It wasn't until yesterday around 9:30 AM that I realized how different my views on the preemininece of guilt are in the Reformed evangelism realm. What to do? Blog, of course. Here you go:
The Church has a fascination with guilt. Yes, its true. Tell me how you would go about telling someone about Christ? Think about it for a minute. Okay, minute's up. We've been addressing this issue this past week in my evangelism class. Most people would identify the "bridge" method as one of the best ways for presenting the gospel. If you're not familiar with this message, it points out the chasm that exists between human beings and God: a chasm that exists because of sin. In a triumphant soveriegn engineering feat, the cross gets lodged in the chasm and creates a bridge to walk across to where God is. Ha! If that's Reformed, Calvin just rolled over in his grave. My vision of Reformed theology is a lasso being sent across and Christ pulling us across kicking and screaming.
Okay, so maybe you don't subscribe to the bridge. Let's try something more familiar: the Heidelberg Catechism. If you paid attention in Catechism class, you know that the presentation of doctrine goes along these lines: Sin -->Salvation-->Service. Or, Q&A #2:What do we need to know to live and die in the comfort of God? "Three things:first, how great my sin and misery are; second, how I am set free from all my sins and misery; third, how I am to thank God for such deliverance." The commonality of these two presentations I've made is the fact that the gospel takes root in guilt, period.
On that front, I made the argument on Wednesday that we don't necessarily need to present the gospel by starting with guilt. [The crowd goes aghast.] What's more, its necessary to find other ways to seed in the gospel because our culture does not feel guilt! What did he just say? I'm not saying no one feels guilt, certainly I feel guilt and you do too, but the cultural emphasis on moral subjectivity has all but chased guilt into a shadowy corner. Like it or not, the generation we are currently raising does not identify with guilt the way the previous ones did. If we keep harping on guilt, we will find ourselves preaching to teddy bears.
Ron Martoria presents a helpful concept for this discussion. He argues that there are multiple themes in the Old Testament such as covenant, exodus, exile and priestly atonement. His point is that the Church has triumphed the idea of priestly atonement for years to the detriment of the other themes. And its worked! Think about how the prophets worked: Go to a city, tell them they are sinners, offer them a reward for repentence. Fastforward. Jonathan Edwards and his fire-and-brimstone sermons capitalized on the exact same principle: Go to the pulpit, tell people they're on the fasttrack to hell, tell them God will save them, but only barely so that people aren't tempted to step outside the lines for fear of burning off an extremity.
Go into any city in America, urban or rural, stand on a milk crate, and preach this at the top of your lungs. Go ahead, I dare you. Its foolish. Why is it so heretical for me to present the idea that there might be other ways to motivate people to God other than threatening them with hell! Hell might just be the greatest weapon the Church has had in its arsenal. Dan has some good thoughts on this here. Are you seriously telling me that we've been around for more than 2,000 years and the most convincing argument we can make for worshipping God is fear of hell? Bush administration anyone? Fear built basilicas in the 1500's, it brought people out in droves into Puritanism and Methodism during the Great Awakenings, and we've used it in the Reformed tradition to "scare the elect out of bushes". Sweet! Regardless of the focus on numbers, it spoke their language and was thus a useful evangelism tool. In Europe and North America today, its not. Perhaps if Jesus saved us from terrorism, Christianity would sell.
I don't like to present problems without some ideas about a solution....that simply makes me a rock-thrower. I'm working on it, but I think acknowledging the issue is half the problem. One idea I have is to repackage sin. Moral relativity has virtually eliminated a preoccupation with sin and guilt. Okay. Let's try that again. Brokenness is undeniable. What's happening in Iraq isn't okay, regardless of what your moral stance is. What's happening in Sudan isn't okay regardless of where you find yourself in the spectrum of moral relativity. Systematic poverty is a problem, unless you're a social Darwinian. Its a small start, but addressing brokenness is not only a better way to present sin to a sin-ignorant culture, but its also probably a better way to present Christ as a solution because it increases the scope of Christ's redemption. Focusing on individual sin as the only problem makes a person-focused Jesus the only Savior.
If we keep on our current path, the only thing we'll feel guilty for is losing a generation and boarding up our church windows.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Friday, December 08, 2006
Inbred Worship
A few friends of mine back at Dordt have a blog called What Grinds our Gears. If I had to write an entry about what grinds my gears, its problems with worship events in churches. This is particularly important to me now in my new job as Pastor of Worship at my church. We're starting to throw around a new term these days in our worship meetings: inbred worship. This is no slam on my wife or anybody from northern Michigan, its a term we use to stop ourselves from the temptation of making worship ours. This blog assumes Biblical worship categories and considerations....don't jump on my back unless you're attacking the actual text here.
There is a large temptation in the Christian worship arena that wants to make worship something that belongs to us. A current mission statement might look something like this: Worship is done by our congregation, with our congregation, and by our congregation for the benefit of our congregation in the context of our congregation. Ouch. The problem with this is, obviously, that it doesn't make room for God. Of course, we would all claim that our worship is for God, unless we're way out of line. But worship planning and practice quickly becomes a circle we enclose ourself within.
For example, as a worship planner, I'm in charge of reading our context. Then, I'm in charge of creating a relevant worship service. I pick songs I like (or I wrote) or that I think would "speak the congregation's language". After that, I go to worship and benefit greatly from the service. If its done right, my evaluation tells me we did a great job!
My worship class is attempting to teach us out of that idea. It said, lets not ask what worship can do for people, but how we can equip believers. Great idea. However, while we're equipping believers, here comes a non-believer. What are equipping them to do? Find Jesus, hopefully. But what kind of sermon equips believers and altar calls? I ain't got one of those on my computer.
In order to make worship that's not inbred, we should allow doors in our circle for entrance. These doors can be things like a gospel presentation in every service (not hoping for people to glean it off of our ritual). Another way is a highly accountable worship staff. I'm in the process of recruiting music people and non-music people to serve as service critiquers. Grandpa Frank who's plowed fields his whole life can be as good an evaluater of my service as Mrs. Jones who teaches music for a living. Why? Only asking music people about your music is back to the inbred. Its like one of those concerts where the choir does lots of really musically cool things, but the audience hates it because its completely irrelevant.
This isn't just music. Its preaching, its kids ministry, its offertories. Our prostrate nature in worship should limit our ultimate control over it.
There is a large temptation in the Christian worship arena that wants to make worship something that belongs to us. A current mission statement might look something like this: Worship is done by our congregation, with our congregation, and by our congregation for the benefit of our congregation in the context of our congregation. Ouch. The problem with this is, obviously, that it doesn't make room for God. Of course, we would all claim that our worship is for God, unless we're way out of line. But worship planning and practice quickly becomes a circle we enclose ourself within.
For example, as a worship planner, I'm in charge of reading our context. Then, I'm in charge of creating a relevant worship service. I pick songs I like (or I wrote) or that I think would "speak the congregation's language". After that, I go to worship and benefit greatly from the service. If its done right, my evaluation tells me we did a great job!
My worship class is attempting to teach us out of that idea. It said, lets not ask what worship can do for people, but how we can equip believers. Great idea. However, while we're equipping believers, here comes a non-believer. What are equipping them to do? Find Jesus, hopefully. But what kind of sermon equips believers and altar calls? I ain't got one of those on my computer.
In order to make worship that's not inbred, we should allow doors in our circle for entrance. These doors can be things like a gospel presentation in every service (not hoping for people to glean it off of our ritual). Another way is a highly accountable worship staff. I'm in the process of recruiting music people and non-music people to serve as service critiquers. Grandpa Frank who's plowed fields his whole life can be as good an evaluater of my service as Mrs. Jones who teaches music for a living. Why? Only asking music people about your music is back to the inbred. Its like one of those concerts where the choir does lots of really musically cool things, but the audience hates it because its completely irrelevant.
This isn't just music. Its preaching, its kids ministry, its offertories. Our prostrate nature in worship should limit our ultimate control over it.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Innovation in Theology?
I've been struggling with the idea of whether or not theology is allowed to be innovative. I'm not talking about the practice of theology, but theology itself. Are new ideas okay within the realm of orthodoxy or even a particular tradition?
Our gut reaction is yes. Of course we like new ideas, new approaches and new allegories for how God works. If theology is speaking about God, or prolegomena, then we certainly should allow for innovative theology. What happens when an innovative theology comes out, however, is that it is very rarely taken on within a tradition, but rather pushed to the outskirts or the creation of a new tradition in and of itself. Why do we let our fear of innovation drive us?
Innovations in theology can still be tested against truths. For instance, if you know my ideas on baptism, then you know that I favor adult baptism, but favor it within a Reformed context. Regardless of how you feel about believer baptism, could you accept this as a Reformed person within your church or would you point me to another denomination that fits that view better? One of my seminary profs did.
Take then, my previous posting about the nature of God's love for humanity and the need for escape. Hold it up against your theology. Is it Arminian? Is it Reformed? I don't think so. Does your view of God's sovereignty make logical sense? You tell me why there was a tree in the garden. I love church history, but what I love about it is the continuing innovation, much of which got people burned and then weaseled its way into our churches anyway.
Read Rob Bell's "Velvet Elvis". He argues for taking out the bricks and examining them without having the whole structure falling apart. Beautiful. Confessions, catechisms, creeds: imagine these as the walls on the gym you move in rather than the seat you're strapped into. Now what?
Our gut reaction is yes. Of course we like new ideas, new approaches and new allegories for how God works. If theology is speaking about God, or prolegomena, then we certainly should allow for innovative theology. What happens when an innovative theology comes out, however, is that it is very rarely taken on within a tradition, but rather pushed to the outskirts or the creation of a new tradition in and of itself. Why do we let our fear of innovation drive us?
Innovations in theology can still be tested against truths. For instance, if you know my ideas on baptism, then you know that I favor adult baptism, but favor it within a Reformed context. Regardless of how you feel about believer baptism, could you accept this as a Reformed person within your church or would you point me to another denomination that fits that view better? One of my seminary profs did.
Take then, my previous posting about the nature of God's love for humanity and the need for escape. Hold it up against your theology. Is it Arminian? Is it Reformed? I don't think so. Does your view of God's sovereignty make logical sense? You tell me why there was a tree in the garden. I love church history, but what I love about it is the continuing innovation, much of which got people burned and then weaseled its way into our churches anyway.
Read Rob Bell's "Velvet Elvis". He argues for taking out the bricks and examining them without having the whole structure falling apart. Beautiful. Confessions, catechisms, creeds: imagine these as the walls on the gym you move in rather than the seat you're strapped into. Now what?
Monday, November 27, 2006
The Great Love Story
Yeah, I know I haven't blogged in a month or so, but thanks to those of you who keep checking and hoping for little bits of things I say to tick them off spiritually. I think that's probably formative. You're welcome.
Yesterday I djembe-ed, sang and preached (or lay-exhorted, if that keeps the CRC happy). This blog entry is my attempt to summarize my sermon, and provide a less sojourning way of understanding what I was saying rather than trying to sift through my cruddy rhetoric off the pulpit. Here's the basic gist:
If you haven't read Søren Kierkegaard's parable, "The King and the Maiden", you should now. I will attach it as the first comment on this blog.
Advent has been too far removed from Lent in our Christian minds. We often baptize our gift-giving frenzy at Christmas by saying that we model our gift-giving after God's gift of Jesus. However, the "gift" of Jesus was more like the sacrificial lamb given to Old Testament Hebrew families which ended up being re-gifted to God to satisfy His desire for atonement.
Kierkegaard's parable points out questions we often bury so that it doesn't rattle our spiritual cages: if God is all-powerful, why doesn't he _______? The ultimate of these questions is why would God put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden? Sadism? Do we tempt our teething infants with razorblades? This is a question Catechism classes have left me with. I have not heard a better explanation than the one I taught Sunday.
The Christian life is God's love story. As with the King in Kierkegaard, God's hands are tied by his kingliness. He could have created us with no option to sin in the garden, but that would have rendered us slaves. Love, which is presumably a creation of God, is, in its own nature, a two way street. Love needs an out. There are two options for relationships such as ours with God: love (or a derivation of love such as hate) OR servitude. Think about marriage. Marriage works because divorice exists. Marriage works because a choice is made. Marriage works because of a choice for love and commitment, BUT it also is dependent on a choice to be made for NOT divorice. Forced marriages, where the wife is required by religious or societal fears and pressures to remain faithful do not foster love, they foster servitude. Can they foster love? Possibly. But, the husband can NEVER know for sure that the wife loves him unless she freely chooses NOT to leave.
The second strain to this story is that the King in this story MUST become a peasant in order to gain love from the maiden. He gives up many things to accomplish this. The King was not the King among people, but the King with people. He had to deal with everything the people dealt with. This is Christ, God himself, coming down to earth to be God with us. Christ was necessary for atonment, for sure. But, if that's all he was good for, then the Father could have had him crucified at age 20, or even 15. But that's far too utilitarian a view of Christ. Christ came to show us the methodology of God's infatuous love for humanity. We see in Christ what love for people means. People who love people like God loves people are attracted to those who suffer, who struggle, and who are despised. If you love yourself, you are attracted to those who can help you, those above you in social standing. Check your temperature in this respect. Christ lived that, as well. Isaiah 53 says there was nothing about Christ that would attract us to him. He was despised and rejected by men. He wasn't just human, he was a loser. His personality and social position was designed to reach those for whom he came. If he had a God entourage, he never would have reached the lepers, the tax collectors, and the prostitutes.
The crux of this message is that the incarnation signals a message of hope for those who suffer through humanity's mess, and a direction for those who are looking to serve. If the Church functions according to God's love story, then the sufferers and the ministers will be connected. For God so loved the world that he gave his only son....
Yesterday I djembe-ed, sang and preached (or lay-exhorted, if that keeps the CRC happy). This blog entry is my attempt to summarize my sermon, and provide a less sojourning way of understanding what I was saying rather than trying to sift through my cruddy rhetoric off the pulpit. Here's the basic gist:
If you haven't read Søren Kierkegaard's parable, "The King and the Maiden", you should now. I will attach it as the first comment on this blog.
Advent has been too far removed from Lent in our Christian minds. We often baptize our gift-giving frenzy at Christmas by saying that we model our gift-giving after God's gift of Jesus. However, the "gift" of Jesus was more like the sacrificial lamb given to Old Testament Hebrew families which ended up being re-gifted to God to satisfy His desire for atonement.
Kierkegaard's parable points out questions we often bury so that it doesn't rattle our spiritual cages: if God is all-powerful, why doesn't he _______? The ultimate of these questions is why would God put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden? Sadism? Do we tempt our teething infants with razorblades? This is a question Catechism classes have left me with. I have not heard a better explanation than the one I taught Sunday.
The Christian life is God's love story. As with the King in Kierkegaard, God's hands are tied by his kingliness. He could have created us with no option to sin in the garden, but that would have rendered us slaves. Love, which is presumably a creation of God, is, in its own nature, a two way street. Love needs an out. There are two options for relationships such as ours with God: love (or a derivation of love such as hate) OR servitude. Think about marriage. Marriage works because divorice exists. Marriage works because a choice is made. Marriage works because of a choice for love and commitment, BUT it also is dependent on a choice to be made for NOT divorice. Forced marriages, where the wife is required by religious or societal fears and pressures to remain faithful do not foster love, they foster servitude. Can they foster love? Possibly. But, the husband can NEVER know for sure that the wife loves him unless she freely chooses NOT to leave.
The second strain to this story is that the King in this story MUST become a peasant in order to gain love from the maiden. He gives up many things to accomplish this. The King was not the King among people, but the King with people. He had to deal with everything the people dealt with. This is Christ, God himself, coming down to earth to be God with us. Christ was necessary for atonment, for sure. But, if that's all he was good for, then the Father could have had him crucified at age 20, or even 15. But that's far too utilitarian a view of Christ. Christ came to show us the methodology of God's infatuous love for humanity. We see in Christ what love for people means. People who love people like God loves people are attracted to those who suffer, who struggle, and who are despised. If you love yourself, you are attracted to those who can help you, those above you in social standing. Check your temperature in this respect. Christ lived that, as well. Isaiah 53 says there was nothing about Christ that would attract us to him. He was despised and rejected by men. He wasn't just human, he was a loser. His personality and social position was designed to reach those for whom he came. If he had a God entourage, he never would have reached the lepers, the tax collectors, and the prostitutes.
The crux of this message is that the incarnation signals a message of hope for those who suffer through humanity's mess, and a direction for those who are looking to serve. If the Church functions according to God's love story, then the sufferers and the ministers will be connected. For God so loved the world that he gave his only son....
Friday, November 10, 2006
Ron Martoia
Last weekend, I had the opportunity to listen to Ron Martoia, a postmodern church growth guy who has some really good stuff to say. Here are my quick notes, if you want explanations, you can ask me or check out his website : Velocity Culture.
· Our current situation: Deep change or slow death
· Semiotics: Reading the signs and context of our times
o Why is Extreme Home Makeover so popular?
§ It showcases real people with real problems
§ People are willing to give if they can be convicted of the cause
§ Tripping our emotions is often the key to realizing the importance
· We need a ecclesiology based on missiology rather than doxology
o Our view of the church must be based in mission as well as praise
· Information does not guarantee transformation
o We have a narrow scope of cramming information into our parishioners
o We often preach a fall/redemption paradigm. We need a Creation/Fall/Redemption paradigm
o Categories: Fidelitas, Feducia, Visio, and Ascencis
§ Ascencis is far overplayed in today’s church (doctrinal/creedal)
Knowing --> Doing
· This paradigm doesn’t work
· We need more steps
· Knowing-->Seeing-->Sensing-->Doing
· Plant when a church reaches 400. This should be a mothering relationship rather than a “planting” relationship
· Old Testament Themes
o There are three stories which set the tone of the OT
§ Exodus
§ Exile
§ Priestly
o We primarily teach the priestly story, which is not holistic
o Modern people operated with a guilt mindset, in which priestly themes were perfect
o Postmodern people feel no guilt
o If we do missions overseas, we learn the language. We need to learn the postmodern language.
· Our current programs are perfectly constructed to get the results we’re currently getting.
· World Religions: Islam, Buddhism & Hinduism are descriptive of our current human state. Christianity is prescriptive of the life that we ought to live and will live. It does not accept the status quo.
· Salvation
o Zaccheus wouldn’t have been saved in most churches today
o Christ made the initial statement, justifying him before he asked
· Isaiah 61 is foretaste of Luke 4. It is a Rabbinic telos.
· In developing programs, go deep, not wide at first
· Leadership from Leath
o Leaders must cross thresholds
o Commonly associated with death
· Change is like trapeze artistry
o One must let go and hang on
· Three requirements
o Logos: Speaking the Word
o Pathos: Feeling for your people
o Ethos: Living in the present
· Our current situation: Deep change or slow death
· Semiotics: Reading the signs and context of our times
o Why is Extreme Home Makeover so popular?
§ It showcases real people with real problems
§ People are willing to give if they can be convicted of the cause
§ Tripping our emotions is often the key to realizing the importance
· We need a ecclesiology based on missiology rather than doxology
o Our view of the church must be based in mission as well as praise
· Information does not guarantee transformation
o We have a narrow scope of cramming information into our parishioners
o We often preach a fall/redemption paradigm. We need a Creation/Fall/Redemption paradigm
o Categories: Fidelitas, Feducia, Visio, and Ascencis
§ Ascencis is far overplayed in today’s church (doctrinal/creedal)
Knowing --> Doing
· This paradigm doesn’t work
· We need more steps
· Knowing-->Seeing-->Sensing-->Doing
· Plant when a church reaches 400. This should be a mothering relationship rather than a “planting” relationship
· Old Testament Themes
o There are three stories which set the tone of the OT
§ Exodus
§ Exile
§ Priestly
o We primarily teach the priestly story, which is not holistic
o Modern people operated with a guilt mindset, in which priestly themes were perfect
o Postmodern people feel no guilt
o If we do missions overseas, we learn the language. We need to learn the postmodern language.
· Our current programs are perfectly constructed to get the results we’re currently getting.
· World Religions: Islam, Buddhism & Hinduism are descriptive of our current human state. Christianity is prescriptive of the life that we ought to live and will live. It does not accept the status quo.
· Salvation
o Zaccheus wouldn’t have been saved in most churches today
o Christ made the initial statement, justifying him before he asked
· Isaiah 61 is foretaste of Luke 4. It is a Rabbinic telos.
· In developing programs, go deep, not wide at first
· Leadership from Leath
o Leaders must cross thresholds
o Commonly associated with death
· Change is like trapeze artistry
o One must let go and hang on
· Three requirements
o Logos: Speaking the Word
o Pathos: Feeling for your people
o Ethos: Living in the present
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Holiness?
Psalm 151 LORD, who may dwell in your sanctuary? Who may live on your holy hill?
2 He whose walk is blameless and who does what is righteous, who speaks the truth from his heart
3 and has no slander on his tongue, who does his neighbor no wrong and casts no slur on his fellowman,
4 who despises a vile man but honors those who fear the LORD, who keeps his oath even when it hurts,
5 who lends his money without usury and does not accept a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken.
2 He whose walk is blameless and who does what is righteous, who speaks the truth from his heart
3 and has no slander on his tongue, who does his neighbor no wrong and casts no slur on his fellowman,
4 who despises a vile man but honors those who fear the LORD, who keeps his oath even when it hurts,
5 who lends his money without usury and does not accept a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Diversity vs. Community
Today's subject may be a bit sensitive, but what the heck. My thoughts are not necessarily coherent so much as yearning to get out on paper, but the general gist of the matter is questioning the whole premise behind striving for diversity. I just finished reading a Synodical report from 2005 and heard a lecture by Faith Alive Resources which both tooted a very familiar horn: diversity.
My problem is not with diversity. I think cultures, ethnicities, languages, and cultures should be celebrated and discovered by each person as they attempt to be more and more struck with awe at the beauty of God's creation. Of course, lets not kid ourselves here. Unless you're a higher critic of Scripture, then you'll remember that the confusion of language (and implicitly culture) was the result of sin! And not just any sin, the sin of self-idolatry. So lets remember that God is tinkering with a broken mechanism. Even so, the beauty of culture, the variety of foods, languages, and cultures are a fantastic discovery of the age of information.
So what's my beef? I take issue with those in the Church that would say that diversity in and of itself is a goal to strive for. Really? I'll buy a nuance in the New Testament that argues for the equality of women and I'll buy implicit themes which argue for the abolition of slavery (niether of which are explicitly stated), and I might even baptize my infant even if I can't find it in the New Testament, but where do we find diversity in and of itself to be something that the church should strive for?
After all, its not like people of other skin types and languages haven't been elect over the years. Its just that not many of them have made their way into the CRC for whatever reason. There are certainly issues there, but we need not enforce affirmitive action in every church to attain some sort of quota which satisfies our diversity ideal!
The issues which hinder diversity are real: bias, unfriendliness, elitism, traditionalism, patriotism, selfishness, fear, etc. But here's a thought: don't those all sound like fault lines for a more historic, more fully-orbed Christian idea? How about the community or koinonia? The fact of the matter is, Christ didn't summarize the 10 Commandments by saying "Love the Lord your God....and your neighbor as yourself and work hard for diversity." Why not? Because diversity is a natural outcome of community and an intersection with diverse culture. Passing over a white beggar for a black one simply because you want diversity is racism.
I don't want to look like a bigot here, but I hope you see my point. Diversity is a subpoint of community, or the horizontal nature of our Christian walk, it is not an all-encompassing point. There is also a unique risk with talking about issues such as this. Anyone who questions diversity is somehow a racist or a bigot. I hope I'm neither, but my love for my cross-cultural neighbor doesn't come from a diversity command from Christ, it comes from His command to love one another.
My problem is not with diversity. I think cultures, ethnicities, languages, and cultures should be celebrated and discovered by each person as they attempt to be more and more struck with awe at the beauty of God's creation. Of course, lets not kid ourselves here. Unless you're a higher critic of Scripture, then you'll remember that the confusion of language (and implicitly culture) was the result of sin! And not just any sin, the sin of self-idolatry. So lets remember that God is tinkering with a broken mechanism. Even so, the beauty of culture, the variety of foods, languages, and cultures are a fantastic discovery of the age of information.
So what's my beef? I take issue with those in the Church that would say that diversity in and of itself is a goal to strive for. Really? I'll buy a nuance in the New Testament that argues for the equality of women and I'll buy implicit themes which argue for the abolition of slavery (niether of which are explicitly stated), and I might even baptize my infant even if I can't find it in the New Testament, but where do we find diversity in and of itself to be something that the church should strive for?
After all, its not like people of other skin types and languages haven't been elect over the years. Its just that not many of them have made their way into the CRC for whatever reason. There are certainly issues there, but we need not enforce affirmitive action in every church to attain some sort of quota which satisfies our diversity ideal!
The issues which hinder diversity are real: bias, unfriendliness, elitism, traditionalism, patriotism, selfishness, fear, etc. But here's a thought: don't those all sound like fault lines for a more historic, more fully-orbed Christian idea? How about the community or koinonia? The fact of the matter is, Christ didn't summarize the 10 Commandments by saying "Love the Lord your God....and your neighbor as yourself and work hard for diversity." Why not? Because diversity is a natural outcome of community and an intersection with diverse culture. Passing over a white beggar for a black one simply because you want diversity is racism.
I don't want to look like a bigot here, but I hope you see my point. Diversity is a subpoint of community, or the horizontal nature of our Christian walk, it is not an all-encompassing point. There is also a unique risk with talking about issues such as this. Anyone who questions diversity is somehow a racist or a bigot. I hope I'm neither, but my love for my cross-cultural neighbor doesn't come from a diversity command from Christ, it comes from His command to love one another.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Your Local Christian College: Foreign Misison Field
I recognize that most of the people who read my blog are either college students or recently graduated college students. If you're older, good for you. If this blog causes you to get defensive, good. Maybe it will cause you to question your own college-life spirituality OR maybe it will get you on board with finding ways to reach our college communities. Either way...good luck.
College is a wonderful time in many people's lives. In fact, most people. If you're one of the chosen few who went to a Christian college, its not only a bonus if you have a god experience in college...its expected. You're expected to make friends, you're expected to gain skills, you're expected to become a democrat for six years or so, and you're expected to find a spouse. I've had the privelege of bouncing around visiting several Christian college campuses as well as meeting up with lots of committed Christians fresh out of Christian colleges at Seminary. There are a few common threads, but one of them is not church involvement. In fact, even at the Seminary, it was considered radical to implement a change last year which required students to declare regular attendance at a local church and 20 hours of church involvement during the quarter.
Let me set a context. I attend a church that meets in the chapel of Calvin College, a body of 5,000 or so students. Even though our church is on campus, our average attendance out of that body is roughly five students. Five. So our church is conservative in worship style...that means they're going somewhere else, right? If you've lived in a dorm, you know the answer.
I grew up in Orange City, IA, home of Northwestern College, and a skip and jump from Dordt College. I grew up seeing college kids at the gas station, at restaurants, coffee shops, at Pamida, student-teaching, and across the street from my house. Where did I not see them? Church. Could be a fluke....maybe we couldn't advertise well.
When I chose to go to Dordt, I kept attending my home church. I was one of two kids within four years of graduation from high school that regularly attended. Out of about 60. I thought it was our fault, something we could change. As I moved through college and now talk to people from all over North America, people conclude the exact same thing....the majority of Christian college kids don't go to church.
My church threw out the bible study book. We threw out the "inviting worship" book. We threw out the seek & greet book. We started to give things away. We gave them their own room to have premium coffee in the basement, and hooked them up with free meals.
Sound like a soup kitchen? Sound like a foreign releif effort? Bingo. College kids are not reliable, they're not responsible, and they are horribly self-concerned. Try talking to any college kid without hearing the word "busy". Yes college kid, we know you're busy. Yes college kid, we know you're tired. Yes college kid, we know you're financially strapped (except the rich kids). Yes college kid, we know you prefer contemporary worship at school. Yes college kid, we know we're hypocrites.
WELCOME TO THE CLUB, or as we like to call it - the Church.
That said, we still need to minister to this group. Given the four-eight year cultural considerations I've given, I propose we need to completely throw out the book on how to run a church ministry for a group. We need a new praxis. The soup kitchen mentality is helpful, even if the attendees are wearing Aeropostale and Abercrombie. You will get a few that are willing to be discipled. You might get none. Either way, keeping kids linked with local churches is worth it, if for no other reason than it keeps people in the pews. Most of our local churches are missing the 20-something age group. Unfortunately, eventually the 20 something age group will be the whole church. Or....it might not be the whole church.
College is a wonderful time in many people's lives. In fact, most people. If you're one of the chosen few who went to a Christian college, its not only a bonus if you have a god experience in college...its expected. You're expected to make friends, you're expected to gain skills, you're expected to become a democrat for six years or so, and you're expected to find a spouse. I've had the privelege of bouncing around visiting several Christian college campuses as well as meeting up with lots of committed Christians fresh out of Christian colleges at Seminary. There are a few common threads, but one of them is not church involvement. In fact, even at the Seminary, it was considered radical to implement a change last year which required students to declare regular attendance at a local church and 20 hours of church involvement during the quarter.
Let me set a context. I attend a church that meets in the chapel of Calvin College, a body of 5,000 or so students. Even though our church is on campus, our average attendance out of that body is roughly five students. Five. So our church is conservative in worship style...that means they're going somewhere else, right? If you've lived in a dorm, you know the answer.
I grew up in Orange City, IA, home of Northwestern College, and a skip and jump from Dordt College. I grew up seeing college kids at the gas station, at restaurants, coffee shops, at Pamida, student-teaching, and across the street from my house. Where did I not see them? Church. Could be a fluke....maybe we couldn't advertise well.
When I chose to go to Dordt, I kept attending my home church. I was one of two kids within four years of graduation from high school that regularly attended. Out of about 60. I thought it was our fault, something we could change. As I moved through college and now talk to people from all over North America, people conclude the exact same thing....the majority of Christian college kids don't go to church.
My church threw out the bible study book. We threw out the "inviting worship" book. We threw out the seek & greet book. We started to give things away. We gave them their own room to have premium coffee in the basement, and hooked them up with free meals.
Sound like a soup kitchen? Sound like a foreign releif effort? Bingo. College kids are not reliable, they're not responsible, and they are horribly self-concerned. Try talking to any college kid without hearing the word "busy". Yes college kid, we know you're busy. Yes college kid, we know you're tired. Yes college kid, we know you're financially strapped (except the rich kids). Yes college kid, we know you prefer contemporary worship at school. Yes college kid, we know we're hypocrites.
WELCOME TO THE CLUB, or as we like to call it - the Church.
That said, we still need to minister to this group. Given the four-eight year cultural considerations I've given, I propose we need to completely throw out the book on how to run a church ministry for a group. We need a new praxis. The soup kitchen mentality is helpful, even if the attendees are wearing Aeropostale and Abercrombie. You will get a few that are willing to be discipled. You might get none. Either way, keeping kids linked with local churches is worth it, if for no other reason than it keeps people in the pews. Most of our local churches are missing the 20-something age group. Unfortunately, eventually the 20 something age group will be the whole church. Or....it might not be the whole church.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Christian Reforming
Friday I had the privilege of meeting two of the top dogs in the Christian Reformed Church - the financial director and our new executive director, Jerry Dykstra. Most people who read this blog will be familiar with the CRC, but for those of you who aren't, we're a blip on the Christendom radar. The way I think about it, the CRC is to world Christianity what Pamida is to the retail world.
Granted, the CRC has her strengths to duel with the denominational big boys (see CRWRC), but we'd be kidding ourselves to think that we are a major player with a membership around roughly 275,000. An interesting point to be made is that there are more Catholics in the Grand Rapids area than there are CRC members nationwide.
To me, comparing denominations to retail chains isn't that far of a stretch. The only three entities who are able to saturate major and minor markets to a high level of efficiency are fast food restaurants, retail chains, and churches. The common denominators? Easy duplication of processes, efficient distribution (of products & ideas), strong internal structure and communication of a unified vision. This is why you don't have a chain of Bob's Bars or Sack's Fifth Avenue in every podunk town over 5,000 across the Heartland. But Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and the Catholic Church can pull it off quite well.
That is why it was strangely reassuring to see possibly the two most powerful men in the CRC standing in front of me in business suits with cell phones on their hips. It reminded me precisely of the retail corporate types I'm used to seeing in my own store. Why was this reassuring? Maybe its because I'm too prone to using a business model in the church because of its efficient nature, although Bill Hybels pulls it off quite well. Maybe its because I like having the confidence that the ministry shares which contain my tithes are being well-handled. Maybe its because like most evangelicals, even the Calvinists, I am an Arminian in practice while being a Calvinist in thought because the hands and feet of Calvinism make the least sense to me of the whole scheme.
Dykstra did have some good things to say. He communicated that the CRC needs to minister to this generation. That is a far cry, I'm ashamed to say, from what goes on in the vast majority of CRC's today. That doesn't mean we need to break our backbone or be simply more "hip", but it does mean encountering today's culture where its at instead of waiting for Calvinism to conquer post-modernism like a knight on his steed. Then some good business principles. First, he talked about communicating the vision. In three days, he had been in Albequerque, NM, St. Paul, MN and Grand Rapids, speaking to some 60 pastors about communicating a denominational vision for change. Second, he is realistic about fault lines. Instead of just letting older ladies pray for the church to fix itself, he has real ideas for helping hurting churches. Thirdly, and probably most transformative, he argued for making our ministries "ministries of choice". There is a realization in the denomination that simply labeling ministries CRC does not bring in guilt-laden Dutch people anymore. To that end, our programs must be some of the best out there, our materials must be some of the best out there, and our approach to ministry must be excellent. Whew, what a breath of fresh air!
Does all this limit what power we believe the Holy Spirit to have in growing the church from the inside out? The question is valid. But if we are willing to let the denomination die at the hands of the very culture we are supposed to be reaching, then we haven't done our job. A balloon inflated by the breath of the Holy Spirit does not lose air quickly. I'd like to sit down sometime with Dykstra and just ask him how hard it is to balance a business model growth mentality with a spirit-led growth mentality.
Who knows where the CRC will be in 50 years. Watch out, Wal-Mart.
Granted, the CRC has her strengths to duel with the denominational big boys (see CRWRC), but we'd be kidding ourselves to think that we are a major player with a membership around roughly 275,000. An interesting point to be made is that there are more Catholics in the Grand Rapids area than there are CRC members nationwide.
To me, comparing denominations to retail chains isn't that far of a stretch. The only three entities who are able to saturate major and minor markets to a high level of efficiency are fast food restaurants, retail chains, and churches. The common denominators? Easy duplication of processes, efficient distribution (of products & ideas), strong internal structure and communication of a unified vision. This is why you don't have a chain of Bob's Bars or Sack's Fifth Avenue in every podunk town over 5,000 across the Heartland. But Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and the Catholic Church can pull it off quite well.
That is why it was strangely reassuring to see possibly the two most powerful men in the CRC standing in front of me in business suits with cell phones on their hips. It reminded me precisely of the retail corporate types I'm used to seeing in my own store. Why was this reassuring? Maybe its because I'm too prone to using a business model in the church because of its efficient nature, although Bill Hybels pulls it off quite well. Maybe its because I like having the confidence that the ministry shares which contain my tithes are being well-handled. Maybe its because like most evangelicals, even the Calvinists, I am an Arminian in practice while being a Calvinist in thought because the hands and feet of Calvinism make the least sense to me of the whole scheme.
Dykstra did have some good things to say. He communicated that the CRC needs to minister to this generation. That is a far cry, I'm ashamed to say, from what goes on in the vast majority of CRC's today. That doesn't mean we need to break our backbone or be simply more "hip", but it does mean encountering today's culture where its at instead of waiting for Calvinism to conquer post-modernism like a knight on his steed. Then some good business principles. First, he talked about communicating the vision. In three days, he had been in Albequerque, NM, St. Paul, MN and Grand Rapids, speaking to some 60 pastors about communicating a denominational vision for change. Second, he is realistic about fault lines. Instead of just letting older ladies pray for the church to fix itself, he has real ideas for helping hurting churches. Thirdly, and probably most transformative, he argued for making our ministries "ministries of choice". There is a realization in the denomination that simply labeling ministries CRC does not bring in guilt-laden Dutch people anymore. To that end, our programs must be some of the best out there, our materials must be some of the best out there, and our approach to ministry must be excellent. Whew, what a breath of fresh air!
Does all this limit what power we believe the Holy Spirit to have in growing the church from the inside out? The question is valid. But if we are willing to let the denomination die at the hands of the very culture we are supposed to be reaching, then we haven't done our job. A balloon inflated by the breath of the Holy Spirit does not lose air quickly. I'd like to sit down sometime with Dykstra and just ask him how hard it is to balance a business model growth mentality with a spirit-led growth mentality.
Who knows where the CRC will be in 50 years. Watch out, Wal-Mart.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
One Nation Under NASCAR
Burton has the pole today at the Brickyard in Indy. Stewart won that last year, but his troubles this season and Gordon's ability to win at this track make it highly improbable that Stewart will repeat.
I wouldn't have known any of that three years ago during my freshman year of college. Some of that is because ESPN didn't cover NASCAR then, but some of it is because of my job. As many of you know, I work at Pamida, a small retail store which has taken me all over the country. I've worked at stores in Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Kentucky. While the geographical distance between these stores is great, the socio-economic condition of both the employees and customers that frequent these stores is quite unvaried.
There are two major themes that I have noticed since working at Pamida, which, with the exception of my Orange City store, lies outside the confines of "Christian-ized" society. First, there is an entire culture which has developed on the coattails of urban American society, a sizable group which is largely ignored by mainstream media (except maybe Larry the Cable Guy). The second observation is that the Christian community has largely ignored this segment of the population, which is quickly becoming the majority, either because they consider this group reprobate or because they simply don't know what to do with them.
This group is hard to define. In the past they would be known as "hicks", "blue collar" or "rednecks". They would also be considered in some circles "white trash". The rest of society has always relied on the "drive of the American spirit" to inspire this group to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and let capitalism motivate them to rejoin "real" society or get crushed for the betterment of the gene pool. The change has not occurred in the makeup of this group, but rather, the change has occurred in their mindset. No longer to they feel the need to elevate themselves into "normal" society. Contentedness with and even identification with their current socio-economic level is the important change that has occurred. There are the sterotypical interests of this group: alcohol, cigarettes, sex, motorsports, making enough money to get by, and a sense of entitlement. There is NOT, however, what we "red-blooded" Americans would expect "normal" people to innately have: a driving desire to have a better life, bigger house, better name in the community, strong church affiliation, latest technology, or political action.
Given this, who's life outlook is better? The ratrace American who strives to get the best of everything and constantly improve their lives, or the person who is content with where they are at and would rather enjoy where they are than tirelessly work to get ahead? How can an adult male work at a job where he makes $7 an hour? Because he can. Why isn't a trailer enough? Why isn't relaxing after your 9-5 with a few beers more appealing than killing yourself at work to buy an SUV or lakehome? Who's your senator? How does the internet work? What's the stock market outlook? Its simple: who cares?
In church we hear about the poor in other countries who are content with the little they have. We have a society of post-capitalistic content people living right here in America. This is the very reason welfare doesn't work. Its easier to swallow one's pride than to give up free money and labor again. What's more, while this group may be less politically correct than their white collar counterparts, they are, for the most part, more closely in line with the worldviews of minority groups such as inner city African Americans and immigrant Hispanic working groups. The tendency to prioritize nice trucks and satelite dishes over nice clothes and large homes with picket fences is a foreign concept to many of us.
Newsflash to churches in small communities: this is why your churches are declining in population. Life is easier if you don't care. The Church has always been reliant upon people caring, and hoping for a better future. That's why the Church has historically thrived amongst the poor. The church has died everywhere people see no point in hoping and working for a better future. What is the church to do about post-modern thinkers? The better question might be: what is the Church to do about post-capitalist thinkers? If the church really is an "opiate for the masses", then we've lost because the "masses" have found a few other culturally-acceptable opiates.
I wouldn't have known any of that three years ago during my freshman year of college. Some of that is because ESPN didn't cover NASCAR then, but some of it is because of my job. As many of you know, I work at Pamida, a small retail store which has taken me all over the country. I've worked at stores in Iowa, South Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Kentucky. While the geographical distance between these stores is great, the socio-economic condition of both the employees and customers that frequent these stores is quite unvaried.
There are two major themes that I have noticed since working at Pamida, which, with the exception of my Orange City store, lies outside the confines of "Christian-ized" society. First, there is an entire culture which has developed on the coattails of urban American society, a sizable group which is largely ignored by mainstream media (except maybe Larry the Cable Guy). The second observation is that the Christian community has largely ignored this segment of the population, which is quickly becoming the majority, either because they consider this group reprobate or because they simply don't know what to do with them.
This group is hard to define. In the past they would be known as "hicks", "blue collar" or "rednecks". They would also be considered in some circles "white trash". The rest of society has always relied on the "drive of the American spirit" to inspire this group to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and let capitalism motivate them to rejoin "real" society or get crushed for the betterment of the gene pool. The change has not occurred in the makeup of this group, but rather, the change has occurred in their mindset. No longer to they feel the need to elevate themselves into "normal" society. Contentedness with and even identification with their current socio-economic level is the important change that has occurred. There are the sterotypical interests of this group: alcohol, cigarettes, sex, motorsports, making enough money to get by, and a sense of entitlement. There is NOT, however, what we "red-blooded" Americans would expect "normal" people to innately have: a driving desire to have a better life, bigger house, better name in the community, strong church affiliation, latest technology, or political action.
Given this, who's life outlook is better? The ratrace American who strives to get the best of everything and constantly improve their lives, or the person who is content with where they are at and would rather enjoy where they are than tirelessly work to get ahead? How can an adult male work at a job where he makes $7 an hour? Because he can. Why isn't a trailer enough? Why isn't relaxing after your 9-5 with a few beers more appealing than killing yourself at work to buy an SUV or lakehome? Who's your senator? How does the internet work? What's the stock market outlook? Its simple: who cares?
In church we hear about the poor in other countries who are content with the little they have. We have a society of post-capitalistic content people living right here in America. This is the very reason welfare doesn't work. Its easier to swallow one's pride than to give up free money and labor again. What's more, while this group may be less politically correct than their white collar counterparts, they are, for the most part, more closely in line with the worldviews of minority groups such as inner city African Americans and immigrant Hispanic working groups. The tendency to prioritize nice trucks and satelite dishes over nice clothes and large homes with picket fences is a foreign concept to many of us.
Newsflash to churches in small communities: this is why your churches are declining in population. Life is easier if you don't care. The Church has always been reliant upon people caring, and hoping for a better future. That's why the Church has historically thrived amongst the poor. The church has died everywhere people see no point in hoping and working for a better future. What is the church to do about post-modern thinkers? The better question might be: what is the Church to do about post-capitalist thinkers? If the church really is an "opiate for the masses", then we've lost because the "masses" have found a few other culturally-acceptable opiates.
Friday, August 04, 2006
The Longest Two Hours in the World
Most of the time while living in Grand Rapids, I'm just unemotional towards things. Cities tend to do that to a person. They kill the uptightness that is generally associated with the small farming communities, but they also tend to kill all motivations other than greed/self-gratification. I was looking into housing a while back and the company's website explained a novel concept which placed houses in such a way that they encouraged community. It was quick to point out that such an effort hadn't really been made since the 50's.
One thing that really has gotten me irked since living here is the inability of Grand Rapids, one of the wealthiest and believer-infested places in Christendom, to reach out to its dying neighbor, Detroit. At the risk of sounding like one of the coffeehouse should-ers from my previous posting, I have a great conviction that there should be some outreach down the interstate to the most hurting city in the nation outside of New Orleans(I'm not just saying that - there was a study that confirmed it released this week).
The fact of the matter is that if I wanted to go into any sort of ministry in Detroit for internships or a "real" job, it would have to be as a church planter or in a different denomination. The host of CRC churches/classes in Grand Rapids have not recently initiated a single churchplant or denominational ministry in the city, except for one Christian-Muslim Friendship House, which holds a loose association with the denomiation. The one existing CRC church in Detroit is located where you would expect it: in the suburbs.
I will grant that Michigan is hurting on all levels. No matter who wins the next governor race, this state is screwed until we figure out a way to curb the sense of entitlement which persists at all socio-economic levels in this state. There is, however, at least in Grand Rapids, a concentration of wealth in the churches. Many churches are run corporate-style, with top-down leadership or with projects needing to be approved by certain wealthy members. Yet, the biggest hinderance to the CRC's involvement in Detroit might be that its skill largely lies in planting suburban-style churches with largely caucasian middle class populations. The kind of cities that Detroit is are usually the subjects of world missions type ministries.
Sometimes I need people to keep me accountable (who am I kidding, that would be most times). Think of this as my way of helping to wake up accountability about man-made disaster area. Its time to end the charade. We may be two hours away from Detroit, but it seems like a world away. To walk the downtown area of Detroit is to feel like you are in a recent warzone. Perhaps the need is so great we don't know where to start. I've got an idea. How about the thousands of buildings at ground zero that are falling apart as we speak in the wasteland they call a downtown. What a big problem like this needs is an army. Here is your army.
One thing that really has gotten me irked since living here is the inability of Grand Rapids, one of the wealthiest and believer-infested places in Christendom, to reach out to its dying neighbor, Detroit. At the risk of sounding like one of the coffeehouse should-ers from my previous posting, I have a great conviction that there should be some outreach down the interstate to the most hurting city in the nation outside of New Orleans(I'm not just saying that - there was a study that confirmed it released this week).
The fact of the matter is that if I wanted to go into any sort of ministry in Detroit for internships or a "real" job, it would have to be as a church planter or in a different denomination. The host of CRC churches/classes in Grand Rapids have not recently initiated a single churchplant or denominational ministry in the city, except for one Christian-Muslim Friendship House, which holds a loose association with the denomiation. The one existing CRC church in Detroit is located where you would expect it: in the suburbs.
I will grant that Michigan is hurting on all levels. No matter who wins the next governor race, this state is screwed until we figure out a way to curb the sense of entitlement which persists at all socio-economic levels in this state. There is, however, at least in Grand Rapids, a concentration of wealth in the churches. Many churches are run corporate-style, with top-down leadership or with projects needing to be approved by certain wealthy members. Yet, the biggest hinderance to the CRC's involvement in Detroit might be that its skill largely lies in planting suburban-style churches with largely caucasian middle class populations. The kind of cities that Detroit is are usually the subjects of world missions type ministries.
Sometimes I need people to keep me accountable (who am I kidding, that would be most times). Think of this as my way of helping to wake up accountability about man-made disaster area. Its time to end the charade. We may be two hours away from Detroit, but it seems like a world away. To walk the downtown area of Detroit is to feel like you are in a recent warzone. Perhaps the need is so great we don't know where to start. I've got an idea. How about the thousands of buildings at ground zero that are falling apart as we speak in the wasteland they call a downtown. What a big problem like this needs is an army. Here is your army.
Courtesy Message: My Blogging Philsophy
As a general rule, I hate blogs. I also generally dislike people who blog. Depending on who you are, those two facts might offend you, please you, and/or come to the inevitable conclusion that I'm a flaming hypocrite.
Most of my dislike of blogs come from my observation of other people's blogs and the attitude with which I envision them typing said blog. Is it just me, or do you see in your mind people sitting at their computer with this incredibly stern look on their face, stroking their would-be beard and wondering what wonderful thoughts the rest of the world can't live without. Undoubtedly, these people base their lives on the assumption that, if the world were perfect, they and their coffeehouse buddies would most definately be on some sort of equilateral council that would decide what would be best for the world.
Most of the discussions of this council would surround what should be done about global warming, what should be done about fair trade coffee (even though nearly every company now sells it), and (at least in Christian circles) what should be done about a whole host of systemic social problems they assume can be changed at the flip of a switch. After discussing these issues, these bloggers pat eachother on the back, look down their noses at the factory workers who couldn't go to college, and go to bed after having a bottle of some sort of foreign nasty-tasting (but novel) beer.
I'm writing this blog to use up spare time and to provide a hobby for myself after I'm married and the Tigers are in the offseason (or when they start losing like normal again). If you want to read it, great. If you don't, that's fine too. If you know me, you know I have two modes: crazy phrase-slinger with no restraints and thougtfully argumenitive. My guess is that this blog will navigate the waters between those two extremes. Don't read this and think, "I can't believe he's in seminary" or "He's got no idea what he's talking about it". I'm just writing, spewing, releasing. You opened the blog. Its your choice to read it. Here we go....
Most of my dislike of blogs come from my observation of other people's blogs and the attitude with which I envision them typing said blog. Is it just me, or do you see in your mind people sitting at their computer with this incredibly stern look on their face, stroking their would-be beard and wondering what wonderful thoughts the rest of the world can't live without. Undoubtedly, these people base their lives on the assumption that, if the world were perfect, they and their coffeehouse buddies would most definately be on some sort of equilateral council that would decide what would be best for the world.
Most of the discussions of this council would surround what should be done about global warming, what should be done about fair trade coffee (even though nearly every company now sells it), and (at least in Christian circles) what should be done about a whole host of systemic social problems they assume can be changed at the flip of a switch. After discussing these issues, these bloggers pat eachother on the back, look down their noses at the factory workers who couldn't go to college, and go to bed after having a bottle of some sort of foreign nasty-tasting (but novel) beer.
I'm writing this blog to use up spare time and to provide a hobby for myself after I'm married and the Tigers are in the offseason (or when they start losing like normal again). If you want to read it, great. If you don't, that's fine too. If you know me, you know I have two modes: crazy phrase-slinger with no restraints and thougtfully argumenitive. My guess is that this blog will navigate the waters between those two extremes. Don't read this and think, "I can't believe he's in seminary" or "He's got no idea what he's talking about it". I'm just writing, spewing, releasing. You opened the blog. Its your choice to read it. Here we go....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
