A winter blast of ice laden with snow caused a ninety-minute delay for school today in our fair St. Louis, and with tomorrow being a review day for Friday's test, I had some wiggle room for today's class. I don't often make a habit of spotlighting holiday commemoration in class; I prefer instead that we remember the reality of whatever celebration throughout the year, whether it be Christmas (for Jesus' life), Easter (for Jesus' risen power), or other matters. It also is the reason why I don't always speak out a lot about events like Martin Luther King Day. It's not that I don't like the commemoration; I believe as a major historical figure, King has earned his place in history. It's not that I fear we are marginalizing other civil rights leaders by celebrating King's work (although I tend to champion Jackie Robinson as the truest pioneer of American civil rights…more on that in a near-future blog). It's just that I want to see more collaboration and connection across social and ethnic lines in looking forward, and where we don't think that merely "looking back" will do the trick.
But I felt compelled to do something in class today regarding King, and so I played an audio of his "I Heave a Dream" speech for each of my Ethics classes. It was in listening again to this seminal oration that I was driven to share two things with my students.
First, how we fulfill our goals matters as much or more than what those goals are. There are many memorable statements from King's speech--his quotations from the biblical prophets Amos and Isaiah, his "let freedom ring" litany, etc.--but there's a gold nugget stored away in the middle of it all. King says, "But there is something I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force."
In other words, seek the goal of true justice, but do so from true hearts, noble actions, and honorable motives. The history of humankind is littered with those who might have had decent desires but tried to achieve them wickedly (I'm sure many of us have read of Pope Urban II pressing the Crusades, or Vladimir Lenin transforming Russia into the Soviet Union, among others). King was both noble and wise to demand that his compatriots aim to achieve their dreams via methods that were both good and true.
The other matter is what I shared with my students at the very end of class. Yes, King's speech happened just over fifty years ago. I get it that not every one of us has been on the front lines of the civil rights struggle. But the fight against injustice binds us all and is part of everyone's story, whether one has been abused or discriminated against unjustly. It even goes beyond that if some of us trace our family histories back far enough. We can find ancestors who were flogged, persecuted, or assailed for religious reasons. Some can claim a family tree where some branches were shorn during events like the Holocaust. Or--much to our chagrin--we can also discover that instead of being the victims of injustice, some of our ancestors were perpetrators of evil. We have enslaved and been slaves if each of us traces far enough back.
The struggle for the better angels and against the demons of our natures is what King dealt with--and ultimately what he laid down his life for. But it was not only his story. It is yours and mine. And the work of reconciliation is everyone's story.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Scattered Soundbites
I've been in blogosphere hibernation since my last post on New Years' Day. Not that there hasn't been anything going on. In fact, St. Louis got hit with the most brutal winter storms in recent memory, and we spent some time dealing with that. School began afresh for second semester. I've been plotting through the concept of writing an Ethics textbook for Christian schools…one that resets the whole template. That and my next Cameron Ballack mystery still move along on the drawing board.
In reality, there are so many things that settling on one to develop in a blog post would be like nailing pudding to a wall. Thus, some scattered soundbites to get back in the blogging swing:
1. This is wisdom: If you are going to get fourteen inches of snow one day, and then the mercury drops to a wind chill of nearly forty degrees below zero the next morning…and if you need to shovel the driveway so your son's nurse can get in, do it in 5-7 minute piecemeal attempts. Guess who stayed out too long? Guess who nearly passed out when he came in? Guess whose temperature dropped below 96 degrees? Guess whose wife had to force feed him warm water and coffee to bring him back to normal? (Hint: If you answered those questions with "You did, Davis", congrats on your powers of perception)
2. When Christians were concerned about following the way of Christ, they didn't jack around complaining about the quality of their church's youth group programs or the length of the pastor's sermons, nor did they debate traditional music vs. contemporary praise songs or wring their hands over what political leverage they could use on abortion or gay marriage (mainly because they had no leverage of the sort when the Church was most gospel-vibrant). When I'm at church, if Scripture is explained clearly and God is honored, that's good enough. Everything spawns from that rather than influences it.
3. If you don't believe Samuel L. Jackson has ever been in the right place at the right time, remember: If he doesn't come out of his shop, Bruce Willis gets carved up in Die Hard With a Vengeance.
4. Freedom takes consistent work. If you want to remain free politically, read a lot and be an informed citizen and voter. If you want to be free intellectually, read a variety of literature, both fiction and non-fiction. If you want to be free financially, read your checking account register and keep it balanced every day.
5. If the New Orleans Saints want to win the Super Bowl, they need to do three things: (A) toughen up the running game; (B) force more turnovers on defense; and (C) avoid the Seattle Seahawks.
6. Here's what I know about criminal justice: If you eliminate the death penalty and put violent criminals and murderers in solitary confinement with nothing but Kenny G and Justin Bieber pumped through the sound system 24/7, I guarantee crime drops 90% nationwide.
7. Here's what I know about fashion: I like hunter green, navy blue, earth tones, and jeans.
8. If I have a choice between TGIFridays or Ruby Tuesday, I'm going with Fitz's.
9. The key to success in writing, marriage, parenthood, and life itself? Never quit.
10. Either the Christian Scriptures are totally off, or Jesus was a complete nutcase, or Jesus was a liar, or Jesus was who he claimed to be. Those are the only four options.
Deal with this blog post as you will. More coherent ideas to follow.
In reality, there are so many things that settling on one to develop in a blog post would be like nailing pudding to a wall. Thus, some scattered soundbites to get back in the blogging swing:
1. This is wisdom: If you are going to get fourteen inches of snow one day, and then the mercury drops to a wind chill of nearly forty degrees below zero the next morning…and if you need to shovel the driveway so your son's nurse can get in, do it in 5-7 minute piecemeal attempts. Guess who stayed out too long? Guess who nearly passed out when he came in? Guess whose temperature dropped below 96 degrees? Guess whose wife had to force feed him warm water and coffee to bring him back to normal? (Hint: If you answered those questions with "You did, Davis", congrats on your powers of perception)
2. When Christians were concerned about following the way of Christ, they didn't jack around complaining about the quality of their church's youth group programs or the length of the pastor's sermons, nor did they debate traditional music vs. contemporary praise songs or wring their hands over what political leverage they could use on abortion or gay marriage (mainly because they had no leverage of the sort when the Church was most gospel-vibrant). When I'm at church, if Scripture is explained clearly and God is honored, that's good enough. Everything spawns from that rather than influences it.
3. If you don't believe Samuel L. Jackson has ever been in the right place at the right time, remember: If he doesn't come out of his shop, Bruce Willis gets carved up in Die Hard With a Vengeance.
4. Freedom takes consistent work. If you want to remain free politically, read a lot and be an informed citizen and voter. If you want to be free intellectually, read a variety of literature, both fiction and non-fiction. If you want to be free financially, read your checking account register and keep it balanced every day.
5. If the New Orleans Saints want to win the Super Bowl, they need to do three things: (A) toughen up the running game; (B) force more turnovers on defense; and (C) avoid the Seattle Seahawks.
6. Here's what I know about criminal justice: If you eliminate the death penalty and put violent criminals and murderers in solitary confinement with nothing but Kenny G and Justin Bieber pumped through the sound system 24/7, I guarantee crime drops 90% nationwide.
7. Here's what I know about fashion: I like hunter green, navy blue, earth tones, and jeans.
8. If I have a choice between TGIFridays or Ruby Tuesday, I'm going with Fitz's.
9. The key to success in writing, marriage, parenthood, and life itself? Never quit.
10. Either the Christian Scriptures are totally off, or Jesus was a complete nutcase, or Jesus was a liar, or Jesus was who he claimed to be. Those are the only four options.
Deal with this blog post as you will. More coherent ideas to follow.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
With Gentleness and Respect
What an ending to 2013. And it had nothing to do with geopolitical rumblings, health care, or anything of that type.
It had to do with a Facebook thread that made me want to put my fist through a wall.
On Sunday, a friend and former student named Champ (not his real name) posted a link on Facebook that was loosely related to the whole Phil Robertson-Duck Dynasty schmozz. The link in question was from a gay student at the University of Louisiana at Monroe, raising the issue of feeling "trapped" and unable to be their authentic self, of being persecuted by family and others in Bible belt northern Louisiana. Champ placed the link on Facebook to pose the question if Phil (of Duck Dynasty fame) had his civil rights violated for being suspended from the show. As one can imagine, the people who chimed in got off topic in a matter of nanoseconds.
I won't go through every line of cybertext responses (the number has grown to over 380 of them!), but several things were clear. One, most of the people posting on the thread would likely not label themselves as evangelical Christians. Second, there was a wide range of sentiments on the issue of homosexuality, but the balance of comments were in the "live-and-let-live" range, with additional queries about "why do Christians need to be concerned about it". Thirdly, and sadly, there was one person posting--a former colleague of mine named Bruce (again, NOT his real name), a rabid ultra-rigid Christian ideologue who used the thread as his own personal firing range to display just how wrong he felt others were.
Look, Bruce and I might hold the same view about if homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle, but that's where the similarities end. Desperately trying to ensure there was more light than heat on this thread, I asked genuine questions of the others logging in. What can Christians do to engender more honest dialogue? Can't one disagree with a lifestyle but still like a person? What about all the junk and brokenness within a heterosexual Christian that gays have to put up with?
Anything for cleaner, more productive dialogue. Keep the tone even and placid. Invite options for thought. Pursue truth, not a knockout win in a debate.
Unfortunately, Bruce wanted none of it. He belittled other people's intelligence, tried to talk over people's heads, and overall treated others with very little of the spirit of Christ.
Not that there wasn't rancorous speech from others either, but Bruce--as I told my wife the next day--was making me embarrassed to be a Christian. I wish that wasn't the case, but it happened. Finally, Champ--after much time and warning--blocked Bruce and the conversation continued with a more civil tone.
Not that it stopped Bruce from posting on his own Facebook page, gushing chest-thumping pride that Champ had blocked him, saying "I guess my Christian witness was making waves."
Note to Bruce: Nothing you did helped there. All you did in attitude and speech was to drive people away from any attraction to the Christian faith. Yes, I Peter 3 says to "be able to give a reason for the hope that is within you", but the same sentence finishes with the words "but do this with gentleness and respect."
In fact, I felt I had more in common with Champ (who makes no profession of religious faith) and his fellow posting compatriots during the extension of the thread. What I discovered was that (not surprisingly) when you pose questions and invite people to put their beliefs in their own words with no threat of reprisal and no demand that they convert, they tend to reciprocate and listen to you.
What a concept, right? Actually, there's more.
I've been working on the sixth volume in my Cameron Ballack mystery series, but of course my finished production is well ahead of the publishing pace for now. Last night as I read Game of Thrones, I kept getting this nagging nudge about Champ's thread and that whole experience. I'm an Ethics teacher in Christian education. I write books. I also believe that instruction and understanding happen best when presented conversationally, creativity, and compassionately.
And thus, my New Years' resolution: There is virtually no textbook or book in general out there for students in high school, on the subject of Christian ethics that holds to those three C's of conversational, creative, and compassionate. That void is getting filled. By me. My mystery series can take a brief hiatus. This book needs to be written.
To Champ, for starting the thread, and to all of you who chimed in…thank you for the conversation…and for the inspiration to make a different type of impact.
It had to do with a Facebook thread that made me want to put my fist through a wall.
On Sunday, a friend and former student named Champ (not his real name) posted a link on Facebook that was loosely related to the whole Phil Robertson-Duck Dynasty schmozz. The link in question was from a gay student at the University of Louisiana at Monroe, raising the issue of feeling "trapped" and unable to be their authentic self, of being persecuted by family and others in Bible belt northern Louisiana. Champ placed the link on Facebook to pose the question if Phil (of Duck Dynasty fame) had his civil rights violated for being suspended from the show. As one can imagine, the people who chimed in got off topic in a matter of nanoseconds.
I won't go through every line of cybertext responses (the number has grown to over 380 of them!), but several things were clear. One, most of the people posting on the thread would likely not label themselves as evangelical Christians. Second, there was a wide range of sentiments on the issue of homosexuality, but the balance of comments were in the "live-and-let-live" range, with additional queries about "why do Christians need to be concerned about it". Thirdly, and sadly, there was one person posting--a former colleague of mine named Bruce (again, NOT his real name), a rabid ultra-rigid Christian ideologue who used the thread as his own personal firing range to display just how wrong he felt others were.
Look, Bruce and I might hold the same view about if homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle, but that's where the similarities end. Desperately trying to ensure there was more light than heat on this thread, I asked genuine questions of the others logging in. What can Christians do to engender more honest dialogue? Can't one disagree with a lifestyle but still like a person? What about all the junk and brokenness within a heterosexual Christian that gays have to put up with?
Anything for cleaner, more productive dialogue. Keep the tone even and placid. Invite options for thought. Pursue truth, not a knockout win in a debate.
Unfortunately, Bruce wanted none of it. He belittled other people's intelligence, tried to talk over people's heads, and overall treated others with very little of the spirit of Christ.
Not that there wasn't rancorous speech from others either, but Bruce--as I told my wife the next day--was making me embarrassed to be a Christian. I wish that wasn't the case, but it happened. Finally, Champ--after much time and warning--blocked Bruce and the conversation continued with a more civil tone.
Not that it stopped Bruce from posting on his own Facebook page, gushing chest-thumping pride that Champ had blocked him, saying "I guess my Christian witness was making waves."
Note to Bruce: Nothing you did helped there. All you did in attitude and speech was to drive people away from any attraction to the Christian faith. Yes, I Peter 3 says to "be able to give a reason for the hope that is within you", but the same sentence finishes with the words "but do this with gentleness and respect."
In fact, I felt I had more in common with Champ (who makes no profession of religious faith) and his fellow posting compatriots during the extension of the thread. What I discovered was that (not surprisingly) when you pose questions and invite people to put their beliefs in their own words with no threat of reprisal and no demand that they convert, they tend to reciprocate and listen to you.
What a concept, right? Actually, there's more.
I've been working on the sixth volume in my Cameron Ballack mystery series, but of course my finished production is well ahead of the publishing pace for now. Last night as I read Game of Thrones, I kept getting this nagging nudge about Champ's thread and that whole experience. I'm an Ethics teacher in Christian education. I write books. I also believe that instruction and understanding happen best when presented conversationally, creativity, and compassionately.
And thus, my New Years' resolution: There is virtually no textbook or book in general out there for students in high school, on the subject of Christian ethics that holds to those three C's of conversational, creative, and compassionate. That void is getting filled. By me. My mystery series can take a brief hiatus. This book needs to be written.
To Champ, for starting the thread, and to all of you who chimed in…thank you for the conversation…and for the inspiration to make a different type of impact.
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
Christmas: The Visited Planet
“But
you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah,
from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin
is from old, from ancient days. And he shall stand and shepherd his flock in
the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God. And
they shall dwell secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth.
And he shall be their peace.” (Micah 5:2, 4-5a)
No,
sorry to disappoint you readers, but there is still no Duck Dynasty follow-up
to yesterday’s post. Enough has been said.
Plus,
when it comes to matters like that, I always begin by asking my “catacombs
question.” As in: Think about the early
Christians, persecuted and worshipping in hidden corridors and catacombs below
Rome. Would ________ have been one of their primary concerns?
I
doubt the Phil Robertson quote and subsequent response would have been on their
radar. But the God-Man, Jesus Christ would have dominated their minds and
hearts. So let’s stick to that.
And
even though it’s Christmas Eve here in St. Louis, I’m making this my Christmas
reflection. It is now officially Christmas Day in Bethlehem, after all.
Speaking of which…Bethlehem. Why Bethlehem?
Why that small little insignificant village as the birthplace of God who became
human?
Granted,
there is the fulfillment of prophecy. And it gave Jesus royal legitimacy, as
Bethlehem had been the hometown of his ancestor, the great King David. But it
was hardly sized well for the arrival of the Savior and Lord of the world.
There were maybe a couple hundred people living in Bethlehem during Micah’s
day. It would be the equivalent of someone in 1900 predicting that the fiftieth
president of the United States would be born in Grano, North Dakota. Even the
name of Bethlehem was more befitting a bakery (the name means “house of bread”)
than a birthplace of the Messiah.
So
why Bethlehem? Maybe its tiny nature was meant to show us how remote our
existence is to the rest of the universe God created. We are just a speck of
cosmic lint in the middle of nowhere. And yet to this planet Earth, God placed
humans whom he wanted to enjoy and love. And to this planet Earth, God arrived
in the form of a baby taking his initial gulps of air with struggling lungs.
The
author J.B. Phillips attempted to show this perspective through a short fantasy
tale. In this story, a senior angel is showing a very young angel the entire
universe on a dazzling tour. They view whirling galaxies, enjoy a variety of
constellations, skip past black holes and the occasional nebula, until at last
they enter a smaller galaxy of “only” 500 billion stars. Phillips says:
“As the two of them drew near to the star
which we call our sun and to its circling planets, the senior angel pointed to
a small and rather insignificant sphere turning very slowly on its axis. It
looked as dull as a dirty tennis ball to the little angel, whose mind was
filled with the size and glory of what he had previously seen.
‘I want you to watch that one
particularly,’ said the senior angel, pointing with his finger.
‘Well, it looks very small and
rather dirty to me,’ said the little angel. ‘What’s special about that one?”
He listened in stunned disbelief as
the senior angel told him that this planet of white swirls and a mix of blues,
greens, and browns, very small and not overly clean, was the famed Visited
Planet.
‘Do you mean that our great and
glorious Prince…went down in Person to this fifth-rate little ball? Why should
he do a thing like that? Do you mean to tell me,’ continued the little angel,
‘that He stooped so low as to become one of those creeping, crawling creatures
of that floating ball?’
‘I do,’ said the senior angel, ‘and
I don’t think He would like you to call them creeping, crawling creatures in
that tone of voice. For, strange as it may seem to us, He loves them. He went
down to visit them to lift them up to become like Him.’
The little angel looked blank. Such
a thought was almost beyond his comprehension.[1]
So
why Bethlehem? Maybe because it represents our human existence in city form.
And yet Jesus visited. Jesus stayed. Jesus died. And Jesus lives.
For
you. For me. Who remain on this visited planet.
Monday, December 23, 2013
The Kerfluffle Many Christians Have Overlooked
Okay. Everyone and their pregnant poodle have commented on the Duck Dynasty/A&E/Phil Robertson/Cracker Barrel's foot-in-their-mouth controversy. So here's my opinion in short form.
1. What did Phil Robertson think a GQ reporter was going to do with his words?
2. What did GQ (and A&E, for that matter) expect a garden-variety Louisiana redneck to say about homosexuality, etc.?
3. Phil Robertson should have thought about how he framed stuff. His words on the appeal of lady parts over a man's backside, while the opinion of many people, in fact objectified women and the gift of sex.
4. You can disagree with a lifestyle and still love the person. You can say greed is sinful (by the way, greed is one of the sins listed with homosexuality in I Corinthians 6…many Christians tend to forget that) and still love a greedy person. You can deplore drunkenness and still love an alcoholic. And you can say homosexuality is sinful but love gay people authentically. I do. Part of that is being willingly tempered by humility and admitting, "I need gay people to be willing to accept me with all my sin, like greed, pride, unrighteous anger, and the like."
Got that? It's all I'm saying about Duck Dynasty. Because it's not the issue with a Christian personality that I want to discuss.
This is:
Many people--especially evangelicals within what is commonly called the Neo-Calvinist movement--know of Mark Driscoll, the lead pastor of Mars Hill Church, a Reformed Christian megachurch in Seattle which could hold about ten to twenty of John Calvin's Sunday morning huddles at St. Pierre's-Geneva. Driscoll is a popular preacher and speaker and a prolific writer; his books Doctrine and Confessions of a Reformission Rev have been tremendously helpful to me. Driscoll is known for being forthright on being a strict biblicist, his strong complementation views on gender roles, and a master strategist on church planting and vision.
And he writes a ton. And that's the controversy that's going on.
Just over a month ago, Driscoll was interviewed on Janet Mefferd's radio talk show about his new book A Call to Resurgence when Mefferd produced some alleged instances in Driscoll's previous works. In these books, information and statements that are clearly the work of other authors (like Peter Jones, Dan Allender, etc.) are used but credit is never given to these writers. There is more detail about this Mefferd interview, but rather than reproducing it here, you can read this summary here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2013/12/02/on-the-allegations-of-plagiarism-against-mark-driscoll/
Read it? Good. Now why do I think this is a bigger deal than the Duck Dynasty schmozz?
1. It's not because I have an issue with Mark Driscoll personally. I like his preaching and--while I don't line up with him on every point--I marvel at how God has used him to reach an unchurched, postmodern area like Seattle with the Gospel.
2. I am very steamed over the sloppiness of his written work, even if these matters are careless work more than they are plagiarism. For one, if your name is on the cover of the book as the author, then own up to the fact you need to do all the work in putting it together. I might have some very modest sales of Litany of Secrets, but I can at least say the entire story is mine and mine alone and all the settings are rigorously authentic. Yes, P.D. James influenced my writing, but I had the integrity to specifically state that in my preface. Secondly, in all likelihood, Driscoll seems to have had a research team do the study work for his books. In my opinion, he needs to make a decision: Be a pastor, or write his own stuff from start to finish. Don't think you can do both authentically well.
3. In closing, I don't think that the main issue here is plagiarism or sloppiness in research. It happens to be what seems to be at the heart of American culture, especially the soft underbelly of hipster Christianity. The problem is the idolatry of evangelical leadership by their followers. The center of the Christian faith is the Gospel, not the people who proclaim it or their understanding of it. But the way some of my acquaintances talk about people like Driscoll and others (trust me, I'm not raking Driscoll over the coals on this one), you'd never know the difference. And I can tell you this: We seem to have a major crush on the personalities who herald the faith when we should be more concerned with the God who gives that same faith as a gift.
Sorry for this getting so lengthy. Maybe you disagree with me. That's why there's a comment area. But that's my take: The idolatry present in the Driscoll controversy is more hidden, but more potentially deadly, than anything that Duck Dynasty will produce.
And that is all.
1. What did Phil Robertson think a GQ reporter was going to do with his words?
2. What did GQ (and A&E, for that matter) expect a garden-variety Louisiana redneck to say about homosexuality, etc.?
3. Phil Robertson should have thought about how he framed stuff. His words on the appeal of lady parts over a man's backside, while the opinion of many people, in fact objectified women and the gift of sex.
4. You can disagree with a lifestyle and still love the person. You can say greed is sinful (by the way, greed is one of the sins listed with homosexuality in I Corinthians 6…many Christians tend to forget that) and still love a greedy person. You can deplore drunkenness and still love an alcoholic. And you can say homosexuality is sinful but love gay people authentically. I do. Part of that is being willingly tempered by humility and admitting, "I need gay people to be willing to accept me with all my sin, like greed, pride, unrighteous anger, and the like."
Got that? It's all I'm saying about Duck Dynasty. Because it's not the issue with a Christian personality that I want to discuss.
This is:
Many people--especially evangelicals within what is commonly called the Neo-Calvinist movement--know of Mark Driscoll, the lead pastor of Mars Hill Church, a Reformed Christian megachurch in Seattle which could hold about ten to twenty of John Calvin's Sunday morning huddles at St. Pierre's-Geneva. Driscoll is a popular preacher and speaker and a prolific writer; his books Doctrine and Confessions of a Reformission Rev have been tremendously helpful to me. Driscoll is known for being forthright on being a strict biblicist, his strong complementation views on gender roles, and a master strategist on church planting and vision.
And he writes a ton. And that's the controversy that's going on.
Just over a month ago, Driscoll was interviewed on Janet Mefferd's radio talk show about his new book A Call to Resurgence when Mefferd produced some alleged instances in Driscoll's previous works. In these books, information and statements that are clearly the work of other authors (like Peter Jones, Dan Allender, etc.) are used but credit is never given to these writers. There is more detail about this Mefferd interview, but rather than reproducing it here, you can read this summary here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2013/12/02/on-the-allegations-of-plagiarism-against-mark-driscoll/
Read it? Good. Now why do I think this is a bigger deal than the Duck Dynasty schmozz?
1. It's not because I have an issue with Mark Driscoll personally. I like his preaching and--while I don't line up with him on every point--I marvel at how God has used him to reach an unchurched, postmodern area like Seattle with the Gospel.
2. I am very steamed over the sloppiness of his written work, even if these matters are careless work more than they are plagiarism. For one, if your name is on the cover of the book as the author, then own up to the fact you need to do all the work in putting it together. I might have some very modest sales of Litany of Secrets, but I can at least say the entire story is mine and mine alone and all the settings are rigorously authentic. Yes, P.D. James influenced my writing, but I had the integrity to specifically state that in my preface. Secondly, in all likelihood, Driscoll seems to have had a research team do the study work for his books. In my opinion, he needs to make a decision: Be a pastor, or write his own stuff from start to finish. Don't think you can do both authentically well.
3. In closing, I don't think that the main issue here is plagiarism or sloppiness in research. It happens to be what seems to be at the heart of American culture, especially the soft underbelly of hipster Christianity. The problem is the idolatry of evangelical leadership by their followers. The center of the Christian faith is the Gospel, not the people who proclaim it or their understanding of it. But the way some of my acquaintances talk about people like Driscoll and others (trust me, I'm not raking Driscoll over the coals on this one), you'd never know the difference. And I can tell you this: We seem to have a major crush on the personalities who herald the faith when we should be more concerned with the God who gives that same faith as a gift.
Sorry for this getting so lengthy. Maybe you disagree with me. That's why there's a comment area. But that's my take: The idolatry present in the Driscoll controversy is more hidden, but more potentially deadly, than anything that Duck Dynasty will produce.
And that is all.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Advent: Shocking Our Assumptions
“Today
in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. This
will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a
manger.” (Luke
2:11-12)
How
often we hear these words spoken during Advent, and how little we are shocked
by them. A divine being is supposed to be decked out in glory and splendor.
Imagine how confused the shepherds might have been to hear that Israel’s King
was a little baby that was trying to take his first breaths.
Humility
was Jesus’ tagline from birth onward. Many religions proclaim that their “God
is great” (an exact rallying cry of the Muslims), but one of the central truths
of Christianity is that God became little.
Jesus could have commanded the winds and waves by a snap of his fingers from
heaven; now he was an infant newly removed from the womb who couldn’t eat solid
food and only communicated through cries, fully dependent upon a carpenter
father and teenage mother.
Philip
Yancey describes the fanfare that accompanied Queen Elizabeth II on her trip to
the United States. She brought along four thousand pounds of luggage, which
included two outfits for every occasion; a mourning suit in case someone died;
forty pints of plasma; and white kid leather toilet seat covers. She also
brought along her own hairdresser, two valets, and many other attendants. This
sort of activity, while a bit much, was common for British royalty.
By
contrast, Jesus came to earth in humble fashion, shocking our assumptions about
the manner of God’s arrival in the flesh. His first bed was a feeding trough. A
mule could have stepped on him.[1]
By
virtue of his entry, Jesus affirmed many of the truths that would mark his
ministry: The last shall be first. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit
the earth. Receive the kingdom of God as a little child. Such truths shock
people out of their usual modes of thinking. But they are essential for us to
live in God’s kingdom. Unless we humble ourselves and strip away our pride, we
will never enter the kingdom that Jesus proclaimed by word and deed. And once
in that kingdom, we keep living in ways that defy reason. Such is the life we
are called to by our Savior, who knows a thing or two about changing the rules
of the game.
Monday, December 16, 2013
Advent: Who Are We to Dictate Terms?
“And
his father and his mother marveled at what was said about him. And Simeon
blessed them and said to Mary his mother, ‘Behold, this child is appointed for
the fall and rising of many in Israel (and a sword will pierce through your own
soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.” (Luke
2:33-35)
We
pick up today at the point where I left off with Simeon a few blog posts ago. Here he
says some tough words to Jesus’ mother Mary. While many people think of Jesus
as a sweet child and a unifying public figure, Simeon here seems to indicate
that Jesus will rough up the social structure. Nothing is safe.
Is
this cruel of Simeon? Not at all. He at least lays out exactly what we can
expect from Jesus. Hard moments may lie ahead; dark journeys may follow. Even
Jesus would be no stranger to conflict. But this is what will be. And before we
start to complain and say, “This isn’t the kind of Jesus I envisioned!”, we
have to face this reality: Who are we to dictate terms to Jesus? Who are we to
say how he should conduct his ministry in our lives?
A
number of years ago, a professor in a graduate school in the Deep South[1] was besieged by complaints
from many students. You see, they were approaching the final exam in the
course, and the students couldn’t figure out how to get started on studying for
the test. So the professor, in a moment of academic tenderness and wondrous
compassion, went through the semester’s worth of material that night. The next
time the class met, the professor handed out a comprehensive study guide of
some eighty-five questions. And now the complaints erupted in earnest! Why?
Because the students griped there was too much information to study for the
final exam! Was the professor cruel? I think not.[2] The students now were at
least aware of what they needed to study. They had been brought face to face
with the honest truth. And who were they to dictate to the professor how the
exam should go?
That
is a little bit like following Jesus. We may read the Gospels and discover a
wildly unpredictable Savior,[3] or we may see how our
relationship with Christ creates more lurches and bumps than smooth paths. You
know what? The Bible at least is honest about what you can expect. We are not
designed to dictate how our spiritual journeys should go. But we can discover a Messiah whose grace and mercy run wild, crazy and free. And while living that
life may seem like being a kite in a hurricane, for me it certainly beats the alternative!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)