Hatushili's Home

Review: Family Driven Faith

2010-04-29T14:39:00.003-04:00

There's a good chance I'm developing a man-crush on Voddie Baucham. I can't beleive I'm saying that, but ... I am. I have been struggling to define a feeling in my soul for (literally) about three years now. I've explored the world of Emerging Church in large part as a result of my soul's questions. I spent close to two years as a Children's Pastor doing a lot of philosophy of ministry thinking. Recently I've been reading in the "Family Ministry" movement. I have all of these to thank for guiding my thinking toward a particular philosophy of ministry. I have Voddie to thank for really beginning to codify my thinking...

There is a growing sense in this country that we've been doing something altogether wrong in the realm of youth ministry. Ask just about any Youth Pastor and they'll tell you the same thing: we do pretty good with teens when they're here, but once they graduate, the majority of them crash and burn spiritually. Countless volumes have been written to address this concern, with theories ranging from the need for more money to the need for more parental involvement to the need for more culturally post-modern methods, etc...

None of these are bad ideas, but they're missing the point.

It has seemed to me for some time that we've completely abandoned our priorities. Within the life of the local church, parents have almost universally given over their fundamental responsibility to others. Harsh words, I know. But what exactly is this fundamental responsibility? I'm persuaded that it's this simple: lead our children to Jesus and teach them to follow Him. So to whom have we relinquished this responsibility? To the local church: its pastors, its youth programs, its Sunday School teachers, etc... It seems very clear that the majority of American Christians now believe "the church" is the primary spiritual agent in the life of their children.

This must not be so.

We - parents, not the church - have a God-given responsibility to train up our children in the understanding of the LORD (Proverbs 22:6). We are commanded to teach our children the truth of God in every situation of life (Deuteronomy 6:7). We are required to exhort them, encourage them, and insist that they live in a way worthy of God (1 Thessalonians 2:11,12). We cannot shrug off this responsibility to "the professionals".

Voddie makes this point with all the wit, clarity, and grace that I'll never have. He calls us to the truly hard, but truly rewarding, work of discipling our kids. He then explains how the local church he's a part of has structured itself to best help (not do it for them) parents in this highest of callings.

This book is a slow read ... I found I could only read and digest it in small pieces. So challenging; so much food for thought. But it's a must read! For my part, I'm challenging myself to do better by my family, and to help my church do better by theirs.

Hatushili

Emergent Criticism

2010-02-13T09:33:00.004-05:00

I don't generally commend really long articles here, since part of the nature of blogging is to be as short and concise as possible (without being too short, of course). But at the request of my pastor, I just finished reading this article from a site called worldviewtimes.com. Be forewarned: it's a tad long, but worth the read. Ideally, read it before you read my thoughts, please ...

First things first: what Carl (the author) is talking about is plainly emergenT church. He makes some effort to codify this in both the intro and end of his article, but I'm not sure he's adequately made that distinction. To help clarify, I found a chart plotting the spectrum of Emergence (originally posted by C Michael Patton; copied from David Herrick).

[Please note: I've modified this chart a bit from the original creator's version]

The article in question, then, is clearly dealing with the fading edge of Historic Orthodoxy. I'm not trying to minimize the contentions that Carl makes in his article; I'm attempting to place them in the proper theological landscape.

Onward...

It's difficult to argue with Carl's basic contentions. He's condensed some of the essential differences between Emergent and Emerging (or emerging-friendly, like me). I particularly appreciated his point (near the bottom) concerning how Jesus is central to the "authority" of the Emergent movement. He's nailed it. Emergent folk have attempted to build an ecclesiology around the person of Jesus. As I've pointed out before (here and here), this simply will not do.

As Carl, I've been noticing a consistent trend away from Biblical authority, and particularly away from sola Scriptura. I had hoped to see this trend curtailed, but that does not seem to be the case thus far. The good news is that many voices are developing in the Emerging movement that refuse to go down that road. For my part, I appreciate men like Scot McKnight and Dan Kimball, though I may not agree with some of the things they say.

I'm glad that Carl makes clear that Emerging/Emergent folk have made (and continue to make) some very valid criticisms. I'm afraid Carl has understated some of those, but I'm glad he's acknowledging them. As I've said many times, one cannot understand the phenomenon known as Emerging without wrestling with at least two major issues: postmodernity and the rise of the mega-church. To explore this contention is beyond the scope of this post, though...

If reading Carl's article lit a fire under you, stoking your fervor to defend the Word of God against those that would minimize or even trivialize it, I say "Amen". If it's piqued your curiosity about the Emerging/Emergent phenomenon, I'd encourage you to use the search feature on this blog's home page to poke around a bit. I'm not a fount of knowledge on the subject, but the last several years of posts should provide a good starting point to your inquiry.

Hatushili

Book Review: Family-Integrated Church

2010-02-10T16:45:00.004-05:00

I just finished reading J. Mark Fox's Family-Integrated Church today (one of the few benefits of a snow day). Though it wasn't exactly what I expected, I appreciated the book nonetheless...

I confess: I was expecting a discourse on what "family-integrated" means to Mark and the church he pastors. And while he does get into some of that, his book is for the most part a sort of play-by-play of the life of his local church. Along the journey, he shares wisdom from their experiences at starting and growing a family-integrated church. He even briefly discusses how they transitioned in their thinking to a family-integrated approach.

Want to hear first-hand what to do when a heretic dressed in white and proclaiming herself to be the "bride of Christ" shows up on a Sunday morning and starts cat-calling? Seriously. Mark's been there and handled that.

Looking for advice on training males to be men, husbands, and fathers? Mark's got plenty of tidbits for you.

All told, I found the book encouraging. Here is a pastor who knows he doesn't have it all figured out. He's quite sure he's not a finished project, and neither is the church he pastors. I find that honesty refreshing. The landscape of pastor-written books is littered with those that give lip-service to the notion that they're a work in progress; here's one that really seems to believe it.

The larger question remains: what exactly does "family-integrated" church mean? Mark's quick to point out that there is and always should be great diversity in the forms taken by churches that choose to be family-integrated. I like that: different isn't always bad - often it's just different.

Fundamentally, it seems to me that as churches we must commit to leading men to be the leaders in their homes that they're called by God to be. We must do nothing that will implicitly or explicitly usurp their position, even if they're willing to surrender it. We must fight the overly-pragmatic church forms that have dominated the last 75 years or so. We must work to be a family of families.

Now there's a load expression: a family of families! If nothing else I've written has provoked you to think, let me humbly ask you to chew on that expression for while...

Hatushili

Children are people, too

2010-01-08T18:28:00.002-05:00

I told a new friend of mine the other day that one of the mantras I work with in pastoral ministry is "Children are people, too". He chuckled a bit, largely because to him that truth is self-evident. But for too many, we too easily forget...

Over the years I have regularly made my point to groups of people by this simple scenario: The Bible says to love your neighbors, so please picture your neighbors in your mind's eye. Got the picture in your head? Good. Any children in that mental picture? If you hadn't already read the beginning of this post (and you're being honest) you'd have to admit that most likely kids didn't enter your thoughts.

This is a shame.

When we're thinking about discipleship, do we stop to think about children? Too often, no. We think about entertaining kids, playing with kids, keeping kids safe, loving kids, etc... but we rarely (in my experience) think about discipling kids.

If the Gospel is powerful enough to make these earthly children into children of God, surely that same Gospel is powerful enough to make of them faithful followers as well.

Discipleship should and, frankly, must include our youngest souls. Failure to include them in the conversation of local church discipleship activities will only perpetuate the problems we already have with children and young people today.

What's particularly encouraging to me is the (culturally) postmodern notion of life in community. We as the local church are called to live in community; culturally postmodern people tend to desire life in community, too. The only trouble I sometimes see: pomo culture is interested in life in (adult) community. Too often there's little room for children even for this sub-culture.

What's to be done?

Hatushili

Elements of Discipleship

2010-01-07T14:22:00.003-05:00

[Note: if you're a BCS student looking for the quiz, it's the post AFTER this one... ]

With that bit of house cleaning out of the way ...

As many of you know, I've recently been hired as Director (soon to be Pastor) of Discipleship at Auburn Alliance Church. In thinking about how to lead our Discipleship ministries into one Discipleship ministry with many facets, I've been trying to condense my thoughts on the subject. I'd love your input on a few thoughts...

I'm increasingly persuaded that our role as a local church body - any local church body - is to lead people to Jesus and to teach them to follow. I'm not arguing that this is the responsibility of the pastors/staff - it's the responsibility of the church (for those of you playing along at home, that all of us in His Kingdom). So don't take this as my thoughts about a pastor's job. Anyway ...

It seems to me that discipleship (that is, learning to follow Jesus) should involve all of the following: Fellowship, Prayer, Bible Study, Service to others,Justice and Mercy, Connection to our roots.

I suspect Fellowship, Prayer, and Bible Study will seem fairly obvious.

By service to others I mean those kind acts that teach us we are here to serve, not to be served. As simple as raking a neighbor's leaves or changing a single mom's oil. This is fundamental, no?

By justice and mercy I mean involvement in the "bigger" issues in our world. Whether it's volunteering at a Crisis Pregnancy Center or an AIDS hospice, working with ONE or raising money for a local refugee ministry. The issues are out there: sex trafficking, abortion, racism, extreme poverty, environmentalism, etc... It seems to me that working to improve God's world and the lives of His creations is part and parcel of learning to better follow Jesus.

Connection to our roots ... what is that, exactly?! I mean a few things here. Certainly communion and baptism - these roots run all the way to the New Testament and serve to bind us to the Church universal in a palpable way. But I also mean remembrance. Learning about and then remembering those whose shoulders our faith stands on is a valuable exercise in learning to follow Jesus. It encourages me to know that Martin Luther needed encouragement. It inspires me to hear about Jim Elliot. I causes me to pause and take seriously the sin within me when I think about those who've stumbled along their own journey.

So, assuming I'm on the right track so far, I'm toying with this list of statements as guides for a Discipleship ministry:

Love in community
Pray at all times
Know the Word
Serve our neighbors
Seek justice and mercy
Remember our roots

What do you think? Am I missing anything obvious? Am I making too much of something too little? What have your local churches done to guide and direct the process of discipleship?

I'd love to hear your thoughts. I have more of my own forthcoming ...

Hatushili

Food for thought

2010-01-06T16:43:00.002-05:00

Once upon a time, I linked to an online quiz I took, including my results. Because I'm assigning this quiz to my World Religions students, I thought I'd take it again...

The quiz is titled "What's your theological worldview", and can be found here.

Here are my current results:

Emergent/Postmodern 79%

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 75%

Fundamentalist 75%

Reformed Evangelical 54%

Neo orthodox 50%

Charismatic/Pentecostal 36%

Classical Liberal 25%

Roman Catholic 14%

Modern Liberal 11%

Here are my results from September, 2007.

Emergent/Postmodern 79%

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 71%

Fundamentalist 71%

Reformed Evangelical 54%

Neo orthodox 50%

Charismatic/Pentecostal 39%

Classical Liberal 18%

Roman Catholic 11%

Modern Liberal 0%

--

In general, it appears that my theological head is in about the same place it was two years ago. One might note that the bottom of the scale changed a bit for me - I'm apparently a bit "modern liberal" now, whereas I was previously 0%. Your guess is as good as mine how that happened!

Though the quiz is a bit long and is, after all, just an online quiz, I do think it makes for good thought provocation. Should you choose to take it, I'd love to see your results and hear you thoughts.

Hatushili

Updates and apologies

2010-01-06T16:09:00.003-05:00

An open letter to all of you left still who still read this blog:

I need to apologize for how infrequently I've been posting the last several months. I also want you to know that it's my intent to change that situation.

This past year has been a time of great change and challenge for me. As most of you know, I've gone from paid Children's Pastor to volunteer Children's Pastor to unemployed Pastor to (just a few days ago) Director of Discipleship, soon to be Pastor of Discipleship. We've transitioned from one church family to another, peacefully and amicably. I really miss those folk, and I'm really enjoying getting to know the "new" folks.

The year has been remarkably challenging on a number of levels. As you might readily guess, money has been tight (to say the least) as I've worked a series of part-time to barely-time jobs to make ends meet. We finally sold our previous home a few months ago (after about 9 months on the market). Vehicles break down and so does the homestead ... You know the routine!

Through it all, I've had impressed upon me over and over again that the LORD provides for his children. I don't know why He provides for one such as I, but I'm grateful.

You might wonder why this post at this time, eh? A couple of reasons come to mind:

1. Starting a new pastoral job has caused me to reflect and re-evaluate a bit; the importance of this blog in my spiritual development (and some of yours, I think) has been re-impressed upon me.

2. I'm teaching through some basic Emerging Church stuff in my World Religions class right now; it's reminding me of how important so many of these issues really are to me. Postmodernity, missional living, reformation in the local church: all topics I hope to ponder further in the coming days.

So if I fail to keep this resolution of sorts, feel free to email me and complain! Otherwise, I trust you'll enjoy interacting with some of the posts I'm working on in the near future.

Grace and Peace,
Hatushili

Carthaginian Foundation myth

2009-10-27T22:13:00.005-04:00

Okay, I know this is a major departure from my normal (though now infrequent) posts, but I need to do this for my students ... the rest of you may disregard this as you will.

Students, should you choose to accept the challenge: What follows is the story of Pygmalion and Elissa. It is the primary Foundation myth for Carthage. Please read it and then explain it in your own words, using no more than one page. Please abide by all of my standard nit-picky, grumpy old man rules and regulations for academic writing.

Beware: here be large, cantankerous words; let the dictionary be your guide!

Without further ado:

The Tyrians [...] sent a portion of their youth into Africa, and founded Utica. Meanwhile their king died at Tyre, appointing his son Pygmalion and his daughter Elissa, a maiden of extraordinary beauty, his heirs. But the people gave the throne to Pygmalion, who was quite a boy. Elissa married Acerbas, her uncle, who was priest of Melqart, a dignity next to that of the king. Acerbas had great but concealed riches, having laid up his gold, for fear of the king, not in his house, but in the earth; a fact of which, though people had no certain knowledge of it, report was not silent.

Pygmalion, excited by the account, and forgetful of the laws of humanity, murdered his uncle, who was also his brother-in-law, without the least regard to natural affection. Elissa long entertained a hatred to her brother for his crime, but at last, dissembling her detestation, and assuming mild looks for the time, she secretly contrived a mode of flight, admitting into her confidence some of the leading men of the city, in whom she saw that there was a similar hatred of the king, and an equal desire to escape.

She then addressed her brother in such a way as to deceive him; pretending that "she had a desire to remove to his house, in order that the home of her husband might no longer revive in her, when she was desirous to forget him, the oppressive recollection of her sorrows, and that the sad remembrances of him might no more present themselves to her eyes."

To these words of his sister, Pygmalion was no unwilling listener, thinking that with her the gold of Acerbas would come to him. But Elissa put the attendants, who were sent by the king to assist in her removal, on board some vessels in the early part of the evening, and sailing out into the deep made them throw some loads of sand, put up in sacks, as if it was money, into the sea. Then, with tears and mournful ejaculations, she invoked Acerbas, entreating that "he would favorably receive his wealth which he had left behind him, and accept that as an offering to his shade, which he had found to be the cause of his death."

Next she addressed the attendants, and said that "death had long been desired by her, but as for them, cruel torments and a direful end awaited them, for having disappointed the tyrant's avarice of those treasures, in the hopes of obtaining which he had committed fratricide."

Having thus struck terror into them all, she took them with her as companions of her flight. Some bodies of senators, too, who were ready against that night, came to join her, and having offered a sacrifice to Melqart, whose priest Acerbas had been, proceeded to seek a settlement in exile.

[....] Pygmalion, having heard of his sister's flight, and preparing to pursue her with unfeeling hostility, was scarcely induced by the prayers of his mother and the menaces of the gods to remain quiet; the inspired augurs warning him that "he would not escape with impunity, if he interrupted the founding of a city that was to become the most prosperous in the world."

By this means some respite was given to the fugitives; and Elissa, arriving in a gulf of Africa, attached the inhabitants of the coast, who rejoiced at the arrival of foreigners, and the opportunity of bartering commodities with them, to her interest. Having then bargained for a piece of ground, as much as could be covered with an ox-hide, where she might refresh her companions, wearied with their long voyage, until she could conveniently resume her progress, she directed the hide to be cut into the thinnest possible strips, and thus acquired a greater portion of ground than she had apparently demanded; whence the place had afterward the name of Byrsa.

The people of the neighborhood subsequently gathering about her, bringing, in hopes of gain, many articles to the strangers for sale, and gradually fixing their abodes there, some resemblance of a city arose from the concourse. Ambassadors from the people of Utica, too, brought them presents as relatives, and exhorted them "to build a city where they had chanced to obtain a settlement."

An inclination to detain the strangers was felt also by the Africans; and, accordingly, with the consent of all, Carthage was founded, an annual tribute being fixed for the ground which it was to occupy. At the commencement of digging the foundations an ox's head was found, which was an omen that the city would be wealthy, indeed, but laborious and always enslaved. It was therefore removed to another place, where the head of a horse was found, which, indicating that the people would be warlike and powerful, portended an auspicious site. In a short time, as the surrounding people came together at the report, the inhabitants became numerous, and the city itself extensive.

When the power of the Carthaginians, from success in their proceedings, had risen to some height, Hiarbas, king of the Mauretanians, desiring an interview with ten of the chief men of Carthage, demanded Elissa in marriage, denouncing war in case of a refusal. The deputies, fearing to report this message to the queen, acted towards her with Carthaginian artifice, saying that "the king asked for some person to teach him and his Africans a more civilized way of life, but who could be found that would leave his relations and go to barbarians and people that were living like wild beasts?"

Being then reproached by the queen, "in case they refused a hard life for the benefit of their country, to which, should circumstances require, their life itself was due," they disclosed the king's message, saying that "she herself, if she wished her city to be secure, must do what she required of others."

Being caught by this subtlety, she at last said (after calling for a long time with many tears and mournful lamentations on the name of her husband Acerbas), that "she would go whither the fate of her city called her."

Taking three months for the accomplishment of her resolution, and having raised a funeral pile at the extremity of the city, she sacrificed many victims, as if she would appease the shade of her husband, and make her offerings to him before her marriage; and then, taking a sword, she ascended the pile, and, looking towards the people, said, that "she would go to her husband as they had desired her," and put an end to her life with the sword.

---

HT: livius.org

Hatushili

The secret value of Children's Ministry

2009-09-22T21:49:00.003-04:00

Like so many other pastors, I sometimes find myself pondering some of the less than encouraging statistics reported about the Church in America. One that particularly bothers me is that (per Barna) 2 out of 3 teens involved in a local church will graduate from high school and rarely even grace the doors of a church building again until they marry and have children.

How is it possible that we're failing this badly? Surely the local church alone can't bear all of the responsibility, but just as surely we must bear some. We spend gobs of time, effort, and money on Youth Pastors, youth ministries, youth centers, etc... but to seemingly little long-term effect. Is it perhaps time to rethink things...

I have wondered out loud for some time now ... wondered if good CM isn't part of the solution. Hear me out for a moment.

CM is typically handled one of two ways in most American churches. A) It's left as a strictly volunteer ministry, believing that good CM "just happens". B) It's loaded with all the latest bells and whistles; Disney-land meets daycare with a Bible theme.

It's my considered opinion that neither is the right way to go.

Good CM is designed and led to be so. It focuses on both evangelism and discipleship; that is, it leads kids to Jesus and then teaches them how to follow Him. When done right, we're building a foundation for future, further growth and maturity. When done well, we're crafting safeguards against many of the problems common to kids when hormones and peer-pressure really start to weigh in.

It seems to me that the standard mantra about Youth Ministries ("teens these days face so much more difficulty than we ever did") misses the real point: teens these days were generally given no significant foundation by the local church when they were young to cope with and conquer the trials in their lives.

If that's the case - and can anyone really argue otherwise? - then why do we continue to repeat the same flawed formula? Why is it that most churches will hire virtually every other "specialty" pastor before thinking about hiring a Children's Pastor? We keep doing things the same way yet expect different results...

I know, I know ... there are certainly other issues here. For example, what about the time-honoured debate over how to care for the teens with roots in our local churches and the teens that simply show up looking for love and encouragement? Plainly we have an obligation to both.

What about parents? Surely I'm not letting them off the hook! Mom and Dad have the primary responsibility for leading their own children to Jesus and teaching them how to follow Him; the local church works to partner with them. But how are Mom and Dad supposed to know how? If the local church doesn't model and teach these principles, how will Mom and Dad ever stumble across them? Oh, some will for sure. But the majority? We will have failed to serve them and failed to serve their children.

I'm not being too idealistic here - I have no delusions that good CM will vaccinate kids against all the troubles that beset most teens. But it's obvious that what the local churches in America have been doing with regard to making disciples of kids has been an almost universal failure.

Isn't it time to seriously consider rethinking our methods?

Hatushili

The Great Pyramid

2009-08-27T23:17:00.002-04:00

For my World History class and anyone else interested in how the Great Pyramids might have been created:

What Jehovah's Witnesses believe

2009-08-27T21:38:00.003-04:00

For my World Religions students and anyone else interested in Jehovah's Witnesses:

Welcome BCS!

2009-08-19T21:32:00.002-04:00

As of a day or two ago, the new BCS website has a link to this blog. If you've come here that way, welcome!

I'll warn you in advance that my blog is not generally light reading. While I do post occasionally about such things as book or movies, more often than not I'm dealing with some aspect of the interface between cultural postmodernity and real Christian faith. If that sounds interesting, by all means ... read on! If not, feel free to find me on Facebook.

Hatushili

Summer reading

2009-08-19T21:18:00.002-04:00

So other than the previously posted about "This Present Darkness", I undertook the task of reading two classics this summer: Dune and The Last of the Mohicans...

Dune, for the uninitiated, is the sci-fi equivalent of the Lord of the Rings series - the quintessential work in it's field. If your only experience with Dune is the truly horrible 1980s film, please attempt to blot it from your memory! The book is fantastic - it addresses theology, ecology, sociology ... and it's terribly entertaining, too. I'm glad to have read it.

The Last of the Mohicans was, perhaps, even better. I couldn't put it down. Again, it deals with issues of theology and pluralism, tolerance, history ... and is very entertaining. Having just finished the book, I though I watch the 1992 film of the same name. I phrase it that way on purpose, because the film bore so little resemblance to the book that I found myself wasting two hours of my life. I'll never get them back. Neither will you, should you watch that wretched film. I'm generally not a film-snob, but this one is simply terrible.

All right, then: what was on your summer reading list?

Hatushili

You CAN'T be anything you want to be, folks

2009-07-18T10:11:00.003-04:00

"You can be anything you want to be." "You can do anything you set your mind to."

This particular issue has come up a few times recently, and it's reminded me of the folly of so much of today's parenting. I'm not sure exactly when we started telling kids these things. But if you think about it for just a few moments, they're obviously not true.

For example, let's say little Johnny dreams all his days of being a fighter pilot ... but he grows up to be a 6' 3" man. So much for fighter pilot; they're not made to accommodate people that tall. What if little Suzy really wants to be an accountant when she grows up ... but she's terrible with math. So much for being an accountant. The list goes on; there are things in this life so far beyond our control that we simply must stop telling kids these lies.

More to the point: we are implicitly telling kids that a) life is fair, and b) they can control their own lot in life right down to the minutiae. Neither is true. Life simply is not always fair (unless you understand that what's fair would be universal condemnation, but now I'm digressing). We cannot control every detail of our life story - height, aptitude, tragedy, circumstances, etc... We are essentially building within our kids the notion that they are little gods unto themselves.

I know, I know ... that seems like I'm overplaying it. And perhaps I am; the point remains the same. Neither you nor I, nor our children or grandchildren, can be anything we want to be. I don't care how many cartoons, info-mercials or people in stuffed animal suits proclaim otherwise.

[Note: A quick search o' the internet tells me that Robert E Lee is credited with using the expression, so it's safe to assume it goes back at least that far...]

Hatushili

This Present Darkness

2009-06-16T22:13:00.002-04:00

Okay, I'm sure I'm so behind the times, but I finally got around to reading Frank Peretti's This Present Darkness. All 508 pages of it!

My twelve year old son actually won it at some library contest, but quickly decided he didn't want to read it. So, being the voracious reader that I am, I did! (By the way, did I mention that my wife has declared June a 'no TV' month? Lots of time to read, friends!).

Anyway, I can see why the book was so popular a few years back, but (as you might imagine) I have some serious criticisms of it too...

First things first: it's a novel, not a theology book. Frank Peretti has the same rights to create fiction as any other story-teller. In that sense, he's created a captivating world, one filled with billions of demons and angels at war with one another. A world where the LORD tells people the names of these demons in a bid to grant power to His angels on the offensive. A world where super-powerful individuals work toward a one-world religion and government with great cunning.

As a novel, the book is pretty gripping. I regularly found it hard to put down. Some of the names are cumbersome, and when you can't get comfortable with names it tends to make a story choppy for me sometimes. There were too many Halmark moments for my taste, too. But all told, the tale is interesting and fast-moving. The daunting 500 pages didn't seem overly long once the story began to unfold.

The trouble I have is that too many well-meaning Christians seem to have taken their theology from the pages of this book. More accurately, this book reflects a theological tradition that has grown in prominence because of this book. Regardless, there are now plenty of folk out in the world that are "binding and loosing" demons by name, all the while convinced that this is what real spiritual warfare is all about. I disagree.

If spiritual warfare were what Peretti's fictional world makes it out to be, why is the Bible so shockingly silent about it?!? Where's Paul's great teaching section about how to bind demons? Where's the letter to the Angelonians - you know, that church struggling against the weight of all these sin-demons? Just as importantly, why does the New Testament so often leave us with the impression that we - not some spiritual power of darkness - are to blame for our sins? If the reason I struggle with pride is that I have a "pride demon" crawling around my person, surely the Bible would tell me that, no?

It's this kind of spirituality that severely minimizes our own culpability in our sinfulness that drives me crazy. Always looking for a demon to blame; always certain that "the Devil is out to get me". I'm not denying the reality of demons and the stated goal of Satan, but I can't go along with a theology that over-emphasizes it either. Let me wrestle with my own sinfulness, my own wrong desires, my own "old man"... I'll leave the untold things of angels and demons in the hands of the Almighty.

Hatushili

Only the beginning of Romans is inspired

2009-05-25T21:54:00.002-04:00

Okay - don't brand me a heretic. I used the title to make a point: rest assured, I'm not doubting the inspiration of Paul's letter to the Romans.

So now that you can breathe again, what exactly am I saying...?

I've just recently finished teaching a 12th grade course on the book of Romans. To my surprise, we actually finished the whole letter! In the process, I think I've stumbled across a major blind spot on the part of many of my well-intended evangelical brothers and sisters...

Ask virtually anyone acquainted with the text, and they'll tell you that Romans is the quintessential explanation of the Gospel. A cursory examination of the text will reveal that what Paul begins with in Rom 1:17 (the righteous shall live by faith), he expands in great detail.

We speak of Redemption - that great truth that Jesus bought me out of the slave market of sin.

We talk about Justification - that astonishing truth that Jesus declares me to be perfectly righteous, even though clearly I'm not.

We rejoice in Sanctification - that amazing truth that the Spirit is actually making me more like Jesus.

For some, the book of Romans gets a bit confusing after that (for those of you playing along at home, we're up to chapter 9 now). But chapters 9-11 aren't really that complicated - they are Paul's vindication of God's revealed righteousness ... but I digress.

So here were are, loving the book of Romans for its full and wonderful explanation of the Gospel. And rightly so ... but

so what?

We think the Gospel is fundamentally about restoring a right relationship with God ... and that's it.

But that isn't all there is to it. Paul actually goes through a whole series of "so what" thinking, but most of the time we miss it. He talks about living at peace with our neighbors as a result of the Gospel. He talks about obeying the authorities over you as a result of the Gospel. He tells us not to make mountains out of mole hills as a result of the Gospel.

Finally, Paul boils it all down for us: "Now may the God of endurance and comfort give you unity with one another in accordance with Christ Jesus, so that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Receive one another, then, just as Christ also received you, to God’s glory." [Romans 15:5-7, emphasis mine]

In the end, the heart of the Gospel is to bring God glory. Surely our lives here on earth are to be a major contributor to this, no? Then why do we so often speak of the Gospel only in terms of its power to save us from eternal damnation?

This is little more than "fire insurance" faith. I'm tired of it. I want no part of it. I refuse to believe that Jesus died on the cross to issue me a "Get out of Hell free" card.

This life is to be lived out for God's glory. And that's not just an after-effect of the Gospel; it's a fundamental part of it.

Hatushili

Logically speaking...

2009-03-26T07:29:00.002-04:00

So I had the honour of spending part of last night with our church group for college-age folk. With nothing scheduled to talk about, the evening was devoted to "can of worms" questioning... sometimes a bit daunting, but always fun. I only know about half of these folk very well at all, so there was the additional challenge of that. Anyway, I was asked one particular question that's left me thinking - always a good thing!

One guy asked me (in response to a comment I made about the differences between Modernity and Postmodernity) if I thought God was logical. My answer: "It depends on how you define logical". That's not a cop out! Think about it for a moment with me, as I try to refine my thinking...

Usually when we talk about logic we mean something that makes sense, it flows from A to B, etc... Webster's dictionary says it means "capable of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion". That sounds about right. But does that describe God? I would argue that plenty of what God has done and does is not "reasonable" to me. Much of God's work does not seem "orderly" to me. Moreover, God often does things that simply don't seem logical to me! Don't shoot me just yet; hear me out.

God holds that I must pray, yet He knows everything. Is that logical? God says I'm alive here on earth, yet I'm viewed as presently glorified with Him in Heaven. God says I'm a sinner struggling daily to walk in the light, yet I'm viewed as righteous through Jesus' blood. God says Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine. God exists in three co-equal persons. The list could continue.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying God is illogical. Not at all! I'd like to think there's a third option - something like superlogical - above what we call "logic". I'm also not saying His Word is illogical or that it should be read and studied in any way but a logical one.

I'm arguing that "logical" means different things from either the human or the divine perspective. Therefore I'm not sure it's terribly instructive to talk about whether or not God is "logical". A more instructive question: has God left us a logical revelation of Himself? The answer, of course, is yes - the Bible is God's logical self-revelation.

I admit I haven't thought through all the ramifications of this just yet. It all started as a simple question in the midst of a grander discussion. But if His ways are beyond my comprehension, and the word we use for comprehensible, orderly, cogent things is "logical" ... you do the math.

In the end, I'm reasonably certain this is a philosophical argument, and a philosophical one only. I could be accused of merely arguing semantics, I suppose. But as is usually the case, such philosophical banter can often be instructive, and regularly makes us think. So thanks, Revolution, for making my brain turn to a different beat last night!

We are a family

2009-02-28T11:09:00.002-05:00

I've been preaching and teaching that we (the local church) are a family for years now. At our local church we recently made a change to reinforce that concept - we now include our K-5 children in corporate worship. We're one week in, but I'm already excited...

It seems odd to me that so many local churches shuttle their kids off to their own little corner virtually every time they meet. I understand that there's great value in having kids grouped with other kids sometimes: age-appropriate teaching, peer bonding, etc... But why the trend toward virtual isolation? I'm not sure it speaks well of our culture.

Having said that, one of the things I most like about our local church is that people actually want to include kids in the life of the local church! So we finally took the next major step last week, keeping the K-5s with their parents until the start of the sermon. For my part, it was great! Having all those kids viewing and participating in corporate worship, seeing what a mass of adult followers of Jesus looks like when singing their praise to Him, ... The benefits are probably incalculable, to be honest.

So, if you get a chance, let me know how you see this issue. What does your local church do? What would you change about the involvement of children in the life of your local church?

Hatushili

Missional training

2009-02-18T07:57:00.004-05:00

As most of you know, I'm absolutely convinced that the church in America has messed up the very nature of Children's Ministry (CM) almost beyond repair. We have coddled them, we have entertained them, we have over-simplified everything for them. In the process we have also implicitly taught them that the local church exists for them.

One of the reasons I'm most honoured to be the Children's Pastor at our local church is the chance to change this, at least within our church family. We reached what I think I might look back on as a milestone the other day...

During our Wednesday night children's ministry, we began collecting items for our local nursing home. Children of all ages brought candies, cards, chapstick and other goodies to the church building. Then last week those same children decorated white gift bags and made Valentine cards for the residents of the nursing home.

So far, pretty standard fare for CM. What we did next has - I pray - laid the foundation for training our children to think missionally. We took the older kids from this group - a Sunday School class - to the nursing home to personally deliver our gift bags and Valentine cards. Twelve young souls - most of them in 4th and 5th grade - travelled the halls of the nursing home in groups of 6, guided to rooms of residents that could use some cheering up. The group I was with spoke with a lady recovering from the nasty cold that's been going around in these parts. She asked me to pray with her before I left the room. We were given the real honour of meeting and talking with a WWII vet, a man that was on the shores of Normandy 2 days after the invasion! We met a sweet lady that shard the same name as one of our children there that day. We spoke with a man barely able to speak.

What didn't we do? We didn't preach. We didn't insert the token gospel tract into their bags. We also didn't hide our love for Jesus. We didn't hide the fact that we were representing a local church. We wore our faith on our sleeves yet did not wield it as a weapon.

I couldn't be more proud of these, "my" kids. They shared the love of Jesus. They encouraged lonely hearts. They were - I think - challenged themselves by some of what they saw. They advanced God's glory.

On top of all that, they're learning first-hand that the life of the local church is not about being served. It's not about consumerism. It's not about what a local church can do for you. It's about service. As our Lord did, we came to serve those residents.

My great hope is that we've begun what will be a long-term relationship with this nursing home. I hope to get these children and others back to visit them regularly. We're already planning to tell the real story of St. Patrick with them sometime next month.

I know it seems small in so many ways, but I really think we're on to something here. Your thoughts?

Hatushili

Words written in red

2009-02-09T16:55:00.004-05:00

One of the more curious tendencies of the emerging church is to take the words of Jesus as somehow more important than the rest of the Bible. Reverence for Jesus has to be demonstrated by elevating His words to a higher plateau, I suppose the thinking goes. I've seen this attitude in scholarly works on EC and at the local level. It's problematic, and I know I've posted about it before, but for the benefit of a friend let's address the issue again for just a bit, eh?

First things first - the Bible explicitly tells us that all Scripture is given by inspiration and all Scripture is profitable for growth in Christian character. You'd like to think that would settle it, but apparently it doesn't for plenty of EC folk.

Perhaps more to the point, Jesus Himself clearly sees enormous value in the Old Testament Scriptures. In fact, He uses the text of Jonah to validate His own ministry. In Matthew 12, His detractors ask for "a sign" and He promises to validate His ministry by none other than the "sign of Jonah". The language of the text makes it clear that Jesus fully accepts both the authenticity and authority of this OT text. If Jesus Himself had such a high view of Scripture, is it not the height of folly to declare that Jesus' words are more important than other Scriptures?!

Here's another issue: the words of Jesus fail to address so many issues that other texts of Scripture deal with. If we are to limit ourselves to only the words of Jesus, we severely limit God's voice on many, many topics.

Another: seeing the words of Jesus this way is a fundamental error in our view of Scripture. If Scripture is a sort of divine self-help book, then perhaps you could argue that the "way of Jesus" is most important in the Bible. But since the Bible is, in fact, God's self-revelation to humanity, such a view of Jesus' words falls very short of adequate.

None of this, of course, means that I'm devaluing the words of Jesus. I'm simply arguing that - while it sounds terribly pious - regarding Jesus' words as somehow more important than other words of the Bible is actually a lower view of Scripture and therefore the Christ of Scripture, too.

Hatushili

What's your sign?

2009-01-31T00:14:00.003-05:00

Church reader-boards are fascinating things, no? Virtually every church building has a reader-board somewhere ... out front, on the building ... somewhere! Any every church body wants to put that silly thing to some meaningful purpose, right? But let's be honest - how many of them really are meaningful? Not many; I know.

There are a few basic tactics that local churches seem to employ on these contraptions...

Theory A: Use the board for informational purposes. These are the reader-boards that simply list times of service or some upcoming event. Safe play, for sure. But is that really effective? I have my doubts. How many people are going to see that sign and think, "You know, I've always wanted to visit that church but didn't know when they met - now I think I'll go"? In this day and age? - zero.

Theory B: Use the board to be funny. Everyone wants others to think they're witty or funny, right? [I certainly do!] So use the board to say something clever, like "C H _ _ C H; what's missing? U R". Cute, but like most of the witty signs, they pretty much play to the home crowd. In other words, it's pretty much just other followers of Jesus that are going to "get it" and laugh. Not that there's anything bad about knowing you're brightening the day of some Christian that happens to be driving by ... but is that the best use of the reader-board? I don't know.

Theory C: Be attractional. These are the signs that attempt to invite people in with some tempting message. The most generic (and pathetic) would be the classic "Everyone Welcome". Those passing by are surely glad to know that - I'm sure they thought you needed a special invitation and a secret handshake to come visit this Sunday, right? One I particularly hate: "We have something for everyone". What's the implicit message here? That local churches exist for you. In other words, you should choose a church based upon what you get, what's in it for you, what goods and services they can provide. Sound consumerist? That's because it is consumerist, kids. To all reading this with the power of a reader-board: please stop using them to promote consumption of "Christian" stuff. Please.

Theory D: Be controversial. These signs will get you noticed in the marketplace, for good or for ill. A local church in our area had the audacity to put something on their reader-board just before the last presidential election claiming that Barack Obama was a Muslim. Absolute nonsense, but it made them infamous for about a week. Not a good plan, if you ask me. Another classic? "We still use the KJV!" - about a sure a way to keep all but the most hardened Pharisee from coming to your assembly... Or my personal favourites [and, incidentally, the reason I should never be given the power over a reader-board]: controversial signs that make you think! For example, what if your reader-board said something like, "Why the hell weren't you here Sunday?!" ... Reminiscent of Tony Campolo's famous rant/sermon, and definitely worthy of a double-take, it'd have the community talking!

Theory E: Tear it down! Why not? Why not get rid of that big, unsightly thing and plant a tree or some flowers? If you aren't putting it to good use (and admit it, you're most likely not) do the community a favour and take down an internally lit florescent eye-sore, eh?

I'm not saying any of these are necessarily wrong uses of a reader-board, nor that any are necessarily the best. Let's just stick to basic Biblical principles and attempt to be wise in how we use these things, or turn to Theory E.

What say you?

Hatushili

Book Review: Addicted to Mediocrity

2009-01-14T15:17:00.003-05:00

When a man you respect tells you that three books have most impacted his life (aside from the Bible), then suggests you read one of them ... you read it!

My senior pastor asked me to read Franky Schaeffer's Addicted to Mediocrity. [Yes, that's Francis Schaeffer's son.] He apparently read it in the mid-80s and found it revolutionary. Knowing that I was going to be preaching on the subject of Christians and the arts, he recommended it to me. He even lent me his copy; how could I not read it?!

I think I understand why he found the book such a challenge to his thinking...

I remember what the late 1980s were like in the bubble of evangelical Christianity: anything not explicitly "Christian" was often deemed bad. "Christian" as an adjective ... !!! Another post, someday soon...

Anyway, in that climate any art that didn't portray overt, explicit imagery of Jesus was frowned upon. Sad. Silly. Ridiculous, to be honest.

In that climate, I can understand why this book we be revolutionary. In today's, I'm happy to report that it's not so outstanding. This is a good thing! Schaeffer would - I think - be happy with the progress we've made in this area. [Franky Schaeffer's personal journey is a whole different matter ... ]

If you grew up - like me - in an evangelical world that belittled anything not "Christian" than you should read this book. If that's never been a struggle of yours, pass on this one.

One specific quote I liked: "When our Christianity is allowed to become merely spiritual and inward without the incarnational and outward expressions of God's presence in the world, our faith is no longer meaningful in all areas of life. This indeed is what happened to Christianity during the twentieth century." (p.28)

I'll leave you with this - arguably the funniest endnote I've ever read: "In looking at the diversity of the Scripture in its content and form, one can hardly imagine that the Bible has anything to do with the present narrow theological sloganeering aspects of evangelical Christianity. It seems to me that if the Bible had been written along the lines of what much of evangelical Christianity represents today, instead of being the full comprehensive wonderful Book of diversity, beauty, knowledge, truth, wisdom, it would be a three-page pamphlet printed probably in words of one syllable, preferably on pink paper (because pink sells), possibly with a scratch and sniff section on the back to stimulate some spiritual experience while reading it. In contrast, the real Bible, the Word of God, is solid, human, verifiable, divine indeed." (p.20, endnote 1).

Hatushili

New Year's revolution

2008-12-29T12:42:00.002-05:00

My senior pastor gave our assembly a wonderful challenge this past Sunday. He talked about the three basic ingredients of spiritual growth: Bible, prayer, fellowship. As you might expect, he talked about the challenge to read through the Bible in a year. We even passed out checklist cards so that the whole assembly can be on the same schedule - very cool. He talked about the discipline of prayer and the critical but often overlooked importance of real community.

But the challenge I most appreciated was this: read through a whole book of the Bible each day for a month. So here's what I plan to do. I'll read through the first half of Romans each day for the month of January, then the second half through February. Not sure where I'll go after that, but that's my start.

I believe this reading will have a revolutionary effect on my life. I'll let you know if that belief holds true...

Hatushili

Christmas

2008-12-29T12:31:00.003-05:00

As is usually the case, this Christmas I had much more fun giving than receiving. But that's not to say I didn't enjoy the gifts I was given. One in particular has been a joy to me for the last few days. My mother-in-law (who lives with us) bought me Paul Simon's Graceland album (CD, actually). Why have I so enjoyed this gift? ...

First, I love this album. I bought it for my Dad a few years ago, who also really likes it. I've found a few of the songs online and posted them to my song list for this blog. I find myself singing bits and pieces of the album now and then. So when Mary found it for me ... ! To say I was excited is an understatement.

Second, I love Ladysmith Black Mambazo, the group that Simon features on this album. Their sound is terrific. Here's a YouTube page of their stuff - check it out if you're unfamiliar. Have you noticed the rather curious version of the ABC song playing on this blog? That's Ladysmith...

Third, the album has led me to a follower of Jesus. Seriously. As you might know, a number of the lyrics on this album are in Zulu. They're left untranslated, so I set about the task of trying to figure out what some of them meant. My Google search took me directly to a dude working as a missionary in Africa - check out this post from his blog. Strange how the LORD can use such a variety of means to get His children acquainted with one another, no?

Hopefully you have enjoyed the Christmas season as much as I. Graceland is just one of so many reasons...

Hatushili

Good Bible maps site

2008-12-07T21:58:00.001-05:00

Just a quick shout-out to a website I find myself using regularly for their very good maps. Hi-res, folks. Very hi-res. Print them without any fear of fuzziness!

Anyway, the site is here. Enjoy!

Hatushili

The Voice, part 2

2008-11-22T19:13:00.002-05:00

As I wrote about here, it seems that my emerging friends have a new Bible translation on the market. Aside from the fact that the very last thing I think we need is yet another Bible translation, I have a problem...

I strolled over to the website recently [note: it works better in IE, sorry!] and found a side-by-side comparison chart of the Voice with three other translations (the Message, the ESV and the TNIV). One of the passages they chose for comparison was Jesus' temptation in the wilderness. The NET (which, not incidentally, I really like) reads this way:

"Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. After he fasted forty days and forty nights he was famished. The tempter came and said to him..." Matt 4:1-3a

Fair enough; a fine translation.

The Voice reads this way:

"The Spirit then led Jesus into the desert to be tempted by the devil. Jesus fasted for 40 days and 40 nights. After this fast, He was, as you can imagine, hungry. But He was also curiously stronger because of His fast. And so He was able to withstand the devil, the tempter, when he came to Jesus."

Houston, we have a problem. I'm okay with the concept of dynamic equivalency. I'm okay with a Bible inserting explanatory information within the body of the text, to a point. But did you notice the huge running commentary inserted into the Voice?! To their credit, it's italicized (the oft misunderstood standard for this kind of translational work). But that's little solace to a guy like me that feels the reader - not the editors of a particular translation - should bear the primary responsibility for interpretation.

Who's to say that Jesus' strength was "curious"? Why does the translation call for the quaint little insertion "as you can imagine"? How do we know that it was "because of his fast" that He was strong? What's the value of a comparative (strongerer) when it comes to Jesus?

These and more questions are raised by the Voice's translation. As a rule, any translation that raises more questions than it answers should be viewed with skepticism, no?

So while I've read precisely two passages from this new translation now, I'm very skeptical at this point.

What say you?

Hatushili

The Audacity of Hope

2008-11-12T16:47:00.002-05:00

Wow! Talk about a mixed bag of reactions to a Presidential election! I've heard conservatives talk as if the end of the world is upon us. I've heard doom and gloom. I've heard people giddy that we finally elected a black man. I've heard liberals talk as if the weather itself is actually better now that a Democrat will be in office. I've heard virtually every kind of reaction possible. And, yes ... I even heard someone ask if perhaps Obama is the anti-Christ!

Let's set that stuff aside, folks. Let's focus on the audacity of hope. Real hope. Hope in Jesus.

President-elect Obama has struck a nerve in this country with his "Hope" mantra. Witness the t-shirts (even Oprah had one on!) that read simply "Hope won". Obama wants to give us hope precisely because people need hope. This is always true, but especially when times are tough.

So let's have the audacity to suggest to people that while political hope is fleeting, hope in Jesus is our bedrock.

Let's remind people that while Obama's policies may or may not work, Jesus is our certain Redeemer.

Let's let the audacious statements of Jesus permeate our lives:

Mark 10:45 "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Mark 9:35 "If anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all and servant of all."

Mark 12:30-31 "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

Matthew 25:45 "I tell you the truth, just as you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for me."

When Obama - like all political leaders - ultimately fails to provide real hope, let our light shine so brightly that others turn toward it.

Jesus is the hope of the world. How's that for an audacious statement?

Hatushili

Christian civility for President Obama

2008-11-05T08:28:00.002-05:00

Like most of my readers, I did not vote for Mr. Obama. Unlike most of my readers, I voted for a third-party candidate. Nevertheless, please remember:

Barack Obama will soon be our president.

None of this silly "not my president" nonsense, please. Let us show the respect the office deserves. Let us look for areas where we agree with him and support him in those. Let us raise our voices in respectful protest when we do not agree. Let us pray for him, as we ought pray for all our leaders.

This is an opportunity for followers of Christ that disagree with Mr. Obama to be known for their love and grace. This is an opportunity for followers of Christ that agree with Mr. Obama to show respect and grace to those of us who don't. Let's not waste God's glory by becoming petty and mean-spirited. Campaigning is over; let's move forward. Perhaps more than ever, America needs the spirit of true grace that only the Holy Spirit - working through His followers - can bring.

Grace and Peace,
Hatushili

Reverend?!?

2008-10-23T18:28:00.003-04:00

No offense to people like "the Reverend Billy Graham" or others like him, but why oh why is "reverend" still an acceptable title for pastors?!

I don't really care much how people refer to me. As a Children's Pastor, I get all kinds of names. Some of my kids call me Pastor Nathan, some just Pastor. Some call me Mr. Nathan, others Mr. Hyde. A few simply call me Nathan. Their parents are much the same: though most just call me Nathan, some call me Pastor Nathan and a few simply Pastor.

No one, however, calls me "Reverend". There's a good reason for that - I've specifically asked that no one use that title...

There are two reasons for this preference. First, I'm no more "revered" than anyone else. Our standard is Jesus, not any person running around on His earth. Like you, I'm a sinner saved by grace. I just happen to be a pastor.

Second, it reinforces that very misguided notion that the profession of pastor is more "revered" than any other profession. There's nothing more holy, more godly, more special, more important, more ... anything about being a pastor. We are each called to service; mine is to serve as a pastor. Yours isn't. So what!

Okay, back to the impetus for this post. As you saw in the image at the top, I received a piece of mail today addressed to "Reverend Nathan Hyde". I assume it was so addressed because it came from Operation Christmas Child, a ministry led by the son of "Reverend Billy Graham". I assure you that I did not ask to be addressed as Reverend!

I type this post with the sincere hope that I'll never see another piece of mail addressed to "Reverend Nathan Hyde".

Hatushili

Christian postmodernity ... ?

2008-10-23T17:51:00.002-04:00

Most of you know that I've been beating the drum for a Christian understanding of cultural postmodernity for a long time now. But I think I've discovered that I'm either irrelevant, misguided, or cutting-edge...

What am I talking about? I'm beginning to think that few people are talking about postmodernity in specific cultural terms. Evidence: Google "cultural postmodernity" (with the quotes) and a few interesting things happen.

1) A post of mine is third on the list! I'm not that relevant, folks! So my presence in the top three likely indicates that my topic is not all that relevant...

2) The majority of the posts are from a spiritual/Christian perspective. If only followers of Jesus are using this term, it's well on it's way to being a part of some Christian subculture - the very last thing I want to be a part of!

3) None of the entries are really popular level. If I'm merely a part of some "intellectual" conversation, I'm not sure I'm on the right track...

So I'm left with the initial conclusion that I'm either wrong (there's no such thing as cultural postmodernity), misguided (there is such a thing, but everyone else is using different language) or cutting edge (soon everyone will be a part of my virtual self-conversation).

Right now I'm not sure which it is... but I'm still working on it. I'll keep you posted, eh?

Hatushili

Facebook

2008-10-23T17:46:00.002-04:00

As some of you may know, I've had a MySpace account for a while now. For reasons unclear to me, that social networking site has gone more or less dormant amongst my various friends. There's only one reason left for me to check that account - a former student in Maryland. If not for her, I'd likely give up on it altogether.

But recently my wife - my extremely technically-challenged wife - setup a Facebook account and is enjoying it immensely. I've therefore started one myself. For those that are on Facebook, you may view it here.

If you're not on Facebook, thus far I highly recommend it. It's simple to join and maintain the page - go for it!

Hatushili

The stuff that matters most

2008-10-20T15:11:00.002-04:00

I continue to be amazed at the things we - meaning follower of Jesus - make an issue of. One of the things I most appreciate about my home church is that we've zeroed in on simply six "center circle" issues and work hard not to allow other things to be divisive.

Anyway, I've recently stumbled across a few very silly stereotypes that still continue to linger in our culture...

A good friend of mine, who happens to be a pastor, takes some time once in a while to visit the local bar and strike up friendships and conversations. You guessed it - one of the patrons recently expressed shock that a pastor would drink a beer! Are we still fighting that one!?! For reasons I'll not disclose here, I am a complete abstainer from alcohol. But it's not possible to argue that everyone must be an abstainer. Thus saith the Bible: don't get drunk, yo!

Another: I've had an ongoing discussion with a friend that thinks school-age students at Christian schools should have a hair code. Not too long, not too wild ... you know the stereotype. Part of his argument is that plenty of professions have dress codes that include standards for hair. I agree, but I'm also pretty sure that school-age students don't get that, and that they don't care right now (nor do they need to, in my opinion). More to the point, doesn't having codes like that reinforce all the wrong stereotypes about Christians?

If we're going to live as truly authentic follower of Jesus in our culture, we can no longer afford to reinforce all the wrong images. I'm certainly not arguing that we adopt all the culture has to offer, but where culture is just culture (and not immoral) why not?

Be the real you! If you really like rock music and long hair, listen to rock music and wear long hair ... and as you live your life be sure to talk about the Saviour.

If you really like emo and bald heads, listen to emo and shave your head ... and as you live your life be sure to talk about the Saviour.

You can't fake these things. As I've noted before, postmoderns have their "poser" sensors set to turbo! You be you. I'll be me. Together we'll authentically witness to His grace, His power and His desire to transform this world.

Hatushili

Stranger things have happened!

2008-10-19T17:14:00.004-04:00

As you may have noticed, I installed a traffic feed near the bottom of my blog. It shows me where the various visitors to my blog have come from. It's been fascinating to watch the locations that pop up, to say the least.

Using the feed, I can tell when certain of you visit my blog, since some of you virtually never leave comments! So, for example, when my former student from Maryland visits, I see "Baltimore, MD" show up on the list. I like having this feed - it amuses me!

Having said all that, I had to share a few facts from my feed...

Interesting fact #1: Some of you have apparently figured out that I have this feed and have taken steps to mask your identity. Periodically I see simply "United States" on the list. Not sure why you'd care that much, but I respect your right to privacy.

Interesting fact #2: I had absolutely no response to my post awhile back on Jesus as High Priest and King. Then a strange thing started to happen. I found my feed showing hits to that particular page, over and over again. Hits from South Africa (at least twice, from two different towns). Hits from all over the US. Hits from places where I've never visited (and therefore made friends that now read this blog). Curious. But not as curious as ...

Interesting fact #3: I had a visitor from Mongolia! Seriously. The image posted at the beginning of this blog entry is a screenshot from it. Some dude from Mongolia found my post on Jesus as High Priest and King via Google. I had to Google "Ulaanbaatar" to figure out that it was in Mongolia, incidentally.

All of this leads me to think that perhaps I should finish the posts on Jesus as High Priest...

A penny for anyone's thoughts or comments.

Hatushili

God's Universe

2008-09-20T08:20:00.003-04:00

I finally finished one of the books on my reading list! It's remarkable how little reading I've been able to get to year...

I'd love to give you a full review of God's Universe, but it's hardly worth reviewing. The author (Owen Gingerich) supposes himself balanced on the subject of science and creation. But he consistently uses little phrases here or there that make it clear he's not. Not that I am either, mind you - it's just that I make no pretense of so being!

In the end, this author basically continues to argue for the same old tired (and thoroughly Modern) "category error": Science and Creation/Design are not in the same category, so it's unfair to compare them or allow one to slip into the realm of the other. Ironic that he points out the common understanding during Copernicus' time - it was held that something could be mathematically true but not really true (in this case, the heliocentric view of the universe) - without realizing he's committing the same error. Either God created the universe of it evolved. Either the text of Genesis is true or it isn't. I certainly understand there are ambiguities here; issues that need addressing. I'm not arguing that this is an easy subject! But Gingerich seems to want it both ways: something can be "scientifically" true (for him, macro evolution) but perhaps not "really" true (he still wants to believe in an omniscient Creator).

If this is the "balanced" view of the Science/Creation debate, I guess I'll have to remain off-kilter!

Hatushili

Good news!

2008-09-06T21:23:00.001-04:00

This will be too cool for words when/if completed!

Hatushili

Dude, this is just ridiculous!

2008-09-06T19:15:00.003-04:00

Okay. Deep breath. I rarely rant on this blog. But I feel compelled. Here goes.

The local metro newspaper in my area is horrible. Just horrible. This is nowhere more evident than in their "Faith" section. I scan the section most weeks - the stories are often trite and more or less without significance. Apparently that's the kind of stuff they think a reader of the "Faith" section desires. But I digress...

You simply must read this ridiculous article. Read the article first, then continue on with my post (if you like)...

Let's start with Mr. Abernathy's initial statement: "Many just don't use the word 'god'. It's been a word that, no matter how you use it in a sentence, it means a thousand different things, and you can't tie it to anything."

Wow. So the time-honoured argument about who/what determines the meaning of a given word has been reduced to this?! Try this one, Mr. Abernathy: God sent His Son to earth as the baby Jesus. Am I to believe that there are "a thousand different" ways that "God" might be meant in that sentence? Really? A thousand?! Obviously Mr. Abernathy is as fond of hyperbole as I am, so I'll cut him a bit of slack. But he clearly believes that the meaning of the term 'god' is so nebulous and individually-determined that we shouldn't even bother trying to agree on any aspect of him/her/it.

His example of saying "God loves you" to a homeless dude and then claiming that such a sentence is "meaningless" is absurd. That very simple sentence can be understood by virtually anyone. Failure to grasp it's meaning would lead to an obvious response - questions. Questions such as "Who is God?", or "what is love". There aren't many additional questions that need answering to understand "God loves you", eh? But apparently homeless folk are simply and only seeking material goods, not religious and/or metaphysical hope. How silly of me to forget that the material always takes precedence!

How about this beauty: "Religion is about morality"? Seriously?! So first we can't settle on even the most basic definition of 'god', but no we're to believe that the very essence of 'religion' is to be defined as merely 'morality'? If we can't settle on a meaning for 'god', why should I have any confidence in Mr. Abernathy's definition of 'religion'? In short, I shouldn't.

The article gets better... The reporter than makes a statement that begs for explanation, but receives none. She claims that Unitarian Universalism has "roots" that are "Judeo-Christian". So do the Jehovah's Witnesses. So do the Mormons. But that doesn't excuse the author from explaining that sentence at least a bit. "Roots" seems to indicate a still-existing connection. This is, of course, no longer true of the UU "church". Apparently that little tid-bit of information was too much to include in the article. Or, more likely, the author believes that UU actually is still connected to Christianity. That's either ignorance (which indicates a lack of research) or lack of intelligence.

But wait; there's more! Next we read that Matt Casper (a self-avowed atheist) is agitated with churches. In fact, he has some advice for them - "a church should be about action". Well said; as a follower of Jesus I couldn't agree more. But then this: "If all who claimed to be Christian actually did what Jesus asked, there'd be no poverty or war or disparity of income".

More deep breathing. Okay...

So I'm to believe the central meaning of Christ's church is embodied in equal distribution of income?!? The ol' "Jesus as Communist" bit again? Wow. How about the fact that Jesus told us (in Matt. 26:11, for example) that we would always have the poor? What about John's regular references throughout Revelation to "war"? Sorry, Mr. Casper - your vision of Jesus is clearly faulty. It would be nice if pastors like Mr. Abernathy would attempt to introduce, or even to model, Jesus to you. But alas, religion is about morality...

Then there's the sad case of Mrs. Powers. She "grew up in a liberal Presbyterian church, but her father was always a skeptic". Further evidence of the utter failure of mainline liberal churches - Mrs. Powers has been with the UU for years now.

Here's perhaps the biggest reason UU works in America: "Don't let other people define religion for you". Apparently, "other people" even includes Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, etc... Sad.

She's also convinced that "the concept of God is an attempt to describe [the need for something other to be in charge]". It's the tired old 'God as a crutch' thinking. If He's merely for the relief of our own self-inflicted angst, I for one want no part in Him.

And my favourite line from the article: "I really enjoy life and try to be thankful...". But, Mrs. Powers, to whom are you thankful? This is one verb that requires an object. Apparently the object of one's thanks does not matter in the UU "church".

Rant completed. I'll now return to my regularly scheduled blogging. Sorry to have bothered ya'll.

Hatushili

Stuck on Ooze

2008-09-06T11:18:00.002-04:00

I pretty much can't stand the theology of guys like Spencer Burke. Yet I find myself routinely reading posts on The Ooze. Why? Part of the answer, I suppose, is that I enjoy a good laugh now and then - some of the arguments made on that site are so ludicrous as to be laughable!

But I find some gems now and then, too. Seriously. I hate to admit it, but once in a while the Ooze really does post something challenging. Usually not; once in a while.

Today's reading of The Ooze is a case study in this truth. This article is utterly ridiculous; this one is actually good.

If you don't read the Ooze, I would encourage you to do so now and again. But keep in mind that you'll need the ability to sift through a lot of garbage to get to the good.

Hatushili

The fusion of two passions

2008-09-01T15:44:00.002-04:00

Those of you that know me very well know that I'm passionate about a number of things. High on that list (and in no particular order) would be 'environmental stewardship' and 'outdoor power equipment'. Sound contradictory to you? Read on...

For whatever silly reason, the radical fringe of the environmental movement has labelled outdoor power equipment (OPE) as "evil", sometimes literally! From lawn mowers to leaf blowers, groups like the Sierra Club and others characterize the OPE industry as a part of the problem, not the solution.

I have attempted to moderate my passion for environmental stewardship with an equal passion for the plight of the human race. Let's be honest, OPE makes people's lives much easier. Don't get me wrong - it can be overdone. There's no sense firing up a chainsaw, for example, just to cut off a single 2" branch. There's also no sense mowing your lawn every 3 or 4 days. But that doesn't change the fact that most OPE is a help to humanity.

The OPE industry is doing its part in working toward environmental stewardship, too. This happens in two primary ways; one obvious, the other not so.

First, and most obviously, the OPE industry has been subjected to more and more stringent emissions standards. OPE of today is vastly less polluting than machines of only 10 years ago. Two-cycle lawnmowers, arguably the single greatest polluter in the OPE industry, have been outlawed. Small two-cycle engine (think string trimmers and leaf blowers) are constantly being improved for emissions efficiency. [The interested reader will consider Stihl's four-mix engines.] Carburetors are now being manufactured that are difficult (at best!) for the average consumer to bugger with - making it much less likely that they'll accidentally run their equipment too rich and therefore too polluting. Catalytic mufflers? Got 'em. Fuel injection? Showing up more and more. Clean two-strokes? Check. Add all of this to the simple fact that the entire OPE industry makes up perhaps 5% of total emissions in this country and I think you'll agree that OPE is doing its part to be more green.

But there's a second way that OPE contributes to environmental stewardship. Taking better care of your green spaces is not only aesthetically pleasing, it actually helps care for the environment.

For example, one fairly well known example is forests. Whether it's the massive timber stands we have out West or the small plot of woods in the back of your property, stands of trees do better when cared for (as opposed to leaving them "natural"). Maintained stands of trees are less susceptible to forest fires, less susceptible to the rapid spread of disease, less desirable for vermin, etc... Property owners that keep their woods "natural" are generally missing out on plenty of benefits.

Another example: harvesting timber or firewood from tree stands helps reduce emissions. By felling and using the larger trees in a stand, the tree canopy is opened up to allow more small trees a chance at rapid growth (and therefore absorption of tons of carbon).

I recently read of one more example; one that just about all of us can contribute to: mowing your lawn. The radical environmentalists regularly moan about the evils of gasoline powered lawnmowers. Scan the recent marketing trends in mowers - electric and/or reel-type mowers are all the rage because they're "green"! But recent research reveals a very compelling case for proper lawn care, even when that requires a gas-powered mower. OPE Magazine recently reported a study that shows well-managed turf grass sequesters four times more carbon than the engine powering the mower emits. That's because well-managed turf grass is in constant growth mode, and when it's growing it's absorbing carbon.

So there you have it: some of the basics behind how I can maintain these two passions simultaneously. Like so much else in life, it's really all about balance, eh?

Hatushili

The latest trend?

2008-08-21T08:08:00.002-04:00

I often marvel at how silly we can be. By "we" I mean followers of Jesus in America. It seems we're always looking for the latest trend, the newest methodology, the best data to support our positions.

I came across another one of these sorts of tidbits just a moment ago. Well intended, for sure. But at least a tad bit silly.

It seems that some people with more money than I commissioned a study to find out some things about why people join churches and why they leave them. The full article is here, for your reading enjoyment.

The results? In a nutshell, people like friendly churches. Even more profound, people tend to like churches where they can develop strong relationships. More marvelous still, "younger" (read: culturally postmodern) people tend to value these attributes even more than others!

I must say, I'm shocked. I had no idea that pomos would be more interested in real community than most anything else. Seriously? Wow.

Okay, I'm done with the dripping saracasm. But let's think about this for just a second: if we're analyzing this data from a viewpoint of efficacy (which clearly this article is), aren't we missing the point? Is it really in the best interest of churches to study "what works" and not merely "what's right"? We end up with merely the "latest trend in research" kind of thinking... Sad.

The point is this: the Church of Jesus Christ must be founded upon relationships because it was designed by the Creator to be founded upon relationships. It is first and foremost about our relationship to Him - notice I said our relationship to Him, not merely my relationship to Him. We are to be a body, a family, a community ... not a collection of individuals.

Data or no data, local churches should be striving toward authentic community because it's the right thing to do. If articles like these make people hop on a trend-setting bandwagon only to switch to the next big thing a year or two down the road, we've missed the point. We've been given the blueprint for what a healthy church looks like (hint: it looks like a healthy family); let's just focus on that, eh?

Hatushili

Jesus our High Priest and King, part 1

2008-07-26T13:25:00.003-04:00

As most of you know by now, I was hired to be the Children's Pastor at our local church not that many months ago. Since then, I've largely been wrapped up in the world of CM - Children's Ministry!

But recently the elders asked that I teach an adult Sunday School class for a few weeks this summer. I'm now two weeks into an eight week course on Jesus as High Priest and King, which got me to thinking...

... why not blog about the same topic here? The study is one I did some years ago for a Greek course I was taking about the book of Hebrews. It turned out to be truly fascinating, and I'm eternally grateful for Dr. Bateman's assignment (he's now at Trinity; I had him at Grace). As it turns out, my research is transitioning smoothly into a Sunday School class. From the reviews I'm getting so far, I think it's fast becoming a very profitable study for people. Perhaps I can persuade you - oh shadowy reader! - to engage the subject as well...

In this first post, let's start with this: the origins of the High Priesthood. This is a somewhat complicated subject in its details. But in broad brush strokes it's pretty straight forward. The first mention in the Bible of "high priest" is Numbers 35. The context has to do with cities of refuge - a fascinating subject in its own right! For our purposes, the important part is that people in a city of refuge could only be released to their pre-crime lives when the sitting High Priest died. Why? Apparently it had to do with the OT social justice system of "eye for an eye" and the perceived holiness of the High Priest. In other words, since a manslayer (living in the city of refuge) had killed someone, even if accidentally, only blood could atone for it. The death of the High Priest was the only that was sufficient to the task.

What this says about the holiness of the High Priest is remarkable. He (either his office or his person ... ?) was the only person in the community of faith righteous enough to give his blood for the crimes of another. Don't get me wrong - I'm not reading too much Christology into this text. The High Priest didn't actually give up his life, nor did he even have to die a bloody death. But it's still significant that only his death could atone for the manslayer. This, the earliest OT reference to the High Priest, begins immediately to lay the foundation for holiness and sacrifice that will come to fullness in Christ.

But why does the office of High Priest not show up until the book of Numbers? Didn't it start with Aaron? The answer - at least to this theologically conservative pastor - is 'yes'. Aaron was the first High Priest. In fact, it's telling that the Numbers text offers no background whatsoever to the High Priest - he just shows up in a way that makes it clear that the original readers were quite familiar with him.

So the High Priest comes from the line of Aaron and is perceived to be the most holy member of the community of faith. Even during the Tabernacle period, he's responsible for sacrifices.

In short, he's set apart. He's special. Not just anybody could be the High Priest. He has to have the right lineage and character. As a Christian, it's easy to see where this is heading. But keep in mind that to the Jew of the OT period this was simply not the case.

In the next post we'll look at the High Priest in the Kingdom period and then into the Babylonian Captivity. Until then, let me tell you the end ahead of time so you can watch for it as we go. What this study will show is that there was a gradual merging of the office of High Priest and King through the ages of Jewish history. This merger was completed in Christ, who now stands as both our High Priest and King. And, of course, that has ramifications for our lives. All this and more is spelled out in the book of Hebrews... but now I'm getting too far ahead of myself!

Hatushili

Please note: Due to the under-whelming response to this first post, I've decided against posting the remainder of these lessons. If you'd like to have them, email me and I'll send you the materials.

Absolute Postmodernity

2008-07-10T18:18:00.002-04:00

As you know if you've read many of my posts on the subject of postmodernity, I maintain that when discussing postmodernity we must distinguish between "cultural postmodernity" and what I tend to call "ivory tower postmodernity".

Culturally, most younger Americans are postmodern. Yet the vast majority of them continue to believe in a set of absolute truthes. What gives?

The truth (as I see it) is that those of us who identify with postmodern cultural values still tend to understand that there are some absolutes in this world. We have a much smaller list of them, no doubt - but a list nonetheless.

The troubling part is that most cultural postmoderns (at least those that don't know Christ) tend to have trouble acknowledging this fact. They say they don't believe in universal moral truth, but when pressed they generally do have at least a limited list.

Which brings me to the motivation behind this post. Like me, you probably get a copy of Parade Magazine in the Sunday paper. It's mostly Holywood stuff - celebrity gossip, new movie releases, interviews with actors, etc... Recently they interviewed Christian Bale, in light of the new Batman film and his connection to the late Heath Ledger.

I don't know a thing about Christian Bale the man. But in this article he says he's one who has "always enjoyed the gray in life" - a pretty classic way of expressing culturally postmodern sensitivities. Yet when asked about being a father, he says:

"There’s a very hard line you find in yourself when you become a parent, an absolute belief that cannot be questioned. It’s something that you will kill and die for in a way that you never experienced before. I’ve always enjoyed the gray in life. This is an area of total black and white. This is something that is unquestionable."

That's what I'm talking about! If Christian Bale embodies cultural postmodernity as much as I suspect he does, he's (anecdotally) proving my point. Here's something he's found that is absolutely true - a father would die for his child.

There's one other absolute truth I hope he finds - a Son died for His children.

Hatushili

Baby Dedication Day!

2008-06-22T22:05:00.004-04:00

I had the privilege of officiating my first baby dedication today. [In the future, I'll be doing them jointly with our elder of family life, but he was out of town for the weekend.]

It was a great experience, and it got me to thinking about the nature of community again...

As I navigated through the dedication of this beautiful little boy, I reminded the family that they were being dedicated too - it wasn't just about the little one.

Just as importantly, I reminded our people that children are people too (a phrase I use all the time, and intentionally) and that we have a responsibility to help them raise this little one to know Jesus and to learn how to follow Him.

But what does that mean, exactly? Clearly parents are the spiritual leaders of their children, and fathers are the spiritual leaders of their homes. But it's just as clear from Scripture that we're a family - a single body in Christ striving for His purposes.

I wonder if we haven't allowed the American "right to privacy" to overly permeate our parenting. Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating the ol' "it takes a village" per se. It's just that too often (in my experience) we don't seek the help and wisdom that our fellow Christians could offer. We're too proud, or too shy, or ... too something. Always too something...

Am I - as the Children's Pastor - modelling the kind of attitude I feel the Bible calls for? I'm not sure. Of course I'd like to say yes ... but I don't know if that's completely honest.

I'm not even sure exactly what I'm calling for. I just know that I'm tired of watching well-meaning Christian parents struggle with issues about which other parents in our assembly could share wisdom. Maybe we're too closed off - not connected enough. Maybe it hasn't even occurred to these parents that these family resources are available to them.

Perhaps that's where to start - to at least make parents aware that they can both receive and offer wisdom with regard to the struggles of other parents.

Today, that's just what happened as we dedicated this little soul and his family to Christ in the presence of His followers. May we take seriously the affirmations made this day. Too much depends upon it to do otherwise.

Hatushili

Survivor Camp

2008-06-20T18:38:00.003-04:00

The local church I serve just finished our Survivor Camp today. What is Survivor Camp? Think traditional vacation Bible school on steroids!

Every day we had some corporate worship, a skit relating to the Bible lesson of the day, the corporate Bible lesson, then we moved the kids by age (ish) through a series of 15 minutes stations. One was snack/discussion, where they got some refreshments and a chance to talk about the Bible lesson in a small group format. The other stations were all games/activities, mostly of a somewhat crazy variety!

For example, today was water day, so we had a couple of water balloon slings set up and let the kids launch away at their leaders! We also had an obstacle course that would challenge many adults.

We had some of the more standard games, too. Volleyball, soccer, wheelbarrow races, etc... All told, the week was outstanding. We had a couple hundred kids running around having a grand time, learning a bit of Bible and building relationships with (mostly) teenagers that intentionally showed the love of Christ.

We also involved some civil service to the week. One day we had a demonstration by a K-9 unit. The kids loved the dog (of course!) but it was also nice to see our police forces painted in such a wholesome light (in lieu of so many video games). Another day we had members of the SWAT team come in. It was awesome! They brought an APV, a bunch of equipment and a bomb robot! The robot roamed around and took a team flag from a child ... who nervously cooperated.

I know there are some that would see what we did this week and think (or say), "They weren't direct enough in their presentation of the Gospel". But this week wasn't about a head count of "decisions for the LORD". It was about being a beacon of love and hope in the midst of our community. I shared the Gospel directly during the final day's Bible lesson, and I'm sure the topic came up through small group discussion as well. But more than anything we wanted to plant seeds and build bridges.

We'll be inviting each of these families to come to our next Family Sunday (see this post), which is at the end of this month. Pray that the love and grace we poured into these little lives will continue to honour God in the days to come.

Hatushili

Baptism revisited

2008-06-14T12:21:00.003-04:00

A while back I brought up the topic of baptizing young children. I know those of you in 'baby baptism' circles might find this hard to believe, but you can really get a heated discussion going when you bring up questions on this subject in evangelical circles.

Well, as I mentioned in that older post, we've been rethinking the process some and have come out of the woods, as it were...

I still maintain that the very best way to determine whether a younger child is really ready to be baptized is to follow them around for a week! But since that simply isn't possible, we've decided to do the next best thing.

I began interviewing candidates for baptism a few weeks ago. The interviews are not tests - I'm not just reading a list of questions and looking for "correct" answers. We're spending some time getting to know each other better, these children and I. Along the way, we're talking about the issues that matter most when it comes to readiness for baptism. But rather than just ask questions, I've been weaving a narrative for them involving something they like (sports, music, games, etc...) and using that narrative as a framework to find the answers children really believe, not just what they've been taught to say.

In case you're curious, here's the list of concepts/questions I try to weave into our interviews. In no particular order:

a) How many ways are there to Heaven?
b) Why would a person want to be baptized?
c) Is baptism necessary for salvation?
d) What about persecution - things like 2 Tim 3:12?
e) What exactly is a sinner?
f) Why do we need the Bible?
g) Who and what is Jesus?
h) What about those that don't yet know the LORD?

Depending on how the conversation goes, I'll emphasize one or more of these issues. I'm finding (in my limited experience so far) that kids understand a fair bit about these subjects. There have been (of course!) some youthful errors to correct along the way, but so far I've been pleasantly surprised by the interviews.

Anyway, having said all that, I'm happy to announce that I'm expecting to conduct a number of baptisms for some of our younger souls in the upcoming months! These will be truly joyous occasions, and I can't wait for them to start...

Baptism in many local churches seems to have become a ritual in the worst sense of the word - something we do simply because we feel we must. Gone is the excitement at the symbolism. Gone is the joy for the public display of lost ones that have been found. Why is this? For my part, I hope to always model the kind of excitement I think baptism deserves.

Hatushili

[PS: If you dig the William Johnson print as much as I, you can buy it here.]

Amazing Grace

2008-06-09T23:27:00.004-04:00

Do you know how many marriages make it to see their 10th wedding anniversary? About 65%.

How about their 25th anniversary? Only 33%.

50th? A meager 5%.

Part of this is a matter of simple math - Americans now tend to marry in the mid 20s instead of their early 20s (or even late teens). That fact alone shaves a fair number of people off the list of candidates for a 50th anniversary.

But math alone cannot explain what some dear friends of mine just celebrated...

I couldn't even find statistics related to their marriage accomplishment. Given the state of our marital culture today, it's unlikely that we'll ever hear of this accomplishment down the road...

Last week Joe and Grace celebrated their 71st wedding anniversary!

Yes, you read that right - they've been married for 71 years. Using numbers doesn't do it justice. Let me try that again.

Joe and Grace have been married for seventy one years!!

Plenty of people don't live that long, let alone stay married that long. But the most amazing part (and the primary reason for the title of this post) is Grace. She has been a loving caretaker of Joe for many years now. He continues to ever-so-slowly slip into the arms of His Creator and Grace is there with him every step of the way. This beautiful woman devotes virtually every moment of every day to the care of her wheelchair-bound husband. Joe's not himself anymore; hasn't been in quite some time. But still, there's Grace.

She's a living, breathing testament to the power of love in marriage.

Faith. Hope. Love.

and Grace. May all of us be able to follow her example.

Hatushili

[FYI: the statistics I cited are from this website.]

Stormy weather

2008-06-09T22:57:00.003-04:00

We had our first taste of thunderstorms at the new house the other day. It's rained here since we've moved in, but this was the first really windy, ugly, thunderstorm we've had. We had another tonight, but that's another story!

Anyway, this storm blew in very quickly and it left almost as quickly as it came. Immediately after it passed over, the sky turned this bright shade of almost yellow and the adults in the house all knew what was coming next ...

a rainbow!

But we didn't just get one - there were two rainbows out there in that strangely calm sky. I captured a few pictures, using my favorite Christmas gift of last year (Carmen bought me a polarizing filter for my camera). I hope you enjoy them!

Hatushili

The Voice

2008-06-05T09:43:00.003-04:00

The details are a bit fuzzy for me right now, but it appears that the emergent crowd is soon to have a Bible specifically marketed to them.

Or not?

I'm still doing the research, and I'll leave you to do the same.

Check out The Voice. Poke around a bit and let me know what your impressions are.

As I discover more, I'll post it.

Hatushili

Update, part 3

2008-06-05T09:33:00.002-04:00

I have internet access again!

This is going to sound cheesy, but (seriously) thank God for broadband.

Our service is not blazing fast, but it's broadband and I'm happy for it. I have to give some love to the folks at Lightning Net for providing wireless internet to guys like me that live within a country mile of the middle of nowhere.

Anyway, I believe I've worked out all the initial kinks in having new service. I am able to receive email again (the address linked on this site has worked all along; I'm referring to my more personal address that some of you have). I've also just finished configuring my outgoing SMTP settings, so I can send email from that account now too!

So... if you wish to begin interacting with my posts again, feel free! We are live and good to go!

Hatushili

Update, part 2

2008-05-31T10:25:00.002-04:00

Coming soon to the Hyde household ... broadband internet access!!!!

After much searching, we finally found a wireless company within range of us. Barring some major calamity, we should be hooked up again this coming Wednesday.

Thank God for high-speed access.

Expect a full-scale resumption of my blog within the next week!

Hatushili

Update

2008-05-17T11:50:00.001-04:00

Since my last post, we've:

1. Moved to a 118 year old farm house.
2. Had our seventh child (Abigail Elizabeth).
3. Lost virtually all access to the internet.

Therefore, I've not posted in a month and won't likely for a few more weeks. I'm working on getting reasonable broadband where we now live, but the prospects are few and far between.

I'll keep you posted.

Hatushili

Spiritual Vertigo

2008-04-12T12:51:00.003-04:00

A former pastor of mine used to speak a lot about balance. "What's so often lacking in the local church", he often said, "is balance." I have to agree. You and I both could list countless examples of how this is true, but today I want to talk about one particular example that I'm personally familiar with ... but it's a positive example!

As most of you know, I'm increasingly convinced that my home church is a very special place. Some of the usual hang-ups that often infect local churches have been effectively warded off (to date!). One in particular is the oft-noticed "worship wars" of other families.

Our worship pastor is that rare combination of a stellar musician and a humble servant leader. He makes a conscious effort to find a balance between what the more Modern section of our demographic might prefer (more polish; less improv) and what the more Postmodern section prefers (less polish; more improv). [Note: as usual, I'm referring to cultural Postmodernity in this context.]

As with any balancing act, he sometimes errs too far one way or the other. But there seems to be an abundance of grace given, knowing that this is how balancing usually works.

If it's true (and I believe it is) that Modern/Postmodern is the biggest cultural rift in America since ... ever, then this will be the most difficult period in our history to strike the right balance. We've always had issues of musical preference, but I would contend that they've never been couched in such significant cultural differences. In other words, those of us that would have local churches with both Modern and Postmodern family members will have to strive even harder to keep a sound and healthy balance.

The funny thing is that very few of us in this local body would ever talk about this issue in terms of Modern/Postmodern understandings and sensitivities. But that doesn't change the fact that grace is given and balance sought.

To God be the glory, in all aspects of our corporate worship.

Hatushili

Seven babies; seven chakras

2008-04-10T14:14:00.003-04:00

I had an unusual experience the other day, and upon further review I think I could've handled it one of two ways. I offer here the situation and the two possible reactions; you tell me what you might've done...

My wife and I were touring a new birthing center in the area (in anticipation of our soon-to-be-born seventh child). The facilities were beautiful and well conceived (pun intended!). Our guide was giving us a personal tour - just she and us.

We passed into yet another wing of this place and noticed a lady painting a beautiful canvas. In the background were the colours of the rainbow; in the foreground were cute little children. As we admired her 2/3 finished work, she began telling us about it.

"The colours of the rainbow actually correspond to the seven chakras. The reason I'm here today is to help you use this information as you raise your children. For example, if your newborn is fussy you can hold them to your chest - the seat of the purple chakra - and actually transfer that calm energy into your baby. This system of belief is ancient spirituality - it predates Christ."

I am, of course, quoting her from the best of my memory. But this is the gist of what she said. As she's talking, she's shoving a flyer into my wife's hands detailing all that she's explaining. My wife clearly had no idea how to respond to this situation.

So ... I see at least two ways I could've handled the situation:

Option 1: I could've engaged this woman in conversation. I could've asked her if she realized what she was talking about is nothing more than standard-issue Hindu teaching. I could've asked her how the cherubim in her painting could co-exist with this Hindu teaching. I could've told her how I put my faith in the calming power of the Holy Spirit, not a purple chakra. I could've met this woman where she was and tried to help.

Option 2: I could've become visibly upset. I could've thanked the woman for the lesson in Hindu teaching, but kindly moved on. I could've later informed the tour guide of the inappropriateness of this woman's actions. I could've become righteously indignant.

I chose option 2 at that moment. I'm not sure that I would if I had it to do over. At the time, I felt sucker-punched. Here I was, basking in my thoughts of beautiful babies. My mind had wondered to our upcoming birth ... I had nothing but pleasant thoughts about the blessings of my LORD on my mind. Then ...

WHAM!! I was hit with this spiritual assault.

At least that's how I felt in the moment.

Looking back, I'm not so sure. But hindsight is always 20/20, so they say.

What say you?

Hatushili

A picture's worth a thousand words

2008-04-06T07:48:00.003-04:00

This is a picture I took myself - I can verify it's veracity. Yes, it's actually a Christmas tree shoved into a porta-jon! Fear not, it was removed shortly after I took this picture. And no - I didn't put it there!

What I need is either a story behind how on earth it might have come to be here, or a witty caption.

I know many of you a very creative people - have at it!

Hatushili

Charting the change

2008-04-04T08:27:00.003-04:00

One of the very first books I ever read that could be said to be in the "emerging church" crowd was Robert Webber's The Younger Evangelicals. At the time I read it, I didn't really realize that this work would turn out to be on of the cornerstones in missional (and, for many, emerging) thought.

The folks over at Resonate have taken the time to publish one of Webber's comparison charts from the book. I found it fascinating when I first read it, and even more so now. I discuss it here in the hopes that it might prove useful to you...

Here's the link to the chart. Spend a little time reading over it and let me know what you think.

One of the more interesting features of the chart to me: the final column (Younger Evangelicals) is what most mirrors emerging and/or missional folk today, and I find that much of that thinking is a reaction more to the middle column than the first. Certainly no one in either the missional or the emerging church movement would advocate much of the first column! But at least to me it seems the primary reaction is to the middle... What do you think?

Incidentally, as you might expect, I find myself much more in agreement with the last column than any other. I have some agreement with column number one here or there, but I can't really see anything in the middle column I find appealing... How about you?

Hatushili

Children and Baptism

2008-04-02T20:30:00.002-04:00

Wow! If you decide you want to elicit some strong emotions from parents of young children, just bring up the topic of when/if children should be baptized!

I find myself in the position of having to wrestle with this issue right now, so I thought I'd share some thoughts and then (as usual) ask for feedback...

First, let me note (briefly) why I don't practice or approve of infant baptism. I understand that there are plenty of folk that do; I just have to agree to disagree. In a nutshell, those that baptize babies believe that the ancient rite of circumcision was a sign of membership into the community of faith (a point I agree with) and that modern day infant baptism is the replacement for that rite, now that we're in the church age. These folk believe that the Church has replaced Israel.

I don't take that position. I advocate what's commonly called "believer's baptism"; that is, I believe only those who've personally chosen to follow Christ should be baptized.

Hence, the "at what age" questions begin...

For my part, I believe that it's in the best interest of local churches to make a legitimate effort not to baptize those that really don't understand the Gospel. It's ultimately unfair and unhealthy to baptize a hypothetical seven year old kid that says she loves Jesus but otherwise doesn't really understand what she's saying.

Therefore, local churches have a responsibility to implement wisdom in making this decision. For me, I'm increasingly coming to the conviction that wisdom on this question involves asking the prospective baptismal candidate the right questions; questions that are neither tricky nor leading. We can't, for example, simply ask a child "Do you love Jesus?" and expect that their answer reflects actual understanding!

But neither can we expect children (or adults, for that matter) to have a developed theology before we baptize them. The New Testament pattern typically reflects baptism very soon after the decision to follow Christ. But with children, the question centers around when they are actually mature enough to really make that decision.

Believing as I do that young children best grasp narrative, I'm thinking that posing hypothetical situations is a much better way to get the kind of honest, heart-felt answers we should be looking for. Asking a child a "fill in the blank" kind of question will get us only so far. But asking a child to tell a story in response to a story we tell them? Much better.

The question now becomes harder - the details. That's where I'm wrestling right now. I'm trying to think of reasonable, hypothetical situations I could mentally put children into - narratives that will set the stage for their continuation of the story. I'm optimistic that(if done the right way) this will get us closer to a child's true understanding of what it means to follow Jesus.

Your thoughts? Anybody with personal experience on this issue? I'd love to hear from you ...

Hatushili

Family Sunday update

2008-04-02T09:05:00.002-04:00

As I mentioned in this post, our church held its very first "Family Sunday" this week. For a first run, things went really well...

We started the service very casually - our worship team meandered their way up to the stage (now covered in couches and chairs) and began playing as they got there. We had a short time of corporate worship before moving to the ever-popular announcements!

I had three of our older kids do the announcements - each is in the 4th or 5th grade, and they did great! After that, I invited all the kids that would to come up on the stage with me. We had a packed stage - I'm not even sure how many kids it was, but it was most of them! I shared with them and the adults from Daniel chapter 1.

We always invite a different person each week to lead corporate prayer, but this week it was an entire family. It was wonderful to hear husband, wife and their two young girls pray over us.

From there, we moved to some more corporate worship that was kid-friendly - songs they'd been used to singing in their own KIDS church services. After that, our youth pastor spoke to the whole assembly about "springing forward" into new levels of service. Since we're all a family, each of us has to do her or his "chores", as it were.

I look forward to many more Family Sundays down the road, building and improving as we go. For those of you who've been considering something like this in your own assembly, I whole-heartedly recommend you give it a try!

Hatushili

Wednesday night stuff

2008-03-22T10:49:00.003-04:00

I'm in the process of researching some of the various programs out there for Wed. night church programming for kids. We'll be expanding what we do on Wed. nights at my home church, so I'm trying to figure out the best and wisest way to go.

Here's what I've found and what I know, but I need your help...

After a cursory search on the good ol' internet, I've found the following:

1. CEF/Good News Club
2. AWANA
3. Word of Life/Olympians
4. Faith Weavers
5. Royal Rangers
6. Pioneer Club

I know a fair bit about the first two (especially AWANA), and have a passing familiarity with WOL. I know the last three only by name.

So ... if any of you know something you think I should know to make a wise decision, I'd love to hear from you. Feel free to either comment here or email me.

Hatushili

Family Sundays

2008-03-17T14:05:00.004-04:00

As most of you know, I'm always trying to figure out ways to foster a more authentic sense of community in local churches. Over at my home church we're going to try something different that I think will really help on a number of fronts...

If you look at a calendar, you'll discover that there are four (sometimes five) months in a year that have five Sundays. I doesn't take much imagination to realize that this regularly creates scheduling difficulties for Children's Ministry workers. You usually have volunteers that agree to work one Sunday per month ... but suddenly you have an extra week but not extra workers! Churches choose to resolve the issue in many various (and fully functional) ways. We are electing to do something a little out of the norm.

On these "extra" Sundays, we're declaring Family Sunday. We'll not have our normal Children's Ministries, but instead we'll have everyone all together in the main assembly area. This will create some challenges, for sure - but we think the rewards will far outweigh the difficulties. When you put them on a scale, it looks something like this:

Challenges:
1. It's different - there will be a certain amount of adjustment to things just plain old "not normal"!
2. It will be louder - there's no question that having children in this setting will create more noise and a little bit of chaos, too.
3. It will create some tension - some parents will be uncomfortable with the fear that perhaps their child will do something embarrassing or distracting.

Advantages:
1. It will foster authentic community. Real community is multi-generational, yet we typically exclude an entire generation from our corporate worship times. Family Sunday will be truly multi-generational.
2. It will weave children into the life of the church. Kids need to know that they're valuable and that they have a legitimate place in the life of the church. Involving them in "big church" will help bridge this gap.
3. It will help disciple our children. For starters, our children will have an opportunity to see a large group of adults (including Mom and Dad) worship together. It's hard to over-estimate the value of this experience. Also, it will allow many followers of Christ to share with the children in a variety of ways.
4. It will force us out of our comfort zone. At the risk of sounding harsh, I am increasingly convinced that many American church-goers keep a god in the closet and its name is "Comfort". We get in our ruts and we get comfortable. Doing something this out of the ordinary will be a healthy experience for us now and again.
5. It will involve more people in corporate ministry. In order to keep younger children involved and interested, we'll be doing things in smaller pieces. Instead of one 45 minute sermon, we'll have two sermons of perhaps 15-20 minutes each. Instead of one long set of corporate worship, we'll break out into singing in spurts throughout the entire time. Instead of just a few faces on the platform, we'll be involving many more. Instead of mostly 35-55 year old people, we'll have a more legitimate multi-generational feel - we're striving for the very best of a family reunion feeling.

Mind you, this is all in theory at this stage! Who knows if things will really work out as I'm suggesting. Our first Family Sunday will be in just a few weeks - I'll post to let you know how it works out.

In the meantime, do any of you do something like this? Have any ideas to share with me? I'd gladly give a (cyber) penny for your thoughts!

Hatushili

The LORD provides!

2008-03-03T16:51:00.003-05:00

I've been wanting to chronicle this story for some weeks now, but I couldn't (for reasons I'll not get into here).

Now I'm finally at liberty to say that ...

I am officially the Children/Family Pastor at the church we began attending last year!

I can't begin to express how excited and energized I am by all of this. As time permits, I'll fill you in with more of the details. For the moment, please continue to pray for me...

My two primary prayer concerns:

My position is part-time, with the hope of becoming full-time. For now, I need to continue to find other sources of income. I'm doing some substitute teaching, some work at the chainsaw shop, and some building trades/construction stuff too! As you can likely guess, I'm really enjoying the diversity of my schedule these days. But the fact remains that I need to stay organized and I need to continue to find ways each week to meet our family's budgetary needs.

Also, I have tons of names and faces to connect, and perhaps just as many ideas and notions to consider. There's a lot of positive momentum building there, and a great many very concerned parents. In short, it feels like the perfect spot to join in. But having said that, I still must successfully navigate the challenges of this new position.

If I can impose upon you to pray for these two issues, I'll be indebted to you.

Hatushili

It's all relative

2008-02-26T21:38:00.003-05:00

One of the standard criticisms leveled against Postmodernity is its rampant relativism. In its extreme form, some even contend that everything is relative - there is nothing absolutely true.

While it's true that Postmodernity embraces relativism, the standard criticism doesn't quite hit the mark...

It is not my purpose to defend relativism. There are times when it is defensible (we all know this: think "self defense" versus "first degree murder" versus "manslaughter", etc.), but I want to move beyond that for a moment.

Or, more precisely, I want to move before that. It is my contention that the birth of relativism owes as much to Modernity as Postmodernity, if not more. No one within the Modern worldview likes to admit it, but relativism pre-dates Postmodernity.

It starts like this: "You need to be able to separate your business life from your home life". Generations of working people were fed that mantra over and over again. It became ingrained in our culture. The way you treat people in your work-life isn't necessarily the same way you treat them in your neighborhood-life.

Compartmentalization is one of the hallmarks of Modernity in recent American history. It's also one of the things Postmoderns like about Modernity the least. But ironically, it's was this very compartmentalizing process that gave rise to the prevalence of relativism.

If I come to believe that I am a different sort of fellow at work, at home, at church services, at play, at the store, etc... then I am implicitly establishing the foundation for believing that the answers to certain questions depend entirely upon the circumstances and situation I find myself in. For example, while no one would advocate "upselling" your mother, it became standard practice with strangers. Moving the models you're overstocked on is a perfectly acceptable business practice for many, but you wouldn't practice it on your pastor or good friend.

Language is another obvious example. How many tried-and-true Modern followers of Christ use coarse language on the job site, but never at home or in a church building?

All of this gave rise to the Postmodern mantra about "keeping it real". The lack of authenticity, the compartmentalization and the sense of falsehood that it promulgates weigh heavily upon Postmoderns.

But as I noted briefly above, the irony is that this same cultural phenomenon helped the rise of relativism tremendously. So we now have a situation where the average Modern blames relativism on Postmodernity, the average Postmodern think Modern compartmentalization is disingenuous, and neither party realizes what they "owe" to each other! Pots are calling kettles black all over the place.

Again, I'm not attempting to justify or defend relativism - those that know me or have read this blog much know that to be the case. I just find it very frustrating that there is so little understanding and so much blame be passed around.

Don't like relativism? You have both Modernity and Postmodernity to blame.

Hatushili

More humor

2008-02-23T10:17:00.003-05:00

Again, thanks to Buttons for leading me to another funny website. Along with a truly over-the-top parody of Oprah interviewing a former postmodern, there's a witty bit about basic forms of government and economy...

The page itself is here, though I've not read most of what's on it. What I did read is this:

Cows and Government

FEUDALISM:

You have two cows.

Your lord takes some of the milk.

FASCISM:

You have two cows.

The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

PURE COMMUNISM:

You have two cows.

Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

APPLIED COMMUNISM:

You have two cows.

You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

DICTATORSHIP:

You have two cows.

The government takes both and shoots you.

Mexican DEMOCRACY:

You have two cows.

The government takes both, shoots you and sends the cows to Zurich.

MILITARISM:

You have two cows.

The government takes both and drafts you into the army.

SINGAPOREAN DEMOCRACY:

You have two cows.

The government fines you for keeping two unlicensed farm animals in an apartment.

PURE DEMOCRACY:

You have two cows.

All your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY:

You have two cows.

Your neighbors pick someone who will tell you who gets the milk.

AMERICAN DEMOCRACY:

The government promises to give you two cows, if you vote for it.

After the election, the president is impeached for speculating in cow futures. The press dubs the affair "Cowgate", but supports the president. The cow sues you for breach of contract. Your legal bills exceed your annual income. You settle out of court and declare bankruptcy.

BRITISH DEMOCRACY:

You have two cows.

You feed them sheep's brains and they go mad. The government doesn't do anything.

FRENCH DEMOCRACY

You have two cows.

You feed them human sewage. The government bans British beef as it is unhealthy.

EUROPEAN DEMOCRACY:

You have two cows.

At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. After that it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

CAPITALISM:

You have two cows.

You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You retire on the income.

HONG KONG CAPITALISM:

You have two cows.

You sell three of them to your publicly-listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows. The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the right to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company. The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because of bad "feng shui".

TOTALITARIANISM:

You have two cows.

The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS:

You are associated with (the concept of 'ownership' is a symbol of the phallocentric, warmongering, intolerant past) two differently aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non specified gender.

You are torn by feelings of guilt, your psychotherapist recommends a treatment center. You spend six weeks there, paid for by the community health plan, and graduate into Guilty Anonymous.

COUNTERCULTURE:

Wow, dude, there's like...these two cows, man.

Uh, so, like, you have really got to do some of this milk, like, fer shur, it's awesome, man.

SURREALISM:

You have two giraffes.

The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

----

Maybe you've seen this posted elsewhere, but I've not. Not surprisingly, there's a lot of truth in this parody!

Hatushili

There is hope

2008-02-18T21:21:00.003-05:00

I had a very encouraging experience this past Sunday evening. If you read me regularly, you know that I am often very frustrated at the inability/unwillingness of most evangelicals to wrestle through the implications of postmodernity. It sometimes seems that there's no hope beyond radical revolution.

But then I have moments like Sunday night; moments that renew my hope in the ability of Christ's followers to adapt, to think, to change...

I was graciously invited to be the guest speaker at a meeting for the parents of high school students at Blackhawk Christian school. I was impressed that a Christian school even has such a group, let alone that they invited me to speak. [Thanks, Ted; I owe you one!]

As soon as I began brain-storming topics to speak on, I quickly settled on postmodernity. But then came the real question: do I actually use the term "postmodernity" in this speech? After mentally going through my speech both ways, I opted not to use the term.

I'm glad I didn't.

By avoiding the term "postmodern", I was able to speak to this group of parents about the inner windings of their kids' minds (as much as I dare claim that ability). I was able to show them the great importance we (as postmoderns) place on community, environmentalism, multi-generationalism, etc... I was able to talk about the death of metanarrative, and the tremendous opportunity that affords us to share ideas on a level playing field.

The meeting was great. I couldn't have scripted a better response from these parents. We were able to talk in the abstract and the concrete, and I think I helped them. I know they encouraged me.

The best part? After my speech, I took questions from the group. One sweet mother reminded me of the beginning of my speech, when I spoke of the "new set of lenses" that today's younger culture sees the world through. "Do those lenses have a name?", she asked. "Postmodernity", I answered. You could see the gears turning in some of the faces. It was a great moment.

My thanks to Blair, to Ted, and to Blackhawk for making the evening possible. And for those of you that sometimes wonder if Christ's Modern followers will ever pull their heads out of the sand and seriously wrestle with the cultural implications of postmodernity, I offer this post as encouragement.

There is hope.

Hatushili

Postmodern films

2008-02-17T13:13:00.004-05:00

If you want to see a film that bears many of the marks of postmodernity, I would encourage you to see The Invisible. We watched it last night and I found myself routinely noting the postmodern themes.

So as not to spoil it if you haven't seen it, I'll talk in only broad brush strokes...

One major theme was community. The whole notion of certain people becoming "invisible" in a culture, and the brokenness that creates. The two main characters were truly "invisible" in their own way. Cultural postmodernity's premium on community was well-represented.

Another major theme was spirituality. It's not evident at first, but trust me - it's there. As is typical of postmodernity, the spirituality was of a general sort. Science as metanarrative is rejected with the fundamental premise of the film, too - another aspect of the spirituality latent in the film.

There is much more to be said on this topic, but I'd really rather wait to see if any of you have watched the film. I'd love to hear your take if you have.

Hatushili

Technical difficulties

2008-02-17T07:50:00.007-05:00

Since I started this blog, I've had a number of comments here or there about difficulty making things look as you like. Specifically, a number of you have commented on how to make things show up in italics or bold. More recently, I was asked how to make snazzy little hyperlinks.

If you're not sure how to do these basic html codes, please read on as I try to explain them as simply as I can...

The first thing to know is that codes must be set off in brackets, specifically '<' and '>'. Your internet browser will attempt to read anything you place within those brackets (without the single quote marks, of course) as html code. So, for example:

To make things bold, you use the letter b. (Novel, I know.)

To makes things italicized, you use the letter i.

To underline things, use the letter u.

Precisely, they would look like this:

You are basically turning on the bold (or italics, or whatever) with the first letter enclosed in brackets, then turning it off by using the / with the letter. Make sense?

On most blogs, you can leave comments with these html codes. You'll notice on the comment section of my blog that you are warned that you can only use certain codes. Most blogs are this way.

On to the (only slightly) more complicated process of hyperlinking. Remember, you must enclose everything in brackets. For hyperlinks, you need the following basic format:

In this example, you would replace "website.com" with whatever the precise address of the link is that you wish to create. You would also replace "name" with whatever you want the hyperlink itself to say.

For example, if I wanted to hyperlink to my homepage I could have it say this, or something else, or even something entirely different! (If you hold your mouse over each of these links, you'll notice they all point to my homepage.)

There are plenty of other codes, of course. But generally you can only use the ones I've noted in blog comments. If you're thinking about starting your own blog, you'd do well to google "html codes" and work your way through some of the many tutorials that people far more qualified than I have posted.

Does this help? Any specific questions?

Hatushili

Divine humor

2008-02-09T21:28:00.000-05:00

Thanks to new reader Buttons for turning me on to this site. Consider it the Christian equivalent to The Onion. I've only just begun to poke around the site, but have found it laugh-out-loud funny thus far. One that's particularly good:

---

Emerging Church Explores Christology of SpongeBob Squarepants

Pastor Doug Pagitt of Solomon’s Porch slammed the yellow and brown markers onto the whiteboard tray and strutted back to the microphone. “It’s totally obvious. The world that God so loved, for whom Christ died, really is symbolized by that pineapple under the sea.”

More than five hundred leaders from the emerging church conversation gathered last weekend in Earlimart, Calif. to discuss Biblical typology found in the popular cartoon SpongeBob Squarepants.

Author and speaker Spencer Burke was emphatic in his rebuttal to Pagitt. “The proper postmodern hermeneutic, one that gives great space for the meta-narrative, leads us to conclude that the world is typified by Bikini Bottom,” Burke said. “Can’t you see that, Doug? The pineapple under the sea is a symbol of our Father’s house, where Jesus is preparing a place for us.”

Though sharp disagreements arose over which people in the Bible were represented by Squidward Tentacles and Mr. Krabs, most attendees agreed that Patrick Star is a spot-on Simon Peter.

---

Happy Reading,

Hatushili

What is beauty?

2008-02-09T10:12:00.000-05:00

The question has vexed humanity for generations. Ultimately, most of us come to a position characterized by "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". For most, that's good enough - I have my particular tastes in art and music, you have yours.

For others, that apparently leads down a slippery slope toward "today's anti-Christian worldview"...

That quote is taken from an article by a man I respect a great deal. Gene Edward Veith is a primary contributor to World Magazine, a publication I've been reading for years. I generally appreciate the insight Mr. Veith brings to his articles - you can tell he hasn't been striving merely to meet a deadline. But once in a while he takes his anti-postmodern thinking too far for my comfort. A recent article on the nature of beauty was just such an article.

Here's the pivotal paragraph that sets the battle ground:

Often, Christians reject the claims that truth and morality are relative while agreeing with the postmodernists that beauty is relative. But to think that beauty is nothing more than a subjective preference—unconnected to standards that originate in God Himself—is to buy into a foundational principle of today's anti-Christian worldview.

First, can we please all take a vow to stop using the phrase "buy into" in this way? It's demeaning and doesn't make for good dialogue. It's a hard habit to break (I've been working on it for years!), but worth the effort.

More to the point, the real comparison here is not "Christians" to "postmodernists", but "Moderns" to "Postmoderns". There are Christians of both persuasion, just as one would naturally expect.

Unless, that is, you believe Christianity and Postmodernity are incompatible. That, I think, is Mr. Veith's real point, and one that I wholly reject. But setting this aside for today, let's think about the substance of his contention regarding the nature of beauty.

In the very next paragraph, Mr. Veith makes a somewhat audacious claim:

The Bible tells us to set our minds on "whatever" is "excellent" and "of good report" (Philippians 4:8). Beauty does involve personal taste, but our tastes need discipline. Growing in taste means learning to take pleasure in what is objectively good.

Really? Am I seriously to believe that Paul had in mind music and the arts when he spoke to the Philippians about "excellent" and "of good report" things? The word "excellent" simply means "a virtuous course of thought, feeling or action". It was used by the ancients to describe what we today might call "manly character". Honesty, integrity, self-reliance, respect, responsibility - these are the present day American "virtues". But are they absolutes? Can we objectively define these virtues?

Take honesty, for example. "Honey, do I look fat in these jeans?" - the question no husband ever wants to hear. Depending on your cultural context, the "honest" answer will differ. What one might call honest another might call rude! So one's definition of "honesty" should make room for tact, right? What about when being "honest" causes great and unnecessary harm? What about simple cultural differences? Consider Mexico - if you ask for directions you're likely to be given them ... even tough the person you asked has no idea where you want to go! They consider it rude and socially unacceptable to leave the asker in greater stress than they found her, so they will simply give you false directions as a way of easing your immediate stress level. Wrong? Dishonest? In America, absolutely. In Mexico ... it's hard to say, since I'm not Mexican.

The point is that attempting to take an ancient word with at least a somewhat subjective meaning and force it into a Modern box of "divine objectivity" is unfair at best. There is no slippery slope here, folks. Beauty has always been in the eye of the beholder, and I for one think that's the way God intended it.

The full article is worth the read, so I encourage you to do so if you haven't. But far be it from me to decide for you whether you should consider his writing beautiful or not!

Hatushili

Bad news?

2008-02-07T22:14:00.000-05:00

If you poke around missional circles very long, one of the threads that bind these folk together (and, incidentally, I consider myself very much one of them) is their understanding of "sharing the Gospel" in today's culture.

Part of the complaint has to do with the difference between Modern and Postmodern understandings of the world in which we live. For example, to the average Modern, the Four Spiritual Laws make a great deal of sense. They're very logical, to the point, and hard to misunderstand.

Postmoderns, on the other hand, find them entirely unconvincing precisely because those very positive qualities to Modern ears make them altogether impersonal to Postmodern ones.

But there's more than that going on...

One of the biggest gripes missional folk have with what is considered "traditional" expressions of the Gospel is that it seems to always start with bad news. Right off the bat, we are told that we must inform people of their status as sinners.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not denying that we are all vile sinners, thoroughly and completely depraved to our core. But why must every "presentation of the Gospel" start with this truth? Consider the following hypothetical conversation between two co-workers who are just now meeting:

Joe: Good to meet you! How long have you been with the company?

Chris: Nice to meet you, too. I've been here about a year now. By the way, is that a picture of your wife there on your desk? Dude, she's ugly!

Now let's pretend in our hypothetical situation that Joe's wife really is hideously ugly. So what? Is this any way to start a conversation with someone? Is it possible he doesn't know she's ugly? Sure. More likely, he knows but has chosen to ignore the truth.

Okay, it's a silly analogy. But I think you get the point. In "polite company" these days it's simply not acceptable to start off a topic of far more importance than the relative beauty of one's wife with such a harshness.

Consider a real example I just witnesses on the telly. Survivor started tonight, and I'll admit to being a fan. So here are these 10 perfect strangers on a beach. They've known each other not even one day, and one walks up to another and says (I kid you not):

"So, your homosexual, right? Or do you prefer 'gay'? I'm not even sure what term to use..."

This lady wasn't trying to be mean. On the contrary, she said it in the nicest possible way. But come on! Is this any way to strike up a conversation?!

Here's all I'm saying: let's not water down the Gospel by trying to deny or hide the total depravity of people. But let's be far more kind, gentle and loving in the way we approach the issue. I'm sitting here running through the examples in the life of Jesus, and I'm struggling to think of a time He "presented the Gospel" anything like we so often do today...

If you followed the so-called Friendship Evangelism methodology back in the day, you might be hearing echoes in your mind. But only to a point, please. I'm not advocating that we befriend people solely and only in an effort to be able to share the Gospel with them. If that's the whole goal of your friendship and they refuse Christ, what then? You likely abandon them and create even greater bitterness in your wake... Aren't we commanded to love like Christ loves? Doesn't He love those that He knows will never accept His sacrifice for them? Doesn't the Father send rain on the just and unjust alike?

Love people because ... just because. Let your conversations about God and Christ flow as naturally as your conversations about a hard day at the office and whether the weather is likely to change soon. And by all means, don't ever start another conversation with "so, you're a wretched and vile sinner completely separated from God ... want to hear more?"

Hatushili

Super Bowl

2008-02-03T16:15:00.000-05:00

My pick: Patriots over Giants, 38-17.

I'm posting this merely so that - on the off chance I'm right - I can prove I "called the score" before the game started. : )

Hatushili

Still trying to define "Postmodern"...

2008-02-02T09:52:00.000-05:00

I spend a little time on a particular Christian internet forum now and then. As is typical of these sorts of sites, the topics range all over the map! Just for grins, I thought I'd ask folk what they thought of when they hear the word Postmodern.

If you read this blog often, you know that the response frustrated but did not surprise me.

Though I sometimes think I've beaten this topic into the ground, let me once again attempt to offer some food for thought on the subject. My fundamental premise is that when using the term Postmodern, we must differentiate between what I call Ivory Tower Postmodernity and Cultural Postmodernity...

First, what do I mean by Ivory Tower Postmodernity? I refer to the Ivory Tower of academia. These are the guys who have tenured professorships, know they will never lose their well-paying jobs, and can afford to do nothing but speculate about hypothetical worlds that really can't ever exist in reality. Unfortunately, these guys write books. Even more unfortunately, most people come to believe that what they say represents the norm. So what do they say?

They say that there's no such thing as absolute truth. Period. They can afford to believe this because they don't live in the real world. No one I personally know that identifies with Postmodernity believes in a complete lack of absolute truth. Much more gray than black and white? Yes. But absolutely no absolutes? No.

More to the point, I don't know of a single Postmodern follower of Christ that rejects absolute truth. Again, the list of what we consider absolute is certainly smaller than what other (more Modern) folk hold to, but there's still a list.

Okay, so what do I mean by Cultural Postmodernity? I mean the rubber-meets-the-road, real world cultural understanding of Postmodernity that you'll find in virtually everyone that could be labelled "Postmodern". These folks (and I consider myself one of them) see far less black and white than gray, but still believe in at least some absolutes.

So why do I use the label Cultural Postmodernity to describe myself? There are many reasons, but here are a few of the biggies:

1. I reject the notion that the human mind is capable of ascertaining foundational truth all by itself. (If your taking philosophical notes, this means I reject Foundationalism. I also reject the concept of meta-narrative, because by definition a meta-narrative is supposed to be self-evidently true.)

2. I have much more room in my heart for diversity than those that came before me. For the moment, we'll leave it at that.

3. I am passionately concerned about our environment. I consider myself an Environmentalist, even though I don't believe in human-induced Global Warming.

4. I put great stock in context. There is little that is not influenced by context. What's true for one culture sometimes may or may not be true for another. I could give copious examples of this, but if you've read this far you likely don't need me to.

5. I don't believe linear logic alone is usually the best way to resolve issues. There's a time and a place for it, but very often relationship is more important.

6. I believe God created humans to live in true community. Rugged individualism must die. Dialogue over monologue.

---

More than trying to define Postmodernity (because you really can't define it in a monologue), my real hope is that having read this post you don't immediately think "he rejects absolute truth!" if ever you hear someone use the term Postmodern. Remember, Cultural Postmodernity is a whole different animal than Ivory Tower Postmodernity.

Hatushili

Book Review: The Alchemist

2008-01-30T14:29:00.000-05:00

First, it should be noted that The Alchemist is actually a play, not a book. Ben Jonson's play about the mixed up follies of an "alchemist" was first performed in 1610. I read it years ago in an undergrad class about Reformation era England, but honestly didn't pay much attention to it. You know how it is - sometimes you simply "read" a book for a class in a way much more like skimming!

So I decided a while back that I owed it to myself to actually read it. I'm glad I did, but I won't be repeating the task...

I'm glad I read it because it so mirrors the language of the King James Version of the Bible. When I discovered it was first acted in 1610, I expected this (the KJV was released in 1611). Reading the play was an odd experience in language; the first few acts were a real struggle to get my head wrapped around this old language (it's been quite a while since I read the KJV much), but after a while it all started to come back and I found myself much less dependent upon the explanatory footnotes at the bottom of each page.

But I'll not be reading it again because it's so bawdy. I don't remember it being so when I read it the first time - further evidence that I didn't pay much attention the first time through, I guess! While the story is often very funny - it focuses on the exploits of three con artists who pose as (among other things) an alchemist and his assistants to "cozen" people out of their money. As the play nears its end, many of the balls these con artist were juggling begin to fall to the ground and the mayhem that follows is amusing, for sure. But the repeated sexual references and bawdy language in general were too much. I suppose this is typical of popular language of the day, but I found it a bit overwhelming.

I think I'll stick to Euripides and Sophocles from now on!

Hatushili

Yet another reason...

2008-01-30T09:08:00.000-05:00

If you read this blog regularly, you know I'm a stickler for sound hermeneutics. [If you'd like to catch up, click here, here, here and here.]

Of the great many reasons why sound hermeneutics are so important, let me add another. I recently had a conversation with a friend who felt personally targeted by a sermon. I don't know enough of the situation to say whether I think this opinion is true or not, but for the moment that's not the point. Let me explain...

The sermon in question was taken from Luke, specifically the story of the sending of the 72 disciples. [Click here for the text of Luke 10.] Rather than focusing on the more obvious parts of the text, this particular sermon came to "for the worker deserves his pay" and camped out. The context is so obvious that I probably don't even need to tell you that "the worker" in this text is the travelling Christian preacher and that the implication is vocational Christian workers deserve to be paid fairly and reasonably.

But apparently that's not what the sermon focused on. I'm told that this particular preacher made the text into some kind of "our Christian tradesman should not be taken advantage of" mantra. While that premise may well be true, the text says nothing of the sort. The point of the story - the reason Luke was inspired to include it in the canon of Scripture - has everything to do with these 72 disciples.

'Not a big deal', you might argue. And you'd have a point. It's not much of a stretch to make the text of Luke 10 address ethical principals of dealing with Christian tradesman within your particular local assembly. The trouble in this case was the implications that were being perceived - whether intended or not.

When we stray from accurate exposition of the Scriptures, we sometimes unintentionally open up Pandora's box. We open ourselves to accusations of heresy, inaccuracy, bully preaching, rambling, unpreparedness, having and agenda, etc...

My heart goes out to my friend who felt attacked by this sermon. The point is not so much whether that feeling was intended by the preacher or not. The point is that sound hermeneutics would have avoided the situation altogether.

Hatushili

A tale of two plicits

2008-01-28T11:22:00.001-05:00

[My apologies to Mr. Dickens for the very bad allusion!]

In the process of caring for the souls of our children, we should be very careful about what we teach them. With this no one would argue. In the context of the local church, this means we carefully scrutinize various curricula to verify the teachings are sound. It means we work to insure that our volunteer teachers are both capable and theologically sound. We must always be on the guard for wolves in the flock, but most especially when it comes to our children.

Once we find a curriculum we approve of and teachers that are competent, we usually go the extra mile and make sure to tailor our teaching to the specific ages and sometimes even the specific children to whom we minister. We might infuse the lessons with specific examples taken from the world they live in - borrowing Jesus' use of parables.

All of this is good; it should and must continue. But it's not enough...

All of what I've mentioned thus far is explicit teaching methodology. As evangelical churches, we've done a pretty good job of making sure the things we teach explicitly are within the pale of orthodoxy. They're often far too watered down, to be sure - but still within the pale of orthodoxy.

But what about what we're implicitly teaching our children? Do we spend much time mulling over this issue? Frankly, I don't think so.

For example, what if your church uses a largely entertainment-model program for children? What are implicitly teaching them? Are you encouraging longer attention spans? Are you working to make the transition into the next program smooth? Are you showing them they are truly a part of the life of the local church? Are you teaching them self-control and humility?

No, no at the implicit level. And trust me: children are much more in tune with your implicit message than your explicit.

So we need to be not only on guard against heresy and twisted doctrine and all the other explicit stuff. We need to spend at least as much time dealing with the implicit level. Here are some examples:

- Rather than giving children a script to re-enact a Bible story, try telling them the story and giving them the freedom to re-enact it in the way they see fit. This works best in a non-age segregated environments, so the older kids are given an opportunity to teach and lead the younger.

- Rather than fusing everything with "fun", try modeling your children's program after the general pattern of your adult program. Better yet, try finding ways to involve them in your "regular" worship service.

- Rather than merely reading them Bible stories and telling them what they mean, try reading them Bible stories and asking them what they mean. [Fear not - you're there to guard against heresy and gently rebuke if needed. But don't we want to encourage them to explore God's World?]

These are just a few examples. Many more could be given, but I just wanted to give some food for thought right now.

What are you seeing in children's ministry?

Hatushili

Book Review: Postmodern Children's Ministry

2008-01-22T08:14:00.000-05:00

If you search around for books on Children's Ministry from a postmodern perspective, you'll soon be disappointed. There aren't a whole lot of choices. But Ivy Beckwith's Postmodern Children's Ministry usually comes to the top of this short list of choices. She is unashamedly postmodern and an emerging church advocate. For these reasons, I felt her book should be on my reading list.

I just finished it, and found it an exercise in frustration. One minute I'd be loving every word she wrote; the next I found myself laughing at the inconsistencies and folly of other concepts...

Her first chapter is a fine synopsis of what most of us mean by "cultural Postmodernity". In particular, she discusses the impact that this worldview is having on children and the need for changing our methods and ways of thinking with regard to CM. The book started out on a very good note, in my opinion.

Chapter 2 lost me a bit. In this chapter, our self-stated postmodern turns to and leans heavily on (apparently) decidedly Modern sociologists. She walks us through the theoretical stages of childhood development and faith development. While there is surely merit in some of these theories and they deserve to be considered, I found it fascinating that the same author who will (in a later chapter) embrace the notion that all truth is dependent upon context and community is in this chapter so sure that these psycho-social principles are valid. Not awful; not particularly awe inspiring.

I found Chapter 3 more valuable. Here the author talks about (among other things) the folly of insisting our children grow up so fast and the unBiblical notion that children must be groomed for the best paying job possible. She talks about focusing on their spiritual development as much or more than their academic development. In particular, I love this quote:

"Spiritually forming children means we help them see that in the economy of the kingdom of God being successful is loving others, showing mercy, fighting for justice, and walking humbly with God."

Though she doesn't specifically reference Micah or any of the other Minor Prophets, this concept is draw directly from them. We would all do well to remember this. In this age when the ultimate goal of most parents is to see their children graduate from college and get a "good job" it is the duty of pastors and other concerned folk to remind these parents of their truly God-given responsibilities and to challenge them to be about the business of spiritually forming (read: discipling) their children.

Chapter 4 is a short but good reminder of the value of community. Children are much more likely to remember the relationships they had as small children than to remember any specific Sunday School lessons. Children are as much a part of community as any adult.

Chapter 5 takes the concept of community and addresses children specifically. There are some good thoughts in this chapter, but for the most part I found it frustrating. For example, in her discussion of "Citizenship" she completely ignores the very important truth of sheltering and protecting children. It is our God-given responsibility to watch over and guard them, slowly letting up our guard as they begin to develop their own. But for the author, this is tantamount to creating a "Christian ghetto". She finds it frustrating that so many churches want to offer their children alternatives to the godless activities of public schools and local communities. She asserts that children need to learn about being "salt and light".

But at what point are children prepared to be salt and light? Surely we cannot simply cast them to the wolves from their earliest elementary school years, can we? Aren't we charged with watching what they see, hear, experience and regard? While I agree that we cannot foster an "us versus them" mentality with our children, I am not willing to cast my children before the wolves of Satan until they are good and ready!

I appreciated Chapter 6. Here the author focuses on the family - the fundamental unit God first created. She bravely points out that too many well meaning churches have usurped the authority of family over the spiritual formation of their own children. She also discusses how church community naturally emulates family (by being multi-generational and composed of families itself) and suggests that churches would do well to incorporate this truth into their work of discipling children.

Chapter 7. What can I say? I wish Chapter 7 hadn't been written. Here the author discusses the Bible. She talks about how one should and should not read and teach the Bible. Here is where her postmodernity runs amok - "And since we all bring our own stories and our community's story to any reading of the Bible, we all read the Bible subjectively [so far, she's making a valid point]. There is never an objective exegesis or analysis of the biblical text. We'll never know for sure what the original writers of the story were intending to say."

That's an awfully absolute statement to be making, no? It is defeatist, and it underestimates the purpose of God in recording Scripture. Even more frustrating, within the span of just a few pages, the author is talking about the critical importance of understanding the historical and cultural context of a given passage of Scripture, and asking the question "why did God choose to have this passage recorded". It appears she wants to have her postmodern cake and eat it too!

What's good about this discussion is it points out an inherent weakness in postmodern philosophy. Those in the ivory towers tell us that there is no such thing as absolute truth, and those on the cultural ground try to buy into that thinking. But in reality - unless you have a tenured position at a university - no one can really live this way. We all understand that certain things are objectively true. In this case, the author somehow knows that context and culture are absolutely imperative to an understanding of Scripture. She knows this deep within her being, yet she's refusing to acknowledge the implicit truthfulness of her claim. There is great tension where the ivory tower meets the street.

Chapter 8 ended the book on a good note for me. Here the author talks about ways to incorporate children into the weekly worship service of the church. She acknowledges the difficulties, but believes the benefits outweigh the challenges. I think she's right, personally. But whether a church family chooses to always include children in worship or chooses to do so on regular occasions, the choice belongs to the elders of the community of faith. I would simply argue that we must make every effort to help children feel a legitimate, valuable part of the community of faith.

All things considered, I'm glad to have read Beckwith's Postmodern Children's Ministry. Like so many things in life, you take the good and throw out the bad after chewing on it for a while. There are concepts and ideas she shares that need to gain a broader audience. I stand with her in her opposition to what she calls Disney-esque children's "ministry". Parents must be about the business of discipling their children. The community of faith has an obligation to help in any way it can.

Hatushili

Have we really done this poorly?

2008-01-21T09:05:00.000-05:00

As you know, I really enjoyed Donald Miller's book Blue Like Jazz, so when I saw my local paper carry a feature story on him I was delighted. It's the anchor article for the "Faith" section of the Sunday paper and also bears an enormous colour picture of Don. [Though not bearing the same picture or title, here's the article from another source.]

What really surprised me about the article (written by an AP writer) was not its existence (Don's been very popular for a while now) but the misunderstanding and partial understanding it propagates...

Start with the article's title: "Redefining Christian". That's an attention getter, for sure! The subtitle expresses the editor's main point - Author [Don] disavows notion that faith is conservatism. I found it very distressing that this newspaper editor felt that Christianity was primarily defined by it's attachment to the Republican party and conservatism in general. Don, of course, wants to dispel that notion among Christ's followers. Sadly, we've obviously been so attached at the hip that the non-believing world has made the connection...

But the emerging church has fared no better in being understood by this AP author. Read this line from his article slowly:

"The book also debuted at a time when the emerging church movement - which emphasizes the individual's faith experience and varied worship styles - is flourishing, signaling a fertile audience for such religious musings among more socially liberal evangelicals."

No mention of postmodernity. No talk about social justice. No word of community.

At least for one AP writer, "emerging church" can be condensed into "individual faith experience and varied worship styles"!

Many of us have long believed that Christ's followers have done a terrible job at proclaiming who we really are, and who Jesus really is. I offer this article as yet another proof that this belief is well founded.

Hatushili

Sermon one-liners

2008-01-20T13:44:00.000-05:00

We had a guest preacher today at our church's worship service. Without going into his message at all, I simply must point out a one-liner he issued. I have no idea if it's original to him or not, but I found it poignant and amusing:

"Saying a church teaches too much theology is like saying water is too wet."

Hatushili

Wrestling...

2008-01-15T21:06:00.000-05:00

I need you folk to pray for me, please. I'm really struggling right now to stay patient and peaceful. In some ways, this new year has been a serious challenge for me and I'm not sure I'm always handling it very well.

Please pray for the welfare of my family, for patience, for wisdom and for grace. If you interested in the details, read on...

As many of you know, my once full-time job became a part-time job in December. Now it's become a Saturday-only job. I'm in the process of getting my substitute teacher's license, but am currently at the mercy of the State's timing. So ... I have virtually no income right now.

This past week my truck died at an intersection. Despite my best efforts, I could not get it restarted. I finally had to tow it to our local mechanic who informed me that I need a new timing belt and a whole slew of other (individually inexpensive) repairs that add up to over $600.

This past weekend I discovered we've had (for who knows how long) a slow leak in our half-bathroom. The shower stall leaked water into the surrounding floor. Long story short: I've ripped out the entire floor and will need to replace it all before the bathroom will be usable again (even the toilet is out right now).

Last night we lost all water pressure. This morning the well company informed us that our 34 year old well has at last given up the ghost. We need a new one: $3,600 and the loss of some of my favourite landscaping in the front yard, and we're currently water-less (trust me, you take it for granted when you have it).

On to the encouraging news:

I think I can fix my truck myself for less than $200.

I think I can fix the bathroom for less than $300.

Since my mother-in-law just sold her house (closed today) and is now living with us, we will be able to pay for the new well and it should be in working order by Friday.

Since no one else wanted to work the local trade show this week, I'm able to pick up nearly full-time hours this week instead of just Saturday.

Rumor has it that my local public school is desperate for substitute teachers, so as soon as the State processes my license I should have no trouble finding work.

I have a very promising lead on pastoral work that (should it work out) will allow our family to stay in the area.

The earth is still under my feet, the sky is still above me, and the LORD is still on His throne.

Hatushili

Why I hate info-tainment

2008-01-12T10:04:00.001-05:00

Info-tainment isn't a real word. It was made up some years ago to describe an all too common methodology. We've been led to believe that people today simply cannot learn things unless the learning process itself is entertaining. So every lesson is wrapped in a game, a video, a song, or something...

Nowhere is the methodology more damaging than in the children's ministry of a local church ...

Talk to a dozen school teachers who are followers of Christ and the odds are excellent that they'll complain about the short attention spans of children these days. They'll talk about the difficulties associated with teaching them anything that takes more than 4 minutes to explain.

Why is this? As usual, I won't pretend to know all the answers, nor to be definitive about this subject. But I believe part of the problem to be the whole notion of info-tainment.

Once upon a time, we had some young school-age children who had a hard time focusing in class. Somewhere along the line, some creative teachers discovered that by "fooling" these children into thinking they were at play they could actually teach them things. But instead of using this methodology sparingly and with careful wisdom, somehow (does anyone know how?) it became increasingly the norm.

Today, it is basically assumed that all children have an attention span the length of an ant and that you simply must entertain them while you educate them if you hope to have any chance of success. To the witness stand I call all of the "educational" video games and cartoons that have flooded the market in the last number of years.

But set aside the image of the public school for a moment and envision instead your local church's Sunday morning children's ministry (CM). If your assembly is like most, regardless of what specific program they use, the fundamental methodology is likely built around info-tainment.

"Kid's church" (or whatever you call it) often becomes nothing more than slightly-controlled chaos filled with loud music, bold videos and plenty of play time.

So what's the problem?, you might ask. Here's why (in a nutshell) I hate info-tainment in CM:

1. Rather than mediate them, it actually encourages short attention spans.
2. It demeans the fundamental ability God gave children to learn.
3. It's lazy and easy.
4. It promotes a consumerist mentality - we're implicitly teaching our children that the life of the local church exists to entertain them.
5. It sets the bar so low that many children (most children, I would argue) are short-changed.
6. It over-simplifies theology and the Christian life, leaving children with one of two logical conclusions: a) God and the Bible are more like fairy tales than reality, or b) the Bible is so simple that in-depth study is not necessary and sound sermons are frivolous.

We - as the local church - are to be about the business of discipling young children, giving them tools necessary to develop into faithful followers of Christ as teens and adults. But far too often we short-circuit this responsibility and do worse than nothing - we actually teach (implicitly and explicitly) what will later need to be un-taught.

Things must change, folks.

Hatushili

No, I've not fallen off the face of the planet!

2008-01-11T18:46:00.000-05:00

Okay, so it's been a while since I lasted posted anything.

Like 3 weeks, to be more precise.

But I'm still here. As I'm sure they were for you, the holidays found me very busy. I'm only just now beginning to find (read: make) some time for this blog. I find myself regularly thinking "that would be great to blog about!" ... but nothing happens.

Anyway, for those curious, I'll give you a brief synopsis of the last three weeks...

Right around the time of my last post I was moved to part-time at work. You would think this would leave me with lots of time on my hands. And it did - time I spent getting ready for and enjoying Christmas-time.

Christmas afternoon I contracted the flu.

The next day I had to move Mom's furnishings to our house (and to storage) since she officially moved in with us. I was apparently more ill than I thought, because I spent the better part of the next three days incapacitated.

I recovered in time for Rebekah's 9th birthday party, then (a few days later) celebrated the New Year with the family.

Over the last week and change I've been working part-time, arranging to do some substitute teaching, working on the house (the mud room, mostly), and meeting with folk about various things.

After next week, I'll be virtually unemployed at my present job (I'll be working Saturdays only), so I'm trusting that the LORD will work out the details of providing the necessary income for my family. Long term, I'm still pursuing pastoral work. But in the immediate, I have bills to pay!

Anyway, I've got tons of topics I want to post about in the near future. I'm even arranging a guest post by a friend of mine (look for it in February). I hope 2008 finds this blog more engaging, more interactive, and more useful to you than it was in 2007.

For now, good night.

Hatushili

Book review: Blue Like Jazz

2007-12-20T09:11:00.000-05:00

This won't be a review in the traditional sense. I just wanted to share some thoughts on the book, as I've just recently finished it.

As I noted before, I really enjoyed Miller's book. It's refreshingly (and sometimes brutally) honest. It's charming and funny. It's challenging and gripping. In short, it's a really well-crafted book.

I was surprised by the humor of the book, to be honest. I guess I didn't expect the book to be so funny in places...

Take this example (one of my favourites from the book):

When I was in Sunday School as a kid, my teacher put a big poster on the wall that was shaped in a circle like a target. She had us write names of people we knew who weren't Christians on little pieces of paper, and she pinned the names to the outer circle of the target. She said our goal, by the end of the year, was to move those names from the outer ring of the circle, which represented their distance from knowing Jesus, to the inner ring, which represented them having come into a relationship with Jesus. I thought the strategy was beautiful because it gave us a goal, a visual.

I didn't know any people who weren't Christians, but I was a child with a fertile imagination so I made up some names; Thad Thatcher was one and William Wonka was another. My teacher didn't believe me which I took as an insult, but nonetheless, the class was excited the very next week when both Thad and William had become Christians in a dramatic conversion experience that included the dismantling of a large satanic cult and underground drug ring. There was also levitation involved.

After I stopped laughing (and making Carmen read it!), I finished the chapter. He goes on to talk about a booth he and some friends set up on a college campus during a festival that sounds very much like Michigan's "Hash Bash"... I'll not give it away, because you should read it for yourself. But this chapter (11) was one of the most convicting things I've read in quite some time. Would that all Christians would truly "come out of the closet" (as Miller writes) as authentic and sincere followers of Christ.

As for the criticism I hear now and again that the theology of the book is weak ... it's not a theology book! Challies' review, for example, followed along the "bad theology makes for a tainted book" approach. I generally appreciate his insights, but in this case (as is often the case) he went too far. The book is basically Miller's memoirs on faith and practice. Sure, he'll say some theologically-tinted things you may or may not like. But that's OK, folks. I completely disagree with the theology criticism of Challies (and others).

If you're anything like me, this book will resonate with you in a very real way. I hope it will do more than that. I hope it will challenge both of us to live our faith in a more meaningful, moment-by-moment way before a culture that is interested in Jesus but not American Christianity.

Hatushili

Difficulty reading

2007-12-14T17:52:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure why, but for the last few months I've had a hard time motivating myself to read much. It's not like me, and I don't like it.

All that changed in the last few days. I'm back to my normal self. I just finished Blue Like Jazz (loved it! - more on that later) and feel like I'm back in the swing of things. I just started Schaeffer's True Spirituality last night.

So tell me, what's on your reading list at the moment?

Hatushili

Oh, the weather outside is frightful...

2007-12-09T12:51:00.000-05:00

I find myself iced in today, something I'm not really accustomed it. Snow? Sure. But too much ice? This is simply not normal for this part of the country. Worse still, today is Sunday. We dared not make the trek to our church services.

But all is not lost. We're taking the day off as a family. Munchies for meals; fun and games; trimming the tree. (The boys and I got our tree yesterday but we've not decorated it yet.)

So far, my list of accomplishments include:

Not showering.
Building a fire (we heat with wood).
Not showering.
Eating breakfast.
Not showering.
Playing Crusader with Noah.
Not showering.
Playing Scrabble with Noah and Bekah.
Not showering.
Eating lunch.

It's been a full day already! As you can see, I've clearly not had time to shower yet and the chances look slim for the rest of the day ...

If, like me, you're iced in with family take the time to enjoy it!

Hatushili

What do these three have in common?

2007-12-07T13:13:00.001-05:00

I've been spending a lot of time thinking about the practical effects of our theology this year. It seems like every time I turn around, I'm finding some new area of my own thinking to challenge. Certainly my readings in the world of the emerging church has contributed to this, but it's more than that. I feel like I'm finally seeing the fusion of academic theology and Christian practice in a way I really haven't before.

That leads me to today's topic: What do these three groups have in common?

Signs and wonder Pentecostals
Baptismal regeneration advocates
'God controls the womb' advocates

I suppose I should first define these three groups a bit more closely.

By "signs and wonder Pentecostals", I mean those folk that believe in modern-day resurrections, slaying in the Spirit, holy laughter, super Apostles and the like.

By "baptismal regeneration advocates", I mean those folk (whether Disciples of Christ or otherwise) that believe a person must be water baptized in order to be regenerated (ie, 'saved').

By "God controls the womb advocates", I mean those folk that believe God directly intervenes to control each and every pregnancy that occurs on the planet, and that one should therefore avoid birth control and have as many children as humanly possible.

---

Okay, so what do these three groups have in common?

Doesn't seem like much, eh? Honestly, these three groups of folk are virtually never in the same company. They tend to represent very different streams of Christian thought. You might find someone that embodies two of these positions, but probably not someone that believes them all.

So have you guessed yet? The common thread between these three (and plenty of other) positions is ...

failure to properly understand narrative Scriptures.

What do I mean by that, you ask? I mean that the Bible must be taken in the way in which it was intended. When the Bible is written as teaching material, you take it "literally" as teaching material. When it is written as inspirational material, you take it "literally" as inspirational material. When it's prophetic, you take it "literally" as prophetic.

And when it's narrative, you take it "literally" as narrative.

Specifically, here's what I mean:

Signs and wonder folk take narrative accounts in the book of Acts and attempt to make the didactic (that is, teaching) texts. But the narrative accounts of miraculous events in Acts are just that - narrative accounts. They're stories written to prove a point, not to teach us about normative behaviour. The point of Acts? That God is working in the world through His growing Church.

Baptismal regeneration folk do the same thing - they take narrative texts (again, from Acts) that describe baptism and attempt to make them prescribe baptismal teachings.

God-controls-the-womb folk do the same thing, only this time they tend to use narrative accounts of the OT that talk about God controlling the womb of this or that woman. They then apply that specific story (ie, a narrative event) to all of humanity and thereby make it a teaching text.

Genre is critically important to understanding the Bible, folks! Without grasping the "why was it written" of any given text, how on earth are we supposed to draw proper conclusions about faith and practice?

We can't.

Honestly, at the theological level these three positions are little different than the lunatic on the street corner who says we shouldn't have TVs because Jesus didn't! Of the folk that say electric guitars are an abomination in the church because the early church didn't use them (though, apparently, they had organs - there's anachronism if ever there was!). We laugh at these two groups, but the fundamental way of thinking about the Bible is similar.

Using good hermeneutics matters, folks. It matters a lot.

Hatushili

What's wrong with kids these days?

2007-12-06T13:40:00.000-05:00

You hear that question seemingly all the time in culture today. Turn on an AM talk show and the topic is likely to come up somehow. Listen very long to the older generation at any given local church and you'll hear it. Spend time on conservative blogs and you'll read of the woes of "modern kids".

Everyone's got their ideas, and I suppose I'm no different than everyone in that respect. But I don't think I have the answer to this question, just some thoughts...

Before I even start into my thoughts, I want to point out that in many ways there's nothing more "wrong" with today's kids than any other generation. The problems are different, to be sure. But in the same way that today's kids can be stereotyped as self-absorbed and undisciplined, so too can the previous generation's be stereotyped as drug and sex obsessed. Stereotypes exist because there's a certain amount of truth to them, but they never tell the whole story. Keep that in mind whenever you discuss "what's wrong with today's kids".

I have just one observation I offer up for your thought. I think (because I can't prove) that this may be the first generation of parents in America that don't want to grow up. Today's 20- or 30-something parent seems much more likely to devalue what in the past would've been called discipline and sacrifice. This generation of parents seems much more interested in reliving their childhood, or in "never growing up" at all.

You can see this phenomenon in culture all over the place. Here are a few examples:

1. Halloween - it was always a kids' holiday in the past. It was about cheap plastic masks with rubber bands on the back that pulled your hair. It was about fake blood and hockey masks. It was candy, more candy, and a little more candy. Now? Halloween has entered an arena previously occupied only by Christmas, Valentine's Day, Easter, Mother's Day, and Father's Day - Halloween is now the sixth largest retail holiday of the year. And it's not because more kids are buying costumes; young adults (18-24) make up a very large portion of the increase in business over the last 5-10 years. We don't want to grow up.

2. The success of so many bawdy situation comedies. Not that long ago, what passed for entertainment was generally above-board when it came to comedy. Innuendos were abundant, for sure. But the childish over-the-top nature of today's comedy is just that - childish. We don't want to grow up.

3. The cultural acceptance of the "slacker". Once upon a time, no self-respecting man would choose to live with mom and dad into his late twenties. No self-respecting man would want to live with mom and dad a moment past high school! But now? The image of a 28 year old guy living in mom's basement is so common place that it's ceased to be shocking. We don't want to grow up.

4. The booming market for "men's toys" - whether power sports, extreme sports, high-end fishing and hunting gear, video games marketed specifically to 20-somethings, or otherwise. There's no shortage of diversions to keep should-be-men from becoming actual men. We don't want to grow up.

I'm not saying that these four trends are absolutely and/or only linked to the poor state of parenting today. But I do think they're tell-tale signs of a generation of parents much more comfortable being their child's friend, not her/his parent.

Don't hear me letting kids off the hook - they bear individual responsibility for their actions, too. But when we're trying to figure out "what's wrong with kids these days" we need look no further than the homes they come from and the sorry state of their "friends"; oops! ... I mean, their parents.

Hatushili

[Note: I don't think for one moment that I've "arrived" as a parent, or that I'm now above wrestling with these tendencies myself. I'm a 30-something parent, and one that sometimes looks uncomfortably like those I've just taken to task.]

Presidential politics, part 1

2007-12-05T12:58:00.000-05:00

I finally feel like I have to say something about the upcoming presidential election. Frankly, I had hoped to avoid the topic until after the first of the year. But I read something today that pushed me over the edge...

[Note: I'm calling this "part 1" not in anticipation of another specific follow-up post, but merely because I know I'll end up posting more on this broad subject later.]

Let me state my point simply and clearly up front:

I can't vote for Mitt Romney.

Yes, it's because he's a Mormon. No, it's not what you think. Let me explain.

I don't much care whether a given candidate is a Baptist (Huckabee), a Methodist (Clinton), or whatever denomination. I also don't think it's critical (though it certainly would be preferable) to elect a Christian as president. If you boil it down enough, one of the most basic things I'm looking for in a president is good judgement. Some people have it; some people don't. It's a skill that can certainly be improved with practice, but it must be present in healthy quantities in a president.

I just read an article (about Huckabee) in which the authors (a couple of women from the AP) state "He [Huckabee] also resisted wading into theology when pressed to explain why some evangelicals don't view the Mormon faith as a Christian denomination". Some evangelicals?! Some?!

Are you kidding me? I don't know of anyone within the broad camp known as Evangelicalism that would call Mormonism a "Christian denomination". There's a reason for that:

Mormonism is a cult.

So we come to why I can't vote for a Mormon, whether his name is Romney or otherwise. Anyone who's judgement is so impaired as to believe the things that Mormons believe cannot be trusted to govern these United States of America. If you haven't done your homework on this subject, you need to. Try CRI; it's an excellent (and free) source of information about many cults. For those that know nothing about Mormonism, let me at least get you started with a few of the many curious (to put it nicely) things that Mormonism teaches:

Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers.

The Negro race resulted when certain angels refused to chose sides between Satan and Jesus.

America was once covered in cities and populated by peoples that you've never heard of (Nephites and Lamanites, among others).

To really be a special Mormon, you have to wear magic underwear.

Incidentally, the last link (re: underwear) is to a blog set up specifically to educate people about Mormonism and Romney. It's new to me, but at first glance seems to be accurate. See particularly his Top Ten Extreme Beliefs page.

So ... it's not that Romney isn't a Christian. It's definitely not that he isn't my brand of Christian. It's not that his faith is "spooky" or "weird". It's that I can't vote for a candidate who's judgement is so impaired as to not be able to see Mormonism for what it is.

I'd sooner vote for an honest agnostic - one who admits they just don't know whether there is a God or not - with good judgement than a Mormon.

As I sit here, I still have no idea who'll I'll be voting for. But I know for sure some of those I won't support. Romney tops that list.

Hatushili

My home church

2007-12-03T13:22:00.000-05:00

As most of my regular readers know, I'm presently on a (now six-month long) journey to find a church I can serve as a pastor. In the meantime, my family has been attending a very fine church in Leo, Indiana - Church of the Good Shepherd. They recently completely updated their website, so I thought I'd note the link for you. They have many good resources available on the site, including tons of sermons and teachings.

Let me know what you think, eh?

Hatushili

Saturday Buffet

2007-12-01T10:54:00.000-05:00

My apologies for having missed the Saturday Buffett recently - I was out of state!

Anyway, some of these links are now more than a week old. But I still think they're worth the read (if you haven't already stumbled across them elsewhere)...

First, a very interesting story about incredibly high twin birth-rates in Nigeria - and yams may be the explanation!

On a sad note, it appears another Jehovah's Witness has died from refusing a blood transfusion. I keep telling people that good hermeneutics are critically important; this is a more graphic example of why.

To add just a little bit to the Sean Taylor murder story, read this. Pay close attention and you'll find this example of well-intended but bad theology:

"It's a tremendously sad and unnecessary event. He was a wonderful, humble, talented young man, and had a huge life in front of him. Obviously God had other plans."

So I'm supposed to blame God for Taylor's death? ...

[Note: the story has been updated repeatedly on Fox's website; the quote above is from the original article but has been removed from more recent versions.]

Now for a bit of good news: US abortions rates are the lowest since 1974! Before you get too excited, I remind you that we're still aborting 2,300 babies per day in America ... but at least things are improving.

To add my two cents to the whole Golden Compass story: it appears the director fully intends to retain the much more hostile atheism in the next two films. Though he denies it, this sounds like a pretty clear case of baiting kids and families with the first film to get them to swallow the next one easier. It's a strategy as old as time, no?

Finally, just when you thought the good old 'worship wars' were dying down... the Pope decides to go back to the old ways.

Enjoy the first weekend of December, folks!

Hatushili

How many children? (part 2)

2007-11-29T13:28:00.000-05:00

I started a discussion of "family planning" a little while back (you can find the first post here). There, I focused on the folly of thinking of children merely as "economic entities" and therefore making children not a "blessing" but in fact a burden.

Today, I'd like to address the other end of the spectrum - those that say Christians should allow God Himself to decide how many children to have...

There are plenty of folk that would have us simply "let go and let God" with regard to family planning. They generally advocate that married couples should not use birth control and should have as many children as the LORD gives them. The logic behind this position is simple:

God opens and closes the wombs of women.
God is sovereign over our lives.
Therefore we should allow God to decide how often to open or close the womb.

Advocates of this position are usually quick to point out that having 7 children does not make one more blessed than having 2. At least they should be quick to point this out.

Before I get started, though, let me remind you that for a brief time I held this position and I still presently move in some circles that advocate it. In other words, I don't think mine is an uninformed "outside" interpretation.

---

There are two levels of problems I have with this position. The first is strictly practical; the second (and more important) is more theological.

First class of problems: pragmatic.

Advocates of the "God controls the womb" position typically have a number of practical dilemmas to overcome. First, as I hinted at above, they often act as if there is a hierarchy of blessedness, with those who have the most children at the top. Many of them don't believe this, but most of them give this impression nonetheless. Second, as a corollary to the first, they often give the impression that women without children are somehow deficient. 'Is God closing this woman's womb due to some secret sin?' 'Does He know she'd make a poor mother?' These questions are almost never actually voiced, but women going through the pain of childlessness often hear echoes of these sentiments in the company of "God controls the womb" folk.

Another pragmatic problem has to do with cost. Don't hear me advocating the silly "children are too expensive to have more than one or two" nonsense that passes for wisdom these days. And I'm certainly not buying the argument that says we must put all of our children through college. No! But let's be honest, there are costs associated with having children and some folk simply cannot afford ten. Those that have significantly more than they can wisely afford usually end up increasingly on the government dime, an issue which has ethical considerations not usually worked through by this camp.

There's another pragmatic problem that begins to touch on the theological, too - what happens when husband and wife disagree on this issue? Generally it will be that the man wants no more children and the woman wants to "leave God in control", though sometimes the situation is reversed. But what do we do now? Most folk would argue (in the first case) that the wife submit to her husband's wish but pray that God will show him the error of his ways. So what if the husband has an operation to end his potency? Now what? Talk about a rift in the marriage relationship!

But what if the situation is reversed - the husband wants more but the wife doesn't? Now we have a situation where most would advocate that the wife submit to her husband's desire and attempt to conceive a child she does not want. I know that she'll likely change her mind once she delivers the child, but that's not the point. The damage done to the marriage relationship could be considerable.

Second class of problems: theological.

As I noted above, I think these problems to be more significant that "merely" pragmatic ones. [Note: I'm not silly enough to think that theological problems don't have pragmatic effects, nor that pragmatic problems don't often have theological roots - the categories are just handy for this post.]

At its core, the major problem I have here is directly related to hermeneutics - the branch of scientific inquiry that has to do with how we interpret texts (in this case, the Bible). Advocates of the "God controls the womb" position tend to make more out of narrative texts than should be. They take portions of Scripture that were written as descriptions of events and try to make them commands. To put it another way, they tend to take what is descriptive and make it prescriptive.

So you find an example in the Old Testament of God "opening the womb" (of which there are several) and you broaden that narrative event to become a general principle for all the living. 'If God opened her womb, He must be in charge of everyone's womb.' Of course there's a certain amount of truth to the claim - God clearly has the authority to and ability to do this in each and every sexual encounter throughout humanity. But this opening and closing of the womb has much more in common with the miracles of the Bible than the commands - cases where God chooses to intervene in the normal/natural method He previously established.

One of the biggest reasons I believe this to be the case has to do with death. Every year over 500,000 women die in the act of childbirth worldwide, and countless more babies die in the womb or just moments out of it. We're talking about in excess of a million deaths a year directly related to childbirth! How can I blame God for this? Was death a part of His original plan? No! Is death a "natural" event? No! Is it accurate to say that God "wanted these people more"? No!

Death is a product of the Fall of Humanity. It is no more fair to blame God for death than to blame Him for cancer, leukemia, marital infidelity or hurricanes.

So, if sound theology must not blame God for these million-plus deaths each year surrounding childbirth how are we to understand them? What are we to do when wise medical professionals (not just any medical professional - plenty of them lack wisdom!) tell us the chances are very great that mother or child could die?

Let me put wheels on this: I have a good friend who has precisely one child. His wife had many, many medical issues surrounding childbirth and came much closer to death than anyone really wants to think about. She was told in no uncertain terms that having another child could do any of a number of awful things to her or the baby's body, including death. After much prayer (and some tears) they came to the wise decision to prevent future pregnancies. But let's say they didn't - let's say they adopted the "God controls the womb" position and got pregnant anyway. They'd be forced to say that God caused their particular pregnancy, right - He causes all pregnancies in this model. Then, when she died, my friend would be forced to believe that God either caused her death or knew that it would happen and chose to do nothing about it. Remember, though, that in this system of belief God caused (not just allowed) the pregnancy that He knew would lead to death. In any court of law God would be judged liable for the death, and rightfully so.

The list could go on: why does God cause rape victims to become pregnant?; why does He cause young teenagers to become pregnant?; why does He cause uterine ruptures?; why does He cause so many good and Godly women to be incapable of conceiving?...

This is not just a semantic battle - there's a world of difference between allowing and causing. In the first, God establishes a natural/normal way things work (sperm meets egg and conception occurs) and sometimes intervenes (ie, performs a miracle), or God chooses not to intervene against the by-products of the Fall (ie, He allows people to die of cancer or childbirth). In the second case, God is willfully manipulating events to cause awful outcomes, outcomes that do not reflect the character of God.

---

Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating for the "normal" American model of family planning. Go back and read the first post in this topic if you doubt me. But God has given us the principle of wisdom over and over again in the Bible. Making wise decisions - that's the command. But making wise decisions and fatalistically allowing God to control the womb are two different models. The weight of Scriptures is certainly aligned with seeking wisdom far more than a handful of narratives that describe specific workings of God.

Hatushili

PS: Expect one last post on this subject to tie up loose ends and offer a practical example of what I think looks most Biblical.

User updates

2007-11-28T17:08:00.000-05:00

In case you haven't noticed, I've taken a little time to try to make my blog a bit handier and easier to use. Some of the changes were specific requests (or guided by general request); others were just things I thought would be nice.

If you haven't already found them, read on and I'll point them out...

First, I made the logo at the top of my blog a hot link to the main page. This way if you're on a particular page you can either click the link at the bottom of every article or click the logo at the top of every article. Either way you'll get back to the front page.

Next, I updated the explanation for "Hatushili" link - it's not an image to click and not merely plain (and, I thought, slightly confusing) text.

Then I added a custom Google search bar. It searches only this sight, so if you're looking for a specific word or idea this will be the fastest way to find it. It searches every word on the blog - comments, posts, titles, etc...

Also, I changed my "posts by label" into a label cloud. It takes up less space and is a bit easier on the eyes, eh?

Finally, I streamlined what was once the "Ask the Pastor" link and removed some other clutter...

I hope you find the blog a bit improved. As always, I'll happily field criticism here. Or if you have any other suggestions, let me know and I'll see if I can incorporate them.

Hatushili

PS: Nick, thanks for motivating the label cloud idea - I hope your friend can more readily find what he might be looking for!

Immoral pregnancies?!

2007-11-23T12:27:00.000-05:00

So I just posted the other day about the problem of seeing children primarily as economic entities and basing "family planning" decisions upon such a view. I argued in that post that this view is common, even though it sounds awful if you actually put it on paper.

Well, it seems I understated the case. I don't normally recommend overly-long web articles to you folk, but you really should read this.

It seems babies aren't "eco-friendly"...

I hope you just finished reading the article and are now outraged. If not, please stop reading my post and go read that article - the whole thing. Sometimes it's useful to be outraged...

Read it? Good.

Obviously I have serious issues with these women, especially the first one. Remember my contention that people view children as economic entities? How about this statement from the first woman in the article:

"I've never doubted that I made the right decision. Ed and I married in September 2002, and have a much nicer lifestyle as a result of not having children... We love walking and hiking, and we often go away for weekends... Every year, we also take a nice holiday - we've just come back from South Africa... We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population. "

So this is the latest in the "offsetting carbon credit" thinking?! Unbelievable.

The second lady in the article, to her credit, does not appear to be a materialistic hypocrite. Hers is a problem we should not be surprised by. Allow me a brief (but relevant) aside into social history:

In the 19th century, Charles Darwin introduced what was inarguably the most significant concept of the century - evolution. Today we talk about the nuances of micro- versus macro-evolution (at least, we should acknowledge this hugely significant difference... funny how public schools don't, but I digress). But in Darwin's day, the concept was (for most of his followers) as simple as "survival of the fittest".

What followed was horrific, but perfectly understandable. Social evolutionists popped up on the scene and began arguing that only the "fittest" of people should be encouraged to bear children and populate the earth. Then came forced encouragement - Hitler, for example, clearly based his genocidal methods on the concept of "survival of the fittest". For him, Jews were least fit and therefore did not deserve the natural resources they were consuming. Killing them merely sped up the natural process of evolution toward a superior race.

In light of all this, the notion of a Creator-God that sustains all life slowly faded from the social consciousness of many peoples around the globe. "Mother Nature" was said to be able to take care of herself, thank you very much! And since Mother Nature doesn't need our help, it has for some become only natural to believe that ...

... the earth would really be better off without people screwing it up.

The second lady in the linked article clearly believes along these lines. It seem unbelievable that she could, but clearly she does. And I'm sure she's not alone. She's just got the courage to live her convictions to the fullest, regardless of where they take her. Most people of her persuasion only say the earth would be better off without us - she's actually living that principle.

I guess she should be commended... ?

No. She's traded the Almighty God for an idol; an image she perhaps calls Mother Earth. She's quite literally perverted the very nature of God and the universe in her own mind.

And you thought evolution was no big deal, didn't you?

Hatushili

---

Note: The only possible good news that can be squeezed out of a story like this is a truth that sociologists have recently begun to pick up on: "liberals" are having far fewer children than "conservatives" and will therefore likely be severely outnumbered in the coming generations. [Please don't comment on my use of liberal/conservative - I understand the limitations and am merely using the term as sociologists tend to.]

Who gets to speak for God? (part 3 of 3)

2007-11-21T13:11:00.000-05:00

We started this conversation here, then continued it here, in case you're keeping track.

In those two posts, I basically argued against the two primary intentions behind the question "who gets to speak for God?".

Now (finally!) I'll give some of my own thoughts about the issue...

As I mentioned before, people generally use this question as a way of articulating either a) a leaderless/egalitarian position, or b) overall skepticism about the ability to objectively know what the Bible teaches.

I find both intentions unnecessary, but that doesn't mean I object to the question.

So, in my opinion, who does get to speak for God?

First, we need to remember that each of Christ's followers has the right to read and the empowerment to understand Scripture. The Holy Spirit resident within us makes clear things that the "natural man" cannot grasp. This is one of the truths the Reformers fought so hard for, and we should not readily abandon it. I will never advocate a position that only allows a certain select few to speak for God, whether pastor, teacher, elder or otherwise.

But we can't take that position too far. We must also acknowledge that some people have ability to handle Scripture beyond our own, through training, practice, wisdom, experience, etc... For example, odds are good that a pastor of 25 years will have some significant skill in interpreting Scripture - skill to a degree unlikely to be found in a new Christian. But that same pastor of 25 years has no monopoly on truth! He will have just as many biases and preconceived notions as the rest of us. We need each other - all our voices - to help keep one another honest, to gently expose our biases, to gain a deeper sense of perspective.

Those in the life of the local church accustomed to speaking for God (read: pastors, preachers, elders, SS teachers, etc...) need to carefully avoid giving the impression that they have exclusive right to full knowledge. We must be willing to admit just how humble our level of understanding really is. When necessary, we must be willing to agree to disagree.

But yet we cannot escape the genuine authority structures that the Bible lays out for us. Elders have a God-given responsibility to guard the flock against wolves. And trust me, there are plenty of wolves out there - cults, 'isms, heresies, and downright demonic schemes. Elders - especially those that are paid to serve full-time - likely have much more time than others to read and research, to ponder and work through the issues facing us today. In short, they very often have insight and wisdom that we cannot ignore. So, for example, if you want to bring so-and-so's book into your Sunday School class but the elders consider it unwise ... listen to them! Ultimately you retain the right to leave that local assembly - it's the best way people can help keep elders and churches from straying. But so long as you're under the authority of a local church, give serious consideration to the wisdom of its leaders.

Moreover, we are all part of a body - one organism. Therefore it is simply unacceptable to ignore the wise counsel of others, believing that we all "speak for God". It is unhealthy to think of "me" all the time, instead of "us". There's a time and place for "me", but the normal model should be "us".

Take the "worship wars" of the recent past. How much of this would have been avoided by people remembering that the church does not revolve around their personal preferences, but instead heeding the wisdom of the elders and the principles of "us" (not "me")?

I guess more than anything what I'm really calling for is humility.

Elders, teachers, preachers and pastors that humbly recognize their own limitations; that humbly recognize the skills and abilities of others around them; that humbly speak for God as they serve the church.

Congregants that humbly recognize the authority structures within the life of the church; that humbly desire to understand the Word; that humbly speak for God as they collectively do the work of ministry.

Hatushili

How many children?

2007-11-20T14:52:00.000-05:00

As a father of seven children, I routinely get asked whether we're "done" or not. While this question often leads in comical directions, it does bring up a great issue: reproductive theology.

Don't let that sound too boring to you. Trust me; you should read what I'm about to say. Not that it'll necessarily be profound, but it's an issue you should be wrestling through...

In my experience, there are basically two major ways Christ followers view the issue of "family planning" - that is, two different ways Christians think through how many children they'd like to have. There are (of course) variations within these two major paradigms, too. But in broad brushes, the major views can be laid out this way:

Paradigm 1: The number of children we have is entirely driven by our own personal wants. Choosing how many children to have is largely an economic decision - we all want children, but they're expensive. Choose to have what you can afford.

Paradigm 2: The number of children we have is entirely up to the LORD. He opens and closes the womb; He is the author of all life. We will have as many children as He gives us, with no thought toward contraception. Choose to be content with as many as He gives.

There are significant problems with both of these views, but I've found that (fundamentally) most people are in one camp or the other. Obviously, the vast majority of people operate in Paradigm 1. But Paradigm 2 people are increasingly vocal in Christian culture, too.

I have to admit that I've never really been terribly comfortable in either of these camps. I've spent time in both of them (something most can't say) and find neither very satisfactory.

I want to use the remainder of this post to discuss the problems with Paradigm 1. I'll follow that up with a post about the problems of Paradigm 2, then get to what I think is a more Biblical view. Here we go...

As I said, most people are fundamentally Paradigm 1-types. If you're reading this, odds are very good I'm describing you. If so, understand that I'm not trying to be mean or pick a fight. I want all of us to think through the implications of what we're saying - I want us to think critically. Having spent a number of years with this paradigm, please allow me to point out some very real problems along with the paradigm's strengths.

Strengths: Paradigm 1 encourages people to try to make wise decisions. It does not seek to remove the individual from responsibility over hugely important life issues (few issues are bigger than this one!). Having said that, I can't think of any other virtues of this paradigm...

Weaknesses: Paradigm 1 often makes children a largely economic entity. People are encouraged to think of kids in terms of what it will cost them - grossly exaggerated figures are bandied about for cost of education, clothing, vacations, etc... A classic example: virtually every time some meets me and finds out I have seven children they get around to asking, "How are you going to pay for college for all of them?". Though tempting, I don't want to go down that rabbit trail right here - I cite the question to prove the point: people are trained to think of children almost exclusively as economic entities.

Paradigm 1 largely ignores a few major themes of Scripture: a) that God commanded us to "be fruitful", b) that God is the author of human life, c) that the family has from the very beginning been the fundamental unit that God works through. Let's be honest, most couples don't think about the implications of these truths when having the "family planning" discussion. Often token acknowledgment is given, but serious consideration? Perhaps you're the exception, but most prove the rule.

Paradigm 1 takes too lightly the fact that children are a blessing. There are very few specifically named blessings in the Bible that apply to all of us - children are on that short list, yet we often ignore that and focus on dollars and cents.

Paradigm 1 is often in cahoots with materialism: if you want the finer things in life, you can't have too many children. If you want to do right by your children, you'll try to provide for them a better life than you had as as child. It's better to have a few children and provide these things for them than to have many and force them to go without.

As I've done before, I turn to my own family as an example of the folly of this view: we get along just fine on significantly less than the average American family income, even though we have significantly more children than the average American family. Believe it or not, the US government more or less considers our family poor. Those that know me personally would likely call our family lifestyle "modest", but "poor"?!

Paradigm 1 completely fails to wrestle with this concept:

If I have to choose between new cars, satellite TV, fancy vacations, a big house, etc... and a large family, children always trump lots of stuff.

I'm really not sure how any Christian could argue with this concept. But Paradigm 1 encourages us to ignore it. We've allowed the standard cultural expectation for a "normal American lifestyle" to so dominate our minds that we can't think straight.

Talk to someone who is unable to become pregnant - they'll pick the small, crying baby behind Door Number 1 over the pile of goodies behind Door Number 2 every time.

I'll leave you with one more to chew on. I've met many older couples that admit to sometimes wishing they'd had more children.

I've yet to meet any that wish they'd had less.

Hatushili

Praises and Prayers

2007-11-20T14:44:00.000-05:00

First, thanks to those that prayed for my recent trip to Nebraska to candidate for a pastoral position. It went extremely well. If you'd like the details, shoot me an email.

Also, I have two specific prayer requests for your concern:

First, Bill - he works at the business next door to mine and has been undergoing dialysis for about a year now. He need a kidney transplant but has had no success in finding one. He looked really weak today, and I had a chance to pray with him (yes, you can pray out loud at a Shell gas station!). Pray for Bill; for strength, encouragement, healing.

Second, Leo - I met him in Nebraska this past weekend. His wife (Diane) felt poorly and went to see about it, only to find out that she has AML, a form of leukemia that has required her to immediately begin chemotherapy. I was honored to be part of a large group of Christ followers praying for them Sunday, and I ask you to do so also.

Hatushili

Togo update

2007-11-14T12:20:00.000-05:00

As most of you likely know, I've been very concerned about the plight of sub-Saharan Africa in the last few months. Massive flooding has finally receded, only to be replaced by great concern over water-borne diseases, lack of shelter, and spoiled food stores.

As a result, I asked you all to help my family contribute to a fund to send money specifically to a local church in northern Togo. [More of the details can be found in this post and the posts it references.]

I'm happy to report that through your efforts, we were recently able to wire-transfer $285 to Christ's followers in Togo. I don't know that we'll ever hear precisely how those funds get used, but that's not really the point. They know how best to use it - pray for their wisdom, not some specific goal you might have in mind.

Again, my thanks to those who gave. I ask that you continue to pray.

Hatushili

Type rest of the post here

Pray for wisdom

2007-11-12T13:32:00.000-05:00

As some of you might already know, Carmen and I are flying out to visit a church in Nebraska this weekend. We'll be spending a lot of time with the pastor in charge of (potentially) hiring me.

Please pray that God would give all parties involved tremendous wisdom to know clearly whether this will be a good "fit" for both the local church and its leaders, and for my family and I.

If you have specific questions, feel free to email me.

Thanks,
Hatushili

Saturday Buffet

2007-11-10T09:23:00.000-05:00

Not much to talk about in this Saturday's Buffet, but what there is is certainly worth reading...

First, we have a compiled list of the most stupid of all British laws. My personal favourite is Number 8:

It is illegal to avoid telling the tax man anything you do not want him to know, but legal not to tell him information you do not mind him knowing.

Next, there is the sad story of the Tower of Pisa, which apparently no longer holds the record for most off-kilter structure!

Finally, a political story. My regular readers will note that I rarely deal with politics directly on this blog. But this story had me scratching my head: Pat Robertson endorses Guiliani?!

Personally, I'm not sure that I much care who Pat Robertson votes for. I generally wish he would keep his mouth shut far more often than he does, so opening it to tell me who he's voting for isn't doing much for me!

But the point is that Robertson influences (and represents?) tons of Christians in this country, and yet he's willing to throw his weight behind Guiliani?!

I suppose I'll feel compelled to post about the current crop of presidential candidates in the near future. But for now, it's enough to say that I most certainly won't be following Pat's lead next November.

Hatushili

Out of the mouths of babes...

2007-11-09T22:54:00.000-05:00

Does your child have some ridiculously un-funny or just plain nonsensical "joke" tell over and over again? You know, the kind that on paper just really isn't funny, but because s/he is your child (or perhaps because of the delivery of children - especially the cute voices!) you find yourself laughing nonetheless.

My three year old (Gracie) has just such a joke. I have no idea where it came from - I must only presume her (somewhat odd) brain. It really isn't funny, but it makes me laugh every time I hear her say it.

So, do you want to know the joke?...

I present to you the unedited Gracie joke:

What do you get when you cross?

A meat 'n donkey cheese!

----

I find myself laughing uncontrollably even as I'm typing this! I can't explain it, really. Notice she does not say "What do you get when you cross X with Y"... It's just "What do you get when you cross". Moreover, I have no clue what "a meat and donkey cheese" is!

[More uncontrollable laughter. Sorry....]

Okay. Deep breaths.

----

I'm guessing your children have lines like these, and I'd love to hear some of them...

Hatushili

Social Justice?

2007-11-06T08:15:00.000-05:00

As you likely know if you've read my blog for very long, I'm theologically conservative on many issues. You probably also figured out that "conservative" is not, however, a particularly good label for me.

One of the reasons why has to do with the issue of social justice. I am an advocate of helping the poor and needy, and I'm reasonably sure God is too!

But I just read an article from the magazine of my alma mater on the subject that takes the issue far too far...

[You can read the full article by clicking this link, then finding and opening the (pdf) link labelled "Waging a Living".]

The University of Michigan is undoubtedly one of the most hard-left leaning, liberal schools in America. Cal-Berkley is the only school I can think of that leans further to the left. Knowing this, I tend to read everything they send me with a grain of salt. A recent article by Irasema Garza was no exception.

In this article, Garza starts out by discussing the well-known changes in the American economy in the last 20-30 years. She makes particular note of the loss of manufacturing jobs, and the propensity for the very wealthy to become even more wealthy. She seems more-or-less even-handed about it all, at first.

She tips her political hand when she says:

Even today, with record high gas prices, worker layoffs, tax cuts to the top one percent of Americans, an unpopular war, and political scandals and corruption, the majority of Americans still want to believe in the American Dream. But the dream is fading.

I have a number of issues with this blanket statement, but don't really want to go down that road in this post. But the one I do want to address is the whole notion of the "American Dream".

What exactly is the American Dream? It seems to me that it depends upon whom you talk to! For some, nearly all of us are living the American Dream - after all, most of us have a home, a job, a family, and the freedom to do as we please. We're not told what religion to practice, what person to vote for, what job we can or can't do... Sounds vastly better than many in the world have it, does it not?!

But for others, the American Dream is just a more sugar-coated way of saying "hyper-materialism"! There are those that think the American Dream is starting your own business, become uber-rich at an early age, then "retiring" to spend the rest of your life lounging on the beach somewhere. Frankly, that sounds much more like a nightmare to me.

But it's clear that Garza has the later more in mind than the former, that her vision for America and her concept of the American Dream has far more to do with the almighty dollar and good ol' materialism than anything else.

Here's the conclusion to her article:

... our political leaders have a responsibility to redefine priorities and act swiftly. Americans need jobs with better wages, universal health care, better balance of work and family, affordable housing, and more connected communities... If the United States is to remain a world economic power and the strongest democracy in the world, working and middle class Americans have to believe in - and have to be able to realize - the American Dream.

That's just plain silly, folks! Let me count some of the reasons:

1) Odd, I don't remember anything in the Constitution about the federal government's job involving meddling in free markets...

2) Odd, I don't know that I've ever felt I needed my "political leaders" to do something for me before I did for myself...

3) Americans need jobs with better wages? Okay - at the risk of sounding like a nut, why? Because we all need more cars, bigger televisions, larger houses? Seriously, why? Without getting too personal on you, allow me to point out that I know a family of eight (yes, that'd be six children) with an income significantly lower than the US mean household income of $48,201/year. They get along in life just fine, with no wealthy benefactor! Oh wait!, that family is mine... I guess I did get a little personal on you... My apologies.

My point? I believe (and have seen first-hand) that most Americans can live an economically sound life if they are willing to (in the words of Garza) "redefine priorities". But contrary to Garza, this isn't about government priorities, it's about ours! This could rapidly become a post all to its own... Pressing on...

4) Universal health care?! Let's for just a moment set aside the fact that our Constitution makes no provision for such a concept. Let's ignore the many failures of such a system overseas. Let's focus on the dollar and cents of it - where will the money come from? The obvious answer is taxes. There are only two real choices to find these tax dollars: a) restructure the way the fed spends tax dollars right now, moving funds away from many projects to fund this one new (and enormously expensive) one, or b) take more taxes from the people (and by "the people", they most likely mean "wealthy people" - rob from the rich to give to the poor). I find neither option acceptable.

5) Affordable housing, you say? So government is now supposed to pick up some of the bill for the house I want (versus the one I can afford)?

6) The two that drive me the most nuts: "better balance of work and family" and "more connected communities". It is my absolute contention that Garza's version of the American Dream and these two goals are mutually exclusive. Want to maintain a better balance between work and family? Then just do it. Find ways to make your dollar stretch further, so you can spend less time at work and more time at home. A friend of mine advises others to "cheat toward home". Want more connected communities? It takes time and effort, not government intervention. We live in isolation by choice, not because our "political leaders" have failed to set the right "priorities".

At the risk of sounding downright mean, Garza has utterly and completely missed the boat. If you're reading this blog post, you're likely living what the Founders would've considered the American Dream. If you live in America, you are likely VASTLY more wealthy than the average African, even if we here in the States consider you poor.

Appreciation. Thankfulness. Hard work. Sacrifice. These are words to live by.

Even more government intervention? No thanks.

Hatushili

Who gets to speak for God? (part 2 of 3)

2007-11-03T09:31:00.000-04:00

[In case you missed part one, you can read it here.]

Last time, we looked at those that use the question "Who gets to speak for God?" as a way to support egalitarianism, or even so-called "leaderless" models of church.

Today we look at other primary way people use this great question...

There are plenty of well-meaning folk out there that use this question as a way of supporting their belief that so much of what we call Biblical interpretation is subjective. They've grown weary of the somewhat silly notion that (for example) Greek and Hebrew language skill can resolve all the difficulties of the Bible! [Believe it or not, I was once in that camp ... 15 semesters of ancient languages later I know better!] They tire of people that think they've got it all figured out. You know the type - no room for mystery, no room for disagreement.

So the question ("who gets to speak for God?") gets raised as a way of reminding everyone that no one has a direct line from the mouth of God, as it were. We're all - like it or not - subject to a certain amount of subjectivity when it comes to interpreting the Bible.

There are those that believe almost everything about the Bible is subjective, but I'm not really addressing those folks in this post. In my experience, they tend not to ask the question we're discussing. Nor do they use the question to prop up their claims. They tend to be much more direct and pointed about their issues...

But for those that genuinely wrestle with the many (seemingly) contradictory or at least "difficult" passages of Scripture, asking this question is a good way of levelling the playing field.

There are two appropriate responses to this situation, in my opinion:

1) We must acknowledge the fundamental truth of what they're saying. There is a fair bit of subjectivity in the human interpretation of Scripture. You don't have to like that fact, but it's a fact nonetheless. That doesn't mean, of course, that we shouldn't study God's Word and seek to come to an understanding of if. What it means is that we must carefully guard against coming to quick or easy conclusions, and we must certainly make every effort to genuinely consider the opinions and interpretations of other Christ-followers when they disagree with ours.

Here's a good way to start. Try to eliminate the only-slightly subtle "I'm right and you're not" language from your vocabulary. For example, avoid phrases like:

Anyone who takes the Bible seriously will agree with me.

That's a pretty liberal interpretation.

Sorry, I just don't buy that interpretation.

In others words, when the debate is in-house let's keep it civil and humble.

2) When appropriate, we need to try to help these people understand Biblical hermeneutics. Know going in that there are different hermeneutical paradigms that people use, and some of them you're just going to have to agree to disagree with. But in my experience, once people see that you hold your interpretations humbly but you hold them for well-considered reasons they are much more likely to feel a peace about the whole process of Biblical interpretation. We can't give the impression that people just make this stuff up! Because that's exactly how it looks to many...

If we believe that God wants us to know His Word, we must believe that He's given guidelines for how to do so. Helping people understand this principle therefore comes with the added bonus of helping them understand the very nature of God better.

---

So, if you're asking "Who gets to speak for God?" because you're frustrated with the know-it-all attitude of too many Christians and what to encourage them toward humility, I'm with you!

But if you're asking the question out of your own doubts and fears, let me help you.

Hatushili

Saturday Buffet

2007-11-03T09:06:00.000-04:00

No fanfare this week. Except to say that if you look at nothing else this week, you must at least check out the last entry in this week's Saturday Buffet.

Here's this week's edition...

Perhaps you never thought about the fact that Daylight Savings Time is (in part) about saving energy? Now you know. And just for the record, you should know that Indiana finally adopted Daylight Savings Time ... sort of.

In this weeks political double-speak category, John Edwards wants us to know that in order to pay for his proposed enormous "College for Everyone" initiative, every taxpayer will have to put in more money ... because "there are no free meals". Unless, I guess, you're getting a taxpayer supported free college degree ... ?!?

Good news from Focus on the Family - they intend to focus more on parenting than politics in the coming years! ... and there was much rejoicing!

In Iraq, the premier has vowed to help our brothers and sisters in Christ as they attempt to stay safe and in the country (more than 50% of them have left already).

In case you avoided my Halloween post (and who could blame you!), here are two more interesting articles on the subject. First, it seems Russia is attempting to stop the import of the "holiday" in schools. Next, in a logically related story, it appears that Victoria's Secret is successfully marketing their products to young girls.

Finally, this one is amazing. Apparently a bunch of guys with a ton of time on their hands took zillions of high-resolution pictures of DaVinci's Last Supper and then pasted them together. The result? You can now view the painting online and zoom right down to the tiniest detail. Seriously, you can find some of the original pencil marks where DaVinci traced images out before painting them! You must check this one out, folks.

Hatushili

re: Halloween

2007-10-30T18:36:00.000-04:00

Every year around this time something strange happens: I get asked why we don't "do" Halloween.

Yes, it's true. The Hyde family chooses not to participate in the Halloween festivities. But odds are good it's not for all the reasons you might think.

Allow me to explain, please...

First, let me say right up front that I respect your right to disagree with me on this issue. If you have prayerfully decided that you want your family to participate (in whatever fashion you choose), God bless you. I have no problem with that.

I do, on the other hand, have a problem if you're involving yourself in Halloween thoughtlessly and without prayer. I would encourage you to think through my reasons for abstaining from this national holiday. If you do so and still come to the conclusion that you want your family involved, great. At least you will have done your due diligence and sought a wise (rather than expedient) answer. We'll just have to practice the wonderful art of agreeing to disagree at that point.

Second, I also want to note that my objections to Halloween are not founded in either the pagan or the Catholic roots of this particular date on the calendar. I really don't find it all that compelling to worry about how people hundreds (if not thousands) of years ago interpreted or intended. Is it historically true that (for example) jack-o-lanterns were intended to drive away evil spirits? Yes. Is that all that relevant for our culture today? Somehow I think not.

But I do have serious concerns about Halloween. They are (in no particular order):

1) The holiday glorifies gluttony and greed. I remember my own Halloween experiences, so many years ago. I can tell you for certain that the only thing on my mind was acquiring as much candy as humanly possible, then consuming it in the least permissible amount of days (preferably by Thanksgiving). Yes, they're only children. But do we really want to encourage this kind of thinking?

2) The holiday glorifies gore. Hopefully this isn't true of the experience the littlest ones have, but surely it's true for many, many Halloween revelers. From the blood to the guts, Halloween is practically filled with the gory and the gross. As a follower of Christ, I'm not sure how this finds a place in my family. And even in the case of the little ones, how can you insure that even they won't be exposed to images altogether inappropriate (and horribly frightening)? You certainly can't control what sort of customed characters show up at your doorstep. Nor can you choose what manner of images your children might see as they go door to door.

3) The holiday glorifies sex. No, you didn't read that wrong. In my defense, I turn to two recent articles on the latest trend in pre-teen girl Halloween costumes. First, check out what the Washington Post has to say about the overtly sexual nature of so many costumes today. Many are actually being sized and marketed to girls as young as 7. Then, check out Mike Straka's take on the subject. He rightly allows for at least the possibility that pedophiles rejoice over Halloween, as well as pointing out the role parents must reclaim. [Note: I'm not comfortable with his stance on adults and Halloween, as noted at the end of the linked article.] Straka (of Fox News) provides a few links to some of the actual costumes being marketed this season. Check them out; I trust you'll find them as inappropriate as they are.

4) The holiday glorifies fear. Many people get a sort of 'high' out of being frightened. I admit I don't understand that, nor can I relate. I'm reasonably sure that God gave us the fear impulse for our protection - much the same reason He gave us pain - and that to tamper with the natural response and purpose of fear likely isn't all that wise.

You can sum it all up this way: there's nothing redemptive about Halloween. That's my default filter for working through these sorts of issues - is there anything redemptive about it? Whether I'm trying to decide upon the merits of a particular book, movie, event, or holiday for my children to be involved in, I almost always come back the question of redemptive value.

Many of the same ethical questions arise around Christmas, frankly. So why does our family celebrate that holiday (even if in an way likely very different from what's considered the norm)? Because there's great (and obvious) redemptive value within it. Same goes for Easter.

But Halloween? Forgive me if I just can't find within it the least little bit of redemptive value.

Hatushili