Truth-telling about Government Schools

I just finished reading this inspiring piece. If I weren’t sitting at work on my lunch break, I’d feel the freedom to shed many tears. My son is almost three, which means in fewer than two years we will have to make a painful decision: put him in a government-run compulsory education prison school, or put him in a non-government institution that has passed the government’s compulsory requirements for being open for business. I suppose we could home-school him, and maybe we will. But I don’t really want to make this decision.

Erica Goldson graduated as valedictorian at Coxsackie-Athens High School on June 25, 2010, and delivered the speech at her graduation ceremony. Her principal and superintendents must have been wetting their pants.

Here’s a taste:

I am now accomplishing that goal. I am graduating. I should look at this as a positive experience, especially being at the top of my class. However, in retrospect, I cannot say that I am any more intelligent than my peers. I can attest that I am only the best at doing what I am told and working the system. Yet, here I stand, and I am supposed to be proud that I have completed this period of indoctrination. I will leave in the fall to go on to the next phase expected of me, in order to receive a paper document that certifies that I am capable of work. But I contend that I am a human being, a thinker, an adventurer – not a worker. A worker is someone who is trapped within repetition – a slave of the system set up before him. But now, I have successfully shown that I was the best slave. I did what I was told to the extreme. While others sat in class and doodled to later become great artists, I sat in class to take notes and become a great test-taker. While others would come to class without their homework done because they were reading about an interest of theirs, I never missed an assignment. While others were creating music and writing lyrics, I decided to do extra credit, even though I never needed it. So, I wonder, why did I even want this position? Sure, I earned it, but what will come of it? When I leave educational institutionalism, will I be successful or forever lost? I have no clue about what I want to do with my life; I have no interests because I saw every subject of study as work, and I excelled at every subject just for the purpose of excelling, not learning. And quite frankly, now I’m scared.

Christianity and Libertarianism, Part 1: Non-Aggression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock

Progressives absolutely love to tell those in power about their expertise in how the world ought to run. Progressive Christians, opportunists they are, jump at offering their better and more enlightened ethics of the kingdom into this political arrangement. Compassionately and with good intentions, they seek to change the world through changing the structures of power to lean their way, so that the goals, outcomes, and real-world arrangements of society look like they believe it ought to look. Justice will reign, they say, when the right legislation is passed, the right regulations are placed on commerce and exchange, and the right leaders are in place. (We need to forget for the moment that, by definition, the “right legislation, regulations, and leaders” would lead to whatever ideal society they are looking for. But such shows the arrogance of progressives.)

What Progressive Christians especially forget is the key ingredient to the outcome of social justice. The idea of freedom, or liberty, is essential to life, and—yes—justice. And here is where I believe libertarianism offers an incredible insight into the ethics of social interaction. This insight is the foundational principle of libertarians, and is quite obviously very compatible with the Christian faith.

This cornerstone principle is called the “non-aggression axiom,” which states that no person has the right to aggress the property or person of another person, with exception of self-defense. So unless you have previously been aggressed upon, you should not, under any circumstances, do unto another something they do not wish that you do.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this arrangement sounds very Christian to me. Would Jesus approve of our aggressing another to do what we would have him do? Would Jesus approve of our enforcement upon another a belief with which he did not agree? I doubt it. In fact, I believe Jesus would probably go one step further, and disregard the “defense” exception of the axiom, since he tells us to “turn the other cheek” if someone aggresses us, and to pray for those who persecute us. But that doesn’t exclude the non-aggression principle.

What most people don’t think about is the flip side of this argument. While I’ll address the so-called “selfish” components of libertarianism in another post, I should briefly point out that this principle means we passionately defend other people’s right to not be aggressed upon. It’s definitely easy to say “Don’t bother me,” and point out the inherent selfishness in that statement. But we ought not forget the converse, which means, “Leave them alone, too!” “Them” is our neighbor, the poor person, the downtrodden, the widow and orphan. But that is not, as it might be misconstrued, a call to leave people to fend for themselves. It’s akin to saying, “Don’t harm them!”

So at the start, Christianity is indeed compatible with libertarianism’s foundational principle. Both seek to respect one’s neighbor. Both defend everyone’s right to life and liberty. And both share at least half of Jesus’ principle of peace, though of course Jesus would probably go further.

Why we were made for freedom

Great quote from Murray Rothbard:

If men were like ants, there would be no interest in human freedom. If individual men, like ants, were uniform, interchangeable, devoid of specific personality traits of their own, then who would care whether they were free or not? Who, indeed, would care if they lived or died? The glory of the human race is the uniqueness of each individual, the fact that every person, though similar in many ways to others, possesses a completely individuated personality of his own. It is the fact of each person’s uniqueness—the fact that no two people can be wholly interchangeable—that makes each and every man irreplaceable and that makes us care whether he lives or dies, whether he is happy or oppressed. And, finally, it is the fact that these unique personalities need freedom for their full development that constitutes one of the major arguments for a free society.

A Higher “Calling”

During the election season, many supporters of Barack Obama loved the fact that he abandoned a business career for a career in public service, or popularly stated, “community organizing.” So the story goes, one is more reputable and favorable if he or she doesn’t pursue a high-paying career. The best examples in our country, and the best people we have, so the fashionable opinion goes, is those who “give up” so others could have more, or have a better chance, or have a better opportunity.

No doubt lawmakers are necessary to protect people who are underprivileged from becoming victims of fraud and deceit, or from being exploited illegally. Even libertarians understand the proper place of the rule of law. That’s not the issue. My complaint is about the fallacy that public servants such as Barack Obama are better than those who do not pursue high-paying careers (as if people who make a lot of money simply did it because they could make a lot of money).

Throughout seminary I heard it said that Christian ministry doesn’t just fit within the boundaries of Sunday services, or “vocational ministry” jobs such as employees of a missions agency or religious school or a church staff. Likewise, I do not believe the term “public servant” is limited to the politician, the community organizer, and those who volunteer their time for helping the needy. Indeed, for the most part, with the [possible] exception of volunteers, those types of public servants are actually draining from society more than they are helping it out. Unless those organizations are making a profit, or are producing something that makes a profit over that from which the resources are being taken, they are wasting resources.

Entrepreneurs, on the other hand, are possibly one of the most important players in a prosperous and sustainable economy. Without them people won’t have work, and without work people cannot pursue self-development. When entrepreneurs provide jobs, others have the opportunity to learn, grow, and better themselves, wherever they start on the ladder (that is, if the minimum wage laws didn’t price people out of jobs to begin with).

An entrepreneur IS a public servant, with rewards dictated by how well that entrepreneur uses the resources within his reach. Sure, there are the Madoffs of the world who don’t care; that’s what the rule of law is for. But strictly speaking, entrepreneurs create opportunity, and the profit they receive is a due reward for the benefits they bring to society. For entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, while we may claim he has “too much money” (he doesn’t—if he had double imagine the good that could be done), none of us complains that he attained his wealth at “our expense.” Of course he gained his wealth at our expense! What he created was more valuable to us than the money in our pockets! Had it not been what we wanted, he would have been wasting resources, and his business should have gone bankrupt and the resources he was wasting would have been utilized elsewhere in a more beneficial area.

Profit is an incredibly important indicator as to the stewardship of resources (economists call it allocation or misallocation). Christians must take stewardship seriously, and when endeavors that are not good stewards of the limited resources our world has, those endeavors must end; in the case of a business misusing resources, they must “go under,” and those resources that were being wasted must be allocated elsewhere. In other words, without a profit, resources are being wasted. One can’t consume, consume, consume, and expect life to sustainably get better. Eventually, the bubble bursts (which is what is happening now in our economy). Yes, some “excess” can be allocated to work for the “common good,” but when that route is taken, rarely are resources profitably allocated. But without the creation of resources, simply taking from the success of others and using those resources to consume other resources—without creating new ones to replace the used-up ones with—is poor stewardship.

I’m not saying all “public servants” are draining from the economy; that can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. But imagine if Barack Obama, one of the most talented, gifted, and successful men in our time, had used his abilities to build a business and create jobs. He’d have done it ethically, and would treat his people equally. Surely a man as gifted as Obama would be an excellent boss to work for, and perhaps more people would be out of poverty. No, instead he is punishing those who are successful, telling those who have yet to be successful that he will take care of them, and promising to take more from those who create jobs for those seeking to work. I’m sorry, but that type of public servant I’m no fan of. It’s poor stewardship, it’s unethical, and it’s pretty despicable when you get into the details of it.

Libertarian Quote #1

“The Christian religion posits an all-powerful God who nevertheless permits humanity to turn its back on Him. This shows an extreme respect for free will and for the very sort of individual choice that is banned by Democrats and Republicans alike as they attempt to enforce their will upon the people through the power of government.” 

Source link here.

The Importance of Name-calling

At lunch during philosophical and political discussion, a co-worker of mine made a point to say that we often call each other names to get somebody to shut up, a sort of “guilt by association” tactic. His point was that the blithe name-calling was an unfortunate part of debates in our country because it dampens real discussion. When somebody says, “Oh, that George Bush, he’s a Nazi!” or something similar, it’s a tactic rather than a point of real discussion. 

While “guilt by association” is certainly fallacious when the association is unrelated to the topic of discussion, name-calling can be an important way of describing in a brief discourse the gist of the person’s characteristics, traits, beliefs, or philosophy. Bishop N.T. Wright reminds us that philosophical and theological words are not trite definitions, but are “shorthand stories.” A deeper meaning, sometimes revealing a narrative that is more complex than that which the term originally connotes, is behind the term. 

While I have been guilty of blithe name-calling from time to time, when I write in my blog, my desire is to use terms in a meaningful way. Unless I’ve looked into the meanings of the terms I use, I refrain from using them without description or explanation. 

It’s all About World View

It’s been a while since I’ve posted an entry that was more than a mere “update” on our lives. Something more substantial, which is what I originally began when starting this blog, has been rather difficult. For several reasons, I have not been prolific in my latest ramblings, rants, ideals, opinions, and theories. This is in part due to lack of time to develop my thoughts in written form, and in part due to my naiveté on certain issues that I am beginning to research and study and craft my own opinions and thoughts on. Some of these topics include things like universal health care, global warming, emergent church and theories of ministry, the 2008 election, social justice, Calvinism, and other theological and political thoughts.

Simply stated, I’m inundated with rational (and some pretty irrational) politically liberal comments in my life, some of which sound intriguing, but which I have no well-reasoned way of determining whether or not my initial thoughts are correct or if they should take some rethinking. In other ways, much of this can be contributed to lack of research, and I want to be well versed in the field in which I’m commenting.

All in all, it’s about knowing my own world view makes sense of the world. For instance, if I want to be a compassionate person and an advocate for social justice in the world, why would I or why would I not want to embrace universal health care? If I don’t (which is wildly unpopular where I work), then what is my alternative for being an advocate for those who cannot afford health care? Or, to take another example, if I want to fight the bias against the skeptics of human-caused global warming, how will I positively fight the need for proper stewardship of our environment without jumping on the Al Gore bandwagon of fear?

You see, as I sat down with a friend during our lunch break, we began discussing/arguing/debating/chatting about political issues. My friend is an avid George Bush hater, while I’m disappointed-yet-sympathetic (to put us in the proper categories). We both agree there’s a health care problem. We both agree there’s problems with the Middle East War. We both agree there are problems with the border. We both agree there are problems with [fill in the blank here].

As we keep talking about the issues, it becomes very clear to me that it doesn’t matter whether or not each of us has the best argument for/against abortion rights, health care, economics, or government surveillance of those with terrorist connections without a warrant. We have differing world views. We understand the world differently. I will look at the “health care crisis” in our nation through the lens of personal responsibility, which translates into not buying an iPod/iPhone, Cable TV, eating out often, and buying expensive items so I can buy affordable health care for my family. My friend, on the other hand, would have other things to say (I won’t put words in his mouth, tempted as I am to caricature his views) about the issue. And both of us have valid points.

But again… world views are different, and you can’t look “at” a world view, you must look through it. I like to say that I’m “borrowing” a view for a while to see if it pans out. So for now it behooves me to “borrow” other world views, not in terms of necessarily wanting to embrace them, but in terms of wanting to understand what life would be like “in a different light.”

Hence the scattered and rare posts on my own thoughts.

Satisfaction in Meeting Jesus

(The following text is adapted from a sermon I delivered in a seminary class recently.)

I’m currently waiting for the arrival of our baby. While I get to “talk” to the baby now, there’s no baby to hold in my arms. I want to be able to hold and touch and cuddle my child. And like me, most of us who have had or are about to have a child look forward to the day when we can embrace the one we love.

A man in Scripture, in the Gospel of Luke, was awaiting the arrival of someone special.

Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. Moved by the Spirit, he went into the temple courts. When the parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him what the custom of the Law required, Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying: “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you now dismiss your servant in peace. ¨For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.”

The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him. Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”

There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.
When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth. And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him.

The Aching of the People of God

Ever since the exile, the people of Israel had been longing for a messiah, somebody to rescue them from their current plight. Even in their own land, they weren’t yet out of exile. The Romans ruled the land, and they were not free to be the nation they wanted to be. Even had they been free, we know from reading the prophets that Israel did a pretty lousy job at being who she was called to be. This is the historical stage: the people were aching in expectation of a messiah who would come and solve their problems––politically, nationally, and theologically. They wanted somebody to save them.

Luke was writing his biography of Jesus several decades after Jesus’ life events actually took place. He was crafting a story of Jesus’ coming into the world. He sets the literary stage by telling us stories about different individuals who experienced the coming of the messiah: Zechariah, Elizabeth, Mary, the shepherds, and those unnamed persons who were undoubtedly part of that story (household servants, spouses, etc). After the story of the birth of Jesus, Luke tells of another two persons who experienced Jesus: Simeon and Anna.

I’m going to tell you my agenda ahead of time: Luke’s telling of this story can be seen as a paradigm of the story of Israel, and of our own stories. Israel was longing for a return from exile, was expecting somebody to rescue them, and was painstakingly awaiting the arrival of that someone. Many, I believe, did not even know what to look for, and had developed their own theories and assumptions about what this “messiah” would look like. Some even formed their own agendas and sought to begin a revolution themselves. We could observce that the hearts of God’s people had grown weary of waiting.

Like them, we are all longing and searching and hoping for something or someone. Our hearts ache for a better job, a better marriage, a better life. We look forward to being rescued to better things. And even if we feel as though we have a pretty good life, there is always “something” left within us that knows, “things could be better.”

Luke says Simeon was “waiting for the consolation of Israel,” and the Holy Spirit was upon him. If we had the time, we’d be able to see how Luke uses the phrase “Holy Spirit was upon” and
Holy Spirit came on” and “rested on” throughout Luke and Acts, but suffice it to say that this phraseology meant that there was something supernatural happening. Luke tells us what it is: “it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before he had seen YHWH’s messiah.” Not a shabby promise, would you say? So moved by the Spirit he went to the temple. Guess who was there?

The Arrival of the Messiah

I’m not sure if at this time Simeon knew that Jesus was going to be a baby when he met him. Perhaps Simeon assumed he would meet a man. Perhaps he knew didn’t know much, and left his heart open to whatever God’s Spirit led him to. In any case, he got to hold the baby Jesus in his arms.

It is often that we have expectations of a person when we are about to meet them. If they are a famous person, we tend to idolize them and assume they are as good as we imagined them. We even create expectations for people we already know, assuming they will act in or be a certain way about something. And oftentimes we are caught by surprise at what we experience.

In many ways, that is how we experience Jesus. While Simeon may have known Jesus would be a baby in the temple, he may not have understood this before the Holy Spirit revealed it to him. His thoughts were probably on some great leader, some great teacher, some great revolutionary. And so at the very least, Simeon’s understanding of the messiah was different. And his experience with Jesus was very different.

In our world, we don’t get quite the experience today of meeting Jesus like Simeon did, at least not literally. While we may have a “strong sense” of Jesus’ presence at our salvation, it isn’t quite like holding Jesus in our arms. But nevertheless, we still experience Jesus. He arrives in our world, and we must choose to do something with him.

How does Jesus arrive in our world? He arrives in the small voices of your children doing loving things for each other. He arrives in the beauty of the world around you on a bright sunny day (and believe it or not, he’s still there on the cloudy days). However you imagine one could experience Jesus, this is how he arrives, or enters our world.

The Action of the Hearer

Let’s talk about Simeon’s reaction as he held the baby Jesus in his arms. Keep in mind Jesus had nothing to say to Simeon, didn’t heal him, and since it was only 40 days after his birth, may not have even purposefully smiled at Simeon.

In Simeon’s world, Israel was God’s focus of attention, God’s special people. So to focus on Gentiles is to be, for their nation, and outward focus. But as God’s people, Israel was to be outwardly blessing those around them.

As Jesus entered Simeon’s world, he knew that he had seen God’s salvation (v. 30), and he declared that this salvation would be two things: (1) a light for the Gentiles, and (2) glory to God’s people. God’s salvation, Jesus, is to be a light for those outside his people. For God’s people, Jesus is to be glory. He is our worshiped One, our focus, the “weight” of our hearts.

When some people “meet” Jesus, they have already chosen how they want to respond to him. Some choose to write him off as a man, but just a man. Some choose to revere him as good, but probably say that simply to be politically correct or “popular” in their opinion. Let’s face it: not many folks believe Jesus taught awful things or was a “bad man.” He certainly is revered on a popular level. So many people “do something” with Jesus when he is introduced into their world. The problem, sometimes, is they don’t do with Jesus what needs to be done. They don’t find satisfaction in him.

How do you act when Jesus enters your world each day? Are you putting him off as that well-known person in your life, who is important but gets little attention after a while? Or have you decided, like Simeon, to attribute to Jesus who he rightfully is: “a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel”?

Simeon then blessed Jesus’ parents by telling them that this child would be the center of controversy. In some ways, he was destined for celebrity status (we must keep in mind that a celebrity is not always popular). He tells Jesus’ parents that Jesus would be the cause of rising and falling of many in Israel. In fact, Mary and Joseph would be affected by him, too, by saying that their own souls would be pierced. He could be speaking of Mary having to watch her son die, or perhaps he was speaking in spiritual terms. In any case, Simeon’s declaration made his parents marvel.

Leading up to this time, the arrival of the messiah was supposed to be a great and sweeping victory over God’s enemies. It was assumed to be God’s political and theological victory of the forces of darkness, namely the Roman rule. The injustice of the Gentiles, Samaritans, and the unjust Jewish leaders were to be eradicated, and this leader would be a great leader. But he comes in an unexpected manner, even while everyone was looking for him.

But the story of Jesus’ parents in the temple that day doesn’t end here. There is another character, Anna, whom Luke wants us to consider if we understand this story in its fullness. Otherwise he would have gone on to say other things about Jesus’ life.

Anna was an 84 year-old widow who spent much of, if not all of, her time in the temple, worshiping and fasting and praying. At a critical moment in the story, Anna comes up to meet the family and Simeon, and she gets to meet the baby Jesus!

I wonder how Anna knew that this child was “the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.” I wonder if she knew how this would end up. I wonder if any of them knew that Jesus wouldn’t be quite the leader and revolutionary that they all had expected to come on the scene. Nonetheless, Anna was clear about what she was looking forward to, and she understood who this baby was.

Luke wraps this unique story of what might appear to be chance encounter of the baby Jesus by with a nice “fond farewell” of Jesus and his family. The “happily ever after” part of the story is that Jesus grew in wisdom and the grace of God was upon him. The only “loose ends” to this story are the mysterious things spoken of by Simeon, those things described about Jesus concerning what he would be to the people of Israel.

While Simeon and Anna did not know exactly who they were encountering, while they did not know all about Jesus, and while they did not know exactly how he would affect their nation, they both understood that he would be the consolation of the nation. Just as Jesus would later tell the woman at the well that her thirst would be quenched with living water, even as a baby these two people were satisfied. Were all of their questions answered? No. Nothing leads us to believe this. Were their experiences as they had hoped? Probably not. But it appears from Luke’s account they were satisfied with the savior whom they met.

I can’t help but cast this story against my own story, against our story. It is a story of a personal, but also national, struggle for peace. It is a story of a personal, but also national, waiting for hope. It is, in short, the story of finding satisfaction in the Jesus who came to rescue the world, who came to produce harmony in the world.

But he did not come as expected. And he will not be as expected.

Our problem in life is not that we search for something that will satisfy us. The problem is that we do not search for that which will satisfy us most. If Jesus is the “light” and “glory”and “redemption” for the world, then it is only he who can be this ultimate satisfaction. It is our response to Jesus, when we encounter him, that makes the difference in our satisfaction. As a believer, it is also how we allow other people to encounter Jesus, showing them that He can be and would be that which satisfies them fully, even if they don’t quite know how that plays out.

The Miracle of Christmas (Part 0) “God with Us”

The Christmas Story truly began long before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. Long before the coming of the great Israelite King David. Long before the patriarch Moses, Abraham, and Noah. In fact, the story began “in the beginning.” (Sorry for the obvious statement!)

Adam and Eve are the characters of the story that fell apart. The plot seemingly went askew. Humankind broke the covenant with the Creator-god, and we are still dealing with the consequences today. The Creator-god has a solution to rescue the story from a “bad ending.”

Let’s back up again. One of the things that fascinates me is God’s way of working with humans. In the Garden of Eden, he walked with Adam and Eve. He spoke to Abraham and promised him blessings that would extend through and to the whole world. He met with Moses several times. He was with Joshua, Samuel, and David. And he was with Jesus and his Apostles. While he is of course the god of the heavenly beings and all that is created, he is foremost God of humankind, for it is with humankind that he is working to rescue the fallen story from having a “bad ending.”

By coming and dealing with human beings, God is not distant. He is not silent in dealing with the problems of the world. He is not interested in “coaching” his chosen ones from the sidelines. He is the quintessential team player, both offense and defense. He is here with us. In the dirt, with those who were made from dirt. Playing in the dirt, helping us figure the game out (sorry for the mixed metaphors).

Recently, one of the most evident ways I am finding that God is here, local, and “with us” (the definition of Emmanuel is “God with us”) in a real sense, is through the use of language. (Stay with me, it won’t be long.)

Language is not reality. Language has inherent limitations in it. While we may understand through language, we do not experience through language necessarily. What we experience is reality. When the Scriptures were written, they were written in language. God could not simply impute to us knowledge of perfect reality. What he did was use humans to communicate his message to humans. The Scriptures had to be written in language, albeit the common, or “street,” language of the times. Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek. We now read in English. What a task: to understand God’s message in English! Interpretation is a messy undertaking, and the further we dig in the more we realize, if we are willing, is that God is not interested in making everything easily and simply and neatly understood. In fact, it can be sometimes downright confusing, frustrating, and tiring.

But if the Spirit of God is at work within us, we can experience the blessing of the Creator-god rescuing his creation by coming to us in such a way that we can be working with him (or, if you are still with the game metaphor, “playing with him”). He is coming to us from underneath, speaking to us here, in human language. While we may not “get it” because we do not know the ancient languages (i.e. “rules of the game”), we can certainly know God because he is willing to come to us. He is the main character, the team leader. And he created.

He is with us.

The Myth of a Christian Nation

Both Shiree and I love to browse the bookstores in search for something engaging to read. Whether it be politics, liberal-conservative dialogue, theology, or a fiction thriller, we never give up hope that there is a great book just waiting to be read.

About a month ago, we were browsing the bookstore and found a book by Greg Boyd called The Myth of a Christian NationThe operative definition of the word myth is “a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon”. I skimmed through the book while at the bookstore for about 10-15 minutes, realizing that the book would be worthwhile reading. He made some excellent points.

Fortunately, I saved myself about $20 because I realized that the book was based on a sermon series by Boyd, so I downloaded and listened to the sermons instead. The sermons are available for free download at his website.

While I don’t agree with everything Boyd says or believes elsewhere, the sermon series (which begins on April 18, 2004) is thought-provoking and based in the gospels, particularly Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. For the most part (thankfully), he doesn’t speak of specific political and moral issues, but rather to the crux of the matter: the role of Christians in the world.

Film Studies of the Apocalypse

Recently for my Prophecy and Contemporary Ministry class, my group collaborated and made a video. Once we collected the footage, I edited together a short documentary on how movies like The Matrix and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe are telling of many apocalyptic films of our day.

Click here if you would like to see the video. (The file is 18MB. So if you have dial-up, go to sleep and come back in the morning.)

Where Mel Gibson Got it Right

When The Passion of the Christ was released in theatres, my reaction to the hype was all but favorable. I questioned why the evangelical community would look to a film made by a famous celebrity as if it were the “ultimate evangelistic opportunity,” because, in my opinion, we have had opportunity after opportunity to share our faith for a long time. Waiting for a film is not the only outlet available to us.

In my personal comments, I’ve given the hype over Mel Gibson’s movie a lot of criticism, as well as a few comments about the movie itself. I even wrote a blog post about it a while ago, in case you’re interested in reading it. But Mel’s movie made its impact, and many have had a change of heart, for better or for worse, toward Jesus.

But here I want to focus on what has become my “theological hobby horse” of sorts over the past few years, and my “proof text” (although I dislike proof texts) would be Colossians 1:19-20: “For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross” (TNIV).

In the film, before Jesus was crucified, he made a statement to his mother that grabbed me and has never left my memory. He said, “Look, Mother, I make all things new.”

Renewal, restoration, reconciliation. All three words, similar in concept, represent the mission of the kingdom of God. As a world full of brokenness, we long for––we dream about––the life we’ve always wanted. C.S. Lewis says, “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world” (emphasis mine). This is why we long, why we hope, why in our bones we understand that “another life” is available to us.

It began with the work of Jesus Christ, the world’s true Lord, on the cross and inaugurated at his resurrection. The beginning of a new creation has come. Renewal and restoration will occur. Since this is the central “good news” (gospel), as the pronouncement of Jesus’ work on the cross is proclaimed, and as we give our allegience to the world’s true Lord, the kingdom of God will dwell “on earth as it is in heaven” (see Matthew 6) and the fallenness will be restored.