Freedom to Fail

The odd thing about grades is that they have never really been at the forefront of my mind.  I mean I've always tried to do well and acquire those good grades, but I've never had to sacrifice my own personal educational ambitions to get them.  I most often found myself learning what I've wanted to learn and working towards what I've wanted to work towards within the confines of class and what was being taught and always came away with high marks.  Last semester, however, was a different story...

the devil

I must admit the concept of the Devil/Satan intrigues me.  I choose the word concept for a reason; since I've been in seminary that hasn't been one mention or discussion on the subject, except in my classes on evangelism.  I find this incredibly interesting that it would be discussed in my evangelism class and yet not discussed in either my biblical studies classes, nor my theology classes; likewise, I find it frustrating.

emasculated

Ever since entering seminary I've felt, for whatever reason, that I am incapable of doing what I desire to do.  Be it preaching, ministering, exegeting, etc.  It's not that I can't do it, I actually can do so quite well in situation where I feel comfortable, specifically among friends or in my evangelism class.  It's when I get in those situations that I'm not comfortable that I just don't feel like I should share my opinion.

So I saw The Adjustment Bureau...

Alison and I watched The Adjustment Bureau on Sunday afternoon.  It was a good decision, because it was an enjoyable movie and if we hadn't watched it we would have probably worked around the house and not rested... because there's nothing else to do, except for be on Facebook.
As enjoyable as the movie was, though, it kind of annoyed me, but only because I actually thought about it.... it's not as if there was any sort of glaring annoyance, it was just the theological undertones of the whole movie, which weren't veiled in the least... except calling God the "Chairman" and angels "agents" (if you want to call that veiling).  Well, the one thing that was sort of a glaring annoyance was the cheesy explanation of how agents were able to use doors as portals.

If you haven't seen the movie I hope I don't ruin it for you, but I'm not going to reveal much in the way of the plot... so no worries.

New York and The Church of England

What do those two things have in common?
Honestly, the only thing I know of right now is they have both been in the news lately on issues relating to gays.
You can read about it here:
Rowan Williams Backs Gay Bishops
and here:
New law clears way for gay marriage in New York
of the two I'm sure the one most widely known is the latter.
Gay marriage is one of those issues that I think have been wrestling with since college.  Mainly because in the 2000 and 2004 elections the Republicans (or at least this is how I feel) made it in issue in order to mobilize the Religious Right to vote and keep Bush in office.  I've gone through two phases I would say... one is the theological aspect, the other is the political aspect.  I would say that now after, at least, 7 years of wrestling with the issue, I have come to some conclusions.

Lady Gaga: 1 Christians: 0

I read this article:
Lady Gaga and Self Acceptance

It struck a chord in me.  I mean here is a good way to view and love others; the whole "little monsters" thing is part gimmicky, but more so its very much a reality.
Lady Gaga has not only picked up on the monster part, but also the acceptance part.
Both I think Christians have gotten seriously wrong.

its been a while... again

You know I thought that once this whole semester thing was over I'd be blogging more again.  Then I started working 4 days a week and painting a house when I got home.
I realized it's just way easier to post stati on facebook and watch TV.  Blogging requires actually putting my mind to work. Haha, I guess I am just really lazy.
Anyways, what I've been wanting to say for a while is...

a bit of distance...

There's one thing I don't necessarily enjoy about what I'm experiencing at seminary: I feel I have become almost over intellectualized; I see things in a very intellectual way, in very theological ways.  It's good, but its nothing like what I experienced when I was in Greensboro.

In Greensboro there was a certain limit to it, mainly because I simply didn't have the time for it, nor was I given the direction.  I had other things to accomplish and better pursuits to go after.  I feel as if I was more connected to my humanness, where as now I feel connected to a sort of transcendence.

below par...

I'm a terrible writer.
Well, at least as it stands I'm a terrible writer; that's what Candler has shown me at least.  I think it's reflected in a lot of my posts on here as well.  The common critique that I get on tests and papers in class is my lack of ability to write cohesively.  I can structure an argument fairly well, at least when I spend time trying to develop it.  I can argue for it well also, but what I cannot do is make it sound fluid or pretty, which then actually makes it seems as if I can't argue for it.

Reading of Scripture and Love Wins

So having a friend who went to Rob Bell's church, I myself liking Rob Bell, being a Christian, being in seminary and being rather familiar with the conservative, evangelicalsI have been not far from the debate about Rob Bell's new book Love Wins.
Personally, I'm not much concerned about what he is saying right now; he has a new book coming out, which is sold by a publisher, a big one at that; publishers have to make money and so they hire marketing firms.  If I were a marketing firm and I wanted to sell a book... I'd make controversy or get good reviews.  Well, in the Christian world good reviews sell well, especially the classics, but nothing sells like an out in the open theological controversy; therefore, if I were a marketer I would make a controversy and props to HarperOne cause that's what they got and I guarantee you that everyone will either buy the book or borrow it; I mean they practically have to now if they care anything about the debate that is now in the public sphere.

I'm still here!

Wow, so talk about a busy, busy semester.  I don't think, at least I hope, that I'll ever be this exhausted and swamped when I actually have a church, but I am thinking that that is just wishful thinking.
I have a job now, which is nice.  I am also taking 15 credit hours, which is a ton.  You might think its just 15, but I don't think I've had to read and write so much in my life.  I also actually have a group of friends I hang out with on a regular basis now whilst on campus.  And that's probably the nicest thing; when I first got here in August I was glum about not having anyone to hang out with and living so far away from campus only compounded that fact.  But since late October, or November, I've had a group of people whom I enjoy.  I will say, also, that I am glad that I live a far away from campus as I do.

fear good

So I am scared of my future, it’s really no big deal. 

In fact, I’m glad to say that I am, at least I’m a realist.  I don’t think we are honest enough with fear.  It’s like we want to cover it up, as if it’s bad.  There seems to be something wrong with crying out and admitting to fear.  We really are a bunch of liars; we go around showing strength and fortitude, and yet we are crying for answers and certainty. 

For my Old Testament class we have to read all of the Psalms.

my doctrine on doctrine

Doctrine is great, it’s a great way to put theological beliefs and statements into memorable, "carry-on" formats.  The Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, Westminster Catechism, etc. all take big theological systems and put them into a simpler format.  Which is a great thing for the church and the church people, it allows non-clergy to better know their own theology without having to have studied it for several years, and it allows the clergy to better teach it without teaching it for years.  In this way it is fantastic.

Of course with this, and like many other things, I also have my disagreements with how it is used.

cold turkey ain't good turkey

One of the things that I am really against is cold turkey evangelism.  I’ve done enough times to know that I don’t like it.  Of course the argument for it is that you do it with the trust that God will somehow use it for his purposes.  I agree with that, and when I do evangelize I am taking that to heart.

My problem is that it is simply a bad way to evangelize.  It is wrought of love.  Now of course I know that even taking the time to tell them about the Lordship of Christ is loving for me to do, but honestly how loved do they feel?  If all I do is come up and share the gospel with them and then leave them at that what love would they feel?  Would they feel loved that I took the time to come up to them to talk to them about Jesus?  Maybe… if they were already Christian, but if they don’t know Christ yet then what?  If it’s without some sort of continuing relationship what love is really given?  

Loving should go hand in hand with suffering, and there is no suffering in cold turkey evangelism, there is persecution, but not the long suffering that Christ experienced.  He spent 3 years with his disciples only to die without them "getting it" until he rose.  That’s suffering, that expending yourself and not seeing any fruit.  This is the sort of suffering that relational evangelism brings, not cold turkey.  We should expect, and desire, to spend time with people, watch them sin, and never get it.  We should expect them to deny Christ, turn away, make grandiose statements about his divinity and then in the next second be against Christ’s work.  That suffering is much worse than merely being spat upon, that suffering breaks hearts.

I’d be willing to say that that is the model of evangelism that is set up for us.  The gospel isn’t about getting people to convert, it’s about the Lordship of Christ enabling us to truly love and serve God, and, if we are doing that faithfully, conversion will happen whether we want it to or not.  Just going out and throwing out the Word randomly is bad stewardship to.  A farmer sure as heck doesn’t just randomly scatter seed, he does it with purpose and intent, some may fall on the path, but he is sowing seed in the field where he will be sure to tend to it. 

We do have to proclaim it, but it’s different proclaiming a Messiah to people who are looking for one than to people who think they are their own Messiah. And if we are to proclaim it, it should be in the community that we live amongst, that we will be around daily or weekly, not to random people on the beach or a street that we probably will never see again.

America the Beautiful and the Despicable

I love America, or I should say the idea of America.
This idea is prevalent everywhere in our republic and its what I love.  The Bill of Rights is a great example of this,  and America's global greatness is a testament to how well its worked out.  I could go on and on, but to sum it up in a sentence, the rights to freedom in America has made it productive, progressive and powerful, to say in a word... great.
Of course there is a point where the idea encounters impedances.  Say what you want about partisanship or the taboo degradation (as opposed to moral degradation, taboo degradation is the degrading of things society deems taboo, like sexuality, drugs and rock n roll), but that's not what I am talking about here, and personally I don't think that's the problem; I could say that its merely the fruit of the problem I am talking about.  The real problem with America[ns] that I see is ignorant desire for the status quo and greed.

These two play off of each other, we want the status quo because we know how to work it to our financial advantage and we're greedy so we fight for the status quo.  This happens in industry, politics, education, labor unions, etc.  Prime example: the steel industry in the United States.  They were on top of the steel industry world thanks to Henry Bessemer and Andrew Carnegie, anti-trust evasion and World War 2, but then the world caught up.  New technologies came in to play, but for whatever reason the industry didn't jump on them like the rest of the world did and they began to lose global market share.  The steel labor unions kept striking and asking for more money, which was great for them, but only at first not for the industry at all, as now the overhead increased which served only to work for the competition.  The same thing was and probably still is at work in the auto industry; I can see it at work on Wall Street and I can see it working in teacher's unions, congress and the population at large.  Point being, we like the status quo, because we can make it work for us.

I don't know what it is about rocking the boat, but what works is rocking the boat and making changes (now I feel like I sound like Obama, but I'm a maverick!), that's the whole reason the government is set up the way it is, and the way the Constitution was written.  It was made so that it could change, warp and bend, congress is bicameral, goes through elections every 2 years and is subject to Presidential veto. The idea of amendments was to allow for further change, for instance the electoral college and the way Vice Presidents are elected.  With such a historical precedence as that I find it interesting that I see less change, or at least what I perceive.
I'm sure people have probably felt this way in the past, but it seems like the only seemingly Pax Americana was the 90s and maybe the 50s and the 20s.  Of course I find it interesting that both of those times eventually gave way to a sort of fall, the 60s for the 50s and the Depression for the 20s and this occured for various reasons, but I wonder if it was for similar reasons that I am speaking of here?  The status quo was definitely rocked in the 60s and it was definitely rocked in the 30s and both times I would say that it could have been prevented and I think the comfort of the status quo and the ability to work it for one's advantage probably played a role in why the boat wasn't rocked.  We need to rock the boat.  Either I'm really pessimistic, or prophetic, but I am led to believe that if we don't rock the boat in some places then it will be rocked for us.

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...

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.

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?