Living Apologetics

An Expensive God?

Paul Nelson — Sat, 26 May 2012 22:09:20 GMT

This post doesn't really state the question flat out, but I bet it raises it in your mind. Wander back here after you read it.

The question it raises is one that is frequently raised with a derisive tone of voice. If the Church cares so much about people, why does it waste so much money on big expensive buildings? That money could have been spent on caring for the poor.

The short answer to this is, yes, you're right. That money could have been spent on the poor. In which case, there would be no fancy church building next to a slum, as the photo on the above-linked blog shows. There would be nothing there but more slum, most likely. Or perhaps a shopping center or some other sort of building.

This sort of question raises all sorts of interesting discussion directions. We could talk about how many people in our society and congregations are functional utilitarians - defining what is good based on metrics of some sort - quantifiable statistics demonstrating a maximum amount of good being delegated to the maximum number of people. There certainly isn't anything wrong per se with wanting to try and calculate the impact of our decisions.

The problem with utilitarianism is that it only functions well when metrics are obtainable. You can measure how many sandwiches the money used to build that church in the slums could have provided. You can calculate out how many people might have eaten said sandwiches. Those numbers are very compelling.

It's harder to measure other things, though. Such as the satisfaction or hope or even pride that might come when looking up at that church day after day. It is hard to measure the inspiration that is provided by a faith that comes to the poorest of the poor and dares to see them as anything other than or more than their poverty. It is hard to measure the way the days of these people who live in the shadow of that church - who enter into it weekly to pray and to be told of a Savior who loves them even if nobody else does - are impacted.

The question sounds a lot like one that is raised in the Gospels - when a woman comes in and anoints Jesus with a costly perfume and some of the disciples complain about what a waste of money such an act is. It's not practical or utilitarian. The money might have been used to give to the poor, rather than pouring it out (literally) on Jesus' feet where it will be gone and forgotten within a matter of hours or days.

It's interesting to note that Jesus doesn't side with the disciples on this issue. He doesn't chastise the woman and giver her a lesson on cost-benefit ratios. In Matthew 26:10-13, Jesus reminds the disciples that there are other things that are important, that money can be used in ways that have an impact far outstretching a more utilitarian analysis. The money could have been given to the poor, where it would have benefited them for a short time, at the end of which they would have still most likely been poor, and the short-term benefits of that money long forgotten both by its recipients and everyone else. But instead, the story of this woman's giving to her Lord has been told for 2000 years.

What might a church in the midst of a slum say to the people in the slum? It might say to them that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been, is, and will continue to be proclaimed in their midst, both inside and outside that church building. It might say that people came and created a bit of beauty - however incongruous - in the midst of squalor and ugliness. It might say that there are people who consider it important and valuable to give a gift of a beautiful building to people who are not beautiful, as a reminder that they are indeed beautiful to the God who created them, and that one day, their ugly surroundings and circumstances will be transformed. It might serve as a symbol of the glory to come, when the human-induced squalor of our sinfulness is destroyed and we are cleansed and recreated, and when all suffering is eliminated.

It could mean a lot of things, and I can't authoritatively speak to what it means to the people around it, but only what it might say to me if I were in their place.

If it weren't there, the slum would remain. Suffering and misery and squalor would remain, and there would be nothing - and perhaps no one - to speak against it, to prophecy (as in the Ezekiel 37 text for this coming Sunday) that in the midst of death and loss there might be fullness of life.

I would argue that our God is not a utilitarian. Were that the case, the infinite cost of his Son's incarnation, death, resurrection and ascension would hardly be a good trade-off for the definitionally finite benefit of a few billion creatures that inhabit this tiny part of the created universe. Our God is lavish with his creativity and beauty and grace, even knowing full-well in advance what we were going to do to it, how we would abuse it and misuse it and one another. I don't think that it's impossible that the Church that proclaims this glorious God might take the rather curious step of placing a piece of that beauty in the midst of some of the greatest ugliness we can create for ourselves and others.

Of All the Crazy, Green-Blooded Ideas...

Paul Nelson — Sat, 26 May 2012 06:23:14 GMT

Ok, yeah. This is pretty cool.

Relationship

Paul Nelson — Fri, 25 May 2012 15:54:35 GMT

A friend asked me to listen to one of the podcasts on my denomination's web site oriented towards young adults. I write book reviews for this same site.

You can listen to the podcast here - it's about 40 minutes long.

It's a valuable discussion for anyone and everyone to listen to, though it's couched in terms of making sense to congregations grappling with the dearth of young adults in their midst.

Andrew Root is an associate professor at Luther Seminary, and the topic in this podcast is relationship. Now in my second parish with a much larger proportion of members advanced in years as opposed to younger folks, I often hear the mantra that what we really need is to get the young families with kids to join our congregation. This was the formula for years of healthy congregational life. Families raising their kids in the church.

But unless I'm mistaken, I'm not sure that this was ever an intentional, programmatic approach of churches. It's not that they were more successful marketing themselves to young families with kids 50 or 60 years ago. But it was the accepted thing for young families with kids to do. Why? Because those young parents had parents in that congregation (or another congregation like it somewhere else). They had grandparents there. They came from a long line of family members in church, more often than not.

Somehow, that pattern was shattered 40 years ago or so, so that in many traditional denominational churches, there are no young parents with children in the congregation - or very few. The memo was never sent or maybe never received that this was what they ought to keep doing. Or more likely, they were inundated with competing memos offering other alternatives. I suspect that Christianity will be studying for however many years we have left until our Lord's return, exactly why and how that pattern was shattered.

Congregations aching to somehow attract young adults and young families with kids often attempt to deal with this programmatically. If we just offer the right programs and classes, they'll come. Or they attempt to deal with it liturgically. If we just update the music and get a great praise band here and get rid of the technical language and focus our sermons on practical life skills, they'll come. Perhaps those are recipes for success in some places, but I tend to suspect that more often than not they fail.

Relationship is the key. At least with people under 40. This interview does a good job at focusing on that. I like how the interviewer (a very nice woman, by the way), even highlights the church's inappropriate approach to this whole issue even as she agrees with Dr. Root (And am I the only one who finds it curious that there are no credentials listed for this guy in the text intro to the podcast? Does that make him more accessible to young adults? There's another interesting if unrelated side discussion!). "How do we get them to come? How do we show them that we care about them?" These are programmatic questions. These are the questions that an advertiser or marketer asks about customers. And it is unfortunately how the Church has allowed itself to be conditioned to think as well.

How do you convince your child (or grandchild) that you love them? Is there anything that you can do for them that demonstrates this? Sure - plenty of things. But what cements the relationship is the time spent together. Consistent acts of love and caring and interest that demonstrate to the other person that you love them. Consistent enough so that when it is necessary to speak a word of discipline or challenge, the person hopefully hears it in the context of love - they don't confuse what you have to say to them with your love for them, but rather hear what you have to say in the larger context of love.

I suspect that if this is how we build cross-generational relationships in families, it will work outside the family. The difficulty lies in the fact that outside the family, cross-generational interactions (outside of a church, at least) are more the exception than the rule. Our culture is stratified by age - sometimes very rigidly. Crossing strata to interact with people outside of your age group can be difficult, but not nearly as difficult as figuring out how to do it in the first place.

That's the only thing that I found slightly curious about this interview. When asked point blank how young adults will ever know that a congregation is right for them, will deal with them relationally rather than as a demographic niche or the Great Hope for the Congregation's Future, Dr. Root doesn't have an answer. Very few people have an answer, in my experience, or we'd all be doing it by now.

Therein lies the issue - we think in terms of what we can accomplish. If we advertise in the right places, if we master Facebook or Twitter and the future realms of social media, if our website is savvy enough - we'll find a way to draw in these young strangers. Again, in my limited experience, it isn't that simple, despite what plenty of church growth books may claim to the contrary. Church growth books base their livelihood on giving you advice that you can implement.

But how does the New Testament talk about church growth? What outreach programs are discussed? What evangelism techniques are displayed? How often does it talk about how people joined the small churches because they were hired the loudest people to go out into the markets and squares and yell above the other din? How many were brought to churches because they were given a free stylus with the church's name on it?

Acts 2 and Acts 5 both describe people being "added" to the church's number. In Acts 5, it might be interpreted that the healing wonders of the Apostles are what brought people into the fold, but I think that such an interpretation may be reversing the actual order that is implied in Acts 5:12-16. But in Acts 2 it is very clear. It says "the Lord added to their number daily".

The one answer we have to the question of how will they know to come to our church, is that the Holy Spirit will bring them. The Holy Spirit that is already at work in their lives in ways they may not even be aware of yet. The Holy Spirit they may never have heard about let alone believe in. That Holy Spirit at work. It's a painfully simple answer that many fear relieves us of our duty to be intentional about reaching out to others. I don't see the two things as mutually exclusive. We put our talents to work in wise ways, but we trust that it is the Holy Spirit that is working through and despite our best efforts.

I think this dovetails nicely with the incarnational emphasis that Dr. Root makes in this podcast. We need to trust that the Holy Spirit is at work in every single person. Already. Before we even meet them. Every stranger we pass by. Every person we exchange innocuous pleasantries with in the grocery store line. There is nobody that the Holy Spirit of God is not actively at work in. And if this is the case, our job suddenly changes. We are not seeking to be friends with someone to introduce God into their life. God is already in their life - He created their life! Our role may be in helping them to see that at some point. But we enter into the relationship not under false pretenses of I have something you need, but rather in celebration that this other person is a creation of God the Father and is worthy of being appreciated simply for that reason.

When we do this, people stop being means to an end. We await the fuller discovery of the Holy Spirit's miraculous work between us. We assume that in this new relationship the Holy Spirit is at work on and in us as well. It is not a one-sided affair, but a symbiotic relationship that changes both of the people involved. If we discover the other person doesn't know about Jesus, we can share what our relationship with Jesus means. We can talk about our relief and peace and hope knowing that we have been placed in right relationship with God the Father through God the Son. And we can be as authentic in that exchange as if we were telling them about this great little restaurant we just discovered in some dumpy little strip mall. As if we were telling them about the cheapest place in town to get gas. Hopefully without the hesitation and self-doubt and judgment that can often cloud our efforts to share the Gospel.

Book Review: Under the Overpass

Paul Nelson — Wed, 23 May 2012 06:05:48 GMT

In my first year or two at the campus ministry that I joined during my undergraduate studies, I worked as a part-time student liaison between the church and the campus. I was leading a Bible study one evening when our small group was joined by a heavily intoxicated man. I attempted to do my best to make him feel welcome, but the Bible study was rather a bust at that point. The man had questions, but wasn't capable of really articulating them beyond the point of interruption of whatever I was trying to say.

The pastor came in, quickly took in the situation, and immediately ushered the man politely but firmly outside of our campus ministry building. He assured the man that he was more than welcome to return once he sobered up. I was aghast. The intoxicated guy hadn't been threatening in any way. He seemed to be interested in talking about the Bible, even if that interest resulted in more commotion than communication. It seemed genuinely unChristian to show the man out the door with so little care. How could we claim to be the Church, and yet be unwelcoming to those who desperately need to hear the Gospel and receive the tangible love of Christ through Christian community?

It is just this conundrum that perplexes this book and author.

Under the Overpass by Mike Yankowski recounts an experiment in living as a homeless person that he undertook with a friend for five months spanning five different cities across the country. Yankowski at the time was a student at a Christian liberal arts college close to where I now live. He felt compelled to do something radical to test his faith, and decided to leave his comfortable life to live as a homeless person. It's an ambitious undertaking, one that should not be undertaken lightly. I commend Yankowski for his willingness to step out into an extremely different environment from the one he apparently was raised in. His experiences are undoubtedly life-changing, and have certainly impacted many other people who have read the book.

That being said, however, the book was greatly lacking in depth of spiritual reflection. Not that the author didn't make comments regarding the Christian faith - whether his or other people's - but it never really grapples with what it means to be Christians and the church in our culture. It stays rather pointedly on the Christians-should-be-nicer-to-people-and-not-be-so-quick-to-judge-or-ignore. Is that true? Absolutely. But the way it is often interpreted and applied throughout the book is more problematic.

What is the role of the Church? What is its primary and unalterable function? And what is the role of individual Christians? There isn't much distinction made here. Churches are routinely criticized for being suspicious and unwelcoming to Yankowski and his friend. Yet he admits that many of the homeless are mentally ill and substance-addicted. How is the Church to minister to these people? More specifically - since Yankowski doesn't make this distinction - how does a typical parish church minister to these people? Must every congregation feed the homeless and house them? Is it possible to be faithful even when it seems heartless?

These are big, complicated questions, because the answers are often yes and no simultaneously - a constant state of flux and fluidity that requires every situation to be evaluated uniquely and bucks hard against the convenience of policies and standing rules. At times Yankowski and his companion appear to intentionally wish to make people uncomfortable, and are then critical of their discomfort.

The Church has one role - to proclaim the Gospel. More specific, historically what this has meant was the preaching and teaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments to those who had been prepared to receive them. This is what the Church does. It is the one function of the Church that is not duplicated by any other organization on earth. If the Church does not do this job, this job does not get done. There seems to be no awareness of this simple fact on Yankowski's part. If a church offers him free food, it's a good congregation. If it doesn't offer him free food, or is disturbed by his smell, or seeks to protect its property from those who hold no respect for it, its a bad church.

There is an important conversation to be had about both the opportunities as well as challenges that owning property and a building raise for a congregation. But that discussion isn't addressed here, and an overly-simplified approach to what it means to be 'the Church' is put forth.

To be fair, some of these issues aren't apparent to people until they are placed in a position of responsibility for a piece of land and the buildings on it, until they are charged with ensuring that the congregation is capable of carrying out its primary responsibility of proclaiming the Gospel. In this regard, I believe that Yankowski is simply young and inexperienced. His passion is admirable, and it is a balance of that passion with the wisdom that comes from experience that is most needed in congregations around our nation and the world. But the book doesn't reflect much wisdom or depth of exploration.

Further, I was disturbed by how little awareness there seemed to be that even in their homeless condition, these two men could be powerful witnesses to congregations through a desire to serve, by breaking the stereotype of homeless people and forcing people and congregations to re-examine their assumptions and pre-conceived notions. The two seemed to spend all of their spare time in journaling and sleeping - but I don't recall them ever seeking to be active in helping and serving any of these communities they came across. Grace and giving seem rather one-dimensional in this book, and that's problematic for any Christian when talking about any relationship other than God's relationship to us. In that case, it's all one-way, all God giving and all us receiving.

The lack of deep thought on major topics bears out at the end of the book. A bullet list of 4-5 things that the reader might do to respond to the challenges raised in the book is provided. They're all decent suggestions. But not one of them addresses any of the issues that the author was so critical of congregations for in the book. Suddenly, it's all about the individual rather than the congregation as an entity. This is where the focus needs to be, frankly - on how the individual Christian responds to the grace of God in his or her life. I just wish that he had arrived there sooner in the book, and had taken fewer pot shots along the way.

What function can the book serve then? I think firstly it can serve as a reminder to Christians (and everyone else) that it is possible to survive very different circumstances than what we are used to. It is possible to see opportunities in the midst of adversity, and faith is more than just a full stomach and a roof over our heads. I suspect there are many Christians that could use that reminder.

Secondly, it serves as a tool for introducing the reader to the homeless as creations of God the Father. Beneath the dirt and smell and addictions beats a heart that Christ died for, and we are well-reminded that ministering to the least of these is an important, recurring definition of God-pleasing faith throughout both the Old and New Testaments. If we find ourselves unable to look at a homeless person, unable to make eye contact, unwilling to share a smile, and steadfastly unmoved by the opportunity to provide a cup of water or a bite of food, there's a problem in our hearts that we need to pray for the Holy Spirit to work on. If we are capable of not seeing people as people, and if we think we are completely justified in doing so (justified even by our faith), we are mistaken.

We get a few glimpses of real people in this book. Addicted, broken, suffering, real. We get to see that these people are sometimes (oftentimes?) truly grateful for the kindness of a free bite of food. Not everyone on the streets is only after a beer or a joint, and even the people who are looking for their next fix still need to eat, to be reminded that they are human beings.

Thirdly, this book should challenge members of congregations to think hard and deep about what their church is about and how it is going about it.

Fourthly, it should inspire people of all ages to step outside of the box from time to time and allow themselves to be stretched and molded through their discomfort. There's nothing wrong with awkwardness. We learn a lot about ourselves in and through our discomfort.

The book could be an excellent opportunity for discussion in small group studies. Where does the author really nail the Christian life on the head, and where does he seem to be firing randomly? How does a congregation seek to reach people of diverse backgrounds and experiences? What does a congregation gain when it stops focusing on 'growth' as a means of survival, rather than on proclaiming the Gospel regardless of how it does or doesn't materially benefit the congregation?

The book will naturally be appealing to a younger demographic, to teens and 20-somethings in particular who are searching for meaning and purpose and authenticity. With proper guidance, hopefully they'll realize that authenticity comes in a lot of shapes and sizes. This book provides one such shape and size. It certainly isn't the only one.

I still struggle with what happened 20+ years ago between my pastor and the drunk man. I can say that I far better empathize with and understand why my pastor chose to act the way he did. I'm inclined to say that he was in the right, given the circumstances. But there is still a nagging voice of doubt, all these years later. I think that a constant, vague discomfort is a good thing for Christians. It prevents us from slipping into the apathy of thinking we have everything figured out perfectly, and it constantly prods us to keep thinking, keep praying, keep experimenting. And I think it's there that the people of God are the most potent agents of good in the world around us. Uncomfortable and seeking for better answers.

Doing Time

Paul Nelson — Tue, 22 May 2012 06:39:49 GMT

Since November of last year, I've been spending every Friday morning at the county jail. Voluntarily. When I began, the jail chaplain indicated that sometimes he brought donuts as an incentive to get the guys interested in coming to something he offers. So I told him I'd take care of bringing the donuts. I proceeded (and continue) to bring them every week. Once every couple of months I bring extra for the guards as a thank you for their help in announcing the class each week and doing the necessary paperwork and double-checks to get the guys to the classroom and back.

I was told that the guys who are in there for substance abuse issues - which many of them are - typically are developmentally delayed. In other words, whenever they started using & abusing their substance(s) of choice, that's when their intellectual, emotional, and psychological development stopped. I was encouraged to bring videos and other materials that would help keep their interest.

I have a hard time popping in a video and kicking back. And it would have required me finding videos that I surmised would be appropriate and interesting. Being lazy, I didn't do that. I just talk. And listen. And talk some more. Not exactly a stretch for a pastor, to be true. It started with eight or nine men and has grown to 18. I developed a 7-week curriculum that just loops over and over again. There are a mix of guys each week, so that some are familiar while others are first time attendees. Some of the guys I see pretty regularly during their stay at the jail. Others appear and disappear quickly, sort of like the donuts. My goal in starting this was to build relationships. To spend enough time with whatever guys were willing to share their time with me, so that there might be a relationship of trust developed whereby they might clearly hear the Gospel.

A few months into it, the chaplain chuckled that I was still at it. I discovered that donuts in the jail are rather an anomaly. I never intended to set a precedent, I just was trying to take his advice! I also found out that there weren't any other chaplains doing this sort of thing. The jail website indicates that they work with 60-some chaplains from the area providing a host of services to the inmates. But I was the first (and only one) to begin teaching a class like this.

Sometimes it pays to be ignorant.

And since I count ignorance as one of my spiritual gifts, I suggested to the jail chaplain recently that I'd like to bring in copies of Luther's Small Catechism to give to some of the guys looking for more focused Christian teaching. And because the Holy Spirit was working strong through my ignorance, I also suggested offering a second class at the jail emphasizing Christian practice and basic theology, utilizing Luther's Catechism as the text.

I assumed it wouldn't fly. I was suggesting to offer an even more academic course than the one I was already teaching. I assumed they would balk at the use of a resource so closely associated with a specific denomination. I expected to be told that my idea really wouldn't work and that they couldn't support it even if it might.

Instead, on Friday I met with the jail chaplain and the person responsible for all of the inmate programming (coursework, classes, presentations, etc.). Instead of shooting down my idea as implausible, they want to move ahead with it. Instead of telling me I couldn't use the Catechism, they're happy to have me use it. While I had hinted at my hope that the men who opted to take this coursework would do reading, writing, and memorization between class meetings, the chaplain and the programming director encouraged me to push the men to do so, to set the bar high. They mused about how they might coordinate getting men from different parts of the facility into an appropriate venue for the class, rather than limiting the offering to just the men considered lower-risk.

Over the next few weeks & months I'll be developing the curriculum - first in broad brushstrokes and then in more detail. Hopefully I'll be able to begin in the fall. It's going to be work, but it's exciting to have the opportunity.

California law is resulting in state prison inmates being pushed back to local city and county jails to relieve overcrowding issues. Of course, this results in overcrowding at the local level. And it results in more guys in tighter quarters, creating a quandry for prison officials as to how to keep them calm and occupied. It creates the perfect opportunity for congregations interested in establishing jail ministries. Of course, a great deal depends on the officials in charge of the jails. I try not to make any assumptions about how long I'll be allowed to do this sort of thing. Nor do I try to maintain any illusions that I'm owed this opportunity.

I'm just glad that I have the chance to put something together that shares the gospel of Jesus Christ with men who need to hear it, and are willing and able to hear it perhaps for the first time. I'm glad that I get to share the good news with them that the love of Jesus isn't dependent on them kicking their addictions or shaping their lives up or making amends or doing any number of other highly desirable and good things. He died for them right where they sit.

I'm grateful for a parishioner who's passion for jail ministry and connections with the jail chaplain enabled me to get started. I'm grateful to the seminary program that placed me in prison ministry for a semester back in St. Louis and opened me up to that type of ministry. I'm grateful to experiences earlier in life organizing Christian retreats for youth in the juvenile detention center back in Phoenix. I'm grateful that the Holy Spirit pushes me (and you) into places where we aren't comfortable and are certain there's nothing we could possibly contribute or gain, and that oftentimes we're proved wrong on both counts.

As stated earlier, I do this to share the Gospel. Period. I told my congregational leadership when I began this that this was my goal. I don't expect that our congregation will grow through this ministry. There is no greater purpose than sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ with some guys who are aware that they need some Good News. But I want them to know that I will welcome them gladly if they don't have another faith community to return to. In seven months of doing this, I've handed out a lot of my business cards to guys, inviting them to look me up when they get out. I've had a lot of guys say they would. But I've never seen one.

Until this past Sunday. This past Sunday I had the opportunity to shake hands with a guy who was wearing civilian clothes instead of the prison-issue jumpsuit that I had seen him in for several months. The irony is that the past few weeks the readings have really highlighted the importance of inclusiveness, of recognizing that there is nobody that the body of Christ has the right to reject or ignore. His presence on Sunday was like a giant exclamation point on months worth of teaching and preaching in a musty prison classroom, as well as recent efforts on several sermons. Like an undeserved donut, an extra dollop of grace and joy.

Another reminder of how much I love what I do, and who I do it with and for.

Say It Isn't So!

Paul Nelson — Fri, 18 May 2012 15:38:49 GMT

I know this is going to come as a shock to most of you, so you may want to sit down.

There is a bias in the way media reports the news.

There, I've said it. I'm sorry you had to hear it from me. But best to hear it here rather than not at all.

Different media outlets have a tendency to report based on an agenda governed by their core values. While certain, not-to-be-named conservative outlets are routinely chastised for this, the simple fact is that it happens on the liberal side of the fence, too.

I like listening to NPR and I appreciate their news reporting. But if you listen to it discerningly for any length of time, you ought to come to the realization that they are not objective, and that this lack of objectivity is primarily expressed in how much air time is allocated to one side of an issue or the other (as well as the actual language used to report on issues).

Just a reminder that we need to be wise and discerning about things.

Signs

Paul Nelson — Thu, 17 May 2012 16:01:22 GMT

Community is a topic much on my brain, as it has been for years now. What does it mean? What does it look like? How does it function? Not easy questions that can be statistically analyzed and answered. Community is a fluid thing at the intersection of human sinfulness and divine mercy.

Most recently, I've been wondering about Christian community in terms of congregations, which is how many people tend to define Christian community. The people at church on Sunday morning. The people in mid-week Bible study. But Christian community should be a continually evolving mix of different folks all along the spectrum of Christian understanding, maturity, and faith. Mature Christians anchored in the faith are to be brushing up with young Christians (regardless of their age) who are still trying to figure out what all of this means.

But we have a hard time with that. In a culture increasingly polarized and unable as well as unwilling to dialogue, this idea of Christian community becomes even harder. Our expectations are even more firmly cemented that people in our community have to look and act like us when they arrive, which means before they arrive. The work of discipling, of modeling Christian life and working with others to help them in that process has been lost, outside of the bounds of children and youth ministry (where frankly it often seems to flounder).

I alluded to this somewhat last week in a blog post. I found this blog to also be interesting, though it stimulates more questions than it solves. My work in the jail each week prompts me to examine closely my own struggles on the issue of how to integrate people who profess the faith but may have significant, public moral failures into the congregation. What do we teach about forgiveness and grace, and what does that look like on Sunday morning?

There is a classic distinction in these two facets of our life in Christ. The first is traditionally called justification - what is it that makes us right with God? Being brought to faith by the power of the Holy Spirit, being brought to the point of acknowledging and accepting Jesus of Nazareth as the incarnate Son of God whose death and resurrection provides forgiveness of sins and new life here and now as well as eternally - that's all justification stuff. Justification stuff is what saves us - and the only thing that saves us is faith in Jesus Christ.

The issue of Christian community and who we sometime must ask to leave our midst is part of a different facet - although they are related to be sure. This second facet is traditionally called sanctification - the ongoing, lifelong work of the Holy Spirit in leading us day by day, step by step, into a life that better emulates that of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are all works in process, or as the bumper sticker says, "Be patient with me - God isn't finished with me yet."

The quick assumption that I think many Christians make is that sanctification has some very strong baselines. That you can't truly profess faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior without almost simultaneously being convicted of whatever major elements of sin are in your life. The assumption, I think, is that it is the recognition of these major sins in your life that prompts thanksgiving to Jesus Christ for forgiveness, is actually part of the cause of faith. In other words, justification happens once sanctification is already started. We place our faith in Jesus once we realize exactly how screwed up we are. Under this assumption, justification should lead to a pretty immediate rejection of public, pervasive sin, whether that means ceasing to live with your boyfriend/girlfriend, terminating sexual relations if you aren't married to that other person, rejecting your homosexual tendencies or practices, giving up your substance addictions, and any number of other hot button issues.

I find this a problematic assumption.

It could easily be that someone is brought to saving faith in Jesus Christ on a broad and rather vague understanding of their sinfulness, as opposed to an acute and specific awareness of particular habits and practices that are contrary to the will of God as revealed in the Bible. That person could show up to church on Sunday morning because they know by cultural osmosis (though this is becoming less and less influential) that this is what believers in Jesus Christ generally do on Sunday mornings.

They might choose to bring their same-sex partner with them. They may be groggy from another hard Saturday night with their substance of choice. They may be excited at this first step in a new life, yet completely unaware of exactly where this road calls them. They might be completely shocked to learn that they are not welcome in a given congregation because of their relationship or behavior with the person they brought with them, or the person they're going home to, or some other behavior that is unacceptable.

It isn't that what they're doing is pleasing to God. I want to be clear that sin remains sin - always. But it's possible that someone doesn't realize that something is sin, or doesn't realize just how seriously their new faith is going to require them to take their sinful condition. By rejecting that person immediately because they haven't come up to the assumed baseline required for worship, aren't we doing a grave disservice to the people that most Christians acknowledge they're supposed to be sharing the Gospel with?

If an inmate shows up at church on Sunday morning, shouldn't they be welcomed with the rejoicing that the angels are said to give when one lost sheep is brought home? If a homosexual couple or a couple living together without being married show up at church, isn't this an opportunity to celebrate? That these people will hear the Gospel proclaimed to them, and, (if they come to a good Lutheran church) be given the law as well that reveals and convicts and shatters so that the Gospel can begin rebuilding on a firm foundation?

This involves a fundamentally altered understanding of Christian community, from a place where everyone is expected to fully adhere to some basic guidelines, to a place where people come to learn what those guidelines are and learn to adhere to them. Christian community moves from being a finished product to a work in process - always. While most any Christian will assert that this is really true already (and they are right to acknowledge this!), more often in practice we act like a finished product that newcomers have to blend harmoniously and completely with in order to be accepted. Christian community is assumed too often to be neat and tidy, rather than messy.

It is the responsibility of the Christian community not to redefine sinfulness soas to accommodate every belief and behavior, but to pray with and worship with that person who has been justified through faith in Jesus Christ, so that the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit might proceed. What determines whether someone is welcome in Christian community is not specifically their behaviors, but rather their attitude and heart towards those behaviors. I've worked with people living with their girl/boy friend, and my goal has always been that they understand that what they're doing is problematic, and that they commit themselves to making necessary changes. That's something that can take some time. Not an indefinitely long time, but time. I want to see them taking their faith seriously enough that they are actively seeking to live the way God calls them to.

However at some point, if the person refuses to acknowledge a behavior as sinful despite the teaching of the Bible and that congregation, then there will need to be a discussion where that person is confronted again (in love, but firmly), presented with the Biblical and church teachings on the issue, and asked to repent and begin changing their behavior (with the help of that congregation!). At that point if the person continues to refuse to acknowledge their guilt, then the person has essentially removed themselves from that community of faith by rejecting the teaching of that community. The only thing that can be done at that point is to call a spade a spade, rather than trying to cover it up and pretend that it's something it isn't. If a person has rejected the teachings of Scripture and the congregation, they have placed themselves deliberately at odds with that congregation. Then we get to 1 Corinthians 5 stuff.

1 Corinthians 5 assumes:

the presence of sinful people in the church
an engagement with people regarding the nature of sin and the need to repent of it
a refusal of a given person to acknowledge their sin and repent of it
the necessity of the community of faith to be honest and forthright about this serious difference of belief

It doesn't (as near as I can tell) provide a litmus test for who we welcome into our community. It highlights one possibly necessary course of action once someone who has joined the community of faith by profession of faith. The purpose of this course of action is two-fold - to avoid confusion in the community of faith in regards to what is proper behavior (thereby potentially leading others to begin or continue sinning), and to speak as clearly as possible to the person in question regarding the gravity of their sinful choices. The goal is always the reincorporation of that person into the fellowship of the Christian community, not the avoidance of the difficult work of discipling and praying and being bound together in true Christian community. And I have to believe that this process of handling these potentially challenging situations is beneficial not just for the individuals, but for the community as a whole.

Don't Know Much About History?

Paul Nelson — Wed, 16 May 2012 03:38:49 GMT

Then this little video might be a big help.

It's a time lapse summary of the border changes in Europe from 1000 AD to 2003. Kind of cool if you're bored. The link above is to a slowed down version that indicates what year (upper left hand corner) and provides brief comments about major events (bottom left hand corner).

Won't You Be My Neighbor?

Paul Nelson — Tue, 15 May 2012 06:23:37 GMT

Recovering from a day with the family at Legoland. I leave you with this little bit of irony, courtesy of George Lucas.

I'd like to say that this makes up for the exquisite awfulness of Jar Jar, but it really doesn't. It can't. Nothing can. Ever.

Paying the Piper

Paul Nelson — Sat, 12 May 2012 20:59:31 GMT

Not my best headline ever, but I was rushed.

Here's a collection of opinions published in the New York Times recently on the topic of tax exemptions for religious institutions.

I think it's interesting that the articles often make reference to the abuses of tax exemptions which some religious organizations and individuals are guilty of. None of the writers makes any reference to the tangible good that religious organizations not only can but do provide to their communities. No reference is made to the countless food pantries, clothing closets, soup kitchens, and other services to the poor provided by congregations large and small who are able to offer not just members but grocery stores and other businesses a tax deductible donation acknowledgment for their generosity.

No mention or comparison is made between the number and scope of religious organizations that offer services to the needy and at risk not just in America but around the world, and secular institutions committed to the same thing (secular institutions that are not actually part of government, that is). I think that would be rather interesting and telling. I suspect strongly that religious organizations far outstrip private secular organizations in terms of dollars and man-hours contributed in service of others.

There are undoubtedly abuses of the tax exemptions. Institutions and individuals found to be grossly and willfully abusing these exemptions should be addressed both within their larger church polity (assuming they have one) as well as through civil means when appropriate. But I assume that abuses are the exception, not the rule. As such, we ought to think twice before we eliminate tax-exempt status from religious organizations.

Thoughts?

Cash 22

Paul Nelson — Thu, 10 May 2012 15:08:20 GMT

A parishioner handed me an insert from one of the local newspapers this past Sunday. The insert was a partial reprint from the Wall Street Journal, and was dominated by a front page article proclaiming "Trust in the Lord...But Check Out the Church".

The headline and the early gist of the article are pretty common sense. If you think that churches are free of sinful people who might be tempted to exploit you for your resources, don't be naive. Congregations are filled with sinful people, because there aren't any other kinds of people. Smart congregations recognize this and ought to see it as part of their duty to protect the organization against potential abuse (to the best of their ability), but also to protect their members from gross temptation to sin by not providing proper checks & balances, or ceding too much power to any given person. I don't think congregations who fail to do this are taking very seriously the Lord's Prayer temptation "and lead us not into temptation".

So yes, be smart about who it is that you're giving money to. Part of this issue is solved if people commit to a congregation. Get to know a congregation, both the congregants as well as pastoral and lay leadership. Know what the congregation is doing. Understand their mission and the means by which they seek to achieve it. While I believe firmly in financial transparency in all aspects of a congregation's finances, I have met plenty of very faithful and honest folks who dislike this approach because of worries that if people know the finances, they'll alter their giving. A congregation that is doing well financially might send the subliminal message to members that they need to contribute less. A congregation that is doing poorly financially may scare off new members.

Proper understanding of the Christian tradition (as opposed to law) of tithing is helpful. We tithe out of gratitude to God, in an acknowledgement that all that we have is his, and that whatever we have we should be grateful for. It stems out of the Old Testament Hebrew notion of firstfruits - bringing to God the first and best of what we have as a way of reminding ourselves (and others) that it isn't ours in the worldly sense of the word.

As such, tithing is something that most Christian communities encourage their members to do, to a large extent because the tithing concept has allowed Christian churches to evolve as organizations and denominations. You can't usually purchase land or build a building or pay a pastor and other staff unless you have the capital to do so. Once upon a time, land may have been donated by individuals, and church buildings may have been built by a combination of hired skilled professionals as well as the voluntary efforts of members. Pastors and staff were sometimes compensated less in money and more in daily bread sorts of gifts - literally. In our highly regulated culture, these things have become more and more impractical. Money has always spoken, but it has reached a point where there are fewer other voices in the room to compete with it.

If you have questions about tithing - why, how much, what it's used for, etc. - sit down and talk with your pastor. Your pastor shouldn't be the financial officer of the congregation, ideally, but he or she should be able to speak reasonably knowledgeably on the topic. Most of the time, I'm willing to bet that they'll encourage you to take tithing seriously, though how they phrase it will differ.

The article points out that there are scammers outside of congregations as well who prey on folks that they know are already conditioned to give money to good causes, and will troll membership directories looking for easy targets. Whether you're religious or otherwise, I encourage people not to give money to soliciting organizations until you've done your homework on them - and that homework should involve other people and more than just a Google search.

But the article goes on into some other interesting and not directly related tangents. Rather than limiting itself to the discussion at hand - ensuring that your donations to a religious institution are being used properly (where 'properly' is a term that is likely to have a broad latitude by definition), it takes it upon itself to provide financial advising as to the proper place and role of tithing. That's where things get a little trickier.

First off, it counsels people to avoid going into debt to tithe. On the surface, this seems to make a lot of sense, and as a rule of thumb, I'm willing to go with it. The problem is that the goal behind this recommendation is personal financial solvency. While that's a fine and laudable goal that I embrace for myself and my family, it isn't the defining nature of the tithe. The tithe is not about personal financial solvency. It is about a response to God. While Scripturally and traditionally this response has had some very specific numerics attached to it, ideally the response should be motivated from the heart. The goal of the tithe is not fiscal solvency. The goal of the tithe is a response to God.

I'm only being critical of the underlying premises of the author here. I will be the first to counsel a parishioner to reconsider their tithe or a large special offering if I'm unsure they're in a position to do it wisely. That presumes I know what 'wise' is for them, and that's why I would want to talk with them. As with so many things, relationship is a far better mechanism than regulation. I want my parishioners to make good decisions for themselves as well as for their Christian community. Sometimes that means stepping out in faith a little more. Sometimes that means scaling back. But for me to say that maintaining a particular tithe regardless of fluctuating circumstances, or for someone else to mandate basing the tithe around financial solvency are both overgeneralizations.

The last portion of the article asserts that there are many ways to give. Writing a check is a traditional way, but it's not the only way. Volunteering is another good option. Again, I agree with the overall idea. Working for nearly 20 years in a campus ministry environment, I'm well aware that it's often easier for someone to donate their time than it is to donate money. But as with above, that's a relationship issue as well - a discussion that can and should be had between a congregation's leadership and membership. As a pastor I'm very quick to admit that there are lots of ways to give and to encourage people to explore multiple options. But in some cases I might find myself questioning a person's decision to volunteer for an hour a month instead of providing any financial support. Sometimes solvency isn't the issue, and there are other issues that need to be explored and considered.

The author then stresses various ways of giving to a congregation (it's interesting that the author refers exclusively to churches, because these exact same thoughts apply to any organization - religious or otherwise) that provide the giver with the most advantages. Again, this isn't entirely bad. I'm a proponent of utilizing the system to obtain whatever benefits and advantages are legally to be had. But this isn't the purpose of tithing again, either. I don't tithe to reduce my estate taxes, a suggestion the author ends her article with. In gratitude to God, I don't necessarily first and foremost plan out my tax advantages.

Once you've decided that you want to give a special gift, or as you're determining what your regular tithe should be, be aware that there may be tax advantages (at least for the time being) in how you make your contributions. Avail yourself of these. But if your goal is to reduce your estate taxes or to otherwise benefit yourself financially, you need to examine your motivations. Be honest with yourself (and God) about what you're doing, and don't pretend to be tithing solely out of the goodness of your heart when you really have other goals. I have no problem with a member who tells me that they want to make a special donation at the end of the year. I assume that in part this is because they see the ministry as a worthy recipient of the donation (because there are certainly no lack of other places that could use the money!). I don't think any less of the gift or the giver knowing that it's based in part on financial planning considerations. There's no need for either of us to pretend that there aren't other elements at play, but rather we can both give thanks to God that those elements are even a possible or necessary consideration.

One of the most challenging stories in the New Testament occurs early on in the life of the rapidly growing Church. This Church was characterized by its love and care for the poor and marginalized, such as widows. People were moved to sell off possessions and give the proceeds to the Church to foster this work.

But in Acts 5:1-11 we're presented with the cautionary tale of Ananias and Sapphira, members of the Church who sold some property and gave the proceeds to the Church, but also kept back some of the money for themselves. Many people have been critical of this passage, citing it as an example of the Church's greed and unreasonable demands on members that they give everything. But that's not what is going on here. The problem for Ananias and Sapphira isn't that they decided not to give all the proceeds to the Church. The problem is that they wanted it to look like they had. They wanted the glory of being generous people (which they no doubt were), and were more than happy to lie about the extent of their generosity. In verses 3-4 Peter makes it clear that they were free to do what they wanted with their own property, but what they weren't free to do was to lie to not only their fellow members, but to God himself. In their particular situation, using the Church as a means to make themselves look good was fatal.

If a member wants to make a special donation because it's advantageous to them to do so, then praise God and thank you. But if a person's entire giving is dictated not by a desire to honor and serve their Lord and Savior, but by the dictates of the tax code, then it's probably good to discuss this.

In short, your financial planner or tax adviser or CPA shouldn't be the one dictating how and what you give. Bring your pastor (and others) into the conversation as well, and at the end of the day, do what you honestly feel is right and good to do.

What are your thoughts and experiences and practices of tithing?

Surprise?

Paul Nelson — Thu, 10 May 2012 06:54:11 GMT

Am I the only one that is not shocked by President Obama's endorsement of same-sex marriage today? Is there really anything more to be said about this? I doubt it. I am amazed only at how quickly this cultural transformation has been accomplished.

I have no doubt there will be plenty of hand-wringing and frustration in many congregations this week, congregations that affirm (as does ours) the God-defined nature of marriage as opposed to the definition of marriage as an institution of convenience or personal expression that our culture is rapidly embracing. It is understandable to be aghast and frustrated. But I think many congregations will be inclined towards the wrong response. We need to respond in ways that give witness to our hope and faith. These are not necessarily easy or fun responses. Heck, forget that. these are very difficult and unpleasant responses. They fly against our human nature. But they are (as near as I can tell), thoroughly Biblical responses.

First off, the people who seek to change the definition of marriage are not our enemies. They are creations of the same loving God that we seek to be obedient to. They are mistaken (as best I can interpret Scripture). We are all sinful, all broken, all prone to error, all constantly in need of our Lord's forgiveness and focusing on this rather than on how right we are and how wrong they are is ultimately far more healthy for potential dialog. This does not mean compromising the Biblical witness. It means being conditioned by that same Biblical witness as to how we respond. We are not called to hatred or demagoguery or belittling of these people. We are called to pray for them, that the Holy Spirit would work in their hearts and minds (as He no doubt already is in many of them), to bring them to a fuller and more faithful understanding of the way we have been created.

Secondly, we must be cautious to not be exploited by the political system, driven to see those who label themselves Democrat (or Republican, for that matter) as the enemy - unwelcome in our houses of worship. There is no one party that fully and completely represents the will of God. Many men and women of deep faith find themselves having to compromise their faith in order to vote for the platforms of either party. I know faithful men and women who have been ridiculed and insulted by their congregations because of how they felt led to vote. This is not God-pleasing. It is not Biblical. And it is not helpful. "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." (Ephesians 6:12, ESV)

Is there any wonder that there is confusion? Should we be surprised by this? I think not. If you're convinced that your neighbor is in error, you need to be praying for them, not mocking them. If we are convinced that certain platform stances of one party are contrary to the will of God, we ought to ensure that we aren't standing - either actively or through ignorance - on some rotten planks of our own.

Thirdly, I maintain that the best response is not to funnel more and more money to lobbyists and special interest groups devoted to overturning specific legislation or fighting certain policies. By all means vote your conscience and pray for change. But I don't believe that the kind of change many Christians want is going to come about by repealing this or that law or winning or defending a certain referendum or other. ALL, and I mean ALL of these victories will be temporary at best.

What Christians as individuals and congregations need to focus on is sharing the Gospel with the people around them. Responding in love rather than vitriol. Responding in humility rather than arrogance. If we can share the Gospel with our world in this manner, it won't matter what the laws say. If we think we're somehow going to successfully defend our congregations and moral codes and religious beliefs through the laws, we're grossly mistaken. Vote and be vocal, but if you aren't spending more of your time praying for your neighbors and seeking to share the Gospel with them, your votes are going to turn out worthless. Maybe not today. Maybe not next week (though at this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if it was next week!). But eventually.

In making this shift of emphasis, we are reminded of one very important thing. We do not evangelize in order to change public policy or law. We evangelize because we want as many people as possible to receive the gift of faith by the power of the Holy Spirit so that they will spend eternity in the presence of their Savior, Jesus Christ. Our faith is not a means to some other end. It is the end. There is no shortage of people happy to exploit the faith for their personal and professional gain, whether they call themselves a televangelist or a politician (or any number of other professions, by all means). We are not to make the same error - either intentionally or accidentally.

Marriage can be legally redefined, and I believe it will be. This does not affect the faithfulness of Christians across this country and around the world. Our congregations may come under direct assault legally for insisting on retaining the freedom to contradict the prevailing cultural preferences, and I believe they will. We may even see in our lifetimes great reversals in the religious freedoms that we have enjoyed as Americans for over two centuries. As Christians, all this changes is the convenience with which we worship our God. The battle of faith is not won or lost on whether marriage is defended or abortion is overturned. Christians continue to witness and share and the Holy Spirit still leads people to faith in the most hostile and adverse climates imaginable.

It's more convenient to have your culture agree with your faith. It's more convenient to have your culture not only accommodate your faith but encourage it. It's more convenient to assume that everyone around you basically thinks and believes the same way you do.

None of these things were true at the birth of the Church 2000 years ago - a birth we will celebrate in just a few weeks on Pentecost Sunday. The incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Son of God did not wait until culture was receptive to these things. He came in the midst of great hostility - both from people who worshiped God and from the far greater number of people who did not. The Holy Spirit launched the public ministry of the Church in signs and wonders in the midst of cultural attack, in the midst of the arrests of church leaders and their martyrdom. The Church did not rely on friendly laws to survive. We are mistaken if we think it needs it now.

We need to give thanks for two centuries of religious freedom and liberty unparalleled in all of human history. Religious freedom not only for Christians, but for people of all religious backgrounds. We should give thanks for that. We should defend it to the best of our ability utilizing our Constitutional rights. We can lament the shifting sands of culture that have finally made such liberties more and more difficult. But we shouldn't be surprised, and we shouldn't assume that we're going to change anything with mere laws.

As long as we continue to think in these ways, we perpetuate an image of combativeness that is inaccurate with who we have been made into. The battle is over. It was over 2000 years ago on a bloody cross and in an empty tomb. Our job is to spread the news about the victory, not to be distracted into an unending series of mock battles that ultimately sideline us from sharing the Gospel.

He is risen. He is risen indeed! And you know someone who needs to know that! Pray for the opportunity to share this good news in love and that they will receive it in faith. That's ultimately all that matters, regardless of what is legal or illegal.

If I'm Not OK, You Have to Be OK

Paul Nelson — Wed, 09 May 2012 23:14:21 GMT

Saw this in the local paper this morning, but this link provides a fuller article. A bill is being introduced in California that would ban anyone under the age of 18 from receiving restorative therapy - one of many terms for a type of psychological treatment aimed at helping the patient move from homosexual inclinations to heterosexual ones. Adults could still get the treatment if they sign a waiver acknowledging that it is 'dangerous'. Whatever that means.

There are lots of things to be said here, I suppose. I doubt I'm the best qualified to say them. But I'm curious as to how many other forms of therapy are explicitly banned by law? Especially regarding an issue that appears to be intensely traumatic to the exact young people that the law seeks to deny access to restorative therapy. Seems as though if we were hoping to avoid bullying of our young people, denying them a therapy that they may choose for themselves as a means of coping with severe and traumatic internal conflict ought to rank rather high on the list.

I think it's interesting that they had some individual testify as to the harm he believed was caused to himself by engaging in restorative therapy. Naturally, since it didn't work for him, it can't possibly be beneficial or helpful to anyone. And therefore must be banned.

If you're interested in Exodus International, probably the largest organization that promotes and refers people to restorative therapy, you can click on the link above.

Watching How We Talk

Paul Nelson — Sun, 06 May 2012 15:00:39 GMT

One of the blessings of being the pastor of a congregation is the relationships that develop over time. Many people are completely put off by the idea of standing in front of a group of people every week to lead them in worship, read the Word of God, and speak to them in a meaningful way about that Word and their lives. It is a huge and intimidating task, but it is made considerably easier and enjoyable by the fact that many of those people are known and loved. The longer a pastor remains in a particular parish, the deeper and broader those relationships can grow. It's truly beautiful.

But it can also lead to problems.

One major problem is the temptation to speak off the cuff with parishioners on Sunday morning, particularly during the sermon. Playing for laughs can lead to major misunderstandings (though I strongly encourage appropriate humor in sermons!). Most importantly, we need to remember that both as pastor and parishioner, we are praying that there will be new faces present each week to hear the Word of God and by the power of his Holy Spirit, become members and friends of the congregation themselves.

In other words, we want people who aren't part of our community to be there on Sunday morning. But we need to ensure that they hear us properly when they are.

Case in point: a pastor joking with his congregation says some things that could be taken in very much the wrong way by a visitor (or a long-time member). As the article notes, when questioned the pastor is quick to say he wasn't intending to be taken literally. His regular parishioners probably understand that. But for the outsider, what is intended as a valuable and timely lesson about the importance of parents in helping to shape a child's understanding of themselves instead becomes a shocking demonstration of potentially encouraging child abuse and other inexcusable practices.

This is one of the reasons proper preparation before preaching is so important. Attempting to do things off the cuff without thinking through them properly, as well as the temptation towards extemporaneous tangential comments (particularly if they're getting a good chuckle), need to be watched carefully to guard against getting carried away in a way that is going to require us to explain ourselves at length to our parishioners or those who might be sitting in the pew with either good or bad intentions.

We live in a very, very public age, and what we say in public we should expect could come back to bite us. None of us is perfect, we all make mistakes, we all say things we might choose not to repeat on further reflection, and this ought to be taken into account in our public media age as well. But it often isn't. Something to keep in mind before stepping into the pulpit this morning!

CTCR Review: Theology and Practice of Prayer

Paul Nelson — Fri, 04 May 2012 15:10:55 GMT

Our church body has a commission charged with putting together theological statements on various topics. This entity is known as the Commission on Theology and Church Relations, or the CTCR. It's a body comprised of academics, clergy, and lay people. Their publications are not binding statements of polity doctrine, but rather efforts to engage a broader range of our membership in the activity of theology - thinking through things that pertain to God and and our life in him.

I've decided that it's good to not only read these as I receive them, but to comment on them as well for both of my readers, something I've done here and here. A few weeks ago I received their latest publication - Theology and Practice of Prayer: A Lutheran View. If you click on the hyperlink, you can download the publication for free, and I encourage you to do so whether you're Lutheran or not.

Certainly the topic of prayer is one that ought to seem so familiar to Christians as to not need an elaborate theological reflection. My children have been praying for as long as they could fold their hands. It's easy, right? Yes. And no. In much the same way that breathing is easy, and yet when you stop to try and describe the process to someone else it gets very complicated, very quickly.

The purpose of this document is "to encourage prayer and to guard against potential misunderstandings, from the standpoint of Lutheran theology." As such, at 62 pages, it's hardly exhaustive on the subject. While it goes on in the introduction to claim that it isn't intended to be devotional or inspirational in tone, I'd argue that the latter portion of the document does an admirable job of those very things, and that it's not a bad thing, either.

Since the document comes from "the standpoint of Lutheran theology" it is characteristic in what it wants to say about prayer, primarily in the distinguishing of Biblical/Lutheran theology from what are perceived to be the most common erroneous interpretations of prayer in Scripture. The document takes time to distinguish the Scriptural admonitions to pray to God from the admonitions of some faith traditions to pray "to" (or 'through') other agents, such as Mary the mother of Jesus or certain men and women who are regarded as having lived highly pious and devoted lives of faith. The document also quickly links the importance of prayer in conjunction with the Gospel, and distinguishes prayer to the Triune God from any other use or application of prayer. All good points.

But likely not the points of concern that most people have when asked for questions about prayer. I'd wager that the most common question on prayer centers on why some appear to be answered favorably and others are not. Why are we apparently promised that we will get what we ask for if we pray in Jesus' name (John 14:13, among others), yet this doesn't seem to be the case all the time?

The document deals with this issue (pages 21-22), but not in a way that I think many people are going to find particularly satisfying or helpful. That said, I'm not sure that there is a satisfying or helpful way of clearly understanding the tension between our will and God's will.

The document concludes by leading readers to consider the model of prayer that Jesus provided to his followers - the Lord's Prayer. Petition by petition, the authors provide insight into what is being prayed and offering reflections on the why behind it. This section is very, very good and helpful for long-term Christians who may pray the Lord's Prayer every week but not really think about it. The reflections offered here are a good summary of why this prayer is so powerful and important, and so worthy of repetition and emulation.

If you're in a Lutheran (LCMS) congregation, ask your pastor if he has a copy of this that you can borrow (he should). My congregation has amassed a small library over the years, and I make sure that the library has a copy of these documents (one is usually sent to the congregation's mailing address and another is sent to the pastor's address) so that members can access it. It's worth your time to read it and grow in your awe and joy in the 'simple' matter of prayer.

Crossing Borders

Paul Nelson — Fri, 04 May 2012 05:29:00 GMT

I don't like boxes. I don't like confines. Routines are physically painful in some ways. I can credit or blame my ADD or ADHD or hyperactivity or multitasking mindset or whatever you want to call it for some of this. Maybe all of this. It can be a curse or a blessing either way.

There was a young woman in my bartending class this week. Pleasant. Dressed stylishly with skinny black jeans and high heels. She wants a part-time job while she works towards her real estate license. She might be 20 years younger than me - it's hard to tell exactly. Her conversations are punctuated with checking her iPhone and responding to texts.

Talking with her briefly, sharing the space of a small classroom for a few days, I find myself crossing borders - part of the reason I placed myself in a bartending class. Once across the border I feel the glow of a fiercely hot sun, young and pulsing with life and possibility so palpably that the people beneath it absorb and radiate that life and vitality. She carries herself with an air of confidence that I would still kill to have at twice her age. A confidence that the world is her oyster. That she's going places. That she's going to be somebody. Perhaps she already is somebody.

None of these are bad things, per se. They are accessories of youth more often than not. I don't fault her for them, I just observe them. By watching the way they carry through her eyes and conversation, I can almost imagine the world as it appears to her. I don't live in her world, but for the span of a few hours I step over the border between us and observe.

I'm just a visitor. I can't live there forever.

I crossed out of that border of confidence and energy and into other realms later in the day. Lands where the sun is not the robust, fiery gold of youth but rather the wan, pale, nearly translucent sun of winter. The sun that doesn't warm, but only displays the bleakness of the terrain around you.

I helped a man up off the floor of his small apartment. He had lain there an hour, alone, unable to get himself back up again. Not so very long ago, there was someone there to call for help. Not now. Not so long ago, this sort of help wouldn't have been imagined as necessary. But things can change quickly in the lands under that distant, cold sun.

He's not quite twice my age. Not so long ago his eyes sparkled and danced. Not so long ago he seemed a very different man on the inside, and certainly a different one on the outside. Today, perhaps the outer man better reflects the man hiding on the inside all along. Today his eyes are dull and tired. No apologies for the mess of his apartment, or the mess of his clothing. No real awareness of himself or the danger of his situation. Just the dull tiredness of another day to be endured.

He looked at me today as I asked him questions. As I tried to ascertain what help he needed and how I could get it to him. I could almost hear his eyes, they were so plaintive and loud. Why am I still here? Why can't I have peace? Why do I have to deal with today? Why should I deal with tomorrow? He lay there, just looking at me. Lids heavy and slow, just like his words. His voice not so long ago danced and rang with a deep, rich timbre. Now words dribbled out only with great effort, limping and crawling across the short span of air between us.

There was no confidence. No certainty. If the world is an oyster, it can be a difficult one to shuck, and people are liable to seriously injure themselves. Stepping across the border between he and I, I found myself in a place where there seemed to be no places left to go, even if there were energy and interest to go there. The man I helped into a chair and sat with had no illusions about being someone important - whether in the future or in the present. All that was left was being, rather than striving to be. Que sera sera the old song hauntingly promises, without ever clarifying whether that's a good thing or not.

The world calls us constantly to put off the crossing of borders, to believe that life is meant to be lived young and rich and beautiful forever. That it's possible to remain transfixed beneath the glowing pleasant warmth of youth indefinitely. As though we needn't ever grow older. Needn't ever realize suddenly how little so much is worth that we've been told is invaluable. We're assured that this pricey education, this pricey home, this pricey car, this pricey lifestyle is all worth it, will always be worth it. But it isn't.

Because we're just visitors. We can't live there forever.

Teaching the Constitution

Paul Nelson — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:38:37 GMT

This looks like an awesome tool for teaching (as well as personally understanding) the Constitution of the United States. I've only perused it briefly, but as a home-school dad, I'm always on the lookout for tools that can help my wife and I teach as well as help our kids directly learn and understand for themselves.

This tool provides essays and explanatory notes for every section of the Constitution and all of the Amendments - sometimes for entire sections and sometimes for particular phrases. The explanations will tend to be identified (and/or dismissed) by some as 'conservative' in nature given the site that provides the tool. The commentary is intended to try and illustrate what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they crafted this document, as well as how the various Amendments came about and for what purpose.

Judge for yourself whether this is a helpful tool. Feedback here is always appreciated!

Reading the Qur'an

Paul Nelson — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 16:41:31 GMT

I've finally decided to read the Qur'an. I bought an English language translation over a decade ago, tried starting it once, and gave up after a few pages. Prompted by a world religions study that I'm leading for my mid-week study group at church, I decided it was time to plunge in again. This time, it looks like I'm going to make it.

Obviously, I'm not going to be touting the Qur'an as divine revelation. Without a guide that can help me make sense of the text faithfully (something I encourage everyone approaching the Bible for the first time to do with Scripture as well), I won't pretend to be able to derive it's fullest senses and nuances. But there are plenty of observations that I can make now that I'm about halfway or more through it.

I'm surprised by how many references it makes to the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, both directly and indirectly. It talks more than once about Jesus, his mother Mary, Moses, Abraham, and even King David in a recent passing reference. I'm also surprised at how much liberty the Qur'an takes with these existing texts. It refers to some events, retells others, adds dialogue and other elements to other renditions. It also repeatedly states that both Jews and Christians have not remained faithful to their Scriptures, and have not necessarily passed them on with the same accuracy that they were originally revealed.

Thus far the Qur'an is radically different from the Hebrew & Christian Scriptures in it's general tone and intent. It is concerned with submission - the reader's submission to Allah. It spends a lot of time enjoining the reader towards this submission, both through alternating threats and promises of blessings, as well as through legal directives reminiscent of Leviticus and other sections of the Old Testament.

Also interesting is the Qur'an's implicit assumption that the reader is male. Women are talked about in the third person exclusively, while males are referred to in the second person. Part of this would make sense if these are the direct words of the angel Gabriel speaking to the man Mohammed. But it's interesting all the same.

Overall, I haven't come across anything terribly surprising. Most of it seems, well, familiar - as in it is contained in the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures. The biggest impression is that of driving the reader towards the acceptance of Mohammed's revelation as authoritative personally. While there are plenty of reiterations that Allah is benevolent and forgiving, there are no fewer passages that both indicate that Allah is not inclined to be forgiving with those who reject him, and that ultimately he's going to do what he wants to do anyways, so we all ought to be on our best behavior just in case.

There seem to be plenty of conflicting passages about interactions with Jews and Christians, alternately enjoining benevolence and kindness, then stressing the importance of not trusting them or seeing them as allies. There are passages encouraging the faithful to live in peace with others, but plenty of others encouraging the faithful to be fervent in warfare.

I'll post more later, but it's good to finally be reading this for myself.

Book Review: Manic by Terri Cheney

Paul Nelson — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:19:29 GMT

Being on vacation is surprisingly less conducive to reading and posting than I often assume it will be when starting out on it. Wonderful time, but reading and writing has definitely been at the bottom of the list overall.

However, I'll post this update on one book that I've finished on the trip. I was lent Manic: A Memoir by a friend. Since I currently know at least two people who deal with various types of depression or bi-polarity, I was eager to read the book for a better insight into how to relate to their experience.

The book basically reinforced the idea that I can't relate. Not in a meaningful or helpful way. Cheney does a good job of driving home the point that control is not something on the menu for many people who deal with these sorts of issues. As such, relating is a fleeting matter at best.

As an author, Cheney is very adept at relating incidents and emotions in a compelling and enticing way. Of course, it doesn't hurt that she is (or was) a self-described beautiful, intelligent, sexy, highly-compensated lawyer working in Hollywood and enjoying the finer things in life whether on her dime or the dime of one of the men in her life. The net result is a glorification of the horror, in many respects. The reader is dazzled by the environments in which Cheney careens, and that can easily lead the reader into a glamorization of those darker impulses even though Cheney is clearly not desiring us to use her life as a role model.

I imagine it must be terribly difficult to adequately describe the dark episodes of depression. Writing chapters or an entire book solely dedicated to that all-consuming darkness would make for awful reading, I suspect. As such, it's easier (and perhaps only possible) to describe those moments of brilliance - whether manic or otherwise. Moments that stand out in the memory in all their awful beauty. Lost moments and opportunities, unexpected twists and turns in what had been assumed to be a relatively straight stretch of emotional road. But in my limited experience with depression and those who deal with it, those bright moments or memorable dark moments are very, very rare and elusive.

If you have someone in your life who deals with these sorts of issues, this book most likely won't be very helpful to you. It will be interesting to read, thanks to Cheney's interesting life. But I'm not sure it will help the people having to deal with those who are unable to rally themselves to the simple tasks of day to day life. It might be more helpful in understanding a manic person, but I'm not qualified (as far as I know!) to make that comparison.

Someone Else's Review

Paul Nelson — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 04:22:01 GMT

Getting back into the swing of regularly blogging is taking longer than anticipated. Thanks to you all for your patience.

For starters, here's a review by one of my seminary professors of a recent article in Time magazine that you may have run across. I don't subscribe and so can't view the article, although there is an interesting-in-its-own-right follow up blurb here. Even if you can't read the original article, the review by Dr. Gibbs is worth reading in it's own right, and the follow-up link above is also good food for thought.

How we talk about heaven does matter to life here on earth. It's an important aspect of Scripture and faith that has all-too-often been glossed over into vague talk about heaven as though this is the goal of the Christian life, rather than a very, very nice hotel that we stay at en route to our final destination, the renewed and reconnected heaven and earth. Our hope is not to escape from life and this world but rather to enjoy it the way it was originally intended to be enjoyed, without the scars and wounds of sins and evil.