Review: I Want to Believe (The Book)

When I first heard about I Want to Believe, Mel Larwenz’ new book, I was intrigued for two reasons. First, based on the title, I was expecting a book that would explore - in a fairly deep and elaborate way - the human longing to believe that there is something more. But I was also intrigued because the title of the book also happens to mirror the title of the X-Files movie that is coming out in late July. I picked up the book with the idea that I would create a post (or series of posts) that explored the primal urge to believe, riffing off of Lawrenz’ book, at about the same time the movie came out.

Unfortunately, my expectations about the book were not quite on target, and my whole X-Files-meets-emergent-Christianity concept, if its ever implemented, is going to have to be put together without the aid of Lawrenz’ ideas.

Having said all of that, a brief review of what Lawrenz does have to say is still be in order.

This book seems intended to serve as a Christian apologetic for emerging generations. In essence, it is a brief survey of the religious landscape in twenty-first century USAmerica, followed by an exposition of the Apostle’s Creed and a brief exploration of some of the “excuses” that people make for refusing to become Christians.

Lawrenz’ treatment of other faiths is gentle and, for the most part, non-confrontational. He simply explains, in what appear to be fairly objective and fair terms what various religious systems are about, and then compares and contrasts them with Christian beliefs. He does not “bash” other faiths, as more conservative Christians seem prone to do, but instead prefers to keep the discussion and the comparisons on a more cordial level.

The treatment of the basic tenants of Christianity is straightforward enough, and even though the title of one of his later chapters (”No More Excuses”) sounds like he’s finally getting ready to lay the evangelical party line on pretty thick, he never really does that. Instead, he opts for a gentle, easy, accessible discussion of why he thinks it is appropriate to choose Christianity over other faiths.

Lawrenz doesn’t flesh out the gospel in quite the same way that I would. I was pleased to see that he characterizes our future as one comprised of renewed creation (as opposed to an “escape” from the earth into heaven) and that he likewise emphasizes the need to care for creation as a central tenant of Christianity. However, absent from his discussion is any significant effort to integrate scripture’s call to social justice into the Christian faith. Likewise, he often relies on the Christian scriptures to support his points - a no-no in my book of postmodern apologetics, since emerging generations make no assumption that the Bible is authoritative. For these, and similar reasons, its hard for me to get overly excited about the book.

Nevertheless, Lawrenz deserves high marks for setting a very accessible and generous tone in his book, and I would recommend it for a teenager or college student who wants to know a little more about Christianity without being beaten over the head with an “if-you-died-tonight-do-you-think-you’d-go-to-heaven” high-pressure, guilt-inducing sales pitch. Also, if you’re a young evangelical who is looking for a good example of a way to communicate the traditional, born-again gospel within the emerging culture, I think this book is about as good as it gets.

Technorati Tags: I Want to Believe,Mel Lawrenz

Weirdness in the 2008 Election: No End in Sight

..at least that’s what I’m thinking after reading this story.

The candidates seem to be running like crazy from fringe Christian leaders on all sides. Is there any room for a balanced dialog about faith and politics in this year’s presidential election?

[Note: the original post erroneously linked to this ASBO Jesus cartoon, which, as Zach points out, is worth reading as well.]

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: JohnMcCain, John Haggee

Liveblogging: "The Angels Stop to Listen"

I’m at Radford Auditorium at McMurry University where Rachel’s ballet company is rehearsing for a performance that will proceed tonight’s lecture on Emerging Worship by Fr. Richard Rohr.

The company is performing the lead piece from their tour program this year, which is based on Hosanna, a favorite track from Jason Morant’s album Open. The act of sharing this album with Anna Gillette, the company director, is about as close as I am ever going to come to choreographing a dance.

I’ve seen them do this piece about 3-4 times now, and it still moves me. There is something about the way Morant - and now the entire company - explore the humility/humanity of Jesus and yet still exalt him to the status of Lord over creation that gives me chill bumps.

There was a man;
Who smiled like the sunrise;
His face I can’t forget.
His love displayed is unlike any other.

He humbly dressed just like a vagabond;
With discourse like a King.
And when he spoke,
The angels stopped to listen.

Hosanna! [An interjection meaning roughly - Glory to God]
Filio David [Son of David]
Hosanna in Altisimus [Glory to God in the Highest]

 

Like I said: chill bumps.

Don’t Talk Back to Darth Vader. He’ll Get You!

Meet Dr. Bob "Antichrist" Smith

This post is one of the funniest things I’ve read in a long time. I even read some of to Rachel, and she thought it was hilarious.

Thanks, Richard.

Beautiful

Ever since I have known her, Sheila has wanted a tattoo. Well…its been a long time coming, but she finally has not one, but two.

On her left foot is the greek word karis, a word that is translated in our English New Testaments as “grace.”

And on her right foot is the greek word agape, which represents the purest, most unconditional form of love:

Together, they represent two ideas that are shaping the course of her life. They are, at once, statements about the nature of God and statements about her own calling.

During the last few days, I’ve been asked several times about whether I like them. And my answer has always been an unqualified “yes!” They are kind-of cool, kind-of sexy, and yet also appeal to the bible-nerd side of my personality all at once. I love them.

Plus, ever since Sheila told me what she was planning, a phrase from Paul’s letter to the Romans has been turning over and over in my mind. It is, simply, this:

How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!

Exactly.

Beautiful.

God and Compulsion

Lately, I’ve been wondering whether following God is always about discernment (i.e., finding the “will of God for my life”) and obedience (i.e., doing what I discover to be God’s will). As I’ve been asking this question, I’ve experienced a lot of scripture in new light. Several days ago, I posted a few reflections on a very interesting text from the book of Acts here.

Since that time, I’ve re-discovered another text. This time, it comes from Paul’s instructions to the Corinthian church on the subject of giving. Here it is:

Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God lives a cheerful giver.

What I’d never noticed about this instruction is the idea that God doesn’t want us to act “under compulsion.” For that reason, Paul seems to say, God leaves it up to us to decide how to give and what to give.

Follow this closely: God invites us to give, to be sure. But it is only that. An invitation. In the end, it is better for us to decide what we are willing to give, than for us to be forced into giving a particular amount. What goes on in our own decisionmaking, what we decide to give, is what God wants.

Does this work on other levels? Does it apply to the decision about the kind of home I buy and the kind of car I drive? To whether I take a new job or a new position at work? To the selection of the ministries in which I am involved? For a college student, does God care about the kind of job that he wants or the person that he would like to marry?

I’m not suggesting that we can ignore God’s mission and do whatever we want. I’m just wondering whether it is possible that God cares about how I want to go about it, about what role I might want to play in the mission. Does God ultimately, on every level, want me to give of myself in the ways that I purpose and desire? Is he always going to tell me what to do, or is he willing to join me as a partner in my decisions?

The longer I reflect on this issue, the more I’m coming to question the discernment/obedience approach to discipleship, and the more I’m coming to believe that God wants us to be active, willing participants in our life decisions.

The Myth of a Christian Nation: Chapter 7

Chapter 7 of Greg Boyd’s book is entitled When Chief Sinners Become Moral Guardians. In this chapter, Boyd discusses the problems that arise when Christians try to act as “moral guardians” of our culture.

I think it would have been helpful for Boyd to better define what he means by “moral guardians.” However, I take him to mean that Christians become moral guardians when they try to force people to behave in certain ways (i.e., by lobbying for and enacting laws) because they think they know better how society ought to “behave.”

Clearly in view here are the issues of abortion and gay marriage. I don’t think Boyd opposes enactment of laws on which there is a broad, pluralistic social consensus. For example, he doesn’t think there is anything wrong with Christians supporting laws prohibiting things such as murder, securities fraud, or practicing medicine without a license. Instead, he is focused on issues where there is clearly no broad cultural agreement that something is immoral, and where Christians nevertheless insist that something be “outlawed.”

Boyd systematically outlines the problems with taking on the role of “moral guardian”:

1.It is not the example of Jesus. He never assumed the position of moral guardian over anyone. He never “forced” anyone to act a certain way. At best, he loved those who were sinful and encouraged them to stop sinning.

2. When Christians assume this position, they also position themselves as the judges of others, in violation of Jesus’ command in Luke 6:37.

3. Acting as moral guardians gives Christians a reputation as self-righteous judges rahter than loving, self-sacrificial servants. (Here, he points out that there is lots of talk about how Christians still love sinners, even as they act as moral guardians, but that such talk is best compared to an abusive husband/father who says he loves his family).

4. Christians become hypocrits. They select one or two pet issues and try to “push” them on others, while ignoring all of their own problems - such as divorce, greed, gossip, and gluttony.

5. Historically, Christians have consistently been incompetent as moral guardians. Why do modern Christians think they can do better?

As an example of the pointless, arbitrary nature of the critiques that come from moral guardian/Christians, Boyd makes reference to Janet Jackson’s breast. As you probably recall, said breast was available for public viewing during the 2004 Super Bowl. He points out that, a few days before the Super Bowl, a TV special aired on child prostitution in Cambodia and Thailand. Why were Christians so outraged about Janet Jackson’s breast, yet completely ambivalent about 30,000 children living who are living in sexual slavery?

Boyd suggests that, if you’re really concerned about homosexuality, you should form friendships with gay people and earn the right to speak into their lives by loving them and caring for them. Likewise, if you are concerned about abortion, then you should take a pregnant teenager into your house and help her raise her baby.

But…if all your are going to do is grench and complain about how wrong it all is and make things as difficult as possible for people who are in these situations, then you need to shut up. (He actually doesn’t put it quite that bluntly, but thats the gist of it).

He concludes: “The distinct kingdom question is not, How do you vote? The distinct kingdom question is, How do you bleed?”

Previous Posts:
-Introduction
-Chapter One: The Kingdom of the Sword
-Chapter Two: The Kingdom of the Cross
-Chapter Three: Keeping the Kingdom Holy
-Chapter Four: From Resident Aliens to Conquering Warlords
-Chapter Five: Taking America Back for God
-Chapter Six: The Myth of a Christian Nation

How (Not) to Speak of God: Chapter 1

The title of Chapter 1 in Rollins’ book is based on Meister Eckhart’s prayer: “God rid me of God.” This prayer has become well-known over the years because it acknowledges that “the God we are in relationship with is bigger, better and different than our understanding of that God.”

Rollins’ main point in Chapter 1 is that there is a relationship between a postmodern way of thinking that he calls the critique of ideology and the Jewish/Christian concept of idolatry.

What is the critique of ideology? Essentially, it is a way of saying that it is not possible for people to learn and know “objective” truth. What we come to hold as a system of beliefs in life is inevitably a function of our childhood training, our culture, and our desires for sex, money, power, etc. Thus, you would never find a child raised in a fundamentalist Christian family professing to practice Hinduism any more than you would expect a single, inner-city mother struggling to make ends meet serving on a Republican committee to advocate welfare cuts. Everyone holds different belief systems about God, politics, etc. because we make “sense” of the world based on our training, education, and experience. 

Does this mean that there is no such thing as objective meaning? No, Rollins argues, it simply means that we must give up on the idea that human beings can fully grasp that meaning. To illustrate this point, he shows us an “ink blot” type diagram which, depending on how you look at it could represent a duck or a rabbit. (I don’t have access to a scanner right now, so I can’t show it to you). The lines and colorings in the diagram represent its reality, but we have a tendency to impose meaning on it by thinking of it as a duck or rabbit. Similarly, we all “see” the same “reality,” but we experience it and interpret it differently.

What does all of this have to do with idolatry in scripture? Plenty.

Rollins notes that, particularly in the Old Testament, God is consistently portrayed as being transcendent of human understanding. He is invisible, unsearchable, inaccessible, and even inexpressible. The entire book of Job, for example, is a story of how different people try to make sense of how God is acting in Job’s life, and none of them can come up with a satisfactory explanation.

Idolatry, Rollins argues, is an effort to reduce God to something that is understandable. The most striking example of this is the key moment in Exodus where Aaron fashions a golden calf for Israel to worship. When Aaron proclaims a day of festival in connection with the calf, he actually indicates that it will take place in the name of “Jehovah.” His intention is to embody God himself in the calf, but by “reducing” the transcendent God to a calf, he encourages idolatry.

As I read it, Rollins’ ultimate point in Chapter 1 is this: the critique of ideology has exposed a form of idolatry in Christianity - the idolatry of ideas. When Christians come to think that their ideas of God are the same thing as God himself, they reduce God to something less than the holy, transcendent being that is worthy of our worship.

Other posts:
1. Introduction
2. The meaning of heretical orthodoxy

King of Glory

This Sunday (April 15), Ballet Eleve, Rachel’s ballet company, will perform their 2007 touring program for the first time at St. Paul United Methodist Church in Abilene. The program, which is a re-telling of the life of Jesus, is called King of Glory.

I have seen bits and pieces of it during the last few months, and - all fatherly pride aside (trust me, I’ve got lots of that as well) - it looks to be an incredible piece of art, highlighted by a wonderfully diverse collection of musical arrangements, ranging from Third Day to Handel.

If you’re in Abilene on Sunday at 6:00, make the trip to St. Paul for this 45 minute performance. You won’t be sorry.

Admission is free.