Phys Ed, "The Prestige," and Evangelism

Sometimes using a word in a new context can completely rejuvenate it. It happened for me when I heard that Jewish historian, Josephus, while a military commander, told a rebel to "Repent and follow me." It happened again this morning when I heard about a phys ed program called "Spark." "Spark" stands for Sports, Play, and Active Recreation for Kids. Basically, it finds ways to involve more kids in smaller groups in more engaging activities. Good stuff. One of the program directors was talking about Spark's ability to engage families in more physical activity because the kids are talking about it. He said, "The kids have become the evangelists."

I started thinking about how I'm an evangelist in all kinds of ways. I talk about my friends; I talk about my family; I talk about my successes. Consider a more subtle example. On Friday, I saw "The Prestige." It is an excellent movie: Great acting (Hugh Jackman, Michael Caine, and Christian Bale), great story, great plot, lots of mystery, no cheese. I have been telling people about this movie since then. "It's a great movie!" I have become an evangelist of "The Prestige," just as the kids have become evangelists for Spark. This leads me to thinking that being an evangelist isn't the hard part. We're evangelists all the time. The hard part is being an evangelist of God's Kingdom in creative, appropriate, and culturally meaningful ways.

The Church You Know

A great link for my sarcastic friends. The church you know website has mock-videos of "The More You Know" from NBC, but dealing with church. Check out "Attendance" and "WWJD" especially. Kudos to Jo for posting it first.

The Way Back from Post-Christian Society

Contrary to some of my fellow theologians, I am not opposed to a Christian culture. I think it a grand witness to the overwhelming power of the gospel to transform and a wonderful vindication of some of the wisest words I've ever heard, spoken by the always insightful Dave Higle: "Jesus didn't die on the cross so that we could spend all of our time in church." I am currently reading "The Return of the Fathers," by Rusty Reno in the most recent First Things. One of his premises is that schools are now becoming taken over by professors who are removed from the history of the Christian faith. "The intellectual life is now dominated by the first truly post-Christian generation" (p. 15). If this is the case--that we are living in a post-Christian society, then what is the road back? My own belief is that one cannot turn back time, nor can one use power to stop time in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, time will reverse itself. No, the way forward, the way back to a Christian culture, is the way the Chinese are now doing it; the way the early church did it; the way the Africans are doing it: Let's remember that the first Christian society was won by the martyrs.

A few things

I'm mounting my high horse again to give an update of the denial of habeas corpus. The bill was signed into law this morning.

Second, I am presenting a paper at the Wesleyan Theological Society in Chicago in March. I am ready to start writing a paper to make sure it doesn't stink.

Third, the Maple Leafs are ranked #9 in the NHL powerrankings.

Republicans and Liberals

I realized the other day that if I saw some of the actions the Republicans are taking being taken by the previous Liberal gov't, that I would have been all over it on this blog. So, I am going to do so now. Here's the most recent one on my mind:

The military commissions act allows prisoners to be kept without judicial process. In other words, 'terrorists,' 'enemies,' and 'threats to America,' (as Olbermann points out--a very 'specific' group!) can be kept without challenging the fact they are being kept. Keith Olbermann plays it out in a funny/sarcastic way how this one bill, "essential" though it is (except to be signed into law in a quick manner), affects almost all the Bill of Rights.

Check it out here.

The Humility, Love, and Wrath of God

NOTE: I assume, in this post, that God is the protagonist of the Bible: God is the main character throughout Scripture.

Yahweh, the personal god of Israel who is actually God of the universe, is repsonsible for the exile of Israel. He uses proxies (kings of Assyria and Babylon), but He is the one ultimately responsible. He displays his wrath by subjecting Israel to military defeat, opening their eyes to the outcome of their sin. He sends them into exile so that He can bring them back with greater maturity and less proneness to sin. This is the point of punishment. However, by using proxies, Yahweh subjects himself to the ridicule of the proxy. In a culture where military conquests display the superiority of your gods to the nation you just defeated, a defeated Israel means a humbled Yahweh: In the eyes of all surrounding nations, especially the nation that just defeated Israel, Yahweh is unable to protect Israel and is therefore weak.

Of course, Yahweh knows better and Israel's prophets know better, but they are the only ones. In punishing his own people, Yahweh is humiliating himself in the eyes of the seeing world. In sum, when Yahweh punishes Israel, Yahweh subjects himself to ridicule, mockery, and scorn. Yahweh's wrath cannot be displayed in a henotheistic (look it up) context without necessarily showing his humility. Basically, Yahweh is willing to show His wrath so that Israel will not remain stuck in the cycle of sin. Israel's long term good supercedes His short-term honour. That sounds alot like sacrificial love, to me: Yahweh is sacrificing His honour for the good of His people.

Fastforward to Jesus. Jesus puts himself in the story of Israel and even suffers the consequence he predicts for them: He suffers as a failed militant Messiah even though he is not a military threat. On his way to the cross, he even tells Israel not to weep for him, because if they continue on their path, they will suffer a worse fate (Luke 23:27-31). He accepts the coming display of Israel's final exile: The rout at the hands of the Romans that comes in A.D. 70. If this is a form of exile, then God is responsible. God's wrath is vented on Israel so that they will abandon their misguided attempts at being His people. But even before this, God humbles himself and accepts the future outcome of his wrath by subjecting himself to the cross. Again, the sacrificial love of God is shown: For the long term good of his people (though in Israel's case it is rejected and they do suffer his wrath in A.D. 70 and again in 135), God suffers the humiliation of the cross.

If all the above works out, I think that humility is the connecting factor between the wrath and love of God.

Wither the road goes?

Here is an interesting piece from Time magazine on the similarities between humans and apes. I have had several conversations on the issue of evolution and creation with friends and relatives. They usually end in friendly disagreement.

I don't really care if the world is 6000 years old or 600,000,000,000 years old. I'm quite sure that I have no way of knowing personally how old it is. I do have strong beliefs about what the Bible does and does not have to say about creation and how I am to think of it. Here's my question: For those who read the Bible as creation history, what need is there for scientific evidence? The belief in creation history, most likely, developed before any scientific inquiry on the person's part. It was formed by the Bible and often not subjected to hermeneutical scrutiny. In most cases it functions as buttressing a firm belief rather than forming a multi-disciplinary one.

Moreover, the scientific evidence that supports a creation history found in the Bible is the extreme minority view. Ironically, while holding admirably to a strong belief in the Bible (or one way of reading the Bible), those who hold to biblical creation have to operate with an extreme hermeneutic of suspicion against those with an evolutionary view. If one discounts the scientific evidence to the point that shows a questioning of the scientific endeavour, why use (one use of) science to support a position that undermines it?

The issue is, of course, a question of narratives: the systematic/existential/scientific/ philosophical/religious/some combo thereof interpretation of multi-source data into a story that achieves plausible coherence for the sources which provide data. Clearly different narratives necessarily lead to different praxis. Here's my second question: If one narrative, which takes evolutionary science (and the genetic similarities between Neanderthals, apes, and humans) as in important source, is able to achieve ground-breaking insight into Alzheimer's, AIDS, malaria, etc., will the praxis that accepts taking such medication fit coherently (and ethically consistently?) into a narrative that discounts macro-evolutionary science?

Flashcard Jesus

Kudos to Paul for showing me this. Also, scroll down to the bottom of the page to check out the credit.

God's Kingdom as Concert

I attended a David Crowder Band concert last night. I started reflecting on the parallels between God's Kingdom and a concert. A few emerged prominently.

First, worship was the focus. While the true attitude of worship cannot be discerned in a concert, it gives a brief glimpse into the unity worship gives. The unison of 12,000 people expressed through music is powerful in itself. If it is centered on worship, then this unison participates in the harmony of the universe. All at once there is the unity of a group of people, the diversity of the individuals, and the blended harmony unity and diversity makes which is seen in the universe.

Second, servant leadership was at a premium. I tend to be amazed by systems--just everyday society boggles my mind. How the heck did we end up with so many stinking (literally and figuratively) jobs that cover so many necessary and made up bases and train so many people to do them? Unbelievable. But anyway, the Concert-system is just such a thing. I volunteered to get in for free. In about 5 minutes, I was in charge of thousands of dollars, an expert in merchandise, and the main source of fulfilment for those who wanted a T-Shirt. I was plugged into the system and given its authority. (This is not to mention the much more amazing system of equipment, lighting, production, etc.) Here's the thing: All the authority of the system was to serve. I was only empowered to serve the other. Naturally, part of the motive for the system empowering me to serve was because of the little green pieces of paper the others were holding--so I guess the analogy isn't perfect.

I was also free of envy for the band. They were in the spotlight--literally and figuratively--but when centered on worship, envy becomes kinda pointless. Ironically, with all the lighting and visual stimuli, I kept my eyes closed a good amount.

Third: fun. Enough said.

Fourth, an ecstatic moment. In the setting of being part of something bigger than yourself, you both lose and becomes yourself. You lose your problems for a brief moment and you become yourself precisely because you find yourself in the diversity of the group minus the weights of a world in temporary crisis.