Different Definition of the Body of Christ?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxQ8tpwdJ1Y&sns=tw] Anne Rice reflecting on why she has decided to stop calling herself a Christian.

I am often much more of a critic of the Church than I ought to be and I see her point, but I think her arguments just aren't that well defined. I don't believe that as many sects and denominations think they speak for Christ as she makes it out to be, though many of them often get the better press coverage.

It is undeniable that leaving the Church and still having faith is becoming more popular. These people still care about the Body of Christ, yet don't consider themselves to be fans of organized religion.

My question: Can you be a Christ follower to the potential that God has called you to and not rely at least a little on the Christians around you?

I suspect that if there are enough that don't like organized religion, they'll get together...and organize. Back to square one. But - maybe it'll be better this time.

-B

On "Calling", Servanthood, and perhaps...Itinerancy

In the United Methodist Church, ordained elders practice itinerancy. If you are unfamiliar with the concept, the United Methodist Church's website says this:

United Methodism has a unique system of assigning clergy to churches which dates back to John Wesley and which is different from any other denomination. The system by which pastors are appointed to their charges by the bishops is called itinerancy.  The present form of the intinerancy grew from the practice of Methodist pastors traveling widely throughout the church on circuits. Assigned to service by a bishop, clergy remain with one particular congregation for a limited length of time. All pastors are under obligation to serve where appointed.

And you can read more about it here.

Itinerancy, like anything in life, has a lot of upsides and a number of downsides.  UM churches always have a pastor, sometimes several, and pastors always have a job. Sort of.  Even in the conferences when guaranteed appointment is not a reality, being a UMC elder still serves as a bit of security.

Downsides? Well, that depends on who you talk to. Some pastors will tell you that there is no downside.  Some will tell you that moving often is a downside.  Some will tell you that being at the mercy of a human decision who appoints you is a downside. Some will tell you that being put in a position that does not play into your greatest strengths is a downside.  Others would add that not being able to do much about it s a downside.

Still, most pastors would tell you that they enjoy being a servant. Because allowing themselves to be open to wherever they are "led" allows them to have a servant's attitude and posture at all times. For good reason too, because it is true.  However ascetic that may seem at any point, it is the way and tradition that it has been handled and for the most part...it seems to have worked.

As I often do though, I have many questions. And as most of my questions do, I might piss people off. So? Press onward.

Servanthood.

Like, "choose life", I never like when utopian, goal-centered, life-inspiring words are aligned with practices. My immediate thoughts when I hear this language approached in this way are not that that practice (in this case, itinerancy) is simply a form of servanthood (which it is), but rather that that use of language implies that that practice is either 1) the only way to achieve the goal-centered, life-inspiring, way-to-live-your-life or 2) that your form of being a servant is a higher form of servanthood than someone who might not "serve" in the same form that you do.

Let me be clear: I've never heard anyone suggest this. But, the language-to me-is scary.

Of course, you'll never meet a United Methodist pastor who thinks this way. Well, I hope not. Why? "Call".

I truly believe that all pastors who serve congregations are serving as pastors (no matter what their appointment...even if it is not in a church at the current moment) feel called to do so.  They feel called to serve as a pastor.  In general.  Serve as a pastor.

For me, and I don't claim that it is fair to blanket anyone else in my statements, I don't get it. For me. Some people feel called to serve wherever they are told to go. They do it with a willing heart. If they are specifically talented in one area (let's say that they are church "rebuilders") and they are sent to a church that doesn't need those specific talents at that given time, they do so willingly because they feel called to...serve.

But when I examine myself, my own gifts, my own talents, I don't see where they fit into this model.

When you feel so strongly about how God is using and shaping you, I can't help but feel like even though it may not be as ascetic (because I maintain some control of my own future) it is still a sense of servanthood. And I doubt that many would disagree.  This is why the UMC has an order of Deacons.

So, the main argument-I think- has to do with appropriateness of the role of being a servant for each person, as it relates to their life and situation, and "calling."  This seems fairly obvious. To many, this is the definition of calling.

I believe that God will use every single person. And I think that God will use every single person's talents for the good of the Church if they'll allow.  And, obviously that not only includes pastors but also anyone else who is willing to serve in any capacity.

And maybe it is my own struggle with authority.  And maybe it is that I don't like being told what to do.

Or.  Maybe.  It is that I truly feel like I am talented in certain areas of ministry (and suck in others) and that to be placed somewhere where those gifts aren't being used to the full potential would be a detriment to the potential of what God could be doing. Not that God won't use you in every situation and circumstance, but certainly talents and gifts can be used in new and refreshing ways in some places over others. I think that's what the issue is for me. Find your fit. Find your place. Find your gifts. Put them there.

God uses all in all situations, this much is true.  But, the burn and fire inside of your heart is perhaps a true calling from God, not your own desires. And maybe you ought to do something about it, and stop the ascetic servanthood.

Do what you do, well.

 

-B

 

P.S. - I hope this blog post sparks conversation about submission and obedience.

People That Impress Me

We are not who we are until we discover who it was that made us who we are. Then, and only then, can we live into the reality of who we are and where we are going. To deny influences in our lives is just silly. For me, I have a lot of respect for the brilliant. I have a lot of respect for the movers and shakers in our world. These people have helped define our culture and because of my obsession with the impact that culture makes on our lives, I cannot help but be incredibly impressed with them and their work. Many of these below are not "righteous" people and did not stand for a purpose that we consider right. It is impossible however to deny their gifts and talents.

Whether or not I agree with them, these are people who impress me. In no particular order, off the top of my head, and I am sure the list it largely incomplete. I haven't even googled the names, so my apologies for misspellings.

Those that impress me:

Jesus Christ Howard Stern Leo Laporte Steve Wozniak Julia Roberts Bill Gates JS Bach Nolan Ryan Adolf Hitler Eminem Meryl Streep Steve Jobs Rob Bell David Crowder Joe Torre Andy Crouch Keith Olbermann Rush Limbaugh Paul Michael Jordan Louie Giglio Michael Jackson Tim Russert Eugene Peterson Jonny Ive Ellen Degeneres Kobe Bryant Franklin Delano Roosevelt Constantine Moses Chris Tomlin Mark Zuckerberg Larry Page Babe Ruth Asa Candler Mother Teresa Barack Obama Bill O'Reilly George Washington Job Thomas Jefferson Aaron Sorkin Leonardo DaVinci William Shakespeare Darlene Zschech TobyMac Matt Lauer Shane Claiborne John Wesley Warren W. Willis Diane Sawyer Beethoven Kevin James Norman Rockwell Benjamin Franklin Ruth Rick Warren Ray Romano Francis Chan Moses Hogan B.o.B Ricky Gervais Anne Frank Bruno Mars Michael W. Smith Billy Graham Ted Williams Steven Curtis Chapman Joel Houston George W. Bush Dan Marino Henry Ford Thomas Edison Dan Brown JK Rowling Stephanie Meyers Taylor Swift Kanye West Mark Driscoll John Gruber Charles Wesley Albert Einstein King Tut Peyton Manning Napoleon George Lucas Tom Hanks Ann Curry Jack Mason Peter Sean Parker Sergei Brin Jackie Robinson Martin Luther Martin Luther King Jr. JFK Abraham Lincoln My family

-B

Salvation As An Art Form

Last night, Allison and I were presented with the opportunity that every customer at Family Christian Stores has when they purchase anything.  You can predict it: Cue the line, "Would you like to donate $5 to buy a Bible for a child in need?"

Perhaps it is because of my guilty conscience, or perhaps it is because I think that it is a good idea, I usually donate. Last night's exchange was a bit different. They still offered the Bible for $5, but this time it was for a women's center in our area sent to encourage women in the midst of a pregnancy to "choose life" in their own situation.

You can read more about the program here.

Not paying any attention to how the donation of a Bible would convince a pregnant mother not to proceed with an abortion in the first place, something still struck me as odd. And I didn't know why.

I generally don't oppose the giving of the book that tells the story of our Savior and Lord and often donate for the cause. But something about this marketing scheme seemed...off to me.  How can a Christian oppose the giving of the Bible to one whom might benefit from the reading of it?

I realized that I didn't oppose the idea as much as I let the marketing and phrasing around the promotion bother me. But I still didn't know why.

At first, I thought, "There's the typical Conservative side of things, maybe that's just annoying." That certainly played a role, but that didn't seem deep enough. Surely that wouldn't bother me that much. Then I thought, what is it about "choose life" that is so bothersome? And I realized, the typical Right Wing of America uses the phrase politically and in the midst of their own political ambitions judges those who are not members of their political party.  Mostly this judgement manifests itself inside of the assumption that those who aren't members of their party have different beliefs. As in, you aren't a Republican, you aren't pro life. And I don't care what political party I align myself with, I'm not sure that my being pro-life can be decided by what party I decide to join. Aren't all humans in some sense "pro life" when it comes to most things?

So perhaps my problem with the Bible donation was that the "choose life" phrase assumes that one might NOT choose life. 

And then I thought, "Wait a second, how are we defining life?" Do we not have faith that the God who had the foresight to bring us into the world would not save us no matter what action our earthly potential parent might take?  It seemed to me like maybe we weren't putting enough emphasis on the life to come. 

I'm not defending abortion, I think that dangers and problems in pregnancy ought to be taken into consideration because it is SUCH a case by case, situation by situation basis? I just think that when we implore others to "choose life" perhaps we are not taking into account much of the future: salvation.

I had to figure out how this type of logic would make sense. Because I can't believe that these people who exercise these thoughts WOULDN'T think that salvation isn't of utmost importance.  Another realization: what does the salvation rely on? Oh yeah, their idea of salvation hangs on a conversion experience. A single point in time when Jesus was invited into their heart. From then on, they were "saved".

While I whole heartedly believe that the Christian life requires a conversion experience of some sort and a conscious decision to follow Christ with an outward sign of that (baptism, confirmation, etc), I have always struggled with the salvation factor. I believe that God came to earth to save all. Not just Israel.  Not just Calvinists. God came to save adults.  God came to save those that will never hear the Gospel. God came to save those who will never be born. 

And I had that sinking feeling that we all have every once in awhile when we are thinking about God and the work of God in our own lives and the world:  I. Don't. Get. It.  I. Will. Never. Get. It. 

I can't understand. Because it isn't up to me to understand. 

Humans do this, don't we? We have an issue, something that doesn't make sense, and we try to rationalize it.

But we will never understand it. And it is still beautiful. Like art.

If we believe that God and God alone can and does provide salvation, and that nothing of our own merit earns us a way to living with God eternally, then we have to look at God's way of providing salvation as art, something that is so beautiful that we can't stop looking and will never be able to either explain it, fully comprehend it, or recreate it.

It is like when you read through one of Aaron Sorkin's dialogues. Or when you watch Kobe Bryant shoot a three.  Or when you hear Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau sing Lieder. Or when you look at anything Da Vinci. Or when you watch Barack Obama deliver a speech. Or when you read a Shakespearian plot line. Or when you watch Julia Roberts act. Or look at the design of an Apple product.  Or watch Nolan Ryan throw a fastball. Or watch Jim Parsons deliver a Sheldon line. Or listen to Steve Wozniak describe building the first personal computer. 

It is brilliance. And all are art forms that we can't understand. Can't figure out, and can't help but see the beauty in.

I can't help but think that God's saving grace works in the same way.

Perhaps, rather than trying to decide what God is doing in the world and force it on others, we would do well to take a step back every once in awhile, take in the beauty of what it means to be a child that God has saved from sin, and let that inspiration that is bound to appear speak for itself.

-B

On Marketing the Church

If you talk to a lot of people, especially church people, you'll get a lot of mixed responses about marketing and its relation to the church. Many many people think of marketing as a negative word.  Many many other people think that marketing is a reality, whether good or bad. Rob Bell has a quotation in Velvet Elvis that speaks about how upset he was when someone from the church that he was starting put a sign up advertising the church. He said something like "the words marketing and church can't be in the same sentence."

I bought into this theory for awhile. People have to want to come to church. No amount of commercials or billboards are going to bring them in. Sounds like a righteous argument right? If our intentions are the best, then people will want to come to church.  They will just have to.  As far as getting them there, God will take care of that.

My issue here is that I just don't see it working.

I've had the blessing now to help start two churches. Both very different, in different parts of the country. One has been around quite awhile and has struggled with many issues. One is still pretty new but has not shown any signs of huge growth.  Both have moved buildings when the first wasn't working. Both are in communities that don't allow for signs to be placed on the street.  Both are in communities that have tons of houses that house people that work in the surrounding cities. Both are surrounded by many churches. One committed itself early on to being a "contemporary" modeled church.  The other considers itself "eclectic", merging hymns and praise songs with traditional liturgy.

The second church spends lots of money sending out mailers to the surrounding neighborhoods in hopes of inviting more people to church. My initial reaction to this process (besides knowing that your response will be anywhere below 0.5% of all of the mailings you do) was one of Bell's fancy. Marketing? Church? How can they mix?  Are we trying to sell something? (You can read my take on whether or not the church has products here)

The answer (for new churches at least, and I would imagine almost for all) is...yes. We are trying to sell something. Because the more people come in, the more offering is given.  The more offering is given, means the more work that can be done to advance the Kingdom. The more work that can be done to advance the Kingdom, the more the church can live out its role. Don't believe me or disagree on principle? Ask any pastor who has been faced with a snow day or hurricane day. The decision to "cancel" church for Sunday means one thing: loss of offering.  It is even worse for those years that Christmas or Christmas Eve falls on a Sunday. Some churches refer to it as "low Sunday" (along with the week after Easter) because the attendance will inevitably be down. A low attendance means a low offering. Churches are like clubs, dues are necessary to keep them rolling.

I can tell that many seminarians are grinding their teeth at this point, but it is a reality of ministry. If your church can't meet payroll, you are out of a job and the ministry will inevitably suffer.  I don't care how "just" your principle is.  New church starts struggle in America with the same struggles that new businesses have. You have to establish your product and name in order for people to be attracted to you. This is why restaurant chains are so successful, it is much easier to start in a new area.

So, living into this reality, the next obvious question to ask is about marketing. What role does quality marketing play in the renewal of a church body?

Everyone knows that the best form of marketing is word of mouth. People speak highly of you and people come.  IF what you have to offer is worth grabbing hold of (not meaning music and sermons...although those play a very real role in the attraction of new members) then people will come. It really isn't much more complicated than that.

I recently returned from Passion 2011.  Say what you want about Louie Giglio, in a world that appears like the Church is dying - Passion is still moving. Passion is known for marketing.  They put out albums, books, DVDs, etc. all with the intention of glorifying the name of God...and bringing people to their conferences. It seems to be working too (if you consider more attendees, "working"). Next year, they are going to combine the 22,000 students who meet every year in Atlanta with the other 10,000-15,000 that are meeting in Fort Worth with presumably many more who couldn't register and hold the event in the Georgia Dome. I think it houses somewhere around 70,000 people. We'll see if they get anywhere close to that.

Passion gets a lot of criticism about a lot of things. One of the biggest - money. They market and sell everything. I mean everything. And for awhile I bought into Bell's idea. This is ridiculous.  It is the church.  I don't need to see another video advertisement.

But then I saw this video: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJnPnXmXk5k]

And I compared it to this video: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ91eFAoJAk]

Both are simple.  Both have issues with them. One is noticeably "better" than the other.

And it occurred to me: Both are marketing. Given in different ways, both are marketing. Many United Methodists would disagree that the Church doesn't need marketing. But this video was sent out by the UMC. To market the conference.  I mean, really.

The reason marketing is necessary for us is because this is the way that humans take in information. You can tell someone about something. Or, you can show them. This is the role of marketing in the church. We have to tell and show people who we are. You may disagree with it on principle, but it is what it is. This may be unfortunate, but unfortunate is the way we have to live our lives sometimes.

The question then comes down to quality. Quality marketing triggers an emotional response. I think you can figure out which video above triggers the bigger emotional response.

If we confuse the ways of the world's money making with the Church, we will be pursuing a goal that does not align itself with the heart of God. IF, though, we take the principles that the world teaches because it better understands how sinful human beings relate to things and one another and use these to progress the Church, then we may learn something about ourselves and who God wants the Church to be.

Small churches are great. Small churches with clear mission statements are even better.  Small churches that are using evangelism to grow are even better. Small churches that meet solely in small groups may grow in their discipleship, but if they don't tell anyone about who they are, what they stand for, and what they think God is doing inside of them, they will die. Because people die. And unfortunately, the Kingdom work that that church had been doing dies with it.

And it doesn't need to.

-B

 

IN ADDITION - It is probably worth noting that the UM video is meant to encourage others to encourage young people.  Using word of mouth as well. Interesting use and direction.

Reflections on Duke Divinity Fall 2010

Well, The first semester is over.  EVERYONE has been asking what my thoughts are/experiences were and so I thought I'd aggregate everything here to help out with the explanation.

Here is a list with some annotations as well:

  • Everyone here is smarter than me.
    • I remember well the first few weeks when I just wrote down terms that others were using in class that I had NO IDEA what they were saying. It's that type of situation where someone uses a word and you feel like you ought to know it, so you don't readily admit that you have no idea what it means.
  • Not everyone here is a Methodist.
    • For some reason, I had this preconceived notion that all the students (or at least, almost all) would be United Methodists in the process for ordination. I now know that that presumption is just silly. There are quite a bit of Calvinists as well. Didn't expect that. ;-)
  • Not everyone here wants to be a Pastor
    • As someone who has been quite confused at times about his "call" (I hate that word), I totally expected to be the odd one out who wasn't willing to just jump on the "I want to be a pastor because they give me a job and a house" train. There are tons of students here that want to be musicians and deacons and other things. If you are a potential student reading this and desire to be a pastor, NO FEAR- Duke has LOTS of students who are pursuing pastoral ministry. And Duke puts out a ton of phenomenal Pastors.  But...it's not the end all be all.
  • The Undergrads here are ridiculous.
    • Duke is one the best schools in the nation. End of story.  The students here are smart and dumb people simply don't get in.  Your test scores and grades have to be high, there is no question about that. But my God, they are ridiculous. Seems like maybe even more so than other schools. I think it is all set up as a test for Divinity students so that we may remember that they are all children of God too (thanks to Emily Sterling for that reminder).
  • Duke Basketball rules all.
    • Go to a game in Cameron.  You'll understand why.
  • Classes are hard.
    • I came in as a music major in Undergrad with little attention having been given to graduate work (in any field) and had pretty much figured that I would get a job in a church somewhere preparing worship, leading worship, etc. I didn't read Augustine.  I didn't study Anselm.  I took Greek for fun in Undergrad and NEVER envisioned that I would take it again. Wrong. I was good in music classes. It all made sense.  I could see why things were the way they were.  Not so here.  I often got Church fathers confused with other ones. I often couldn't remember how to articulate an argument. It's a struggle that I've had to deal with, and I think that I am progressing nicely.
  • United Methodist Floridians are lucky.
    • There is no doubt about it.  At Duke Divinity this year, Florida represents. Not only do we have a lot of students, we have a lot of good students. Students that are passionate about the Church.  Students that are influential in conversations.  Students that are sponsored by scholarships. Florida has done really well. If this hold true for all the other seminaries, the future of the UMC in Florida is looking up.
  • Worship is important.
    • Three days a week, every single week, a worship service is held in the middle of the day in Goodson Chapel. They are all well attended.  They have different styles of music.  They have different styles of preaching.  They have different contents.  You never know what you are going to get, but you always get what you need.  There are no classes during this time.  It is as if the school stops to worship as a community.  Professors, students, staff, everyone. Pretty cool.
  • Above all else, it is a community.
    • Middlers (second years) know what Juniors (first years) go through. Same is true of the seniors to Middlers.  They help out, they offer advice, they offer study guides, they cheer you on (quite literally). You don't feel as if the PhD students don't like you. They chat with you in the hallway.  They stop and grab cake before the OT11 exam. They friend you on Facebook.

 

I've thoroughly enjoyed the first semester.

Were there days I thought about dropping out and going to get a job in a church? Yes.

Were there days that I was frustrated? Yes.

Was I exhausted? Yes.

Were there times that I was unprepared? Yes.

Were there times when I thought I had nailed a concept and had gotten it all wrong? Yes.

Were there times when I was embarrassed? Yes.

But, it is still worth it.

Fight the good fight.

If our God is for us, who could ever stop us? If our God is with us, what could stand against?

 

-B

My Sermon on "Love in the Midst of Hate"

It was off manuscript, with just an outline, and there were some mic issues. Let it be. If you'd like to listen online, see below.

[audio https://fscchapel.dc1.netfirms.com/fscchapel.com/BryantSermon120510.mp3]

If you'd like to download it, you can do that as well by clicking here.

Does The Church Have Products?

A few weeks back, I wrote this on my Facebook wall:

When Steve Jobs returned to Apple, he took the entire museum of old Apple computers and gave it to Stanford in an effort to stop looking back and start looking forward. No longer did Apple worry about what had happened but it began to focus on who it was and where it was going to go. Perhaps it is time for us in the Church to tear down our traditions and reevaluate them. Let's simplify our products and figure out what the Church is. What would it look like if every church tore down its walls and started over? It would send a message for sure.

The question posed saw more responses than I imagined. (I won't include a permalink to the conversation because Facebook's privacy policies are iffy at best and I haven't asked permission to post any one person's comments.)

The part that I choose to focus on here is: "Perhaps it is time for us in the Church to tear down our traditions and reevaluate them. Let's simplify our products and figure out what the Church is."

In order to understand this fully, you'll need to understand a few things:

1) I'm slightly obsessed with Apple Inc.'s product line.

2) I'm significantly impressed with the work that Steve Jobs has done at Apple. (and much of that respect leads to number one being a reality)

3) I get criticized quite a bit for being so Apple centric. (It's ok, courage of my own convictions)

4) I think quite a bit about the dying mainline churches and what might save them.

You'll also need to understand the history of Apple Inc. (formerly Apple Computer, Inc.) and the highs and lows that the company has been through. If you aren't that up to date, don't worry, you can get the basics here. The important part is that Steve came back and revamped much of the company to turn it into what it is today.

My question posed above resulted in several responses both on Facebook and in person(reminder: name omitted):

"Steve Jobs isn't Jesus"

"Is the church a product?"

"The Church does not have "products;" the Church is not something that can be marketed."

"I'm not sure how [John] Wesley would have felt about the church having products..."

"I'm game."

"The church absolutely is marketable if that means sharing via medium other than word of mouth although you can certainly say that inevitably has flaws also."

"Bryant, you love Apple too much."

"Rather than us forming the Church into what we think it should be, we should be asking the questions about why we haven't allowed the Church to form us."

There were more, but now you have an assortment.

In trying to understand this more fully, I did some thinking and ended up at my bookshelf. I noticed that there were a lot of books on it that had to do with the Church and in one way or another the world (and therefore, the Church's relationship to it). I took a picture of all of them.

There are lots more. Written by all kinds of people: bloggers, Pastors, missionaries, seminary professors, and Apostles.

As far as I can see it, the question of "Does The Church Have Products?" stems off of this struggle with where the Church fits into our everyday lives. In the midst of the dying Church (some stats peg the United Methodist Church to have lost 6 million in membership over the past 50 years), we question whether the Church is still "relevant" to our lives.  The body of Christ-as a whole-has responded by creating magazines to investigate this, commercials to combat this, and books (see above) to discuss this.

Naturally, churches have moved to worldly ways of getting the word out about their relevancy in order to attract new people. As a result, we have seen the rise of a few things: Contemporary worship music (no longer boring services), stylish preachers (think gel'd hair and tight jeans), new looking buildings (the warehouse look is in), and advertisements on billboards (we all know who the churches with the money are).

This is scary to many. Especially (as I am learning) to seminary students.

Because here we are learning about the history of the Church, the mistakes and progression its made, and somehow this new fangled worldly marketing is scary. Rob Bell even mentioned in his book Velvet Elvis that he was appalled when he saw a sign advertising his new church.

"The thought of the word church and the word marketing in the same sentence makes me sick."

Rob Bell argued that people had to "want" to find the church. they had no advertisements, no flyers, no promotions, no signs.

The first week they had 1000 people in attendance. (People on Amazon.com's reviews of the book argue that Bell came from another giant church as an associate and so his name was probably already known to the area and his follower base was already there.  I can't vouch for those facts because I simply don't know, but it would explain quite a bit)

The bigger issue to me is not the marketing. I agree with Bell that if we break down our evangelism into "marketing", we have missed the boat. But that doesn't mean that the Church doesn't have products.

The obvious answer to whether or not the Church has products is "Yes, it does."  For better or worse, it does. Products, as I see it, are the things that come out of the Church.  The things that the Church produces.  Perhaps we should stop and look at some of the products of the Church (as as to convince you more fully): pastors, businessmen, bad theology, good theology, morally responsible citizens, not-so-morally responsible citizens, worship music, "non-worship" music, art, advertising, love for the marginalized, hate for the marginalized, etc.

Things come out of the Church. Because the Church is a body of people. And bodies of people exist for a reason (whether or not they are aware of it). From our own nature, we exist to produce. And so, we have products.

Here's where Steve hit it on the head in his return to Apple.  Apple had too many products.  One of the famous stories centered around Apple's printer production.  He asked, "our printers suck, why are we making them?" They stopped making them. They later gave up on the Newton project because Steve said "handwriting is the slowest form of input". When something wasn't working, they gave it up.  The started again and worked on it until was good. Then, when they debuted it again, they told people about it. And, because it was worth having, people flocked to it. In a mixture of simplifying and revamping, Apple turned around from being nearly bankrupt to being the powerhouse and influence that it is today. That's how the Newton turned into the iPhone.

So the Church has products. But the products aren't what we tell people about. Or at least maybe we shouldn't. Jesus is what we tell people about. Or what we should tell people about.

Here's my proposition: Jesus isn't the Church's product.  To say that he is would be to commit heresy. But, our perception and portrayal of Jesus IS a product of the Church. And sometimes, that is messed up. So perhaps we need to examine how we are portraying both Jesus and ourselves to the world. If we can re imagine a better way to be the Church and the body of Christ, we could score big. Maybe then evangelism would be what it needs to be.  Maybe then disciples would be created instead of just church attendees. Maybe then people would fall in love with Jesus through the Church instead of falling in love with the music.

Of course the Church has products. If it didn't, it wouldn't contribute to the world. That would be a shame.

Evangelism is the key to the Church's growth.  Proper evangelism comes from discipleship. All these things take care of each other. We ought to be more aware of how progression in culture effects us and what we can glean from it in order to better ourselves. The Church is a God-ordained body that exists to spread his name and glory so that more may grow in their pursuit of Christ-like life and perfection. But it is made up of imperfect humans that try their best. Sometimes, we just have to be realistic and trust that God will work through our imperfect products.

-B

P.S. - I've had the opportunity to help start two churches now from scratch. We talk about marketing in a live or die fashion. These churches cannot exist without people knowing about them. Word of mouth is great (and the best form of spreading the news) but sometimes isn't enough. We aren't looking to be huge, we aren't looking to be a mega-church, we are looking to survive. Many who have argued against me (though admittedly not all) have not started a church from scratch. I would highly recommend that those who have not had that opportunity, need to have it. It is an important experience full of highs and lows. For those who think they know the "right path", it is a nice reality check.

Creativity in Worship...and Why We Are Wrong

One of the things that I find myself thinking about a lot (at times, too much) is the actual experience of a worship service. I try my best to attend a variety of services and even participate in as much as possible in many different roles. I think it's because of the incredible amount of emotion that is called forth when people gather together to give praise to God that I am so drawn to it. A good worship service (no matter the style) evokes the emotions in a way that allows God to enter into the worshiper's heart. This is why we place things of the utmost importance (baptism, communion, etc) inside of these services. These times that we get together as a body of Christ are the times when we connect and grow together. They are important.

As I have mentioned several times, I was a child of the "contemporary movement". You know, guitars, keyboards, drums, lights, and gyms instead of sanctuaries.

It was my definition of church.

Because of this, we rehearsed music, dramas, transitions, and the like in order to create an experience that flowed well.

Those of us who still participate in this practice today get accused of making this experience a form of "entertainment". Like going to a movie theater. For a while, I nodded my head and bought into their arguments. I go to school with many of them.

They were, and still are, wrong.

The argument, as I best understand it, has to do with whether or not church should be entertaining. To them, if church is something that you can go to, enjoy, be anonymous, and not have to commit to, something is wrong. And...the argument is that this new form of worship enables this attitude toward worship and church. It was a fair argument because of the naming of the services. My home church growing up called the service, the "Seeker Service". The name implied that the real Christians, those no longer "seeking", went to another service. As if us Christians aren't always seeking. This implication wasn't the intention though. To outsiders, it may have seemed so.

The other half of the argument was the stupid part. Whether or not they admitted it, they just didn't like this form of worship. So the whole "holier than thou" mindset was a good way to argue against it instead of admitting that it worked.

I sang with the Duke Divinity Gospel choir the other day.

I have sung in worship services since before I can remember. I have led worship for big groups, small groups, in contemporary style, and sung in choirs in traditional services. I have even lead hymns from the guitar.

But I have never really sung in the tradition of the African American Church. One of the things that I noticed was the flow of the service. We sang our songs and the congregation followed along as well as they could. The songs went on for a long time, and involved both the choir and directors interacting with one another. The lead soloist lead us through "Sanctuary" and used techniques to interact with the congregation so that they were "along for the ride". It was awesome.

My realization: the service was truly creative. One of the songs we sang had two parts. The director lead us through it, showing us what to sing, when. There was no sort of "Verse, Chorus" outline prior to the service. It required him to interact with us and us with him. It required him to interact with the congregation.

It required creation to happen.

My belief is that God created us to be creative and I TRULY think that he is OFFENDED when we don't use those talents and gifts inside of our worship services.

Many advocates of traditional worship would argue that their organist is creative. He or she probably is. Many of them would argue that those who write the music for their services is creative. He or she probably is. Many of them would argue that their pastor is very creative. And then their friend sitting next to them (also an advocate) would elbow them in the side because they know that it isn't true.

But in that argument, they would argue against being even more creative in a contemporary setting. Why? Because they don't like it, it makes them uncomfortable, or it's hurting the attendance of their services.

Today I was reminded of what creativity in worship can include. These are pictures from a man who calls himself a "worship VJ" and uses software from Renewed Vision (primarily PropPresenter and ProVideoPlayer) to portray an immersive experience behind the musicians that are leading in worship. You can follow him on twitter at @worshipvj or his site at worshipvj.com

I think that this use of technology and creativity only adds to an experience that helps to connect those who participate, to God.

Lots of people disagree with me.

Again, I believe them to be wrong. I think God rejoices when we use the gifts he has given us to praise him in new ways.

If, somehow, this requires that the lights to have to come down, and that techniques that we used to only see either in movies or theaters have to be used, so be it. This is church. We should be incorporating the brilliance of God's creation in our ongoings before anyone else. And yet we don't. Because we are concerned about tradition.

And because we are wrong.

Let's rejoice in the variety of worship forms. Let's rejoice in creativity no matter where is appears. Let's rejoice in what God is doing in our churches, no matter their "style", and invite others to partake and experience it as well.

-B

**Apologies to those who got the preprocessed notification of this via email. My fat fingers accidentally hit the Publish button and there was no going back**

On Leading in Worship

I do a lot of thinking on this topic, so please excuse the assortment of thoughts. Worship is an interesting thing in today's culture.

It has changed so much in so many American churches that it hardly resembles anything close to the traditions of old. Many churches continue to use a traditional style, but even this "traditional" style has been changed so much that those who have now spent their entire lives without this style (and it is now entirely possible to have worshipped your entire life and avoid this) are immediately turned off by the liturgies practiced in many congregations.

Many churches around the world were early in this adoption of new forms of worship and many of the American churches followed suit by more or less copying everything that was being deemed as "successful" around the globe. In short, if a church was doing something innovative, new, refreshing, etc...and more people were flocking to their services, something must be going right...and we should enact some of the same principles in our weekly services. It seemed like a fail safe plan.

Churches like WillowCreek in Chicago were instrumental in forming this new "contemporary" worship style by incorporating new energetic music, dramatizations, new orders of worship, and hosting summits and workshops to discuss effective methods of leading others in these times of worship. These services required a bit of production to pull off in a way that would be seen as acceptable and therefore required a bit of training. For a small fee, WillowCreek was happy to provide such training.

I strongly believe that the beginning of this lied in the music development. This is where I begin today.

For years, the Protestant churches have compiled songs written (over hundreds of years) for their churches to use in worship services. They compiled these in the best know compilation technology of their time, books. We often refer to them as hymnals. Hymnals are great. They provide the texts of songs, melody lines, and even four part harmonies in most cases to the songs that churches might use on a weekly basis. What did this do for the church? It made it that much easier to do two things: it allowed a mediocre pianist or organist to accompany the congregational singing. Secondly, it allowed a mediocre choir or choir director to put together music that didn't...suck. This is huge. It made the singing of songs accessible to so many in so many churches. It was such a good idea that the UM church followed up by releasing more of an ecumenical offering called The Faith We Sing . The hymnal seemed to be a good thing, churches were getting their monies out of them, but new songs were on the horizon. TFWS made sense.

Enter modern worship. Guitars instead of organs. Keyboards instead of pianos. Drums and clapping instead of... Praise teams instead of choirs. Sound systems instead of... Worship leaders instead of choir directors.

The songs, at first, were easy. Three or four chords, four or eight lines, five hours long (I stole this from Jason Byassee's sermon a few weeks back). The guitars were by far easier to play than organs. The songs had somewhat simpler melodies and texts so they were easier to sing and comprehend. And they were fun, so more people thought it was nice and enjoyed it. Church was opened up to many more. It made it , more accessible, if you will.

The Leadership was key. Interaction with the congregation was essential. "Selling" a song became a used term. Leadership was key.

In doing this, we opened the door to many who thought that worshipping God was boring. We opened the door to those who had felt outcast from the liturgical forms of worship prior. We made worship feel more like a rock concert instead of an orchestral concert where people in today's culture felt like they were part of the action, rather than just an observer. After all, if you go to worship God, don't you desire to feel like you are part of what is going on?

The leadership could make you feel like you were a part of something great and that there were songs that could help you express that. And they were about to teach one to you. In feeling like you were a part of something great, you felt acceptance. Churches grew. MegaChurches didn't feel that mega because those leading in the music could make it feel so welcoming.

For those who opened their minds to it, it was awesome.

But the music was accessible. Accessibility means a couple of things: it can be had by more than ever before, and it is much easier to cheapen and destroy.

Because it WAS so easy to lead, more people who weren't necessarily gifted in leading began leading.

And all the things that made it so great, came crashing down.

The songs weren't as great because all of a sudden anyone could write one. The thought put into writing was lost. Phrases were reused. Chord progressions were overused. It became very easy to become very sick of a certain song (Lord, I Lift Your Name on High)

The interaction between the leadership and the congregation was lost because people who weren't naturally gifted at leading others in worship were doing so and felt awkward. With the advent of the iPod and recordings, people began to copy what other worship leaders (namely those who wrote the songs) said to THEIR congregations on THAT morning rather than what was relevant to the current congregation this morning.

The leadership in worship was lost.

Sure, there were those who lead the songs. But there is a huge difference between a "song leader" and "worship leader". Arguably, there became a huge difference between a "worship leader" and a "leader of worship".

Want proof? I can't tell you how many times I have heard this phrase leave a person's mouth(one that is a strong supporter of contemporary worship): "I'd rather go to a great traditional worship service than a bad contemporary service."

A couple friends of Allison's and mine went with us (or us with them) to an acapella concert last week. It was fun. They did a nice job. But, the one criticism that we came away with is that (because of lack stage presence and assuredly...planning) they often made the audience feel awkward when it came to things such a transitions between songs, etc.

How many times have you been in a contemporary, or for that matter traditional service, and felt awkward because those leading...didn't know what they were doing? Sure, being uncomfortable in worship can be a good thing. If it is used for stretching, not because you don't have your stuff together.

Contemporary worship, because of its ease of accessibility, has allowed for more people to lead worship than should.

Perhaps we have forgotten that leading worship requires a few essential things in order to be productive to a faith journey. Talent in the gifts that God has blessed you with, and a calling so that you know that THIS is why God has placed you here.

As I struggle with my "calling" in the best role that I could play here on earth, I often question whether I am hesitant to enter the contemporary worship music scene as a leader because of the incredible amount of people who are pursuing that because they thought it would be fun. It's a hard world to enter and I often question whether I am suited for it.

However, with a little trust in what God is doing in the world and in the church, I am continually reminded of the gifts and talents that God has placed on my life and how those might be used to further worship in congregations everywhere.

Worship via music is essential, and I think that it is a huge opportunity for the church to grow. Surely, this is what I am supposed to be doing.

I just hope that I am right.

Thanks for reading.

-B

Practicality of Methodism and Scott Kisker

Ok, so we read another Methodism book in Wesleyan class. I sure hope this counts as credit toward being a Methodist. And that I don't get in trouble for that last sentence. Scott Kisker's Mainline or Methodist? can be summed up, not entirely, but mostly by saying that the United Methodist church has fallen away from it's Methodist roots and may be past the point of hope for change inside of what we know of as today's Mainline denominations. Methodism got comfortable, reacted to certain events in American history and forgot the commitment that Wesley required to be a Methodist to begin with.

In example, the United Methodist church has reacted so much to other denominations not being open that they have become too open. Open hearts, open minds, open doors, open table. Anyone can eat the bread and drink the juice. Anyone is welcome, but not all are encouraged to seek ordination, etc.

All the Wesleyan books have pointed out many of the same concepts. In the development of the Methodist movement, Wesley set up societies to serve as accountability groups for faith followers. The groups served as a means of fellowship, accountability to living a holy life. If you desired to progress from society to society(it was a bit hierarchical), there were requirements.

Here is where it gets interesting to me.

Wesley had his experience at Aldersgate where his heart was strangely warmed and he finally realized that he could not do anything to earn his own salvation. Only the grace of God that is offered through Jesus can provide true salvation. This is often(whether incorrectly or correctly) thought about in terms of legalism.

And this is where we all get confused about Wesley's theology.

We can't earn our own salvation. That's understood in today's Christian culture. But Wesley called on those who desired to live holy lives(as holiness is heart and life was key to salvific living) to demonstrate this by following certain rules. These were strict, and those who did not want to follow them did not have to, but it meant giving up your place is the class, band, or society.

Kisker claims that perhaps Methodism needs to make a reappearance inside of United Methodism. In a sense, one could gather that Kisker desires that we reinstate some of these requirements of being a Methodist in order to begin to build the discipleship of the church again. The argument can be made that this discipleship can then be used as resource for evangelism and actually act in the way that Wesley intended.

My confusion comes when we compare these ideas to Wesley's experience at Aldersgate. I thought that this legalistic idea of salvation was the opposite of Wesley's experience. He finally realized that God alone provided salvation.

I know what you're thinking. Bryant, this is the idea of atonement. Our works and actions can't earn us the atonement. God alone provides that. And the classes, bands, and societies help us to continue and be held accountable in our pursuit of righteous living. They dont equate. I get that. I'm not saying that Wesley was wrong.

But the question I present is regarding the practicality for bringing this to today's culture.

We often equate legalistic ideas (whether they are for atonement, salvation, or just to live a holy life) with those who stand on the street corners and preach damnation and eternal fire. They preach things about not practicing homosexuality, worshipping false idols, and being friends with Muslims.

Rightly, the United Methodist Church saw this and ran. We opened things up so that we didn't get seen as legalistic by any means. And this is what Kisker(and others) says needs to change. We need to require something of our parishioners again. There is a cost and responsibility to discipleship. While this may be true, it is easy to see why Methodists became they way they appear today.

So can Methodism, in the way it appeared in Wesleys day, actually survive in today's world? If we were to enact rules, would people just see us as legalists and write us off as they do many other denominations? I would agree that in theory a righteous lifestyle is the best form of evangelism, but are the accountability rules a practical in today's culture? Would it work?

I'm not so sure.

-B

For more thought, think about what Wesley's open-air preaching might look like today. How would it be perceived?

An Observation of the Church as it Stands.

One of the things that I do when I drive back and forth from Raleigh to Durham or Raleigh to Cary on a regular basis is listen to podcasts. If I've listened to the most recent lectures that my classes have, I pop on a podcast which I can stream directly from iTunes to my phone sans downloading. The audio plays in the background and I'm able to use my phone as a GPS navigator as well. I mean, this is 2010, and this is awesome. My podcasts if choice are almost always one of three: Macbreak Weekly, The Talk Show (John Gruber on 5by5), and The Engadget Podcast. Because the tech world moves so quickly, and it is hard to keep up, I look forward to listening to these every week.

Something occurred to me today though. I asked myself, what are these podcasts talking about? The answer is easy enough, technology. Current, upcoming, and old technology. Every single podcast refers to the news points of the week: what Apple is doing right and wrong, why Microsoft is so far behind in the mobile world, and why Google is so different and trying to challenge everything. In EVERY instance, the commentators talk about their own reviews and personal feelings regarding the tech industry. It is awesome.

But it occurred to me, I am in seminary. Learning about God, the church, Christ, and anything else having to do with those concepts. And yet, I listen to tech podcasts to and from school nearly every day. So, I searched iTunes for the words "United Methodist". You know what I found? Any and every sermon you've ever wanted to find from any United Methodist Church the world over. I mean seriously, there are tons. But you know what they are? They are the opposite of what is encouraged in seminary. And before you go and and get all upset so quickly, I'm not referring to preaching, obviously preaching is encouraged. But in the act of preaching, very little dialogue goes on. (Sadly)In a TYPICAL church, on a typical Sunday, the pastor gets up to give his sermon, the people listen, shake his hand on the way out, and go home.

Sunday School numbers are dropping.

If you're lucky (and I hope you are) you'll discuss the ideas and challenges of the sermon on the ride home or over lunch. Or you'll think about what teams are playing that night.

Here's the thing about the tech podcasts, it's all discussion.

Theres not one person saying what is right or wrong.

It's discussion of why a product will or won't fail.

Because it is such an exciting time for the industry, things aren't failing as much as they are succeeding.

But, the church, by almost all accounts in America, is failing.

And in seminary, it seems to be all that people can talk about. These conversations are happening.

But in the real world, we post podcasts of sermons. With little discussion. Where are the podcasts where Methodists discuss why the UMC isn't Wesleyan? Where are the podcasts that have commentators from several denominations trying to explore what's going on with the church as a whole? Why aren't we publicly discussing ways to fix it?

Because here is the thing: Seminarians will graduate. Many will either find a church or be assigned a church. And slowly, the depth, consistency, and frequency of the discussions will slow. They'll get bogged down with families, parishioners, and making sure the lights get turned off every night. They'll be discussing "long range plans" and how to get more people to attend their services.

And with that, two things happens. The conversations slow and therefore won't be as fruitful. And those meetings where we try to discuss how to better welcome visitors will stay inside the walls. And we will put some sort of plan in place to make it work, but we won't tell the world how hard we are trying.

I'm ready for the Church podcasts. I'm ready for the things the church is doing to spark so much excitement that debate ensues. I'm ready for the conversations about a church that is past its prime to leave the walls of Duke Divinity. I'm ready for some sort of open, honest, conversation to open up in the Church that becomes so vital to our being that rumor sites open up. So vital that we forget about the devices in our hand and think about what is going on in our hearts.

Why is our image based around sermons and not discussions?

-B

Wesley and Women in Ministry

Every once in a while you learn something in seminary. We are making our way(somewhat slowly as opposed to other classes) through Sondra Matthaei's Making Disciples: Faith Formation in the Wesleyan Tradition in my Forming Disciples in the Wesleyan Tradition class. I was kidding when I said earlier that it is only every once in a while that you learn something, because that seems like all that I am doing, but I like this class in particular because it deals with some of the practicality of parish ministry and the future of the United Methodist Church in particular. In my mind, it's a different type of learning.

I grew up in a Baptist tradition in a church body that seemingly(to me a least) supported women in ministerial roles more than most Baptist Churches do. I never had a woman pastor, but I would have been in support if the question had ever arisen. I never made the distinguishment [please see commentary below based on the word "distinction"] between who should and shouldn't be in a pastoral role. Especially based on gender.

The chapter that I was reading dealt with...who, according to Wesley, shall teach? Matthaei went through several different ideas that Wesley laid down for how things in the church ought to be taught. I particularly liked the emphasis that was put on lay leadership because I feel like it is often a perception of the UMC that lay and diaconal leadership have little power because of some of the stipulations put on the church by the ordination process (for instance, the celebration of marriage ceremonies, sharing and blessing of the Eucharist, baptism, etc...more on my perception of this perception in a later post).

What I like so much about Wesley is that he was so right in so many ways.

Here is the kicker, I got to the section that described Wesley's perception of women in the role of preaching. Matthaei had already spoken about the role of the women in some of their practices with the poor, and had spoken highly of them. However, Wesley here had some hesitancy when it came to women in a role that would require them to preach. It took seeing the fruits of women preaching to point out that perhaps God was working inside of this. Matthaei even goes so far to point out that Charles Wesley was "clearly opposed to the increasing leadership of women."

If you didn't know this already, like myself, it may be a bit shocking because the UMC these days is a bit ahead of the game in the American Church and there seems to be a strong leaning to return to our Wesleyan roots. With that though, there has never been talk, that I have heard, in removing women from their role in the church. This would seem absurd!

To make it a bit less shocking, it is necessary to look at the Wesleys' and their thought process. Many may not know that John simply wanted to reinvigorate the church by building disciples who were growing toward holiness in their love of God and neighbor. After my studies, I dont think that it was his intention to create a new church. Many SHOULD know that Wesley never officially left the Anglican Church (though I am sure that many would have liked him to) and so did not consent to the ordination of women. However, it seems to me that the only reason that Wesley did not formally consent was because of his torn views between the traditional view and the new view that women could contribute significantly in their preaching to the teaching of the church.

Here is what I get: Wesley considered function over form to be necessary. Paul Chilcote puts it this way, "When the normal pastoral system fails to bear fruit, God raises up messengers to do what must be done." Matthaei states that "Since Wesley relied heavily on the criteria of fruits of the Spirit, he could not deny the evidence of God's work in women called to preach.". Wesley would later use the word "barbarity" when speaking of a method of not allowing women to preach.

To me, the most intriguing part of the UMC is the lack of this mentality. Often times, the church in general, does what is "traditional" rather than what is "effective". If something is failing us, should we not reevaluate what that is and come to grips with a way to fix it? And I'm not talking about worship music style either. In Wesley's denomination, it was absurd to assume that a woman could preach, and yet he saw the light that God was working through them and that all people are to use their God given gifts. This would include women.

What is it in today's world that the UMC is doing that is more form over function? Where is God working, bearing fruit, and showing us that we are ignoring? When we finally see the fruits of God's work in human labor, will it be enough? Will it be too late? Does this have anything to do with the significant loss of numbers inside of the UM church over the past 20 to 30 years? What are we doing wrong?

-B

Separation of State and...Church Related Institution?

I've been getting into The Chronicle at Duke recently.  It's published every day and has some interesting articles about a wide range of topics. Today's front page article was entitled "Methodist ties spark modern debate" You can read it online here.

The article explores the problems that Duke's campus police might run into, after the North Carolina court system dismissed charges against a Davidson College student who was arrested by Davidson police for Driving Under the Influence.  She claimed that (taken from the article),

her arrest by a campus police officer was an excessive and unconstitutional government entanglement with religion.

Essentially, they (the NC Court of Appeals) decided that because Davidson is considered to be a religious institution or at least retains "significant religious ties", the college must be stripped of its rights to exercise state police power.

Really? The girl was driving while impaired, and was arrested and all charges dropped against her because Davidson police can't arrest because of their religious affiliation?

The article goes on to talk about how this might affect Duke:

Indeed, Durham-based attorney Bill Thomas plans to challenge Duke University Police Department’s arrest powers on the same grounds.

“I think you’ll see that in the immediate future,” Thomas told the Herald-Sun.

He added that language in Duke’s bylaws suggests an “adherence to the Christian tradition and [the promotion of] Christianity.” He did not respond to repeated requests for comment from The Chronicle.

Jerk.

This brings up an interesting idea. How can a school like Duke (private, religiously affiliated, yet relatively large) police its own campus?  If Duke were to have to call city police each time there is an incident, Durham police might have to provide Duke its own sector. Hmmm...we'd be back to where we are today.

I know very little about policing a college campus (although I have been involved in the process from time to time) but I would imagine that on a campus the size of Duke, officers must often be trained in specifics relative to the institution as well as typical training.

At Florida Southern, when there was a crisis that called for police action, we called the Lakeland Police Department.  But, we had very few of these instances and we didn't have the Cameron Crazies. Really, have you seen the Duke v. UNC games?

Duke University is a very reputable school that still (unlike many) has maintained its early Methodist (or even religious) ties. As it grows and expands, shouldn't it be allowed to be able to police its campus?

Only one more thing: MADD posts this statistic on their website:

In 2008, an estimated 11,773 people died in drunk driving crashes involving a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater). These deaths constitute 31.6 percent of the 37,261 total traffic fatalities in 2008. (Source:NHTSA, 2009)

No one should be allowed to drive while impaired with anything, get caught, and go free because they claim the arrest was unconstitutional.

I think that not killing someone is a Christian ideal.  A religious institution should be able to enforce this, just as state police can.

Drunk driving is against the law. Period.  Don't do it.

This is utterly ridiculous.

-B

Hawking and the Creation of the Universe

You may have seen that today Stephen Hawking announced that his upcoming book would state that some sort of divine being was not necessary to set the world and universe into motion.  Rather, he says, the law of gravity has something to do with it, somewhat proving that because gravity exists, a divine being may not have been necessary.  At least that's the way that I understood it.  He's way smarter than me. If you haven't seen it, there are lots of news articles running the story right now.

Particularly interesting to me, his statement to Guardian UK:

Hawking says the first blow to Newton's belief that the universe could not have arisen from chaos was the observation in 1992 of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun. "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions – the single sun, the lucky combination of Earth-sun distance and solar mass – far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes. [I added the emphasis myself]

I'm a new theology student who knows next to nothing.

Something tells me, though, that the earth was not carefully designed to please us human beings. Therefore, why do we need evidence?

Scripture says often that the world was pleasing to God.

I think that the existence and necessity of pleasing God might be more of a goal for Hawking to attack.

I might be wrong, who knows.

-B