Category: stuff I think about

I’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about how my cultural glasses affect my reading of the Bible. I’ve only just now started wondering how Paul’s cultural glasses affected his writing of it.

Folks (like McLaren) insist that it is impossible to view the Bible apart from one’s culture. It’s not that I can’t see the forest for the trees, it’s that the trees are a very part of me. Ok, so did Paul have the same problem? Was he unduly influenced by his culture, or did he somehow manage to free himself from that which traps the rest of us?

If I say Paul was influenced by his culture, then that opens the Bible up to dramatic new interpretations. If I say he wasn’t influenced by culture, then I’m saying it is perhaps possible for ME not to be influenced either.

Or do we say that Paul was an exceptional case, that he was divinely inspired and thus able to see the kingdom of God without distortion — but we are unable to do so? I must say, this is not a conclusion I like. I would much rather have something to aim for, than settle for culture-colored glasses.

This last weekend, while visiting my hometown of beautiful Wichita, KS, I engaged in a lively discussion re: the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools. Certainly this is a hot topic right now. The article that prompted our discussion is one you may have read in the KC Star. Specifically, a professor at KU who is being told to teach intelligent design thinks it mythology, and thus will name and classify his course as such. An e-mail he had written was ‘pirated’ and placed on a right-wing message board. In his e-mail, he rants against the Christian Right, as well as fundamentalists with their “fat faces” and so on.

My family was surprised and shocked that I stated that this whole discussion interested me very little, that I could understand the KU Professor’s point (maybe not agree with what he states, but I can understand how he’d feel that way), and namely that I wish sometimes the whole topic would just go away. They countered with the familiar battle cry of “We must take a stand”…“We are in a cultural war” and so on.

In fact, much of the discussion going on re: these topics is very relevant to an excellent book I am reading entitled “Blue Like Jazz” by Donald Miller. I bought the book on Saturday and have already read about 10 chapters of it.

The book emphasizes what I was trying to talk about the other night with my family. It is not that “Creation VS Intelligent Design VS Evolution” is a bad topic. It is just that more and more people (especially the current 20-somethings in my classrooms and younger) are largely apathetic to this subject. More importantly, they are turned off by these arguments and sadly turned off the rest of Christianity as well. My guess is that if you asked a college student what a “Christian” is, or what came to mind if they heard the word “Christian”, they would say something like “They are that group of people who hate abortion, are against gay marriage and against evolution.” No mention of Jesus…just the issues we seem to be fighting for. If that is the case, how sad this is.

I further explained my opinions to my family (none of my thoughts are original, certainly). My feeling is that this generation is NOT going to be “converted” with “new scientific proof that the Bible is true!” Nor will they repent by Christians sharing “The 4 Spiritual Laws” or “The Bridge Illustration” (of course, there will always be exceptions). They are going to be converted largely by narratives and testimonies and people who take an interest in them. This generation seems to say things like “I like the Jesus I read about in the Bible, but I don’t care for ‘Christians’ per se.” This could largely be due to all the coverage of Christians is in regards to three topics: Creationism, homosexuals and abortion. That is why I wince when I read constantly about this Intelligent Design fighting that is going on. (Do you think the professor who made these comments is further or closer to becoming a Christian after all of this??? I wonder if the death threats he is receiving is helping him understand the love of Christ for him?) This Intelligent Design is dividing people at the college I teach at…everyone is bickering back and forth defending their point. Ugh.

The scientific/logical/a=b=c approach falls on deaf ears with this generation. Thus, what I was trying to say was this. I think a lot of Christians (with the Intelligent Design debate) are trying to still reach kids with the ‘scientific’ approach (‘We can PROVE God! Just look at these facts!’). But, I fear the negative repercussions of the debate (the fighting, the nastiness, the petitions signed to remove this KU professor) is drowning out the discussions that should be going on, and may be going on.

While the generation of my father and others of us may be reached by memorizing John 3:16 and Romans 3:23, this next generation I think will be touched more by reading the entire Gospel of John and thinking “I like this Jesus fellow.” This will hopefully lead to them taking a fresh look at Jesus, the fact that he is God, and a relationship with Him. They will become Christ followers not because of media coverage of Christian issues (“CNN” OR “Focus on the Family”…..we can’t just blame the ‘liberal media’) but DESPITE the coverage of Christian issues.

Also, I know there are many in this generation who are hurting tremendously, and no one is paying attention to them because the Christians in their world of influence are too busy with other issues or political topics. That is a tragedy. Jesus reached people by spending time with them individually. He did not lead a ‘political campaign’ against the Romans. Where in scripture does it talk about Jesus organizing a campaign against the Roman government (which treated Christians horribly…..much worse than now in the USA…I laugh when Christians imply we are “persecuted in America!”…we live in Disney World compared to other countries!)?. This was largely why people were disappointed with Jesus. He seemed disinterested in the political issues of the time, and instead focused on the needs and hurts of society’s fringe.

Hey, Bloggers, I encourage you all to read the book I mentioned (as well as another book I read and loved by Donald Miller entitled “Searching for God Knows What”) and tell me what you all think. I will warn you. The author, Donald Miller, is someone who would be labeled as ‘liberal’ by many. I suspect he is not a George Bush fan, for example, although he doesn’t rant against him.

Thoughts on the book? Thoughts on Intelligent Design? Am I a heretic? Some in my family may think so! (not really : ) )

I heard a sermon the other day, and it started me thinking. (Isn’t that what good sermons are supposed to do?) The preacher was, among other things, encouraging us to steer clear of some of the supernatural things out there in the world (psychics, etc — it was around Halloween), and to concentrate instead on safe ways of encountering God.

The pastor encouraged us to find God in the following: salvation and baptism, growing the fruit of the Spirit, and ministering to the poor and needy. These, he described, are safe ways of finding God.

That was the term that started me thinking: safe. I started thinking back to the God-encounters folks in the Bible had, and how many of them could be described as safe. Starting from the front and working backward, I think we can agree that the apostles did not choose safety when they opted to follow Jesus. Jesus himself chose to put himself quite literally in harm’s way in order to please his Father. No one can say the life of a prophet was safe; not only was it life-threatening, but it was embarrassing to boot (Ezekiel playing with army men, then lying on his side for over a year is an example). Gideon, Moses, Abraham — all chose the unsafe way.

Before I go on, let me try to define “safe” in this context. Things are safe when the results are predictable. They are safe when others have done them first. They are safe when the welfare of our families is not threatened. And they are safe when we can stop at any moment.

So why do we play it safe? I agree that there are risks with trying to find God in the unsafe: we could have bad theology, we could encounter evil, we could look foolish, we could make mistakes. But God is asking us to take risks; He wants us to find Him in the unsafe.

Those things the preacher suggested are truly ways to encounter God, but we all too often limit ourselves to those ways, and we avoid anything that might be unsafe. Mike Yaconelli said, “We have defanged the tiger of truth. We have tamed the lion… The tragedy of modern faith is that we no longer are capable of being terrified.” I think it’s all too true, and moreover, we studiously avoid being put in a place where we could be terrified.

Let me close with a lengthier Yaconelli quote, which of course says it better than I could:

I would like to suggest that the Church become a place of terror again; a place where God continually has to tell us, “Fear not”; a place where our relationship with God is not a simple belief or a doctrine or theology, it is God’s burning presence in our lives. I am suggesting that the tame God of relevance be replaced by the God whose very presence shatters our egos into dust, burns our sin into ashes, and strips us naked to reveal the real person within. The Church needs to become a gloriously dangerous place where nothing is safe in God’s presence except us. Nothing — including our plans, our agendas, our priorities, our politics, our money, our security, our comfort, our possessions, our needs.