check out more of this, here.
first question that popped into my head when i saw this was: should i be offended by this? then i thought about the image for a little bit more and realized what i was actually looking at.
that my first thought was regarding the offensive nature of this image is particularly telling, and i realize that much of what i think of jesus has been a bit too domesticated. indeed, jesus would probably make a habit of making me cringe.
don miller gives the benediction at the dnc – very cool.
Give us a passion to advance opportunities for the least of these, for widows and orphans, for single moms and children whose fathers have left.
Give us the eyes to see them, and the ears to hear them, and hands willing to serve them.
Help us serve people, not just causes. And stand up to specific injustices rather than vague notions.
i was recently chatting with a friend at his house.
i told him about one of my students. he was given an assignment to create a powerpoint presentation on his own life, and one of the slides he created was entitled “future goals.” one of his goals was, “not go to jail.” i asked him about the goal and he shared about how his mother, father, and brother are all currently in prison.
teaching has felt like ministry to me, so it was no wonder that i felt conflicted about how to respond to him. as his teacher, i wanted to encourage him to stay on the right track; as a christian, i wanted to tell him there is hope in christ. obviously, i could not legally share with him the latter. so i wonder, what does it mean to be a christian teacher? after all, every teacher — christian or not — would’ve encouraged him to “stay on the right track.” do i have a unique message to share? Continue reading
this is a video where john piper lets his feelings regarding the prosperity (word of faith, name it & claim it, health & wealth) gospel be known. he’s not a fan, and i think his message is true for middle class/ well-to-do folks like me and my peers.
…. but it is interesting to see where this message flourishes the most. it’s been noted that the balance of christianity is shifting from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere, and the theology of these pentecostal faith communities in places like africa and southeast asia is largely shaped by the prosperity gospel. putting your faith in jesus, congregants are told, will yield an improvement on health and social status. Continue reading
recently, i’ve been really interested in how to approach a “text” — movies, books, websites, scripture, people, cultures, etc. what kinda predispositions should i have when i read?
i now take as a given that a text can never be read objectively; that is, i cannot wholly attain the “truth” behind a text because the way i read is always influenced by my worldview. i arrived at this assumption sometime in undergrad, when i learned to read texts under the tutelage of german and french guys interested in deconstructing language: they exposed how cultural systems and texts are constructed by idealogies that further the interests of those in power. as peter rollins puts it, deconstruction is about finding the “lie” in “belief.”
under this assumption, many folks (like me) approach basically all texts with a hermeneutic of suspicion. there is always a hidden agenda: the text is always phallocentric, jingoistic, tinged with religious dogma, or otherwise part of the vast right wing conspiracy, and i would be a blind fool to not recognize that my support of such texts means i support everything that’s wrong with the status quo.
i actually don’t think such a posture is a bad thing; it’s part of what makes an effective reader, in my opinion. but i’ve been curious: how should christians approach the bible? what should our bias be? toward suspicion still, even though we still choose to follow jesus?
richard hays argues here that we should read the bible with a hermenuetic of trust. this does not mean, he reminds us, that we should blindly give the bible a free pass on everything, or that we should never ask questions of the bible. to sum up his argument, he says that the task for christians reading the bible is to “hear” the text. our reading of the scripture should model and foster trust in god. texts are always critiqued but never interpreted; exposed by never exposited upon. all literary criticism ought to be founded on a love for the text.
Think of Oscar Wilde’s wonderful scene in his play Salome, when Herod hears reports that Jesus of Nazareth has been raising the dead. “I do not wish him to do that,” says Herod. “I forbid him to do that. I allow no man to raise the dead. This man must be found and told that I forbid him to raise the dead.”
There is the bluster of the tyrant who knows his power is threatened, and I hear the same tone of voice not just in the politicians who want to carve up the world to their advantage but also in the intellectural traditions that have gone along for the ride.
But Wilde’s next, haunting line is the real crunch, for us as for Herod: “Where is this man?” demands Herod. “He is in every place, my lord,” replies the courtier, “but it is hard to find him.”
[surprised by hope, n.t. wright, p. 74-75]
this book is good — i highly recommend it.
check out this interview he did with time magazine shortly before the book came out, where he briefly explained why the popular christian understanding of heaven is wrong. this isn’t what the book is primarily about, but it is one of many insightful arguments he makes.
there’s a church out in minnesota called solomon’s porch. every tuesday, there is a community wide meeting where the lead pastor, congregants, and anyone else who wants to show up can gather for the purpose of constructing their community’s theology (which raises the question: what does it mean for theology to be localized without being relativized?). regardless of theological training or personal beliefs about jesus, an individual can go and make a robust imprint on the theology of the church because the product of the weekly gathering is the following sunday’s sermon.
i’m sure there’s some sort of filter in place, but in case anyone wonders if the pastor is weeding out dissenting opinions, their commitment to being an open source church is further demonstrated on sundays — during service, there is space for community dialogue where anyone’s voice is welcome.
it’s pretty crazy because we know americans are religiously illiterate and biblically illiterate, so one might legitimately be concerned about the blind leading the blind. i share the same concern, but again, i gotta believe there are some filters in place.
on a purely theoretical level, i admire their boldness, because allowing anyone a seat at the discussion table strikes me as a radical act of love with some interesting parallels to the woman’s annointing of jesus : can one truly claim to love another without leaving themself open to the other’s influence on some level? i’m not sure if you can.
This narrative begins in the year 1997. Sister John of the Cross is a Carmelite cloistered nun who has been living in her monastery for the past 28 years, committing her life to the tireless, endless pursuit of God. Her namesake was a 16th Century mystic and poet who wrote a book entitled, “Dark Night of the Soul,” a text influential in Sister John’s personal life and a precursor to the long journey that lied ahead of her. But unlike her namesake, Sister John’s prayers, songs of worship, and daily regimented schedule of chores has lost their meaning over the years, and Sister John finds herself in what she describes as a spiritual desert – her very own “dark night of the soul.”
Recently however, she has found her experiences with God to be electrified, her visions more radiant and stunning than ever before. These experiences of complete spiritual ecstasy come to her at unexpected moments throughout the day, and sometimes cause her to disrupt the regular activity happening in the monastery. Nevertheless, these powerful visions of God inspire her to write some of the finest poetry she has ever produced about life as a cloistered nun, bringing her special honor and accolades, even an opportunity to give a public address at the Vatican.
But shortly after her moments of spiritual ecstasy come devastating headaches that often times cause her to black-out. Her superiors in the monastery take her to the doctor when they fear these headaches may be dangerous, and her doctor makes a painful discovery: her moments of spiritual ecstasy are in fact epileptic fits, caused by a small tumor in her brain. Her doctor tells her that this tumor can be easily removed, and predicts, “Once we’ve removed that tumor… you’ll be as good as new.” Continue reading
most human activity is inherently theological, in that it reflects what we believe to be the case about god — who god is, what god wants from us, how involved god is in the world, and so forth. the house i buy — where it is, how big it is, how much it costs — is a theological decision. it reflects what i believe about the following questions and more: does god care where i live? does god care how i spend my money? does god favor the city or the suburbs? does god care about energy use? does god favor public transportation? maybe i believe that god cares about none of these things, in which case my decision to purchase the biggest house i can afford in the nicest part of town reflects my theolical belief that god is not concerned with such things. similarly, decisions that are much more mundane also reflect our beliefs about who god is and how god interacts with us. some people pray for a good parking spot when they’re driving to the mall. others ask, “if god is allowing genocide in darfur, why would he intervene in the traffic patterns at my shopping mall?!?”
so theology isn’t just talk, and it’s not even just great works of art like the allogry of peace and war. actors act theology and business people work theology and stay-at-home moms change diapers and make lunch theologically.
[tony jones -- the new christians]
in october there was an open letter entitled, “a common word between us and you,” signed by 138 muslim theologians from all over, written to christians. this document was an olive branch based on the premise that islam and christianity share a common foundation and moral imperative to love god and neighbour. this common ground was offered as a starting place for a robust and respectful interfaith dialogue.
shortly after, there were a slew of affirmative responses from various christian leaders. but one in particular was really cool — a document entitled, “loving god and neighbour together: a christian response to a common word between us and you” was drafted by a group of scholars from yale to the muslim world. it was printed on a full page ad on the ny times and was signed by a lot of prominent christians, including ray bakke, rick warren, miroslav volf, john stackhouse, richard cizik, john stot, richard muow (president of fuller theological seminary), and david neff (editor of christianity today), and essentially affirmed the common ground of love of god and neighbour. Continue reading
