May 1st, 2011 - Life Wins

It was May 1st, 2011 at 10:50 pm.

I was on my way back from Durham, having just gotten off the phone with my dad, when Allison called me.  "Did you hear the news?" she asked. "No." "Osama bin Laden is dead. It's all over twitter and the President is going to make an announcement."

I have to admit, my first response was to...smile.

I think I even said something like, "that's great!"

Because, you see, I remember sitting in 2nd period band when a school administrator came in and told us that our nation was under attack and that two planes had hit the World Trade Center in New York. I remember watching the Today Show, and I remember watching people jump to their death from the buildings.  I remember watching both buildings fall, live, on television.

And I remember thinking, "who would do that?"

Before 9/11, I didn't know anything about Osama bin Laden.  I didn't know a thing about al Qaeda.  But later that week, al Qaeda became the center of all our lives.

And I will admit that when I watch that clip of President Bush standing on that rubble saying, "I can hear you! And the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon!" I get goosebumps every time.
Every single time.

Because to me, a man who sent in OTHER people to kill 3,000 innocent Americans ought to be "brought to justice."

I once watched an episode of Oprah where she was talking about Timothy McVeigh.  I remember the story going that after he dropped that van off in the basement, he ran from the building. He got down the block before the explosion.  When it finally hit, he kept running. After it was over, he looked behind him and I'm almost positive that his quote was, "Damn, I didn't get all of it."

When I heard that Timothy McVeigh was arrested and sentenced to death, I smiled inside. Evil had been "brought to justice."

You can call me an evil person. You can call me unChristian.  You can call me a hypocrite. But, I'd rather refer to myself as "honest."

These people did horrible things to our world. And now they can't anymore. That gives me some sense of joy.

But immediately, I started questioning whether this sense of joy was proper or not.  Joy is not true joy unless it comes from the right source.  When I got home, I looked at the news and the first thing I saw was people flooding the White House with American flags wrapped around their backs screaming "USA! USA! USA!" I immediately had a flashback to all of those videos I've seen of Middle Easterners burning our flag.

I got on Facebook (which took awhile, I had deactivated it until finals were over) and all of a sudden, I saw thinks like "F&$@ you Osama!" and "WE GOT HIM!" and "Proud to be an American!" and "Rot in Hell!"

But, of course, I'm a Divinity student, so I also had interspersed within the news feed things like "Love your Enemies" and "Why do we celebrate the death of a human?"

And I was back to being torn.  Do I act as an American? Do I celebrate one more embodiment of evil finally being gone? Do I mourn that my fellow countrymen are celebrating in the death of someone? Do I remember Jesus' line about a giving him the other cheek? Do I try to reconcile some of the emotions I am feeling with the almost unbelievable message of the Gospel?

See, we were confused about the details at first.  We didn't know exactly if the mission was to kill or to capture (although most signs point to kill). We didn't know that night if Osama had shot back (although we know now that he was unarmed). We didn't know how all of it had gone down (although we know more almost every second now).

Sam Wells, of Duke Chapel, raised the point that Osama wasn't given a fair trial before his death. And my first thought is that I don't remember those on 9/11 getting a fair trial before their death. In fact, Osama seems to have been unarmed and unaware of what was going on when they shot him. In that sense, he has something in common with the people he killed on 9/11.

But I return to Jesus' command not only to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, but also to the idea of fighting this concept of "an eye for an eye." To Jesus, I think the concept of returning a bad deed with a bad deed seemed stupid...because it did nothing but return violence with more violence (though Jewish law really seemed to have laid it out as a fair and balanced system). In Jesus' mind, I am confident, violence returning violence only escalates.

When I said as a child, "Isn't it wrong to kill someone by the death penalty?" I remember being asked, "Well, if someone takes someone else's life, do they deserve to keep theirs?"

And, daily, I struggle with this question.

How is justice defined? Do Americans get to decide what is just? Is justice the same thing as fairness? Does the fact that "life's not fair" play into this? Is governmental justice different than vigilante justice?

And I continue to return to one fundamental concept. For Christians, none of us deserve to keep our lives. But because of the death and resurrection, God has given us the gift of eternal life, one that goes beyond the one that we currently inhabit. And, if we learn anything from the resurrection, it is that life defeats death...in each and every sense. It's not just Jesus' death that was defeated. Death...has been defeated.

Because of that, I choose not to condemn the US for killing bin Laden. I choose not to preach to my fellow Americans who are simply acting according to their emotions. I also choose not to celebrate a murder.

Instead, I choose to focus on life eternal. I choose to focus on salvation.  I choose to focus on resurrection, because I know that the way that we sometimes view life and death here on earth is wrong.

If resurrection lives in us, which I believe that it does, then we celebrate the new life that God has given our country and world because an active doer of harm is gone. We also celebrate those who were under his leadership who didn't know what life really was, and now do. We celebrate the lives of the marginalized that are now able to think and act for themselves because there isn't a ruler over them who has extremist views and glorifies violence.

Sam Wells said we shouldn't celebrate. If we define "celebration" in the same sense that those who flooded the White House gates defined it, then I  agree.  But if we define celebration as taking comfort and joy in some form of new life here on earth, then I think the resurrection still lives within us and with that, the Word of God is still present.

Murder is wrong.

Life is good.

What a world we live in.

-B

Sam Wells Comments on "Celebration"

Great memo from Sam Wells of Duke Chapel regarding the death of Osama bin Laden. Well stated and thought provoking. You can read it here. I encourage you to read it more than once. While I agree with his statements almost whole-heartedly, I wonder about the mix of church and state and the influence a letter like this might have on civilization at large. Is it appropriate for pastors to comment on the ongoings of civilization? I would say, yes (given the virtue based content). But, the moment a pastor is interpreted as criticizing (and I'm not sure that he is, directly) the government (their decision to kill rather than to arrest and try), we have to think about how we are to interact with the world, as the Church.

Many pastors might preach about this, in some way, this coming Sunday. It would be unfortunate for them to use the opportunity to preach freedom, instead of life. I thought Revd. Dr. Wells did a phenomenal job of speaking the values of true justice and life (shown through his comments on justice and the setting of a trial) into a stern warning to our nation and our faith.

-B

UPDATE: Fred Phelps doesn't think we should celebrate either, but really for another insane, illogical, incomprehensible reason completely. Are you surprised?

Throwing Stones

I knew I said I wouldn't do this but, I had to. Please read below regarding an incident with the Duke Chapel. Well handled by administration and staff, I thought.

Dear Members of the Divinity School Community,
Please see the message below, from Sam Wells, Dean of Duke Chapel, concerning an act of vandalism that occurred Wednesday evening.  We in the Divinity School join with the larger university in lamenting this violent and destructive act, and in praying for whoever is responsible for it. 
Richard Hays
Dean, the Divinity School

Message to the Duke Chapel and Religious Life Community

You may have heard that three of the Chapel’s stained glass windows were broken on the night of Wednesday 27 April 2011, during the campus Last Day of Classes celebrations. The holes in the windows are 5-10” in diameter. The windows are all on the lectern side of the main aisle, representing, respectively, the Wise Men on their way to Bethlehem, Jesus upon a pinnacle, and the Transfiguration.

It is too early to speculate about who might have wanted to do this, and about what they would wish others to infer as to the meaning of their actions. For example there were many people on the Duke campus on Wednesday night – students, staff, faculty, and visitors. The Chapel is a symbol of the university as a whole, but also a building with religious and specifically Christian resonances. We can’t know whether the action was simply reckless, or had more sinister intent; whether the target of this gesture was the university as a whole, Christianity in particular, or simply a beautiful and relatively unprotected building.

What we can be a little more sure of is that the rocks used were perhaps 10” wide, and thus heavy; that they must have been brought some distance, since no materials of the kind are available nearby; and that to make three holes, at the same height, at equally-spaced windows, from a distance of perhaps 40 yards, must have required significant strength and notable accuracy of aim. It does not bear the signs of a spontaneous act of vandalism.

In the season of Easter Christians celebrate the way the church came into being in response to Jesus’ resurrection. One of the church’s first ministers was Stephen. His joy in his faith was so effervescent and outspoken that it led to his being stoned to death. One of those who stood by and condoned those events was Saul – who soon afterwards became the apostle Paul, and came to see things very differently.

I believe it’s right to express concern about the directing of stones at the Chapel because there can be a connection between throwing stones at precious buildings and throwing stones at even more precious people. But I also wish to express hope. My prayer is that, just as Paul’s transformation began with his condoning a violent act of stone-throwing, so those who recently saw fit to throw stones at Duke Chapel may soon come to see their actions in a different light – and thus that this sad moment be transformed into the beginning of something beautiful, for them, and for us all.

Sam Wells

Dean of Duke Chapel

-B

NT18 SCRIPTURE FOR FINAL (FLASHCARDS)

Friends, Facebook's link attaching wasn't working well for me.  So, I figured I'd post the link to download the powerpoint for the NT18 Final here.

If you'd like, click this link to download: files.me.com/jbryantmanning/10kw76

It's 325 slides long and there are duplicates, pictures, etc but every slide should require you to hit the space bar to view the Scripture reference.  I tried to randomize it, but as before, you may want to do your own randomizing as well.

Please share with friends.  Joel Marcus may not use a single quotation on this, but at least this should help.

-B

Two Worlds Clashing

I preach to the music team at the church I work at all the time about the change that has occurred in how music is written over the past 50-100 years. I have a classical music education but typically lead worship in the contemporary tradition (ha! right?) on a weekly basis. I've seen the crossover from voice-written pieces to organ-written pieces to piano-written pieces to guitar-written pieces.  There is both quality material and crap in ALL categories.

I have often expressed before, here, how much I care about the progressive church. At our church we try to find a nice balance between all of these worlds.  It's a new experience for me and something I am not always successful with.

When we do hymns at church (you know, out of those little books that sit in the pew in front of you) I typically rely on my figured bass (I mean, it's not figured bass but that training comes to my rescue in a huge way) reading skills to play along to the hymns on the guitar.  I am, at times, more successful at some than others.

I HAD to share this.

This song moves quickly, has a lot of running parts and the chords don't transfer to the guitar well.  So, of course I went on CCLI and looked up a chord chart to see if they had one.

I was blown away.

I'm a fan of simplicity (welcome, Apple) and so this type of visual organization drives me crazy anyway, but this was crazy.  I'm all about trying to take the good out of the old and moving it forward (we all do this in some way or another) but often times it ends up like this:

How is ANYONE who knows how to read music or, especially...doesn't, going to be able to follow that? Unbelievable work.  Unbelievable.

I'll probably get in trouble (with CCLI) for posting this, but it was too good to pass up.

-B

I Had To Jump...

...off of the GaGa train. First, it was this.

Then her new single, "Judas" came out. I don't know exactly how I define "antichrist" but I'm starting to believe that GaGa is getting scary close.

I've  sifted through these lyrics over and over trying to find a different way to interpret it. Can't. Do. It.

She mixes all kinds of stories centering around Jesus to point to (I think) the fact that she is in love with some sort of sin. I get that. But I think it was poorly timed with Holy Week (I'm sure that's exactly why they did that) but I think she has mixed a few too many things with a story I'm not positive she has complete understanding of.

Proof point: "In the most Biblical sense, I am beyond repentance."

Hopefully someone can enlighten my interpretation of the song. I'd like to a hear a non-biased interpretation that finds her point among the trash mixed in.

I choose not to post the lyrics.  Find them yourself.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAWpkZSCMXU]

-B

Bashir vs. Bell

I'm near the end of reading Harnack and needed a break. Duke is up by 12. Hopefully this will end well. I was told to watch Rob Bell's interview with Martin Bashir on MSNBC. Googling it, I ended up at our favorite (sarcasm) blogger's site, Justin Taylor's Gospel Coalition, where he graciously linked the YouTube video. Please, before going on, watch the interview below.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg-qgmJ7nzA]

A few things must be made clear in order to move from point A to point B:

  1. Shame on MSNBC for having Martin Bashir interview Bell.
  2. Shame on them for airing it.
  3. Shame on Bashir for his interview tactics.

And I'm serious.  I had to watch the clip three times.

Taylor refers to Bashir in this way, "Martin Bashir is a reporter impatient with evasive answers." I argue: Martin Bashir is a reporter who has his own agenda and wants to zing his interviewee. Moreso than ought to be acceptable in journalism. (I'm a fan of hard hitting journalism, but Bashir is worse at it than most and leads the interviewee into questions that are often unanswerable because he begins with presuppositions that aren't true to the interviewee...not sarcasm)

First of all, like all great journalists (sarcasm), Bashir begins with a line that is framed around bloggers and writers' opinions of the book and not necessarily off of the book itself. He says, "Bell says that ultimately all people will be saved, even those who've rejected the claims of Christianity..." Congrats Bashir, good way to hook the audience (sarcasm).

Then, because it is appropriate to focus a religious leader on Japan (not sarcasm), Bashir asks Bell about Japan--posing the question, "Which one of these is true: Either God is all powerful but [God] doesn't care about the people of Japan or [God] does care about the people of Japan and isn't all powerful.  Which is it?" Bell answers saying that God is Divine and that the message of the Scriptures is that God will fix this place and renew it again. Most likely frustrated that Bell didn't answer his unanswerable question (even Jesus spoke in metaphors), Bashir asks his question again. Bell responds that this is a paradox at the heart of the Divine.  "Some are best left exactly as they are" Bell says. Knowing that this paradox is a reality, Bashir backs off the question.

Then he asks if Bell is a "Universalist." Bell says no and points out that Christians have disagreed about this speculation (whether or not ALL will be saved) for ages.

Then it gets good.

Bashir asks the question that he will harp on for the rest of the interview: "Is it irrelevant, or immaterial, about how one responds to Christ in this life in terms of determining one's eternal destiny." Bells says, "It is extraordinarily important."  Bashir responds immediately (interrupting) that in Bell's book he says that "God wins regardless in the end."

I think it is at this point that Bell realizes that Bashir and he are operating on two different mindsets, two different paradigms of thinking.

Bel says, "Love wins, for me, is a way of understanding that God is Love and love demands freedom." Bashir says, "You are asking for it both ways, that doesn't make sense." While I might argue that yeah, Bashir, it doesn't "make sense," because the idea behind a God who puts its children on earth and those people fall away from God and God still chooses to save them doesn't "make sense"...it is not my point. Bell isn't asking for it both ways.  Bell is asking for a new way of thinking.

Bashir repeats the question. Bell says it is terribly relevant. "Now, how exactly that works out in the future, we are now...when you die...in speculation." Going on explaining himself Bel basically says that entire Dogmas have been written and designed around this, which seems to be logical speculation. (I actually think this is a weak answer from Bell and perhaps without the TV cameras and the elusive British accent, he may have responded in a way that makes more "sense")

OOOH. Then Bashir says, "I'm not asking what happens when you die, I'm asking about the here and now." Oh Bashir, how messed up you are. YES YOU ARE. You ARE asking about what happens when you die because the question you are asking revolves around the idea of what happens when you die! You're asking that if your response to Christ's love matters in the here and now.  AND you're functioning off of the assumption that that response secures you in either Heaven or hell.  So, yes, Bashir. You ARE asking about what happens when you die.  And it is to that point that Bell is responding.

Bashir continues to ask, "Does it have a bearing or not have a bearing, how you respond to Christ now, to determine your eternal destiny."

I think Bell is making the point that you have to "know" what's going to happen when you die...and you can't. However, for Bell, that doesn't make how you react to God's love irrelevant. (I might argue that it is indeed necessary...simply because Jesus commanded it.)

"It has tremendous bearing" Bell messed this up (Cameras, lights, and British again). I'm not totally sure that Bell actually thinks it has a huge bearing.  I think he DOES think it is relevant. (Again, I think this can be explained inside of Jesus' calling and command on our lives.)

Bell also says, "I assume God's grace give people space to work those things out." Some may think, including Bashir, that this is a cop out answer.  To which I respond: Saying this is a cop out answer assumes that you don't allow God's grace to move and work in the world.  Because this entire faith is built off of a grace, one that surpasses understanding, I might argue that you have nearly disqualified yourself as a "Christian." It's not a cop out...it's an explanation (or at least an attempt) at wrestling with the many questions of life that are unclear.

Bashir quotes a critique of Love Wins: "'There are dozens of problems with Love Wins.  The history is inaccurate, the use of Scripture is indefensible.' That's true isn't it?"  To which Bell obviously responds, "No." Does Bashir really expect Bell to admit that his factual information is wrong? I'm not sure.

The kicker: "Why do you choose to accept the works of the writer Origen and not Arius..."

While I haven't read the book (Divinity School is time consuming), haven't compared the historical notes (and typically Bell's books and messages are well backed up and researched...even perhaps moreso than others...), the assumption of understanding Origen over Arius is assumed because while both were controversial at times, Arius is understood to have believed that not only is the Son subordinate, but also did not believe in Trinitarian theology and thought the divinity of the Father was over the Son. This is typically considered somewhat heretical and so...my point...BASHIR OUGHT NOT LEAD THE QUESTION AND ASSUME THAT IT IS "TRUE" WITHOUT ASSUMING THAT BELL OPERATES UNDER TYPICAL PROTESTANT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES LIKE THE BELIEF IN THE TRINITY. Bashir should not assume anything as a journalist, but if he does...he has to be fair about what he assumes.

I thought Bell was going to handle this. But...he went a different way. I think this was a mistake on Bell's part.  He started, "Well, first and foremost because I am a pastor." However, he went on to talk about a personalized side of the pastoral role rather than emphasizing the doctrinal thoughts and principles. Unfortunate.

I wondered why Bashir went back to the, "That's true isn't it?" line. Here's my hypothesis: Bashir thinks Bell is a hipster pastor who is changing the Gospel to serve a purpose and in that process the Gospel is watered down and destroyed (he actually uses this as an argument later). Bell doesn't think so. But, it doesn't matter because Bashir has his own agenda. He later says that Bell has tried to make the Gospel more "palatable" for contemporary people who find the idea of Heaven and hell hard to stomach. Then the line, "That's what you've done haven't you?" And Bell says, "No. I spend an entire chapter in the book talking about hell."

I imagine that if Matt Lauer were interviewing Bell, he would've asked "Have you done that?" Instead of "That's what you've done, haven't you?"

There is a huge difference.

The long and short is that Bashir has an agenda, something every good journalist should have (sarcasm), and wants to appear as "hard-hitting" and so he asks leading questions (poorly disguised I might add), that do no give justice to the discussion and rather try to catch a writer in his tracks.  This is poor journalism and does nothing but provide viewers to your television show. This, perhaps, is one thing that is wrong with the world at hand.

Shame on Bashir.  Shame on MSNBC.  Give the man an opportunity to defend himself in a way that is fair and just.

-B

My New Song...Name It For Me

I haven't written a ton of music as of late. I have a few that are coming but are unfinished. I stumbled across this one, which I wrote at the end of college, yesterday. The thing is, I never really came up with a name for it. I like the song, I think the message is relatively clear, and the recording came out pretty well for being done in our dorm room.

So, the issue remains. I wanted to share the song, but I didn't have a name for it. So I came up with this idea: have you all name it.

I put it on YouTube with the lyrics sliding by as it goes along in hopes that you'll listen to it. The visuals are minimalistic and bare bones, but that way you'll be able to focus. If you'd like, leave your idea for a title in the comments. I'll give two prizes, one for the one I pick or think most fits, then one for the most creative.

I'm seriously considering putting it on iTunes too, so anyone who wants to design some cover art for it as a single will win my heart forever (after Jesus, Allie, and my family of course).

Hope you enjoy.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbAihr-ws5o&]

-B

"Passion"ate Music in The Church

I've been enjoying my time off thus far. I've watched television, listened to music, and made Allie breakfast this morning. Good start to the break, This morning I started watching some of the videos from my Digital All Access Pass that I bought from Passion 2011. In the middle of the second one, I started having some thoughts about what was actually occurring. I was watching a worship session, watching others worship to new music that they had just learned. It seemed strange, possibly for one of the first times, that I was watching others worship God. A little weird right? Many readers might take this opportunity to move to the next logical step. The step might be that this is entertainment instead of worship and it's just wrong by principle(and hence why I am watching it and feeling strange) but hear me clearly: they are wrong, uninformed, and overly critical.

I immediately jumped to the conclusion that I was in a place where their feelings made sense. But something felt odd to me still, so I went to YouTube. You know what I found? A whole bunch of videos, posted online, of people worshipping in traditional settings. To traditional hymns. To an organ, sometimes a choir, and whole bunch of awful sounding tones. I mean, really, a lot of it was bad. Very bad.

So I thought, if the contemporary music model is so "wrong" because it allows itself very easily to be recorded and placed in a position where someone might watch it later for, perhaps, entertainment value, why in the world are these churches recording these hymns? There is almost nothing about it that is pleasing to the ear. The camera angles are such that you can rarely see anything of consequence. Why put this on YouTube?

As I struggled with this question, I considered different things: maybe they're trying to advertise their church. Maybe they're trying to pay homage to the old hymns. Maybe they just discovered that you can put things on YouTube and so they decided to try it. Any of these could be right.

But one significant difference stuck out: energy. The Passion videos had energy. I could feel it sitting here on the couch. The traditional videos didn't.

When I lead others in worship, and I tend to do a lot of that, I can tell by the middle of the first song whether or not the energy of the room is anything that can be worked with. I very much believe that though the Spirit is always present, sometimes it manifests itself in ways that are easier seen than other times.

As I sit in Goodson Chapel for worship during the day at Duke, sometimes I feel it, and sometimes I don't.

Over the past four years or so I have tried to experiment in ways that will make my methods of leading more effective. The ways I interact with the musicians, the way transitions are planned, the way the text of songs interacts with other parts of the service, all of this matters.

And I think that is where the contemporary music movement has hit a nail on the head. They discovered a way to be effective. Many of the songs are still used in appropriate times in worship. Many of the songs resemble good musicianship in the layout, form, and overall direction. And because they used a style of music that allows people to really move to and feel within themselves, they reached an inner part of the body and spirit that truly sings. Good music, no matter what the style, does this...but simplistic forms tend to resonate with our inner souls more.

There is a reason that slave songs sounded the way they did.

There is a reason that today's African American Gospel music borrows many themes and styles from old slave songs.

My argument is that I see the contemporary music movement doing and borrowing the same things. That's why, in the mostly-Caucasian world, it tends to invoke more energy in the room. When you hear a worship leader say, "I felt like they were really getting into it." I think this is the principle they are referring to.

Like it or not, in 2011, the traditional services and traditional worship styles of old do not carry the energy. Some may say this can't be true, and I might agree that this is a sad reality, but it is nonetheless a reality. At least I see it like this.

Keeping this in mind, my ultimate question is this: if the Spirit is always present and presumably the Spirit doesn't care what style of music is played, why does it manifest itself inside of this type of music more? How much of that depends on the musicianship of those leading? Do others experience the Spirit in different ways? If yes(most likely), does that manifest itself in ways that speak loudly (and tangibly)?

How do we know?

-B

Charlie Sheen and Jesus

As I have been watching ABC's interview with Charlie Sheen tonight, I am struck by how genuinely interested I am in crazy people. Though I can't really pin down why, crazy, eccentric people fascinate me. I've tried to figure it out and a few things came to me. Most notably, they have giant egos and are extremely good at what they do. But...there is more.

While watching the interview, I kept thinking, "My God, this guy is crazy."

And while translating Jesus' appearance before the Sanhedrin from Greek to English throughout the commercials, it occurred to me that this may have been how people viewed Jesus.

I mean, think about it. Here is a crazy man who does crazy things, talks in ways we can't really comprehend, has a completely different mindset on society and life, and seems on the outside to have a huge ego. (Jesus DID pretty much claim to be the son of God)

Jesus tended to live into a reality that certain principles that had been taught throughout history were finally coming to be. You could use the word "fulfillment." While I admit it is a stretch, it seems to me that Charlie Sheen is living into principles that have come to reality inside of him; these principles might be articulated as: winning is everything and only the best win.

Interestingly, Charlie Sheen has admitted fault in several situations and even apologized for some tonight...sort of. It is pretty well accepted by believers that Jesus was a perfect man.

Another comparison occurred to me; Jesus selected followers who followed him, left everything (Matthew 19) and were willing to believe in him, live like he asked them to live, and die for his cause. Charlie's "goddesses" seem to buy into the same mindset of him. And...people (mostly those in questionable job situations) seem to follow him still. To add, Charlie seemed to sum up his theory on life as "love" based around Charlie. Jesus seemed to sum up his "theory" (many of us would say...reality) as "love" based around Jesus (I include God the Father in this definition of Jesus).

Of course, I don't think Charlie Sheen is Jesus (I actually would hold to an argument to the contrary) but I do think that it can be an interesting study as to those in our presence who are crazy and the difference and effect they have on our lives.

Next week, Hitler and Jesus.

-B

Team Jesus...then Bell. And Most Definitely, Not Team Piper

If you're reading this, you've probably heard the news and read the blogs: Rob Bell is being accused of preaching Universalism in his new book, Love Wins. His name was blowing up the trending topics on Saturday and discussions about this topic was all over this here interwebs. I will first point out that I once heard a sermon of Bell's where he said he wasn't actually that into "Love Wins" (a campaign that came out of his community) anymore because it was too complicated, instead, he liked, "Love."

Forgetting all that though, if you haven't heard the story, a blogger wrote about Bell's new book here.

Then, John Piper (my favorite theologian and pastor of all time...) wrote this and linked the blog post in a tweet: "Farewell, Rob Bell."

Nice, Piper. Very pastoral of you.

You know, I've got to agree with all of the others...the most bothersome thing about this whole mess is that the Piperists (and yes, I do take him as their leader) seem to be sooooo convinced about the fact that they are right when it comes to salvation and they're basing their argument where they themselves admitted that Bell's language was ambiguous at best! Unbelievable. [Click on "salvation" to see my previous thoughts about how God goes about "saving people"]

And as far as "Farewell, Rob Bell" is concerned...I'm not even sure that I know what he was intending to mean (for those who have heard Piper speak before, this shouldn't be a new concept). I do know one thing about the comment though: it is not loving, it is not pastoral, and it seems to be downright rude.

So, perhaps here I will let Piper's words speak for themselves. Like Charlie Sheen, Piper's words define who he is: a butthead.

Guess who will be skipping Piper's session at Passion next year.

I love you Piper(Jesus commanded it), but you do not have the right to be so rude to others. This is obviously not the first time in history this has happened, church fathers argued in public over and over and called each other "heretics" and the like, but that doesn't mean this has got to go on.

Charlie Sheen demanded an apology from Chuck Lorre. Rob Bell doesn't have the heart, but I think he deserves an apology from Piper.

-B

PS - Allison just informed me that she preordered Bell's book.

The Church vs. the church

I wrote a paper recently where I referred to the Reformation and I needed to be clear about capitalization of a few key terms.  So I asked.  The answer I got basically said that the Catholic church has capitalized "Church" and so because of that, reformed churches do not capitalize "church" because they are not referring to "THE Church" but rather to "church." Since I began this blog, I've been capitalizing "Church."

I thought I knew why at first. Since then, I have wondered about the significance this might bring about.

I remember learning, in high school, about the difference between "Communism" and "communism." "communism" was the ideal. "Communism" was what actually happened (think dictators and more non-communal type leadership efforts that created a bad name for communism and socialism among most of today's conservative Americans).

To me, in light of understanding the concept of Big C communism vs. Little C communism, I've had to reflect on the significance of the capitalization.  Because, as is true in every language, the words that you use and the way you place them and conjugate them signify and often mimic what you intend to say.  Even in my brief study of Greek in order to learn to read the New Testament, I have learned how certain interpretations of words can change entire theological ideas.

So my gut reaction, after hearing the explanation that the Catholic Church is referred to as "The Church," was to be pissed off. Who says they get to claim the proper noun?

Much of the language that many of the early Christians used, especially those around the time of Luther who did not agree with the dissenting voices, involved the idea of the "true church." Somehow, because the Catholic Church had some apostolic tradition and had been in existence since the beginning (many consider Peter to be the first papal type voice), their traditions were right and though there were many issues that came up...the "universal" (credit to Ignatius?) church was still worth sticking with.  Before the days of video cameras, copy machines, and computers, much emphasis was placed on the succession of traditions and documents. It all mattered where things came from and whom (who? The English language is so confusing) things came from.

The idea is dead simple: because I wasn't there with Jesus, I must try to understand those who were with him. This was important for the early church and it ought to still be important today. (I've always wanted to write a post about how stupid the Gospel of Peter is for attempting to try to pin Peter's name to it to give the document authority. What a bad practice.)

However, to me, the Reformation (both in parts of Europe, including England) changed that. Because we had a Canon, and the Catholic church had some unfortunate leadership, churches split off. Some maintained some traditions, some didn't. And, in 2011 we have a whole mess of churches that call themselves Christian churches.

When I refer to the "Church," I refer to the body of Christ (and purposefully I leave that "body" not capitalized).  For me, despite different traditions and understandings of Scripture, anyone who claims Christ and has confessed of their sins and accepted the love and grace is a part of the Church (this includes, but is not limited to: Catholics, Westboro Baptists, Methodists, persecuted Asian churches,  Calvinists, Church of Christ-ers, casual Catholics, casual Protestants, youth, women, Black churches, and more.)

**To me, it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with discipleship. Is discipleship a necessary trait in someone who follows Christ? Of course. They help make up the "Body" of Christ (see, capitalization).**

Here is the issue: if we continue to think of the crazies as some other sort of body, some other entity, we miss the boat and we end up with the same situation as the Islamic people today (i.e. they won't let us build a building of worship wherever we want).  The world paints them and us with the same brush: Westboro Baptists = Christians.

To me, anyone who would call themselves a Christian helps to make up The Church.

And The Church is in trouble. Why? Because as it stands right now, the Western part of The Church (mainly Euro-American bodies) is the body of Christ.  And we need to be the Body of Christ.

Can we continue to use the word "catholic" as "universal"? It seems to be that unity needs to be #1 priority and so when we talk about the future, we ought to use one term and all get behind that in order to move forward.

I think God has such high hopes for The Church.

-B

What Every Student Needs...Dropbox

In light of my previous post, it occurred to me how much of an evangelist I have become for Dropbox and how many other students risk too many of their valuable files to one hard drive.

Let's review one thing: your computer has a hard drive and that hard drive will fail.

I don't care if you have a Mac or a PC, most computers run off of a hard drive and those are made of moving parts and moving parts break. With the move to Solid State Drives (think of how the iPod touch has memory, it's all internal flash memory--like your USB drive) imminent, this may be less of a problem, but one thing will always remain...you HAVE to back your stuff up.

If you aren't backing up regularly, shame on you. You'll get what you deserve in time.

However, if you are a student (or any human with important files) you need Dropbox.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFb0NaeRmdg&]

For real, you need Dropbox. Its syncing capabilities are unreal.

Think of this, if you put your files on it, you can access them from wherever there is Internet, from any device. And...if your computer dies, your iPad dies, your android phone dies, your iPhone dies, and you've obviously had the worst day of your life...you STILL have your files, because they are stored in the cloud.

I remember telling a friend at FSC that she needed to have a folder on her computer of every class she'd ever taken and every note and paper from each class in each respective folder.

You need to do that. Then, you need to keep that folder as your Dropbox folder. Copy and paste it once and always save your stuff there from here on out.

Do it. Now. It is free for 2GB. Do it.

I like it so much, I've considered trying to pay for enough space for my entire iTunes library.

If you don't back up your computer, at least do this. To lose your stuff is to lose your life and memories.

-B

My Proposition for the Future of Higher Education

Ok, not really. To say that I might have something that would significantly change the outlook of higher education is a strong statement.

But, I think I'm on to...something.

Here is my situation: I, as most people know, own an iPad. I didn't know how I would use it at first, but Allison and I are already figuring out how we are going to buy the next iPad as well so that both of us can have one.

Here's why:

In grad school (definitely in divinity school and higher education, probably in most others as well) you do a lot of reading and writing. Most of this reading is not done from traditional books, but rather from online PDF documents that have been scanned in by someone who works in the copy room. The typical practice is this: a few days before you are to have read an article, you go to your computer, download the PDF onto your computer, send it to print and print it out. Then you can read it, highlight it, etc. The process is great, students are responsible for the printing instead of teachers carrying loads of paper into class, and everything is online for easy access should someone lose a document etc. It also keeps the cost of physical books that a student might have to buy to a minimum. Most of these articles are from random sources or reference materials that cost way too much to ask a poor grad student to have to buy.

However, I see three fundamental issues: 1) Copyright. 2) Significant waste of paper(this has been a reality of the world for a long time). 3) The digital world only benefits us to access it, not to actually interact with it.

But, the iPad has changed all (except for the Copyright idea, that still seems to be an issue) that for me. (To prove my point, the Divinity School changed the main printer in the library and it took me three weeks--literally--to notice the change)

Here's what I do now:
1) Check the syllabus for the next assignment.
2) Log onto Blackboard from my iPad and find the revenant PDFs.
3) Click the files.
4) Tell the files to open in "Goodreader" (a fantastic PDFs reader app $.99)
5) Read the files, draw on them, write, mark, etc.*
6) Sync your folder of PDFs with Dropbox or MobileMe.
7) Take the iPad to class.

*Thanks to Goodreader's ability to markup PDFs AND save them to the PDFs files, I can highlight (if it recognizes text), underline by drawing with my finger, draw shapes around text, leave comments in text boxes that minimize and maximize as I tell them to. When this file syncs with my Dropbox account, I have an annotated PDF file wherever I go on whatever device I am using at the time. How cool is that?

Reading the files is much preferable for me on the iPad, because I can zoom in on text and actually read the files ALMOST as if they were a book. I can't tell you how many times I have seen student print out the files really small because the library computers' default printing was screwed up or because they were trying to save paper. I, on the other hand, don't have to remember to print and can zoom in on text that is hard to read.

It's not a perfect experience, yet. Depending on how large the scanned file was, each page takes a second to render each page. This isn't the end of the world, but can be annoying when someone is quickly referencing a page number.

So here is my proposition: Add $500 to the bill for each student (in higher education pricing, it doesn't hold a candle to other costs and seems to be a worthwhile investment) and deliver all reading assignments via an iPad. Duke has a history of doing this with its undergrads with iPods (and the use of iTunes U) and later MacBooks. Obviously, the additional fee might be optional, but I would imagine it would be easier to sway people.

Just a thought, but I think...a good one.

-B

PS- Yes, I did type this whole thing on my iPad and despite a few typographical errors, it was an enjoyable experience.

Sermon as Performance?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjXYlwvS5LY] Not minding the attraction of the word "sermon" to a clip shorter than many pop songs, is this overproduced? Is it too much? How much of that is Bell's intention rather than the intention of the video producer?

Rob Bell is quite a speaker and teacher.

 

-B