N.T. Wright for Children?

Posted on

I finished reading N.T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope recently and have been pondering its implication the last few days. This is one of those must read sorts of books if one cares about defining and developing a biblical view of salvation and Christian hope. Wright explores here the concept that the hope for Christians is in the bodily resurrection – not in the gnostic “our souls go heaven when we die” mythology that consumes the imagination of most Christians. He not only reminds readers of that hope, but examines the implications that hope should have on how we think about Christian life, mission, and the purpose of church. Many of us in the emerging church have talked recently about how the gospel is bigger than individualistic decisions for heaven or against hell, and Wright here demonstrates that such limited conceptions of the gospel aren’t even biblical anyway. This of course gets us all labeled heretics, but at least the idea is getting out there that what most people think is orthodox Christian belief is actually not. So it’s a good read – helpful and inspiring in many ways. But I really wish it had more practical suggestions for everyday life.

It’s all well and good to intellectually rethink how we conceive of Christian hope and even start living differently because of that, but I am finding that the popular conceptions are so ubiquitous that they are nearly impossible to escape. In the face of all that I wish Wright had provided more positive examples of how to integrate the biblical view into our everyday encounters. How does one comfort the grieving? Explain death to a child? We’ve been conditioned to be comforted by common cliches even if we no longer believe the theology behind them. New language doesn’t yet exist – much less new books or new hymns (although a few good old ones are still around). But what good is my theology if I can’t convey it to my children? Or how effective is my theology if my children are constantly exposed to false conceptions? If we don’t consider how to convey these scriptural concepts to children all we are doing is allowing the myths to flourish into the next generation.

The world of popular conception is strong. I’ve been there. I’ve lead 5-Day Clubs, AWANA, and VBS. I’ve been trained by CEF and know all the kid songs. I’ve taught the flannelgraphs making promises about heaven the Bible only makes of the New Creation. I remember the Sunday School lessons (complete with charts) on the difference between body, soul, and spirit. I have a toddler and read her Bible storybooks and watch movies with her. I hear the dualistic/gnostic language she is indoctrinated with. Sure I change the language when I read her certain books, but it’s in there. Do I throw away all those books because of a few phrases that promote a Platonic rather than biblical understanding of the world? Do I ban every cartoon that portrays heaven as full of disembodied spirits floating on clouds? Do I never allow her to attend 5-Day Clubs, or VBSs, summer camps, or Sunday Schools because I know the individualistic spin they put on salvation (without any emphasis on community or what we have been saved for)? These are the practical questions that I wrestle with.

I want my children to choose to follow Christ not be manipulated into saying a prayer because they fear hell or want the reward of heaven. I don’t want John 3:16 reduced to “for God so loved Emma…” I want my kids to have better lyrics to sing in church than “Good news, good news, Christ died for ME” or “STOP! and let me tell you what the Lord has done for ME” or “Somewhere in outer space, God has prepared a place, For those who trust Him and obey…” (oh the memories). These things don’t reflect biblical truth so why would I teach them to my children? I want better options.

I’m sick though of waiting for better language and resources. Theology shouldn’t take decades to trickle down to children while we continue to feed them misguided lies. I spend a lot of time thinking about stuff like this, and I still struggle with altering my default language or with catching bad theology/philosophy in Emma’s picture books. We needed better resources yesterday as it were. Forget the N.T. Wright for Everyone devotional guides, I want N.T. Wright for toddlers. I want to see practical theology accessible to all ages. If we can’t be bothered to teach this stuff to our kids in the cradle then why bother believing it at all?

Read more

Good Intentions?

Posted on

So it is really amusing to hear through the grapevine that Moody Press has just published a book that discusses me and my underwear choices. Apparently chapter 8 of the recently released book Good Intentions uses a poorly (barely) paraphrased version of my “Justice Bra” article from the God’s Politics blog as an extended illustration (to read, enter my name in the “search inside this book” function on Amazon). Now it is one thing to use my own voice to write a somewhat tongue-in-cheek article about buying a bra, but it is a tad creepy to have two (male) economists open a chapter by stating “Julie Clawson needed a new bra.”

The book hadn’t crossed my radar yet (not like I read much out of Moody Press these days), but I found it intriguing that its basic concept is similar to the book I am currently writing for IVP. Both books address relevant issues of our day and attempt to give a Christian response (the issues aren’t all the same though). I’ve only read excerpts of Good Intentions, but from what I can gather our perspectives and conclusions are rather divergent. The Good Intentions promo carries the tagline “few things are more dangerous than good intentions” which gives a good indication as to it’s perspective on people who care about stuff like the environment. The description of the book states that because the Bible is about “morality” it is difficult to apply scriptural principles to economics, so we instead need to apply economic theory to the Bible to understand how best to live. I obviously have an issue with that sort of thinking, believing instead that Biblical morality should be what determines our economic systems in the first place. But it’s not surprising to still find Christians who believe that free-market capitalism was invented by God and should be worshiped as the fourth member of the Trinity.

From the parts I read regarding my “Justice Bra” article, I found that the authors fell into the typical trap common in that line of thinking. To them there exist only two options when it comes to things like sweatshops – either people get paid pittance in an often abusive situation or they have no job at all. Their argument is that people like me seeking “fair and just” products are actually hurting the workers because by demanding the end of sweatshops we are putting people out of jobs. They argue that it is better for the people to have a job rather than not and therefore I am being unjust in buying a “justice bra” and not some $8 piece of crap at Wal-Mart. But they are assuming a false dichotomy here and really missing the point those of us calling for justice make. There is no reason why people should have to choose between a crappy job and no job at all. The idea is that since the cruel sweatshop jobs shouldn’t exist because they are immoral, they need to be reformed into jobs that treat the workers with dignity and pay them fairly. It is about redeeming the system, not destroying it. A good, decent, and safe job needs to be an option – the primary option – for workers everywhere. And if an economic system exists that doesn’t allow for the possibility of such jobs, I have a hard time understanding how Christians should be encouraged to participate in it.

But then again as I see it, rubber-stamping the status quo as “biblical” is far more dangerous than anyone’s good intentions to “act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God.”

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

Life of the Mind – Part 1

Posted on

Over the next few days I want to put some thoughts out here on my blog about the life of the mind. And yes, I like to think and read books so this will in many ways be a defense of intellectualism. I’ve just encountered various accusations recently that attempt to ridicule or at least make one feel guilty for being intellectual, so I feel the need to address some of those ideas.

The first topic came up as part of our conversation at up/rooted last night. The accusation what that emerging church leaders are all too intellectual and focused on cognitive ideas. They try to change people’s hearts by presenting ideas instead of helping people have a relationship with with Jesus. It was mentioned that the books and the blogs are heavy on theology and ideas and not on worship and contemplation. These books give theological reasons for why we should say help the poor instead of encouraging us to pray for conviction or just go out and serve. Someone also mentioned that they were really disappointed in how at the Midwest Emergent Gathering last summer all the big name leaders skipped out on every worship session to blog or hang out. In essence, the charge was that the EC is just about ideas and not about being in a relationship with God.

I personally saw some underlying truth in that argument, but disagreed with some of its assumptions. The basic flaw in the argument, in my opinion, is the assumption that people can’t worship or connect with God through books, discussion, and theology. Those things apparently teach one about God, but only prayer, contemplation, and worship can help one actually get to know God. This is an argument that I’ve heard many times before and one I strongly disagree with. I do connect to God through things like books and theology and I find things like singing and contemplation forced and hollow. I’ve been told my whole life that the only real way to connect with God is through those acts and that there must be something wrong with me if it wasn’t working for me. And when I did draw closer to God through intellectual pursuits I was informed that I wasn’t really engaged in worship or true relationship. It all served to make me feel rather inadequate as a Christian. But those assumptions just aren’t true. My experience and the experiences of others I know demonstrate that intellectual paths are just as meaningful and valid ways of relating to God as the more emotional and mystical. Discovering things about God and what he has done does connect us to him. I won’t deny that basic reality any longer and I refuse to let others invalidate my spirituality just because it doesn’t look the same as theirs.

That said, I think there are a lot fewer people who connect to God intellectually than emotionally or mystically. And most of us who do connect intellectually have ended up in positions where our voices are the ones that get heard – pastors, speakers, bloggers, writers… When people hear emerging church leaders, the life of the mind is generally the primary option presented. Add to that the voices accusing us then of not being truly spiritual and problems arise. Unless we want to be utterly ineffective in our message or scare away those with different spirituality languages, more of a balanced perspective needs to be presented. I don’t like the false accusation that I am not spiritual, but I also can’t assume that everyone should connect to God intellectually (although intellectually learning about God is necessary, but that’s another day’s topic).

So what does this mean on a practical level? I think it will take some willingness to accept others by everyone. It might take some leaders affirming practices they might personally find trivial (praise choruses and prayer journals spring to my mind), but it will also take the majority of Christians being willing to expand their conceptions of spirituality as well. Continuing to dichotomize the life of the mind and spirituality is not healthy for the church or the emerging movement. Affirming these different paths to God so to speak may be the only thing that will lead to mutual understanding and appreciation. At least it will acknowledge that God is God and isn’t limited in how he connects with each of us.

Read more

Up/rooted and the Other

Posted on

Do you ever have one of those moments when you really don’t know what to say or do? I just got back from up/rooted, our local Emergent cohort where I had one of those moments. We had some good conversations tonight which I may blog about later when I’m more awake, but it was the very start of the evening that created this awkward moment of self-doubt and paralysis of action. We were meeting tonight at a pizza place in Wheaton and had reserved their patio/party room like we have done before. As the leaders and first to arrive, the manager asked us if we would like to see if the room was okay before we were seated. Since we’d met there before we told him to just seat us. As we walked into the room he mentioned that he would turn the heat on in the room for us. I just assumed the room was empty when he said that, but as we walked in I saw there there was a homeless guy in there eating a pizza. I have no clue if it was a free meal or if he was a “paying customer,” but I was appalled that on this bitterly cold night he would be stuck on the unheated patio (and that we were essentially asked if we were willing to be in the same room as him). Apparently turning on the heat for a book discussion group is okay, but not for the homeless man.

So I felt awkward. Here a group of well-dressed, well-fed, and “deserving” of heat Christians come in to discuss the justice issues in McLaren’s Everything Must Change and immediately we are faced with the realities of poverty and prejudice. So what, if anything, do we do? Do we make a scene about his treatment? Do we offer to help the homeless guy (who I have encountered before) or would that be condescending (in the “hey look, you’re homeless! Can we pity you or have you be the token poor for our group?” sort of way)? Or do we treat him like we would any other “regular” customer in the restaurant and ignore him? We ended up doing that latter and just not engaging him. He left shortly after we got started, but it was a strange moment wondering about the best course of action. And it was odd realizing that even in attempting to determine how best to treat him with dignity and respect I was labeling him as “other” and not treating him with the same anonymous respect I would give anyone else. Perhaps the answer is that I should be more aware of how I interact with everyone. I don’t know. It just set an interesting mental stage for the evening.

Read more

Tragedy, Guns, and Questions

Posted on

I can’t help but follow the news these past few days regarding the NIU shootings. The campus is a mere half hour from my house and we have friends who attended there. Although we personally don’t know anyone hurt in the shootings, it has touched this community. At church today we shared our thoughts and reactions to the event – wondering about the shooter’s family and asking what causes these sorts of horrific tragedies to occur.

That question of seeking to know why is a common response. This morning in the Chicago Tribune one perspective piece listed blog comments that attempted to give reasons why this happened. The comments of course cited the lack of gun control as well as the need for the right to carry concealed weapons. But the answers didn’t end there. Commenters blamed everything from bad parenting, to video games, to abortion, to homosexuality, to television for this incident. These voices seemed to think that if their particular pet peeve didn’t exist this shooting would never have occurred. Now I am all for gun control and am not particularly fond of violent video games, but I have to wonder at how quick people are to pass the blame and avoid any true involvement. I’m no fan of “black swan” philosophy either I might add. I think there is a place for trying to make sense of the world we live in and understanding why things happen, but I think such examinations should result in one choosing to take responsibility to help make things better.

In church this morning we also focused on the story in Acts 3 when Peter and John heal a lame man at the temple gate. They didn’t just give a beggar a few coins, or walk by and ignore him, they looked directly at him and healed the main cause of his problems. They didn’t just treat symptoms, or complain about the systems of injustices in this world, they took responsibility for doing something to help out. So we can bitch and play the blame game when tragedies occur, and perhaps that helps in the grieving process, or maybe we can address underlying issues and work for change. We might even be talking about the same issues, but I prefer the idea of seeking to be constructive during these times.

Read more

Life Update – Babies, Conferences, and Books

Posted on

For those who are interested, a bit of an update on me at the moment.

The Good and the Bad
So the main thing dictating my life at the moment is my pregnancy. I’m at 19 weeks and the baby, according to all the tests so far, is doing great. I go in for more tests and a level 2 ultrasound in a couple of weeks, and yes I want to find out the gender. The severe morning sickness has eased up a bit. At least my doctor isn’t threatening every time I see her to check me into the hospital and not let me out until the baby is born anymore. I can still barely eat and have been told to eat immediately whenever anything sounds vaguely appetizing. It is a very strange way to spend Lent – under doctor’s orders to give into all my cravings. I still have severe dizziness and vertigo and can’t do everyday tasks like driving or shopping. I am having issues with pre-term labor again as well, but am being monitored and getting rounds of shots to prevent the extreme issues I had with Emma. Luckily no forced bed rest (yet), but I have had to drastically alter my lifestyle. Which brings me to …

The Disappointing
Because of all these ongoing pregnancy issues and at the advice of my doctor I’ve had to cancel travel plans. That means I won’t be able to attend either the Emerging Women Convergence gathering nor The New Conspirators Conference, which I am incredibly disappointed about. I was scheduled to lead a workshop at The New Conspirators conference on women in the emerging church and I feel bad about having to cancel my involvement. I’m thankful to Kathy Escobar who stepped up to take my place leading the workshop. I was really looking forward to attending and meeting some of the people gathering there for the first time and am frustrated that health issues are standing in the way.

The Exciting
I saved the really exciting news for last. Some of you know this already, but I am now officially writing a book on justice issues for IVP. Basically the idea of the book is to examine how we can seek justice and love others in our day to day lives. I’m taking very specific issues to serve as examples and giving practical suggestions and biblical guidelines for how we can engage with them. Many of the topics will be things I have mentioned here on the blog, but of course presented in slightly more constructive and less ranting formats. Anyway, I’m excited about the opportunity and wanted to share with everyone what’s in the works. I promise to post updates as I move forward in the whole process.

So that’s me at the moment, well that and being obsessed with the unfolding Lost storyline. Just thought I’d let you know.

Read more