Half-Bucket List

In 2013 I will turn 40.  Unless I die first, in which case I will not turn 40.

I think I'd rather turn 40.

Anyway, since turning 40 puts you in "mid-life" I thought I would start working on a list of things I would like to do before the end of my fortieth year.  For those of you who don't like fractions, let me explain.

My life is statistically half over, I am working on a half-bucket list. I would like this list to include things to do before the end of 2013. 40 years, 40 things, half a life, half a bucket.

So, I thought I'd ask friends and loved-ones to help me populate the list. I get final veto authority, but YOU get a souvenir or memento if your suggestion makes the list and I actually do that thing.

So fire away, brave souls. I'll be your huckleberry.

Visit the list here. (http://scottbarger.blogspot.com/p/the-list.html)

Real Men Read Greek and Listen to Sigur Rós

I have noticed a trend in the church industry lately.  A trend away from the decidedly feminine character of most of our churches. A trend towards a more masculine iteration of church. A trend away from pink towards, not blue, but camouflage green.  A trend away from emotive and sentimental appeals to relate to Jesus towards prophetic challenges to do more good. 

It is a man trend.

A few years back someone realized that our churches were getting a bit light in the loafers and decided to man up the operation a bit. I am not sure who was first, but there are many who seem to have followed suit. 

Mark Driscoll is a good example.  Just watch the guy preach sometime - his style is aggressive, challenging, and dripping in alpha male swagger.  He gives me the feeling that he is one breath from walking down off the platform and actually kicking someone’s ass.

What a man.

As with most church trends, those embracing the movement will appeal to scripture to show why they do what they do (and why you should do what they do, too). The bible champions masculinity, God made men to be leaders, warriors, conquerors. This is why we love sports, have muscles, eat meat.  Why would God give us balls if he didn’t want us to use them? He wouldn’t. So there.

I agree with most of this. It is frustrating to see men becoming less interested in church, acquiescing strength and giving up on leadership.  Our churches have changed because of this, to be sure, and not all of this change has been good. I agree that our churches ought to reach out to all people, including men. Our sermons ought to be engaging, our worship authentic, our fellowship meaningful for all kinds of people.

But how do we do this?

Some seem to think that we should lose the girly decor in favor of something more manly. Read this from a guy who works at one of the many mega-churches in our area:

“When you step into the lobbies, the decor is industrial rather than floral (as a matter of fact, the only time we have used flowers to decorate was for 3 weeks during a series for women called "Daughters") .”

Real men don’t like flowers.

Later he goes on to say, “(Our) entire male staff competed in a 12 mile special ops obstacle race called ‘TOUGH MUDDER’- leading the way for other men to step up and take on the challenge as well.”

Real men are athletic and competitive. So we reach them by giving them an outlet to express their biblical man urge to conquer something or someone.

I understand why churches like these are doing what they do, I agree with it...mostly. Something about it bothers me. It bothers me because it seems like we are embracing a caricature of masculinity and promoting it as though it were a biblical mandate.

What does this say to the people in our churches? What if I am not athletic or competitive? Am I not a real man? Or worse, am I not a good man?

I think it’s possible that in a well motivated attempt to reconnect with Christian men, we have inadvertently promoted a version of masculinity that is too narrow and, for some men, unattainable.

I do not have to be a growling, highly competitive sportsman who bags the buck and the babe in order to be a good, Christian man.

I do not have to enjoy competition to be a real man.  I can be a real man and despise competition. My son is this way, and I think he is more noble because of it.

I do not have to hunt, hike, wrestle, fight, play in the mud, shoot stuff, hit stuff, break stuff, conquer my competition, vanquish my foes, or ravish my wife in order to be a real man.

Furthermore, I think it is dangerous for our churches to assume that real men do (or ought to) behave this way.

So in order to take a little momentum off of the testosterone laden pendulum, let me offer up a short list of some of the things real men do:

Real men learn how to fail with dignity.
Real men value learning and growth.
Real men practice contentment and humility.
Real men learn to go without.
Real men lead by serving.
Real men pursue wisdom.
Real men appreciate subtlety, nuance, and discretion.
Real men enjoy beauty.
Real men know how to be strong and weak.

Interestingly enough, my list of what “real women” do is identical.

Seriously

This summer I had an epiphany.

Seriously.

I realized why people like to be legalistic. What I mean by the term "legalistic" is they like to live by convictions that they really think other people should live out. When I was younger I attended a small Christian school that was pretty legalistic. They lived out convictions about the kind of music you should listen to, the kinds of movies you should see, the kind of clothes you should wear, the kind of bible you should read.

I can remember feeling like these convictions were intended to make me feel like I was less than them. I mean, at the very least I felt like I was less than them. I can remember kind of grousing at them in my mind, "Do you think you're better than me?"

Here's the zinger.

They actually did feel like they were better than me, that's why they did it.

Seriously.

How did I come to this realization? Because I also live out convictions that I think other people should live out and one of the payoffs of this attitude is that it makes me feel like I am better than other people.

Seriously.

I compost and recycle. Why? Because I think it is the right thing to do. I think Christians ought to do these things. When I do them and I look around at other Christians who do NOT do these things, I feel like I am a bit better than they are.

I reclaim rainwater and use it to grow organic vegetables. Why? Because I think I ought to. Why else? Because I end up feeling like I am better than you.

There are all kinds of convictions that I live out that end up making me feel like I am a better sort of person than those who don't. Here's a short list:

- I am politically informed.
- I read the Bible.
- I am a libertarian.
- I live in a small house.
- I have a bitchin' mustache.
- I listen to music you've never heard of.

You get the idea.

Here's another zinger...I see other Christians doing the same thing, I think. Here is a list of convictions I see my fellow Christians living out in such a way that I think they end up feeling like they are actually better people than those who don't:

- They talk about how hot their spouse is (or how great the sex is)
- They don't use birth control.
- They home-school.
- They use cloth diapers.
- They don't use credit cards.
- They talk about how awesome their churches are.

I really think I am right about this one. Come to think of it, the fact that I am saying it out loud makes me feel like I am, you know, actually better than you.

Assurance, Insurance, and the Bottom Line

(Note: I am posting from the road. Sketches may be added later.)

This past week I shared a sermon from Hebrews 3:7-19. The central truth of this passage is that obstinate rebellion results in judgment, even for people of promise. I think Hebrews brings an increasingly severe (and scary) series of warnings to the church. The warning seem to be making the case that there is a line of apostasy, and if you cross that line there is NO coming back.

Of course this immediately raise the questions of eternal security, losing one's salvation, perseverance of the saints, once saved - always saved...how ever you want to describe it. I read these passages and am forced to ask the question, "Can a Christian lose the promise of life eternal?"

Hebrews seems to answer that question affirmatively.

Now I realize that my fellow Calvinists will have a handful of theological constructs they use to explain away this interpretation of the warning passages in Hebrews. I do not have the time energy or desire to discuss these constructs other than to ask, "If there is no danger, then why is there a warning?"

The concept I would like to engage now is how quickly biblical exhortations to Christian faith (and conversely warnings against apostasy) end up as discussions about so called eternal security.

Is it possible that we have reduced the entirety of the Good News to a list of theological propositions or moral decisions that we have to accept in order to avoid damnation? Is the only value of following Jesus escaping hell? Is there nothing else of value?

Or, to turn the issue on its head, if there was no such promise of eternal life or threat of eternal damnation, would we still follow?

The Right Reverend Wright is Right

(Note: Posting from the road. I might add sketches later)

I watched the following video through a friends FaceBook link yesterday:

http://vimeo.com/24472481

Anyone who knows me knows that I have, um, let's call it an "affinity" for N.T. Wright. Ever since I read Surprised by Hope a couple years ago (a book, by the way, that absolutely changed my life) I have been reading through Wright's stuff as fast as I can. He is an accomplished Bible scholar and prolific writer, so there is a lot of stuff to read, but it is always good and always challenging.

So when I saw a link to the video above, naturally I had to watch. It's called "Messianic Lunacy," a title which is dripping with the kind of stinging but true style of critique that Wright employs so often and so well.

The premise of the video is a question, " What makes N.T. Wright Angry?"

As I watched the video, I found myself, as usual, agreeing with what he was saying. Maybe I am an unthinking fan boy, but this Brit makes sense.

It is frustrating to encounter Christians who view the world so myopically and yet feel so strongly that they know just what is wrong and just how to fix it.

Watch it and become more awesome than you are right now.

"No-ing" versus "Knowing"

(Note: Posting from the road. Sketches may be added later.)

I had an interesting conversation today. One that related to my studies Hebrews. More or less we talked about doubting. The question we talked around was, "How much can you doubt and still believe?"

This is a good question, I think. One that more and more Christians seem to be asking. Some Christian leaders would have us believe that doubting is symptomatic of a lack of faith. They would tell us that to waiver in belief means that you don't believe, that you have no faith.

I am not sure I agree.

As I read the Bible, it seems that God has a lot of graciousness for doubters. People who waiver, stumbled in their certainty. People who wonder why God does what he does, or when he will do what he has said he will do. Or whether he is even there at all.

On the other hand, he doesn't seem to tolerate obstinate rebellion. Could it be that "believing" isn't an absence of doubt as much as it is the presence of obedience?

Over the last few weeks I have had several opportunities to answer a version of the following question, "What should I do when I find it hard to believe in God?"

My response?

Live like you believe it is true.

I mean, what else can you do? You can't make yourself believe what you don't believe, right? You can't just decide to have no doubt, can you? I sure can't. So when I experience doubts in my own life, and see others around me doubting, I find comfort in God's apparent patience with those who have a hard time believing, and motivation from his apparent frustration with those who stumble into rebellion.

I live like it is true...even though sometimes I wonder whether or not it is.

Seeing Myself in The Desert of Sin

I have been preaching my way through Hebrews at my church. You can check out some sermons here: http://sermon.net/newhorizon

This coming Sunday I will be teaching from Hebrews 3:7-19. It is an interesting passage. Structurally it challenging because it essentially is using a story from Israel's past (Exodus 17:1-7 and Numbers 20:1-13) as it is understood theologically from the perspective of the Psalmist in Psalm 95.

So I have been reading through sections of the Exodus story, reacquainting myself with the rocky relationship between God and his people in these early years. As I have been doing this I have realized a pretty challenging fact.

The people in the desert remind me of me.

I tend to revert to a complaining sort of fatalism at the first glimpse of significant obstacles in my path. I find myself questioning the path that God has called me to walk, not because the path is hard - I expected as much - but because the path seems to be fatal. There are times when I think I might be in mortal danger (figuratively speaking of course...well mostly). I find myself thinking, "Wouldn't it have been better to not have started the journey than to come this far only to fail?"

As I read the story of God's people and their exodus out of Egypt towards the promised land, as I see how similar their attitude is to mine, I am suddenly a bit fearful.

Because that attitude angers God.

"The Terrible Twos" (Jude 5-7)

Yesterday my friend and teacher Herb Bateman preached, I had the day off.

It was great.

It has been a long time since I sat and listened to a sermon. The content was good, the presentation engaging, and the experience of learning was a real treat.

But, wow, Jude? What a trip. When was the last time you heard a sermon out of Jude? Such an overlooked but powerful little letter.

Herb focused on verses 5-7 and summed up the idea this way: Divine repercussions exist for those who persist in telling God, "No!"

He called it the "Sermon in a Sentence." I like that, I might steal it. After all, he probably stole it from someone else.

He explored some "angel rebellion" stories from 1 Enoch, which bothered some people, I guess, but absolutely fascinated me. The bottom line, it doesn't matter who you are, a follower of God, an celestial being, a pagan...if you rebel against God's norms there WILL be repercussions.

Ouch.

It got even better during sermon discussion (a weekly tradition at my church) where he shared that he believed Jude was written to Jewish believers who were at risk of being deceived by rebellious political dissenters who were stirring up people en route the soon-to-erupt Jewish rebellion of the late 60s - early 70s C.E.

As I thought about it, I slowly began to realize that if Herb is right, then the implications for modern day believers become even more challenging. As Jewish rebels were gathering strength, they would have done so (at least in part) by appealing to the nationalistic sentiment of their countrymen. A sentiment that almost entirely ignored the claim that Jesus was the real messiah, and his kingdom is not of this earth. In other words, throwing off the oppressive rule of a gentile empire (Rome) was not the concern of a follower of Jesus, the Christ.

This sounds like a teaching against rebellion of all sorts, not the least of which is rebelling violently against oppressive governments.

Yay Gandhi!

But that might be beside the point.

Undeniable is the strength of Jude's warning: persist in rebellion and there WILL be repercussions.

Good stuff, Dr. Bateman, good stuff.

This Instead of That

I have only ever been a casual blogger. This is probably because I like to think of myself as a writer but I really am not. I can write, but it does not come easy. On top of that, the writing I do is usually not that good and the things I write not really that valuable.

But people ask me to. I actually have people ask me to blog more. I usually respond by saying, "Have you actually read my blog? It isn't that good."

But they persist.

So I have decided to focus my blogging activity on my job, which is teaching the Bible. If you want personal stuff, talk to me in person. I will try to keep the rants to a minimum, and focus on writing my way through what I am preaching and teaching at my church.

Thanks for reading.

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.