That said, check your subscription status.  Right now I have 50-60 of you who get this stuff right in your email inbox.  I have no way of knowing if this is something you still want, nor does WordPress allow you to manage your own subscribers.

So, if you’re seeing this in your email, and would prefer not to see this in your email, please hit the appropriate unsubscribe link.

If you’re not seeing this in your email, but would like to, just hit the button on the right under the “subscribe” heading, and you’ll join my small but loyal band of followers.

Either way, push whichever button you feel most comfortable with, and we’ll see you back here real soon.

“Some things you shouldn’t get too good at.  Like smiling, crying and celebrity.”  (-U2)

So I’m famous now.  For serious.  The local paper did a whole story about me and everything.  You can read all about it here.

I have to admit that it’s always strange to hear your story coming from someone else’s words, but I’m appreciative of the work the staff of the Herald Mail for their time and interest.

But the whole business of one’s life story is one that I feel deserves to be (re-)visited.  Most of the way we relate to the world is through story: whether through literature or film.  Maybe it’s just me, but it seems as if there’s a part of our humanity that wants our own stories to be…well…good.  I mean really good.  Like, “most-interesting-man-in-the-universe” good.

If Shakespeare’s right and we’re all actors on a grand stage, then part of human depravity consists of “method acting:” we have to devise and manage our identity to look good in the eyes of others.  That’s why social networking sites have such an attraction: we can literally create a personal identity by cleverly managing our photographs, likes and interests and even friend lists.

But I recently found some really great stuff in the writings of a recent blogger by the name of Ian Morgan Cron.  You can read his blog here.  The following is from a recent post entitled “Owning Our Stories:”

“One thing I have learned in this process is how important it is to “own your story.” I haven’t always done this well, and I fight the temptation to disown parts of my story everyday when I sit at my computer to write. The truth is we all have a past that is filled with mistakes we regret. Others have wounded us, sometimes profoundly, and we’ve done our share of inflicting pain on others and ourselves along the way as well. But rather than own our stories in their totality, most of us engage in some form historical revisionism. We edit out the parts of our past stories we don’t want to own.

[...]

When you leave the most painful pieces on the editing room floor and don’t acknowledge they really happened, you literally become dis-integrated. To accept as a whole package the totality of everything we’ve done and that’s been done to us; to name it, own it, grieve it, celebrate it, this is where Shalom is found.”

I find a tremendous amount of wisdom in this, especially as I find myself getting just old enough to be reflective (wait…is there an age limit to that?).  I think the great thing about the gospel is its ability to weave together the colored yarns of so many different (and often painful) stories, and have the result be something beautiful.

And all with the promise of a “happily ever after…”

Please show me in the Bible where it states what one must believe regarding the Savior in order to be a Christian. Please also show me where it states that YOU have the right to decide who is and who is not a Christian. Thank you.

I post my written response here not only for my love of hard questions, but because some may find themselves asking the very same question themselves, not just of Mormonism but of religious diversity as a whole.  I freely admit that the following is only a start to answering these questions, but this was my response:

This is a fair question and I’m glad to answer it. I’d like to address your second question first, as it directly relates to your first question.

I am not personally defining someone “out” of Christianity. Christianity and Mormonism both make exclusive truth claims. These claims contradict each other. Logically, these claims can both be wrong, but they cannot both be right. To put it another way, if you are speaking with someone who embraces Republican values, then claims to be a socialist, you rightly raise an eyebrow – because these two value systems make very different claims. So if I stress a difference between Christianity and Mormonism, these claims are not originating from me; I merely observe the fundamentally different claims each faith makes.

Which leads me to your first question. The question Jesus asked of Peter, “Who do you say that I am?” is indeed an important one (the Gospel of Mark is hinged on this very question: Mk 8:29ff). Peter’s confession that Jesus is “the Christ,” or “Messiah” reveals that there is an objective identity to the person of Jesus, irrespective of rival interpretations and opinions. We learn this identity from (among other places) the Gospel of John, whose first chapter emphasizes Jesus as God in the flesh (Jn 1:1-18), a fact repeated by Paul (Phil 2:5ff, Col 1:15). In John’s letter, John makes clear that those who do not see Jesus in this way are not Christians (1 Jn 3:19-27; 4:2-3). In Galatians, Paul addresses yet another issue: the people he was struggling with believed in Jesus but taught that they must perform Jewish customs to be saved. Paul says that any other gospel (even one revealed from “an angel in heaven,” which would include Moroni) is to be “condemned” (Gal 1:6-8). Again, these are not claims that I am making, but come quite explicitly from the writers of the Bible.

Now, one argument I’ve heard is that not everyone is taught all of this, therefore, can’t someone be a Christian and not believe some of these “details?” First, these details are hardly insignificant: they are vital parts of Christian doctrine. Secondly, while I admit that not everyone believes these things from the time they become a Christian, Mormonism by its very nature denies these claims. To say it another way, there’s a great deal of difference between a lack of understanding of who Jesus is, and a denial of who Jesus is.

I realize the brevity of a comment box precludes a fuller discourse, so if I seem at all terse I apologize. Again, I do not wish to slander the Mormon faith. I follow Jesus not because of what I’m not (I’m not a Mormon, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, etc.) but because I’ve tasted and seen that the Lord is good, and that no man comes to God except through Jesus (Jn 14:6 – a claim that Jesus Himself makes). My prayer is that regardless of where you are spiritually, that Christ would be made more vividly real to you, and that you come to understand the true “pearl of great price,” a Savior so valuable that all else is worth abandoning for its pursuit.

I’m afraid I’ve already gone far beyond my time constraints, so I’ll suggest two resources: (1) http://www.carm.org/is-mormonism-christian – a link to a website that addresses this very issue in more detail and (2) Jesus Among Other Gods by Ravi Zacharias, who looks carefully at the uniqueness of the Christian witness.

Amazon.com is releasing Blue Giant’s full-length album a day early. The above video is not the album version, of the single “Blue Sunshine,” but gives you a good feel for the band’s style. You can visit the aritst’s website for a free download of the single, though I believe this requires you to be on their mailing list.

The band is a mash-up of several other indie rock groups (Chris Funk from the Decemberists being one of the original members), resulting in a noticeably eclectic sound.

I haven’t listened to the album in its entirety, but the first thing to notice is a lot of bluegrass and psychadelic rock influence. It’s kinda noisy, but just as catchy. Most of the lyrical content I’ve heard so far has focused on the fairly benign subjects of love and relationships, though that’s not to say these themes dominate the album.

Probably not sitting-in-the-office-at-work kinda music, but maybe more driving-at-night-with-the-windows-down-in-August kinda music.

So check it out. Fans of guys like the Avett Brothers or Monsters of Folk (another “supergroup,” actually) might find something appealing here.

Seriously.

Time Magazine reports:

RentAFriend.com  offers up friends for hire with prices ranging from $10 to $150. If you need someone to go to a movie with, go for dinner with or be a wingman on a night out with, you can just search the site and connect with someone who’s willing to do it with you—for a fee.

I haven’t seen the site. Frankly, I’m really curious about who sets the price. I think it would make more sense to do it as an auction, but that’s just me.

Time Magazine observes (rightly, I believe) the inherent absurdity of the whole thing:

While some of the suggested uses for the site do seem pretty practical (having someone show you around town or teach you a skill), many of them seem a bit like a crutch. Has social networking changed real-life interaction to the point where we need to pay someone to be a real-time friend? Is this the next step in social networking fads that continue to kill, you know, being social?

In his popular book, Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam describes what he calls “social capital,” the idea that “social networks have value.” “[S]ocial capital,” Putnam writes, “calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a dense network of reciprocal social relations. A society of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital. (p. 18)”

Basically, what it all means is this: our quests for individualism and self-esteem has only led to a profound sense of isolation, a state that author Douglas Coupland refers to as a “cult of aloneness.” The end result is a society where friends may be requested, added and even (apparently) rented, but deep relational connections are few and far between.

The friend-rental site already has 200,000 members, and climbing. Clearly there’s something to this. The good news here is that the church can provide opportunities for deep social connections, both within generational boundaries and without.

Though I suppose I should warn all my friends out there:

I’m billing you all retroactively.

I’d again like to express my deep appreciation for the support that has come from so many over the years, and continues to be poured out with such generosity.

The following is a brief summary of the message I delivered, for those interested. The topic was: “If God is for us, who can be against us?” from Romans 8:31.

“The locals said the foul-smelling mass had the goopy look of chocolate mousse. The scientists said the enormous slick had the potential to bring environmental ruin to this treasured coastline.”

The above quote comes from an article in the Washington Post making reference to the oil spilling forth from the BP disaster.

Our lives are also polluted. We call it “sin.” It’s easy to feel as if life is working “against” us.

There are two major sources:

(1) Cultural opposition (New atheism, hostility toward the Christian worldview)

(2)Personal expectation (when our “ideal” self doesn’t match our “real” self

Borrowing from Lewis Smedes, I identify three sources of these expectations:

(a) Unaccepting parents (who set unrealistic expectations)

(b) Graceless religion (that instead of teaching who loves you, urges you to become loveable)

(c) Cultural pressure (that insists that you must be fashionable, successful, and driven)

We often are forced to cope by trying to construct and manage our identity and our image in the face of others. This is done in two ways:

(1) Comparison shopping: we evaluate ourselves based on others – our value is found in both fitting in with the “in” crowd and staying ahead of the “out” crowd.

(2) Method acting: we construct and manage our image by modifying our behavior and formulating our identities so that others may see us as “valuable.”

We feel as if life is working “against” us when these expectations go unmet. The good news of the gospel is that God is “for” us. You can click here to read the story of Katie Piper, whose testimony I shared as an example of how the gospel can change our perspective.

The following three ways describe the way that God is “for” us.

(1.) WE ARE SAVED FROM GOD

Phytoremediation is a process by which plants/trees are planted near waterways in order to absorb pollutants through the root systems.

Similarly, the cross of Christ is what God used to remove God’s wrath:

(a) Christ takes the Father’s wrath (Rom 5:9)

(b) We experience a restored relationship with God (Rom 5:10-11)

(c) We become children of God (Rom 8:14-16)

Therefore, we find identity as God’s children.

You can click here to read the Christianity Today article “Abba Changes Everything,” which I quoted from on Sunday.

(2.) WE ARE SAVED BY GOD

Chemical oxidation refers to a process by which purifying chemicals are pumped in as pollutants are removed.

In theology, imputation refers to our sin nature being exchanged for Christ’s righteousness.

(a) Christ died for the ungodly (Rom 5:6).

(b) Adam’s sin exchanged for Christ’s righteousness (Rom 5:12-19).

(c) Christ died once for all (Rom. 6:10).

(d) Salvation is God’s free gift (Rom 6:23).

Therefore, our value is found in Christ’s righteousness.

(3.) WE ARE SAVED FOR GOD

Bioremediation is a process by which bacteria are introduced into polluted waters. They digest pollutants and purify the water source.

Similarly, those who follow Christ receive a living presence in the form of the Spirit. 

(a) We can walk by the Spirit (Rom 8:5-11).

(b) We are co-heirs in future glory (Rom 8:17-25).

(c) Eternal security- we can’t lose our salvation (Rom 8:28-38).

 Therefore, our purpose is found in God’s Kingdom.

1. The most critical of celebrating July 4th on Sunday are progressive evangelicals and liberals.

2. The defining characteristic of progressive evangelicals and liberals is justice.

3. Celebrating freedom and release from oppression and reveling in the achievement of peace and justice are God-directed in the Bible.

McKnight suggests that the Fourth of July can be a day to raise awareness in the worldwide sense. He concludes by writing:

“Frankly, I can’t think of a better place to celebrate with thanksgiving before God for freedom and justice than in a church, in a place that focuses our attention on God, and in a place where a cross puts before us the price to be paid for those who want that final and full justice.”

Personally, I couldn’t agree more that the flag should not be confused as some type of “liturgical symbol,” just as I would also agree that not all references to our nation need to be construed as a form of unrestrained nationalism or political idolatry.

Derek Webb sings, “my first allegiance is not to a flag, a country or a man, but to a King and a kingdom.” While I couldn’t agree more, I’d certainly add that the love for God and country are not mutually exclusive.

I support the involvement of Christians in the political arena. Caution and concern are justified when such involvement becomes obsessive, most typically indicated by the kinds of back-biting and finger-pointing that dominate political message boards or Facebook groups.

So while I think there’s excellent reason to be cautious on the issues of politics, I see no reason why the Fourth of July cannot be a day to set aside our many, many (many) arguments about what’s wrong with America, and rightly honor and celebrate the many things that are so very right with America.

Perhaps the major reason we rarely stop to monitor our hearts is that it was never encouraged. As children, were taught instead to monitor our behavior. In other words, we were taught to behave. If we behaved properly, good things happened, regardless of what was going on in our hearts. If we misbehaved, not-so-good things happened. My parents believed in spanking. So the not-so-good things got my attention early. I modified my behavior so as to avoid pain, and I’ve been doing that ever since….

But it’s not just our avoidance of pain that drives us. Good behavior can be rewarding. As a professional Christian – a pastor, by trade – I am paid to be good. So I have learned to modify my words and behavior so as not to damage my reputation and, thus, my career. You’ve no doubt done the same thing. Whatever your job, there are some things you just won’t do. Not because you don’t want to, but because of the professional ramifications. Perhaps there are some words and phrases you won’t use, in spite of the fact that they accurately convey what you are feeling. I’ll bet there are some people you pretend to like because it is beneficial to you. …

But all of this pretending can be problematic because pretending allows you to ignore the true condition of your heart. As long as you say the right thing and do the right thing, you’re tempted to believe that all is well. That’s what your childhood experience taught you. But when your public performance becomes too far removed from who you are in your heart, you’ve been set up for trouble. Eventually your heart – the real you – will outpace your attempts to monitor and modify everything you say and do. The unresolved issues stirring around undetected in your heart will eventually work their way to the surface. Specifically, they will seep into your actions, your character, and your relationships. If your heart continues to go unmonitored, whatever ‘thing’ is growing in there will worsen to the point that you are no longer able to contain it with carefully managed words and behaviors.

(p. 21-23)

First, let’s be clear: this is a gift book, and contains no new material from Max Lucado. Instead, the 1-2 page devotional snippets are all excerpts from a larger work, The Cure for the Common Life, a book I’ve always counted to be among his better writing.

 Since this is the source material, the content of the book is generally good, centering on finding one’s purpose and place in life, which certainly are needs of recent graduates. Again, the book’s content is delivered in short, devotional-style arrangements, also good for short attention spans.

But negatively, I have to take issue with the very format of a “gift book.” For starters, the only way to know the book is recycled material is to read the fine print on the inside cover (“surprise,” to those who shelled out the money online, only to be holding a book they’ve already read). Second, the book retails for a steep $14.99, a high price for such a short book. Finally, the abbreviated format naturally favors simplicity over complexity, which is why some reviewers criticize the work as having more platitudes than actual content (though, to be fair, this reflects the format more than the actual content).

Should you buy it? The content is fairly decent for recent grads, with emphasis on finding one’s purpose through clever stories and an engaging presentation full of pictures and catchy fonts. But at the same time, as with most gift books, it gets read once and tossed aside.

The full version, The Cure for the Common Life, is a vast improvement, and those looking for personal reading should skip this “gift book” and read the whole thing.

Thanks is due to Thomas Nelson Publishing for providing me a complimentary copy for review purposes.

Still, there has been resistance to the concept of environmentalism, particularly from conservative evangelical Christians – and not entirely without good reason. The question therefore becomes, what kind of environmentalists should we be?

IS THERE A NEED?

Do we even need to be environmentalists? In yesterday’s post we looked at the fact that creation wasn’t declared “good” until it found alignment with God’s established order – what one might call an ecosystem.

But in Genesis 3 we find that because man chose to rebel against his Creator, the very environment he found himself in became cursed with “thorns and thistles” (Ge 3:18). Paul echoes this when he tells his Roman audience that “creation became subject to futility” (Romans 8:20). “Things fall apart,” observes William Butler Yeats, and if the center cannot hold than it becomes necessary for humanity to take action in preserving the created world.

In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus tells the parable of the “stewards,” which describes the responsibility bestowed on those to whom much is given (Matthew 25:14-30). Care for the environment is indeed an issue of such “stewardship,” and it becomes a task to live wisely within the created world.

ENVIRONMENTALISM AS RECONCILIATION

Creation was the last thing described as affected by Eden’s curse, and it may be fitting that it is indeed the last thing to be reconciled through God’s redemptive plan.

In Eph 2:10 and Col 1:20 Paul mentions reconciliation on a much larger, universal scale, making explicit mention of “the heavens and the earth.” Paul does not elaborate on these verses, though it seems a fair statement to suggest that Christ’s redemptive work is completed when the current, broken state of affairs here on earth are reconciled in the eschatological sense.

Bruce Demarest writes, “…these texts indicate that the discord and fragmentation characteristic of the fallen universe ultimately will give way to harmony and unity as Christ sovereignly rules over the created order.” (The Cross and Salvation, p. 181)

TWO BOOKS

But that’s just it, though, isn’t it? What does it actually mean to “live wisely within the created world?” A quick Google search will reveal a wide variety of shrill voices, talking heads and “inconvenient truths” on the issue.

In the sixteenth century, a group of theologians affirmed the existence of “two books:” that there is a “book of Scripture” (i.e., the Bible) as well as a “book of nature” (i.e., the natural world). The book of nature most certainly would include our understanding and knowledge gained from the natural sciences, which is why as someone trained in both science and theology, I find these categories so very helpful.

Which means that the “book of Scripture” teaches us to care for creation. But the “book of nature” must provide the reasons and means for caring for our ecosystems in the here and now by providing us with the most accurate scientific data available. This is yet another case where Biblical interpretation does not lead to unified application, as the data and figures are being interpreted differently by different groups of people.

Let’s be clear: this is hard, and only further complicated by increasing insistence on “going green” and the apparent lack of scientific consensus (or, to say it differently, a lack of consensus on whether or not there is a consensus…see what I mean?).

THEOLOGICAL CONCERNS

There are a variety of peripheral, theological concerns that should inform our thinking. I’ll name only a few of the most relevant.

1. Creation > Creation. Lately, particularly in pop culture, there has been a tendency to use language akin to “mother earth/nature.” While not all such language should be confused with pantheism, it certainly does not add clarity to our theology. Christians affirm a distinction between an infinite God and His personal creation.
2. God = personal. In all this discussion of environmentalism, it should be noted that God is certainly not the managerial god of deism, setting up an ecosystem and walking away, but intimately involved in human affairs and desiring relationship with His people.
3. Human rights. While interdependence should not be ignored, human beings are more important than animals. This becomes an important point when global policies on the environment potentially impinge on subsistence farmers in the poorer countries of the world. At the end of the day, the Christian commitment to “love thy neighbor” takes precedence over environmental concerns.
4. Eschatology: this world is not all there is. The Christian hope is of a future, restored creation. This does not negate our task to care for the one in the present, but gives us a future vision for a day when lion and lamb coexist and all things are brought to a state of beauty and perfection.
5. The gospel. Increasingly, there has been a focus on environmental and social concerns, particularly among young Christians, even to the extent of redefining the gospel in social terms. The problem is that this discussion often stops short of bringing people to the cross for personal forgiveness and transformation. As Christians, our primary task is not environmentalism, but evangelism.

CONCLUSION

While we won’t always agree on the details, these are all areas of consideration for the dialogue on environmentalism, an important one that overlaps the areas of both theology and politics.

The recent BP disaster certainly should raise questions regarding the safety and viability of off-shore drilling, questions whose answers must be compared to other forms of oil extraction and its its subsequent environmental impact.

In the end, Christians must, as always, recognize our “dual citizenship:” both in the present world as well as God’s kingdom. As such we must make our decisions with attention paid to caring for the present, as well as hoping in the future.