Review of Hear No Evil and Giveaway

Matthew Paul Turner's latest book, Hear No Evil: My Story of Innocence, Music, and the Holy Ghost is a very enjoyable followup to Churched, his previous memoir about growing up in and eventually out of fundamentalist Christianity.

This book surprised me a bit. I was expecting a standard memoir, where Turner tells the story of a certain portion of his life, covering all the major events in that period and more or less allowing the reader to take whatever themes from it they will. While Hear No Evil generally fits into this category- it begins when Turner is a teenager and ends in the present day- the narrative jumps around a bit. Conversations with friends pause to show flashbacks. Major events of Turner's life, such as meeting and marrying his wife, Jessica, the birth of his son, Elias Jude, and what are undoubtedly many interesting anecdotes about his time as a student at Belmont University, manager of a Christian coffee shop, and editor of CCM Magazine, are left out.

This may sound like criticism, but it's not. The fact that Hear No Evil doesn't follow the standard linear memoir format is what makes it stand out from the plethora of enjoyable memoirs by gifted storytellers out there. These episodes in Turner's life serve as vignettes to chart the emergence of Turner's understanding of the relationship between religious faith and popular culture, specifically "secular" music. Hear No Evil is a literary version of a concept album: someone who comes to it expecting the standard fare may not get it, but will probably find something to enjoy nonetheless.

Sidenote: if this is a concept album, what happens if I read it backwards while I'm watching the Wizard of Oz?

Regardless of what you're looking for, you're going to find something to like about Hear No Evil. Matthew Paul Turner is an excellent storyteller. His love and compassion for all the people he writes about is clearly evident, even when he's describing things that made him mad or frustrated him at the time.

Some highlight include: a group of Pentecostals loudly praying over him at a restaurant for deliverance from his acid-reflux disease, all the while trying to hold back a massive belch; buying and throwing away an Amy Grant album several times because of the guilt over its supposed "ungodliness"; and the heartbreaking story of his publisher at CCM rewriting an interview with Amy Grant to make her apologize for getting a divorce.

His somewhat sarcastic (some might use the word "snarky") sense of humor is only off-putting to those who take themselves way too seriously, and these are the folks who are in the greatest need of what Matthew Paul Turner has to offer. The kind of Christianity he describes is genuine, full of hope and free from fear and judgment. The church would be a much better place if more people understood Jesus the way Matthew Paul Turner does.

OK, now for the freebie! Want to win a free copy of Hear No Evil? Of course you do. Here are a couple ways to get one:

1. Leave a comment on this post.
2. Follow my blog by clicking the button on the right.
3. Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/matthewlkelley
4. Speaking of Twitter, retweet this:
RT @matthewlkelley: win a free copy of Hear No Evil: http://matthewlkelley.blogspot.com/2010/02/review-of-hear-no-evil-and-giveaway.html

Each of these actions will get you an entry, and I will randomly select a winner Wednesday morning.

Disclaimer: This book was provided for review by the WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group. The opinions expressed in this review, however, are my own.

50th Anniversary of the Nashville Sit-Ins

Today marks a significant anniversary for the Nashville community. Fifty years ago today, the lunch counter sit-ins began, protesting legalized segregation in many places in Nashville, including lunch-counters, water fountains, bathrooms, etc.

I wasn't alive during this time, and I'm white, so it may sound strange to say that this is a very meaningful anniversary for me personally. But these sit-ins played a major role in my own faith development.

First, one of my teachers in high school was a student at Fisk University during this time and participated in the sit-ins. He would tell his story to students, sparing no detail about the verbal and physical abuse he suffered at the hands of white people who feared sitting next to him at a lunch counter. I had read about the Civil Rights movement in text books, but hearing someone who was there tell his story, and seeing the scars on his arms from being dragged off by police, made social injustice more real and less theoretical to me at an early age.

Also, my seminary, Vanderbilt Divinity School, played a central role in the Nashville sit-ins. James Lawson, a divinity student at the time, was the organizer of the sit-ins, and the controversy his involvement in civil rights and subsequent expulsion created nearly shut down not only the Divinity School, but the entire university. The events of these years were so significant that there is a whole chapter devoted to them in the official history of the Divinity School. 

There is also an amazing book about the sit-ins by the late David Halberstam, called The Children. James Lawson and many others are brilliantly profiled by Halberstam, who was a reporter for The Tennessean at the time.

So I wish all those who have fought for equality these last fifty years a happy anniversary. Thank you for  making this world a better place for me and my children to live in, and for inspiring us to do our part in the struggle for a nation where all are truly accepted and loved for who they are.

Witness to Love

This week, I was privileged to be part of a unique, grassroots event. On Wednesday night, Judy Shepard spoke at Austin Peay State University. Fred Phelps and his followers from Westboro Baptist Church were planning to be there spreading their hatred, so a group of students organized a counter protest, welcoming Judy Shepard to Clarksville and witnessing to the fact that not all followers of Jesus are have hatred and fear as their primary motivation. I went, wearing my clerical collar to represent all the loving, tolerant pastors who couldn't be present.

The crowd was fairly diverse, and since it included lots of college students, there were a number of creative and somewhat snarky signs. Here are few of my favorites:

This last photo is my favorite, because it shows a small portion of the crowd, but it gives a sense of just how many folks showed up. It was very peaceful, and organized entirely by the students. Those of us who were older and out of school were very impressed!

Even though they've been following Judy Shepard around the country, Fred Phelps and his followers didn't show up to protest. I was a little disappointed, because I wanted to see that circus in person, but I was overjoyed to see how the crowd stuck around for the purpose of affirming something and someone, and not just protesting against a particular group.

Witnessing to Love Tonight

Tonight (Wednesday, February 3), Judy Shepard will be speaking at Austin Peay at 7pm. Judy's son, Matthew, was murdered in 1998 by a gang of young men who hated him for one reason: he was gay. Recent legislation signed by President Obama extending hate crimes protection to cover sexual orientation bares Matthew Shepard's name, and his mother now speaks all over the country sharing Matthew's story spreading awareness of hate crimes.

Sadly, hate will be present on campus as she speaks. Fred Phelps and members of Westboro Baptist Church will be protesting on campus. My dear friend, Rev. Jodi McCullah, the director of the Wesley Foundation at Austin Peay, has informed me that numerous student groups, religious and secular, will be present as well to witness to the love of Jesus Christ against the hatred spread by Phelps and his followers.

I will be joining the APSU students in their witness, and I invite anyone else in the Clarksville area who wishes to do so to join us. If you choose to bring signs, please keep them respectful, affirming God's love and grace, and not attacking anybody else. Please also refrain from verbally engaging Phelps or his followers, as they have a history of being extremely aggressive and attempting to create physical conflict.

If you plan to join us, please email me or leave a comment on the blog so I know to look for you.

update- A friend of mine on Facebook made a great suggestion. For every minute that Phelps and his followers are out there protesting, I'm going to donate $1 to PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays). Tomorrow I'll post the total number of minutes for anyone else to wants to participate.

Superbowl Ads

Like many red-blooded American males, I like football. I like watching it, I like talking about it with other guys, and I even briefly tried to play it in middle school (let's not talk about how that one went). So even if my second favorite team, the Indianapolis Colts, wasn't in the game, I'd still be excited about this weekend's Superbowl.

One of the reasons I like the Superbowl is that it is the one football game a year that I can get my wife to watch with me. She doesn't care much about the game, despite my numerous, patient, and erudite attempts to explain it to her, but she does like the commercials. Large companies spend millions of dollars per second competing with each other to see who can put on the most lavish production, which may or may not have even the tiniest connection with the product they're selling. Kind of like the game itself, watching the Superbowl commercials is mindless fun, a great escape from the grind of everyday life.

That is, until this year. It turns out that Florida quarterback Tim Tebow, a devout and vocal (although not in an annoying way, thankfully) evangelical Christian, is appearing with his mother in a pro-life ad sponsored by Focus on the Family (one of the few remaining home-bases of the religious right). Predictably, there was vocal reaction from all sides, because few issues get people up in arms these days like abortion.

This development didn't bug me, personally. If Focus on the Family wants to spend the money to buy air-time during the Superbowl, it's their right to do so. They air beer commercials during the Superbowl, and not everyone approves of alcohol use. For that matter, they air soda ads, and some religious traditions forbid consumption of caffeine. The ability to purchase air-time is an exercise of the First Amendment.

What disturbs me is that CBS is now applying inconsistent standards in what ads they'll air during the Superbowl. A dating website that caters specifically to those with same-sex attraction attempted to buy air-time, and they were rejected, even though the only thing they showed was two guys holding hands. CBS claims the ad "is not within the Network's broadcast standards for Super Bowl Sunday." Scantily clad women selling beer and couples heading off for a one night stand selling condoms are OK, but not two guys holding hands? Really?

Ad to this the fact that CBS rejected an ad several years ago from MoveOn.org that was critical of then-President Bush. They have also previously rejected ads from the United Church of Christ, a progressive Christian denomination. If everyone has the right to buy air-time if they can afford it, why is CBS discriminating?

Once again we see that conservative Christian groups have tremendous power in America because they are more than willing to unleash their wrath on people and groups they perceive to have offended them in the smallest way. I don't think CBS has a political agenda. CBS is a publicly traded corporation, and as such it is afraid of bad press and boycotts that would hurt their ratings, both of which the Christian-media-industrial-complex is happy to use as weapons.

It's really sad that the dominant voices in our society of those who allegedly represent Jesus Christ, a man who was killed for preaching love and grace against the fear-based, violently coercive systems of his day, use as their first option the tactics against which Jesus preached.

I'm going to enjoy the Superbowl this year, especially if the Colts win, but seeing certain ads included and excluded based almost solely on the fear of issue-groups will lessen my enjoyment.

Kate's First Birthday

Kate is one year old today! For a detailed wrap-up of her first year, check out Jessica's blog.

Happy Birthday, Kate! I'm so lucky to be your daddy! I love you!

Haiti Relief

At the risk of adding to everyone's compassion fatigue, I want to make folks aware of a couple opportunities to participate in relief efforts following this week's earthquake in Haiti.

Most of the immediate needs are financial, so that relief organizations can purchase supplies through their normal networks. In-kind gifts are often slowed by transportation and customs issues, but will be useful in the weeks and months to come as efforts shift from rescue to rebuilding. Organizations like the Red Cross, the United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR), and Conduit Mission, an organization that a good friend of mine from college is passionate about, are good places to start.

If you want to find out about opportunities to physically participate in rebuilding efforts, UMCOR is currently exploring options for sending teams. It probably won't be safe until at least March, but you can sign up on their website to get updates on teams as they become available.

Lastly, the Bahamas Methodist Habitat is uniquely positioned to play a huge role in relief efforts due to their proximity to Port au Prince. The Habitat is run by my friend Abe McIntyre, and right now they're flying in food and water, surgical supplies, and transporting several missionaries out of the country for transit back to the US. To do this, they need money right away.

We're taking up a collection for their efforts at Bethlehem tomorrow, and I hope you'll consider supporting them, as well. In the coming months, the Bahamas Habitat will probably also have opportunities for hands-on service.

None of us can individually meet all of these needs. If you haven't already given, please consider one of these or one of the literally hundreds of other worthy organizations. It may seem like a drop in the bucket, but every little bit counts.

New Layout

Thanks to The Design Girl and my lovely wife, Jessica, The Truth As Best I Know It has a new look!

If you're reading this post in Google Reader, on Facebook, or another aggregator, click on over to see the new design.

Thanks to all the readers who interact with my musings and continue to make this project worthwhile. I hope you enjoy the new look.

Oh, you were finished? Well then allow me to retort!

This is my 200th post. That has nothing to do with its subject, I just thought I'd mention it.

Most folks in the blogosphere have probably heard about Pat Robertson's comments regarding the massive earthquake in Haiti earlier today. If you haven't, Google it, because I'm not dignifying that man or anything he says by embedding the video here.

In fact, I am a bit hesitant to blog about this at all, especially when so many people who are smarter and more articulate than I are providing thoughtful responses.

All I'll say is this: Pat Robertson ironically proves that the kind of god he worships doesn't actually exist. If God, as Pat sells him (and Pat's god is clearly a petty, insecure, impulsive man), really does rain down horrible vengeance on anyone who makes him look bad, then wouldn't this god smite Pat Robertson on TV for everyone to see?

How many millions of people have turned away from faith because of the hatred spewed by people like Pat Robertson? Who, save for the 9/11 terrorists, makes God look worse than Pat Robertson? The fact that he hasn't been obliterated by a bolt of lightning proves that this monstrous, vengeful god Pat Robertson preaches doesn't actually exist.

Conversion as a "great example to the world"

By now you've probably heard about Fox News' Brit Hume's take on Tiger Woods' personal problems. For those that haven't, here's what he said on "Fox News Sunday":



Let's assume for a moment that Brit Hume (who has no education or experience in theology, comparative religion, or interfaith dialogue) intended this statement as something more than mere pandering to the  rich, white, wealthy, suburban, evangelical Christian demographic that makes up the core of Fox News' audience. Let's assume he's trying to make a substantive point.

First, on what basis does Mr. Hume claim that Buddhism does not have the redemptive qualities of Christianity? For that matter, where has he heard that Tiger Woods is a Buddhist?

It's true that Buddhism does not place an emphasis on radical, instantaneous conversion in the same way as does Western, post-Augustinian Christianity (particularly the American brand that styles itself in the mold of the Second Great Awakening). But to say that Buddhism doesn't speak to Tiger Woods' or any other person's moral failings is simply not true.

The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism state that the suffering of life comes from our attachment to worldly things, and that the way to alleviate suffering is to combat this attachment. If Tiger Woods is, in fact, a sex addict, as some have suggested, isn't his problem too great a desire for worldly pleasures? Might the core tenants of Buddhism encourage him to detach himself from his desires be very helpful? For something to be redemptive, it must, by definition, participate in healing and making something new. The Buddhist faith would, in fact, be very redemptive for Tiger Woods' situation.

Along the same lines, I have to wonder where Mr. Hume grounds his claim for Christianity as being more redemptive than Buddhism or any other religion? Does he ground this in the examples of Christian ministers who used to be guests on his channel until their own moral failings came to light (Ted Haggard, etc.)? Or on the televangelists who frequently appear on the network, who make their reputations more on who they hate and what they oppose than on the God of love and peace made known to us in the Bible they claim to take so seriously?

As a Christian I do believe in the redemptive power of Jesus Christ. It is a claim upon which I have staked my life and my very being. But why do we have to attempt to prove that by bashing other religions about which we know so little? And aren't there better reasons to enter into the journey of being a disciple of Jesus Christ than "to be a great example to the rest of the world"?

The faith of the one who said "deny thyself, take up your cross and follow me" (Luke 9:23) means ridding ourselves of our attachment to our reputations and not worrying about "being a great example to the world". It actually means the opposite and being thought a fool by most of the world.

Mr. Hume, let me encourage you to read a bit about Buddhism, and maybe a little bit about Christianity, before you try making any more grand theological statements.

Looking back, looking forward

2009 has come and gone, and I've seen lots of folks do different kinds of retrospectives (Top/Bottom 10 lists, etc.) on the year. Since my year was consumed by two defining moments, the birth of my daughter and the loss of our church building, I'm not sure I can really wrap my mind around the year just yet.

I'll probably do a retrospective on my first year as a father later this month when Kate officially turns 1. And the recovery and rebuilding work we've done over the last six months will bear fruit over the course of this year, so I'll revisit it at some point. So the jury is still out on Matt's 2009.

Another thing I've seen folks doing is retrospectives on the past decade. Yes, I know the calendar purists argue that there's another year left in the decade, but the years 200_ have ended. Plus, this has been the first decade of actual adulthood for me (although that's also debatable!), so I'm looking back to where I was when the 2000s began.

Note- this is the only picture I could find of myself from 2000. This is me at a laundromat somewhere in Grundy County, TN, doing laundry with my Mountain TOP staff. For some reason we thought it would be funny to "ride" the dryer.

On January 1, 2000, I was nineteen years old and a freshman at Butler University. I was majoring in political science and considering adding religion as a second major. Of course, my second major would quickly become my priority and I would end up dedicating my life to studying religion, specifically Christian theology and how it is practiced in the world.

Some of my friends claimed that this was an odd combination of majors, since one is not supposed to talk religion or politics in polite company. But less than two years later, on September 11, 2001, we all realized how intertwined these two subjects really are.

Ten years ago I was a few months into my first youth ministry job at Speedway UMC in Indianapolis. What this church was doing hiring someone as young as me to work with teenagers, I still have no clue. I was very aware of how in over my head I was, so I probably called my mentor, Will Penner, a couple times a week for advice.

Local church ministry, whether as a youth pastor, associate, and now senior pastor, has taught me many things about myself, about the nature of humanity and how we relate to one another, and even a thing or two about God. But perhaps that first impression, that I'm in over my head and have no idea what I'm doing, has been the greatest lesson ministry has taught me. When I realize how little I know and little control I have, I become more dependent on God to guide me, which is probably the idea in the first place.

I've given up thinking that I'll ever "arrive" and be completely comfortable in my role as a pastor. I have, however, become more at peace with that discomfort, and I hope I will continue to grow in this way.

Ten years ago I was also involved in campus ministry with Campus Crusade. If you asked me about my goals ten years ago, I probably would have said that one of them would be to be the leader of Crusade's praise band, which I eventually got to do. My spiritual life at the time was very much fed by praise and worship music.

Perhaps it's partially the result of some negative experiences with Crusade and evangelicalism generally, or just my own growth and change in preferences, but I got really burned out on praise and worship music, and I've never really regained my taste for it. In a world that's full of noise and clutter, I find rock band praise music to be just more noise. There are those, my wife included, for whom it's very beneficial, and that's great. But I increasingly find myself more drawn to contemplative disciplines that force me to slow down and block out the many distractions around me. I find it much easier to listen for God's still, small voice when there is less noise around me.

I enjoyed writing ten years ago, but I didn't know how big a part o my life it would become. In the past decade I've been very fortunate to get to write for a number of different online and print publications. Hopefully this will continue to be part of my personal and professional life.

If, on January 1, 2000, you asked me where I'd be in ten years, I'm not sure what I would have said. I probably would have said I'd be married by then. I probably wouldn't have said I'd have a child by then, because my parents were both in their 30s when they had me, and I figured I'd follow suit. I certainly would have said I wanted to only have boys! What I got was way better than what I ever could have imagined.

In the past ten years I've collected a pair of degrees, met and married the love of my life, gotten to travel to a number of interesting places, met a lot of interesting (mostly wonderful) people, and become a father. All things considered, not a bad way to spend my twenties.

Thoughts on the Eve of Christmas

I haven't blogged in the past few weeks, not because I haven't had any thoughts, but because I'm having such trouble getting them out in a coherent manner. Perhaps it's simply the busyness of this season, but maybe it's something more than that.

Like most pastors, I find the Advent/Christmas season to be simultaneously joyful and frustrating. It's wonderful because of all the traditions, the songs, and the decorations. They remind us of wonderful memories, and since this is my first Christmas as a parent, we are making wonderful new memories that we will cherish for a lifetime.

This season can be frustrating, too. The sheer volume of activity can be tiring. The stress of getting the "right" gift for someone can quickly overshadow the whole purpose of giving gifts in the first place. And, of course, the annual campaign of the "culture-warriors" who crusade against a perceived enemy (that doesn't actually exist) and turn "Merry Christmas" into a political statement.

In my moments of exhaustion and frustration I wonder what any of this actually has to do with Jesus.

But then, at the moment I least expect it, God reminds me that beneath the rather thick layer of crass commercialism and cultural shmaltz, there remains a deep significance to Advent and Christmas. Brian McLaren shared a Jackson Brown song on this blog the other day, called "The Rebel Jesus"



This Christmas, let us look past the lights and the presents for just a moment and remember how God showed up in the least expected of places and became a rebel who challenged the unjust social and religious practices taught by the leaders of his day, and continues to do so today. Let us not forget the Rebel Jesus whose birth we celebrate.

(Note- at the request of my dear friend and excellent New Testament scholar, Maria Mayo Robbins, I'd like to clear up any confusion about my view of Second Temple Judaism. Judaism as a religion has not ever been unjust, but the way it has been practiced by certain individuals has at times been unjust. Such is the case with every religion, especially my own. One need only casually read my blog to see that I am more critical of my own tribe than of any other. What Jesus challenged was not Judaism itself, as he was a very faithful and observant Jew, but certain practices that were enforced by politically powerful religious elites.)

Least Bad Options?

President Obama just finished giving his speech at West Point announcing his decision to deploy 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. The details have leaked out over the last few days, so what follows are a mixture of thoughts I've sat with for a bit and stream-of-consciousness reactions to the speech.

First, a disclaimer: I voted for President Obama, and I actively supported his campaign even though I did not agree with all of his policies. I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, and I have never quite known what to think about Afghanistan. I also pastor a church in a town connected to a large military base, so people I and my parishoners know will be on the ground for this surge. This is the context from which I am speaking, so take it for what you will.

As a Christian I believe that non-violence is always the most ideal solution to any problem. I believe that Jesus spoke against violence, and that his greatest followers throughout history (people like St. Francis of Assisi and Martin Luther King, Jr.) have been fully committed to the path of peace.

That being said, I also recognize the reality of living in a fallen world and that the ideal solution is not always possible. In those situations, faithful, ethical decision making involves determining what is the "least bad" situation. I disagree with the "just war" theory articulated by St. Augustine. Violence is never justified, but there are occasions when it is the least bad option available in the absence of good options.

Both of my grandfathers fought in World War II, and neither of them felt that the violence they engaged in was good, but they understood it achieved a better outcome than doing nothing in the face of aggressive, oppressive forces. In other words, they saw the conflict as the least bad option available to them. Every other combat veteran I have spoken to about these issues has expressed similar feelings.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century, wrestled with the idea of "least bad options". Bonhoeffer wrote The Cost of Discipleship, a meditation on the Sermon on the Mount that passionately argues for non-violence at all costs. And yet Bonhoeffer was executed by the Nazis for his participation in a plot to kill Hitler. Was Dietrich Bonhoeffer a hypocrite? Did he change his mind on his core beliefs?

No. He saw an intolerable situation before him and realized that there was no good option available to him, and that doing nothing in the face of evil was worse than acting in a manner that was against his conscience. He said that he felt compelled to act, even if his actions sent him to Hell. Bonhoeffer felt that participating in a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler was the least bad option available to him.

So while I'm not 100% sure what I think, it may be that the temporary Afghan surge is the least bad option available to us. Afghanistan is highly unstable, and as an occupying power we have a responsibility to consider the long term well being of the country as we hand over control to its people. The timetable set by President Obama may be the most responsible way to do this.

Should we have gone into Afghanistan in the first place? I don't really know. My sense is that we should have invested more in building infrastructure and schools in Afghanistan when the Russians pulled out instead of leaving the country full of weapons but few tools for long term, sustainable peace. But we can't go back in time and fix previous mistakes. We can only do the best we can given the situation today. So the President's plan may be the least bad option.

So what do you think, dear readers? What did you think of the speech? Do you think war is ever justified? Can it be a "least bad" option? Discuss!

PS- Regardless of what you think, please pray for the men and women on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families. Please also pray for the civilians affected by these wars, and for the leaders of these countries that they will pursue a lasting peace.

What I'm Thankful for this Thanksgiving

Among the many blessings in my life:

I hope everyone out there has a very happy and enjoyable Thanksgiving. To all those who aren't able to be with loved ones today (service men and women overseas, police, firefighters, doctors, nurses, EMTs, and others who work to keep us safe and healthy), know you are loved and appreciated.

Between bites of turkey and pumpkin pie, remember to say a prayer (and maybe even donate a dollar or a can of food) to those who don't have the resources to have a huge Thanksgiving feast or the leisure time to sit around a read blogs ;)

Hijacking the Bible

I guess I shouldn't be surprised anymore by the ways people use the Bible for their own purposes, even when they isolate certain verses or passages and twist them beyond the context in which they appear, and even when they go against the core message of the Bible.

(Yes, I'm making interpretive choices about what context and core message are. We all have to do that to arrive at any conclusions about the text.)

But I'm very saddened to see the latest hijacking of the Bible. Some group has started producing T-shirts and other products that say "Pray for Obama; Psalm 109:8"

The quoted verse (in the KJV) says "let his days be few and let another take his office". The following verse, Psalm 109:9 (again, in the KJV), says "let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow".

(sidenote- this is the best, most concise video on the subject I could find. Rachel Maddow and her guest, Frank Schaeffer, are very far to the left, but the interview is very thought provoking, regardless of your political affiliation.)

Laying aside for a moment how awful it is that someone would pray for a person in an opposing political party to be killed, this Psalm 109 fad shows just how dangerous indiscriminate proof-texting really is.

The Psalms are the prayer/hymn book of ancient Israel. They express the full range of human emotions, including anger and even rage against others, as we can see from Psalm 109. This particular Psalm is a prayer of a righteous man who is frustrated at those who are trying to bring him down.

Anger and frustration are certainly party of the human experience. But does the Psalm really tell us to pray for God to strike down the people we don't like? Absolutely not! The Psalm ends with the man having gotten out his feelings of anger and frustration and proclaiming his faith that God will carry him through any situation. It's an example of how we can work out our frustrations in prayer so we can be in a better place to deal with conflict.

Interpretive quarrels aside, this whole Psalm 109 fad is another example of how the decline of Christianity in America is our own fault. People are turning away from the church not because Satan is doing such a great job, but because we Christians are doing such a good job at twisting Jesus to fit the mold of our religious and political idols. And the problem is that everyone else can see it but us. People read the Bible and think Jesus is a pretty great guy, but they look at his followers and want nothing to do with us. When questioned about his faith, Ghandi said he would follow Christ if it were not for all the Christians he encountered.

What if the folks who were producing these T-shirts changed the verse to Matthew 5:44- "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (rightly or wrongly, some folks are feeling persecuted). It probably wouldn't get noticed on the cable "news" shows, and it might not even sell as many T-shirts, but it would more accurately reflect the true message of the Bible and the loving God to whom it points.

Coming Soon...

A new look for the The Truth As Best I Know It!

My lovely and talented wife, Jessica, made this lovely card for my birthday. As you can see, the card is made to look like my MacBook on the outside...

And on the inside (including a full keyboard)!

Jessica got me a blog redesign from The Design Girl, who gave Jessica's blog a makeover (a prize she won in a contest).

So look for a new layout in a few weeks. Thanks, babe! I love you!

Response to Tennessean Article

In today (Saturday)'s issue of the Tennessean, there is an article that suggests that United Methodist pastors may no longer have guaranteed jobs.

While the article is correct on all of its basic facts, I can see Methodist lay persons (especially those currently attending Exploration 2009) and others reading it and getting the wrong idea. So I offer the following clarifications and responses:

First of all, not all United Methodist ministers have guaranteed jobs. Ordained Elders in Full Connection are the only clergy who itenerate, going where they are sent in exchange for a guaranteed appointment that includes a minimum salary and benefits. Ordained Deacons, Provisional Elders and Deacons, and Licensed Local Pastors do not itenerate are not guaranteed a job.

The first sentence in the article is just plain wrong: "too many ministers, not enough jobs". The UMC, like most other mainline denominations, has a tremendous shortage of ordained clergy. So we make up for the shortage of elders by appointing licensed local pastors to serve in the place of an elder. In the Tennessee Conference, licensed local pastors outnumber ordained clergy in every district except one: Nashville. This is not to demean the service of our local pastors, who serve faithfully and selflessly. It is simply to say that this is what is laid out in our Book of Discipline.

The conversations being referenced by the Tennessean article are part of the Study of Ministry Commission, which was created by the 2004 General Conference and extended for another four years by the 2008 General Conference (I published my thoughts on these least year, which you can read here and here). This Commission does not have authority to make any changes. It only makes recommendations to the General Conference, which is the only body that can change the Book of Discipline and does not meet again until 2012.

The article rightly points this fact out, but they bury it in the very last paragraph where, according to the "inverted triangle" theory I learned in Journalism 101, most people have stopped reading. This may not be "burying the lead" but it's buries the most important fact in the story (this would kill the hype, however, which seems to be the whole point)!

Barring some massive financial shortfalls in the next two years or some other large event that forces a massive change of opinion across our connection, the 2012 General Conference is unlikely to end the practice of guaranteed appointments for Elders. It will end up being disadvantageous to women and minorities in many parts of the USA (as the Tennessean rightly points out), and the denomination is unlikely to change this traditional practice that has so long been at the core of our Methodist identity.

Should the practice of guaranteed appointments for Ordained Elders (which I am in the process of becoming) end? Maybe, maybe not. I can see both sides of the issue.

Guaranteed appointments are good for inclusivity, but only if a Bishop is willing to take risks and appoint people who might not otherwise be accepted because of their gender or race. And it ensures that churches that might otherwise go for long stretches without a pastor are served.

On the other hand, ineffective clergy can keep getting moved around with little accountability once they are fully ordained. This fact has made our ordination process long and drawn out, overly burdensome, and often adversarial and graceless in the way it is practiced.

The Tennessean article is right about one thing. Our system as it is currently constructed is probably unsustainable and some changes need to be made before it collapses under its own weight. Exactly what those changes are should be decided on by smarter and more experienced people than I.

Birds Nests and Emergence

I took a break from sermon writing this afternoon and took Kate for a walk around the neighborhood. On the corner by our house, I saw something interesting, and thankfully I had my phone with me to record the moment:

It's a bird's nest that was either blown out of or physically removed from a nearby pine tree (about five feet away out of frame).

However it got there, it clearly went through quite a jostling, and despite being composed of very fragile pieces like pine needles and leaves, it is holding together perfectly because it's so well constructed.

A bird is a very simple animal, but in many ways it's far wiser than we humans. It takes simple, organic materials and weaves them together (without the aid of opposable thumbs!) and creates a dwelling to raise its children. The nest itself is nothing special, but what happens in it is. It cradles the eggs before the hatch and hold the chicks once they are born. It provides a place for the mother to nourish her young, and it protects them while she is gone.

It serves its purpose for a season, but then the chicks are pushed out of the nest and learn to fly. Once those chicks grow up, one or more of them may come back to this very same tree to have its own family, but it knows better than to try to use the exact same nest. Those organic materials that once sheltered it in infancy have become hard and brittle and wouldn't support the next generation.

So this bird, like its mother, gathers its own materials and constructs a nest that, while nothing special by itself, creates space for amazing things to happen. And so it goes, from generation to generation.

I wonder if our churches are kind of like this. We take organic materials from the world around us: artistic and musical styles, current trends in thinking, technological mediums, etc., and we weave them together to create space for something special to happen. What we construct isn't special in and of itself, but what happens there is. God inhabits these organic cultural forms and uses them to help us grow as disciples.

But like any organic materials, these cultural forms have a life cycle and eventually die. But humans, unlike birds, are often not wise enough to recognize this. We hold on to a dead, brittle bird's nest because it's been there for a very long time instead of looking for what is growing afresh around us.

This is not to say that the Holy Spirit quits using old cultural forms, of course (the Spirit is a bit more powerful than a mama bird), but that the most vibrant, fruitful things start happening outside the bounds of what we've already constructed and dwelt in long enough to get very comfortable.

Phylis Tickle talks about this idea in her book, The Great Emergence. She argues that every five hundred years, Christianity undergoes a "rummage sale" where it finds new cultural forms to bring the eternal gospel to new generations in fresh ways. Tickle says that these rummage sales were/are the first century time of Jesus, the sixth century liturgical reforms of Pope Gregory the Great, the eleventh century Great Schism, the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation, and the Emerging Church Conversation of today.

While I find Tickle's semi-millennial construct to be a bit too neat (and, dare I say, too modern?), the way she differentiates the work of the Holy Spirit and the cultural mediums by which we understand that work is very helpful in an age where congregations seem to be at war with one another and even with themselves over styles of worship and means of communicating and understanding the ways God is working in our midst.

If you're a member of a group that inhabits an older bird's nest, that's great. Do what works for you, as long as you're worshipping the God who is working in that nest and not the nest itself (the difference is subtle and not often obvious). But don't discourage those who are finding new materials to build their own nest, even if that nest is right next door to your own. Everything old was once new and was criticized for being different.

And if you're someone who is inclined to seek out new materials for building your own nest, go and do so with courage! But remember not to be too hard on those who are living in older nests. God is still working with them, and even your fresh, green nest will one day be brown, brittle, and sitting on the side of the road, fit only to be used as a quirky illustration on a blog post.

TransFORM Network

It seems there's no shortage of social networking sites out there, every one trying to be the "Facebook of (fill in the blank)"

I have recently discovered one that I think is worth many of your (y'all's?) time, dear readers. It's called TransFORM, and it's a network for the involved in and/or interested in missional Christian communities. Check out the video below, and if you're so inclined, check out the site. Above all, please pray for those involved in these missional communities. They're doing some amazing Kingdom-work and it's not easy. I'm hopeful that TransFORM will help folks know they're not alone in their journey.

TransFORM: Missional Community Formation from TransFORM on Vimeo.

(Note, TransFORM is not affiliated with Emergent Village, although many of the faces will be familiar to those involved with EV.)

Thoughts on the Signing of the Hate Crimes Bill

This week President Obama signed into law the long awaited Shepard Hate Crimes Bill, which broadens hate crime laws to include sexual orientation as a factor in violent crimes.

When I found out that the law had been signed, I tweeted about how proud I was of our President and our country. Several folks replied that they don't understand why it can be more of a crime to beat one person to death than another person. Isn't every violent crime a hate crime?

(For those that aren't easily offended, there's a fantastic South Park episode about this very question.)

I share their sentiment and I agree that any violent crime is hateful. But I think the importance of the Shepard bill is much greater than the mandate of tougher sentences for physical attacks on certain people. The symbolic importance of this bill is somewhat like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts strengthened protections of rights that were in theory already guaranteed by the Constitution, but in practice they were systematically denied to people based on skin color. The importance of these bills was what they said about where we as a country were and how we were determined to do better in living up to the values we profess.

I believe the Shepard bill fulfills a similar symbolic purpose. As a country we are taking a stand and saying that violent attacks against anyone for any reason is never acceptable.

I am especially happy to see this bill passed because it was stalled for so long in Congress, with much of the opposition to it taking the form of half truths and outright lies clothed in religious language (this is another similarity to the aforementioned bills).

As a person of faith I respect the views of my brothers and sisters who believe that differing sexual orientations are a sin, even though I do not share this view. But I think most of us (fringe groups aside) can agree that violence against any group for any reason is never acceptable.

I am hopeful that the passage of the Shepard bill signals a positive shift toward a more peaceful and tolerant society.

Silent No More

A friend shared this USA Today article recently, and it gives voice to a problem that most people acknowledge on a certain level, but few people really understand. The problem is that being a pastor is a stressful, lonely job, and studies show that most pastors a very unhappy.

The article points out that pastors themselves share some measure of blame for this. The types of personalities drawn to local church ministry are generally people pleasers (guilty as charged), but the reality of leadership is not only that you can't make everyone happy, but real leaders often have to do things they know will make others angry because it is for the greater good.

Many pastors also set themselves up for failure by implying (sometimes in not so subtle ways) that they consistently embody the high ideals they encourage their community to live out. When Ted Haggard was forced out of his church in 2007, I wrote a post about how both pastor and congregation play into the myth of the perfect person, the super-hero pastor, and that the pressure will become overwhelming and the consequences will be disastrous.

This isn't just an abstract issue for me. I've been very open about my struggles with depression and anxiety, both in the congregations I've served and here in the blogosphere. And many of the things I've experienced in ministry have made my mental health struggles worse. The very fact that I've shared these struggles has had negative consequences on more than one occasion. So while I've never been suicidal like some of the pastors mentioned in the USA Today article, I understand what it's like to feel lonely, and even on occasion hopeless as a pastor.

One problem is that most pastors don't have very many "safe spaces" where they can be open and honest about their struggles. Pastors generally work more than 40 hours a week, much of that time spent with people in their congregations, but rarely are those people a safe space for a pastor. Sadly, most pastors can't feel safe with other clergy, either. Often times we're too afraid of shattering people's illusions that we're perfect, or we know that someone will see a point of weakness and use it against us.

Sadly, most pastors are either too proud or too scared to seek out professional help, assuming that if they just prayed or read their Bible more everything would be OK. So we become trapped in a self destructive cycle that everyone sees, but no one wants to talk about. But it's only a matter of time before the elephant in the room charges and people get hurt.

(For anyone in the Middle Tennessee area, I recommend the Pastoral Counseling Centers of Tennessee. I've seen the same counselor there for the last six years and the benefit has been immeasurable.)

If you're a pastor, please take a risk and speak up. Name your fears and your struggles. Sure, you run the risk of upsetting someone or giving a dysfunctional person some ammo against you, but you might also be surprised at who else might be suffering in silence, and at how your example may encourage and empower them.

If you have a pastor, step back and take a look at how you and your congregation treat them. Are your expectations unrealistic? Is your pastor setting him or herself up for failure by letting you expect too much of them? Ask yourself this question: do I pray for my pastor? Trust me, they need it.

Naming our struggles won't solve them, of course. There will always be difficult people and situations. But if more people realize that pastors are people too, including (maybe especially) pastors themselves, we'll all be a whole lot better off.

More Shameless Self Promotion

The new issue of Circuit Rider just came out, and I got to write one of the feature articles. The issue is focused on Ministry with the Poor (one of the four areas of focus defined by the 2008 General Conference), and my article is on "Prophetic Preaching in the Real Pulpit". It talks about preaching on challenging issues in ways that will actually be heard and acted upon by a congregation.

I hope you enjoy the article. Please leave any comments (positive or otherwise) you have below.

Experience and Health Care

As many folks out there know, Kate had the flu last week. She's much better now, and everything went pretty smoothly, but as new parents facing the first illness, having her fever go over 104 degrees was pretty scary! (Jessica wrote a couple blog posts about the experience)

Experiencing the health care system for the first time from the parent's perspective has caused me to reflect on the current national debate about reforming it.

On Monday afternoon, when Kate's fever spiked high enough that we knew we should take her to the doctor, we were able to immediately get an appointment and be seen by someone within an hour. They wrote us a prescription, and we were able to get it filled right away at the pharmacy, and it helped get Kate's fever down. After a few days at home and a follow up visit to the doctor, she was all better and life could return to normal.

Why did all of this happen? Why did we have such a good experience, scary though it was at certain moments? The work of caring and dedicated medical professionals played a large part, of course. But we have the kind of access to them that not everybody has.

The first thing that the receptionist and the doctor's office or the pharmacy technician does is look on their computer to check our insurance information, and when they see that we have good coverage, they smile and are glad to help us. This isn't because they're greedy. It's because they need to earn money like anybody else, and the knowledge that we can pay gets us better treatment.

A quick glance around the waiting room at the pediatricians' office showed us people with kids as sick or sicker than ours, some of whom were unable to be seen or were having to wait a very long time because they had little or no coverage.

So why does Kate deserve better care than these other kids? The idea that we live in a meritocracy, that those who work harder deserve more, doesn't really apply here, because at eight months old, what has she done to deserve better treatment (other than being objectively the most beautiful baby ever, of course)?

The answer is that she gets better treatment because she won the genetic lottery, being born in the United States to an upper middle class family. Jessica and I won similar genetic lotteries back in the early 1980s. We've worked hard and made the most of the opportunities we've been given, of course, but no one can deny that we had infinitely more resources and opportunities than most people in this country, let alone the entire world. All because of the families we were born into.

We're told by some folks that giving all people access to a basic level of health care will somehow hurt us and make our lives worse. But I'm not sure how an infant whose parents both work blue collar jobs (or, for that matter, whose parents are out of work because of the economic downturn) getting the same basic care that Kate gets hurts my family.

Jessica and I are both very fortunate to have jobs that have enough flexibility to allow us to stay home when our child is sick. I don't see how some basic protections allowing people in less flexible jobs a certain amount of days to do the same hurts my family.

I'm still working on educating myself on the specific proposals, so at some point I'll probably be able to say what specific policy I'm in favor of.

So for now, let me simply say that equal access to health care for all people won't hurt my family. In fact, I think it will make it stronger. Jessica and I won't stop working hard and just depend on someone else to take care of us. But if one or both of us were to fall on hard times and lose our jobs or our coverage, at least we'd know that Kate would still be able to be seen by a doctor and not turned away because she picked the wrong time to get sick.

Some Perspective from You Tube

As Jessica and I were hanging out at home today caring for our sick daughter, I came across an interesting blog post.

James McGrath, a professor of mine from college, shared this video, which claims to educate viewers on church history in four minutes:

To be fair, I don't know who produced this or in what context it was originally shown. And, of course, there's only so much you can do in four minutes. That being said...

This is church history from the viewpoint of white American evangelicals. The only mention of Eastern Orthodoxy is when Byzantine culture takes over parts of Italy. Africa only shows up with the mention of Augustine. Roman Catholicism disappears completely after 1517 (when Luther posted the 95 Theses), and its mentioned more for its wars than anything else. The rest of the globe disappears when the USA arrives on the scene (save for the twin antichrists: Charles Darwin and Godless Communism), and there is no mention of the Civil Rights movement in the US!

It's pretty creative, but if you want to really learn some church history, spend more than four minutes on it.

On a lighter note, here's a video that explains the origins of the Swine Flu:

It all makes sense now! This pandemic is part of a holy Jihog against us gentiles and our impure pork eating ways!

Much Needed Push-back

Looking back at my blog posts over the last few months, I've noticed an undercurrent of negativity. I'm generally not a negative person, and I don't think my posts have been overly gloomy but I have noticed a growth in my cynicism (case in point, my post on Frustration with the Political Climate).

For a long time I've been something of a political junkie, and while I tend toward the liberal/progressive end of the spectrum because of my religious convictions, I don't consider myself a partisan person. So I've become frustrated that the hyper-partisan nature of the campaign season, particularly in Presidential years, hasn't receded into the background and been overshadowed by substantive debate.

The thing that has bugged me the most is how the conservative end of the spectrum has been dominated by talking heads like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Bill O'Riley, and Sean Hannity. These guys seem way more interested in tearing down people who disagree with them than in actually accomplishing anything constructive. After a summer filled with Tea Partiers, people making signs of President Obama with Hitler mustaches (I thought it was equally stupid when my fellow war opposing liberals did the same thing to President Bush), scary people carrying guns to protest rallies, and other forms of outrage that seem largely manufactured, it seemed that the radical voice of the right was somehow becoming mainstream.

This is particularly distressing to me because I have a deep appreciation for intelligent, rational conservative thought, and I find that it provides balance and perspective in my own thought. I have a number of friends and loved ones (including both my father and father-in-law) whose conservative leanings challenge and sharpen my own take on the issues. Dialogue with them is extremely stimulating, even thought we rarely end up agreeing on much.

So I was very happy to see some influential conservative voices recently push back against the extremists who have been dominating the conversation of late.

David Brooks, a very intelligent columnist for the New York Times, wrote an op-ed making a very persuasive case for how the Faux News talking heads have significantly less power and influence than they claim.

South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (who has often pandered to the radical right) recently hit back very hard at extreme voices, specifically O'Reilly and Beck, suggesting that these guys are doing more harm than good. Graham made an especially salient point when he contrasted the willingness of the Founding Fathers (guys who often did not get along well) to dialogue and compromise for the good of the whole country with the current state of political discourse.

I hope these protests from more rational, mainstream conservative voices represents a return to civility in our national discourse. If we can put down the Hitler signs and assault rifles, quit shouting and actually talk to each other, we'll be much better off. We won't always agree or get our way all of the time, but at least we'll remember we're all on the same team here.

The lowest common denominator

Part of me is amused, and part of me is distressed at this video. On the one hand I'm not surprised that good 'ol Kirk "Mike Seaver" Cameron is making this video, but I'm saddened by the realization that this argument is actually accepted by a disturbingly large number of people.

It explains why Wolf Blitzer, an otherwise reputable journalist, would waste everyone's time asking Republican presidential candidates if they believed in evolution during a debate last year.

I'm also somewhat amused by this video in response to Kirk. If you can set aside your offense at the plethora of 4-letter words, this woman has some substantive points, particularly when she mentions how Darwin has nothing to do with the big-bang theory.

Ultimately I'm left not really knowing what to think. On the one hand, I don't encounter these issues on a day to day basis, because even the most conservative people in my congregation don't think that science and faith are mutually exclusive (something for which I'm very grateful).

On the other, clearly there is a substantive enough portion of the population with whom this issue still has traction. If it didn't, the Christian-media-industrial-complex wouldn't waste any energy on it because it wouldn't make them any money. And those guys are nothing if not good capitalists.

I hope that the silent majority of rational individuals out there will see the forces using Kirk Cameron as their spokes-puppet for what they are: people who want to scare you into accepting their ideology without questioning. The issue for these people isn't about faith in God or even the authority of the Bible, really. It's about the authority of their interpretation of the Bible. In other words, the authority of them. And that's scary.

I'd like to address one thing Kirk says in the video. He claims that atheism has doubled over the last twenty years. I have no idea if that's true or if he even has any research to back that claim (I suspect he doesn't). But one has to wonder, if atheism (which is not the same thing as non-participation in church) really is on the rise, is Charles Darwin really the culprit?

I say no. Christians have only ourselves to blame for our steadily declining influence in the world. People look at us and perceive us a judgmental, hateful, out of touch with reality, and too obsessed with our own wonderfulness to really care about what real people are going through. And those outside of the church who actually pick up a Bible and read about Jesus only have those suspicions confirmed when they see the horrendous gap between the teachings of Jesus and the practices of those who claim his name.

We can create straw-men out of Charles Darwin and attack them all we like, but our problems are our own fault.

That being said, I hope you'll listen to what Kirk Cameron's puppet masters have to say. I also hope you'll read Charles Darwin for who he is and what he has to say: not as a Nazi or a racist, but as a guy who looked at the world and began to wonder if things aren't more beautifully complex and diverse than we'd previously thought. Darwin is a guy not unlike Copernicus or Galileo before him: someone who dreamed big and was persecuted by the religious authorities of their day, only to see succeeding generations repent of their ancestors' stupidity.

PS- if you're interested in issues of science and the Bible, check out Dr. James McGrath's blog, Exploring our Matrix. He's a first rate biblical scholar who poses challenging questions to all corners of institutional Christianity. You should also check out this great article on Kirk's latest quixotic venture by UCC pastor Chuck Currie.

Discuss!

Moltmann Meditations (part 1 of ?): Theology and Biography

Now that I've had more than a week to digest the plethora of amazing discussions, conversations, and ideas I encountered at the Emergent Theological Conversation with Jurgen Moltmann (one of my heroes and something of a grandfather in faith, but more on that later), I feel like I'm ready to reflect on what I experienced.

Theology as Biography, or Biography as Theology?

At the beginning of the conference, Danielle Shroyer led us through a "Moltmann 101" seminar that talked about Moltmann's major works in chronological order and put them in context of his biography. I had some idea of the order in which these works were written, but I had never given much thought to them, because like most students of theology since Aquinas, I've been taught to read theology as an objective, closed system free of contextual bias.

(I wholeheartedly reject this idea, by the way, but many systematic theologians write with this assumption, and I like to try to give people a charitable reading on their own terms)

Moltmann, however, makes no such assumptions about himself. His can be deceptive in this way sometimes (or, at the very least, the English translations of his writing) because he has a very structured writing style, and he deeply engages his theological predecessors and contemporaries with very little first person commentary. So it is easy to read him in the way someone would read Karl Barth.

Moltmann is very open about how his theology is deeply rooted in his experiences as a young man serving in the German army during World War II, particularly the deep anguish he felt when he learned about the Holocaust as a prisoner in a British POW camp. His work as a theologian is rooted in the reality of the suffering he saw and experienced early in life, and these questions are still crucial to him in his eighties.

In an effort to understand Moltmann's theology better, I am now reading his autobiography, A Broad Place. I am hoping that understanding his life story better will open up new insights when I reread some of his theological works that I read before.

Moltmann's insight that theology is deeply contextual is in need of greater recognition in the American church today. We are killing each other over a host of issues that are preventing us from working together on the larger problems of the world: problems on which we largely agree like AIDS, poverty, access to clean water, and ending child sex slavery.

But we refuse to work together on these issues because we fight one another over who has the "correct" interpretation of the Bible, as if there is one correct interpretation that rises above any contextual bias. We assume that God can't possibly be speaking to those who disagree with us, because they understand the Bible incorrectly.

Moltmann reminds us that we all come from somewhere, and what we bring to the table greatly affects the way we read the Bible and do theology. So maybe we should put aside the issues where we disagree for a moment and tell each other our stories. If we began to understand where we each come from, we might be less likely to demonize the other and understand why we come to the conclusions we do.

Top 10 Reasons Why Men Shouldn't Be Ordained

Joe Bumbulis at collideoscope posted this the other day (it seems to have originated at the Christian Feminism blog, and I just had to share:

Top 10 Reasons Why Men Shouldn't Be Ordained

10. A man’s place is in the army.

9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.

8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do other forms of work.

7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.

6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.

5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.

4. To be ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.

3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.

2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, change the oil in the church vans, and maybe even lead the singing on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.

1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.

Even more shameless self promotion

I'm trying to organize my thoughts from the Moltmann conversation, and hopefully I'll begin posting those in the next day or so.

In the meantime, however, a new book on calling stories just came out, and it includes an essay I wrote about the value of mentoring relationships.

It's called Beyond the Burning Bush, and although it's focused primarily on ministry in the United Methodist Church, I think it would be valuable for any person wrestling with the idea of a call to vocational ministry (ordained or otherwise).

There are lots of really good essays in this book, including pieces by Sara Baron and Sarah McQueen, with whom I had the privilidge to serve in the Young Adult Seminarians Network.

Vicarious Live-Blogging Moltmann

As I said before, I'm not live blogging the Moltmann Conversation (this post doesn't count). I need time to process my thoughts, so I'm taking notes and I'll post reflections when I have time to digest them.

There are, however, a number of folks who are live blogging the event and providing some interesting and insightful commentary.

I'm posting them for the benefit both of those who are here and those who wish they were and want to know what is happening:

Pastor Bob Cornwall

Danielle Shroyer

Katie Z. Dawson (Salvaged Faith)

Brian Paulson (pastor of Libertyville First Presbyterian, where the Moltmann Conversation is taking place)

PomoRev (Frank Emmanuel)

Joe Bumbulis (CollideOScope)

Julie Clawson (One Hand Clapping)

Jeff Gang (The Suburban Pastor)

Nathan Mattox (Leave from the Notebook of a Tamed Optimist)

Anyul Rivas (written in Spanish)

I'll link more folks as I find them

Moltmann Conversation

Next week I'll be attending the Emergent Theological Conversation with Jurgen Moltmann in Chicago. I'm really excited about this because I read a lot of Moltmann in seminary, and one of my professors was a student of Moltmann's at Tubugen. I'm also getting to see some family and friends while I'm there, which will be really nice.

(sidenote- I can't figure out how to get my keyboard to do umlauts, so my apologies to the German scholars out there)

Going to Emergent events is always an experience, because there always seems to be an unspoken competition as to who is the coolest, edgiest, theologically progressive hipster. I'll no doubt be contributing with my Macbook, my corduroy jacket, and my pipe. I don't have square glasses, screen printed t-shirts, artfully messy hair, or creative facial hair (just a plain 'ol beard), however, so I won't be winning any style contests.

One thing I won't be doing is live blogging the event. For one, there will be people there with sharper theological minds than my own who have much more interesting and well read blogs than I do, and when I find out who is doing that, I'll post links to their sites.

But the bigger reason is that theology, particularly the kind of deep theology that Moltmann does that draws from so many different sources in the Christian tradition, is not the kind of conversation that can be related through the kind of first impressions that constitute live blogging.

I will probably tweet a quote here and there, but for the most part I'm going to take notes, let it all sink in, and then I'll post my thoughts a few days after I get back.