ben's blog

Review - The Voice New Testament: Revised & Updated

2011-10-31T11:32:00.000-04:00

The Voice is an accessible and faithful narrative-driven Bible. Put together by a group of scholars and writers from Ecclesia Bible Society, it focuses both on faithfulness to the original text and on readability. They use a unique translation approach they call "contextual equivalence," which is basically dynamic equivalence (like NIV) with some contextual adders. It has a nice flow, has helpful notes, and comes in a nice package (looks and feels a lot like a novel).

They add contextual helps to their translation, and when they do so the addition is denoted by italics. So for example, while they translate Christos (Christ) pretty consistently as "Anointed One," it will sometimes be with an adder in italics like "Liberating King" to help explain how Christos was commonly understood at the time. They don't seem to be shifting the wording to our context (like The Message does) so much as explaining the original words in a way that is in-line with the text. It is refreshing to see this kind of differentiation in a translation which otherwise might border on paraphrase.

One other unique feature is the way dialog is displayed - more or less like a script, with the speakers name at left and the spoken text indented. This makes it very easy to identify what is said by who (though the reader should know that this is sometimes educated guesswork on the part of the translators), and, I felt, helps with the flow. My only reservation with this feature is that it seems to contradict (or at least inhibit) another one of their stated goals with this Bible: To bring out the original authors style and not "flatten" it in favor of translation style.

This isn't just a translation -- it is a complete package, including articles and introductions, each of which seems to be well researched and presented for entry level adult Bible readers. This makes it somewhat like a study Bible, but with notes that are short and interesting enough that you will probably read them all in the course of a casual reading.

I'd love to see an edition of this Bible that was more true to its "novel" form: Get rid of the chapter and verse numberings (and maybe even the italics for the added words), and focus even more on helping readers immerse themselves in the story. However, even as it stands, I would be quick to recommend this work to anyone wanting to read the entire Bible for the first time, and also to anyone familiar with the Bible who needs to approach the text again with fresh eyes.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

The Grace of God by Andy Stanley

2011-10-23T21:06:00.000-04:00

If you take grace out of the Bible, what is left?

Not much, according to Andy Stanley.

The Grace of God by Andy Stanley explores examples of grace from the entire Bible -- from Creation and Fall to Abraham and Moses to David and the Prophets to Jesus and the Early Church. Stanley's vision of grace permeates the pages of Scripture, and he communicates this perspective with clarity. Each chapter covers an aspect of grace primarily by expositing an example (usually a character) from Scripture. He follows the story more or less chronologically, and builds to the ultimate expression of God's grace-giving found in Jesus.

Stanley seems cognizant of scholarly and skeptical issues -- though this is hardly an academic or apologetic book. He cites Richard Dawkins' often quoted understanding of the Old Testament God on page 2 of this work -- not so much to refute it as to make it clear that he is aware of the tension. He then goes on to explore the presence of grace in unlikely parts of the OT. Like, for example, God's command that Abraham sacrifice his son Isaac; or, the conquering of Canaan (characterized by the likes of Dawkins as nothing short of genocide). He doesn't gloss over the messiness in the Old Testament. Rather, he mines the texts for grace and finds it at every turn.

The Grace of God isn't exactly a "doctrinal" treatment of the concept of grace. Don't expect an exegesis of Galatians or a systematic treatment of Gospel or salvation. This is more like a collection of quality sermons on grace from throughout the pages of Scripture. As a whole, The Grace of God gives a gospel-driven treatment of the whole story of Scripture. Each chapter is easy to read and relate to, and generally solid Biblically. I would recommend this to anyone looking for a popular level introduction to the topic.

I hope to follow up with this review with further reflections on Gospel and Grace in the weeks to come -- which is on my mind after having read The King Jesus Gospel by Scot McKnight. With McKnight's work still fresh on my mind, I'm tempted to ask the question: Is Stanley a soterian? (i.e. a person whose "Gospel" is centered almost entirely on personal salvation). Well, somewhat. At the very least, I'm quite certain he tried to get me "saved" a few times as a reader. However, most of his presentation (as stated above) was rooted in the grand story of Scripture -- making it closer to the type of "gospelling" McKnight calls for.

My next read on the topic will be Jay Bakker's Fall to Grace -- which I hope to also review and perhaps set alongside The Grace of God for comparison.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Bakker v. Stanley on Grace

2011-10-09T18:39:00.000-04:00

My "serious" reading task right now is Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics I.1, which I've picked up on the recommendation of a friend. So far I find Barth fascinating, though at times a tad bit over my head. I've shared a couple highlights from my Kindle here and here. After almost two weeks of Barth I have only about 88 pages of progress to show for it (out of some 528). To call Barth challenging would be an understatement. However, he is easily one of the most important theological thinkers of the last century and well worth the time and effort. The King Jesus Gospel was an enjoyable (and unplanned) diversion from Barth.

While I do intend to clamp down and get some more "Barth under my belt" this week, I've planned a diversion for the following week: Two recent accessible books on Grace.

Appropriate after taking a hard and fresh look at the Gospel, no?

The first one is my next Booksneeze grab (which means I kinda have to read and post about it if I want to keep getting free books): Andy Stanley's The Grace of God.

The second I expect to be at a different end of the spectrum: Fall to Grace by Jay Bakker. This one I picked up dirt cheap at a soon-to-close Waldenbooks a few weeks ago.

It will be interesting (I hope) to read these two works in conversation with each other, noting the similarities and the differences. They are both popular level books, and I expect one to be fairly standard Evangelical fair (Stanley) and the other to be more progressive (Bakker). What do they have in common? Where do they go in a different direction?

We shall see...

Initial Reflections on The King Jesus Gospel

2011-10-08T20:56:00.000-04:00

Have you ever heard someone complain of a church that "they just don't preach the Gospel enough"? I have. And since I've been around Christians for a very long time, I know exactly what is meant by such a statement: That the church in question has not regularly, publicly, and explicitly explained what an individual must do to "get saved."

Because "how to get saved" is the Gospel, right?

In The King Jesus Gospel, Scot McKnight argues that Christians (particularly American Evangelicals, though this extends well beyond this segment) have been driven by a Salvation Culture instead of a Gospel Culture. We've assumed for too long that the Gospel is all about how an individual "gets saved" and have then read the Bible through that lens. This makes the Gospel this "basic message" that persuades people to become Christians, usually including a bare minimum of Biblical factoids. Your sinfulness separates you from God; Jesus died for you, taking on the punishment due for your sins; respond to Jesus' sacrifice with faith to be made right with God.

All these things can be established using Scripture. That's not the point. No one is calling into question justification by faith, or the importance of salvation. The question is: Are these things the Gospel?

Years ago I was one of the leaders of a student-led worship ministry at a local church, called "The Summit." What was the Summit, you ask? Well basically a group of young people including myself decided we needed more church (since, you know, twice Sunday plus Wednesday wasn't enough in a given week!). So we started something Saturday nights. Seriously though, we were hungry for more of God and wanted to engage him in extended periods of worship. We were all about exalting and knowing Jesus, week after week. I got to test the waters in leadership and in teaching with a group of young people that was regularly around 30-40 bodies strong (at peak times as many as 70), with individuals representing a variety of church flavors. I was just out of high school.

One week we were advised that there was a Mormon in attendance. A Mormon! Definitely not saved! So as a leadership team we knew what this meant. This week, we had to do something we didn't normally do: Preach the Gospel (in addition to the planned talk). If we didn't, this person's blood was on our hands. Anyways, I drew the short straw, so it was up to me to give the Gospel-spiel. And let me tell you, it was not pretty. I had received training that outlined the bare minimum of info that had to be included in a Gospel telling (something like what was outlined above). I think I squeezed it all in, despite my awkwardness. It was sincere too.

But it was also flat and storyless. I began to question how much I really related to it. I'm sure the Mormon didn't. And even though I (probably, mostly) got the facts right, I'm not sure the Gospel got through.

What if the Gospel is about a bigger story? Bigger than resolving my sin problem. Bigger than me being justified by faith or getting into heaven. Bigger than me getting to be God's friend.

McKnight makes the case the Gospel is about the grand sweep of the Bible, the good news that the story of God and Israel (and by extension, the whole world) has found its fulfillment in Jesus as Lord and Messiah. It's a proclamation about a person. Jesus preached and embodied this Gospel. The apostolic fathers preached this Gospel. Even the first Creeds tell this gospel.

And yes...of course.... this Gospel includes a call to respond. How could it not? A declaration that Jesus is "the King" has implications for my life and yours. And for our world. Indeed, the result is salvation.

The problem is that we've had the cart (salvation) in front of the horse (gospel). We have been focused primarily on "getting people in" and have crafted our message with that primary goal in mind. As McKnight argues, we've been preaching a weak Gospel and getting weak results.

Our need is to return to Scripture and allow the original "King Jesus Gospel" to capture our imagination. McKnight's book is a great start, and deserves a wide and thoughtful reading.

King Jesus Gospel Trailer

2011-10-08T13:01:00.001-04:00

I've just finished reading The King Jesus Gospel by Scot McKnight. Very thought provoking... hoping to add a post (or two or three) in reflection. For now, enjoy the trailer. I highly recommend this book!
'

Theology Matters: A review of Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy by Eric Metaxas

2011-08-09T20:16:00.003-04:00

There is a pervasive temptation today to say that theology doesn't matter. Not just in culture and academy, but also even in church. As though right thinking about God isn't relevant to real life (you know, to "the rest of us"). Bonhoeffer speaks to that temptation with a powerful true story of a hero of history whose direction in life was shaped by his profoundly deep understanding of God. His was a theology that mattered; an understanding of God and church was disruptive. Revolutionary. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German pastor and theologian turned Confessing Church leader, Nazi-resister and spy during World War II. In Bonhoeffer, Eric Metaxas capably walks the reader through the story of this bold (and at times confusing and complicated) leader.

Far from being a dry book about a theologian, Bonhoeffer truly introduces you to a fascinating person. You'll meet his family and mentors; his friends and colleagues, students and even his love interest. But of course (the part many of us are interested in): You'll also hear plenty about his involvement in the conspiracy to kill Adolf Hitler.

But still, none of this can be separated from Dietrich Bonhoeffer's theological thinking. You'll read about Dietrich as a young academic interacting with the likes of Karl Barth and Adolf von Harnack. Of his frustration with American liberal theology in New York alongside his deep appreciation of the African American spirituality he also engaged there. Of how he worked through his Barthian theology in a pastoral context, understanding that since God can't be known apart from revelation the preacher is entirely dependent upon God for results. He was a man who knew God, and sought after God for his own life's direction. Who cared more about following that direction than about his own safety.

The question at the forefront of much of Bonhoeffer's thinking: "What is Church?" Far from being theoretical, this reflection became very relevant when he was asked to "play along" with the newly Nazi-run "Reich Church." If the church is neither Jew nor Greek (as St Paul made clear), an institution which excludes Jews from leadership is no longer the church. He went through similar thinking as he moved from mere protest to action. Is it enough for the church to only speak out on behalf of the oppressed? Isn't action required also? This eventually led to Bonhoeffer's conspiratorial activities as a double agent for the Nazi Abwehr (where, among other things, he worked at freeing Jews and plotting to assassinate Hitler).

Metaxas is a thorough researcher and masterful storyteller. Bonhoeffer will introduce you to the big picture of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's life, setting his famous works (such as Ethics and Discipleship) in context. Despite it's length (well over 600 pages), you'll find that the pages fly by through much of this edge-of-your-seat story. There are slow moments of course. Metaxas includes plenty of correspondence from Bonhoeffer's letters -- helpful to the story, but slow reading. Also, we know painfully little about Dietrich's last days, which was frustrating for me only because I became so invested in the story that I really wanted to know "exactly how it ends."

But then, what else do we expect when reading history?

This is a truly engrossing biography. Enjoy!

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through theBookSneeze®.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

From My Bookshelf - Why God Won’t Go Away: Is the New Atheism Running on Empty? by Alister McGrath

2011-08-02T13:55:00.004-04:00

Why God Won’t Go Away, by Alister McGrath, is a concise introduction to the New Atheist movement from a capable scholar. Part One offers a brief history of the New Atheism, covering in summary the important works of its key proponents: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens (popularly referred to as the "Four Horsemen"). McGrath also interacts with the online atheist community and other atheist networks (e.g. “The Brights”), and explores the differences between the “old” atheism and the “new.”

Part Two engages New Atheist objections to faith, from the problem of religious violence to the common perception that belief is incompatible with reason and science. McGrath succinctly (and, I felt, evenhandedly) addresses these objections – pointing out some inconsistencies in New Atheist arguments while also acknowledging where they have brought to popular attention some real problems in the world of religion. In the final section of the book (Part Three), McGrath wraps it up with a treatment of New Atheism’s trajectory (as the subtitle phrases the question: Is the New Atheism Running on Empty? Spoiler: McGrath’s answer seemed to be a “yes”).

I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in a bird’s eye view of the New Atheist conversation. McGrath has taken the time to understand “enemies” of the faith in a way that few Christians have the patience for. His main concern with New Atheism is not that it is atheistic (he’s very complimentary of certain thinkers of the “old” atheism); it’s that it tends to have the same polarizing net affect on the secular-religious conversation as religious fundamentalism. Instead of increasing the thoughtfulness of the dialog, New Atheism has turned up the volume. McGrath tactfully turns down the knob just enough to ask a few age-old questions of science and history and philosophy that all of us (no matter which side of the “God divide” we find ourselves) would do well to consider.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze®.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Resurrection with Wright... and Harry Potter

2011-07-17T20:56:00.005-04:00

I've have resurrection on the brain, and it's N.T. Wright's fault (I finished his "big" book on the topic the other day). So yesterday when I watched parts 1 and 2 of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (a story in which sacrifice, death and resurrection are powerful themes), I couldn't help but feel as though Mr Wright was my movie-going companion, whispering theological ideas at certain moments, Mystery Science Theater style.

I'm sure you're rolling your eyes already... but before you check out (as I might), let me explain. At the center of the two part film (and book) are three "hallows" which are featured in a story called "The Tale of Three Brothers" (In case you haven't seen it, see the animation of this story from HP7.1 here). The second brother is given (by Death himself) a "resurrection stone" which he uses to bring back the girl he had intended to marry before her untimely death. But when he does so he finds that...

...she was sad and cold, separated from him as by a veil. Though she had returned to the mortal world, she did not truly belong there and suffered.

The brother goes insane with unfulfilled longing. His lady was "back" from the dead, but clearly and emphatically not back among the living (which is the point). In the movie when the real resurrection stone is used (mild spoiler), lost loved ones appear... but do not return to physical existence (without giving away too much, Harry "sees" them, as though ghosts, but only he can see them).

Interesting that the word "resurrection" would be used to describe this magic. Wright would remind the movie-goer that this vague non-bodily existence is not what resurrection is. Never has been. As today, the ancient world had language to describe ghostly visits from deceased loved ones. They knew about visions and the ability of humans to "see" things that weren't really there. They also knew, of course, that dead people stay dead.

But resurrection meant a return to physical existence. RSG argues that the Christian proclamation of resurrection fit squarely within the world of first century Judaism. At the time of Jesus, many Jews were expecting an end-of-age act of God in which the dead would be bodily raised, wrongs would be righted and new creation would be fully manifest. The early church's witness affirmed this narrative, but with one unexpected plot twist -- Jesus was raised from the dead in recent memory and that his resurrection was a first fruits of that coming resurrection at the end of the age.

The Christian hope is not about life after death... some non-bodily, non-physical existence "up there" or "out there" somewhere. As Wright tells it, this hope is about life after "life after death" -- or resurrection (as he emphatically states in his more accessible work on the subject). New heavens and new earth. Recreation. Renewal of all things. Resurrection to a new physicality without decay or death. That's where pop-culture and even much would-be-Christian folk religion misses it.

The "resurrection stone" of HP7 might get this wrong... but (as some have observed) the Harry Potter story does have a number of significant signposts pointing towards the real thing (I particularly like the 1 Corinthians 15 reference at Godric's Hollow)....And besides, before we pick too hard on J.K. Rowling, let's not forget how fuzzy so much "Christian speak" on death, life after death, and resurrection tends to be. That's what I appreciate about N.T. Wright... for me, he's taken that fuzzy hope and made it more concrete.

Since we're talking Wright on resurrection, I absolutely love the interview he gave on the topic at the Colbert Report a few years ago. Enjoy!

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Bishop N.T. Wright

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

Video Archive

So I met Rob Bell yesterday...

2011-04-04T12:22:00.014-04:00

... OK, "met" might be a stretch. But he totally said "hi" as he signed my copy of Love Wins. Yes, yesterday my wife and I made the trek to Grand Rapids (in the company of a couple friends) to visit Mars Hill Bible Church and attend a little Rob Bell book signing event.

The heaven-and-hell controversy sparked by Bell's new book, Love Wins, is the story. West Michigan is a sort of Dutch Reformed Bible Belt, and we all know how certain spokesmen for the Reformed movement feel about Rob Bell. From the hype, I might have expected a headline to go something like this: "Once Orthodox Young Megachurch Pastor Takes Major Step Down Slippery Slope into Heresy - Faces Angry Mob in Hometown" (Terrible I know. Guess I have a long way to go before I could make it in the news biz?). Anyway, apparently a real reporter at the event was in fact able to find folks present who took serious issue with Love Wins. One of them had even read like the first 50 pages of the book.

After taking my seat I spent much of the 45 minute wait contemplating the important distinction between "Romance" & "New Romance" (the two genres that were the backdrop for the event... perhaps due to some confusion as to what Love Wins was about? That'd be Donald Miller's fault). The rest of the time, I was "people watching,"

And by "people watching" I mean - of course - trying to figure out which folks were engaged readers and which ones were enraged fundamentalists. Apparently no one remembered their angry picketing signs so I had to make guesses about folks based on appearance. It's a fun game really. One older gentleman was sitting in front of me with a well-worn (and marked) copy of the book. He was intently flipping through it and adding to his notes as we sat. "I'll bet he's going to ask one of those scathingly critical Bible questions. I can feel it. He's an angry religionist to the bone." (I know I shouldn't make judgments like that... but what can I say? Making me sit still for that long causes my mind to wander...)

It's rare to get to see a speaker / leader of this caliber in so small a setting. Seating was limited to 50 people, though the total crowd was easily over 200 (I don't know how many were turned away). From our perspective (in row 3), it was intimate and personal. Rob gave a passionate 20-minute talk about God's love that was simple, biblical and clear:

God loves everybody everywhere. God loves people who don’t love God. God’s love is as wide as the universe and God’s love is as close as your next breath. He doesn't force it on anyone. It is a gift freely given through Christ, that we can receive or reject. It's for you, right here, right now - whatever you are going through, whatever you've done. All you need to do is receive it.

There was more meat to it than that, but that's how I'd summarize it. If you're thinking this sounds like a "could-be-preached-in-your-grandmothers-church," substantially evangelical, presentation - you've read my mind.

Then the questions. The "angry religionist" in front of me was the first one to raise his hand. "Has Eminem called you to explain the cross around his neck?" Apparently my "religion-o-meter" was malfunctioning - he had just asked a random casual question that would be somewhat humorous to anyone who had read the book. And the question seemed to catch Bell off guard.

It also set the tone for what turned out to be a (for the most part) very friendly, non-combative discussion. Some folks were clearly thinking Christian folks who had genuine concerns:

How much latitude does God give us for asking the sorts of questions you raise?
I get what you are saying about hell in this life (and I agree with you), but what do you want people to know about hell in the next life?

But others seemed to just want to know how to respond to the critics:

How do you respond to those who call you a universalist?
Or to people who accuse you of too much question-asking and not enough answer-giving?

Bell was gracious especially when a question didn't make sense, asking clarifying questions to making sure he understood what they were getting at. He's fast on his toes, knows his Bible, and wants to be heard clearly.

I particularly enjoyed his response to the "latitude" question. How much latitude does God allow for the types of questions addressed in Love Wins? "I think the question itself is sacred. It’s not a threat. It’s honoring the mystery of God’s love.... A question is not a step away from God. It’s a step toward God." (He later further clarified that in fact - he was seeking to answer the questions, not just ask them)

His response to the "future hell vs present hell" question went something like this:

I do think our freedom to reject God's love in this life extends into eternity. But whose job is it to make those judgments? That's God's job, not ours. So much of the talk about eternity - about heaven and hell - is speculative. No one has been to heaven or hell with a video camera and come back to show us the tape. The hells on this earth? We see them every day. With our own eyes. And we can do concrete things to fight those hells and see the results. As Jesus prayed: Your kingdom come and Your will be done on earth as in heaven. When we tangibly bring Christ's love to those hells, people want to hear our message; they want to encounter our Christ.

It's true that Bell has come out as a bit of an inclusivist by American evangelical standards. That's not to call him a universalist (he answered that one again with a resounding "no" yesterday). Or to say that he thinks there is any way to God apart from Christ. It simply means that he has an optimistic perspective on eternity, based on what he knows of God.

He's sparked an important conversation that's worth listening to and engaging.

Bonus: I apparently got my picture taken with Bell. (I'm the blurry dude dressed in black, not the nice old lady)
See also my initial post reflecting on my reading of Love Wins.

N.T. Wright's Take on Hell

2011-03-29T21:22:00.002-04:00

"There's a part of me that would love to be a universalist, and say, it'll be alright. Everyone will get there in the end. I actually think the choices you make in the present are more important than that."

Seems like N.T. Wright has a thoughtful middle-of-the-road approach to this hot-button topic. Wondering if Rob Bell would be in agreement with Wright?

Some Jesuses Should be Rejected (Reflections on Love Wins)

2011-03-25T11:56:00.006-04:00

Yeah I read it. Finished it about a week ago, but needed some time to chew (not that anyone has been expecting a real blog post, since its been a couple years). Quite a lot of people (many of whom I respect) have been fairly critical and/or dismissive of it. I've "overheard" conversations (mostly online) that range from "Did you hear that Rob Bell isn't a Christian anymore?" to "I've known he had fallen into heresy a long time ago."

It probably didn't help that Bell seemed evasive when people have tried to "nail him down" on this or that propositional biblical truth during his media blitz. I get it, Rob. Your answer to the "Do you believe in Hell?" question is that you see hell all over the place. And your answer to charges of departure from orthodoxy is that "orthodoxy is a wide diverse stream" with room for differences on things like, say, eternal destinations. Pretty sure today's "keepers of orthodoxy" aren't buying that one. Even I cringed in frustration at moments. The FAQ's on his church's website were much more direct.

I've personally spent more time in the twitter-blogosphere reading what everyone else thinks about Love Wins than I actually spent reading the book. The conversation has been interesting. But my time actually reading the book was much better spent. I'd much rather read Bell going a bit overboard in the "love of God" department than a lot of the reactionary orthodoxy out there.

So, here goes. My initial reaction: This is the best work that Rob Bell has put out. Brilliant. Love Wins presents the "good news" in a way that could be heard as "good news" by people I care about. Not because he "compromises truth so as to make Jesus palatable to people on the fringe" (a common thread I hear). More like he paints a picture of God that is beautiful. Attractive. He introduces the reader to a Jesus worth following. With a vision for living that embraces the fullness of God's purpose and that pushes back against the hellish realities of our world.

That said: Rob Bell would probably make a pretty bad systematic theologian (and I do like systematic theology; call me a nerd). Which makes me glad that he really doesn't try to be one. He's really good at painting word pictures. And telling stories. Love Wins is filled with both. But in the theology department, Bell majors in deconstructing, not systematizing.

Some of the theology he deconstructs is bad, and needs to be seen for what it is. As he puts poignantly in Love Wins, "Some Jesuses should be rejected." (p. 9) Not just heretical pictures of Jesus. Also the "Jesuses" of authoritarian religion or abuse or church-sanctioned war and persecution. Mean Jesuses and casual "Jesus-is-my-homeboy" Jesuses.

On the flip side, some of the theology Bell deconstructs is more or less good, but could use some analyzing, second guessing or re-articulating. This isn't all bad. Sometimes even "orthodox" theology paints a pretty poor picture of God. Take the suggestion that "Jesus saves us from God," which Bell reacts against in the "trailer" for the book. Not an uncommon sentiment, given how the Gospel is often preached. You know, the "bad news, good news" approach, which goes something like this: "You are a sinner and God is holy, therefore respond to Jesus' sacrifice with faith or else: hell for eternity."

Wait. Isn't that the simple Gospel? Isn't that what substitutionary atonement is all about? To which Bell might say something like, "Well, sort of. Problem is, when you have to always say it this way, you are telling a pretty poor story about God. Let me tell you a better one."

Traditional articulations sometimes come off as being about a "God the Father" (the hard-liner) who was really peeved off at our rebellion and sin until Jesus (the "love" part of God) came to save the day. When this happens, not only are we looking at a "poor story," we're faced with an inconsistent (and unbiblical) type of God-talk.

Which brings me to (what I perceive to be) the center of any truly Christian theology. And why, with this as my focus, I'm not particularly bothered by Love Wins. Jesus said "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." (John 14:9). Want to know what God is like? Look at Jesus. Jesus. The center. Our entire understanding of God, framed around what we know of Jesus and his mission. Biblical texts interpreted through Jesus-colored glasses. Life. Human history. Centered on Jesus.

So, any picture of God which tells a story that is incompatible with the love of God poured out through Jesus can use to be reevaluated. No need to get prickly because this reevaluation steps on my toes or doesn't jive with the story as I've heard or told it.

I'm not going to get into where I agree or disagree with Bell point by point (maybe later). Or the dicey question of whether Bell is a "universalist" (Greg Boyd did a solid job on that question on his blog). I do share some of the more moderate concerns out there (most recently, this one). Could Rob's picture of Jesus (and heaven, hell, etc) use evaluating? Certainly. But is he preaching one of those "Jesuses" that should be rejected? I don't think so.

I think it more likely that people will encounter the real Jesus -- the Biblical Jesus, the risen Jesus, the welcoming Jesus, the turns-your-world-on-its-head-Jesus -- though this book, than will be led in to deception by any of its shortcomings.

That's all I got for now. Rob Bell can still be in my club.

Departing (Paris Part 6)

2009-05-29T18:51:00.002-04:00

Here endeth the Paris blog (for now at least.... we have been home for about a week now).

Versailes (Paris part 5)

2009-05-26T21:58:00.001-04:00

The bike rentals were a nice temporary escape from walking everywhere... and there was a very long distance to walk at Versailes....

Peddlers of the Seine (Rambling on about our experiences in Paris part 4)

2009-05-24T16:26:00.004-04:00

It's hard to hit a monument, museum or historical building in Paris without being harassed by peddlers of cheap Eiffel Tower trinkets (etc)and in some cases outright scammers.

On Monday at Sacre Coer Basilica (a cathedral type church at the top of the highest hill in Paris) I was cornered three times by guys with colorfull string. That's right, string. I was with a group of four and they always signalled me out for attention. They greet you, and grab your hand to try to tie this string on your finger. If you protest they say it is for the church. If successful (so I'm told) they expect payment. You couldn't ascend the hill without passing a couple of their check points. I learned my lesson after it happened a couple times to me, and the next time I walked near them I didn't even make eye contact. "No thanks" I mumbled quietly. They persisted with the routine and even blocked my path.... so I belted out a forceful "NO" (in what Jessica tells me is a similar tone to what I use with my dog). Anyway, picture below is of a group of them cornering another innocent tourist.

A couple nights later, we sat on a bench on the river Seine across the street from the Eiffel Tower, munching on fries and waffles. From there, we watched the police chase down the guys who were peddling Eiffel tower trinkets.... the entertainment lasted about fifteen minutes and involved four police (in car, on foot, on bicycle) and about a dozen peddlers. Very entertaining...

Liberty at Luxembourg (Rambling on about our experiences in Paris part 3)

2009-05-24T06:20:00.003-04:00

We came to this park (Palace of Luxembourg) specifically to try to find a replica of the Statue of Liberty located there (one of three in Paris). We walked around for about half an hour before we found it, finding a class or large study group sitting on chairs in front of it.

Rambling on about our experiences in Paris Part 2

2009-05-23T21:25:00.002-04:00

More similar videos from our experience in Paris. Enjoy! (or ignore...)

Rambling on about our experiences in Paris Part 1

2009-05-23T21:15:00.004-04:00

While on our trip, I recorded some short (15-60 second) videos narrating our experiences in Paris. Here are the first three...

Using blog to shamelessly promote upcoming book study at our house....

2009-03-16T07:40:00.005-04:00

So....we have this awesome group meeting at our house twice a month. We eat together and everything. Do you like food? You plan on eating those nights? That's what I thought. You (that's right, both of you, my loyal blog readers who are in Jackson) should totally come. Besides, we're starting a sweet new book study. Here's some more details:

Conversations (you got it, that's our group name. thought of it myself)

Meets 2nd and 4th Thursday Nights - 6:00pm
Location: 619 Webb St. Directions Here

We start with a shared meal at around 6PM (potluck style: bring a dish, snack or drink if you can) and continue with conversation and prayer (we’ve experimented a bit on the contemplative side with the Divine Hours). Beginning March 26 we will be going through Jesus Brand Spirituality by Ken Wilson. Copies of the book are available for $10.

"Jesus wants his religion back. And he wants it back from the orthodox, the Bible-believing, and the defenders of faith as much as from anyone else. So it can be for the world again."

19 drafts

2009-03-09T20:04:00.005-04:00

Was just browsing through my blogger posts and noticed that I have a total of 19 unpublished drafts.

Some of them are a sentence. Some a couple paragraphs. Some just a word or phrase.

Unposted, undeveloped, raw. And that's about where my intention to blog stops. Most of the time.

Why didn't they make the cut?

Maybe I realized in some cases that my ponderings weren't really going anywhere. In fact, sometimes maybe the world should be sheltered from my uncensored thoughts. Seriously, you don't want to know what goes on up there some days.

The other side of the coin is time. There's a lot of investment in drafting and proofreading and posting. At least if it is to be good. Especially when I'm on to one of my theological rants or reviewing a book I enjoyed. I'd rather this blog not suck. But there I go, being self-conscious. Another thing that keeps me from posting.

So if you look at this blog and think it inactive, think again! You just don't see half the activity.

Think About It (Rivertree 1-18-09)

2009-01-29T20:16:00.002-05:00

Derek sings "Think About It" by Flight of the Conchords at Rivertree Community Church. This was my first experiment with taping during a service.

Yes, this did have a purpose. :)

We're in a series called Questions. The goal here was to introduce the theme of the week (albeit in a light way), "Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People?"

This Sunday we'll be exploring some random questions posted on mygodquestion.com

Thinking about organic church....

2009-01-14T21:08:00.009-05:00

Frank Viola wants you to leave your church.

Pause for a moment. Get angry. Simmer on that. This must be the guy to blame for the plummeting church attendance stats around the country (down roughly 15% in Jackson County over the last couple years). If we are at all attached to the way we are doing church... let's get mad.

Wait a minute. Frank who?

Frank Viola wants you to leave your church.

Seriously. You're freaking me out. Who is this Frank fellow and why does the mention of his name give me flashbacks of the youth symphony orchestra I was in back in seventh grade? And what's his beef with my church anyway? Should I care?

OK, maybe it is an oversimplification. Frank is actually very committed to church. The only problem is, if you “buy the package” Mr Viola is selling, there is little option other than to leave your church. It doesn't matter if your church is Spirit-filled or Emergent or Bible centered. Unless of course you are a part of an organic home group community. If your church has a paid pastor or a building to maintain or features regular meetings in which congregants listen to a modern “sermon,” your church does not (in the author's mind) function the way Jesus intended it to function.

As coauthor (with George Barna) of Pagan Christianity and author of Reimagining Church, Viola (house church movement guru), has argued that the institutional church is off track. Way off track. And has been for most of its history. Ever since we replaced the organic community Jesus founded with buildings, hierarchy and ministry professionals. We need to get back to the way the first Christians met... fellowshipping, eating, encouraging, laughing, praying... in homes. Pagan Christianity makes this argument from history. Reimagining Church fleshes out this argument from Scripture and works through some functional details helpful to people bold enough to follow Jesus together outside the existing structures.

More power to them. I'm excited to hear that some people who are going off the “church attendance grid” are in fact part of vibrant communities and home groups. (Unfortunately, most people who stop going to church... have stopped being a part of a community of believers. Period).

I do honestly believe that what Viola has to say comes from a place of love for the body of Christ, the church. It is possible to take issue with the institutions, and actually love the church. This has been true in the case for many a Reformer and Revivalist. But... while most others have sought to revolutionize, reshape or renew structures, Viola wants to dismantle them, brick by brick.

After all, the institutional “church” is just a shell. According to Viola, “the vice of the institutional church lies in its reliance upon a humanly devised, program-driven religious system that serves to scaffold the 'church' structure where the Spirit of God is absent.” (Reimagining Church p. 63) The real church, the body of Christ is an organic community. We should be troubled when the Spirit is absent, when form replaces fire. That central point of agreement is what kept me reading through all of Pagan Christianity and about half of Reimagining Church. I had a mixture of excitement and skepticism through much of it.

At some point, however, something became increasingly unsettling to me in much the same way (ironically) that denominatinalism and legalism can be unsettling to me. In a word, the problem is exclusivity.... such a strong conviction that “this is the way to think or do and anything else is unbiblical and outside God's plan." Don't get me wrong. I admire the passion and conviction. But I worry that being so sure of a particular model of ministry makes it hard to get along with Christians who are committed to different traditions.

I do think this organic movement Viola defends and argues for offers something that is much needed in our world: a depth of community that is hard to come by. Even (especially?) in churches. And it offers a reminder to the whole church that unity under the headship of Christ is primary; and allegiance to his Lordship comes before everything else.

But once again, I have a hard time committing to a particular model. Even a perfectly good, reasonably Biblical one like Viola's.

Pawprints in the Snow

2009-01-10T15:10:00.007-05:00

So today we have about seven inches of fresh snow (and still coming down), so I thought it might be fun to take my furry companion, Ezekiel (115 LB lab mix), to romp around in the snow at Ella Sharp Park, here in Jackson. Let me tell you, a dog this size is most fun in this type of setting! We walked around a big open field (used for soccer in the summer) and wandered the trails. I saw a few people by the road, but for the most part we had the park to ourselves!

2008 (a few highlights in pictures)

2008-12-25T18:43:00.001-05:00

2008: The Year in Pictures

Proof at last!

2008-12-24T20:47:00.005-05:00

I always knew that modern scientists were off their game when it came to this question.

We've been taught that elves and dinosaurs did not roam the earth at the same time. That dinosaurs are "prehistoric" (hundreds of millions of years ago) while elves are from (comparatively) more recent days.

I think all of us already knew somewhere in our gut that this is foolishness... that elves and dinosaurs make natural companions (or at times foes? either way, alive at the same time). Furthermore, God clearly created both during the same literal 7 day period described the opening passage of Genesis.

And now, I have photographic proof! What do you have to say to that?!

Spoiler alert!

2008-11-14T06:44:00.000-05:00

So last night at our small group we were talking about chapter 2 in The Original Jesus, by Tom Wright. This is a short book that introduces Jesus within history. It tells the story of Jesus as a Jewish revolutionary in his day, exploring his mission and (eventually) what it means to follow him even today.

And two people in our group had the same important (and telling) observation: With all this talk about Jesus as a Jewish revolutionary and his understanding of what he has to do, there doesn't seem to be mention of the fact that Jesus is God. This opened a great discussion. And I did point to later in the book (chapter 7) where the author offers what I think is the best short (and orthodox) answer to this question. Looking back, I'm not sure why I went there, other than to prove that the book is heading in the right direction. But why?

I'm reminded of something I read by everyman's theologian, Stephen Colbert (from I Am America and So Can You). In his chapter on Religion, teacher Colbert offers this synopsis of the New Testament: "Spoiler Alert! Jesus is the salvation of all mankind."

We are used to a spoiled version of the story of Jesus. One that keeps Jesus' "God-ness" in mind to a fault. Much of the time, this is OK.

But it also makes it hard for us to put ourselves in the shoes of his first disciples - you know, to put ourselves in the story. The disciples (who were closest to Jesus) had no clue that Jesus was "The Second Person in the Trinity" during that time... even after Peter knew that He was Messiah. Both serious historical study and good storytelling is difficult because we read with such a strong theological lens.

We just can't wait until chapter 7 of a book on Jesus to know that He is God. We need it now. But I'm concerned that this (well-intended and yes orthodox reading) robs us of the process of discovery. Of getting to know Jesus the man, the first century Jew, the revolutionary, on his own terms.

And besides that, why spoil a good story?