Just who do you think “I AM,” anyway?

But Moses said to God, ‘If I come to the Israelites and say to them, “The God of your ancestors has sent me to you”, and they ask me, “What is his name?” what shall I say to them?’ God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am.’ He said further, ‘Thus you shall say to the Israelites, “I am has sent me to you.”

Ex 3:13-14

Last Saturday, Hilary and I went to a birthday party for the two year-old son of one of her co-workers. These people live out in the boonies, and it took us about 30 minutes to get out there. On the way, we mutually decided to listen to Chris Tomlin, an artist I haven’t listened to in a while. Every song brought with it a wave of memories and emotions; flashes of a big, dark room with loud music and production quality lights; images of old friends with hands raised and eyes closed. Whenever I listen to Tomlin, I think of “worship.”

This time, as I reminisced about the good ol’ days, I couldn’t help but feel a little longing for those times again. They were very emotional and experiential. I couldn’t help but wondering why I don’t “worship” like that anymore. And immediately after that thought popped into my head, I started to question what it was I had actually “worshipped” in those times. What did I really miss about those experiences? The way that God was “glorified,” or the way those experiences made me feel? Did I “worship” God, or did I worship myself?

Now, I know that some might say that worshipping God has benefits for the worshipper because God is good, or that it’s all a matter of motivation and there is a fine line between true worship and idolatry. And maybe there is something to those suggestions (though I personally don’t think so), but I’m convinced that my experiences, even if pure, were really transformative as much as momentarily moving.

So, what do you think? What is worship? What is not worship?

Take it and Blog Fridays: Taking Time to Blog

This is my second post in the “Take it and Blog” assignment from the Springfield Bloggers(‘) Association. I’m not sure if I missed a memo, but the prompt for today is, yet again, “Taking Time to Blog.” Last time we talked, I basically confessed my own crazy and my discomfort with the self-promotion of a blog. Ironically, I also felt like a big-time, fancy, pro-blogger (which I am definitely not), thus feeding my ego and dementia.

The truth is, I am a peon in the blogosphere. I don’t have a whole long list of readers, nor do I get an overabundance of comments—hell, I try to reply to as many comments as possible just so it looks like I have twice as many! And I am unspeakably grateful for those who read regularly. I’m not convinced that I have anything profound to offer the world, but you keep coming back. For that, I am thankful.

This week, as a number of possible responses to my “assigned” topic rolled around in my brain like a few knickknacks in a big drawer, I kept asking myself why I cared. Who is the Springfield Bloggers(‘) Association anyway? And what does it matter if I play their silly game? Why do I need to do this?

At some point, I realized that I really wanted to, not because it’s such an inspirational topic, but because I just really like writing. I’ll take any excuse from anybody just to be able to force myself to sit down and write. At this point, I wanted to give you some words of wisdom and encouragement, but I’m just not qualified. So, I’ve contracted the last portion of the post out to a really respectable, professional writer of the highest caliber to pass on her advice. No, really. I did.

If you love it, make time to write. And do it everyday.

You didn’t buy that, did you? Okay. That was me, but I read something a lot like it in an Anne Lamott book once.

Eucharistic Prayers for Inclusive Communities, pt. 1

Tripp Fuller is something of a personal hero to me. His contribution to emergent dialogue is, first of all, pervasive. The guy is everywhere. And his ideas are generally nothing short of awesome. Homebrewed Christianity is the theological podcast to listen to. This Theology After Google thing sounds incredible. And his involvement in Philip Clayton’s Transforming Theology project is inspiring. So, when Tripp sent out an email to all of us who are involved with the grassroots blogging part of the TT project asking us to look at a couple of volumes of Eucharistic prayers, I jumped on it. I’ve been given assignments for this project before—assignments that I flaked out on. This time, it was important to me to really follow through.

I readied myself: I cleared off my desk to limit distractions, and I opened the .pdf of Eucharistic Prayers for Inclusive Communities, Vol. 1, fully prepped to get my blog on. As I read the introductions by editors Sheila Durkin Dierks and Bridget Mary Meehan, I was moved. Dierks and Meehan spoke of the imagination of God and the power of the Eucharist in ways that made my heart sing. My interest was piqued, and I was increasingly excited about what was to come. Now, I’m not sure what I really thought was coming as I settled into devour this book of prayers, but as I flipped to the first liturgy in the collection, I realized that this would be a much more spiritual project than an intellectual one.

It opened with a poem by Emily Dickinson, a pleasant surprise. This poem raised the question: What is hope? And what do we have to hope for? The gospel reading was from Matthew, the retelling of the resurrection. It is the risen Christ, re-incarnated in the Eucharist that offers hope. And the community with which we share the Table is a source of life.

The very fact that we gather here tonight is a sign of hope, hope that our gathering has the meaning of friendship and caring, hope that we will grow and learn and care more deeply because we are together.

But being here is also a sign that there is One who cares deeply for us, One who hopes for our safety and happiness in the middle of this crazy world. We believe and hope that Creator Spirit holds us in Her loving gaze, in Her gentle care (p. 3).

Simultaneously, my favorite thing about this volume is almost my biggest reservation. The editors use feminine language to describe God, something that I find absolutely refreshing in theological conversation. The tendency to anthropomorphize God into a macho Anglo-American male is offensive and an oversimplification of God. In this regard, using feminine descriptions can help us to open up our conceptions of God (which are all insufficient and perhaps even idolatrous, anyway). However, using only feminine language does not solve the problem, it simply relocates it in a different kind of rhetoric. I can only hope that the book goes on use both metaphors to describe the indescribable and undeconstructable. In their defense, the editors do invite readers in the introduction to change these liturgies, especially the ways in which God is addressed. For the editors, this offers an important opportunity for creative theology.

Despite my singular snag so far, the rest of this volume looks to be, like its opening liturgy, a beautiful blend of poetry and prayer, Scripture and reflection, and welcoming spirituality.

Toward a Hopeful Future, pt. 3

In the first third of Toward a Hopeful Future, Phil Snider and Emily Bowen set out to clarify what they mean when they speak of emergent. Their intent is to offer an introduction to emergent theology in such a way that mainline congregations will see similarities to their own theologies and begin to make room for emergents in their congregations. In that regard, the book is really written for seasoned mainline clergy who hope to find ways to bring new life to their congregation. Phil and Emily are quick to clarify, however, that “progressives [do not] need to develop a different theological identity that is somehow more attractive to emergents — in other words, becoming something they are not — but instead it is about digging deeply within the rich traditions that have already shaped their identity in formative ways” (p. 2) They continue, “Much of the ‘church growth’ literature over the last several years has advised congregations to discern trends and patterns of a particular demographic in order to develop a marketing strategy that brings the desired demographic within the walls of the church. We must emphatically state that we do not advocate this approach” (p. 51).

The authors go on to define the emergents that they discuss as “comprised mostly of evangelicals (or postevangelicals) who are seeking a more open, inclusive, and socially aware approach to Christianity than what has recently been the norm in most North American evangelical circles” (p. 10). Moreover, many of these people are from “emerging generations,” which is another way of describing a demographic of people who influenced heavily by postmodernism (pp. 9-10).

All of this sets a helpful stage for their introduction for their plea to mainliners to make room for emergents. Progressive churches have nothing to fear from emergents and everything to gain. In their eyes, “emergents are not interested in being territorial or in having the corner on progressive approaches to faith; rather, they are passionate about collaborating with a wide variety of Christians who are committed to making God’s realm a reality on earth, whether or not folks self-identify as ‘emergent’ or not” (pp. 20-21). In fact, Phil and Emily declare, emergents carry a deep reverence for church tradition, though they often tend to introduce creative innovations into the expressions of these tradition (pp. 23-24 32, 56).

To help mainliners better understand emergents, the book offers an intro to thinkers such as Tony Jones, Brian McLaren, Karen Ward, Nadia Bolz-Weber, and Peter Rollins (to name a few), and I’m absolutely convinced that these thinkers would feel well-represented by Phil and Emily’s work.

The book is intended for clergy in mainline denominations. And as such (and judging by the first third of the book), it will be an invaluable resource for those mainliners who are willing to create space for new expressions of ancient traditions—and a frustration for those hoping to become conversant in emerging thought in order to attract young people to their aging churches. But I think Phil and Emily have also written a guide for young emergents who feel alone, who have given up on evangelicalism, and who have no idea where to turn. This book will not only introduce the mainliner to emergent, it might very well introduce a few emergents to the mainline denominations.

Lord, help my unbelief.

Once, there was a village. This village was entirely average. It wasn’t the greatest place on earth, but it certainly wasn’t the worst. The people who lived there got by just fine. One day, a woman came from the east. She described beautiful mountain ranges, fields of beautiful flowers, and an ocean that went on forever. Two of the villagers, dear friends, had been moved by the woman’s descriptions. Looking around the dry, dusty streets of their own village, they had to admit that they had never seen anything that might truly be called beautiful. The first friend suggested a trip to the place the woman had told them about. The second friend was hesitant, but couldn’t fight his curiosity. It was decided that they would leave in three days.

For three days, neither friend slept. The first friend was simply too excited, and the second too unsettled. They met early on the third day, ready to leave behind their bland village lives for something they had never seen but only hoped in. As the sun came up, the two friends headed east. They walked for most of the morning, stopping for a light lunch of bread and cheese. Neither had ever left the village before, and their fear of the thick forest was tempered by their growing excitement. As they ate, neither spoke. In fact, they had not spoken much the entire trip, except to speculate on what this world they pursued might be like. Their fantasies were sometimes elaborate and ridiculous, and other times, quaint and absolutely peaceful. It was a place, the friends believed, that was both simple and extravagant. They packed up the rest of their rationed food and walked on. And their journey eastward continued this way for several days.

Several days later, the friends found themselves on the banks of a wide river. They could hardly see the other side, and it stretched on from north to south as far as either friend could see. The current was strong, and rocks jutted out of the surface of the water like teeth, waiting to help the river swallow weak swimmers. The first friend began to take of his shoes, securing them in his bag tightly, ready to make his way across the dangerous river. The second friend stood nervously, watching his friend tighten his sack.

“I’m not sure this is a good idea,” the second friend said.

“What do you mean?” the first friend asked, confused by his friend’s hesitance.

“I mean, we could easily die in this river. And for what? The idea of someplace that we’re not ever sure exists?” the second friend said.

“What if it does exist? And what if it is even half as beautiful as the woman described? How could I live anywhere else?” the first friend said.

“But…” the second friend started slowly, “couldn’t we live well-enough in the village? How do we know that life will be better in this Other Place?”

“You needn’t go, friend. But I must.”

And with that, the first friend left his friend on the shore as he waded into that wild river. The second friend watched as his friend made his way across the river so slowly, all the while being dragged downstream by the current. The second friend knew that, if he made it across, his friend would be several miles downstream. His dear friend was not even halfway across the river when he was swept out of sight. Feeling the shame of his betrayal, the second friend turned and left back towards the village in which he had spent his whole life.

He lived out the rest of his days in the village. His life was ordinary enough. He never faced much hardship, but neither did he experience much goodness. He never heard from his friend again, though he thought of him often. Many  nights, he dreamed of standing on the shore of that vast, roaring river. And he regretted his decision for the rest of his life.

My wife knows that every time Andrew Reeves and I get together, there’s a good chance that we will spend hours talking about things that are very far removed from our real lives. Lofty theologies and dead philosophers inevitably come up as we hash out our thoughts on anything from aesthetics to politics. Last night was no different. We got together for an innocent brinner and some board games—the latter of which never actually happened. I’m not sure how we got onto the subject, but we found ourselves sitting in the living room discussing politics and faith. The most difficult thing about claiming to be a Christian for me is dealing with my American context.

Ideally, I want my allegiance to reside solely with the Kin-dom of God, which, as Andrew pointed out, laughs in the face of political empires. But, in reality, I have very little faith in such a thing. Having worked in churches and having faced what it means to be a “professional Christian,” I quickly began to lose touch with the radical nature of the Christian tradition. In fact, I was often accused of being too radical, which didn’t so much bother me (in fact, I quote enjoyed it) as much as it began to wear on me, I think. Now, I feel torn, as if there are two people within me who cannot reconcile with nor dismiss one another. In me, there lives a tired Idealist and a frustrated Pragmatist. The former echoes things that I think I believe, the latter scoffs at what I actually seem to do.

As we talked last night, my inner-Idealist began to stir. It heard things that it had not heard in a long time. It nearly began to hope again. But the Pragmatist reminded the Idealist where its Idealism had gotten us before: bitter and lonely. It was idealism, the Pragmatist warned, that caused us to be quite arrogant and very isolated. And it is pure pragmatism, the Idealist retorted, that has killed our belief. The Kin-dom is irrational, inconvenient, and unrealistic; that is precisely why it’s so beautiful, the Idealist continued. At this, the Pragmatist shrugged his shoulders, realizing that he sounded too much like the voices that had given birth to him inside of me. He stands on the banks of the river as my inner-Idealist wades out into the waters, his dreams betraying his own identity.

My inner Pragmatist, it seems, wants to convert to Christianity.

Taking Time to Blog

Just this week, I joined the Springfield Bloggers(‘) Association (SBA). It’s a network designed to encourage traffic and connect local writers in good ol’ southwest Missouri. To encourage solidarity, the admins of the SBA have decided that we should all give our own takes on a topic or idea every Friday.

This week’s topic is “Taking Time to Blog.” I suppose this could be the part where I, the seasoned blogger, explain to you, the diligent reader, how important it is to make time for blogging, assuming that you want to become more like me. (Not a good idea, by the way). But as I let my eye lids drift slowly closed; as I focused on my breathing; as I approached the happy place in my mind from whence my thoughts come; as I prepared myself to gush profound blogging wisdom all over this page; I couldn’t help but wonder if “Taking Time to Blog” was necessarily a good thing. I suppose that if one really, desperately wants to be a writer, one will simply have to make time to write regularly. But blogging just plain takes time. Loads of it. And it’s not always just writing. If you want your blog to be read, you’ve got get out there and pimp your thoughts onto unsuspecting masses, none of whom are probably ready to deal with your nervous ticks and borderline delirium. (Okay, maybe the nerves and the delirium are a “me”-thing and not a “you”-thing, but still…) Sure, you’ll post a few times a week; everyday if you’re incredibly ambitious or wordy; several times a day if you don’t have a Twitter or if you can ramble endlessly for days and not want to kill yourself for the stupid things you’ve said so publicly.

But in the end, it will cost more than just the time it takes you to write. You’ll need to find other blogs to comment on, work on making your site pretty and user-friendly, use the hell out of social networking, join blog networks and actively participate in their super-fun assignments, and generally sell your unadulterated, filterless, no-holds-barred, nobody-reads-this-until-the-whole-world-reads-this, in-desperate-need-of-an-editor-to-help-you-avoid-shallow-and-pedantic-rhetorical-devices-and-basic-grammar-errors self to the whole world.

So, if you’re ready to step onto the auction block just to sell the things that the voices in your head say, then take time to blog. But if not, at least leave me a comment.

Al Mohler wants people to go hell.

Al Mohler is the president of the Southern Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. He is also a regular contributor to the Christian Post. He is unashamedly conservative and an oft-quoted representative of conservative evangelicalism in matters of politics. His bio is impressive and extensive, detailing an extremely educated and well-spoken representative of the Religious Right.

Recently, Dr. Mohler wrote about what he deems “liberal theology.” Such theology, Mohler suggests, began to question certain doctrines such as “original sin, total depravity, divine sovereignty, and substitutionary atonement.” It is implied that Mohler believes such questioning was sinful and ultimately led to the rejection of certain core Christian “truths,” especially, in this particular article, the belief in a literal and terrible hell. Mohler suggests that liberalism has abandoned certain “teachings of orthodox Christianity.” Unfortunately, Dr. Mohler does not even attempt to define “orthodoxy” but instead only cites the above examples; examples that have not been universally accepted as orthodox for the 2,000+ years of Christian history. Instead, it is obvious that for Mohler, orthodoxy was defined by the Reformers.

More than that, it seems that Mohler is condemning all questioning of doctrines that seem so obviously orthodox to him. It seems tragic to me that Dr. Mohler, who is so well-educated and so dearly loved, is encouraging people to simply suppress the questions they might have about God. The God of this kind of mindless and drone-like religion seems to me to be incapable of dealing with the questions and concerns of humanity. This totalitarian God requires silent, sheep-like submission from his—as this God is certainly a strong, conquering, masculine one—stubborn people. This God seems to exhibit a glaring weakness, despite Mohler’s insistence on the orthodoxy of divine sovereignty!

Liberalism, Mohler goes on to declare, simply preferred to think in terms of culturally acceptable ways rather than simply buying into the doctrines that “the Bible clearly teaches.” He accuses liberalism of absolutely rejecting the authority of the Bible, thus making the rejection of doctrine pretty easy. Personally, I know some liberal Protestants who would be offended by such claims, and I can’t help but wonder if Mohler is associating the modernists of the early 20th century with contemporary liberals, who may find his descriptions to be terribly off-base. This is not to say that there are not liberals out there who dismiss the Bible but rather that liberalism is a bit more complicated than Mohler implies. Mohler seems to be operating on a very rigid orthodox/heretic dichotomy that leaves very little room for theological exploration. In fact, Mohler even suggests that people who claim to be Christians but show any sign of doubt or apology regarding hell are in worse shape than those who he is quite certain will end up there.

Do we believe that hell is a part of the perfection of God’s justice? If not, we have far greater theological problems than those localized to hell.

Mohler suggests that orthodox Christianity refuses to even wince at the doctrines that are apparently clear within the text. My biggest problem with this idea is that there are no clearly defined doctrines in the Bible. In fact, different authors suggest different and sometimes contradictory theologies within the NT itself. I would even argue that the Hebrew Bible and especially the Psatler even seem to encourage questioning and doubt. And those teachings that do seem to be most obvious and explained, we simply ignore. For example, I’m fairly certain that Dr. Mohler hasn’t become a eunuch yet.

I will give him one thing, though. The liberalism that rejects the Bible (can anybody type or say the word “Bible” without hearing a twangy “bie-bull” in their head?) outright is foolish. In fact, it’s guilty of the exact same kind of absolutism that Mohler is.

Going against the grain.

In a digital age, progress has traditionally been defined by the ability to make things smaller. Computer chips and processors get continually smaller; tiny versions of other gadgets are crammed into cell phones; the internet even makes the world a smaller place. In recent years, Apple has always been on the cutting age of developing technologies. They have redefined the way we think about computing, listening to music, and staying connected in a digital age. In other words, Apple has got this whole thing figured out.

And today, they have proven themselves once again. See, Apple’s strength is its commitment to innovation. They know how to come up with things that no one has yet conceived of and that everyone suddenly realizes they cannot live without. Watching the Macworld Expo and other special announcements is like watching LOST: you never know what’s coming, and it always leaves you speechless.

Today’s reveal of the iPad was no different. Steve Jobs and his crew have blindsided us with their creativity. Apple has gone against the grain and broken the mold yet again. Instead of following the ever-so-popular trend (read: “over-rated bandwagon”) of making technology smaller; this time, they’ve decided to make the exact same product, except bigger. That’s right. Bigger.

We had all heard rumors about the possibility of a tablet computer, but no one could have expected something so marvelous, so eloquent, or so much like the iPhone. The screen will accommodate full-page documents in an easier-to-read format. And for convenience to users, the GUI is exactly the same as the iPhone. The learning curve on this thing will be minimal! Like the iPhone, the iPad doesn’t allow for the distraction of multi-tasking. Like a dear friend, it keeps its user focused on one task at a time. What a pal.

But the engineers and technicians don’t deserve all the credit. Apple’s notoriously successful marketing team came up with the ideal name. It’s like iPod, but they changed a vowel. Genius. The name is clear and direct, a perfect description of what this thing is. Personally, I’m looking forward to the brilliant advertising campaigns that will clearly promote Apple’s new computer. And nothing else.

Thanks, Steve Jobs et al. This is the best thing introduced to the gadget market since those over-sized calculators and universal remotes.

Toward a Hopeful Future, pt. 2

It’s no secret to you that I grew up in an evangelical tradition. It was a place marked by its commitments to evangelism, orthodoxy, and rigid ethical standards (which, I might add, were accomplished through peer pressure and silently-supported judgmentalism). I moved on from my conservative megachurch to a denominationally affiliated university just a stone’s throw (thanks, Vance Randolph) from home and even drove home every weekend to work as an intern in my old youth group.

Shortly after moving to college, my youth pastor retired and the associate was forced out of the youth ministry. I ended up working for a new guy, an outsider—a dangerous thing to be in both the Ozarks and in a youth group. Our professional relationship didn’t last long. As I was learning more about hermeneutics and biblical criticism, I became more and more discontent with the way my church was run. This was, in large part, for two reasons. First, I was being educated, a process that seems to typically bring with a certain smugness. As popular author Donald Miller just tweeted, “Knowledge makes a secure man humble and an insecure man arrogant.” My days in Bolivar, MO were nothing if not riddled with insecurities.

The second reason for my break with evangelicalism was that I was beginning to see the importance of corporate identity and social justice. I had been raised to believe that the individual experience was the essence of Christianity. The only time one truly considered the Other was when one needed someone to compare their own faith to. In other words, other people existed solely to inspire or to be judged. I know that I rant and rave about the horrors of my upbringing often on this blog. And I want to clarify that I hold no one responsible for the person I became except for myself. I should have realized what actions and attitudes I was choosing to take on. The church staff, the adult sponsors, and even the other kids in my youth group were not—and probably still are not—bad people. But as I began to see more of the world (which is the point of higher education, isn’t it?), I realized that my own narrow perspective and actions were leading me to become the complete opposite of who I wanted to be.

By my senior year of college, I had all but given up on church as an institution. I hardly went, and when I when I did manage to get up on a Sunday morning, I sat in the back and criticized everything. I hadn’t given up on the idea of church, I had just come to realize that I was disenfranchised with nearly every expression of it I had seen myself. I guess those feelings make it sort of ironic that my first job out of college was at a church that embodied nearly everything I disliked about church. Luckily, I was just the daycamp director and only heard about these struggles in the life of the church from the secretary. But after a fleeting three-month jaunt into childcare, I found a job as a campus minister for the Methodist church, something I figured would be ideal for me. College was where my world had been shattered, and I was just getting some of the pieces back together. And that’s how I ended up a mainliner. There were certain things about the Methodist church that were appealing to me: they ordained women; they generally leaned slightly more to the left politically; they were radically committed to inclusivity; and they were even occasionally open and affirming. But, the church had all the same problems I had seen my whole life. So, I fought to find beauty in the theology and politics of a system that was no less broken than evangelicalism. I did a lot of reading about the Church, the idea of “church,” and even postmodern philosophy. And that discontent is how I became emerging.

Coming back to school and to Springfield this year, I didn’t have any honest expectation of finding a church that would allow me to express myself for who I was, who I am, and who I will be, regardless of the dramatic schizophrenic mutations I go through every day. So, Hilary, Beth, and I intended to start a church. And we nearly did. It was sort of a flopped attempt that consisted of overdoses of awkwardness and cheap wine. Luckily, we were accidentally led to Brentwood Christian Church, and I found a place of welcome and conversation that suited both my conversion to mainline social concern and emergent theology (if such a thing exists). It was at Brentwood that I met Phil Snider and Emily Bowen, who have co-authored a book about the meeting of mainline progressivism and emergence. Toward a Hopeful Future is expected out this March, but I have been fortunate enough to get my hands on an advanced copy (one of the perks of being listed in the acknowledgments, I suppose; and yes, I will be signing autographs when the book hits the shelves), and I’m going to spend some time blogging through it, as promised.

All I have to do now is actually read the thing.

Eats, Shoots and Leaves

Western liberalism is founded on a false premise: it supposes that, despite certain laws of nature, we are continually progressing. Humanity (read, “predominantly white, Euro-centric society) is getting better all the time, liberalism declares. My friend Phil believes this idea to be ridiculous, citing the tendency human beings have to royally bend the cosmos over.

In Eats, Shoots and Leaves, Lynne Truss offers the quintessential proof of Phil’s point: humanity is not progressing; in fact, we are regressing into a functional illiteracy! The beauty and the art of punctuation are being entirely forgotten. The West has simply forgotten how to read and how to write. We are seeing an abundance of signs and posters that reveal our growing ignorance! “BOBS’ MOTORS”? “ANTIQUE,S”? Really?

So, while you might think that Eats, Shoots and Leaves is a book about grammar, it is my new post-apocalyptic survival guide. I’m sure that you are silently dismissing me as an over-zealous, elitist stickler for silly grammatical rules. All I offer in my defense is this gentle reminder:

Literacy will be what separates us from the zombies.