Book Review - Love Wins by Rob Bell

A 3-part video blog reviewing this much-discussed book.

PART 1 is a super quick overview of the key points in Love Wins for those who haven't read it

PART 2 is small sampling of how Bell handles Scripture

PART 3 is the lesson I think the evangelical church can take away from this book and its popularity.

I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments section!
------------------------------------------------------------
PART 1 - A quick introduction




PART 2 - A small sample of Scriptural problems



LINK to an excellent - and more thorough - survey of the main Biblical and doctrinal issues with Love Wins

PART 3 - The lesson for us

Video Blog - On Questions, Answers, and Emergents

My first-ever video blog!



LINK 1 - Rob Bell's Promotional Video for his new book Love Wins



LINK 2 - to the article Reinventing The Flat Tire


LINK 3 - A brilliant parody of Bell's promotional video:

What to Give, What to Give...

Deciding what to give someone else isn't just a challenge at Christmas time or on birthdays. For the Christian, deciding what to give to the Lord's work is an ongoing challenge. As a pastor I've had numerous people inquire over the years into what the Bible actually teaches about our giving. "But wait," we might say, "that's not a difficult decision at all. God specified in the Bible exactly what we're supposed to give: 10% of our gross income." That's true, the Bible did say that. However, it's not quite that simple.

Different Day, Different Law
The Bible taught God's people to give 10% of their gross income to the Lord in Leviticus 27:30-32. Notice, that's Leviticus: the law for God's people under the Old Covenant. But we're under the New Covenant now. Leviticus is the same book that also taught God's people to avoid eating pork and to bring an animal to the priest and have it killed for their sin. But we don't do those things anymore. I'm quite the fan of good, thick-cut bacon, and in almost a dozen years of full time pastoring I have (thankfully!!) never seen anyone bring a goat to church on a Sunday morning so I could slaughter it for them.

You see, part of the reason people have asked me over the years what the Bible teaches about giving is that they hear "you should give 10%; it's in the Bible," regularly, but they sense that something is amiss because that's Old Testament Law. And they're right. Sometimes I think evangelical teachers & preachers might be guilty of cherry-picking the pieces of the Law of Moses which suit our purposes, and leaving aside the rest.

Now, the question of how to correctly and consistently apply the Law of Moses to Christians today may need another post by itself (perhaps some thoughts on that should be the next post?). But for now, the important thing to note is that the strict 10% giving law is one we're no longer under. 2 Corinthians 9:7 says that we should give "not under compulsion", so it's clear that being forced to give a certain amount is not the Biblical ideal. That doesn't mean the 10% standard is meaningless (more below), but it does mean it's not our rote obligation.

The Good and Bad with Law
And that's a good thing. In fact we usually like the idea of a law going away; of personal freedom, and of making our own choice. But let's be honest, a strict law in the Bible does have some advantages. For one thing, I know exactly where I stand with God! Did I give 10%? Then I'm good with God. Clearly defined lines provide a ready answer to the question 'am I giving enough?', and as such they provide a sense of security.

But there's a downside too: clearly defined lines also provide a limit on personal growth. After all, if I knew that God required me to, say, read my Bible three times per week, would I have incentive to read it more than that? Likewise, if I'm supposed to give exactly 10% and I do so, the result is that an "I've done my part" mentality sets in, and this actually de-motivates me from further growth.

New Testament Giving
So then, we're back to the question: how much does God want me to give?

Rather than specifying a specific amount of money to give, the New Testament provides 4 principles which every Christian should use to evaluate - and plan - their giving. All 4 principles can be found in 2 Corinthians 8 & 9, as well as throughout the New Testament. My suggestion is to give your giving plan some concerted thought at least once per year, and let these principles shape your giving plan.

Principle #1 - Generosity
2 Corinthians 8:3-7 tells us to excel in the grace of giving, up to and even pushing the limits of our means. Clearly, we're to give generously. But how much is "generous"? God leaves that to each individual to determine. But that's not as undefined as it might sound at first. After all, we know generosity when we see it, don't we? We also know its opposite - stinginess - when we see it too. When a man who earns $200,000 per year gives $100 to a local charity, we don't call that generous. Nice maybe, but not generous. He can afford it. But when a family of 6 living on $25,000 per year scrimps and saves so they can give the same $100, we rightly say 'wow, that's generous!' In the same way, as you look at your income, your spending, and your giving, would an honest, third-party observer look at what you give and call it "generous"?

Principle #2 - Cheerfulness
2 Corinthians 9:7 tells us that whatever amount we give, the giving is to be done "cheerfully". This isn't really about how much I give, but rather about how I feel about the act of giving. Does my money leave my hand reluctantly? Does my heart sigh when I write that check to my church because I think of all the things I could do with that money for myself? Does giving feel like a burden? Or is it a joy? God cares very much about where our hearts are at in the giving process. In 2 Corinthians 8:3-4 Paul lauds the Macedonian churches because they literally begged to give. It was not a burden, but a joy! That's what God wants from us.

Principle #3 - The Precedent
I mentioned above that the Old testament 10% tithing law still has some relevance for today: it serves as a precedent. God no longer stipulates a specific amount that his followers must give, but when he did he specified 10%. So based on that precedent, if I give less than 10% now, it is not likely that my giving would be considered by God as being "generous".

I've heard the 10% giving standard referred to as God's "training wheels" for giving. I think that's a good metaphor. With a bicycle, the point of taking the training wheels off is not so that you will ride you bike even slower, but that you would really take off and go much farther and faster than the training wheels allow you to. So it is with giving. God once stipulated 10%, and now he takes that mandate off of us and says "give cheerfully and generously!" with the goal being that we would delight in doing much more than that.

Principle #4 - Reward
Some Christians are uncomfortable with the Biblical doctrine of eternal rewards, but we shouldn't be. 2 Corinthians 9:6 makes the point clearly and forcefully: if you give a lot now, you'll enjoy a bigger reward for all eternity. Why does God tell us this? To motivate us to fund his kingdom now. It's difficult to get excited about giving more when it feels like a loss. But it's far easier to get excited about it when we realize that the more we give, the more we gain in eternity. Biblical giving isn't a net loss, it's a net gain.

But this requires having an eternal perspective; that is, living this life in light of the next. When I sit down to plan my giving, am I thinking only about this year, this month, or this week? Am I 100% focused on the needs and expenses I have right now, and how much I can afford to let go of today? Or is part of my thought process focused on eternity, and how much of God's kingdom I want to have made happen when I stand before God? Remembering that today's sacrifices = much bigger reward later is a powerful motivator to give.

Give Like Eternity Depends On It
These 4 principles...

...Generosity
...Cheerfulness
...Precedent
...Reward

shape the Christian understanding of giving. When we fully embrace what Christ has done for us, and when we become captivated by his future plan for a redeemed life on the New Earth full of God's goodness and glory, giving takes on a whole new meaning. The reasons we give change, and consequently the amounts we give do as well. As we fund the expansion of God's kingdom rather than of our own little kingdoms, more and more people come to understand who Christ is and experience his forgiveness. But if God's people become too fixated on life here and now, others may miss out on the gospel of Christ.

God wants us to give like eternity depends on it. Because it does!

It Isn't Ours To Change

I've been thinking a lot lately about truth. Biblical truth to be exact, in this truth-allergic age.

I just finished another edition of the comparative worldviews course I teach at George Fox University, and this group of adult students was interesting. They were a very bright and active group and they had a wide variety of beliefs. And just like a lot of people these days, this group really struggled with the idea of truth. I mean, really struggled. Many of them just couldn't get their heads around the idea that any one way of looking at the world might be more accurate than the other ways. In other words, these intelligent and hard working people just couldn't understand how one view of life - any view - could be true.

But many Christians seem to be in the same boat. Truth just doesn't compute these days, and maybe that's what so many evangelical Christians are responding to. There seems to be this all out rush to redefine Christianity; to get our truth-allergic world to see Christianity as not "truthy." We're pouring forth a nearly endless stream of books, blogs, and videos proclaiming "Hey! Check us out! Jesus is allergic to truth as well!"

Increasingly, Christians are down on the church, down on doctrine, and down on religion (even though that's what following Jesus is, contrary to popular opinion). These days we love questions, but we hate answers. We celebrate ignorance (mistaking it for humility), and despise knowledge. We're up on the journey, but down on the destination. In fact, it is now so popular to bash religion within Christian circles that one of the quickest ways to become influential with today's Christian generation is to write criticisms of theology, church, and Christianity itself.

What is this all about? Christians working hard to define themselves as not Christian? This isn't crazy, we're assured. In fact we're told that Jesus himself was down on truth and religion. We have drunk deeply at the well of this idea. for example, I recently saw a Christian describe their faith by saying "I rejected Christianity in order to follow Jesus."

Huh? Respectfully friends, I think we're confused.

It's one thing to critique how we run our churches, do our theology, and practice our religion. There is much to critique, as I've written here and here for example. To a point this is healthy - even necessary. But often I think we're identifying the wrong problem. Whatever the church's faults, being the church and standing for revealed truth are not among them. We're constantly taught the value of truth (Proverbs 23:23), of sound doctrine (Titus 2:1), and of the word of God (Matthew 5:17-18). And we're taught that Jesus is the Lord and head of the church (Ephesians 4:15-16), so apparently whatever its faults, it means something to him.

And that's what I'm really driving at, and what I think so many Christians these days are missing. To follow Jesus means to follow him his way. To be a part of his kingdom means he is the king. He makes the rules, calls the shots, and determines what matters. Being his follower means learning to accept this from him whether we like it or not. Actually, it means more than that: it means learning to like it too.

Our efforts to redefine Jesus as non-truthy and following him as non-religious are not only misguided, they are also overstepping our bounds. We're not free to change Christianity. It is the Way of Jesus. It is living life by his rules, traveling the road he marked out, for his glory. If we abandon this road, we have abandoned him.

We can't change Christianity. It isn't ours to change.

Worship Giver

I very briefly touched on Judges 21:25 during last Sunday's message, and the significance of the point being made there has really hit me these last few days. The second half of that verse is often quoted: "everyone did what was right in his own eyes." We see a relativistic, God-rejecting, me-centered culture around us and cite this verse as an apt description of our own world. And it is. But more is going on here.

Narcissism's Cause
The first half of the verse tells us why , and the reason is surprising to modern ears: "In those days there was no King in Israel," This is what explains the statement about everyone being their own boss. The people were not faithful to God because there was no king.

There Is No "I" In "Follower"
But this seems strange! It would make more sense to say something like, the people did what was right in their own eyes because:

• they were selfish
• they misunderstood God
• they suffered from inappropriate pride
• etc.
  

But all of these modern-minded explanations have one word in common: "they." The focus of this thinking is on the broken people. But the focus of Scripture is elsewhere - it is on God who promises to fix the brokenness.

The Royal Repairman
The "king" mentioned in Judges is the Messiah - the one whom God said would crush evil, reverse the Curse of Genesis 3, and transform the human heart from rebellion to faithfulness. Humanity's problems began with a "we'll be our own God" mentality, and that mentality can never change itself completely. The solution to the problem isn't inside us. "They" is the wrong place to start looking for a fix.

Enter the King. The Messiah is the one whom the Bible says will repair the "we'll be our own God" mentality. He'll do it for us, from outside of us. He'll give us a "heart of flesh" toward God instead of a "heart of stone," as God puts it in Ezekiel 36:25-27. It is the Messiah who will enable us to follow God rightly, enjoy his benefits, and worship him. He is the Worship Giver.

Not Very Postmodern!
Which brings us back to Judges 21:25. The reason everyone did what was right in his own eyes is because there was not yet a king. Only when The King came could God's people have a new heart that would stay faithful to him. They could not fix this problem themselves. We are completely dependent it seems on God; not only to worship him, but to even want to worship him.

This runs contrary to our current postmodern tendency to think that we are our own best gauges of right and wrong. It also undermines the idea that if I as a Christian detect residual rebellion in my heart, I need to redouble my efforts to eradicate it. As if I could remove the things in myself that impede full worship. Messiah is the Worship Giver.

Arrival Of The Worship Giver
And that makes this forthcoming Christmas season a significant event. As I head toward the holidays this year I find myself reflecting on the bleak picture of Judges 21:25, and knowing that I am in that boat apart from God's promised King. As we approach the celebration of Jesus' birth, I find myself thinking not just about worshiping him for what he's done or even for who he is, but worshiping him for enabling me to worship him.

This year I worship the one who gives me the heart to worship in the first place.

Another Good Question - Bible Codes & Hidden Messages

We just wrapped up a very cool series of messages at Harvest, where I basically let the congregation determine what we were going to teach on. They submitted a bunch of really good questions, touching on Bible, theology, ethics, current events, and a lot more. I addressed them during our Sunday worship services, suggesting how we can think Biblically about each question. It was a blast!

One of the questions I didn't get to on a Sunday was as follows: "What do you think about The Bible Code by Michael Drosnin? I heard about it but it sounded a little weird…”

Well, the writer of this question has a good instinct. The general idea behind Drosnin’s books (I understand there’s a Bible Code 2 and even a Bible Code 3 now) is that by looking at the Hebrew text of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) one can apply a complicated encryption method and discover secret messages that are hidden within the text. These messages can then be de-coded, and are generally said to be able to predict future events. Sounds cool huh? Anyone curious enough to go buy a copy?

Save your money.

I could elaborate on lots of reasons why Drosnin’s idea is nonsense, including the fact that he’s a journalist (not a scholar), that others have also alleged such things before so this is nothing new, and that every time someone like Drosnin makes these kinds of claims they always stand to sell a lot of books and make a boat-load of money. Curious.

But the most important reason has nothing to do with this particular book or its author. Rather, the really important issue here is how Christians should read the Bible. Simply put, God’s word is not a magic book from which we divine mysterious and elusive secrets. Nor is it some deep conspiracy riddle that needs to be solved.

A secret message in the Hebrew Bible? Don't bet on it.

Instead, the Bible is God’s very plain and understandable explanation of the way the world works, and how we fit into it. He intends that when we read it we would understand what he’s been up to in human history, and how we should live in light of that. God didn’t embed secret codes in the Bible that predict future events, reserved only for the select few who are insightful enough to successfully complete some mysterious scavenger hunt. Nor did he encode messages that could only be deciphered by modern cryptography, leaving centuries-worth of his own followers in the dark. In the Bible, God has spoken to all people at all times, plainly.

How can I say that with such certainty? Because of the example of Jesus and the apostles, who never looked for secret messages and hidden meanings in the Bible. Instead, they followed the plainly evident flow of thought in God’s word. They looked at what the Bible says and how it's put together, and in so doing they understood its real message: it points to a coming Messiah who would be the centerpiece of God’s plan of redemption.

How did they come to that conclusion? What were they looking at that helped them see what the Bible’s message was? I will describe that in our Fall sermon series at Harvest. We’ll look at the way God put the Bible together, and we’ll see what message it sends. And I think I can demonstrate convincingly that Jesus and the apostles read it the same way, and thus understood it the same way. Don’t miss it!

And don’t be surprised when the Bible's flow as I describe it this Fall has nothing to do with secret codes, hidden meanings, or selling tons of books to make me rich.

The Bible As Jesus Read It

The Bible Jesus read (sometimes called the Hebrew Bible) was identical to our modern Old Testament in every respect, except one. Rather than beginning with Genesis and ending with Malachi, his Bible began with Genesis and ended with Chronicles. And many of the books in between were also arranged in a different order. This particular arrangement of the books is important because it helps readers understand the message of the Hebrew Bible.

Jesus alluded to the arrangement of the Hebrew Bible when he walked with two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus after his resurrection. There he explained to them everything the Old Testament taught about him as Messiah. And then notice how Jesus describes this message (Luke 24:44): "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." Here Jesus is referring to the three-part structure of the Hebrew Bible:

• Law of Moses ("Torah" in Hebrew) refers to the first 5 books of the Bible
• The Prophets includes Joshua, Judges, Samuel & Kings, along with most of the prophets we traditionally recognize
• The Writings (called here "the Psalms" since this section begins with the book of Psalms) includes everything else in the Old Testament.

But it's not just that there are three sections. It's the deliberate way those sections are attached to one another. They were put together with intentionality, to send the message God wants to send. It's almost as if they are sewn together. And the text in the "seams" where these sections come together emphasizes the dual themes of trust in God's Word and the coming Messiah (which I blogged about below).

So the structure of whole Hebrew Bible looks something like this (click for a larger view):

OK, so... what's the point?
The point is that this is the Bible as Jesus and the apostles read it. And this is HOW they read it. It turns out that the Old Testament is not about law and works while the New testament is about faith and grace. No! The New Testament writers got their understanding of faith and grace from the Old Testament. They recognized that the entire Hebrew Bible was about God's plan to redeem all of creation through the coming Messiah. That's why Jesus said, referring to Deuteronomy, "Moses wrote about me." (John 5:46) He learned what his role as the Messiah was all about by reading the Hebrew Bible.

And so did the apostles. As they were preaching the gospel, writing the New Testament to explain Christian doctrine, and laying their lives down for the kingdom of God, it was this understanding of the Old Testament that informed their theology and inflamed their hearts. And it still does so today.

The way we've changed the order of the Old Testament books masks its overall message to a degree. But the more I learn about how clearly and consistently the Old Testament teaches about the importance of faith in Jesus for ultimate redemption, the more in awe I am of what God has done. I have literally been brought to tears numerous times these past couple weeks of studying these things more closely, as I think about my love for my Savior: the Messiah who was talked about all the way back in Genesis.

We're going to look at these things more closely this Fall at Harvest, so for those of you who attend or who listen to our sermon series online we're going to have a great time! I hope you'll let me know as the series progresses if the material we're teaching makes sense, and if it has the same effect on you as it does on me.

Stained Glass Bible

I've always liked big stained glass windows. So many different shards of glass, each unique in its size, shape and color. And with the sun shining through, each piece is bright and beautiful in its own way. But of course we don't pay attention to the individual shards when we look at a stained glass window. We want to see the big picture they add up to. We're transfixed by the way all those varied and unique pieces fit together to form an artistic image that carries within it a message.

I've learned a lot about the Bible from an Old Testament scholar named John Sailhamer. He says the Bible is in many ways like a stained glass window. Each of the Bible's 66 books has its own unique content and form, like individual shards of stained glass. But those shards have been fit together to form a complete picture. As beautiful as each separate verse and book of the Bible is, the greatest beauty of God's Word is in the picture of reality that it forms when viewed as a whole.

Here's just one example: the Old Testament historically consisted of three major divisions: the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. These are the same 39 books we have in our OT today, but they're in a different order than we see them in our Bibles. And the order matters! Because when you put them in their ancient Jewish order you notice something: there are transitions in the text between each of the three groupings:

• Section 1 (the Torah) ends with Deuteronomy 34, which talks about a coming great prophet.
  
• Section 2 (the Prophets) starts with Joshua 1, which is about meditating on God's Word
  

Now hang with me here:

• Section 2 (the Prophets) ends with the end of Malachi, which talks about a coming great prophet (sound familiar?).
  
• Section 3 (the Writings) then begins with Psalm 1, which talks about (you guessed it) meditating on God's Word.

The transitionary material is parallel in each case, and this points to a deliberate message in the Old Testament: from start to finish the Old Testament advances the dual themes of faith in God's Word and the promised Messiah king. These are not New Testament concepts! In fact, Jesus and the New Testament writers saw these themes in the Old Testament and realized that faith in the Messiah was the core of God's plan from the very beginning.

And there's so much more! These transitions are just one of many examples of how the entire Bible is far from a loose collection of random religious writings. Rather, it's a whole, cohesive, master-crafted work of art! And this is what we're going to unpack this Fall at Harvest Community Church. We'll spend time backing way up and seeing how the whole of the Bible's 66 books form a cohesive view of the world, and thus forms the basis of our own view of the world. And I hope everyone's appreciation and love for God's Word increases dramatically, as mine has as a result of learning these things.

Long ago, in many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son" Hebrews 1:1-2

How Does A Christian Think?

That's a critical question to our spiritual growth. Becoming more like Jesus means seeing life the way he sees it, and making decisions that reflect his values and goals. Any tools that are really effective at helping us do that are worth knowing about.

And so I want to pass on the launch of a brand new, very cool project on the web called The Chuck Colson Center For Christian Worldview. Colson has been teaching and writing on the subject of developing a thoroughly biblical view of life for decades now, and this site catalogs and archives almost everything he's done and makes it easily accessible to everyone for free. It also connects many like-minded Christian ministries together such as Summit Ministries and Focus on the Family's The Truth Project.

But that's just the beginning.

The site also has constantly fresh and updated articles and Bible studies from a variety of writers to help you grow spiritually:

• "Worldview" is a short devotional that helps readers learn to see the world we live in through the lens of a biblical worldview.
• "Ancient Paths" is a weekly Bible study guide that connects us to the wisdom of theologians throughout church history. You can subscribe to this one weekly for free.
• "Changepoint" is an column-length article designed to address many aspects of life in our fast-paced society, and provide practical insights on how Christians can live out their faith right now.

Reading these brief, accessible articles on a regular or even semi-regular basis over time would go a long way to helping all of us learn to think about life in more biblical terms. And for those who want to take their worldview training to an even higher level, soon you'll even be able to enroll in online classes. The number of opportunities and resources here is really cool!

I am privileged to serve as one of the contributors to the Colson Center site, contributing to each of the three columns mentioned above on a monthly basis. Currently the site features a Worldview article I wrote based on an experience Amy and I once had growing grapes, and tying that to the lesson Jesus teaches us in John 15. Also, this week's Ancient Paths Bible study is one I put together on the deceptiveness of sin, following the insights of 17th century Puritan theologian John Owen. Feel free to check them out, and as always I welcome your feedback!

I'm told that a strong "get the word out" effort will commence in a week or two to let people know the site is now active, but you get advanced notice! Drop by the Colson Center and familiarize yourself with one of most promising, easy to use tools for Biblical worldview to come out yet.

Lawn Theology: Real Love Is A Sprinkler

Those bizarre-looking squiggles above have actually meant a lot to me these past couple days. It's Hebrew of course; three Hebrew words. More specifically it's the constantly repeated refrain of an ancient worship song recorded in the Bible as Psalm 136, which I will preach on this coming Sunday. Every single one of the short verses ends with these three words, which translate "for his loving-kindness endures forever." That is repeated 26 times in this Psalm. 26! And some people complain today if worship choruses are sung a mere 6 or 7 times!

Why 26 times? Why sing the same repetitive words over and over? You almost get the idea God is trying to pound something into our heads and hearts, which is exactly what I think is going on here. Of course that begs the question of why this particular idea needs to be pounded so heavily.

I think the reason is that God's love is so foreign to our human experience of love. We hear phrases like "God's love is unconditional" in churches, and we get that at one level. But do we love that way? Have we been loved that way by another? Not often. I got to thinking about this earlier this week while corresponding with my friend Mike Maeshiro. Mike made the observation that really, truly loving someone is more than just an act of the will or a commitment. Real love happens when we're so caught up in God's presence and so full of his love that we simply love. Whomever. Not by determined choice (as if we didn't really want to) and certainly not because they deserve it (conditional love), but simply because the reality of love is alive in our hearts. My words, his point.

I agreed with him, and then it occurred to me that this is what I've always understood and taught about God's love: that his love for us has nothing to do with us, but rather it has everything to do with him. When I'm in awe of God's love for me I am not supposed to conclude that I must really be something special - as if God loves me because I'm some really swell guy, and hey who couldn't love me once they got to know me? Instead, I'm supposed to conclude that God is an amazing lover, precisely because he would love someone so unworthy of his devotion as me. God's love for me doesn't call attention to me, it calls attention to him.

Human love, on the other hand, typically arises in response to the value of the one loved. We love things and people who give us pleasure, and in whom we see value. No value or pleasure, no love. And what happens when someone who used to please us no longer does? We often say we've "fallen out of love" with them. My point here really isn't that human love is shallow - I think it's still real. But my point is that human love is contingent. It fixates on something worthwhile, and arises in response to that. Human love is like a garden hose with a spray nozzle: the water only goes to the places you direct it. You choose which plants you want to water (roses, yes! weeds, no!) and only the "good" plants get the benefit of the water.

God's love is more like the sprinkler in the middle of my lawn. It indiscriminately soaks everything in its radius: grass, the annuals in the flower bed next to the grass, the dandelions and clover growing in the middle of my lawn... even the kid in the bathing suit who ran through the spray on a hot afternoon. It simply doesn't matter! The sprinkler doesn't distinguish between "good" targets and "bad" ones. Everything within its reach gets soaked with the life giving water, because by its very nature the sprinkler is an indiscriminate broadcasting device.

That's when my mind drifted back to Psalm 136 and it's lengthy series of repeated declarations that God's loving-kindness endures forever. Because that's what I think this Psalm is saying about God. By his very nature he is a lover. He loves anyone - in fact everyone - not on the basis of their worth or lovableness, but on the basis of his own nature as a lover. God's love is self contained, self-referencing, or (to put it in the Apostle John's terms) God is love.

I feel that there's something simultaneously humiliating and freeing about that. On the one hand, it drives home the idea that God doesn't love me because I'm a swell guy. I can't earn this kind of love, and I don't have it any more than anyone else. On the other hand, what kind of security does this provide!?! I'll get wet even if I am no better than a stinkin' weed. I am loved by God regardless of who and what I am, because God is a lover and nothing I can do can change who he is. THAT is security.

And as Psalm 136 says, that's reason to give thanks to God: because his loving-kindness endures forever.

Book Review - Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne

I picked this book up because my friend Seth asked me if I had read it, and if so what I thought. At the time I didn't really know anything about the author, Shane Claiborne. In fact I had only heard of him from a couple youth pastor friends who had seen him speak at youth ministry conferences, and they basically said he was an edgy dude who lived in some sort of inner city commune and talked about being a serious Jesus follower. Sounded like a Jesus hippie to me -- I figured he was part of the emerging church movement and didn't think much else of it, until I got Seth's e-mail.

The length of this post is due to the way the book pleasantly surprised me. My assumption when I started reading the book was that I'd like a lot of it and not like a lot of it. I figured that, like many emergent guys, he'd be asking a lot of good and needed questions about the apathy of the American church. But I also assumed he'd proffer some dubious and typically-emergent answers, such as downplaying the study of orthodox theology and questioning whether anyone could know truth. I planned on being about 50/50 on what he was saying.

Well, it turns out he does live in a commune. But to my pleasant surprise, I ended up being about 80/20 on what he says. Really. (Don't worry mom: I got through my Berkeley years without joining a hippie commune and I'm not about to move your grandchildren into one now...)

The book (in a really small nutshell) is an attempt to wake up an affluent, apathetic American church and call her to a lifestyle of serious Jesus-following. He makes several different points in support of that goal using lots of stories from his personal journey interspersed with some free-flowing pontificating-on-paper. I won't recount all of his arguments (he already wrote the book, so I don't need to do it again!) but the core principle is to call Christians to a lifestyle of "radical love" which Claiborne sees as the only Jesus-ordained way to change the world. He's real big on Tony Campolo, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr. and Mother Theresa, and he's real not-big on George W. Bush, Marketing-driven evangelical mega-churches and Pat Robertson. Come to think of it I'm not a big fan of the last two myself, even though I don't really go in for everyone on his list of heroes.

What I like
There's a lot of detail I could agree and disagree with, but I think the book's main strengths boil down to three major ideas.

First, unlike the worst of emerging church voices, Claiborne still takes the Bible seriously. I can't tell you how refreshing this was to see, and it allowed me to take his ideas more seriously than I would have otherwise. I could let his ideas challenge my own understanding of the gospel and agree or disagree with his perspective as with a brother in Christ, fellow truth lover and follower of Jesus. This was a way different experience than reading the postmodern nonsense that spews forth from some Emergents.

Now, his book does strike me as just a bit selective with Scripture. He's quick to quote any passage that speaks of liberating the poor and the oppressed, to the point where there wasn't much other Scripture quoted that I recall. To be fair though, that is essentially the thesis of his book and one can never say everything in a single volume. And there is a lot of scripture that speak of not befriending (or becoming) the oppressive rich & powerful. I also liked the fact that he didn't only quote from the gospels and the words of Jesus, as some Emergent guys are wont to do. Whether one arrives at all the same conclusions as Claiborne or not, one has to give him a lot credit for not losing a high view of Scripture as he re-thinks the American Christian life. I almost screamed in shock and joy when he said the way to correct bad theology isn't with no theology, but with good theology.

Second, Claiborne works hard at maintaining and conveying humility. This is no small feat in a book that aims to prophetically criticize much of church life. For instance, he admits at one point that he got caught up in the "rage against the machine" liberal activist culture which thrives on anger and hubris. He eventually recognized that arrogance can never undo arrogance and disowned his angry liberal activism for something more mature. Kudos to him for not only learning the lesson, but trying to teach it to others. He's still involved in more protesting and confronting than I personally care for, but this feels like a difference of emphasis to me rather than a completely different mentality. And while it's pretty obvious that he thinks more Christians should do what he's doing, he doesn't come out and say that we're not serious Christians if we don't.

One more thing I liked, and which I think is the most important contribution in this book, is the way he links reaching out with relationship. I think this is huge, and I've come to completely agree with him here. The idea is that our philanthropy and charitable giving are often mediated by massive public and private institutions, so when we give we often never see or know who is being helped. But when we spend time with the poor, the oppressed, and the washed-up we learn their story and come to see them as human beings made in God's image (which they are) rather than as losers and statistics (which they're not). The hooker working the corner, the addict and the abuser are the ones Jesus sent us to love and preach the gospel to. When we take the time to build relationships in this way, helping "the poor" becomes helping Joe Donatello, Mary Sanford, or her kid Jessica. Grace becomes personalized.

This is how generosity works, by which I mean it's far easier to get people to part with their money for the good of others when they know the "others" who are being helped. For example, we've sent about 10 people from our church to Boma, Sudan over the past year to help build and operate a school among other things. My good Kenyan friend Rosemary Khamati from SEA Partners recently came to Harvest and told us of some of the clothing needs for the school kids in the cool rainy weather. After her presentation I overheard one of the past team members tell Rosemary that no matter what the funds would be raised, and this lady had a determined fire in her eyes when she said it. Did this fire come from a general "bent toward philanthropy" or from being goaded to give by one of my amazing sermons on money? No way. It came because this woman has been to that school and has loved, served, and taught those kids herself. Relationship produces a Jesus-honoring desire to part with our own money for the good of others.

A Swing And A Miss
One thing I think Claiborne whiffs on is capitalism. He's not super clear on his vision for global economy, and seems to lump all economic systems together. At one point he declares he's neither capitalist or socialist, but after reading his book I have no idea how he sees the big economic picture; he doesn't explain how he thinks it should work. Now to be fair to Claiborne, many much smarter people than he (and than I) have fundamentally missed the essential genius of democratic capitalism including most of the people he's read and been mentored by. It's an easy mistake to make when so many intellectual voices shout down the perceived evils of the "greedy system." I hope some day Claiborne picks up a copy of Michael Novak's The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism which is an unfortunately difficult read that nonetheless contains a better view of reality.

Claiborne is extremely concerned about the plight of the world's poor, and rightly wants to live a life that loves them in Jesus' name. But it is too easy to decry the gap between rich & poor, as he does many times in his book. This simplistic look at the world's economy is not entirely off base, but it misses a much deeper and more important point: both the rich and the poor have been getting richer in the West because of one system: democratic capitalism. For example, Novak notes that in non-capitalist France during the 1780's, 4 out of every 5 families devoted 90% of their income to buying bread - and only bread - to stay alive. And French life expectancy in 1795 was roughly 25 years. Compare this to capitalist England which saw real wages double between 1800 and 1850 and again between 1850 and 1900, all while the population was increasing. Here's the point: anyone interested in seeing poverty driven back should be interested in capitalism, for as Novak puts it "after five millennia of blundering, human beings finally figured out how wealth may be produced in a sustained, systematic way."

The key insight is that democratic capitalism is the only political/economic system that respects the beautiful human spirit created in the Image of God - that's why democratic capitalism works. Claiborne misses this point, but again in fairness so do a lot of people. Capitalism entices creative people to create, innovative people to innovate, and as a result wealth is created and even the non-innovative and non-creative benefit. Is the world's wealth distribution sick? Of course it is. But what democratic capitalism needs is a strong moral vision for life that provides guidance and moral backbone to its wealth-creating potential. And Christians are well suited to provide such a moral vision. In fact that vision is precisely what Claiborne's book is all about, and his stories are quite effective at getting it across. This makes his predictable criticisms of wealth inequality a double shame because his vision contains the seeds that made capitalism thrive in the first place, and which can make it do so again to the benefit of all. We Christians should be urging a moral vision onto capitalism, so that more wealth can be created and better distributed to alleviate the suffering of the world's poor. Claiborne seems to get the latter point, but he misses the former point altogether. A couple examples from his book come to mind, but this post is getting long already and I don't want to risk sounding more critical of the book than I actually feel.

Concluding Thoughts
In fact I'm much more high on this book than I thought I'd be. It was useful to have read it while in the midst of Novak's book, and right after I had finished David Wells' The Courage to be Protestant. I think orthodox protestant Christianity needs a new/old vision moving forward: new in the sense that it should be different from the big-ticket, me-centered world of Marketing mega-churches, and old in the sense of being grounded in the theological orthodoxy and redemptive vision that has characterized the Christian faith for millennia. I don't personally think Claiborne has all the answers (he probably doesn't think so either) but I do think he has a different enough perspective to jolt the church into asking some big (and good) questions, yet orthodox enough to be worth listening to. He did so for me.

Good job Shane!

What's Wise, What's Right, and What's True...

...are three different things. But they're closely related to one another.

I got to thinking about that after Sunday's message on Psalm 1, when I described what wisdom literature means in the Bible. There I said that the Bible's wisdom passages focus not so much on what's right, but rather on what's smart. Yet I don't want to imply (and hopefully no one inferred!) that wisdom literature is uninterested in truth or in morality (right & wrong). Actually, morality is based on truth, and wisdom in turn is based on morality.

Truth is simply what is: statements and ideas are true to the extent that they correspond with reality. As a simple example, the statement "there are two apples on the table" is true if in fact there are two apples there. If there is only one apple on the table, the statement is untrue. So when the Bible says things like God is one, the end result of sin is death, and salvation is attainable only through Jesus' atoning death on the cross, these are true statements because they describe the way things really are -- not just the way we imagine them to be. In this way, truth is the foundation of knowledge: it all starts with understanding things the way the really are. Once we do, we have a basis for...

Morality, which simply put is the difference between right and wrong. Morality comes from one's view of truth. For example, murder is not just illegal, it is immoral (in other words, it's wrong) because human life is sacred in reality. If I take an innocent person's life I haven't just done something violent and illegal, I've done something reprehensible and fundamentally wrong because I've acted as if I had a moral right to claim the victim's life. But in reality, I have no such right. In this way, reality itself determines what is right vs. what is wrong. So our view of truth determines what actions we will consider as being right. And putting the idea of truth together with the idea of morality leads us to...

Wisdom, which in the Bible basically means living successfully in the world. In other words, being smart rather than stupid. Wisdom basically means, because I understand the way the world works (truth), I'm able to see how I should and should not live (morality), and so I'm able to make daily choices that result in a happy, successful life (wisdom). It's that last phrase that the Bible's wisdom literature emphasizes: making smart choices that lead to long term success. This smart choice is always the right choice (morality) which is based on reality (truth).

Wisdom literature:

• doesn't talk much about truth or morality (but it assumes them both). Instead it focuses on the positive consequences of living in concert with truth & morality vs. the negative consequences of ignoring them,
• doesn't emphasize the rightness or wrongness of various lifestyle choices, but rather focuses on the results of making either choice,
• is written from the concrete perspective of living life, rather than the abstract perspective of describing truth,
• separates the "wise" (smart) person from the "foolish" (stupid) person.
  

So hopefully it's clear how the three concepts interrelate: how truth leads to morality which leads to wisdom. Sometimes the wisdom literature can seem weaker than other parts of the Bible because isn't as declarative of truth or as morally charged as many other passages are. But it isn't at all - it's another angle on God's teachings. Wisdom literature simply points out that not only are right choices right, they're also smart.

True + Moral = Wise. Now that's an equation for success.