My Deathly Hallows Review

OK. I know a lot of you haven't finished the final Harry Potter yet. I'm so sorry.

However, I have and I want to post some thoughts. I'll leave plenty of spoiler space for my lovely Google Reader readers...




I loved it. Loved it. I though JKR did an almost completely brilliant job with most of it. I loved that we got to see the Harry/Hermione/Ron trio for most of the book. I loved the action. I loved that people died. I didn't love that people died. I loved that actions had consequences and there was real evil out there.

What didn't I love? I didn't love the never-ending camping trip. That got pretty tiresome. I didn't love chasing clues all over the country seemingly only to get to the end of the year, as JKR likes to structure her books. I didn't like that breaking into the Ministry and into Gringotts felt very similar. I didn't like that we really never got an explanation about how the Sword of Gryffindor came out of the Sorting Hat. Again. I wonder what Griphook thought of that.

Ok, so specifics.

I loved how JKR basically deconstructed Dumbledore for the whole series. He started off as this almost perfect character, but by the end, we know that he was someone who had dabbled in the Dark Arts, and had desparately wanted to be famous. He also was arrogant to the point of putting others in life threatening danger. And yet, he was right and Harry loved him.

Snape. I loved how Snape was doing good things, but all for the wrong reasons. He was doing it out of guilt and if it hadn't been for Lilly, he would have unapologetically been a Death Eater. I loved that every time he looked at Harry, he saw the eyes of the woman he loved in the face of the man he hated. That part was simply, simply brilliant JKR's part. I did love how showing his memories cleared everything up and how that was written, particularly understanding that HE was the nasty boy Petunia had talked about in Order of the Phoenix.

I simply adored the Battle of Hogwarts and I really think it could be its own movie. All the people joining back up: Dumbledore's Army, the Order, the old Quidditch players. The whole final third of the book was just so tightly written and done so very well. I can't wait to read that part again.

Loved that Neville became just the ultimate Hogwarts Bad Ass. Killing Nagini and organizing the resistance. And his Gran taking out some Death Eaters. AND MOLLY WEASLEY! Kickin' it and taking names!

I loved how Kreacher really did come around because of being treated kindly, and even respecting Hermione.

Speaking of House Elves, I was really surprised that the death that actually brought tears to my eyes was Dobby's. Dobby! The Jar-Jar of Harry Potter! He had been so brave and so resourceful that I simply loved how he was brought into the story, and so shocked that he died in the way that he did.

I even loved the epilogue, 1) for its blatant cheesiness, and 2) that it threw back into the face of all the fans that were just begging for a Harry and Hermione hookup: the Harmonians (yes, that's what they call themselves).

I really really loved it and I think it's my favorite book right now. I need to read it again and a smidge closer this time. And then, next year probably, do a full seven book reread. That's going to be fun.

Finished

And just, simply, wow.... Can't wait to read it again.

Frailty

I was reminded this week in several ways of the frailty of the human body, from the death of a child to my own sickness and my children's. Even seeing clips of Tammy Faye Messner (formerly Bakker) on Larry King Live.

It does make me long for the promised resurrection bodies of the New Heavens and New Earth.

Come quickly, Lord Jesus, indeed.

Getting to Know You: Connor

Well, everyone else is doing it: the McInturff's, the Carden's, the Milom's. So I thought I would jump on the band wagon too, but of course, I have to have my own little spin on things. Here's the answers I think Connor would give. If he were talking. And not throwing up, like he did last night.

Favorite Food: Banana!

Favorite color: Blue, but sometimes brown (as the nursery people Sunday would attest too)

Favorite sport: Baseball (because Kinsey plays it)

Favorite person: Kinsey

Favorite toy: Anything I can throw, balls especially

Favorite thing to do with Daddy: Throw ball

Favorite thing to do with Mommy: Throw ball

Favorite song: A B Cs

Favorite book: Goodnight Moon

Favorite Movie: Star Wars. I really like how Lucas recalled the serial dramas of the 1950s and Kurosawa's Japanese epics. Plus, Spaceships!

Favorite TV show: I don't watch much TV, although I did like that Babylon 5 thing Daddy watched while he was holding me last night

Favorite Shirt: Whatever Mommy puts me in

Favorite thing to do outside: Throw ball

What do you want to be when you grow up: A left handed pitcher (or is that what Daddy wants me to be?)

Favorite animal: My dog, Mikey, even though he doesn't like me much

Favorite thing to do with Kinsey: Follow her around and sit in the chair in her room

Favorite thing to do with Grandparents: Spend the night there so Mommy and Daddy can go see a movie

Favorite thing about God: the Soteriological nature of the Kingdom of God

Favorite place to visit: Grandparent's House

Biggest fear: Right now? Nothing.

Paul vs. the Empire

Yesterday, I filled in for Tim Woodroof in the class he's teaching on Paul, and my chosen subject was Paul vs. the Empire. I'm going to put my outline, talking notes, and the images that I used here for perusal and comment. Oh, and it's really, really long.

• Rome at the time of Paul
• Methods
• Military might
• Engineering
• Spreading their culture
• Cruel enforcement of their methods (floggings, crucifixions)
• As Western Christians, we have a unique insight into Rome
• As Westerners, we enjoy many of the benefits of Rome
• Learning
• Culture
• History
• Influence on our language
• Even in our movies
• As Christians though we see the dark side of Rome.
• We see the floggings that Paul endured
• Ultimately, we also see the crucifixion of Jesus. (Crucifixion)
• So we see Rome as the victorious conquerors and we see it from the view of the conquered as well.

• An ideology that has recently been gaining a lot of traction in Biblical interpretation is the idea that Paul was using Christianity in direct opposition to the Roman Empire, that he was saying that the Roman Empire was a hollow man and ultimately just a shell. That Caesar was a false god. Which requires some explanation.
• When Julius Caesar was famously murdered in 44 BC, his great nephew Octavius claimed that he had seen Julius’ spirit rise to heaven in a comet. Since the Comet was seen by everyone (possibly the Hale Bopp comet) and recorded by the historian/biographer Suetonius, that meant that Caesar was deified, that he became a god. Which meant that Augustus (as Octavian became called) was the son of a god. And in fact, Augustus put this ideology on one of his coins.
• The thinking is that Paul not only put Jesus as the promised Jewish Messiah, but that he was also the Lord of the world. And if Jesus is Lord of the world that means that Caesar is not.
• We see this most prominently in the book of Philippians, specifically Chapter 2:5-11
  5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
  6Who, being in very nature^[a] God,
  did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
  7but made himself nothing,
  taking the very nature^[b] of a servant,
  being made in human likeness.
  8And being found in appearance as a man,
  he humbled himself
  and became obedient to death—
  even death on a cross!
  9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
  and gave him the name that is above every name,
  10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
  in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
  11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
  to the glory of God the Father.
• The word Lord there is a very interesting one, really with a double meaning.
• The Greek word is Kyrios On one hand, it was the Greek word that was used in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) for YHWH, the personal name of God that in many of our translations of the Old Testament is the word LORD So, on the one hand, this is a statement of Jesus’ divinity.
• On the other hand, one of the common phrases of Caesar’s power is that Caesar is Lord. And by saying that Jesus is the Lord/Kyrios Paul is saying that Caesar isn’t. And what he is ultimately saying is that where the Empire fails, where the Empire falls short, where the Empire uses force and fear and might to conquer, the community of Jesus is the counter point to that. I could go on and talk about some other Greek words, like evangelion (the gospel, the good news) and talk about how Paul subverted that language and subverted the Emperor, but you can look a lot of that up.
  Questions so far?
• Another place in Philippians where we can see this subversion even more clearly is in Chapter 3, verses 17-21
  17Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you. 18For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things. 20But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body..
• To give context, in verses 1-11 of this chapter, Paul has recounted his Jewish credentials. Talked about how all of that was refuse, garbage compared to knowing Christ.
• In 17-21, Paul talks about citizenship, a very important concept to the Philippians. Many, not all, but many Philippians were Roman citizens like Paul, and those that weren’t would have liked to have been. By making this statement, Paul is saying that citizenship is in the Roman Empire is the same as Paul’s Jewish credentials: refuse, compared to what it means to know the Lord (kyrios again) Jesus Christ. Once again, another subversion of the Empire.
• One final place to look at which states this the most clearly is Acts 17:7
  7and Jason has welcomed them into his house. They are all defying Caesar's decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus." here Paul and Silas are in Thessalonica and are dragged before the city officials with the charge that they are defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, one called Jesus.”
  
  

• So I hope I’ve added some spiritual buttressing to this idea that Paul is trying to subvert the Roman Empire with the message of the Kingdom of God and Jesus as the king.
• One objection that might come up to this mindset is, “Phil, what about Romans 13, where Paul tells them to submit to the authorities?” To which I would say, “let’s take a look at it.” 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
• Now, a couple of things that I think about this, guided by the Bishop NT Wright in his book Paul in Fresh Perspective .
• First of all, notice that Paul says that the rulers are appointed by God, which means that they aren’t gods themselves. A significant step down for Augustus or Tiberius or Caligula or Nero. It ultimately makes them answerable to God for what they do.
• Secondly, Wright says "precisely because of all the counter-imperial hints Paul has given, not only in this letter but indeed by his entire gospel, it is vital that he steer Christians away from the assumption that loyalty to Jesus would mean the kind of civil disobedience and revolution that merely reshuffles the political cards into a different order." "The main thing Paul wants to emphasize is that, even though Christians are the servants of the Messiah, the true lord, this does not give them carte blanche to ignore the temporary subordinates whose appointed task, whether (like Cyrus) they know it or not, is to bring at least a measure of God's order and justice to the world. The church must live as a sign of the kingdom yet to come, but since that kingdom is characterized by justice, peace and joy in the Spirit (14.17), it cannot be inaugurated in the present by violence and hatred." Which casts an interesting eye on the American Revolution, albeit Wright is British so that might cast an interesting eye on him as well.
• Another objection is that if Paul was such an objector to the Empire and to Caesar as a god, why does Paul not renounce his Roman citizenship or not use his citizenship to his advantage as he does in Acts 16:37 37But Paul said to the officers: "They beat us publicly without a trial, even though we are Roman citizens, and threw us into prison. And now do they want to get rid of us quietly? No! Let them come themselves and escort us out.", Acts 22:29 29Those who were about to question him withdrew immediately. The commander himself was alarmed when he realized that he had put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains. And then even appealing to Caesar in 25:11 11If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!"?
• And to me, this is where the application to today can come.
• Now, I don’t want to make a direct comparison between the Roman Empire and America. I think it’s unfair and inaccurate. America doesn’t typically flog those that disagree with us or crucify those that rise up against us. However, much like Rome 2,000 years ago, America is the dominant force in the world. The influence of this country on culture, language, history, even the movies is unparalleled in the history of the world. And much like Rome of the time, not everyone likes it.
• I will be honest. I think Paul would speak in much the same language to us today as American citizens as he did to the Philippians. That he would tell us that however highly we envision our citizenship as Americans, it should be rubbish compared to our citizenship in the Kingdom. In his outstanding book, Mere Discipleship our own Lee Camp had this to say about Nationalism: "When Paul asserted that all fundamental markers of identity, particularly those that buttress separation or estrangement, must be submitted to our identity found in Christ, he included three of the most powerful sources of estrangement in his day: ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic class. Since Paul wrote before the advent of the modern nation-state, we should add 'nationality' to the list, for it is, in the contemporary Western world at least, the most revered source of identitiy and separation from others. But Paul insists that Christ come first; everything else must either find its place underneath his lordship or be cast aside. Nationalism inverts this relationship, having us (whether theologically or practically) place national citizenship as the first marker of identity. Blood, country and homeland are powerful sumbols that are made to serve as gods. The god of 'God and country' is a nationalistic deity that does not baptize into the Spirit of Christ, but the spirit of homeland security; this god baptizes not in the blood of the Lamb, but the blood of soil and country."
• I think Paul would agree with that. That where our citizenship in this country contradicts the Kingdom, we’re called to be the voices against that. I don’t think we’re called to revolution (although we are the benefactors of a revolution).
• And to answer the question about why Paul doesn’t renounce his Roman citizenship is the same reason that we don’t renounce ours. It’s useful. Paul was able to use his citizenship to gain access to the halls of power. Our citizenships as Americans are powerful tools. With them we can travel throughout the world. We can be the ones that help the poorest of the poor. Our currency is extremely strong. With what costs few dollars to us, we can help those for whom a mosquito net can mean the difference between life and death. Our citizenship is in heaven, but most of us won the genetic lottery to be born here in America and that can be used for good. Just as here in Nashville, the power that even many in this room here have can be used to affect positive change.
• To conclude, I don’t believe Paul was either/or. I don’t believe he was preaching politics or theology. I think they were intertwined, but both were so revolutionary that they reshaped the world and even succeeded in reshaping an Empire (although as Lee points out in Mere Discipleship, the Empire also succeeded in reshaping Christianity).
• I think we are called to be subverters of the Empire we exist in as well. I think we’re called to be the voice of God and to be the ones that continue to say, “No. This isn’t God’s way!” And perhaps it’s using some of the tools of the Empire, perhaps some are called to divest themselves completely of all aspects of the Empire, particularly pernicious ones like materialism and perhaps even security, but the truth is, whether Jesus returns today or 200,000 years from now, the Kingdom will continue. It outlasted Rome, it will outlast America, and whatever follows America.

Talents and Sheep and Goats

A little Bible study today.

For the last two weeks, Tim Woodroof (not Woodruff) the preacher at Otter Creek has been teaching on Money and it's been really really good. You can listen to Week 1 here and Week 2 here. Last Sunday, Tim taught on the story of the rich fool in Luke 12, and related it to the story of the talents in Matthew 25. And what I noticed for the first time that the parable of the talents is immediately followed by the story of the Sheep and Goats, where Jesus says that even if someone claims him as Lord, but doesn't do the things of the Kingdom will be rejected. I talked a little about this in a post a while back called Saved By Grace, Judged by Works?

At any rate, reading it in this context brought something really home to me. If we believe in this is a true relating of what we will be judged on, it seems that God judges us, not by our statement of faith (although I will continue to hold that that is important), but by how we treat others, specifically the less fortunate. I don't think it's an accident that Jesus followed the Talents with Sheep and Goats. He basically says, "Don't be stingy with what God has given you. Go out and share with others. Because you will be judged on that." And of course, it's easy (and more comfortable to spiritualize it out. "Well, Phil, he's talking about our salvation there. And that we need to take the salvation gift that God has given us and make sure we share it so that other people don't go to Hell." That might be right, that might be complete Bovine Scat. Sometimes a talent is just a talent. What Jesus seems to be saying is, "The money that you have has been given not simply as a gift to you, but a resource to be used. And if you bury it, if you basically prevent it from being used, then you're not simply burying a gift given, but you're denying it to others. And if you do that, either with your money or the Good News of Jesus, it doesn't matter what name you wear in the end. You can claim me all you want; it's not going to help you in the end."

And perhaps, just perhaps, this chapter, these stories should scare the Scat out of us.

As always, I could be wrong and I'm always interested in conversation about it. Thanks to all of you who continue to walk in this journey with me.

Reactions?

I would be very interested in people's reactions to this article by Daniel Greeson

From Restoration to Orthodoxy

Education Continued

Last week's conversation was really good and I enjoyed hearing everyone's thoughts on it. Education is a huge topic and just gets more personal when you're talking about your progeny. Many others gave some of their schooling background, so here's my context.

For first and second grade, I went to Eakin Elementary. It's the age I was when I filmed this. Because I was young and not as socially adept, I did second grade again at Woodmont Elementary (there's a park there now). We then moved to the Green Hills area and I went to Glendale Elementary from third to sixth grade. I then went to JT Moore Middle for two weeks and then transfered to Caldwell Middle Magnet (now Meigs). And for high school, Hume Fogg Academic.

I then wanted a fairly small college and one that had a Christian orientation (and honestly, I thought God wanted me to show all the Pharisaical hypocrites in the Church of Christ how to be a real Christian), so I went to Lipscomb University. And on one hand, I really pitied people that I called K through Life, people that went from Kindergarten through college. My feeling was that when "they" got out into the "real world," they were in for a terrible shock. This is also another reason that I'm not thrilled with the idea of the kids in a private school.

Now the consideration could be made that I wasn't either. Not only did I go to academic magnet schools from 7-12 grades, I went to a private school for college, and then taught in an academic magnet school for six years. I never really experienced "real life" until I got into the business world. And honestly, I think Sheryl and I would be very, very happy with our kids in a magnet school setting. I got a lot out of it myself.

Well, that's a lot more rambling, and perhaps more than you wanted to know about my educational background. Hopefully some video next week of Connor taking some steps...

Rob Bell

With a well-deserved hat tip to TCS, I've been reading an interview by Rob Bell from The Ooze over the last few days and while I really don't have a lot of time to comment on it, this section was especially interesting to me:

As a pastor what would you say to someone who has become disillusioned with organized church or what they have seen of Christianity?

I would wager that the things that most turn them off are the things that most turn Jesus off. There is not one instance in Jesus’ teachings where he gets angry with somebody who isn’t a follower of his or someone who doesn’t love God. His anger is always for religious people who claim to speak for God but live in another way. So if you find hypocrisy absolutely revolting so did Jesus. If you find people who think they are the moral police of culture repulsive, so did Jesus. If you find people who are ready to throw stones at the next sinner very hard to take, so did Jesus. And if you think that people who use Jesus to accumulate political power, to coerce people to live according to their laws, well Jesus had a problem with such things as well. I would say that your anger is shared by Jesus. He’s angered by all the same things.

How does that strike you? Is that quote just another sign of the watering-down of Christianity? Or does it give you hope for the future of Christianity?

Public? Private? Home?

I was talking with a neighbor of ours last night and she was telling me about their children. We've watched them grow up and seen some of the struggles that they've gone through: bad boyfriends, bad choices of friends, drugs, etc. One of their children is still mired in some stuff and has just made a mess of their life.

One thing she told me is to get and keep our kids out of public schools. She said gangs are a huge problem and out of all of the friends of this child, 100% get high on pot everyday.

And it brought into sharp relief an issue that I feel strongly about and have a great deal of fear about. I've mentioned before my trepidation at sending Kinsey to school, as Sheryl and I stop being the people that she spends the most consistent time with during the week, and every now and then last year, we'd get a glimpse of some behavior that we knew she was picking up from some classmates. We'd correct it of course and she'd be better and we hoped she was having a positive influence on her friends as well.

Back when I was teaching, Sheryl and I were firm that we wanted our children in public schools because we didn't want to be one of those "white flight" families that pulled our kids out of there because we were afraid of the people with different colored skin, and that's still very true. However, when it comes to our children's development, we really want to be as cautious as possible that they don't end up with bad influences where they make dumb choices when they're young (and under our tutelage) that can affect them for the rest of their lives.

And so we think about private schools, recognizing the financial burden that brings and the insular provincial world that can exist among those who can afford such luxuries. And even recognizing the fact that some of the same bad influences in public schools can exist in private schools.

And so we think about homeschooling and the challenges and struggles that can bring.

This isn't a post where I have one of those firm opinions that I normally can have. This is a very difficult issue and it's really, really easy to have one of those opinions before your children are born, but then you look into the sweet face of your daughter and you will do what ever it takes to protect her and take care of her and the beautiful toothless grin of my son and know that you want to prepare him for the future.

I must have missed this section in the owner's manuals for the kids.

Life

In Judy Thomas' Spiritual Reading class on Wednesday nights at Otter Creek, we have been reading Anne Lamott's Grace (Eventually). I had finished Traveling Mercies the previous week so my mind had been filled with Lamott-isms for three full weeks.

One of the most fascinating things about reading Lamott is reading someone who's became a Christian and came to very different conclusions that I and most of the believers around me have. Specifically with regard to Life.

In her section called In Circulation, Lamott has two chapters. One is called At Death's Window concerning euthanasia and the other is called The Born concerning abortion. First, let it be said that Lamott is fairly liberal politically (ok, that's like saying water is fairly wet), and that she supports both euthanasia and abortion. In At Death's Window, she relates the story of helping an old friend of hers die before cancer ravaged his body. In The Born, she talks about how having two abortions prevented her from bringing children into the world while she was a drunk and addict and would not be able to care for them and give them the life they deserve.

And that seems like what Lamott's point is. Her point seems to be that there is a certain kind of life that God intended and for a child to enter into poverty or abuse is not life as God intended, and for the body to be ravaged by cancer or the mind to be ravaged by Alzheimer's is not how God intended.

I can sympathize on some level. Now, I have never had to deal with an unwanted pregnancy or watching someone close to me waste away, so my sympathy is strictly hypothetical. Maybe more on euthanasia than abortion. It seems that with children, there is an opportunity for adoption (and perhaps Christians need to be more vocal about offering this option or more vocal about how this option has been used). It seems that with children, we look at the potential for life.

So what is life? Does it begin at birth (or even conception) and end at death? If we're followers of Jesus, then we don't believe life ends at death. It just takes a rest for a bit until the resurrection. Is life defined by how we live it? Does everyone have the potential for life, even those with debilitating diseases? What if those diseases cause excruciating mental or physical pain? How does a follower of Christ with an eternal perspective look at these questions?

I'm not sure of the answers, but particularly on euthanasia, the world seems a bit grayer than how black and white it seemed a few years back.

Caption This Picture!

I couldn't resist with all the news this week.

Caption this picture! Be funny!

Vacation and Baseball

My family and I got to spend some time in North Georgia last week. We left Monday and got to spend some time alone before the rest of the family got there. We got to swim in Nottley Lake and generally just hang out which was very good and relaxing.

On Tuesday, Kinsey and I headed down to Atlanta to watch my favorite National League, the Braves, play my favorite American League team, the Boston Red Sox. It was about the only time we broke out the camera so here are the pictures of Kinsey's first Major League Baseball game.

United States Christian Flag

I was driving home from church last night and skimming through the radio, when the phrase "U.S. Christian Flag" caught my attention. I'm always interested to hear how people are equating the United States with Christianity with the implication that the US is God's new chosen people, much in the vein of this:

The ad gave the website and I had to check it out. It's at http://www.uschristianflag.com and the flag itself is very interesting.


I won't bother explaining every aspect of the flag, but you can find that here. The thing that always interests me is simply the phenomenon of why people have this need to place America firmly in the place of God's new chosen. I won't bother to point out the sins committed to make America what it is today (Native American resettlement, dropping nuclear bombs, etc.); someone else would point out the ideology of people settling in America for religious freedom, as well as to proselytize the Native Americans. And I don't think it's wrong to want the best for the place where you live.

I do think the problem is that we become so focused on being Americans, that the Christianity takes a back seat. And even the ugly co-mingling of the two still tries to place them as equals, which is just as idolatrous.

Being an American is not a bad thing, just as for Paul being a Roman was not a bad thing, but something to be used for the advantage of spreading the Gospel of Jesus. In the same way, we can use our influence (waning as it might be) as Americans to do the same, whether that's using our economic power to spread fair trade, or even refusing to buy materials made in sweatshops.

The United States of America is NOT a Christian nation. It might have been founded by men with some Christian principles. It might even be populated by Christians in the majority. But nation's by their very nature are not Christian. Nations cannot sacrifice themselves for the good of others; nations generally seek their own preservation, but that preservation is not eternal. All of the great empires have fallen: Persian, Greek, Roman, Ottoman, British, even the American Empire will fall.

What will not fall is the Kingdom of God and that is where the true citizenship of a follower of Christ is. As Paul said in Philippians 3:

But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

Between We and Me

There has been a lot of talk and writing about community in the last couple of years. It seems that in the usual pendulum shift, things slide from one side to the other. For much of my childhood and earlier adulthood, much of the focus of Christianity was on the singular. The I. Most of what we heard was about Jesus being your personal savior or having a personal relationship with Jesus. And that's not...bad as far as it goes. The Bible never talks about Jesus being a personal Savior but that doesn't mean there's not an aspect of that to faith.

However, much of the shift came when people started realizing that focusing on "me" and personal morality (and the personal morality of others) became extremely narcissistic. When all the focus is on yourself, others become a bother. And in fact this kind of attitude can lead not just to narcissism but even to misogyny misanthropy (thanks, Kat). People become such a both that you can resent them. And so to react against that, people have been focusing back onto community. Trying to find community and interacting with that. So small groups and the larger worship time/experience have gained a renewed sense of purpose in the lives of Christians.

The funny thing though is that even this has a downside. It can become so easy to get caught up into the group, or even fade into the group, that the personal becomes lost. There is a sense where we have to be aware of the personal, but also realize our place in community. It's one of the reasons I think Jesus took time to be alone. He was always in community with this followers and the closer circle of the 12 that I wonder if he broke away to spend nights alone and in prayer. If that was to not only talk to the Father, but also to "re-center" himself and touch base with that personal side of things.

Pendulums are easy to ride, mainly because there's not much work to do. You just hold on and enjoy the ride. The hard part is to try and stop the pendulum and find a happy medium. I've said before that "Christianity is an intensely personal experience that is only properly done in community." And that's the medium; that's where we find middle ground between the personal and the community.

Baseball

I don't have any pictures yet, but we signed Kinsey up for coach pitch baseball this year. She's obviously been doing dance for the last year and loved it and we wanted to put her in something that was outside and also a team game. I like how at this point it's not a competitive thing. Each team bats around once and then the other team bats around.

What's been the most amusing to me is watching the different reactions the kids have to the game. Kinsey's not the most gifted athlete but really has a lot of fun playing the game and particularly running the bases. When a ball is hit directly to her, she'll field it; however, when it's more than three feet away from her, it's someone else's, usually because several of the boys on the team (she's one of two girls) has run over to it and just created a pile on to get to the ball.

So far it's really been a lot of fun and I'm glad that Kinsey really seems to be enjoying it. Check back later tonight or tomorrow, and I'll add some pictures from today's game.

Update:

And here are some pictures.

Kinsey's team, the Mudcats

Pre swing and yes, those are pink cleats


Mid Swing

In the ready position

And a very short video

Reading

On Wednesday nights at Otter Creek, there is a book reading group that has been started by Judy Thomas and Doris Colvett. For the month of June, we're going to be reading Anne Lamott's Grace (Eventually). For July, it's Lauren Winner's Mudhouse Sabbath; and for August, Eugene Peterson's Eat This Book. I have not read any of these books, although I'm familiar on some level with all of the authors.

I am really, really looking forward to this class. On one hand, it's been a while since I've actually been able to sit in a class with my wife and interact and dialogue with others. On another hand, I love reading and I love reading spiritual/theological books and especially discussing it with others. And from sitting in the class, it's going to be a great group to sit and discuss with. There are people of all ages, genders, and marital status, and people that knew my dad when he was Kinsey's age and me when I was born, and those that have only been at Otter Creek for a couple of years.

I really think that people are going to get exposed to some new ideas in these books and I know I'm going to get exposed to some new interpretations of some of my ideas. It's one of the greatest aspects of community that we can pool our ideas and thoughts and see how others are thinking. I thank God for a community like that and for women like Judy and Doris who are willing to step up and lead it.

Happy 6th

Kinsey,

Today you are 6 years old, and I grow more and more awed at how beautiful you are inside and out. I didn't realize that I could love you anymore than when you were first born, but even today, when you're frustrating and stubborn, I love you more and more each day. I know that you and I will bump heads in the future, but I will always love you. Forever. You are a joy in my life and I love every moment I get to spend with you. Happy Birthday, sweetie.

Love,

Daddy

Well, if Connor got my looks, Kinsey got Sheryl's.

Kinsey's first birthday

Kinsey and I putting a computer together

Continuing to work on the computer

Getting ready for church

Cute even when she's crying

At a fair this weekend

All of us, sans Sheryl

Blog Fatigue...

I'm going to back off of blogging for a while. Maybe the summer. I'm going to continue doing family stuff on Tuesdays and theology on Fridays possibly a stray one here and there. Hopefully this will also allow me to comment more on others' blogs too.

Thanks for reading...

Reading the Bible

If you're a regular reader of this blog, you know that I've really been wrestling with reading Scripture and how we as 21st century people should read the Bible written anywhere from 4,000 to 2,000 years ago.

There are two general schools of thought on this.

1. The Bible is the totally inspired Word of God and we are obligated as God's children to follow His Word and the examples laid forth to the letter. And admittedly, in the West Wing clip from yesterday, Jed Bartlett thoroughly skewers someone who apparently buys into this mindset, by pointing out the inconsistencies in the practice of her theology.
2. The Bible was written by men or women who were flawed and influenced by their culture resulting in directives that allow for the selling of a daughter into slavery or even against homosexuality.

I'm really really trying to come up with a personal consistent theology of Scripture. I'm trying to come up with a mindset that allows me to honor Scripture and its apparent influence by the Holy Spirit and the fact that I do believe that culture influenced people as they were writing. I really don't think that Matthew and Paul and the rest went into some sort of Holy Spirit influenced trance and when they woke up, there was 1 Corinthians or the Gospel of Matthew.

So I want to take a quick shot at a theology of Scripture and shoot holes in it (Hi, Thomas+ ;-) ), find where it works, where it doesn't, where it's orthodox, where it fails.

In 2 Timothy 3:14-17, Paul says

2 Timothy 3:14-17 (New International Version)

14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Now, obviously, he's talking here about the Old Testament. What's interesting is that Paul makes another reference (not the only one but a similar one) in I Corinthians 10 where he says:

1 Corinthians 10:1-13 (New International Version)

1For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3They all ate the same spiritual food 4and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.

6Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. 7Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: "The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry." 8We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9We should not test the Lord, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. 10And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel.

11These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come. 12So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall! 13No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

What Paul seems to be saying there is that the Old Testament is provided as an example to people to work with.

Here's my thought. What if the New Testament is not supposed to be followed to the letter of the law? What if it is supposed to be an example that we work and wrestle with? What if instead of trying to figure out exactly how God intended us to worship (or even live?), what if we see a 1st century example of how followers of the Way of Christ lived and that could look completely different for us in the 21st Century? In fact, it already does, but sometimes I think we continue to try to pretend we're following the Commands, Examples, and Necessary Inferences that are part and parcel of the Church of Christ hermeneutic.

What if we're intended to read the New Testament the way Paul read the Old Testament? Or the way Jed Bartlett read the Old Testament and probably the New Testament (not to equate Paul and Bartlett)?

Is that even a reasonable suggestion? Is it possible to follow that ideology of Scripture and still maintain respect for it? Or do we have to keep saying that we're New Testament Christians, happily ignoring calls for Holy Kisses and washing feet?