It was a cold day in Montreat, North Carolina and it had just begun to snow. Two days before I was on a sunny beach in Charleston. Two days before I didn’t have Strep Throat. It exploded in my tonsils a day after preaching at Second Presbyterian and the Monday morning that I was supposed to set off to meet a half-dozen students in Montreat for the winter college conference. Even with a blood test and throat culture, the doctor wrote it off as just a virus, so I given some weak pain medication and told to ride it out. I now shuffled quickly through the blowing gusts and snow like an anxious zombie to the conference center to check in. I wouldn’t have come if it weren’t for the fact that I was leading a discussion group, daily gatherings of 30 students designed to help process the speakers’ messages. Apart from that managing that responsibility, however, I was basically useless.
Fortunately, I had the joy of seeing our Charleston students step in to pick up the slack. They grocery shopped and made a warm lunch to feed a 100 hungry students from the other South Carolina campuses. They organized carpools to make sure students could always find rides back to mountaintop cabin where we stayed. And can you believe this? They attended every single speaker and workshop available to them, using every opportunity to learn more as well as speak the truth of the Gospel into the lives of other students at the conference.
This demonstration of leadership continued into the next week during the first day of classes when we launched our back-to-class outreach campaign. Eight students spent much of a rainy day handing out 800 spiritually provocative fliers and working a coffee table giving away over 100 cups of good, free coffee. Students used those interactions to invite their peers to the Journey large group gathering and to have any conversations people were willing to have about faith and Christianity.
Even now, as the second semester is beginning, our student leadership in the Journey is talking about training up new leaders for next year. Please pray that our discernment would be Spirit-led and that as we prepare to say goodbye to our seniors, God would raise new leaders in their stead to be mature ambassadors for Jesus Christ.
]]>This Sunday, our church membership class will be the first to be introduced to a “Covenant of Commitment” between themselves and the church. We’ve rather rapidly experienced the spiritual and practical benefits of making our membership class more rigorous, theologically deeper, and required for the joining the church. Prior to that, we saw everything from people joining and dropping out in a matter of months to non-Christians joining (Why this phenomenon, you may ask? Since our church community was so welcoming, they said, they could overlook the Jesus-Son-of-God thing).
It’s our hope that this covenant will not only clarify and confirm the investment we expect from people joining the church, but also make it clear what should be expected from the church receiving committed people to its community. I think this is important because mainline churches often seem to operate under the assumption that, apart from grave heresy, they can do as they please so long as there is reasonable unity with the elders and staff. However, a church that covenants with its members binds itself in a sacred contract to uphold its end of the promises. Should that church fail to live up to those promises, members have indisputable grounds for calling the leadership of the church to account.
To be honest, I’ll be excited when the first person does. It will likely be a healthy learning experience for this congregation in renaissance.
Thoughts on the covenant below? It’s not a document that’s written in stone, so feel free to make suggestions.
I, _________________________________________ as a follower of Jesus Christ, covenant with Second Presbyterian Church, my God, and myself to:
Walk with God daily in Bible study, prayer, and following Christ’s teachings in turning away from my sins and pursuing a holy life.
Invest myself in sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with non-Christians.
Be involved in discipleship outside of Sunday worship because I recognize the need for accountability and community in my life.
Receive from those appointed over me accountability, counsel, and/or correction for my actions. Specifically, my actions that do not reflect how Jesus teaches me in the Bible.
Give generously the time, resources, and giftedness that God has blessed me with so that the Gospel is advanced and God is glorified.
Likewise, the leadership of Second Presbyterian Church covenants to:
Teach the Word of God to the best of our ability.
Consistently preach the Gospel in our words and actions and from the pulpit.
Offer the necessary programs and opportunities that will lead to your spiritual growth and maturity.
Provide care in sickness, counsel in crisis, and guidance in what it means to follow Jesus and His commandments.
Make programmatic, financial, staff, and leadership decisions with the advancement of the Gospel and the glory of God solely in mind.
In signing this, I affirm my membership vows and place myself in a covenant with my church to hold me accountable to those vows, even as I hold the church accountable for its vows, so that together we can be the body of Christ demonstrating the Gospel of Jesus Christ to our neighbor, city, and world.
]]>These bands were selected for their theological depth, staying power, crossover (without selling out) appeal, and general musical brilliance—which means you won’t be seeing the likes of Toby Mac, Newsboys, or MercyMe within a mile of the top five. However, it does also preclude a lot of really good Christian bands for various reasons. Anberlin hits every category hands down—except theological depth. House of Heroes, Abandon, Deas Vail and the like are likely going to be huge—but they’ve only released one or two full-length albums. Mat Kearney’s early work was genius—until he decided to become the illegitimate child of Chris Martin and John Mayer. The Psalters changed my life—but almost no one has ever heard of them. This was a lot harder than I expected.
But I didn’t let nights of crying into my pillow about whether to include (SPOILER ALERT) Relient K stop me from completing the epic task I set out to do. And due to my importance as a Christian music critic, I predict after publishing this list, the record sales should increase for the following honored bands by .001 percent. Enjoy my analysis.
5. mewithoutYou
The best band you’ve probably never heard of. I would compare them musically to a more manic Modest Mouse, and with a raw and honest theological input from Sufism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity that provides the counterbalance Modest Mouse’s grating nihilism. They get the highest marks for originality, crossover appeal, and brilliant lyrics—and if they could just come out with one more good album, you’ll see them jump down the list.
4. Relient K
I hesitated to bequeath a pop-punk group an honor such at this, but the Relient K is the king of pop-punk in the Christian world. And even if their music isn’t the most creative, they’ve consistently carved out numerous tracks over a decade with a good range of spiritual depth that preaches well to the less-theologically astute listeners. Got to give them credit for that.
3. Switchfoot
I’ve praised Switchfoot before (as well as criticized them), but I’ll praise them again: these guys rock. They’ve been around for nearly forever, constantly growing and maturing with every album. Every album puts out songs that are catchy and theologically reflective, not to mention a few nationwide chart-toppers here and there. You might not be a fan (and I am only on occasion), but it’s really hard not to like them and they are definitely worthy of the being a best band.
For an Episcopal-Presbyterian who isn’t afraid to quote Scripture in his lyrics, it’s surprising that Sufjan has far more secular than Christian fans. He’s that freakin’ good. You got to be when you have entire songs about the transfiguration or impending death of Jesus. Sufjan’s material runs the gamut from folksy minimalist to full orchestras, and it tends to show up in the most random of places (e.g. Little Miss Sunshine, Brooklyn Academy of Music). Sufjan is one of the better contemporary musician/composers of our time and certainly pulls of one of the best infusions of spirituality and music.
1. Thrice
I’m sorry, but this was really a no-brainer folks. This post-punk-now-art-rock band wears their faith on their tattooed sleeve (or at least their lead singer does), but in a way that attracts even some of the most skeptical people. Nor is their spirituality only wading knee-deep in theological waters. They go deep, constantly quoting C.S. Lewis and exploring less hip themes—like of the total depravity of man. The lead vocalist, Dustin Kensrue, has been studying Reformed theology for the last two years and it really shines through in their most recent album, even as it shows a pattern of continual theological evolution on the part of the band. Oh, and their music is just plain good, with each album venturing into new musical genres. They may a bit too hard from some tastes, but that shouldn’t stop you from listening to them. Their lyrics and passion are worth the occasional screaming you may not like, and they are one of THE reasons why the Devil doesn’t have all the good music.
And now comes all the agreeing and mostly disagreeing. Oh yeah. It’s on.
]]>But my folks were visiting that weekend, and with my father being something of history buff, we decided to take the ferry Fort Sumter—where that great American institution called the Civil War kicked off with a four thousand-shell salute. As providence would have it, we somehow managed to get on the ferry that would take across the harbor at the exact time the Blue Angels would be performing, this time literally over our heads.
Now, I’ve heard the complaint in more liberal circles that events like the Blue Angels aerial shows are part of the military-industrial complex and a celebration of American imperialism. By showcasing our advanced war machines in our culture and entertainment, it is subtly reinforced in the American psyche that our military might is inherently good, if not glorious. I’m intrigued by this argument, but regardless of its legitimacy, I don’t feel that the Blue Angels should be included in this context. In fact, as these fighter jets screeched over my head in near-impossible formations, it occurred to me they represent the very radical vision of Isaiah and the Kingdom of God.
The prophet Isaiah tells us that the fulfillment of the God’s reign on earth will signal the end of global conflict. Militaries, pacified in the glorious presence of Christ, will find themselves completely obsolete. But Isaiah has an environmentalist streak to his prophecy, and he predicts that the military hardware that once harvested lives will be recycled into tools for the harvesting of crops. Isaiah 2:4 reads, “He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” This is the ancient rendering. I believe the Blue Angels are the modern-day equivalent to Isaiah.
If the Second Coming of Christ were to occur tomorrow, America’s vast armed forces wouldn’t have much do anymore. Stopping genocides? None to stop. Protecting strategic resources? We’re all sharing them now. Pre-emptive strikes? Heavens, no. So what would we do with all our military hardware? Well, I don’t think we throw it all in the junkyard. We would have to convert our war machines for peacetime. And not for a peacetime that exists at the interstices of conflict, but a divine perpetual peace that renders weapons useless.
So what would we do with that killing stuff? We’d recycle it of course. Tanks could make great new bulldozers. Nuclear submarines would be fantastic research vessels. And jet fighters, well, I would love to see them do cool tricks—just like the Blue Angels.
Stripped of their weapons systems, the Blue Angels are denuded F/A-18 Hornets converted for our entertainment. We won’t see these guys dropping 500-pound bombs in Afghanistan. They are permanent planes of peace, perhaps a glimmer of what the Kingdom of God would mean for modern America.
So floating out in the Charleston harbor as the blue and gold painted aircraft roared over us in ear-deafening unison, I thought to myself, “They shall beat their warplanes into Blue Angels.” Lord, haste the day.
]]>GUEST BLOGGER, The Rev. Cress Darwin
This commentary first appeared in the Post and Courier.
Acts 2:44-45 states that “All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.” This issue is huge. When asked to comment on health care “from the perspective of a religious leader” I imagined there would be a commonality, a consistency in responses differentiated primarily by skill, style of expression and background. But when I came to see the distance between attitudes and perspectives on this issue, I realized I can speak only for myself.
I believe the challenge is this: to address the public-square issues as only part of what we as a community of Christ followers do, and keep our focus on the mandate to love all of God’s created. Christians have only one person that we need to consider, one from whom we long to hear, “Well done.” And Jesus the Christ is clear in instructing us.
Blogger Kathy Escobar writes: “Jesus calls us to care for the poor, the widowed, the orphaned, the rejected, the oppressed, the unprotected. … It’s about sacrificial love. It’s about taking care of other’s needs.” How can one argue with that, especially a person of faith who would be obedient?
Scripture requires that we follow through — not just that which we say, but that which we do. “Just as the body is dead without breath, so also faith is dead without good works” (James 2:26). Yet the things that can and must be done in these times to care for ourselves and for all people are the same as in the early church, only accomplished in very different ways. One cannot deny that sharp pencils must be wielded, but withcaring hearts. Laws must be followed but with clever minds that mix artfully pragmatism and compassion. The journey to compromise and consent must be approached and completed with integrity.
I, therefore, must be an encourager, a catalyst and equipper of those who would do the heavy lifting in addressing the broad issues of health care.
In our community, we recognize that each of us is given different gifts of the spirit — talents, if you will, abilities we didn’t ask for or seek. These gifts differentiate us in our abilities to be of service to each other, to the community and, therefore, to God. My task is to help someone recognize, accept and utilize his particular gifts in service to Christ’s commandment to love.
We also recognize fruits of the Spirit, qualities that are resultant and developed through experience, intention and hard work. These include patience, kindness, goodness and joy, qualities that should be evident in, and in service to, caring for each other.
So here again is my task: How can I encourage those with whom I live, work and serve to hone their skills that they may become conversant and facile in the language of business and politics as well as the language of compassion and grace? Policy and politics are particular fields that few may have the heart, the stomach or skill to engage. Cleverness and perseverance matter little if they are not informed by a caring and obedient spirit.
It is obvious to all but the most coarsened that there are those who need opportunity and those who need help. The Second Presbyterian Church, which I serve, is a growing, diverse, multigenerational congregation. People at both ends of the political spectrum attend, worship and lead here. We encourage each other to be grounded in the discerned will of God revealed in Holy Scripture and through the leading, teasing and nudging of the Spirit we receive as Holy. We strive to think globally, but know that we start right here.
]]>“I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, ‘Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.’”
Yeah. That’s it. The correct assessment that most forms of Buddhism aren’t very helpful when you’ve demolitioned your life to pieces (that’s a boatload of bad karma Tiger just racked up) and maybe Christianity might be a better deal for people who are sitting in their own debris.
But no. Hume has been labeled all sorts of nasty things, from inflammatory to being a religious bigot. Even Charleston’s most involved atheist and left-wing activist (God bless him) argued that “embracing Brit Hume as a Christian Voice is no different than embracing Rudolph Hess”—that is, Hitler’s mentally-ill third-in-command. My favorite critique of him came from Washington Post columnist Tom Shales, who questioned, “is it really his job to run around trying to drum up new business? He doesn’t really have the authority, does he, unless one believes that every Christian by mandate must proselytize?”
Um, actually Tom, he does because there is. That whole Great Commission thing, y’know. Or how about 2 Timothy 2:4, where Paul implores every Christian to “Preach the word of God. Be prepared, whether the time is favorable or not.”
Gosh darn it. Could it be that the liberal media elite failed to understand their conservative target’s faith before they started giving theological pointers? Shocker. I fully grant that pundits can debate the articulation of Hume’s statement (because I do think it was pretty awkward), but whether he had a right or an intrinsic faith-based imperative to make it should not be called into the media spotlight that it’s in. It’s pretty obvious that as a news commentator and Christian, he does have the right—and perhaps even the obligation—to comment on the news from the occasional Christian perspective.
And I still haven’t seen a single explanation on why Hume’s alleged bashing of Buddhism isn’t factually correct. Robert Thurman, a professor of Tibetan studies at Columbia University, remarked “I think it’s ridiculous to make those statements,” to Tamara Lush of the Associated Press. “It is insulting to Buddhism to indicate that Buddhism doesn’t take care of its own believers and followers. But I think he will discover that Buddhists are very forgiving about his stupid statements.” Again, we could debate the manner in which it was said, but I didn’t notice where Hume says, “Buddhism doesn’t take care of its own believers and followers”, did you? Hume very clearly says Buddhism doesn’t offer the kind of forgiveness or redemption offered by Christ. Actually, Hume is being too kind here, since the most classical forms of Buddhism don’t offer any forgiveness or redemption. Those are truly foreign concepts to Buddha’s teachings.
Ironically, Stephen Prothero, a Boston University professor on Buddhism, agrees with Hume even as he derides him and Christianity while being interviewed. “You have the law of karma, so no matter what Woods says or does, he is going to have to pay for whatever wrongs he’s done. There’s no accountant in the sky wiping sins off your balance sheet, like there is in Christianity.” So basically, Prothero is saying…Hume is completely correct—only that Christianity is stupid for offering forgiveness. Guess that’s why he’s Buddhist and Hume is not.
Now, back to you, Tiger.
]]>I was guest-preaching at a nearby church last Sunday, and boy, was it ever awesome. Lightning had struck the sanctuary the night before, knocking out much of the power—at least the power that supplied the sound amplification and the lights. I got to shout in the dark. My facebook friend and awesome Anglican church planter Dale Brown said it was fitting, given that I was talking on prayer. I’m not very good at praying. But the service planners insisted I preach on it. Talk about the blind leading the blind. It was a learning experience if nothing else.
That night at the contemporary service the presiding ordained minister was set to serve communion to the small group gathered in the makeshift worship room. She was essentially blind, but had since learned to be fairly mobile with a walking stick and what very partial vision she had left.
There was also a middle-aged man from Pennsylvania visiting that night who was a recently retired minister. Retired because he had to. He went totally blind. His family with him there as well. I remember he could only introduce his teenage daughters by calling out their names and grasping the air until he found a hand. When the presiding minister heard that he was in the congregation, she approached him and asked if he could perform communion with her.
When it was time, she led him by the hand out of his seat and down the aisle to the communion table. “Talk about the blind leading the blind,” she joked. She turned him around so that he awkwardly stood facing the gathering at a seven o’clock angle.
She placed the cup in his hands while she held the bread. She proceeded to bless the bread, looking all around to the congregation. What was the word? She had talked about it using “gusto” when we say the Lord’s Prayer earlier in the communion that morning. She certainly had it now. If it weren’t for her walking stick, you would have never known she was blind.
Then holding out the cup almost nervously, the man blessed the wine. He eyes were fixed just upward enough as if he was gazing upon some heavenly display that danced over the audience. His smile confirmed the suspicion. By the way he said it, you would have thought it was his last communion. If you had heard it, you would have thought it was the first communion.
We were all lead by the blind that night.
]]>A good man is hard to find. My galpals tell me this all the time, bemoaning their lack of potential mates in Charleston, but I would say the same thing. A good man, a man of introspection, intelligence, of faith, is hard to find.
I mean, if I’m going to forgo the pleasant company of the opposite sex, then whatever dude I’m hanging out with better be worth it. Because I really don’t need another guy to hang out with, I need a guy who can challenge how I live and think and keep me accountable and expect the same in return. And honestly, I don’t meet many of them. At any given time in the last eight years in my life I will likely only have two to three close male friends—the rest are women. I’m blessed with many wonderful and wise galpals, but it’s just not the same as someone I can call “comrade”.
This week one of those comrades, Calum Lindsay, moved back home to the UK to attend seminary (finally) at Cambridge. Calum, a Scott who worked at Holy Trinity Brompton in the heart of London, came to bless us for almost a year working at an Anglican church plant nearby. Calum was, and is, a good man. Thoughtful, warm, and gregarious, he provided much needed sanity for me in during some hard times at the church and life in general.
Even when I was doing something completely stupid, I never felt judged by him, but carefully nudged in the right direction. He would come all the way downtown to lead worship for a youth group of five kids. He would always take in the whole story in before speaking. He could never say the “Our Father” prayer in unison with a group. He would explain to conservative Christians, in a very authoritative Scottish accent, why my ministries with alcohol at them weren’t sinful. He had a laugh that could fill a room. He wore his kilt for any event that he could get away with it.
He was good friend, and as he goes on to do even greater things for the Kingdom, he will be missed.
]]>Reading the column, I get the feeling of someone finally explaining to the school bully why nobody likes them—but instead of it being the guidance counselor, it’s a uber-annoyed honor student.
Allen doesn’t really say anything that’s factually wrong in the article, perhaps other then lumping all atheists into the more narrowly defined sub category of neo-atheists, who make it a part of their creed that they are (somehow) morally obligated are evangelize the religious in the name of reason. Yet, what bothers me a little about her commentary is that my atheist friends and acquaintances didn’t really seem to enjoy reading it. In fact, I first heard about the article from Charleston humanist Larry Center-Carter, who was bashing it not once, but twice, in long notes online. Allen seems very skilled at giving neo-atheists a taste of the their own literary medicine, but is that a skill she should be employing?
Assuming Allen is a Christian, I have to wonder if she thinks her article will help peel off the scales of skepticism that have grown over the eyes of nonbelievers. If Larry’s response was any indication, I really doubt it did. Or perhaps she was just writing it to rally the religious troops, much in the same fashion that neo-atheist Christopher Hitchens has tried to get his fellow atheists out of the closet by verbally lampooning believers (to show atheists they have nothing to fear, I suppose).
Again, while I grant atheists the right to this strategy—since their ethical systems are at the end of the day relative to the nonbeliever’s personal conscience—I’m not sure Christians are meant to encourage one another by mocking the very people God has called us to love into the Kingdom. I’m not saying it’s easy by any means, especially when folks like Dawkins and Co. seem so hopelessly arrogant and mean, but weirder things have happened.
Like that Pharisee named Saul. I heard he was a pretty nasty guy.
So in the specific context of the Allen’s column, perhaps she could have centered herself for a more meaningful opportunity if:
1) She had picked specific targets of absurd reasoning, rather than atheists in general. I don’t like being linked with Pat Robertson probably anymore than friendly atheist Bob likes being associated with Dawkins.
2) Sought to identify some atheists she likes and respects, explaining what makes them different from neo-atheists. I always appreciate it when some atheist writer lets me off the hook because my brand of Christianity isn’t fundamentalist.
And 3) Closed with inviting cordial atheists everywhere to take a stand against their more annoying brethren and engage in constructive dialogue with believers. I much prefer invites in nicely decorated envelopes to the throwing down of gauntlets.
It probably makes for a less exciting column, but I think it’s fair to say it would have made significantly more inroads with the people God aches and longs for.
]]>So according to a new Pew Forum poll, it seems that devout Christians, especially Evangelical Christians, are our nation’s biggest backers of torture. Can we call in ChurchMarketingSucks.com to save us from this PR faux pas?
The poll found that 54 percent of those who attend weekly services say the use of torture on terror suspects in order to gain important information can “often” or “sometimes” be justified. That’s twelve percent higher than the 42 percent of those who seldom or never attend such services who say the same. In addition, the survey shows that increasing support of torture corresponds with increasing levels of religious attendance.
But who just who are this these “religious people” anyway? We all know how the media likes to humiliate real Christians with examples of nebulously defined “religious people.”
Well, in this case, white evangelical Protestants are the religious people. Doh.
It turns out that white evangelical Protestants were significantly more likely than the general population to say the use of torture can “often” or “sometimes” be justified—62 percent to be exact. The figures for white non-Hispanic Catholics and white mainline Protestants (groups like Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians) are closer to the general population: 51 percent of the former and 42 percent of the latter say torture can “often” or “sometimes” be justified.
So how do we explain this? I was originally planning to outline a number of theories, but I think listing my top one will do.
The reason for such inordinate approval of torture in the Evangelical camp comes down to the reality that political beliefs are our de factor source of beliefs in the absence of clear worldview formation by churches. Evangelical churches have failed to teach a coherent and encompassing worldview to their members, which would (hopefully) include condemnations of practices like torture. Yet, in the absence of a Christian worldview, Evangelicals have knowingly or unknowingly looked to the next most authoritative source for clarification of their beliefs—their political party. Since most Evangelicals vote Republican due to a perception of accommodation and support of Christian values, the Republican position on torture—which one might describe as laissez-faire—has been absorbed by Evangelicals’ moral compass.
Not a good thing to say the least, but at least not as bad as saying Christianity endorses torture.
The long-term solution of course is simple, but hardly easy: The Church must stop abdicating its obligation to teach a comprehensive worldview. The Gospel does not end with acceptance of Jesus as Lord, it begins there. The Gospel affects everything, including politics. Until the Church recognizes this (which I think many do), and apply it to their teaching (which I think few do), there will be more embarrassing surveys like these to come.
]]>