aren't. Forgiveness doesn't remove the wrong done, the pain inflicted, or the negligence imbued, but it does free us from having to create more enemies.

If I live a life of love, enough enemies will come, so why create my own?  Maybe deep down we need enemies like the CIA needs another cold war in order to justify why we exist...why we are important...why we finally have meaning.  My frustration with John Piper is that his hyper-transcendental view of God negates the role of humanity in God's design - we are not just conduits for God's glory to pass through, we are not a means to an end - we are not just happy so that God can be glorified - we are happy to just be happy, to know what joy is and enjoy it ourselves and of course God enjoys that - we must mean more to God than that.  No parent buys a Christmas gift for their child to feel joy for themselves - they buy it for their child's joy which then gives them joy.

There has to be a more important evaluation of our existence than that.  It seems that if that's all we are then we will either accept his conclusion - that our happiness is only about being a vessel, a conduit or a means for God's ultimate end of glorifying himself through us as a means - a necessary but maybe unintended consequence.  We are therefore not an end in and of ourselves.  Or the alternative is that we will continue to search for meaning outside of the soothsayer's realm and some say that the danger is we'll turn to Oprah, Tolle, Buddha, or Osteen.  Of course we will because we weren't created to ignore that part of our humanity that seeks dignity and meaning outside of just being a means to an end.

For God to be the ultimate "End" does not remove humanity's need to be "end" in and of ourselves.  If we are primarily a "means to an end" and are to accept that woeful existence in military fashion, then some of us will look for meaning incessantly until we find it elsewhere while others will give up and then others quietly accept their mean status of being a "means" devotionally and devoid of the abundance we were meant for.

It becomes very hard to forgive when our enemies bring us so much meaning and significance to the degree that harboring an unforgiving heart becomes the source of our life - a life that was meant to be lived in abundance.  Just like in Monsters Inc. - we suck the fear out of our enemies for an inkling of energy when it is really their laughter that will fill our homes with light.  When our value as image bearers of both the image and likeness of God is rightly appraised by us as it is by God, then our need for value-adding enemies will cease and our need for enemies will cease and our need for unforgiveness will cease.

So what about John Piper - have I made him an enemy - I'm afraid so.  He's not and I do love him because he's my brother and a man of great integrity.  So should I dislike him, no, I just disagree with his way of thinking and doing things - but I love him.  Without recognizing that I truly disliked him, though I've never met him, his status as an enemy in my heart couldn't have been undone unless I loved him.  Some will find this love hard to give and that is the point of release - wherein I recognize I have what it takes to love my enemies, but I need help to take the step.  Many have done it before my time who never chose to follow Christ, but they followed him nonetheless.  So do I dislike John Piper? - well I did and I may again, but at least I know that's wrong.

I finish with a quote from Rob Bell

In a Chicago Sun Times article entitled The Next Billy Graham?, Bell responded to his critics:

"When people say that the authority of Scripture or the centrality of Jesus is in question, actually it's their social, economic and political system that has been built in the name of Jesus that's being threatened," Bell says. "Generally lurking below some of the more venomous, vitriolic criticism is somebody who's created a facade that's not working...But I love everybody and you're next!" he says, giggling. "That's how I respond to criticism."


I want to love my enemies, so that I can realize that they really aren't my enemies.  Blessings on your path to forgive and be forgiven and on loving your next enemy!

Marriages are Never Meant to Last...

I look through the window of our apartment and see students from our university passing by everyday, wondering what they are thinking, if they are thinking or are just on autopilot.  Having walked back and forth from their dorm to class has created a groove in the sidewalk for them that, once they hook into it, they follow assuming it will lead them back to their dorm room.

Many of us have walked, rode or even drove ourselves somewhere, not remembering the journey there because it is so second nature.  I usually thank someone, usually God, for letting me get to my destination and then other times, I just shrug and sigh some relief.

Driving down the road in autopilot once, a sudden jolt brought me back to life as some unidentified object on the road was immediately in front of me causing me to automatically swerve and redirect my path.  From that moment on I was all nerves.  I finished my journey with both hands gripped tightly to the wheel on the brink of either an anxiety attack or cardiac arrest.

My commitment to another person can consist of autopilot.  I don't want the unidentified object in the freeway to jolt me from this redundancy but sometimes it just seems necessary.  I have too many people that I know all too well going through rigorous and trying times in their relationships.  Was it the default setting that got them there, is it life because life is just tough, was it malevolence and selfishness left unchecked?  What was it?  I don't know.

The other night a friend of mine had a ceremony take place because of his recent engagement.  The gist is that he and his friends gather around a bell tower with a pole to the ground.  Men gather around him and ask questions regarding his engagement and other pertinent information.  The design is to give the horde a chance to yell and cajole him into telling more though the fun is always checked by respect and celebration.  After the raucous, his fiance comes from her much more tame session with the girls (where they pass a candle to ask questions) and comes to him so that he can finally climb the pole and ring the prized bell to announce his love to this woman.  All others gather around and cheer him on as he climbs.  The problem is that few ever make it to the bell without some help.

This evening, our groom-to-be was really struggling, as many do.  The on-lookers roused a thunder like roar to usher him up but our famed hero was just not going to make it.  Immediately, a friend was on the shoulder of another friend and then another until they had three levels of support to hoist him up this infamous climb to ring the bell.  Finally he was there, the bell was wrung and down he came to kiss his prize - upon which followed a shove off into the lake, arranged by his closest friends - of course.

As I watched the men come around him, I couldn't help but escape into my own thoughts or all those struggling in their marriages?  Was it because they didn't have the help they needed?  Was it because they didn't have 1st, 2nd or even 3rd level of support that brings them to the top to ring their bell?  Do I stand by and watch them struggle up the pole, critiquing their mistakes like an armchair coaching staff?  When they come back down for another try, do I stand by or just walk away on account of my own hopeful exhaustion?

My heart swelled with gratitude as when at last the third level of support went up and the bell-ringer was able to ascend unabated to the top.  I at once was thankful for the friends, the men, women and families that have supported me through tough times, through bumps in my marriage, through paths on the journey where selfishness didn't seem so wrong.

And then I remembered what it was like when they weren't there, when I had lost what was more than dear to me, when I knew that not even my worst enemy should experience that sort of loneliness and loss and that saying that wasn't a cliche.  As he rung the bell, exhausted and worn out by the climb my heart knew - Marriages are never meant to last...never meant to last in autopilot.

Waiting for SuperChan

"I felt like God was leading me to talk to Francis Chan...then I found out he was going to be in Chicago and I went to hear him speak. After the inspirational message, I felt like I needed to go talk to him - like it was destiny that he was in my city around the same time that I felt led to connect with him..." my friend said as he recounted his humiliating experience.



"I went up to where he was standing, waited to chat and...well I'm not one of those people that runs to the famous person to talk to them but something was different this time - I knew I needed to talk to him...to connect with him so that I could be discipled by him...so I said Hey..."

He went on to tell me how he had asked Francis Chan to be his mentor which was followed by a friendly arm on the shoulder with a discouraging let down.

My friend stopped him mid-sentence and assured Francis that he understood what he was saying, politely excused himself and walked away with a heavy feeling in his chest.  Why had he sensed god telling him to connect with Francis Chan if only for a let down?  What was the big deal?

He then said one of the most profound statements I have heard in awhile.  His conclusion was...

"What if I was led to talk to Francis Chan so that I could realize that I don't need Francis Chan to give me the affirmation that I am the right guy for the job...I know it sounds dumb but I've always wanted to be picked out of a crowd by someone famous and told that I was the person, that I was the one that they needed.  It's a fantasy that I would be recognized and affirmed by someone like Francis Chan and today I got the opposite." 

"It hit me then...I realized that God was telling me that he has given me that affirmation and that I don't need Francis Chan, I already have it from Him - the disappointment took place so that I could hear that from God.  Maybe that was the whole purpose of this day."

I heartily agreed with him and began to realize all the "important" people that I had sought out to receive affirmation from.  One such person was George Verwer - a mentor and former boss who established one of the largest mission agencies in the world.  I became his travel assistant for a year back in 2005 and have had a great friendship since.  I told my friend that even though I had been affirmed by him through my year and continually since, I still seek affirmation in other "famous" people and try to get into their field of vision so that I feel affirmed in my calling, interests and personal goals.  What do I give them - not much if anything.  Ultimately it is very self-centered.  It is not wrong to know famous people, to learn from important people or to intentionally seek them out, but I knew that I was doing it primarily for myself rather than both that person and I.

So having affirmation from George Verwer didn't stop the need to get affirmation from other men and women of influence.  Ultimately, what do I do with that affirmation?  It should be turned into action, ingenuity, leadership, character, opportunities for others, etc... but instead I use it for my own sense of self-worth and gratuity.  At the end of the day, I am just using these people if my motivations are sourced in my own insecurities and not in the greater good of those individuals and the Kingdom that we share.  There's a lot going on with that but after listening to my friend - I too realized that I was hearing the same thing from God.

I don't need affirmation from another human being above God.  I can receive affirmation from them but when it becomes a central aspect to how I clamp down my insecurities, then it becomes selfish and self-serving instead of generative, sustaining and life-giving.  Looking for affirmation from other human beings incessantly also inhibits our ability to move forward, create and launch out with our sense of calling and giftedness - because we are always waiting for someone else to tell us that we should, that we can, that we are gifted, etc...

Others deal with insecurities very differently than what I have described but I know that some of us can resonate.  I want to say this. 

"Let's stop waiting for the Francis Chans, the George Verwers, the hero that gives us a sense of security and affirmation.  Let's just join them on small or large scales in the work that we are passionate about and let God be our source of affirmation - to just go for it, to know that we are gifted, called and have, for the most part, been commissioned already.  Let's stop waiting for our heroes to pat us on the back and just join the fun. 

Douche-bags, Anger and Ill Intention

"Young Rich and Tasteless...."

After watching Shrek for the first time and then hearing Kanye's music for the first time - shortly after, I knew I was home.

Cry on your shoulder or not, I am what George Verwer calls a "natural bad guy."  The problem is that justice isn't only for the nice guys and so I don't want to be the bad guy to the extent that justice is ignored.  Makes me sound like a sanctified badass - and of course that makes me sound like I'm better than you and that....well....I guess I could keep trying to slip just far enough away from the grip of indictment but that's the truth.  I don't like to admit I'm wrong when you tell me the truth unless I have some control over it.  

Some have taken that statement and nailed me to a cross and used my words as the nails (cross imagery for effect) but either way, communicating, as a person who doesn't like to take the blame, with people who don't like to take the blame is a tough and complicated act.  

I've been reflecting on anger and intention lately.  I'm 31 now and have had enough BS take place in my life at the hands of other people that there is enough material to write a book.  My guess is that for the average person - by the time they are in their 30s - they've had their share of being treated poorly by the Douche-bags.  I realized that with all of the crap done to me, I can have a pretty robust pity session almost every day.  Most of those pity sessions quickly turn into angry thoughts and douche-bags start showing up in my mind from all over the place, friends, enemies, teachers, ex's, pastors, bullies, church people, family, co-workers, mean random people on the street, bosses, politicians, etc...  I've got so much material to complain about - it would require no effort at all to spend at least an hour or two each day thinking about what wrong has been done to me.  

But lately, my wife and I have been learning about how complicated people's intentions actually are.  I am more convinced than ever before that most people who wrong me don't actually do it with direct, intentional, 1st degree malevolence.  Most wrongs done (at least 4 out of 5) are done either because of lack of intention or good intention rather than ill intention.  Now, there are many different kinds of intentions that we could add but these three seem to make the top of the list.  

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" someone once said.  Have you heard yourself or someone else ever say - "But my intention wasn't to...." and yet you still ended up hurting someone or doing something harmful.  Sometimes when we are hyper-intentional about one motivation which is good, then we neglect other motivations and actions that would also be necessary which ends in conflict of some sort.  Will we ever get away from this problem.  

What about lack of intention - so many problems happen because of this issue - lack of intention or as it is otherwise known - indifference.  Indifference can be for many reasons but many times, the few wrongs committed intentionally were preceded and followed by indifference from so many others surrounding the wrong committed.  What about mentally ill individuals who' commit wrongs that they do when not in their right mind.  What do we do with our condemning finger when they produce such destruction with their actions or words and yet they can't be fully culpable for their decision.

I am more and more convinced that with all these complexities and the way human nature works - that we are prone as humans to look for ill intention regardless of whether it is there or not.  It brings us a source of comfort to know the "why" of suffering and pain so that we can pull out the infamous index and point it squarely at the perpetrator.  Does this need to happen sometimes - YES - does it need to happen the majority of the time - NO.  

This makes me think that God must already know this and have a way of dealing with "sin" in such a way that would recognize that ill intention isn't the source of most of the destruction in the world (although it is involved to some degree).  We as humans would like to think it is most of the time but I don't think that's the case.  What then do we do with all of that anger and desire for justice if we can't nail it down on ill intention.  I think it begins by realizing that brokenness is complicated and that our brokenness, or what others might call sin, has an inverted desire to implicate all sin as ill intended - a desire produced by the very brokenness that it condemns.  We are all prone to retribution - an innate natural desire for punitive justice.

There's a lot more to say from this point on... but instead, I'd like to finish with a toast to the Douche-bags -

And I always find, yeah, I always find somethin' wrong

You been puttin' up wit' my #*@! just way too long

I'm so gifted at findin' what I don't like the most

So I think it's time for us to have a toast

Let's have a toast for the douchebags,

Let's have a toast for the @#*holes,

Let's have a toast for the scumbags,

Every one of them that I know

Let's have a toast to the jerkoffs

That'll never take work off

Baby, I got a plan

Run away fast as you can

2010 MTV Video Music Awards - More VMA Video

GO JAKE

Did the Ancient Israelites Drink Beer?

An article in Biblical Archaeology Review just reported some stunning and promising findings about the good nectar.  Check it out here at www.bib-arch.org.  Did the Jews drink He-brew beer?

Legendary

How do you read Brian McLaren - nerves, brain cells or both?

Brian McLaren... - now what does that name do to you?  It produces some very strong emotions in many directions for a lot of people.  It is a name that cannot be ignored in America and now many parts of the world.

A friend of mine has been reading his latest book, A New Kind of Christianity, and now I've just picked up - The Secret Message of Jesus as an audio book and have listened to the first hour.  I read A Generous Orthodoxy back in 2004 and was deeply impacted by his message. What I find so interesting is that when you look at the Amazon reviews - there are almost as many with a 1 star rating as there are with a 5 star rating. with a few in-between.

What strikes me is that most of the 5 and 1 star people don't seem to be balanced - either Brian is loved or hated.  Very little credibility is given to him or none at all by the 1 star commentators and very little criticism is offered by the 5 star people - or none at all.  I guess what I'm most struck by is that Brian's work touches nerves more than brain cells.  The brains do respond but the nerves are where the journey begins.  More than most authors I've read - he either makes me feel like I have arrived home after such a long absence to a loving father who understands my heart and will support me no matter what I have or haven't done.  Or I respond with immediate disdain - trying to dismiss him as quickly as possible either in quiet rage or projecting that I haven't really been affected by him when really I can't get my nerves to settle down or get him off my mind.  When asked about him or when I hear his name mentioned, I give way to quick responses that are tell-tale signs of my indignation and antagonism towards him - some of which I can't understand myself.

Nerves are funny things - they do things to us that we can't always control - like knee jerk reactions or triggers from a painful past or protective impulses ranging from maternal sources to rage-induced reactions.  They also cause our hearts to warm and condescend, to remove normal everyday boundaries for the benefit of the other, to be attracted to someone or something that we know will only get us in trouble or to someone that we can't get out of our head.  They make us perform the infamous Freudian slip and cause us to avoid imminent danger.  They are neither foe nor friend, but can produce the most frustrating experiences while also revealing the content of what is actually in our hearts - good, bad, indifferent or conventional.  In short, they are part and parcel of how we respond whether we want to or not and as a result, they can't be controlled or ignored.

There are very few people who can speak, write, influence or create with the capacity to have these kinds of responses but they are out there.  Generally, they shift to one side of the spectrum or the other and fight vigorously for their corner.  Many turn into ardent propagandists while others into gurus.  Some are responsible with their ability while others use it to destroy their opponents or to elevate themselves or both.  It is a rare gift.  These kind of people don't write, speak, act, influence, etc... to only convince others - they do what they do to perform, to produce a reaction, to provoke a response.  In short - they are master manipulators.

Manipulation - we attach so much to this word that it doesn't deserve.  Manipulation unto itself is amoral.  It is neither wrong nor right to manipulate.  Manipulation happens all the time - parents do it to their children, teachers to their pupils, government officials to their constituencies, sergeants to their new recruits, boys to girls and girls to boys, and so on and so forth.  Manipulation is not wrong, but because it is so powerful and effective and doing what it does, it can be overtly or deceptively destructive or life giving and honorable.  Manipulation is a critical aspect of communication, education, rhetoric and apprenticeship.  Some are masters while other will remain novices.  Once one knows they have the ability to manipulate in a gifted capacity - power comes into their scope that they otherwise wouldn't have had and though they be poor, come from ignoble stock or have very little established clout - they all of the sudden realize a level of influence that is afforded to them just by being themselves.  It is a dangerous gift - one that needs wisdom, tutelage and the presence of grounded and wisdom-filled examples.

Who else in history has had this gift?  Many have - some using it for their own good, others for profit and still others for the good of the Other.  Jesus was one such person.  He was a master manipulator but all that he did in that capacity was done for the good of the Other.  He produced reactions of all sorts in people of all walks of life and each time it happened, a little bit of who they were, hidden in the recesses of their hearts, would be exposed to the world around them and to themselves and they would be seen for who they really were.  Without masks - people either respond with exuberant thankfulness and freedom or anger and ambivalence towards the one unmasking.  In Jesus life, no one was left untouched after listening to him, walking with him or observing him.  Much more could be said in this regard but I guess you see where I may be going.

Brian McLaren has this ability and though some would produce arguments to disagree, undermine and deride him - what they don't realize is that he is not writing for their brains but their nerves.  As I consider his teachings, I realize that I too have had my nerves frazzled a bit, but our response to him, though it will require reasoning and dialogue will also require the wisdom of how to respond in accordance with someone who has the ability to uncover our hearts.

This is not magic or supernatural - it is a gift given to Brian by God.  How he stewards that gift is his responsibility.  How we do or don't respond to him is ours.  It will reveal to others (as well us to ourselves) more about the content and status of our hearts than what we think may actually be there.  None of us should be surprised, but we will be.  So for the record I try to read Brian McLaren with with nerves and brain cells or at least I try to recognize that's what's happening whether I like it or not - how do you read him?

Been Awhile

I haven't published anything lately due to mucho activity resulting from our new life in Grand Rapids.  My wife got an amazing job at Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, MI and I have already visited the two bargain book centers for Eerdmans and Baker Publishing companies here in town.  Wow!  I was going insane with all the deals. 

We were at the end of the last set of ropes we had to hang onto and now that we have a job, God has provided a way to get back out of debt and the low standards of living we were under.  We cannot complain by any means, but not having adequate health insurance, having two failing vehicles, living in a cramped 2 room apartment and living from paycheck to paycheck with a newborn wasn't fun.  We now know what it's like to live in the shadow of Providence, hoping that the reality of the life doesn't slip past the barrier and get to us when we are not looking.  Food stamps, state health care, cheap beer, and cramped quarters has taught us a lot.  We will be unpacking that for awhile, but for now we are enjoying our sustenance and security.  Thank you Lord for all that you do and don't do on our behalf, and it really has been on our behalf - thank you.

For now my days are filled with being mr. mom and supporting as best as possible my wife's new position, now that she's the bread winner.  I hope to get a beer mug that reads, "My wife is paying for this!"  Well, I'll keep writing in the meantime now that we have settled in.  Talk to you soon!

-Nate

Impious piety!

Stole this from James K.A. Smith's blog - here


"Gibney was not what you would call pious. In fact, he had an attitude that would be commonly called impious, only I believe God understood well enough that his violence and sarcasms covered a sense of deep metaphysical dismay--an anguish that was real, though not humble enough to be of much use to his soul. What was materially impiety in him was directed more against common ideas and notions which he saw or considered to be totally inadequate, and maybe it subjectively represented a kind of oblique zeal for the purity of God, this rebellion against the commonplace and trite, against mediocrity, religiosity."

~Merton, The Seven Storey Mountain, pp. 200-201

EXIT

Faith - Commonalities and Politics

Recently, the country of Bangladesh "reinstated a ban on Islamic political parties."  The article can be found here.

Tony Blair recently held a contest for 18-25 year olds challenging them to come up with a short film in his "Faith Shorts" challenge of what their Faith meant to them.  Here are two runner ups.







And the Winner is....




Check the story here

Ordinary Radicals Trailer

Check out the website - here

Parables are tough to crack

Yesterday we listened to a sermon by Shane Hipps from Mars Hill Bible Church on the parable found in Luke 11:5-8 about the "persistent" guest who knocks at the door late in the evening for food.

 ⁵Then he said to them, "Suppose one of you has a friend, and he goes to him at midnight and says, 'Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, ⁶because a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have nothing to set before him.'
 ⁷"Then the one inside answers, 'Don't bother me. The door is already locked, and my children are with me in bed. I can't get up and give you anything.' ⁸I tell you, though he will not get up and give him the bread because he is his friend, yet because of the man's boldness^[e] he will get up and give him as much as he needs.


His understanding of the passage was that it wasn't about persistence in prayer but that the word, anaideia, in Greek actually means shamelessness on behalf of the home owner not the person knocking on the door.  The home owner will respond - not based on friendship - but based upon the fact that he doesn't want to be shamed for not offering hospitality.  How much more will God offer us his love and hospitality?

Scot McKnight, on his blog, offered argues a different view posited by Klyne Snodgrass in his book, Stories With Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus.  He states,

"this parable is about a God who is dramatically unlike that sleeper who got up only because of the prayer's boldness. The parable doesn't teach us to be bolder and if we are God will eventually give in; it doesn't teach rudeness. Nor does it teach that God is like that sleeper. Instead, it is clever Jewish irony and a fortiori logic: if fathers act like this and eventually give in to rude neighbors, how much more will the good God, the Father, respond in grace. That is why the next set of teachings, which in my view function as the nimshal (the interpretation), focus on God being so much better than human fathers."

In spending a lot of time with parables, scholars come up with many different principles, some of them complimentary, others in opposition.  One thing we know about parables from the Bible is that they are hard nuts to crack.  My take on this one, is that this parable has a multiplicity of meanings and applications that can be allegorized as well as applied literally.  That is obviously breaking a lot of rules - but they are rules made by people who are Western, situated and believe themselves to be authorities based upon the time that they have spent with this subject.  There have been many who have spend time with a lot of subjects over the years who have never been able to remove their blindspots - blindspots that directly affected their area of "expertise."

Can we learn from the experts, yes, but we shouldn't give them carte blanche when it comes to interpretation and interpretive rules.  They are just as affected by their historical context, environment and personal agendas as anyone else, and as such are a bit more dangerous.

I believe that it would be safe to say that Christ intended for all of these views to be present and that there wouldn't be one right interpretation that X's out the other possibilities (unless they are totally off the wall).  Parables in their essence are meant to be heard by more than just one and for each of us to find our place in that parable in order to encounter what God is doing in our life as well as in the community's life.  The genius of this is that the only one that can know what each of us needs to hear is God himself, requiring the interpretive rules to be mostly his.  Are there guidelines, yes - can they be stretched - they need to be based upon the nature of parables.

Do I have the answer, nope but I am part of the conversation and it needs to keep going.  Eventually someone will discover something else that undermine the rules of the parable police.  It's inevitable - so give up on being in charge and allow the parables to do what they do in the hands of our competent Savior.  At the same time, thank you to those who have spent their life in the parables and for helping them to be clearer, though clarity is much different than certainty. 

The Power of Sabbath to unlock Love of God and Love of Other

I'm interested in the social and economic dimensions of Sabbath that are both personally experienced and participated in socially. Sabbath is connected to Jubilee and it seems everything in-between is integrated in this theme. Rest/Shalom/Sabbath are personal, social and transcendent. It seems to be an all-encompassing theme that is supposed to effect everything - economics, trade, land, politics, stewardship, relationships, health, etc.... It's a grander ethic that in the tradition of the Jesus sayings - demands more than the law does.

So I guess for me the Sabbath "day" is representative of a way of life that IS Sabbath. Therefore we should experience Sabbath all week and be reminded of its foundational effect by sacramentally practicing it at least one day of the week. Because we are prone to disorder, distortion, immaturity and selfishness in our sinful nature, Sabbath gives us the ability to sacramentally integrate our being into the worship of God as it relates to the realm of time. Because time is divided, conquered, and has an ability to fragment our life's focus, Sabbath seems to realign our whole being to the worship of God in spite of our dramatic and unsuccessful attempts at controlling time. It in fact controls us regardless of what we do and instead of fighting it, Sabbath allows us to participate with the realm of time in a worshipful way rather than in the desire to subjugate it.

Therefore participating in the order of how God works requires that we practice Sabbath so as to enter that order. We should not view Sabbath as an end - and not even as a means, but as the key to a holistic life of Sabbath. The biggest lie is that we can avoid the presence of God (Adam and Eve in the Garden), and Sabbath reminds us consistently that that is a lie. Everything we do (ethics) is in full view of God so celebrating a day where we intentionally become aware of his providential presence requires us to realize that there are always at least another set of eyes on our decisions, acts, responses, etc... The worst thing we can do isn't the initial act of injustice, selfishness or disrespect, it is the second act of denial that really distorts our ethics - the denial that did the act of injustice to begin with, the denial that we are wrong, the denial that there someone got hurt or was wronged in our act.  In seeking to normalize our selfishness, we are denying the reality of the pain and distortion we have caused and are only compounding the first wrong with the second wrong of denial and avoidance.  This is the greatest lie - that we can ignore the reality of an act, of the presence of the other, of the presence of God.  We want to be able to transcend our awareness of them because it gives us the ability to oppress without cost and subjugate without concern for the well-being of the other.  The farther we can remove the other from our awareness, the easier it is to oppress and subsume them into our self-focused agendas regardless of how it affects them.  Sabbath doesn't allow us to commit the second wrong and it gives space for us to reconcile the first wrong!  We cannot and should not subjugate the other for economic, political and personal betterments and in turn entrust our well-being, success and flourishing to the order God has instituted - the order of Sabbath!

Practicing Sabbath is a bold declaration of God's providence, goodness and concern for the under-privileged, those without leverage as well as our own inner life of peace and trust in God's order and providence. Just as we don't always realize the multiple negative implications of our privileged decisions on the under-privileged, our decision to practice Sabbath has the same over-flowing ability to benefit the under-privileged other.  It does more than we could imagine or understand and so trusting God in justing "doing it" causes us and the "other" relief and shalom that we may not see right away or may never see.  An entire orientation will begin and move is the direction of realizing the biggest lie that we believe in so many aspects of our life - Sabbath will give us the ability to begin exposing those lies we believe and removing their indolence and distortion, bringing new light and awareness on our everyday decisions of privilege and allowing us to enter into an increasingly holistic life of awareness, truth and reciprocity with God and the other.  (The 1st and 2nd Greatest commandments). 

Sabbath is the key that unlocks love of God and love of the other!

The Power of Myth - Joseph Campbell Foundation

The Joseph Campbell Foundation can be found at www.jcf.org

Here are few videos of their online content for free,

Literary Topos? - Does the Bible share similar literary structures with other religions and myths and why? The Creators of the Matrix and Star Wars tell us where they got their inspiration.

I found this article on Wikipedia regarding this question - a question I'll be delving into more and more in my further research.


"Ernst Robert Curtius expanded this concept in studying topoi as commonplaces: reworkings of traditional material, particularly the descriptions of standardised settings, but extended to almost any literary meme. Critics have traced the use and re-use of such topoi from the literature of classical antiquity to the 18th century and beyond into postmodern literature. This is illustrated in the study of archetypal heroes and in the theory of "The Hero With A Thousand Faces," also the name of a book written by modern theorist Joseph Campbell.
For example, oral histories passed down from pre-historic societies contain literary aspects, characters, or settings which appear again and again in stories from ancient civilizations, religious texts, and even more modern stories. The biblical creation myths and of "the flood" are two examples, as they are repeated in other civilizations' earliest texts (see Epic of Gilgamesh or Deluge (mythology)) and are seen again and again in historical texts and references."

The work of Joseph Campbell, though provocative, is not finished.  Much of what he says is impelled, thanks to the research of postmodern philosophy, by his own agenda to some degree.  This is true of us all and should inform how we hear, read and understand people like Joseph Campbell among other.  Here is a video of his talk that takes us into his world.




Both the creators of the Matrix and Star Wars based a lot of their philosophy upon what Joseph Campbell was writing on.  Paradoxically, many people watching the matrix thought they were watching a movie inspired by the story of Christ, but what Joseph Campbell illustrates, is that the story of Christ is inspired by pre-existing myths that are shared by cultures and communities all over the world. 






Here's one more!

PHD - what I hope to work on!

My hypothesis is that it can be demonstrated in Scripture that Paul wasn't the only one that practiced contextualization.  I believe that the entire Canon of Scripture lays out a pattern of Incarnation, Contextualization and Indigenization (I/C/I). By recognizing this pattern both in the meta-narrative of Scripture and in the micro-narratives, I hope to demonstrate the principles that should guide  I/C/I as they are based in the OT and NT and are practiced by both Yahweh and Christ.  By setting the foundation that way, more discernment will be available for those of us who are called to discern how to practice I/C/I in our context - whether that is an ethnic context, generational context, geographical context, etc...

My approach will be to address the patterns and forms that Yahweh used like the Law, circumcision, mythic genres, Temple worship, Wisdom Tradition, etc...  that were originally co-opted by Yahweh from the ANE (Ancient Near East) culture surrounding the Jews.  By demonstrating that nothing or very little of the patterns that Yahweh employed to reveal himself, to form a people, and to transform them was original to him then I can demonstrate that our call is to do the same.  I hope to establish patterns of I/C/I that are exemplars for us.  God chose to reveal himself through the forms, patterns and functions of human society, a society effected by the Fall and yet a society that still retained the effect of the Imago Dei.

The forms and patterns are completely born from human origin and co-opted by God in the process of Incarnation.  Once Incarnation takes place, then Contextualization can begin.  Once contextualization has laid the foundation the move then is towards Indigenization of the redemptive elements that God has introduced into the co-opted forms and patterns.  The goal of I/C/I is not only to transform the people that use those forms and patterns to convey meaning, belonging, community and worship but to transform the forms and patterns themselves. 

For example, in the ANE, animal sacrifice and entrails were used in worship to the gods.  The entrails of a goat were used to also discern the future.  There is about a 1000 year tradition of annals that record how the spots, coloration, shape, etc... of a goat's liver show  how future events are going to take place.  What's interesting is that "parts" of an animal were very important to ANE culture and had purposes that other parts could not.  In the OT law, the same is true but the difference is that the ANE cultures were doing this first before God ever gave the Law.  Before the Law, the Jews were following the ANE cultures in these practices of animal sacrifice.  I realize this is not new to you but to get to the point of what I want to do, I just wanted to lay the groundwork. 

So when Yahweh instructs the Israelites to do many of the same patterns and forms of worship as their ANE neighbors, he does it very similarly but always with an element unique to him that is like a mustard seed which when it works its way out, it finally takes over the ground it was planted in.  The unique element that God introduces into the patterns and forms is what I'm after.  In the sacrificial system of Israel the liver and entrails commonly used to discern the future by their ANE neighbors was set apart as holy unto the LORD.  Yahweh instructed that those parts of the animal be totally and utterly burned up and consumed and that they were holy to the LORD.  The reason, of course, was to take away the ability of the Israelites to use the Jewish sacrificial system to "tell the future" and turn to their newly co-opted patterns and forms back into divination/extispacy (telling the future through animal entrails) because that ability only belongs to Yahweh.  The interesting thing is that Yahweh used the very forms and patters used to tell the future to undermine its idolatry and then turn the worshipper towards him.  The question then stands what forms or patterns exist today that we use in the same idolatrous way that we could employ with I/C/I in order to undermine the idolatry and then worship Yahweh. 

So first I have to establish that the patterns and forms that Yahweh instituted are similar/same to the ANE patterns and forms and why that's important (Incarnation & Contextualization).  Then I will identify the unique aspect that Yahweh introduces within the patterns and forms that is unique to Him that actually effects the long-term tranformation.  After that I will display how these two movements eventually create a foundation for a people to be markedly different in their orientation in worship, ethics and perspective while still maintaining their common identity within the common ANE culture of the day (In the world but not of the world = Indigenization) 

In my understanding, the battle against contextualization is not so much a battle against contextualization itself as much as it is a battle against this process I've described and the recognition that God is not a purist and has no "pure" forms or patterns that he uses in order to reveal, reform and redeem.  In actuality, He cannot use a pure form or pattern because he chooses to work within the realm of humanity.  Because there are no "purist" forms or patterns in the realm of humanity and because he won't circumvent humanity in order to accomplish his purposes (humanity in its fullest sense with a few exceptions) and because he structures his revelation around the strategy of accommodation, it is impossible to have a pure form or pattern to communicate with. 

For example, the book of Revelation is the only book that uses the word "Worthy" in ascribing worship to God.  This is because in the Imperial Cult/Emperor Worship of the Roman Empire - Caesar had begun to require that he be heralded in that way - that he is "Worthy!"  So John, writing Revelation, picks up a contemporary image or a "cultural text"  that would ascribe glory to a human thought to be a god and co-opts it as a term now reserved for Christ.  So the written, inspired and revelatory words in the book of Revelations are actually contextually borrowed terms that are concerned with worship and idolatry. 

Eventually, I would like to demonstrate that from the foundation of how Yahweh practiced this pattern, Christ did the same, Paul did the same, Peter did the same, Mark, John, Luke all did the same to varying degrees.  Because they did it we should do it but the question is how?  I believe the "how" can be established in the development of Yahwehism in the O.T. 

I believe that this pattern is also the pattern employed by Satan but for destructive purposes.  The pattern itself is not redemptive, it needs to be done redemptively because of how Satan can do it destructively.  God in his infinite wisdom, co-opts humanity's forms and patterns for his redemptive purposes but so does Satan for destructive purposes.  The difference is that as the Trinity and the New People practice these patterns, we actually do it to create as well as co-opt.  We are inherently creative beings alongside the Trinity.  Satan cannot create - he can only co-opt or hi-jack and I believe that watching us create and co-opt infuriates him (just a guess).  His fury finds its way by hi-jacking destructively what God and humanity are doing redemptively and in so doing - he is attempting to divert attention and distort reality/truth in order to deceive (Garden conversation).   We join him in that distortion when we sin. So at the end of the day, what Satan has done to hi-jack must also be rehi-jacked from him as a way to, again, hi-jack redemptively. 

I believe that a redemptive pedagogy (androgogy/anthropogogy)  and an evolutionary/developmental ethical theory can be established from this pattern as well as an understanding of how to discern what God has been doing historically in the development of a New People participating in the life of the Godhead as we all anticipate the New Creation.

The actual work will focus more on the O.T. forms and patterns at this point in order to establish the foundation for later work in these other areas.   

Lastly, I think the "win" - if we were to identify one or two, will be the ability to establish a God who contextualizes more than most are comfortable with and that ethnicity (tribe/tongue/nation) is an everlasting pattern of differentiation between peoples who are at the same time united in Christ. This is because the goal of Incarnation and Contextualization should lead to Indigenization so that the dialogue between tribes, tongues and nations can be done with mutuality, love, respect, reciprocity and synergistic dynamism.  We all have something unique planted within our differentiations that the others need, as we need them, and when that all comes together, a greater awareness of truth, love and who God really is will come to life like never before.  These categories of differentiation are, I believe, perpetual because this differentiation of relationships lasts into the New Creation (Rev. 7) even though the relational dynamics of marriage and family don't (Jesus' argument with the Sadducees). 

Christian Side Hug Rap!

I would love to see the look on these guys's faces if they could watch this ten years from now.  This is amazing!

Why more $ can kill creativity

Got this from Sam's blog - www.everyoneisarockstar.com - Really good discussion about how financial incentives don't actually produce better results given the globalizing environment that we are in.  I'm sure there are some holes in his reasoning and data, but the overall gist is extremely clear - I look forward to applying this to all areas of life, not just those that have to do with money and work.