Category: Church

Integrity in Faith

Posted on

I’ve been making my way through Krista Tippett’s new book Speaking of Faith recently and have enjoyed her reflections on her personal faith journey. I always find myself intrigued by her radio program by that name, but hearing from her own experiences has helped me better understand how she engages so brilliantly with representatives of so many faith traditions. At one point in the book, she explores how she became aware of the wideness of the Christian tradition and how that sustained her faith. Her background was in a rather fundamentalist Baptist tradition and as she returned to faith as an adult she desired to only return there “with open eyes, rigor of thought and speech, and the same powers of reasoning [she] expected of [her]self in the rest of [her] life.” As she wrestled with the process of accepting where she had been while still moving forward with integrity in her faith, she quotes a few lines from T.S. Eliot –

Of all that was done in the past, you eat the fruit,
either rotten or ripe
And the Church must be forever building, and always
decaying, and always being restored.

I love that image of church – accepting what has come before and yet always moving forward. It portrays a church, a faith, that is alive – ready to affect the world it inhabits. I find such an image hopeful and know that similar realizations have saved the faith of many (especially in the emerging church). We want a faith that stands up to questions and doesn’t reject us for merely framing those questions. We want a faith that serves the world in life-giving ways. It is a blessing to finally discover a faith like Ms. Tippett did that pushes us beyond disillusionment and can still inspire and transform us without limits.

Read more

Book Review – The New Christians

Posted on

I recently read Tony Jones’ new book The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier and I have to say that I thought it was a great book – a needed and welcomed contribution at this stage in the emerging church conversation. This is the book to read to understand the history of this thing called emergent and the passions of those of us drawn to it. I’m not going to do a strict review of the book here, others have done sufficient jobs at that, but I just want to list what it is I liked about the book and why think it’s a helpful addition to the conversation.

First, to be completely narcissistic, I enjoyed reading Tony’s story of his journey into Emergent because it echoed so much of my own experience. I know that he has received criticism for not being inclusive enough of various forms of emerging thought in this book, but he makes it clear in the book that he is telling the story of his own experiences, the groups he has encountered, and the friends he has made. Sure not everyone encounters emerging/Emergent thought in the exact same way he did but he doesn’t assume to tell everyone’s story. He gives snapshots of where he has encountered the conversation and summarizes the trends he is witnessing. Some people may not see themselves reflected in this book, but for those of us who have trod similar paths as Tony, it is affirming to have part of our story told. This book represents our reality – from the questions, to the conferences, to the online emphasis, to the conversations. I appreciated reading the history of people I know which helps me better understand who they are. I like that I can point at this book and its description of Emergent and say – “this represents me, I am unashamedly a part of this, this can help you understand where I’ve been and what I am doing now.”

I also like that Tony isn’t afraid to tell the truth about the messy parts of Christianity and emergent. The messy parts exist and many in this conversation have experienced pain because of them. While I have heard some crying out for disagreements to be hidden and ignored in the name of unity, I think such action causes more problems in the long run. Generally the voices calling for “unity” implicate whoever isn’t the dominant voice as the troublemaker. Those asking questions and pushing for reform are told to toe the party line and stop rocking the boat (silenced by cliche for the sake of Jesus and the church of course). Instead of addressing the issues and working through them one is labeled heretical for having questions at all. It’s all a bit farcical. So I appreciate Tony’s willingness to say that yes Emergent has critics, yes there have been falling outs, and yes some people have refused to play ball with us. It’s reality and hiding from it won’t help resolve differences. And its high time, imho, the truth was told that its not just emergents causing the problems.

I appreciated the way Tony dealt with the issues of homosexuality and women in ministry. Instead of dealing with each as “issues,” he just told the stories of real people. He was inclusive and affirming in practice while not alienating in dogma. Of course this could just mean he pisses off everyone on both sides of these issues, but I thought he was fair in how he approached such controversial topics.

I enjoyed his affirmation of how popular culture shapes our reality. There are streams in the emerging church that refuse to condescend to popular culture. One often feels like one needs to apologize for watching TV or for listening to mainstream music around other emergents. I liked how Tony used popular culture as metaphors and as keys to understand the forces shaping the conversation. I prefer this thoughtful engagement to the snobbishly turning up of the noses I often expect in emergent circles.

There were of course other stories and ideas throughout the book that I enjoyed, just as there were a few things I questioned and a couple of things that I found annoying (the layout). But this is a good book, well worth the read. I just thought I’d ramble on here about a few of the reasons I personally liked the book, but honestly, if you want to know more about emergent, understand where it came from, or just hear the stories of real people who are a part of it – read this book.

(and Tony, sorry for such a scattered response to your book. It really is a good book, deserving of much more coherent thoughts than this. Thanks for writing it.)

Read more

Creating Jesus in Our Own Image

Posted on

Recently, as I was reading Nancy Ortberg’s new book Looking for God, I was struck by an aside she threw in about Jesus.  In discussing the scene where the post-resurrection Jesus cooks breakfast on the shore for the disciples (John 21) and she asked, “Why don’t we ever hear sermons about men cooking? We always hear about ‘what would Jesus do?’ Why isn’t this one included?”

Her questions intrigued me because they highlighted the tendency among Christians to create Jesus in our own image.  We focus on the aspects of Jesus’ life and teachings that most reflect who we are and what we are already doing.  If we want to boost Sunday school teacher recruitment we preach on Jesus welcoming the children.  If we think the congregation needs to pray more we talk about Jesus in Gethsemane.  The Jesus we often present or imagine is rarely indistinguishable from the cultural settings we indwell.  In the middle class suburban church we hear of the CEO like leadership characteristics of Jesus.  In the typical morality based youth group, Jesus’ ability to resist temptation.  To be like Jesus often means little more than reaching for some cultural ideal.  So of course, there are no sermons exhorting men to get into the kitchen so they can be like Jesus, that’s too far outside “normal behavior” for our culture (and yes, I am fully aware that imploring men to cook is just another form of cultural bias.  I still think it’s a good idea).

It is no wonder then that so many people are comfortable with Jesus.  Jesus is our friend.  He is the manifestation of all the good things we want to be anyway.  Sure, it may be hard to live like Jesus all the time, but at least it gets us to where we want to be and everyone affirms our attempts along the way.  Perhaps this is why when teachings or actions of Jesus that challenge the status quo are brought into light some Christians are quick to dismiss them as heretical, or liberal, or too extreme.   Portrayals of Jesus that may demand something of us (like say service or change) aren’t welcome.  It is too uncomfortable to not see oneself in the God we worship and follow.  We don’t necessarily want to be like Jesus, we want Jesus to be like us.

Now I freely admit to being guilty of this narcissistic view of Jesus, both in the past and in the present.  To a certain extent I understand how our immediate cultural context has to be the frame of reference within which we understand Jesus, we can’t escape it.  I also fully affirm that our passions should align with what Jesus was passionate about.  But when I find that my spiritual life and quest to be like Jesus requires little discipline or effort, I have to admit that I have a problem.  Merely affirming who I already am leaves little room for transformation.  I find it easier then to admit that I have arrogantly cast Jesus in my own image than to continue to ignore Biblical commands to be spiritually renewed.  The actual process though of re-evaluating what it means to be like Jesus is much harder as I am forced into the humbling (and often humiliating) process of getting over myself.

It’s funny, but I’ve discovered that attempting to be like Jesus is a lot more difficult when I allow Jesus to be Jesus.  Strange how that works.

Read more

Life of the Mind – Part 3

Posted on

The most common critique of “the life of the mind” that I hear is one for which I have the some sympathy. This critique states that the life of the mind takes the focus off of just living for Jesus. I understand the sentiment behind it, but get frustrated with the “all or nothing” way in which it is generally presented.

I most often hear this accusation in somewhat awkward situations. I can be involved in a good theological discussion (online or in person) and someone uncomfortable with conflict or intellectual discourse will jump in and shut down the conversation by asserting that all that really matters is loving Jesus. We need stop all this talk and get our focus back onto loving and serving Jesus. Of course no one can continue the discussion because then we obviously don’t love Jesus. The moderator feels pious and holy and the rest of us sheepish and frustrated. But honestly I think this objection asserted this way is completely wrong and somewhat dangerous. Theology does matter and in fact has everything to do with loving Jesus.

What we believe determines how we act. Theology has institutionalized racism and sexism. Theology has justified rape, slaughter, and torture. Theology has encouraged greed and spread poverty. Theology has pillaged lands and destroyed ecosystems. Don’t tell me it doesn’t matter. It determines exactly what it looks like for a person to follow Jesus. Unless we take a good look at what we believe and realize that “all Christians at all times” have NOT believed as we do, dangerous theologies will continue to flourish. I discuss theology, read books, and study scripture because I love Jesus and want to follow him. Understanding his commands, how his words would have been understood by his audience, and how the church over time has interpreted his words is important to me. Blindly following or not questioning why or what I am following seems highly irresponsible to me. If I love Jesus then I will take the time to intellectually understand what I believe.

Sure it is a problem if all I ever do is discuss or read about Jesus’ commands and never actually obey any of them. To put it bluntly, that’s just dumb (and suggests that I seriously failed in my understanding of scripture). Many intellectuals have failed to live out their faith and actually do the things Jesus commands us to do, so I understand the fear in this accusation against the life of the mind that intellectualism could result in just words and no action. But living for Jesus isn’t an either/or between the two. Sure faith without works is dead, but unexamined actions can be harmful and can actually stand in the way of living for Jesus. Both are necessary for the Christian who wants to “live for Jesus.”

So I’m done with being told to shut up and just serve, or to stop thinking and just get to know Jesus. Those aren’t dichotomies; both are required while neither should be privileged. I love Jesus and so I will engage my faith intellectually. That is living for Jesus.

Read more

Life of the Mind – Part 2

Posted on

To continue my commentary on Christianity and the life of the mind I want to address another anti-intellectual stance I’ve often encountered. This is the “it’s so easy a caveman could do it” line that I’ve been fed my whole life. Granted it’s usually phrased along the lines of the bible being easy enough for a child to understand, but the general effect is still insulting and a bit disturbing. Yes, I know the verses about needing to have faith like a child, but the practical outcomes of believers never getting past the moralized version of the Bible have serious consequences. This particular interpretive stance not only often prevents the average Christian from engaging in lifelong learning and growth, it creates a fear and distrust of those who do seek to engage in such things.

If understanding the moral of the story, reducing the gospel to a soundbite, and being “spiritually formed” through fill-in-the-blank worksheets work for the kids then it must be sufficient for the adults as well – or so the theory goes. The ideas presented don’t really go deeper, just broader. So I can encounter adults who can parrot answers to me on the exactly right interpretation (read moral) of every Bible story out there. To suggest alternative interpretations or to attempt to place the story in it’s historical context is not permitted because it complicates the simple message of the Bible. Similarly hundreds of women’s groups across the nation believe that filling in blanks as to every occurrence of a certain word (in English) in the Bible and then reflecting on how that makes them feel counts as “in-depth Bible study.” Try to dig deeper or challenge the workbook’s assumptions and you are either given blank stares or labeled a trouble-making heretic. So I can have Beth Moore tell me that because the Psalmist mentions rising early in the morning to pray that God is more capable of hearing prayers in the morning (so don’t ever sleep in!) and not be allowed to question “what the Bible plainly says.” And yes, I’m sure I’m painting such studies in broad strokes but I’m just speaking from my experience with such studies.

I am no scholar. I don’t have degrees in Biblical studies, but I’ve learned over the years the need to go deeper and read a variety of sources and interpretations. I also no pseudo-gnostic to believe that if I just acquire the right amount of knowledge then I will land upon the absolute correct interpretation of scripture. But it never ceases to amaze me at the reactions I get when I offer an interpretation of parts of scripture that rely on history or linguistics that some people have never heard before. The reaction isn’t to test it and explore its validity, but to completely reject it as too complex. Why? One – it differs from what they assumed was the “simple reading” of scripture – which of course fails to realize that said “simple reading” is merely just the interpretive lens they have been exposed to all their life. Two – they are upset that to arrive at my interpretation further study and education is needed. The idea that people need an education to understand the Bible challenges a worldview they didn’t even know they had. (Tony Jones has a good discussion of this reaction in The New Christians).

People who study scripture or theology or even history are then looked upon as dangerous. We challenge the status quo and upset habits of church life. No one ever wants to be told that they are stupid and the idea that there is much more to learn about the Bible comes across as an accusation of stupidity to some. Or even if an individual realizes they have more to learn, they assume you are calling their pastor or Bible study leader stupid just by disagreeing with them. It is easier then to assume an anti-intellectual stance (hidden behind the “easy enough for a child” mantra) than it is to admit that one doesn’t know and may never know. But to me that confession is the beginning of the learning posture. I want to learn more and while at times I am overwhelmed at the amount of stuff I am utterly clueless about theologically, I am thankful for the opportunity that provides me to always be growing in my understanding of faith. This isn’t about being having the correct interpretation, it is about being allow to think critically about one’s faith without being dismissed. I personally am sick of being told that I am corrupted by education, swayed by the liberals, throwing out the Bible, or calling people stupid just because I like to think about what I believe. I don’t want to have to apologize because I enjoy and am grateful for the life of the mind. That is part of who I am and I desire to always have a faith that seeks understanding but which never assumes to have arrived.

Read more

Adapting Our Stereotypes

Posted on

The world runs on stereotypes. We expect people to fit into certain boxes and shape our society around those boxes. Those that don’t fit, well, we just let them fall through the cracks. They don’t count, they aren’t normal, if they want to make it they should start acting just like everyone else. The problem is – more and more people are falling through the cracks and systems, flawed to begin with, are falling apart.

I was reminded of how our world is changing as I recently followed the saga of a local Chicago area 1st grader who was barred from attending school for nearly two months. This boy officially lives with his mom in the Homewood school district, but stays with his dad in a different district some nights (and occasionally with his grandmother as well). His parents are divorced and both work so-called “non-traditional” jobs (as in their hours aren’t 8-5). But in a school system that’s strapped for cash, the boy doesn’t spend enough nights at one house to quality for residency and so was barred from attending school. It took the state governor reading about the boy’s story in the newspaper for him to intervene and demand that the boy be allowed to attend school. (read more here and here). The boy and his family didn’t fit the mold and so he was allowed to fall through the cracks (thankfully the press can still do some good). But the thing is, his story is becoming more and more common these days. The world is changing.

I can’t help but think about how the church is responding to these changes. Are we making room for “nontraditional” families and schedules? Or do we just complain about divorce rates, the stability of the family, women working outside the home, and the taxes we pay to the schools to deal with people “like this”? Nurses, and artists, and traveling jobs are more the norm these days than ever. What was once considered “typical” barely exists anymore. The stereotypes and molds have crumbled, so why does the church pretend that nothings changed? A few years ago I was at a church that started a Saturday night service. This allowed a few families with “nontraditional” schedules (who had to work Sundays) to attend church. But there were others in the church who opposed the service saying the only reason people would come to church on Saturday night was because they were too lazy to get up on Sunday mornings.

Divorce is a reality, alternative families are a reality, and nontraditional schedules are a reality across every economic level these days. If all the church does is complain about it and try to make it stop, all that will happen is for the church to make itself obsolete. Refusing to accept the realities of this world in favor of some nostalgic stereotype of the world as we wish it would be doesn’t seem like a smart way to serve our communities. The church needn’t be a system that falls apart as culture evolves, but it does need to learn to adapt and stop rejecting change for the sake of rejecting change. Perhaps that means emerging, perhaps that means just opening its eyes to the community it serves. As a church leader I know I personally find it difficult to even know where to begin sometimes, but for the sake of the community I serve I at least want to try.

Read more

Excellence, Worship, and American Idol

Posted on

If you live in USA it is hard to ignore the fact that American Idol is back in full swing for its new season (and stop grumbling about silly television or our worship of popular culture – you know you watch it). As the season gets going viewers are subjected to the horrifically enthralling auditions. Amongst the handful of contestants that can actually sing there are those who are merely there to grasp their 15 seconds of fame (and yes I am still disturbed by the guy in the Princess Leia slave-girl costume). Then there are those who contrary to reality truly believe they have some ability to sing. Their confidence is high, their friends and family have praised their voices, and then they are shocked and generally incredulous when the judges reject them. While I assume the purpose of highlighting such contestants is to mock them, I am left feeling awkward.

While I understand that the driving force behind American Idol is fame, I have to question where the line of “excellence” can be drawn. If a person can’t sing then being famous and having a career based on one’s singing ability isn’t an option. But what about worship? In churches today worship is generally associated with music. If a person can’t sing can they participate in worship? What about lead worship? Does excellence and skill matter in those areas or do enjoyment and giving glory to God trump the ability requirement?

I know in many ways this is a silly question (of course if people want to sing to God they should be able to), but as I watched yet more worship leaders and choir members get mocked on American Idol the question came to mind. I know I’ve personally sat through some very painful “special music” moments and have sat silently through worship because the leader was so bad it was impossible to sing along. There is the part of me that wants to be generous and accept the messiness of it all. I want to say that having a good heart and a willingness to try is more than enough. But then I find myself squirming to some off-key song, or faltering sermon, or sappy poem, or amateur art, or stumbling dance done in the name of worship and I don’t know what to think. Do I lie and pretend it’s good?  Do I tell the truth and defeat the entire purpose of the act?  And this isn’t some snobbish condescension about someone not being classically trained or having sufficient(??) theological training, just that I’m so uncomfortable that I often go hide in the bathroom to escape. (and before I go further let me say that I know I’ve forced others to suffer through my junk, so this is about me too).

Maybe I’m just self-centered and judgmental and I should just shut-up and deal with it. I’m sure the typical poor singer given the mic on a Sunday morning doesn’t harbor delusions of grandeur, so I should just be more generous in appreciating sincere effort. This isn’t about me, it’s about God, so I just need to get over my distraction. Or perhaps I can lay all the blame at the church’s obsession with performance driven worship. (Come on, if it’s a performance at least it can be good…) In our misunderstanding of what it means to worship we’ve laid expectations on it that were never meant to be there.  I honestly don’t know.  Is this just me being weird or is this a question others have as well?

Read more

Book Review – Rising from the Ashes

Posted on

I recently finished reading Becky Garrison’s new book Rising from the Ashes: Rethinking Church (we have also been discussing this book over at Emerging Women for this month’s book discussion). This book is different from the typical offering on this subject in that it consists solely of interviews Becky conducted with a wide diversity of people who have experimented with “rethinking church.” I found this pure inclusion of various voices refreshing and a good representation of the vast array of changes happening in the church today. These voices come from mainline and evangelical backgrounds; and while many of them are involved in the emerging church conversation, this book is a good reminder that streams of change are present across the broad spectrum of church and are not just limited to the emerging camp. That said, I was interested to see how even amongst the emerging voices the expressions of how church is being rethought varies from culture to culture and church to church. The voices often disagree or place emphasis on differing areas, but I found that to lend validity to the widespread nature of this conversation on the need to rethink church.

I found a quote in the interview with Brian McLaren to be helpful in summarizing this diversity in the conversation –

There’s so much going on, and people are at all different places. I mean, I started asking certain questions fifteen years ago, and one question led to another and another, and here I am now. other people are just asking the first set of questions, or they’re asking the questions in a different order. But what all of us have in common, I think, is this sense that we’re trying to be faithful to God in the aftermath of modernity and colonialism and all that they entail. (p. 51)

So as the conversation is explored in this book we hear from voices like Phyllis Tickle, Jonny Baker, Shane Claiborne, Diana Butler Bass, Tony Jones, Ian Mobsby, and Nadia Bolz-Weber on topics such as the state of the church, the Gospel of the Kingdom, Christian community, and worship practices. Many of those interviews hold tight to particular church traditions as they attempt to understand the church in this day and age. Others seek to question existing structures or to examine our very conception of church itself. In their responses one sees a mix of theology and practice as well as a deep commitment to serving God in whatever way they can. Rethinking church for them is not about being new or different, but about being faithful and committed followers.

I find this book to be a necessary offering at this stage in the conversation as it serves to highlight the diversity of voices present therein. It is a needed reminder that around the world and across denominations the conversations do not look the same although they may have common elements. I hope this book can help raise that awareness and heighten the appreciation of those who are coming at this conversation differently from us (whoever “us” may be). Not everyone is rethinking church in the same way and there is much to be learned from each other. I recommend this book as a great resource and glimpse into the currents moving the church today. It is helpful to know where we are headed and prudent to understand the passions and rationale of others during these times.

Read more

What to do with the Early Church

Posted on

I’ve recently seen a lot of buzz around blogs regarding Barna and Viola’s new book Pagan Christianity. I haven’t read the book yet, but I am intrigued by the topics it seems to address. With quotes such as, “We are also making an outrageous proposal: that the church in its contemporary, institutional form has neither a biblical nor a historical right to exist,” the book raises some serious questions about the purpose and nature of church as well as about Biblical interpretation.

At the heart of the controversy surrounding this book is the question of if we should read the Bible prescriptively, descriptively, or some combination of the two. We actually addressed this issue at church this past week as we started our study of the book of Acts. It seemed prudent to discuss our assumptions about how we read and apply scripture before we examine the stories of the early church. In essence we asked if what we read in Acts is prescriptive (giving us the guidelines for how we should do church forever and ever amen) or descriptive (just an historical picture of how things were done in one particular culture in one particular era). We of course came down on the both/and middle ground. Yes, there are aspects of scripture that are instructive for us today that we should follow; but, there are also cultural elements portrayed that reflect Biblical culture, but don’t translate well today.

Barna and Viola seem to be taking the approach that claims culture doesn’t matter. A perfect system was created once upon a time and must not be deviated from. We must just repeat exactly those things which were done 2000 years ago and discard any practices that have been introduced since then (you know evil things, like pastors). I personally find this view as disturbing as the opposite extreme that sees the early church as just a cute historical vignette – meaningless for our lives today. Not only do such dichotomous views put God in a box, they have the potential to lead to serious misunderstanding and abuses.

I prefer instead the approach often mentioned by N.T. Wright – that of seeing ourselves existing in God’s unfolding story. If the story of the church is the story of God working in the world, then the early church represents say chapter 9 of that tale. Much has come before and those stories play a pivotal role in the unfolding tale. We then find ourselves living today in Chapter 20, not the final chapter, but still significant to what God is doing. As this chapter gets written it would be silly and really poor writing to merely copy exactly what was written in chapter 9 over again. To do so would ignore all intervening chapters and would imply that God is not big enough to work in the world today. But on the other hand it would be equally silly to make chapter 20 utterly unrelated to all the preceding chapters or to ignore the character development that was established in chapter 9. Chapter 20 must be informed by (and in ways constrained by Chapter 9), but it must also allow the story to be told.

So when I read some of the extreme statements from Barna and Viola, I cringe at the disregard for God’s unfolding story. Having just read excerpts I can’t comment on the whole of their argument. But I can’t help but find the “let’s just get back to the early church” stance a bit simplistic and naive. We are not the early church and no matter how hard we try we Westerners are not pre-industrial people living in an occupied territory. It may be easy to blame all the problems in the church on systems and traditions that were not present in the early church and I fully agree that many of those systems need to be re-evaluated, but the issues are more complex than that. And I for one am not willing (or think it is truly possible) to recapture the ethos and social mores that defined the early church. I am not interested in repeating that chapter in history, but I am interested in learning from and being inspired by it.

Read more

Changing One’s Mind

Posted on

I’m not a fan of mudslinging politics and get progressively tired of the candidates attempts to dig up dirt on each other. I admit that there may be a place for it in a sense. Voters should be informed and since our (and the media’s) attention spans are so short reminders of a person’s political and legal record can he helpful. But honestly I really don’t care about when Obama first wanted to be President (was it 1st or 3rd grade!!!) or if Hillary planted questions in her audience (isn’t that what politicians do???).

But one thing I read recently did surprise me. Apparently pastor and Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee isn’t allowing the public or media access to his sermons. Granted he has faced some embarrassing moments recently as public comments he made in the 90’s have resurfaced (quarantining AIDS patients and comparing environmentalism to pornography…), but it just seems weird to me that a pastor should hide his sermons. Is he embarrassed by what he preached? Has his theology changed? Is he just afraid of controversy?

One thing I’ve noticed about politics and often the church as well is the sheer aversion to admitting that one has changed one’s mind. If a politician voted one way 20 years ago, they apparently have to stick by that decision. They never say, “well, I have grown and changed as a person and I would vote differently now.” Same with pastors. Since their words are often delivered as nearly divinely inspired to recant or speak of an evolving theology is strictly taboo. I have no clue what Huckabee’s issue with his sermons is, I just wish this fear of admitting change and growth didn’t plague our politics and churches. I’d much rather have truth and transparency than backpedaling and cover-ups.

Maybe that’s just me. I have no problem admitting that my theology has changed drastically over the last ten years. Some of it has changed over the last year for that matter. I’m sure there are papers I wrote in college that I would cringe to read these days, and not just for the poor writing style (like the one for my Theology of Culture class where I named Postmodernism as the greatest threat to Christianity today…). Similarly I am sure there are archived threads on The Ooze and elsewhere that could get me labeled an official theological schizophrenic. I’m okay with that. I like to continue to learn and to grow. I don’t want to ever arrive and cement my thoughts in one static location to never be challenged again. That scares me way more than having to admit I was wrong or that I’ve changed.

But I also would never run for President.

Read more