Explosive messages

Extremism is quite ridiculous, and according to the news, quite prevalent.

It is especially active in Iraq and Afghanistan where soldiers are stationed fighting terrorism and promoting democracy; unfortunately this leads to us seeing extremism as being promoted by only by Muslims.

This of course isn't true, I remember Eric Rudolph's bombing of Olympic Park bombing in 1996 not to mention his other bombings around Atlanta in the mid-90s.  His religion was that of Christianity.  There are numerous other groups that claim Christianity as their religion and are extremists as well.  Political groups can be extremists as well.  The Nazis, Stalin's communism, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were all extreme, of course they aren't called extremists, they are guilty of genocide interestingly enough.

But when you think about it, what really drives anyone to be so extreme?  I don't think they are motivated so much by hate as they are by fear.  And they fear that this other ideology is not simply against them but against the humanity that they care about.  I know it sounds ridiculous.  Consider Hitler, I would say that he hated the Jews not because they were Jews but because he loved Germany.  Thus, to ensure the success of Germany he had to to away with the "Marxist Jews".  I'll admit that this is extremely simplistic and a reading of Mein Kampf might help.  It almost seems legitimate... almost.  

I mean there is no justification for what Hitler did, or anyone who commits extreme acts of violence.  But I can understand at least what drives them to it.  Fear.  Its like a last ditch effort, you see a high probability of failure, of destruction and somehow you need to find a way to fix it and then you find a scapegoat.  The only course of action then is to take care of the problem, by blowing up Americans or abortion clinics or systematically killing a people group.  To be honest, I find myself falling into these fears at times.  Fears of psychological and eating disorders fueled by fashion models, fear of extremists Christians groups ruining the message of Christ, fears of corporations and government ruining the environment, fears of Obama ruining the nation... OK, so not really the last one, perhaps a fear of Glenn Beck ruining the nation...? 

At any rate, I would say that they are substantial fears that, if realized, have far reaching implications.  But what can I do?  I mean, I feasibly can't change the corporate world of fashion or industry, I can't feasibly change the way politics are done, I can't feasibly change the crazy ideas of Christian extremists.   What can I do?  What course of action could I take that could change anything?  The extremist idea would be to blow something up to send a message, and as an individual I could do that, and if there is enough planning you not only blow something up, but you do it big, like the Twin Towers, that sends a big message, or you do it intelligently that shuts down the function of something, like in Fight Club.  I can easily see how fear could lead someone(s) to think in such a way, it is very simple (illogical) logic.

I am very thankful though that my fears are allayed by my faith in Christ.  I don't have to commit extreme acts to ensure a place in an other worldly paradise, nor do I have to do so to make this place a paradise.  Because this place will become paradise, whether I do anything to further that or not.  I could actually play a part in destroying the world and it would become paradise, of course it would be a miserable existence until then, but it would become it nonetheless.  This is the glory of the New Jerusalem being here on this 3rd planet from the Sun, and the glory that it is the risen Christ that will be the one who brings it.  There is no need for me to exercise vengeance or justice either.  I don't need to be the one that blows up those whom I think are committing acts of injustice or destruction, because it is the risen Christ that does that also.  Thus, when I experience fear, I am not filled with hopelessness that drives extremism, I am filled with hope.

I hope that the work Christ began, he is finishing. 

until a later time.

So I have no idea if I am going to post at all this week like I was planning on.... I doubt it honestly.  I figured that I had a lot of free time ahead of me this week to both write up some more thoughts and read, but I don't know if its because I'm lazy or because I haven't had the time that I thought I was going to have.  I'm thinking its mostly because I'm lazy, hahaha.  Of course I've also been pretty busy.  Monday I feel like me and Alison, errr Alison and I, ran around a bunch doing a lot of petty errands and tasks; then Tuesday we did the same thing again, only this time it was my petty errands and tasks we were taking care of.

Good news though!  I got an 89 on my Old Testament test, which is great! I was definitely surprised by the grade, I thought it was going to be around a low B, but it wasn't!  I also got an A on a paper for my pastoral care class!  On the whole I ended up with a 3.75 GPA for the semester, which I was surprised by, I really didn't expect it; I was hoping for a 3.5 but I guess I'll settle for more....  My worst grade came in the class that was more writing intensive... go figure, I have my dad's amazing writing ability (I think only my dad and mom are going to get the sarcasm in that one).  I also think I could have gotten a better grade in the class had I gotten a better grade on the last paper, but I don't think 3 pages was enough to write all that I wanted and all that I should have written, at least according to the comments on the paper. it would at least have needed to have been a 5/6 page paper, and a clearer prompt; I just thought it was a simple paper on my own thoughts, not a paper in which I had to write for it but argue against possible ideas against it.
But that's neither here nor there.  I'll keep on keeping on striving for A's and not settling for less, which should be a blast!

It tastes so good, but it smells so bad.

I consider myself an evangelical, and I'm dang proud of it!
Then again, I'm not so proud of it.
I have a love hate relationship with evangelicalism, much like I have a love hate relationship with most things I love/hate... Methodism, the Bulldogs, the Falcons, technology, nature (I love nature out there, I don't love nature when it comes to a yard), etc.

The thing I love about evangelicalism is that its vibrant, in my experience evangelicalism gets it; it gets what life abundantly in Christ is like.  Its not staid or lame Christianity, it inspires life in a way that I didn't get from tradition or ritual.  I love how it one of its doctrines is that all knowledge is measured by Scripture; I love that it sees its purpose is to spread the gospel, not only by evangelism, but by mission work as well.   It doesn't mind going against the grain on somethings that it perceives are wrong.

There are somethings that I don't like, let Evolution and the Big Bang be an example.  Evolution and Big Bang theories are divisive, not because of the science, but because of the application.  It has been applied by many to disprove God, or at the very least used to promote a degree of doubt and ask hard questions.  However, the science itself is neutral; well, at least I see it this way.  Most of evangelicalism, at least the conservative voices that seem to speak louder than the rest, see the science as the problem and the solution is to promote Creationism.
I can't blame them for wanting to counter the evolutionists; I want to as well, but I think that they're going about it in all the wrong way.  The way to do it is to redeem the applications of the science, not deny it the science itself.  Even if they want to deny it, they need to counter it and point out holes in the research; they then need to promote other research that they can prove is reliable, because you know its going to have a bunch of evolutionists trying to poke holes in it.  Unfortunately, I have not seen either of these things done.  All  I am given are unfounded hypotheses that attempt to counter evolution because its "illogical" outcomes or that its wrong because "that's not what the Bible says."  Well, fantastic, but the Bible can be made to say a lot of things! But I have also not seen a good counter to an allegorical interpretation of the creation account; no, the only good responses are those against reinterpretations of the length of it being longer than 6 days of 24 hours each.

Regardless, all I am saying is that the pendulum of scientific understanding swung away from the traditional Christian interpretation and understanding of the universe's origins and instead of reassessing the interpretation and understanding to see if this new scientific model could in fact be more correct, they deny that there is any science that is worth countering and call all of its adherents heretics.  Reminds me of a certain Catholic Church's dealing with Galileo.

It's frustrating for me because I see how it marginalizes others and makes Christianity, much less faith in Christ, unappealing to them, as well as seemingly unattainable.  It's frustrating to experience because I am made to feel guilty and told my belief system is unbiblical Christianity.  Somehow I just don't think Jesus would have done this...  I could go on about why I think it happens this way, but personally I'm tired of typing, haha!  And I'm pretty sure it'd be a moo[t] point; you know a cow's opinion (name the reference!).

That is, of course, unless I'm begged to do so.
Oh and some other things I don't like: the evangelical love for the Republican party or Tea Party, the lack of ascetic practices, the desire to do away with tradition, and others that I could think of I'm sure.
I love evangelical Christianity, it helped me taste and see the goodness of God, but sometimes it just smells so bad...

turn it inside out

Christmas is awesome.
I love Christmas.  I love Christmas music, and I love Christmas cheer, and "the best way to spread Christmas cheer is by singing loud for all to hear"- Elf.

I also love Christmas for the fact of little baby Jesus.  Yes, he is our savior and that is way totally awesome, but it is so much deeper than that.  It's ridiculous when you actually think about Christmas, like what went on.  It's not just that Jesus was born, but it's that Jesus was born... am I confusing you?
Let me put it like this, Jesus, Son of God and God incarnate, was born as a human.  That is impressive, and I think some get it, but many people don't get it.  Pithy phrases like "Jesus is the reason for the season" just don't capture it.   Most have this idea of Jesus being born in a barn to ultimately die for the redemption of humanity and this other idea of Jesus being one with the Father, and they never put two and two together.


This one thing has really been sticking out more and more to me lately, the sheer contradiction of Jesus a human and God a not-human.  When God comes into this world as Jesus, God essentially became not-God.  Think of it, God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, holy and glorious.  Jesus is finite in everyone of those areas, he had finite power, finite knowledge, finite presence, was born and raised not by a priestly family of affluence, but by an poorer carpenter family - there's is nothing holy and glorious about that.  The climax of the life of Jesus is even more ridiculous, he becomes sin; there is nothing more opposite of God than that.  God came to earth as Jesus to essentially not be himself, not just be not himself, but the polar opposite.

This is not to say that Jesus couldn't have been more like a deity.  Jesus most definitely had the capabilities, but Phil. 2:6 puts it like this "though being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped."  INCREDIBLE!  Think of what Jesus could have been, but what Jesus was.  He could have called on the angels to rescue him, but he didn't.  He could have.... done well pretty much anything to make him more glorious, and yet he didn't.  He remained a humble servant of not only God, but of humanity... the most high God became the most humble of creatures, and not only that but served them and is the sacrifice for them as well.

I just think its incredible that God turned himself inside out for us.  He not only bent over backwards, but became not-God, he became opposite his nature and character just to rescue us.  Why?  It'd be like me becoming last so that I may be first, or leaving 99 sheep to find one.  It is illogical and stupid, and yet its what God has done.  God went off and got illogical; he became the very opposite of everything he was to open the gates of the kingdom for sinners like me.

half of my heart

No I'm not thinking of the John Mayer song, but I do like it.  And if you're like me once you get a thought of something in your head you just have to get that taken care of.  So here, enjoy Half of My Heart by John Mayer:





I was praying through Jeremiah 29:11-14 and this idea of only seeking God with half of my heart hit me hard.  Most often when you look into this passage, only verse 11 sticks out, "For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." When I first started praying through it, that was what hit me too, but then I verse 13 really started sticking out to me, "You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart."  


The word translated as heart in the original Hebrew is lebab; it means something far more than what we mean when we speak of heart.  Heart to us is a strong feeling of emotion, some might call it soul, but it does not connote much more than strong feelings and desires.  "I give you my heart," is an example where we are giving all of our emotions and feelings to someone.   Lebab on the other hand is far more than that; it is more along the lines of whole being, heart, soul, emotions, thoughts, mind, etc.  Everything that someone is is their lebab.  


Luckily, I knew this fact going in and it really opened my eyes.  I often speak of the pride I find in my knowledge, and it yet again rears its ugly head here.  I am only throwing half of my heart in my quest for God more often than not.  I find that when I seek, it is mostly a thought processes: a question of why or how something is, concluding in understanding.  Rarely is it a emotive or physical process, and when it is those, rarely is it ever holistic, it's always either/or.  This enlightenment frustrates me.  One of my greatest strengths is even more so one of my greatest faults.
This does have a silver lining though; in seminary, I am at a place where thinking takes a high priority, and so when I am wanting to meet God I simply don't want to do a study or think more.  I am already exhausted of thinking.  What I find myself wanting to do is rest and enjoy - a very physical and emotional thing I have found.  And thankfully my prayer life in this and for this is being blessed.


I wonder though if this is something that will stick with me or if I will default back to my faulty asset.  This is a fear of mine I admit.  I do not want to keep seeking God with half of my heart, because I simply will not fully find him.  I want to seek God with everything so that I can truly enjoy everything of him.  There is a delight that I am finding right now in seeking God with more than my mind through some sort of Scripture study.  This is something that I want to maintain, and whereas I have my fears I also know that God is faithful.

Why I do what I'm doing

I don't think I have ever fully expressed why I write things on here.
There are two reasons really, the first one is the secondary reason, and the second is the primary reason.  So I'll start with the secondary first.  I write because I think.  I am one of those guys that gets a thought and it simply stays in my head until it gets out somehow.  Well this blog is this somehow.  My head will seriously explode, I think and I dwell and think some more.  Its why some posts will have another post dealing with further thoughts. You think that after 25 years I'd be able to help, but unfortunately it's only gotten worse.  Seminary hasn't helped either, actually its only made me think more.  I am glad I started this at the beginning of the semester because I have seriously needed it.
Secondly, the primary reason I do this is so people whom I don't see or talk to everyday anymore can still hear my experiences.  One of the frustrating things that I have experienced having moved form Greensboro is that I no longer have those friends to constantly talk to about stuff that I am pondering.  Whether or not they enjoyed it... well I'll just assume they did, and I hope they are able to enjoy this as well.  This allows them to still hear me and be involved with me I guess.  At least this is my hope.
Perhaps what I really want is just a place to put my thoughts down and hope that this place is the same place that old friends still converse with me about ideas.....

And I suppose the most minor of third reasons... maybe someone important will read something and the world will be changed!!!!!
But lets not get ahead of ourselves....

another thought on liturgy

I know, this is another blog that provides concluding thoughts on the blog before.  Its like an unintended continuation.  But I just have these last words, so bear with me....

Liturgy means "the work of the people."  When we have a church service, however we do it, it is a liturgy, and as such it means that the people in the service are doing some sort of work, be it productive or slothful.  I drew a dichotomy between traditional and contemporary services last time, but admitted that both are doing a liturgy. I think my conclusion that both can be good holds true.

But the understanding of liturgy as work can help fill out what I meant.  To see it as work is rather contrary to much of how modern American culture, and western culture also, see church.  Church is not a place where you go to work; instead,you go to enjoy the service and get something out of it. If you work you're putting something into it!  This, unfortunately, is a problem that arises in a consumer culture.  We would much rather go to a place where we feel ourselves to be thoroughly satisfied.  It can be done in any setting, traditional or contemporary; it can feed off of music, architecture, symbolism, preaching, etc.  I can think of two ways this problem developed: one, the lack inviting people into the experience gotten out of the work of liturgy and, two, the development of worship formulated specifically to capture such a consumer mentality.

This is frustrating, because it not only allows for dead hearts, but it creates a dead church.  The work of the people does something, it creates a luminal space, that is a space in between the here and the there.  There is something spectacular and moving about being in a position that is caught between the finite, temporality of life and the infinite glory of God.  When the liturgy dies by feeding people their consumerism or becoming staid and dry this luminal space dies with it; people no longer connect with the infinite majesty of God, they connect with the depravity of their own souls.  This then limits the ability of the Spirit to enlighten and sanctify us. (Of course the Spirit is infinite in power and ability, I am simply saying that if we are not helping the Spirit we are working against it.)
People want to come to church to get something out of it, and by every means we should assist them in that.  That doesn't mean, however, that we should give them the consumerism they are looking for.  We need to open them up to the power of God through some type of good liturgy.  Only then will they realize that what they were looking for pales in comparison to what they get from the experience of luminality.  We need to give them God, and God is not found in a culture of sin, but in his glory.

to liturgy or not liturgy...

So I've been thinking a lot lately on liturgy, whether to have it or not to have it.  I started realizing that there really is no not having liturgy, even the more contemporary churches who don't do a traditional liturgy have a liturgy as this video expresses:

 

So upon coming to the conclusion that this contemporary style is a liturgy I began debating on which was better, the traditional liturgy or this "new" liturgy.
The pros of the traditional liturgy is that it is wrought with symbolism, its centered around meaning in absolutely everything even the most minute details; now I'll admit there are details lost on me and I have no idea what some things symbolize, but I would like to know nonetheless.  The symbolism gives this liturgy its power, the way the worship area is set up down to how the service proceeds.  If you could get tap into that symbolism and get people to "get it" then the experience of worship becomes amazing.
There are cons though, and ultimately churches, in my opinion, have done a down-right crappy job of helping people get it and because of that the service doesn't explode with meaning, but gets staid, tired and old.  The service drones on because people aren't emotionally involved.  Sure you can spice it up with some good songs and some good words and phrases in the right places, but if the people don't connect with the meaning behind everything then its all for naught and you have simply hit an emotional nerve.  Which is why people seek out the new liturgy, it taps into their emotions.

So the pros of the new liturgy are that they do indeed touch our experience and emotions, they seek to connect with us in that way because the symbolism and ritual, all wrought with meaning, is lost on these worshipers.  Thus, they set up the worship setting and service in a way that enables people to connect... a rock concert.  Don't deny it, you don't go to a concert/show/performance of some band/artist you love and don't get totally caught up into the songs/lyrics/moment.  So as I was saying with the symbolism, you tap into people's experience of things and they get caught up into it and it moves them.  This can connect with people, its why a lot of traditionally traditional churches are moving to it.  They want to reach the unchurched and dechurched who are turned off and repulsed by the perceived deadness of traditional churches because the symbolism didn't connect with them.
But there are cons to this too.  Where is the meaning?  Its essentially flip flopped from the old liturgy, it hits people's experience, but by purely emotional means and not by the power of ritual and symbolism.  There's a reason traditional churches look completely different than the boxes of new churches, one is built around symbolism and ritual, and the other is built around experience.  So I am frustrated by the lack of symbols and ritual.  They reach these unchurched and dechurch and get them caught up in the experience of joy found in a relationship with Christ, and yet they don't get at the nuances and the beauty of the minute things, which are actually big things, in Scripture that the symbolism gets at.

So the conclusion that I have come to is, well, I prefer neither or I prefer both.  They both have amazing strengths, but those strengths become their weaknesses. We need a mix of both, and that has been done, I've experienced it.  Unfortunately, that experience after a while became staid and dull as well.  Ultimately, I would prefer to some how mix the two, but it can be just one type of mix.  I love having the experience of a church rock concert every now and then just as much as I enjoy having the experience of a high church service every now and then just as much as I enjoy the experience of a blended service, so long as they are done well.

I guess what I am trying to get at is what we don't need is a liturgy that we can plug in because it works well and then forget about it except for changing the songs and prayers each week.  Nor do we need a service that we use because it gets across what we want it to get across without somehow inviting people into what we want the liturgy to do and what it means.
Liturgy needs to be dynamic, because God is dynamic.  One set of symbolism and ritual doesn't get at the complexity of God and it never can get at it unless we load it with so much stuff that we need to make a reality show of it on A&E.  We should not only be willing, but needing to change up how we do church more frequently than we do.  We need to change it not because membership is dropping or because we want a new format, but because we need to, want to express the glory of God in a new way.  Heck do it every week if you can, but don't even do it on a time table, make it haphazard, cause really that's how we experience God, and that's kind of how God revealed himself, in crazy ways that we look at and are like "huh?"
Liturgy also needs to be done well.  It can be the most dynamic, amazing, symbolic, emotional experience ever and still be terrible and isolated from the congregation.  We can't just do it and hope people get it.  We need to invite people into it every step of the way, with a sentence or paragraph at the beginning or at every point in the service that we do something.   And it needs to be done IN the service, not have a class on it, or a Wednesday night study on it.  It needs to be able to invite long time members as much as first time visitors from other traditions or lack of tradition.

That's my conclusion, now the problem is.... how do I get this to "work?"  How do you get a church in on this and what are the practicalities?  Personally I have never seen a church service done like this except here at Candler, but that's only during the non-communion services and I kind of wish they could figure out a "new" way to do communion than just going between different traditional liturgies.... So I guess I have more to think on for now.

Further thoughts on agrarian

So I have had a particularly interesting discussion with my brother, of course, I don't know if you can't have an uninteresting discussion with him...
He made the comment that agrarian is fine and all, but that I shouldn't expect it to feed the world.  I think its a good point, if I am going to propose a way that is a more ethical treatment of the land, it should also be an ethical treatment of the people the land feeds.  In this case, ethical in that it actually does feed everyone and not force people into starvation simply for the sake of ethical land practices.
I agree with that, and if agrarian farming can't feed the world then we have a whole different ethical issue on our hands... which I'd love to, but won't, get into... right now.

I do disagree with him on the facts that he's using and the land ethic such a conclusion comes from.  No one can claim that agrarian farming can't feed the world.  We have no model to judge it by, agrarian farming is completely different from small scale, family farming.  It is an ethical practice that informs farming practices, it is not a farming operation type.  Agrarian farming can cut across all sorts of operation sizes and produce; therefore we have no agrarian model to compare to the current corporate farming model.  The green revolution wasn't changing an agrarian system that couldn't feed populations to a corporate system that could; it was the import of technology that enabled the small farmers to get bigger and produce more.  Any one that argues that agrarian farming can't feed the world is coming from the same place as I am when I say it can, a reasoned hypothesis.  I do not doubt that corporate farming looks like it can feed the world, but I also do not doubt that it looks that way simply because it is the way that we have known for so long that we don't know how any other way would work.
I am not an advocate of getting back to the "good ole days" of farming prior to corporate take over.  That won't work, because the purpose then was the same purpose as now, and that's evident of the dust bowl.  The dust bowl was the result of unagrarian farming practices: using the land to get produce.  I could be able to say that most of human history has farmed in similar ways, but I don't want to because I don't want to justify the statement!  So instead I will go on... Corporate farming is just fine, I have no problem with the ideas of corporations owning and running big farms, I do have a problem with how they run them, and why.  This is where agrarianism, at least as I see it, cuts across all farming operations, a corporate farm can be agrarian, it can farm the land ethically, it can treat the land as God's gift to man and rule over it as God rules.

Perhaps agrarian farming can't feed the world, but I would also say that neither can corporate farming.  Agrarianism might not be able to do it because its practice won't produce enough yield; Corporatism won't be able to do it because it is unsustainable and will eventually farm the land to a point to where it simply can't produce enough yield.  But I think the underlying issue here is the idea of the land's purpose to serve us.  So long as the world views land in that selfish light it will never be able to feed the world; the population will continue to live beyond its means by way of over-population with the idea that they can force the land to keep up, leading to over-production.   This is why I mention the creation story's idea that humanity is created to exercise dominion how God does, and the perfect picture of how God does that is Christ.  There is nothing selfish about God, he does not demand things from us, instead he seeks only to do everything for us.  There is a difference between how God desires fellowship with humanity, and how humanity demands produce from the land so that it can live how it wants to.

Christians should be organic.

     This is a relatively new view for me.  I mean I've always leaned toward the green perspective due to my parents leaning that way, but I've always kind of seen the whole organic thing as a healthy diet type of thing, not really as a way of viewing the world.  And so discredited it.
     Perhaps a better way to say it isn't so much Christians should be organic, but be agrarian.  Scripture, Culture and Agriculture has opened my eyes more to this perspective.  I've been telling everyone that I have been wanting to read a book like this; one that looks at Scripture with an environmental hermeneutic, not simply pulling out verses here and there and then pulling them together for some sort of exhortation.  Finally in this book I have it!  Also, in some of my classes is an individual who majored in organic farming and shed light on the fact that its not about a healthy diet but how to treat the land, unfortunately most people don't look at it this way.
     Like I said, I've always leaned green; I've viewed the creation story in Genesis 1 as saying, among other things, that we should take better care of this planet.  God has given us the task to "subdue the earth" and "rule over" all of the animals, but just before that it tells how God created humans in his own image.  It says quite obviously that we are to subdue and rule in the way that God would.  So the question I ask is, "How does God rule?"  And the place that  am brought to most easily is how God exercises dominion over humans... by serving them, doing everything he can for them to give them all of his glory and riches by going to the cross and suffering in their place.
     The amazing thing about this book is that it goes way beyond that, it gets into Leviticus, among others books, and all the dietary laws and other laws that seem haphazardly put together and looks at them through this agrarian perspective.  Most of what I have read so far I have really enjoyed reading.  I'll admit in some places I feel like she's stretching the analogies and perhaps reading into something that's not there, but the overall view really works well.  I would and I am recommending this book to people to gain a new perspective or develop one they already have.
     The view that we should be living on this earth, by ensuring its well being and not ours.  After all the world is God's and he has entrusted us to take care of it, unfortunately we mostly look at it as full of resources to be had, which s reflected in the way we farm, raise cattle, mine, etc.  Christians should be intent on caring for this world better.  Let's just thank God that he exercise dominion over us far better than we do over creation.

On the road again...

Or at least it feels that way.  One thing about this whole life circumstance right now is that I feel totally unsettled; it seems like the biggest, most drawn out transition.
Of course graduating college into the worst job market in recent history felt that way as well, but at least I was living with 3 unemployed guys who shared my misery!  Eventually though I was able to find some footing and get settled, to an extent I guess you could say, but then seminary comes.  So this is where I am now and I look ahead  to June and I am getting married.  In the span of 3 years 3 major life changes have happened.  And all I want to do is get settled, but I feel like I won't be able to for another 7 months!  This is definitely frustrating, especially when I feel like my grades and thus scholarships are hanging in the balance.
When I was in my extended transition after graduating UNCG I was frustrated but only because I didn't know where I was going or how I was going to get there and pay for it.  That sort of looking out and seeing yourself on the edge of the cliff and not knowing how and where to go is more scary than simply frustrating, so I was frustrated because I was scared.  Now I'm frustrated again for partly the same reason, paying for Seminary when you have money tied to grades and then the fear of not being able to make the grades and not being able to make them because you have so much to attend to.   It's definitely frustrating, not knowing and then also not being where you want to be.
I must keep telling myself the love Christ has for me.  Which I don't like, primarily because I feel like I should know it by now.  Not because I don't like it though, I assure you!  It's just the first thing I seem to forget, and the easiest thing I seem to forget is the love of God for me.  He is far more concerned with me than I could even know and that, because of this, everything that I go through is all for my good for his good purposes.  It seems so hard to believe sometimes when you don't know what the heck is going on and you're just trying to make it through the next paper, test, weekend, etc.  Yet it is also comforting, especially comforting is how often I am reassured by everyone that I am meant for this.  Because often I forget that too, but the people who love me most and are the most willing, at least I would hope, to tell me when I am going the wrong direction, tell me that I am at the right place and doing the right thing, going in the right direction.

Trust sucks.  I'll admit it.  Trust sucks because it's hard, especially trusting God.  It doesn't mean that I don't love it, it just means that I have to depend on not knowing and going totally on faith in trusting God.  That's scary for me, I am such an analytical, understanding based person and the thing I am called to most in my life and relationship with God is to not know and just take a, seemingly, giant step off this cliff into the abyss of the unknown trusting and totally depending on God's love and call for my life.  Which for now is into school debt and ridiculous busyness trusting that not only will God pull me through, but that God has some sort of prosperity on the other side, be it freedom from debt or, and even better I would say, a deeper more real knowledge of his trustworthiness, faithfulness and love.
Though I would totally get the last part if it was freedom from debt.... haha!

My favorite band... for right now

For right now being key.
Primarily because it could literally change in like a split second.
I will say that favorite is determined primarily by what I have been wanting to listen to mostly lately, and mostly lately I have been wanting to listen to Caedmon's Call.  Why might you ask?

I am so glad you asked!

They are amazing!
But the two things I enjoy about them are that they have a folk sound and a theological message that I not only enjoy hearing and agree with, but its not presented in a stupid cheesy way.  I love things that have a folk sound to it, like Paul Simon and Nickle Creek or Mumford and Sons and Fleet Foxes.  It's just something about the sound of acoustic guitars layered over each other, or even the use of folk sounds from other parts of the world.  My favorite song by them is "There's Only (Holy One)".  It is on their album Share the Well, which was produced during and after they spent time traveling Ecuador, Brazil and India.  So there is a world folk sound to the whole album, and I think it's really evident in this particular song primarily because it's played in DADGAD tuning or D modal tuning, which was popularized by Davey Graham.  (I love to play in this tuning, if you never have I suggest you should, it's so much fun just to jam in it, and relatively easy to do so.)  This is evident in a lot of their other songs though, some have like a poppy folk sound, others not so much, some have a really world folk sound, and some sound as if though they were made for radio, but all I think exhibit a Singer/Songwriter feel. Which is very different from a lot of the music you hear on Christian radio, or other Christian sources.  A lot, not all, is either cheesy Christian pop/adult contemporary or teen-angst fueled, alternative rock; at least half of it, though, isn't even good.  I don't want to throw out examples, but if you are familiar with Christian radio you know what I mean, or if not, oh well.  There's just not depth or meaning to it, Bob Dylan's "Hurricane" tells such a brilliant story about social injustice and in such a musically pleasing, appropriate way, but you rarely hear such adept story telling tied to good, appropriate music on Christian radio.
Thus, their other greatest asset is their ability to translate a Christian theology and perspective into music and lyrics. I'm not gonna lie, very many artist trying to be Christian Contemporary are terrible at it and terrible for the industry.  I'm not a huge fan a Bruce Springsteen (please don't hate), but I have a huge respect for his ability to translate American ideas into appealing lyrical form.  Heck, I could go on and on about amazing classic rock acts who are amazing lyricists, Led Zeppelin, Tom Petty, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, John Mellencamp, etc. those are just the ones that pop into my head, I'm sure you could name plenty more yourself.  I'm not saying that Caedmon's Call is equal to them, at least not yet, but Derek Webb is pretty dang good at it, as well as the rest of them.  They are able to capture the emotions of the Christian trying to live out Christian ideology and at the same time able to capture the ideology and don't bank on the poppiness to make it stick.
I'll admit I'm very biased, as you can probably tell.  But if you are one of those Christian music cynics like me who actually likes substance to their music then I suggest you check them out.

Mohler on Yoga and I disagree

http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/20/the-subtle-body-should-christians-practice-yoga/
http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/10/07/yahoo-yoga-and-yours-truly/

So Mohler recently wrote these articles on Yoga and how its unChristian, and how Christians who practice it are either teetering on the brink of post-modern pluralism, or teetering on the bring of apostasy, or they aren't really Christians.  Maybe he wouldn't necessarily agree with the last two, but I think that he some what leans that way.
I do not disagree with what he says about yoga's background, indeed it is an historical spiritual practice, and everything about it that we practice is only based off of that.  In that sense we are simply taking part in the religious practice of it, albeit ignorantly and not fully giving ourselves to it.  I would also say his conclusion is correct, because of yoga's religious/spiritual nature Christians who practice it are taking part in another religious practice that directs its worship to another god(s).  However, I disagree with his premise that because yoga and Christianity are in service to two different truths, that they are forever diametrically opposed.
Christianity has it fair share of ascetics, Simeon the Stylite for instance.  Prayer and fasting are ascetics, they are simply means that we use to assist our focus on God.  So, yoga as an ascetic practice is completely and totally viable, simply using the body and certain movements to clear one's mind to better meditate and focus on God.  The whole idea of ascetic discipline is to train the body to allow one to clear their mind.  We are created as physical beings; we should not abandon our physicalness for a solely mental spirituality. That to me sounds too much like gnosticism.
Therefore, I applaud the efforts of Christians who seek out some sort of physical discipline to help them focus and relax, I myself hike/backpack,do yoga, lift weights and sleep. (Ha! So maybe not the last one as a discipline, but it is an area of weakness and I wouldn't doubt my ability to serve God would be enhanced if I got more.)  Humanity, Christians included, have a problem of letting life get in the way causing us to cast our eyes downward.  So we need a time of solitude to disengage our attention on the world and enable us to focus our eyes up back on God.  Of course reading Scripture is a great way to do this, prayer is as well, but those things alone are often very mental.  Our Western, Greek Philosophy influenced, culture leaves out our physicalness, which is obviously important to our creatureliness, so luckily we have this connection to this eastern religious practice of yoga that can help.
Yoga, like fasting, I would say depends mostly on natural revelation, where as bible study and prayer depend mostly on special revelation.  Now granted natural revelation without special revelation can be distorted and twisted.  Of course special revelation itself can be distorted and twisted too without insights from natural revelation.  But if I am to go through life dependent solely on one or the other, something is gravely missing.  I am unable to truly experience God in all things if I do not take to heart natural revelation, and I am unable to experience him truly if I do not take to heart what special revelation says about natural revelation.  All this to say, ascetic practices like yoga, hiking, fasting or running are ways to experience God through the body, they are diving into natural revelation, and through this one can fully rest in the Truth that comes through special revelation.  When I hike I let go, I rest; I experience the Triune God in his glorious creation and it frees me (my mind and my body) to rest in my knowledge of his love and my redemption.
The primary point of contention as I see it, and I am pretty certain in this, is not so much of the physical aspect of yoga, it is the practice's historical direction to whatever other god that wasn't Yahweh, not to mention its tantric aspect.  One cannot really practice yoga without diving into some aspect of this, if they do not dive in, then it simply becomes a workout.  However, its not that black and white; one does not have to dive into this to fully appreciate the practice of yoga.  Yoga's whole spirituality can be redeemed, after all it was created by man.  It is simply the longing of individuals to reach out to something that which they know is there; they know it because they sense something in their heart, and they know it because they sense something in nature.  Unfortunately, it was only directed to something other than God.  Now, if one wants to say that once yoga becomes "redeemed" it no longer becomes yoga, but becomes something else entirely, I might say they have a point.  Although, I could in turn say that this opens the door for saying that once humans experience the finality of their redemption then they are no longer human, but something else entirely because their sinful past has been done away with.
I cannot find fault for people who are trying to find a divine experience with the God they know from church through yoga.  Yes, they may be diving into it not truly knowing what they are getting into, nor truly knowing what they could be opening themselves up to.  But I do not find fault with them, I find fault with the staid, dull churches that pushed them there.  We do not need to be cutting off the people who are trying to experience Jesus through yoga by telling them its not Christian to do so.  No, what we need to be doing is fixing the Christianity that's not enabling them to experience "life abundantly".  Perhaps they think church is dull and boring because they have sin and that inturn is making them deaf to the "words of life" they are hearing at church, but if their sin issue isn't being competently addressed by the church then where really is the problem?

The Hypothesis: The Documents

So I just finished taking my first Old Testament exam in seminary; the documentary hypothesis factored into it heavily.  And I have been wanting to get my thoughts down on something, be it paper or computer screen, about it for a while.
So my thoughts on the Documentary Hypothesis: Whatever.  Ha! I guess that's just cause I'm a product if the last 5th of the 20th century.  But in all seriousness, whatever.  I don't think the documentary hypothesis is really that big of a deal, considering it wasn't until later, like the last half of the 20th century, that the literary approach to Scripture made any headway.  If there wasn't an emphasis on a literary approach to reading Scripture in academia before that, then the hypothesis is working in a vacuum.  I would think that working in such a vacuum gave it a lot more power and influence than had it been working alongside other theories, like now for instance.  Not to mention that one of it main proponents was an anti-semite, anti Roman Catholic, so I would assume such a bias throws a little speculation into what he was actually trying to accomplish.  Lets not forget as well that the documentary hypothesis is exactly that a hypothesis, it can most definitely be proven wrong, and with other theories about the formation of the Pentateuch circulating one has to pick which one they want, or how they want it.  The biggest point with the fallibility of a hypothesis is that if it is wrong your interpretation based on that will be wrong as well, and if your interpretation is wrong then your application of that would be wrong.  So essentially your theological framework is "at risk".  (Although I must say, it might be at risk, but I doubt a significant portion would be at risk, and even still its an interpretation based on Scripture. So I would say there is an element of protection there by Providence, or so I would hope.)
Don't get me wrong, though.  The theory has its strong points.  It gives us a way to look at the world behind the writings.  If the first creation account was written by the Priestly source, and the Priestly source was mainly a product of the exile, then we get a glimpse into the thought behind it, and an intended purpose to it.  Or if the Elohist source was a product of the Northern Kingdom it can gives a picture into the why Aaron is cast in such a bad light.  If the hypothesis is wrong though, then of course all the interpretations therein are wrong too.
I would prefer Brevard Child's approach of biblical theology.  It's more of a canonical criticism, we have the Scripture as a whole, and that's how I think it should be dealt with.  Sure insight can be made by the source backgrounds, but ultimately the sources are now together, they are a unified whole and should be interpreted through that lens as much, if not more so than any other.  We have two creation accounts, one from the P source and another from the J, but we don't have them separately we have them together, what does that mean for our interpretation?  We have Sodom and Gomorrah, the conquest of the land of Canaan and what some call genocide, but we also have the prophets, epistles and Jesus, so how do we put these things together in the grand story without becoming Marcionist/ites? (That is saying that the Old Testament God is one of wrath and completely different from the New Testament God of universal love.  Marcion created his own canon and it was essentially Luke and Paul's Epistles.)
Ultimately, in the interpretation of the Scriptures I think its helpful to start from a firm foundation of belief and then pull from many different sources to fill out one's view.  To limit oneself to one criticism or approach would really prevent one from growing and developing new views, or strengthening their own view.  Its really a practice in formal operations, I would think, to put yourself in another hat, or pair of shoes and fully live that out for just a second. Such a practice can help one to grow in their theological understand, as well as their faith.  Interpreting Scripture should be a challenge, and it should seem dangerous and uncomfortable, God is far bigger than one theological thought, or biblical studies approach can handle.
If we really dig into Scripture and only do so to affirm what we already believe what then are we doing?  We are simply using Scripture as a dictionary or encyclopedia, a reference source for our knowledge, is that what we should do?  I do not think so, not if we want to be corrected, trained, rebuked, and taught in righteousness.
One may have their own bias on theology and approach, I for instance like the canonical approach, and prefer Covenant Theology, but I must at least allow all that to be challenged.  I may argue those views to be right, but I must allow the discussion to happen.

Thoughts from President Cleveland

I read earlier this week that 20% of Americans take home 50% of the wealth, this leaves 50% of America's money to the other 80%.  I think this is a rather large income gap, and I don't know if its a good thing or a bad thing, but I am leaning bad thing.
I could argue that its a good thing because this is how supply-side economics works, give the rich their money and they can spend spend spend and when they do that it greases the economy, creating jobs and thereby distributing wealth.  And then the libertarian side of me thinks, well this is good as well, because if there are needy Americans the wealthy, with their wealth, can support them by their giving.  After all Grover Cleveland said, "[T]hough the people should support the Government, the Government should not support the people."  Going on to say, "The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune." Which is why you give wealthy people money, so they can spend it and give it.  I mean its the great libertarian, classical liberal ideal!
Although I do have a slight issue with this, the wealthy with money now aren't necessarily so charitable and generous.  I mean lets be real there are far more people spending money and saving money than giving it to those in need.  Since reading Radical by David Platt I'm more convinced that Americans are far more concerned with the rat race, keeping up with the Jones, getting their American dream, etc., than ever.  The more consumerist a society becomes, the more "dreams" become transmitted through advertising, and the more gullible idiots with money, i.e. everyone, buy into those dreams then try and go get them.  So the friendliness and charity of fellow citizens is quickly vanishing to the consumerism and dream acquisition of our fellow citizens.
The idea of supply side economics, kind of like Reagan's, is great if you want to allow a bunch of money into the market.  Unfortunately I don't think this works if you leave such tax cuts in for so long that they simply become the market standard.  The only way such a policy is going to work is if you raises taxes so you can then cut taxes during another recession, or you just bottom out taxes to reproduce the effects.  (I must also say there are some that don't even think it was Reagan's policies that stimulated the economy as much as Carter's.  Take that conservatives?)
This all brings me to the idea of taxes.  If the wealthy are not distributing their money to the needy do we need to raise taxes to redistribute their wealth for them?  I mean the government may not do it nearly as efficiently, but at least they'll be doing it.  Or should we not so that the wealthy can spend their money, thereby stimulating economic growth thus distributing it that way? (I must add, I have read some that argue the wealthy aren't spending money so much as they are investing and saving it.  Whether or not that stimulates the economy I don't know.  I guess by investing it, it puts money into the financial system allowing banks to loan to business which allows business to grow and function.)  If this is our choice are we then protecting the rich and thereby allowing wealth to be concentrated with the few?  
Cleveland again has something to say to this.  

"Communism is a hateful thing, and a menace to peace and organized government.  But the Communism of combined wealth and capital, the outgrowth of overweening cupidity and selfishness, which insidiously undermines the justice and integrity of free institutions is not less dangerous than the communism of oppressed poverty and toil which, exasperated by injustice and discontent, attacks with wild disorder the citadel of rule.

He mocks the people who proposes that the Government shall protect the rich and that they in turn will care of the laboring poor"

 So what are we doing as a society?  Simply looking to provide for the needy by means of socialism through high taxes?  Or are we trying to simply protect the rich under the guise of supply side economics? I mean if you want such a economic policy to work, as I have stated, you need something to adjust, otherwise it simply becomes the market norm and the market adjusts to it.  Me personally?  I think we are mocking the people, because I think we are protecting the rich who have influence in Congress and influence Congress to keeping taxes relatively low.  I'm no conspiracy theorist, but lobbyist do what lobbyist do, and lobbyist work for those who pay them, and the people that pay money are the people with money, and that ain't the poor.  And unfortunately its not the particular slant of our fellow citizens to provide for people in need, like the farmer's in Cleveland's time, more money than the government would have given or does give.

from my OT class

So I have this Old Testament class, and we are going through the book of Genesis right now, and the professor mentioned the story of Abraham as being understood by some as allegorical, thus not real. He then posed the question "If Abraham didn't exist does that mean Christ didn't die?" Obviously this was to get those with a "traditional" or "conservative" theological stance to think (or annoyed).  Well I'm always up for a challenge even though I don't think of myself as solely traditional or conservative.  The question is interesting, though, because many in fact would argue that if we say one part of the Bible isn't  historically factual that then has a direct correlation to the story of Christ and now the story of Christ becomes totally and completely untrue.  I don't think it's necessarily that clear cut, but I am nonetheless piqued by what allegorical understandings can do to Scriptural interpretation and understanding.
I'm posting a copy of my response to the discussion board, but before I do that I must feel I must explain that it is indirectly responsive to the other two responses as well as the question.  They argued, essentially, that there is a bigger theological understanding to the text, and the one can know Christ and experience transforming faith through him without having to worry about the nature of the Abraham's story.  Now this view I understand, but mostly disagree with which is what my post is more about; I think the posed question is not dealing with how such a reading impacts of experience of God's power or one's faith.  Therefore, I am more concerned with how such a reading impacts the whole flow and understanding of Scripture and the implications that a particular reading in one place has on another reading in another place.  Also, this was literally an off the cuff sort of thing, so I must add that it is definitely lacking:

The story of Abraham doesn't correlate, necessarily, to whether or not Christ died, it does I believe correlate to the resurrection.  The power and authority of the resurrection does not come solely from the story of Christ and the writings of the New Testament, but from the Old Testament and the story of Israel. The problem with understanding the stories such as Abraham in a new light is that you must understand that in light of how it can impact the story of Christ.
If we are to say that the story of Abraham is only allegorical it can be understood to be the express of humanity's longing for God to redeem his creation.  The idea that God has an intent to bless the whole world.  That God sees faith as our righteousness and not our actions.  The idea that God will provide the offer, such as in the story of Isaac, that culminates in the Father doing with Christ for everyone which he would not let Abraham do only for himself.  It can, however, run the risk of understanding the story of the resurrection in the same light.  That resurrection doesn't actually happen, but it's allegorical, and as such expresses the human longing which we can experience through the story and lifestyle of Christ, which raises another issue in itself.
Another risk that a pure allegorical reading can render is that actuality of God's work.  If the reading is purely allegorical then we cannot point to the work of Christ and say, "Look what God does for us!", and then point back to the story of Abraham and say, "See he's been actually doing it all along!"  The allegorical reading sacrifices a sort of evidence that we can point to showing that not only has it long been humanity's longing, but God has long been fulfilling that longing.  The allegorical reading cannot say that God hasn't been fulfilling our longing, but it can prevent us from showing a certain sense of "proof" of where and how he has done it.

Peace of Mind

So I finally have my netbook back, at least now I will be able to surf the web when I can find a chance and not suffer with only having the internet so long as I am around a connected computer.
It feels freeing, I can actually do school work away from school!

Oddly enough, that seems how much of my life has been since class last Thursday... freeing, I've been able to get a peace of mind.
Its nice, its nice to feel free.  I am caught up with all of my readings, I was stressed about an assignment and that seems to have gone away, I am done with my presentation for a class, so now that stress is gone.
I mean its like I can finally start the cruising process.  I mean insofar as I am staying caught up.  It will feel like cruising because I know what is expected of me, I know how I am going to have to appropriate my time, and since I now know this I know how to handle it.
It was a ridiculously stressful first few weeks, but now I don't feel so stressed any more.  So this feeling is definitely a blessing, but I can't help to sense an under current of fear that somehow something along the way is just going to get me stressed out and frustrated again and I will feel helpless against it, like tests and papers.
I must admit I am not the best at disciplining myself to plan ahead, especially after coming off a particularly stressful time period.  I am far more apt to just chill out and relax.
I suppose that's what my ultimate problem is though, I love to chill out and relax and... be lazy.  I just can't get myself to be disciplined to the point of doing things so I am allowed the time to be free.
I mean I know the consequences, less sleep, more stress, more anger and a rather dead spiritual life.
Maybe I am learning, maybe.  I just hope to grow in this area before I have a job that demands it of me and when I fail its not just myself is the primary sufferer, but the church I am pastoring and my family.

God said wait.

So I was thinking this morning driving to classes about being here, that is in seminary and in Atlanta.  Its weird for me to think about how not only did I apply to only one seminary, but that I was chosen as well.
I feel as if, since I got here, I have been searching, almost too hard, whether this is really my call or not.  But, thinking back on just the fact that I threw everything on coming here, and was one of the 1/3 that got accepted I was reassured, at least within my own thought process, that this is where I am called.
And now I am finally here.
I waited around an extra two years knowing all the while that I wanted to go to seminary since I was in high school.  But when I got to college I was constantly being told to wait.  Ultimately from God, but it did not seem like it at the time, only because I was not listening to it from that perspective; instead, all I was hearing was to think about whether I really am called or not, or, what I heard, told to doubt myself.
Ultimately, though, I found, towards the end of my freshman year, that I was not ready to go to seminary, as much as I wanted it at that time, even though I knew I had 4 more years left, and ended up taking another year as well, just for kicks.  What that did though was to really let me think about the here and now, where am I called to today?  How can I grow now?  What can I learn from here?
Even when I graduated I voluntarily waited, I really didn't want to, I kind of wanted to get out of Greensboro.  Yet again, though, there was so much learning to be had and growth to be done that I didn't really mind it then.
But now, finally I am here, where I have wanted to be at for a while now, but was ready to wait for.  I am glad I was told to wait, by others and by God.  I am now, what Bobby Mack has called, "seasoned".  For some reason that makes me feel like an old fisherman?  However, I would have to agree.  The 7 years of waiting and thinking about the "now" sanctified me.  I grew in not only patience, but a whole slew of other things, like disciplines and discernment; I'm more grounded in what I myself believe, which now allows me to freely plug other theologies and doctrines in and either keep or do away with them if I don't believe they are true, in so far as I belief what Scripture testifies to true.
I am glad that I am more seasoned, and rigid, firmly planted in my own identity in Christ and not developing it as I go through what many theologians and scholars think identity in Christ should or could be.  I was able to sit under great teaching, discipleship and counsel and develop a firm view of myself and of God, ie. worldview.
I even came to enjoy the waiting!
When I look at things as what God would have for me it really makes the world an easier place to live in.

Where my trust lies....

So my first day of seminary classes was yesterday.
It was one of the most stressful days I have had in a looooonnnnggg time.  Not because of classes, though!  Luckily!  In fact, I absolutely enjoyed my classes, in so far as they were simply the introductory ones.  No, my troubles were with life in general, those stupid things that get you down.  To start out with my car started  that morning, juuuusst barely, which meant I had a low battery.... not good for my car.  Then half way to campus the battery light comes on, even worse.  I make it to campus, thank God, and tried not to let it stress me out, but it did, and did so quite well.  Well the next unfortunate thing happens, the day I need my computer most to get directions from google to an auto shop, the screen goes hardcore blank.  Which it has done before, does so now at the worst time.
In the midst of all this I wasn't so much angry as I was stressed and exhausted more so from the stress.  It got me expressing all this to God, and finally I got to the point of admitting to God that my car and computer are just things I don't want to leave up to my faith in Him.  I mean, I just want them to work, and do so reliably.  After all, they are both machines, and there should be no screw ups unless a part is screwed up.  The computer is brand new, shouldn't screw up; the car has a year old battery and new alternator, shouldn't be failing.
That's just the way it should work, faith in God's provision and blessing should be completely unnecessary, thus my anger.  How ignorant of me! How prideful of me!  To think that anything is not held within the hands of God and under my, or any other man's, own power and ability.  Its humbling to admit that in reality all that I have is a blessing and could indeed be taken from me in a second, be it life, money, fiancée, or possessions.  I'll admit I don't like to fly by the seat of my pants, especially when I need a car to get to campus every day, and live where most of my other colleagues do not.
But it is freeing, a little bit, at least so far, to know that not only God is in control, but that He does provide, Jehovah Jireh, and that He has always done so, and always will do so.
I was far more relaxed by the end of the day, because God was quick to show His grace and mercy through family, friends and a good auto shop, as well as a year long HP warranty.
God is faithful and His love endures forever!  So good to know!

I wish I would step back from this ledge my friends.

So for me my greatest fears have always seemed to revolve around a fear of failure.  Not necessarily a fear that I won't measure up to standards, nor that I would not do as well as I would like.  Granted both of those can probably play a role in my specific fear, they simply are not where my mind goes when I think of my failure.

No, my fear is that I will fail in some way, shape or form to minister as effectively as I was created to.  Which, I think, is a legitimate fear, because when I fail in ministry it is not I, though I indeed may suffer some sort of consequence(s), it is the one(s) I am ministering to that will feel it the most, or so I think.
This fear has arisen recently, like today, because of Candler.  Candler doesn't have a statement of faith, which I don't necessarily think is a bad thing, I mean there can be a benefit.  In fact it is one of the reasons that I chose to go here, because it doesn't have a specific statement of faith its not in the indoctrination business of propounding said statement and showing the fallacies of other theological traditions.  Instead it allows for one to pick and chose which theologies to adhere to and which to warn against by teaching the strengths and weaknesses of them all (Wesley, however, might be immune to this, but I can't be too sure, at least not yet).
This is great for me! I mean this sounds exactly like what I myself have done and would like to continue to do; I guess I'm just the rebel who has to find his own way in his own manner.
However, as excited as I am for that, it scares me a bit too.  There is a great strength in being taught a theological tradition because if something about your theology screws something up, well you can just blame the tradition and the Seminary that taught it to you!  OK, not really...  But if I am able to, by my own devices, figure out my own unique theological system, what happens if, in my unwise youth, I leave something out? What happens if, in my unwise youth, I take something wrong in?  What could the be consequences twenty years down the road when I look back and come to realize, "Oh crap, I screwed up"?  That scares me, because then, I feel like, my failures in ministry reflect on my failure to love God with all my heart, soul and mind, by believing and living out a lie and that I did so for hidden or disguised, but nonetheless sinful reasons.

However, what I must say is that, thus far, I have been quite "me" focused.  It is not lost on me that,  even though I could burn down cities, burn every bridges and leave bodies behind me bloody and beaten, God will have His glory and He, in fact, is still sovereign in that.  Don't ask me how (no really please don't) because I wouldn't have the slightest clue; in the same way, I don't have the slightest clue about how other past terrible things come to glorify Him now.  It's not very Candler (well perhaps not) or Wesleyan of me, but I believe that even though I could screw up in a big way, God wanted it; He had, has and will have a purpose in it, and in the end only His glory will come of it and it will be for my good, because He has called me and I love Him. AMEN!

So I must say I am reassured and comforted by that, and I believe it.  But still you gotta admit that would really bite if that happened....

SHOCKER! Though it shouldn't be

Well, this, in someways, is almost like a continuation of the last post that I had.
Mostly its on this idea of Pharisaicalism, not so much in this sense I used it last time.  Though that, nonetheless, is important.  Honestly, if someone is voting based solely on the two issues of gay marriage and abortion, they, like I said, are really voting in a Pharisaical manner.  Why? Well, because what are they trying to do?  They feel as if doing those two things is morally wrong and by voting on those two issues they are essentially forcing other individuals to comply to their own moral code.  It may even been done in the name of love but not the sort of love that changes hearts or minds. They are giving people the burden of living morally right without giving people Jesus who's burden is light.

Aside from that, however, I was shown quite well that I am a Pharisee all the same, unfortunately.  How? Well where do I begin?! Though the experience that brought this on was through me searching Scripture to see if something was allowed through my freedom in the Spirit.  Of course this mindset should have raised red flags everywhere, I can't think of anything more dangerous than going to Scripture to justify one's actions.  The other dangerous aspect was going to Scripture not expecting to be changed, but thankfully I was.  I looked in Romans 14, I don't know why I thought of that one, but I knew it was about some people who did things of faith quite differently from other people.
What I came away with wasn't really anything new, and even though I knew it, I learned it again in a new way.  I was reaffirmed that I have plenty of freedom in the Spirit to do many things it wasn't in the way that I was thinking.  My previous thought process was that I have the freedom to do things so long as it is honorable to God, you know not sinning.  However, here, in this Scripture, Paul wasn't speaking about two people doing things differently and they both being OK because neither of them were sinning; he is saying that they are OK because they are both trying to do these things in their desire to glorify God.
Well this was just a slap in the face to my own legalism.  Here I am thinking that if its not sinning I am able to do it, although others may disagree.  Where as I go to Scripture and God quite blatantly shows me that that in fact is a sinful way to live out life; instead of worrying about whether or not I can do something based on how it looks relative to sin, I should be basing it on whether or not my intent in it is to glorify God.  Which, of course, will take care of the aspect of whether or not it is sinful.  I am very thankful to have had read that passage.  I don't want to live my life through the lens of sin/not sin, but the lens of glorifying to God/not glorifying to God.  For one it does not make a mockery of the Cross that bore my sins and freed me to live a life of righteousness, all of which are for God's glory, by instead glorifying myself and my own ability to live ethical and seem upstanding.  And I am sure there are many other reasons, but that one for now has stuck out the most to me.

I must add a small caveat, where as all things may have the intent of glorifying God, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will.  There are things that cannot glorify God because they are sin, and things which God has said that He has no desire for cannot be given to Him as a gift, though I'm sure many would love to be able to do that.

A thought from a time ago...

Hmm, so I was thinking back on the last two elections I voted in, and all of this of course was brought on by a show on PBA with Max Lucado. The topic of Christianity's role in politics came up and naturally this brought up my thoughts about my distaste for it how its done, and that then naturally made me recall how I experienced the whole thing twice when I was in college.
The interviewer mentioned that it was a good thing how many politicians were being out-right about their faith; as if they not trying to hide or mask it and should thus be commended for it.    Yeah, whatever...

Ok, some are indeed quite Christian and quite commendable and truly faithful as one, but others just are not.  I recall in the Bush/Kerry election how they were both trying to sell America on how they were indeed Christian, or Obama/McCain both did the same thing.
And me being the faithful follower that I am should vote for the "true" Christian.  That being the one who is, specifically, anti gay-marriage and anti-abortion; quite the moral ethical issues of our day if one were to pick one, not to mention the family values candidate as well.  Where as I totally am in agreement with the conservative's, nay, Republican's, for I think conservative should connote something completely different than morals in the political arena, side of the ethical argument, I am totally and completely disgusted with how politicians try to use that to pander to me, specifically, and Christians, in general.  They try to buy our vote with that crap. The sad thing is, for most ignorant fools, it works, and then those same individuals who have been bought try and sell you on it, calling it a Christian duty.  Bull!
Thus, we are brought to my thinking about my voting history.  I voted for Kerry in the '04 election, mainly because I didn't like Bush's policies (No Child Left Behind, decision to take the War on Terror to Iraq).  I didn't tell any of my peers about this, and I'm quite certain many still don't know, because they were sold on the idea that the "Christian" thing to do was vote for Bush, so God could blah blah blah.  If I would have told them I desired to vote not for Bush, I would have been chastised, and indeed I recall feeling marginalized for even supposing the proposition that one might hypothetically vote for Kerry.
This of course only made me more hardened in my drive to not vote for Bush, because my faith and values there-in are not to make me a politicians political capital.
Further more as a Christian to vote simply in line with those two issues has got to be the stupidest thing I think anyone could do, not to mention not being a steward of our God given/American right to vote.  Think of the sort of destruction could happen because of that?  We vote a ton of moral conservatives who are economic, foreign and social policy idiots.  Even still to vote in such a way insures, which many would say this is a good thing, that people will follow our Christian morals.  Which sounds kind of like a Pharisee.
Is that what politics has brought Christianity too?  Legalism? Pharisicalism?
I think Christians need to be better students of politics and not just buy into whomever the moral candidate is.
Perhaps its what Jesus would do?

So now I'm in Atlanta

Being here in Atlanta is interesting to say in the least.
It's weird to move away from so many good friends that I developed strong deep ties too, friends who have helped me deepen my faith for 7 years.  It's sad, but weird more so because I'm not super sad, don't get me wrong, I miss everyone dearly, but how can I be sad when I am only moving further into God's glory for my life?
I think this is why its weird.
I am torn because I miss all the connections and yet I am excited to be starting seminary and 4 hours closer to my fiancée.  I know that I will develop connections here, but my fear is that they won't be connections similar to what I experienced in Greesnboro.  I had so many brothers and sisters in Christ in Greensboro, and here I don't know how many I will have if any.  I was at a place in Greensboro where I had enough good deep relationships with my brothers that I didn't need, didn't want, relationships that were "shallow".  I wanted a friendship with someone in which we were both there to push each other towards Christ, not just to hang out, grab a beer and workout or ball together.
But here I am in Atlanta and I don't have any of that, I don't think I have ever felt so alone!  And yet its only depressing when I am getting ready to go to bed or watching TV and my mind trails off to think about how alone I am.  Otherwise I am quite content, excited actually, to be here.  I mean I start seminary classes in  not even 2 weeks!  I couldn't be more excited to be moving on towards my MDiv at Candler.  I mean getting my MDiv is something I've wanted since high school, and getting it at Candler is something I've wanted since falling in love with Alison (awwwwwwwwwwwwww!).
So I am torn, sad but excited.  Which I guess makes sense, moving on towards God's glory which is ever before me in his call for my life is always excited, yet always sad, because He calls you elsewhere in life.

So there we have it, my first blog post in I don't know how long.
I guess this also is a new start again for me, since my last one fell by the way side like 6 years ago.
I hope it's enjoyable, and not lame; which I think is impossible, because I like to hear myself talk about important things.  Of course I don't think I can be the judge of that.