How has your perspective of atheists (and atheism) changed since you've been a part of the Christian and an Atheist podcast?

Among other things, I have learned that there are beleivers, fundamentalists, amicable free thinkers, and zealous evangelists on both sides of the atheism/theism debate. I have also learned that many Christians do a poor job of listening and responding to the questions of our critics. We tend to talk AT and ABOUT atheists a lot, instead of talking with them.

Ask me anything

I Am Well Liked

Things said to me today:

"Wow, you're a pastor, no wonder your head is all muddled up. Good day to you and shame on you for preaching such screwed up ideals, most likely indoctrinating your children too, (which is child abuse) and robbing them of reason. You make me sick honestly."

and...

"Seminary! What a waste of a life! poor, poor choice. Brainwashed, that's what I call it."

and...

"I see you are a pastor and I see that you went to seminary. Therefore my reason tells me you bring your kids to church and this is disgusting. Congrats on filling their heads with utter nonsense. Way to be a great parent."

and...

"I really have to go now, but you are delusional and leading other lemmings to the slaughter. You personify the "ignorance is bliss" phrase, and that is not to be commended. Hopefully, 20 years from now, when you are rational and an atheist, you'll remember this little spat, and how an asshole told you exactly the problems with your "harmless" faith. Adios."

I love my job. :-/

What is your one favorite song of all time?

This is a tough one. I am not sure how to measure "favorite" but I think if you were to tally up the number of listens throughout my life the clear winner would be "Tommy the Cat" by Primus.

Ask me anything

Name It

Me: Hey kids, we should name our van!
Kids: (silence)
Me: What do you think we should name it?
Kids: (silence)
Me: How 'bout "Ol' Ironsides"?
Kid #1: How about "The Family Bus"?
Kid #2: How about "Road-Killer"?

Awe. Some.

I am Smallish

About once every two or three months I experience what I could probably describe as a "little mid life crisis." Usually these aren't of the buy-a-sports-car-and-hairpiece variety, but more of the I-should-do-more-sit-ups variety. Invariably these little crises have to do with reconciling what I am with what I thought I would be by now.

Not everyone can be an astronaut when they grow up.

But it's not like I wanted to be an astronaut when I grew up. I was never really sure what I wanted to be when I grew up. When people asked, I would usually respond, "An artist. I want to be an artist." But I never really had any clear idea how an artist made a living. All I knew was that artists made art. I liked to make art, therefore I wanted to be an artist.

This was not the most satisfactory response for those adults in my life with a greater appreciation of the necessity of gainful employment. But I didn't care. Not really. I just had this kind of impressionistic idea in mind of what working for a living would look like when I got older.

In fact, it wasn't until about the ripe old age of 27 that I finally had a clear idea of what I wanted to be when I grew up.

I wanted to be a pastor.

No. A preacher.

I wanted to talk to people about the Bible and help them understand what it said. I wanted to help them live out the teachings in the Bible, and embrace its outlandish claims about life, death, and the nature of reality. I was excited.

Until I became a pastor.

That's when I became familiar with the very real and inescapable rule of self worth that is almost universally embraced by every single person who has gone into the pastorate in North America over the last 100 years.

Size matters.

Not just a little, but a lot. A whole lot. SIze really, really matters. A lot.

Really.

We gauge the worth of our pastors by their effectiveness, and we measure their effectiveness by how many bodies fill our building. The bigger the church, the more significant the pastor. The smaller the church, well...you can see where this is going.

As expected, this almost universally accepted standard of pastoral significance works in the favor of large church pastors and not so much in favor of the rest of us.

If you are endowed with a big church, you are significant. If you are not, you are not.

So, to make peace with the feeling of insignificance that creeps in when I encounter my more significant co-labororers, I tell myself a version of the same condolement that less-than-well-endowed men have ben telling themselves for years.

"Size doesn't matter."

Or, "This is a good size."

And this is where the little crises creep in. As much as I tell myself that size doesn't matter, or that what I have is a good size, I secretly suspect that I am mistaken. I mean, it certainly does seem like big church pastors are more signifiant than small church pastors.

On top of this, I always expected that my good size would be slightly larger than the good size I have now. I thought that by now, I would be slightly more significant than what I am.

But that's OK, the first will be last, the last will be first. The least will be the greatest. Smaller is better.

Size doesn't matter.

But it sure feels like it does.

What was your favorite book as a child?

"Where the Wild Things Are" by Maurice Sendak.

Ask me anything

Incarnational Text

The following is a response I wrote to an acquaintance over at achristianandanatheist.com

I was responding specifically to the idea that interpreting the Bible is a "simple" matter that involves "just reading" the text and doing what it says. We were in the middle of a discussion of the New Testament's treatment of women. This is what I wrote:

[This conversation] reveals a more important issue that I think is cause for concern, namely, the attitude that interpreting scripture is a "self-evident" process which is a matter of "just reading scripture."

I certainly do not mean to put words in your mouth, but I have picked up on this perspective in several of your posts before. This is why I asked you to clarify your "only one interpretation" comment earlier. The idea that interpreting scripture is "simple" or a matter of "just reading" the text strikes me as arrogant, ignorant or both. It is my opinion that interpreting the Bible is NOT simple, and it is certainly a bit more involved than "just reading" the text.

Your post proves my point to an extent. The fact that you appeal to Greek translation (ie should the diakonos "διάκονος" be translated "servant" or transliterated "deacon"?) shows that even these fairly straightforward passages include some interpretational issues that must be dealt with, and could quite possibly lead different readers to different conclusions. Not to mention that the translators' treatment of diakonos also involves theological/cultural/historical issues regarding weather the term is being used to describe the function of the person or the office of the person.

Let me take it a step further in hopes to demonstrate that the process of interpretation is a complicated and multifaceted one that is as likely to produce a multiplicity of interpretations as it is consensus of opinion.

One of the passages that is a big part of our discussion is in 1 Timothy chapter 2. Here is what verses 11 & 12 say:
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

Straightforward? Maybe, but I don't think so. First of all, what makes a "man"? When does a boy become a man? Or does this passage prohibit all women in the church from teaching all males regardless of their age? What is "teaching"? Does Paul mean biblical instruction, theological instruction, moral instruction, practical instruction or all instruction? Is he thinking of an official "teaching" function of the church (Sunday schools and bible studies) or any and all instances where a man might learn something from a woman (a female missionary shares a testimony)? None of these questions are answered directly by the text, so we 21st century believers are forced to interpret the text the best way we know how, which of course, causes many churches to come to different answers to the question "what does this mean?"

The issue becomes even more cumbersome when we read Paul's reasoning for why women are prohibited from teaching. Verses 13 & 14 show that Paul's prohibition is based on a twofold reason: 1) Created order; 2) Eve was the one who was deceived. So what does this mean? Women are more gullible? Enough confusion so far? Well, if not, keep reading. Paul goes on to say that women will be "saved" through "child bearing." What is the simple, straightforward interpretation of that?

All of this and I still have mentioned that part of the interpretational process where we ask the question, "Is this explicit instruction universally binding or is it a specific instruction to a specific person regarding a specific issue that may reveal a more universal principle?" For example, earlier in the chapter, Paul tells Timothy that he wants women "to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. " Is Paul's explicit command that women not wear jewelry or braid their hair a universally binding command? Or was that part of the instruction situational and only the more general principle of "adorn yourself with good deeds, not good clothes" meant to be universally binding?

The more I study this collection of ancient texts, the more I try to learn their wisdom and change in light of their instruction, the more I realize that there is a LOT of ambiguity in the "Good Book". God inspired this thing we call the Bible, but he did so in a very incarnational way. And in doing so, He revealed that He is apparently quite alright with wrapping the "Emmanuel" of the inspired text in the swaddling clothes of human culture, imagination, and experience.

The result is both joyful and messy.

Break Taken

I had the privilege to attend an awesome church today...mine. The best part was, I didn't preach there this morning. I usually preach, but today I did not. Instead we had some shaggy headed hippie preach about openness and hiddenness out of 1 John 1.

The message of the text was presented with clarity and conviction.

I walked away thinking that our salvation is the result of open confession and "light-walking"

Neither of which happened when I first answered an alter call and asked Jesus into my heart.

It was a good break, thanks Dan!

Sex on the Brain

With February right around the corner I find myself once again preparing for a series of sermons on human sexuality.

This is not as much fun as you might think.

I mean sex is fun, but the annual process of preparing a series of sermons on the topic is a bit of work.

First you have the obvious challenges with content. What do you talk about? How do you say what you say? What does the Bible really say about this stuff? Where's the line that delineates between fearless teaching and offensive blather? I mean, I want people to learn something, to somehow develop a healthier view of sexuality without being so embarrassed by hearing the word "clitoris" that they don't learn anything.

That being said, I have no intention of teaching through the Song of Solomon, because, quite frankly people, that book is full blown Ancient Near Eastern Erotica.

My Office > Your Office

Things that are in my office:

1) Green Lava Lamp
2) Coffee
3) A picture of "Elvis"
4) A bunch of books
5) A mixer board
6) 2 large format printers
7) A couple diplomas
8) The fellers from Darkroom practicing for their up and coming CD release show.

Not a bad place to study the Bible.

Careful what you ask for

I had this great idea for the Sunday morning message this past week.

Motivated in part by the fact that I was sick and unable to do a lot of talking and also in part to my conviction that good preaching is a product of community, I decided to have an open discussion during the normal preaching time.

Instead of talking "at" I was actually talking "with" my church family. The subject: "Why preach?" which quickly developed in to "What to preach?"

I asked them to tell me what they thought we should spend time discussing in the year 2010.

Here are some of their responses:

- Heaven/hell
- Homosexuality
- The Trinity
- The Nature of God
- Reconciling the God of the OT with the God of the NT
- Church History, specifically Patrology
- Baptism
- What should Christian politics look like?
- Forgiveness and restoration
- Justice
- Intertestamental history
- Christian pacifism

Oh, and the above were in addition to the topics we had already slated for the year which include money, sex, peace, and the resurrection.

Someone has some work to do.