my life in pencil

So did anyone hear what John Piper had to say about the Tornado hitting Minneapolis the other day?

Since you probably won’t read the whole thing, let my summarize:

The ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church of America) had a meeting on Tuesday in Minneapolis regarding homosexuality within the Church, where they voted on whether or not it (homosexuality in proper terms) is acceptable to God.

At roughly the same time on Tuesday, a rare tornado struck downtown Minneapolis. South Minneapolis at first, damaging buildings and houses, and eventually hitting the very building the ELCA conference was taking place.

John Piper, everyone’s favorite ultra-Calvinist pastor thinks the tornado was God’s wrath on the Lutherans (briefly put) for making acceptable in their Church, what is unacceptable to God. Essentially Piper thinks Lutherans are encouraging sin and God showed up to take off a few shingles and cut some power lines.

So fast forward to me and my friends who like to talk about Church drama…

Most, and by most I mean all, of my friends (note that I haven’t talked to any friends from Mars Hill, where Piper is pretty much the Godfather) think Piper is off his rocking chair. I sorta agree.

But I stress that sorta.

First, it is EXTREMELY easy to take any unnatural (by unnatural I mean not occurring daily) force and staple it to your cause.

I mean, I could say that the reason the Blazers won 54 games last year was because of successful Church plants in Portland, and the reason the Lions went 0-16 last year was because of the high gang rates.

There, I just showed some unnatural forces and stapled them seamlessly to spiritual causes.

Saying that a tornado was in Minneapolis just for the sake of disrupting (which it didn’t even disrupt) some Lutherans votes seems a bit superstitious to me. I mean, the tornado hit other things too, like the Electric Fetus, which sells records from people who sing about drugs and sex. Should I assume that the tornado was God’s wrath on that music?

But here is the thing.

I believe in a God that actually interacts with this world. I don’t think the Christian God is always distant, far away, and removed from this world.

I think God’s wrath is a real thing, and God does have the power to send tornadoes towards Lutherans and music stores if He wants to.  Not to say anything is wrong with Lutherans and music stores, but that God does have that power.

Maybe this is a lesson I am learning from my new charismatic friends (who actually think Piper is a nut), but I want to hesitate anytime I hear someone mocking something that really could be the Spirit of God, before I judge and join in the mocking.

The last thing I want to do is blaspheme the Spirit, that is, to call something that is the Spirit, blasphemy.

I guess I am just sticking to my old tricks. Slow to pick sides, but quick to critique those that are fast to pick sides.

Well, nobody out here thinks Minnesota is the other side of the country, but out west, the Midwest is anything but west.

Nonetheless, here I am, somewhere east of ‘out west’ and west of whatever is further east.

About a week ago my good friend from high school, whom I haven’t really kept in touch with since, asked me what my parents thought of me living on the other side of the country.

I thought about it for a second.

Maybe a minute, but I wanted to respond quick because we were on Facebook Chat and I didn’t want this girl thinking my green icon was going to soon turn into a lunar rejection.

What do my parents think of me living on the other side of the country?

Well, they were okay with it at first, matter of fact it was my mother who encouraged me to make the trip (that same mother who packed a few beers in the sack lunch she gave me for the train ride). I doubt either of them expected me to stay another year, but indeed I am.

I haven’t actually asked them what they think, but I have a few assumptions.

First, I am not a normal 21 year old, partially in that I am only 21 for a few more weeks, and also because I am not in University. I have traveled a lot, I often hang out with people older than me, I don’t like to look on the bottom shelf when making my wine selection, I make wine selections. Most of my peers aren’t this way. Not to say that I am clearly more mature and sophisticated, I doubt that, but I live a lifestyle more resembling that of a late twenty-something yuppie. I just shave less.

My parents recognize this. They recognize this and I think they prefer it. Both of my parents had to grow up pretty quickly, regarding their childhood. If you know me, and my story, you know I had to grow up pretty fast too.

The relationship I have with my parents is that of an adult child with his or her parents. They still help me, a ton actually. Financially sometimes, with recipes other times. But this is the thing, I help them sometimes also. I remember a conversation I was having with my mom a month or two ago, and we were talking about Portland restaurants. I remember making a few suggestions to her, and her accepting them.  I feel like we are in some ways on a more level playing field. I help them, they (more often still) help me.

It isn’t to say that I am much more mature, in far to many ways I am not. It is just to say that this relationship I have with my parents is so much better than it was a few years ago.

Often I wish I lived in Portland, just for the very fact that I would be able to do just hang out with my parents. Get a drink, go to dinner, whatever.

And I am thankful, indeed, for that.

I have a lot going through my mind these days. It is a good feeling, though overwhelming I do say.

• Got back from Cornerstone a few days ago. Great time, great music (Timbre, The Soil and the Sun, Quiet Science, Photoside Cafe, to name a few bands I discovered). Good to get away from the internet. Even though I was posting on twitter, I wasn’t checking it, and had my phone off most of the time.
• I learned a lot about Emergence Christianity, as one would put it. Not exclusively Emergence Christianity, but Emergence Theory in general. The idea that the world of emerging, and Christianity is only a small part of it. I am sure more posts are to come in the future on the subject.
• A few great discussions on GLBT issues. Still confused as hell.
• I picked up a book in Protestantism in America again (started reading it a few months ago, but stopped). I just read a bit about how Evangelicalism got to where it is today.
• Going to Milwaukee next week to see some Capernwray friends. Mostly excited.
• Praying a lot about doing this two year Vineyard Leadership Institute. I’m not sure if sticking myself in the middle of Vineyard schooling is a good option, when I have no real loyalty to the Vineyard itself.
• Lance is married.
• A pig just flew by my window.
• I’m not a big fan of Hedo anyways, he is probably reached the peak of his career, and we already have 18 wing players.
• Romans
• Job interview at Black Sheep Coffee this week.
• The relationship between ecological law and theological law is on my mind. I’ll explain later, maybe even today.

That is some of the stuff on my mind.

Get at me.

Anyone else have a problem with this label?

Maybe just my homosexual friends.

First, I have been having a hard time with the gay question lately. If we are being honest.

I, myself, michael, am not gay.

I have some good friends, people I deeply care about that are gay.

In the Evangelical community, a phrase we have come up with is “I love homosexual’s, but I disagree with the homosexual lifestyle.”

Lifestyle.

They wake up, make breakfast, check their mail, go to work, hang out with friends, recycle, occasionally pick their nose, and sleep with someone of the same sex.

For that we consider them as living a different lifestyle.

Is the ‘homosexual lifestyle’ really any different of a lifestyle as yours or mine?

I wake up, make breakfast, check my mail, go to work, hang out with friends, recycle, occasionally pick my nose, and will someday sleep with someone of the opposite sex. But apparently I live an alright lifestyle?

In keeping this short, because I have other things to do right now, like go feed Jessica’s cats, and pack for Cornerstone, I will summarize:

There is a lot of labeling in the gay community, coming from the non-gay community, especially the evangelical community. Most of this labeling isn’t meant to be harmful in any way. Most evangelicals I know would say that they love and care for gay people, and actually mean it.

But the way we use our language sometimes doesn’t really demonstrate this.

To my friends who are evangelicals that disagree with being gay: Let’s not simply call someone gay, or say that they have live a gay lifestyle, but recognize them as people, Children of God if we want to get all preachy here, who seek romantic intimacy from the same sex. Sin or not.

To my friends who are gay, or are Christians who support homosexuality: I’m sorry that I, at times, and many of my friends, or many Christians have fucked (no pun intended) you over. Understand that this isn’t an easy arithmetic problem for most, including myself.

To anyone and everyone: Let’s ALL, no matter religion, race, sexual preferance, etc. not tolerate violence, hate, abuse towards anybody. Period. Cool? If that isn’t cool, email me.

“When somebody says that ‘Everyone will agree that ______’ what they really mean is ‘Everyone in my circle of friends will agree that ____’.”

I am finding this to be truer and truer.

I don’t mean to sound arrogant or like I am claiming I have friends in ‘high places’, but I do have friends with many different worldviews. I have a friend getting a degree in Environmental Studies. It seems like at least every month he sends me a link, or tells me about a professor he has trying to, at least in part, blame Christianity for our worlds Climate Crisis.

I have friends who are Calvinists and really nice, and Calvinists who are really angery most of the time.

I have friends fall into the Liberal Christian camp, advocating gay marriage within the Church and such.

I have atheist friends, a new Buddhist friend, and a friend who is a cheese specialist AND an atheist!

Most of my facebook friends, by virtue of going to a conservative evangelical bible school, are conservative evangelicals. They don’t like when I cuss or mention that I drink beer. I think they still love me and I still love them, even if I don’t think beer makes people beat their children all the time.

My point is, I have influences coming from many different camps, and one thing they all have in common, is that they (maybe from now on I should say ‘we’ because I probably do it too) is play the “Well almost everyone who has actually STUDIED history knows Jesus was just a good guy but not God” card.

I have a few friends that are egalitarians (women are acceptable in all forms of ministry), which is where I fall on that map, but when we talk about complimentarians (women compliment men, and there are some jobs only suitable for men, some jobs only suitable for women) the things they say are not true at all.

There is a sense that if you are complimentarian, you clearly value women less. I know, you probably heard John Piper or Mark Driscoll say a few things one time, but being a complimentarian does not mean you value women less, or are any less created in Gods image.

I have reformed friends that use the term ‘people with a high view of scripture‘ to refer to their other reformed friends. Isn’t that just a backhanded way of saying “people who aren’t reformed have a low view of scripture”?

Now this isn’t all of my egalitarian friends or reformed friends, but my point is that using language like ‘everyone agrees that…’ and ‘people with a high view of scripture’ is usually just a subversive attempt at ruining someone elses credibility, or building up their own worldview by making others look less inteligent.

Now in the course of legitemant discussion, referencing other people, polls, statistics, or facts is not what I have a problem with. I mainly have a problem with large blanket statements that if further inspected, really are just trying to convey and idea at the expense of the straw man.

Now feel free to scour this post for the blanket statements I have made.

What other word is there to say?

Are there times when a ‘bad’ word is the only word that really works…

…especially when you are describing something really bad.

I mean, I could say eff, effin, freak, frick, frack, fcuk, fudge, or what other form you have….But we know what you mean, and really, you aren’t doing a good job of hiding it.

There really aren’t a whole lot of words in the English language that work as an expression of rage.

“Arrggghhh” is an alright substitute, but you get confuse with pirates (though if you say those ‘bad’ words you will still be confuse with the sailing theifs).

Just a few days ago something really bad happened to one of my friends. Now this wasn’t a close friend, I probably hadn’t spoken to him in at least a year and a half. But nonetheless, I was angry, frustrated, confused, etc… Fuck. It is the only word that really described it.

Now I don’t propose we start cussing like we work in a Volvo Autobody shop, or like we are rapping a verse in Dr. Dre’s next album (which is due out when?), that isn’t the point. But is saying those ‘bad’ words really such a bad thing?

It seems to me like the way we use our language is more of a ‘heart’ issue than anything, like most other things.

For example, I wouldn’t say that smoking a cigarrette is a sin, but I maybe would say being addicted to the point of serious health risk is. (I would say the same about McDonalds also). Maybe saying certain words isn’t the sin, but if your personality clearly reflects an unsanctified mind with the language you use, there may be a problem with that.

Yeah.

She is a mystery, isn’t she? Still going after all this time. After the Crusades and the Inquisition and Christian cable television. Still going. And there continue to be people like me who believe she is one of the best ideas ever. In spite of all the ways she has veered off track. In spite of all the people who have actually turned away from God because of what they experienced in church…But she will live on. She’s indestructible. When she dies in one part of the world, she explodes in another. She’s global. She’s universal. She’s everywhere. And while she’s fragile, she’s going to endure. In every generation there will be those who see her beauty and give their lives to see her shine. Jesus said the gates of hell will not prevail against her. That’s strong language. And its’ true. She will continue to roll across the ages, serving and giving and connecting people with God and each other. And people will abuse her and manipulate her and try to control her, but they’ll pass on. And she will keep going…

I know, my last “series” didn’t go as well. I was going to continually write about Lent, but the truth is, I know little about lent, and haven’t taken the time I intended to this Lenton season.

Instead, I will write about something I am far, far more passionate, and actually know a thing or two (but not three) about.

In writing about urban ministry, there are some distinctions that have to be made, some for the future, some right now. The first is the difference between Urban Ministry and the Church within the Urban Context. The former being that any church, anywhere, has some ministry geared towards urban areas. The latter being a Church that gathers, worships, and exists in an urban area. Now of course, the Urban Church is always participating in urban ministry, but the urban ministers are not always participating in the Urban Church (given that I am not using the word “Church” in its ecclesiastical sense, but in the “the Church as the building” sense).

I have thought about writing on this subject for a long time, and the thought that always enters my head is “_____ is the most important factor in Urban Ministry”. Of course, I have a list of what fits in the blank.

Since this is more of an introduction, I will just list a few examples, and discuss them later.

1. The people participating in the Urban Ministry actually like the city they are in.
2. Realizing that Urban Ministry does not specifically mean poor people and soup kitchens.
3. Embracing everything that can be embraced, while remaining orthodox in belief

I am sure I will think of more in the future, but those are some main points I would like to further discuss.

Along with this series, I have been thinking about University (or College) ministries, so I may end up talking about that a fair amount as well.

Yes, I have a Twitter, I have consistently used it for over a year now (meaning that I was sucked in long before it became insanely popular. At first I used it only in relation to my Facebook, meaning, when I would update my Twitter, it would automatically update my Facebook Status. While I still do this (which explains the crazy # and @ symbols on my Status all the time), I have found an actual use for Twitter, beyond just a micro-journal.

First off, I have had this conversation several times now. Some of my friends like Twitter, some hate it, most just don’t get it’s point. I agree with most, it can be silly, pointless, and annoying, all displayed in this cartoon.

Nonetheless, I would argue that there are some very positive implications for those that use Twitter, and online Social Media (Facebook, YouTube, Digg…etc) in general.

Within the Church

Let’s be honest here, every church uses technology. It is all just a matter of what decades technology you use. My Lutheran Church which is very Traditionally and Liturgically based uses technology very different from most modern Evangelical Churches, but they still use it. Websites, bulletins, Bible’s (printing press anyone?), instruments….All stem from forms of technology.

The issue is whether you are using PowerPoint 97’ or something a little more…current. If you still insist that Michael W. Smith is the only great worship writer, or if you allow your youth to listen to The Fragrance.

What is “Real Life”?

Up until only recently talking about Facebook or Myspace in “Real Life” was taboo. Nerdy and unattractive. Meeting people online was freakish, and having “internet friends” was the equivalent of seeing every episode of Star Trek.

That is because there has always been (and in many circles still is) a great divide between what is “Real Life” and “Virtual Life”. That is, the things that happen here, in my bodily presence are separate from what happens online.

Disintegration between that and this.

I would argue that a main difference between Christianity and other religions is a Holistic Presence. Jesus certainly taught it, that there is no “Spiritual life” and “Bodily life”, but that everything is indeed, spiritual. The things we eat, the things we watch, the things we say, all have spiritual implications. 

Pornography and the Internet

If there is one thing that made the internet extremely popular, in its early stages, it was pornography. Not news, blogs, or relationships, but sex. With the internet, it became possible for (1) anyone to find pornography for free (2) anyone to produce amateur pornography easily and (3) everyone to do it anonymously.

The Christian church has struggled with this. You hear stories all the time of Pastors porn stashes being found, Christian College students working their way around internet firewalls, I even was at Bible school and walked in on a staff member watching hardcore porn in his office, on campus (I regret playing the ‘dumb’ card and pretending I didn’t see it).

Let me tell you, as one of the majority of young men who has been addicted to pornography, there is a huge divide in what is “Real Life” and what is “Virtual Reality”.

Log in.

Watch.

Log out.

Resume “Life”.

How Social Media helps

Having a Facebook or Twitter account certainly won’t make you less likely to look at things you shouldn’t be looking at online. But breaking down the barrier of what is “Real Life” and not certainly will. Streamlining your Twitter account with your phone, that you carry around all the time, will make something that happens online, happen while you are riding the bus.

Continually posting what you are doing on your Facebook Status, while maybe not interesting to anyone, will keep you aware of what you are doing.

Here is what I tell myself. If I am doing anything I wouldn’t be comfortable posting on Facebook, maybe I shouldn’t be doing it.

Of course one can take this too far, and no, most people don’t care what you are having for lunch (unless it’s Chipotle). The point isn’t to actually post every thing you do, but being aware that what you do in your physical body, and what you do online should be consistent.

And yes, I am going to tweet about this…

Time Magazine recently ranked New Calvinism as the worlds third idea that is changing the world. Depending on what camp you are on, this is either troubling, or clearly God’s sovereignty being displayed. I am certainly not a Calvinist, but I benefit from many popular Calvinists teachings, and respect and listen to most of these “New Calvinist” preachers. Among them, my former Pastor, Mark Driscoll. Now this post isn’t so much about him, though I find myself talking about him a lot (rather, I find people asking me about him a lot, seeing as I went to his church for a year), but about his thoughts on New Calvinism, which his followers are eager to accept.

Here is Driscolls full response but I only want to highlight what he thinks separates “Old” from “New” Calvinism.

Four Ways ‘New Calvinism’ is So Powerful

1. Old Calvinism was fundamental or liberal and separated from or syncretized with culture. New Calvinism is missional and seeks to create and redeem culture.
2. Old Calvinism fled from the cities. New Calvinism is flooding into cities.
3. Old Calvinism was cessationistic and fearful of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. New Calvinism is continuationist and joyful in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit.
4. Old Calvinism was fearful and suspicious of other Christians and burned bridges. New Calvinism loves all Christians and builds bridges between them.

First as my friend Andrew Cottrill, and many others, pointed out, Driscolls survey of “Old Calvinism” seems to be based on history nobody else has access to.

1. George Whitfield anyone? He was one of the greatest preachers to ever live, the John Wesley of Calvinism. I don’t think Whitfield would agree that his Calvinism was separated from culture.
2. Ever heard of a little town called Geneva? The Puritans in London?
3. I don’t know a whole lot about this, aside from knowing that Spurgeon talked about the Holy Spirit better than many, and I don’t see a difference in the way the “New Calvinists” treat the Holy Spirit from the “Old”.
4. This is another post, but I think this is actually especially true of “New Calvinists”. I fear they are even more suspicious of other Christians and willing to burn bridges.

Granted, Driscoll may be talking specifically about Calvinism within the last 200 years, maybe 300 years stretching back to the Puritans, but the history of Calvinism that Driscoll usually cites, people like Calvin, Spurgeon, Whitfield…etc., this is certainly not true.

Next, I would suggest that of all the “positive” attributes he associates with “New Calvinism”, aren’t they present in Evangelical Christianity, not simply New Calvinism? Seeking a Third Way between liberal and conservative, Urban Chruchplants, and interdenominational work seems to be present, in some cases more present in Evangelical Christianity.

I also see a lot of trouble in trying to separate and distance yourself from your roots. If you are a Calvinist, be a Calvinist. Point out errors in your fathers tradition (yeah I said tradition), but don’t make them up!

Briefly I would add that probably the scariest thing about the Times Article and Driscoll’s response, is that it makes “New Calvinism” just that. “New Calvinism” rather than simply a brand of doctrine within Christianity. “New Calvinism” is officially a movement, and the one thing true of all movements, is that it will die.