Preaching the Synoptic Gospels

I finally finshed up my reading on faith and science. That was certainly a lot to think about. I’ll post about those ideas in the next few weeks as I get my thoughts together for my Sunday school series.

So, I finally get to read something I am interested in for a few weeks. I immediately pulled Brad Young’s latest book, Meet the Rabbis off the shelf – I’ve been dying to read it for months. It reminded me about how much I love the “Jerusalem School” of Synoptic  interpretation. That is something I’ve never really posted about so I thought I’d do that here. I first encountered this movement while studying the historical background of the New Testament in graduate school. It was marvelous. I thought my brain was going to explode. The context of first century Judaism is one of the most (if not the most) important aspects of Synoptic interpretation. Since the early 80s, the Jerusalem School has used rabbinical tradition and Jewish cultural context to frame the words of Jesus (It began with the work of David Flusser, Robert Lindsey, and Shmuel Safrai at Hebrew University). In its rabbinical context, Jesus’ words reveal precise interpretation – something lost in our generalized, Westernized approach to scripture. For me, they do what Robert Alter and Simon Bar-Efrat have done for the Old Testament. If you are preaching the gospels and have not digested their research, chances are good you may be missing a significant part of its meaning – particularly the parables. And that doesn’t have to do with our ability to interpret a text, but rather our inability to fully interpret without the original rabbinical references. All the Greek in the world won’t help you unearth those Hebraisms that inform that original interpretation.

Though not all of the books below originated in the “Jerusalem School,” here’s a good list to start with when learning about Synoptic context and rabbinical tradition:

Brad Young, The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation

Kenneth Bailey, Poet and Peasant/Through Peasant Eyes

David Bivin and Roy Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus

David Daube,  The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism

Julius Scott, Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament

Marvin Wilson, Our Father Abraham

David Flusser, The Sage of Galilee

David Instone-Brewer, Traditions of the Rabbis from the Era of the New Testment: Prayer and Agriculture

Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity

 Do yourself a favor and read everything Young and Bailey have written.

Here’s a thought: a lot of folks are worried about “postfoundationalist” interpretation of the Bible – that there is no “framework” in which to firmly place Jesus’ teachings. But it seems that Jesus made sure that his words would not be interpreted too far from his original intent. He didn’t choose archaeology or geography to anchor his teachings. He chose literature – rabbinic literature to be exact. And the literature/oral tradition with which Jesus interacted (the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Tannaitic Midrashim, etc.) has been painstakingly preserved by its followers. So, the “reference” points of the gospels are as strong today as when they were spoken by Jesus himself. Curious about the “framework” from which Jesus taught? Check out the books above.

“Change We Can Believe In,” Part 3

As usual, God offers us an alternative. Self-esteem is derived from something deeper: God-esteem. I am convinced that deep down, what we think about ourselves is directly related to what we believe God thinks about us. Behind each of our motives lies a deeper truth: the core of our being is directly tied to how we view God. If you believe God thinks little of you, then you’ll think little of yourself. If you wake up every morning to a God who plans to bully you through adverse circumstances all day to teach you some patience, then your day isn’t going to go very well. If you believe God tolerates you, then you will merely tolerate others. But if you believe God is gracious and kind…if you believe that God not only loves you, but that God likes you, you will esteem yourself differently. Honestly, 99% of events in a day have little effect on your life. Yet, we swing back and forth, acting like insignificant issues are life-changing. There are only two reasons for this: 1) we’re bored or 2) we have nothing more permanent to base our outlook on.

God-esteem places full confidence in the permanent character of God. For me, this is based solely on the unyielding love of a God who wants my affection and devotion. His love for me is unconditionally the same at all times in life. Churches have heard about the love of God so much that they fail to realize what it entails. The key to understanding the love of God is to understand that it’s unconditional. Before I understood what unconditional love meant, I had assumed that God’s love was like that of a parent or friend – it rose and fell based on my performance for him. When I say that I mean I believed that although God “loved” me the majority of the time, I felt like God rarely approved of my walk with him. His love, acceptance, and approval was conditional – based on the circumstances of my behavior.

Unconditional love is love that isn’t swayed by performance. And though I knew that there was nothing I could do to make God love me less, I had missed the other side of unconditionality. There was nothing I could do to make God love me more. So, all my attempts to get God’s attention were not increasing his delight in me. I was not winning him over with my scripture memory or my praise and having my radio preset to K-Love. He was winning me over with his unconquerable, unstoppable, undaunted love for me. I was the center of God’s full, intense, and romantic affection. And I was not getting his attention – he was stalking me with an undying level of infatuation that never ends. And there was nothing I could do to change that – all I had to do was lay back into his love and rest there my whole life.

Love without conditions. Without reservations. Without qualifications. Though others may see me as a failure, in God’s eyes, I never am. So my outlook on life never changes – and my view of myself reflects that permanence of God’s unconditional love. My self-esteem is really God-esteem. How does God esteem me? He loves me. And there’s nothing anyone can do about it! That’s the ultimate “happening” in life…a truth that lives above the ups and downs of life’s circumstances. God-esteem keeps us stable in times of change – it’s the only permanent thing on the planet. And that’s the root of lasting joy and fulfillment. When you can stake your life on the reality of Zephaniah 3:17: that God takes “delight in you with gladness/With his love he will calm all your fears/He will rejoice over you with joyful songs,” then you have something that gives you permanent joy. That’s what God thinks about me. That’s what God thinks about you.

Our scripture this morning reflects this truth. How do we know that God loves us unconditionally? We find the answer in Jesus. Jesus is God explaining himself to the world…inviting us into his forgiveness and grace. “God became flesh and dwelt among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. For the law was given through Moses, but God’s unfailing love and faithfulness came through Jesus Christ. Jesus, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.” We were created to connect with God in such a way that the changes of life seem trivial when we’re basking in the glow of God’s unconditional love.

Coping with change involves resting in the truth that something more permanent lies beyond the changes we see in life. Circumstances come and go, but at no point do we cease to be the sole focus of God’s intense unfailing, unconditional, eternal love. That’s a reality that doesn’t happen overnight for most people. You may feel you are undeserving of that type of love. I have good news: you’re in good company. No one deserves it. That’s the point. Yet, we gladly receive it. And as we learn to live our lives in that awesome truth, our dependence on the accolades of others, the tyranny of the workplace, and the desire for material things are seen for the second-rate things they are. Nothing compares to the unconquerable love of God. It’s waiting for you this morning.

“Change We Can Believe In,” Part 2

My question this morning is: how do we find worth in something greater than our circumstances? How can we live with a sense that we are a part of something greater than our individual agendas? Our culture doesn’t teach us that. Our culture teaches us to be self-occupied and egotistical – completely consumed with our circumstances. It’s the disease of our nation. And we thrive on it. I know a lot of people who aren’t happy. Or at least they aren’t happy for long. Most people ride a roller coaster of reactions to what happens to them in any given day. In America, this is compounded by our affluence. We really don’t know what real suffering is! When asked about work, we complain, “Oh today was horrible!” When asked why, we mention things like, “I couldn’t finish my Excel spreadsheet because my email inbox was overflowing and my Blackberry just wouldn’t stop ringing!” or “It took forever to get my special order latte this morning, someone just had to get in a car accident and that put me behind schedule all day!” Obviously, I’m being facetious, but we have to admit we generally only have “small” problems.

If I remember correctly, the etymology of the word “happiness” comes from “happenings” – events in life that produce a specific emotion. In other words, the emotions of “happy” people rise and fall according to what “happens” to them. We live lives of reaction. If, of course, you have to perfect life, then you’ll always be happy. But remember, we’re the same people that complain if our dry cleaning isn’t ready for pickup. Our lives suffer at the hand of our circumstances. Our treatment of others, our attitudes, and personal worth rises and falls on the praises or criticisms of acquaintances and co-workers – people that really have little bearing on who we truly are. Yet, we let the actions of others and the “grind” of life mold us into people we don’t want to be.

I like history a lot, so I like to study how we came to believe in the ideologies we value as a nation today. One of the more fascinating ones to date is the idea of “self-esteem.” Now, when I say self-esteem, I mean the general ability to evaluate ourselves and have that self-image affect our behaviors and moods. We live in a culture that values the idea of a healthy self-esteem, and rightfully so. We spend a tremendous amount of time securing the self-worth of children in our educational systems, our governmental programs, and through non-profit organizations.

So, where do people go when looking for worth? Well, since the rise of the Human Potential Movement in the 60s, we most often seek healthy self-esteem in our value as human beings. By developing our potential as humans, we can achieve the quality of life that we desire. We can be fulfilled and content and…well…happy. And though psychologists go into more complex forms of self-image, this is the idea that drives the popular movement towards happiness. In other words, this is the “Dr. Phil” version. So, we grow up with the idea that we should think well of ourselves and recognize our merit as individuals with valid hopes and dreams. Everything we need to live a happy and fulfilled life is already present in us.

But after 40 years, we’re beginning to see the reality of that paradigm. In 2004, the American Psychological Association put out a report that challenged that idea. After surveying 600 people from the ages of 50 to 90, they determined that many of the individuals had “high” self-esteem but said they were unhappy. They knew they were smart, talented, resourceful, and educated. But they felt they had missed something along the way – some set of goals they didn’t meet. In other words, though they felt comfortable with who they were, they recognized that all the things they had accomplished were of little significance outside of the praise and accolades they received at the time. Even those with “healthy” self-esteem are slaves to their circumstances.

And here’s what we can learn from that: the idea that we possess within ourselves those qualities that will ultimately make us happy is false. It’s a self-defeating model because it attempts to derive worth and value from a source that always fails. Society tells us to be happy with who we are and then barrages us with qualifiers to that self-worth: education, credentials, social connections and the like. You are only as good as your ability to out-perform the next guy. That’s why people ride the roller coaster of life reacting to the changes that come our way. And though none of those things are necessarily bad, we give far more value to them than they actual give back to us…and it creates a constant reminder that we will never measure up to the standard to which we are held. Reputation, status, financial stability, high levels of education, physical attractiveness, athletic prowess, even personal integrity leaves us empty. And because we’re empty, we grasp and claw and hold on to whatever circumstances validate who we are: a job, a community position, money, our children, our spouse, even the reputation of our church. But when change comes, we’re devastated – because the familiar is gone and our security is threatened. In the end, change is something we can’t believe in. If we do believe in it, we won’t for long.

“Change We Can Believe In,” Part 1

Change We Can Believe In

June 28^th, 2009

John 1:14-18

When Mike came to the office two Thursdays ago, I told him that I wasn’t sure what I planned to talk about this morning. He suggested something about new beginnings or change. I had actually been thinking about something similar to that, but until last Sunday I wasn’t sure what angle to take in speaking to you. But I wrote the initial notes to this sermon while I heard Mike speak in the traditional service last week. Mike was preaching from the same place that Leigh Ann had been just two weeks before. And though that’s not a bad thing, it is different. Change is a part of being human. Life is in a constant state of flux. One season of life ends as another one is beginning. Nothing stays still for long. Life is sometimes quick and ruthless with our feelings – we often have little time to adjust to much less navigate the twists and turns that come our way. But that’s because life encompasses something bigger than that change we feel.

Now, when we talk about change it can be approached from two main perspectives. One way is to emphasize the need for change – the idea that God has entered our heart to bring us to a place that is different that we we’ve been before. In that way change is not only good, it’s godly. But the second perspective is the one I’d like to address this morning. And that is when we feel like we’ve seen too much change. When enough things in life have shifted so that we feel off-balance. Uncertain. Maybe even fearful. For even though change can be positive, too much of it can also threaten our security. I think that’s part of human nature. In the counseling I’ve done, I’ve noticed that people don’t always choose the best option available to them. Rather, they choose the familiar option – the one they know will make them feel secure. Too much change sends us clamoring for something familiar to hold on to. This morning I want to talk about coping with change…and finding our identity and self-worth in God, not in our circumstances.

We’ve heard a lot about change over the past year: politics, financial markets, national and international conflicts. We can start with the campaign slogan for Barack Obama in last year’s presidential election: “Change We Can Believe In.” That’s an unusual saying, isn’t it? It encompasses the belief that in changing our circumstances, life gains meaning. This, of course, isn’t any old change – it’s change for the better. That idea is very much a part of the fabric of our society – the idea that we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and make our circumstances bend to our will. And I think a healthy work ethic is important. But there’s another side to that equation. What if things don’t improve after change comes? Well, most of the time, people begin to feel that they have done something wrong. That they aren’t worthy of the success and progress they long for. Somewhere along the line we have been given the impression that our value and worth is tied to our circumstances. We’ll come back to that idea in a minute.

I was thinking the other day about how many opportunities for change exist in our lifetime. What makes the first year of marriage so difficult is the struggle to adapt to that new spouse’s paradigm. We spend hours learning the mindset and emotional clues of the person we love. Eventually, we think we may have them figured out a little bit. We become comfortable with them and peace effortlessly floats into our home, right? And then you have children. People told me that my perspective would change and that I would actually get a clue about life when I had children. Of course, they we being condescending…but they were right, too. Nothing makes us put our own wants and desires on hold like raising a family. At no time must we juggle the impossible schedules of several individuals like when our home is full of children. Children are great – but they also keep us on our toes and require us to plan and think far into the future…when really we’d rather be thinking about well, at least for guys, sports. At other times we are thrown into national and international conflicts that threaten to disrupt everyday life. Those of you who have served in our military understand probably more than anyone what it means to serve, honor, and protect something greater than yourself at a moment’s notice.

More on Pastors and Doctoral Studies

Brian has followed up with some more great thoughts on Ph.D.’s and pastoral ministry:

http://sunestauromai.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/more-on-pastors-and-doctoral-study/

I’m out of pocket for several days though I will respond soon…

Pastors and Ph.D.’s

My blogging buddy, Brian, opened a can of worms with a recent post. The question? Is a Ph.D. an appropriate degree for those in pastoral ministry as opposed to academia? You may want to go back and read the comments in his post before getting into this one. I felt particularly qualified to respond, but I knew that my thoughts would overrun his comments section. :) So, here are my thoughts on the appropriateness of Ph.D.’s as pastors.

I finished a Ph.D. in historical theology (history of religious experience) in 4.5 years at International Seminary last year. International is a modest school and accommodated my ministry schedule and family life while still holding my feet to the fire. I was able to do classwork and initial research while still serving a local church. But when the heavier research and (European format/big book) dissertation writing ensued, I went on ministry leave for two years. It took every bit of time I could muster in those two years to finish up and return to ministry at another church. So, the majority of my experience about whether a Ph.D. is appropriate for ministers has come in the last year. Furthermore, the position I took was local as an associate minister role at a larger church. So, the opportunities to teach and preach are more selective than if I were a senior minster somewhere. But the position also allows me to pursue academic interests and be available for my family as well. For now, I am content with that in every way.

When someone chooses a “research” degree as opposed to a leadership/church development degree, things will be a little different. Much of my training in church history/history of mentalities never makes its way into my teaching and counseling, but it does impact the way I prepare for those tasks. Like the quote from Carson on Brian’s blog, the degree teaches you to think in a way that is completely different from other degrees. The sheer volume of research and reading associated with competency in a particular field is dense to say the least. Most Ph.D.’s, once they are at the cusp of recent developments in their field, continue that process in the academy through journal articles, collaborative efforts, conferences, and the like. But when a Ph.D. enters the pastorate, that ability to stay current wanes simply because the academic resources are not as readily accessible. I was an ”expert” in my field one year ago. I am no longer…not because I don’t want to be, but because my reading list now includes a broad mosaic of topics from leadership books to commentaries to popular theology. In other words, the research “chops” remain but the research is no longer for you our your discipline. It’s for those you serve in ministry. You spend time researching their questions, not yours. And that’s why most Ph.D.’s stay in the academy.

So, taking on a pastoral role requires a Ph.D. to “give up” some of the academic freedom and personal research time. Not all of it though. You can still belong to academic societies (I do) and research/write as time allows. But the research mindset acquired through doctoral studies doesn’t leave. So, though you may not be an expert in every field related to ministry, you know how to find and assimilate all types of knowledge. I read the Harvard Business Review, a Festschrift, or Erwin McManus’s latest book in the same way. I certainly don’t think a Ph.D. is too much for a pastor. In fact, I agree with Carson. It’s the mentality gained through gaining a Ph.D. that supplements the call of a pastor’s heart. They don’t cancel each other out or anything. They complement each other. I don’t often talk “above” my congregation, but I am fully aware of their theological paradigm when talking to them. I save my academic ramblings for my other egghead friends. I also am willing to be a little more “edgy” in some of the topics I broach with them, simply because I want them to be confronted with ideas outside the ones they’ve held for the past thirty years – I try to keep them ahead of the theology “curve.” My sermons get a little academic on occasion, but not anything like the dry academic books I personally read. In fact, I believe part of my job includes “mining” for appropriate trends in theology and translating those into a palatable format for my congregation. I did the schooling; they get the benefit.

Pastors don’t need a Ph.D. to minister effectively. Some of the most impressive ministers I know have little more than a two year Bible college degree. Some of the worst ministers I know have high levels of education.  Is a research doctorate benficial to those who have entered pastoral ministry? I think so. Would it help every minister? I don’t know – I can only speak for myself. It helps me.  But the question is not whether a Ph.D. is an appropriate degree for ministers. The real question is whether someone with a Ph.D. is called to pastoral ministry.

Living Loved

Last year, I specifically remember walking past my oldest daughter’s room during her naptime. I stopped for a minute. Even today when I look at my children, I am overwhelmed by the responsibility of caring for them. That time - standing in the doorway –  was one of those moments. But it was also a time when I thought, I really hope I can teach and model the important things in life for her. With our third daughter due in September, that responsiblity still weighs heavily on me a year later. That day, watching her sleep, I thought about life lessons that mattered to me now and also those that I thought were much more important than they really were when I was a child. I spent a lot of time majoring on the minors, particularly as a young adult.

Of course, the first life lesson I thought of was “love God.” That seemed like a right answer – certainly the answer everyone would expect a Christian parent to say to their child. But I started thinking about the connotations behind that simple phrase. So much of my life was spent assuming that loving God involved “doing” or performing for him. I’ve talked about that wretched cycle here. But I really would like something more for my own children. That’s when I thought, maybe our life’s goal should be to let God love us. That was what I had missed all along growing up. I was uncomfortable knowing that I hadn’t done something for God spectacular enough to merit his love. People in the church talk a good game about this – almost always quoting phrases about being saved by grace and something about unmerited favor. But honestly, what I see in the church is Christians working overtime to “prove” to God that they are worthy of the “unmerited” grace they have already been given.

Part of this has to do with our view of God. I’m a big believer that the more we understand God, the more we are comfortable trusting him. That goes the other way as well – lordship is impossible when you don’t trust God. See, God is a recreational being. He’s social. He’s playful and interactive. He likes relationship and finds fulfillment in the “give and take” of all the members of the Trinity. We’re merely meant to dance the cosmic dance with our recreational God. That’s where our fulfillment comes from as well – not from another human. Don’t get me wrong – there’s nothing wrong with loving your family and friends. But there’s more to life than that. When God decided to make Eve, he did so because he thought it would be good for Adam. But nowhere in the biblical account does Adam say he is lonely. Adam was complete just by relating to his Maker. But in creating Eve, God imitates his own recreational and social nature. That’s amazing to me.

So, that’s my wish for my children – not that they’ll love God, but that they will being willing to let God love them. that they will “live loved.” That’s where fulfillment lies – within the realization of total acceptance by a relational and recreational God who’s whole intent is to give them their heart’s desire. Sound far-fetched? I don’t think so. It’s something I’m learning to walk in. I hope I can help my children understand that as much as God has captured their heart, they have also captured his. And that was God’s plan all along.

Some Random Observations

1) The Muppets are awesome. I had the bright idea to You Tube “Mahna Mahna” from the Muppet Show last week and show it to the girls. Now, that’s comedy. the girls loved it and the more we viewed The Swedish Chef, Rowlf, Beaker, Gonzo, Fozzie (and don’t forget Dr. Teeth), the more I remembered why the Muppets are so stinkin’ cool. That should be required TV watching for all children. Educational programming overrated. Let your children watch the Muppets, for Pete’s sake.

2) Ren & Stimpy is disturbing. MTV2 started airing Ren & Stimpy a while back – I finally DVR’d some episodes. I watched Ren & Stimpy when I was in high school and thought it was hilarious. So, I sat down to watch, anticipating the return of laughter that accompanied my adolescent memories of the show. You know: stinky tooth holes, ”Happy Happy Joy Joy”, cousin Svën, the Canadian kilted yaksmen.  Now, as a grown man, that show is absolutely bizarre. No wonder my mom hated it. Ren & Stimpy is some sick junk. Bob Camp must have been smoking crack when he came up with that stuff. Of course, the shows I watched were from season 4…but still. Holy cow.

The Nuances of Church Leadership

Happy Father’s Day to all!

I’ve been at TFUMC for a year now. I have made two glaring leadership mistakes during that time. I thought I’d share them with you so that you don’t repeat my stupidity. First, a little background on my job environment…

TFUMC is a complex mixture of 1250 members, half of whom adhere to a contemporary form of worship and the other half enjoying the traditional service. The success of both services is a confluence of many factors. Probably the most important one is that both are held in separate locations on our church campus. So everyone can enjoy each others’ company at weekly functions, but the services aren’t borrowing space or creating traffic problems (or any other “systems” issues) for each other. As to my two mistakes: personality plays into different leadership styles. I am a “type A” personality…a nice person (hopefully), but still task-oriented in many ways. However, Methodist churches are generally lay-led and part of my responsibility is supporting lay leadership over those ministries in my job description. In other words, my job is not to do all the work – it’s to support and involve our congregation.

So, here’s mistake #1:  for our first small group launch in March, I did what I assumed would create momentum. We did PowerPoint, pep talks, videos, curriculum advertisements, all directed at a launch date with various models available for those interested (sermon-based to accountability, etc.). It failed miserably. We had about five groups launch with varying attendance. Two of the five waited until after the launch to form through private conversations and emails. If you do the math, that’s little more than a 1.5% increase in our entire membership. An abysmal failure.

Mistake #2: All children’s areas were in desperate need of a face-lift to put us at least on a comparable scale to other churches our size. My first (of three) projects was to renovate an area for the 5th and 6th grade ministry. Rather than laying out the plan clearly, I turned the project over to a large group of individuals, each adequately equipped to participate in one aspect of the renovations. As a result, though the facilities have been updated and we stayed close to budget (very important!), the project took roughly 6 months longer than I had initially anticipated, missing the completion date by half a year!

Okay, so what did I learn from these mistakes? Well, for starters, I became reacquainted with the “nuances” of leadership style. Leadership must be “fine-tuned” to the context, people, and objectives involved. In these cases, I used the wrong style on the wrong project. I over-administrated one of the most “organic” movements in our entire church: small groups. Our congregation connects on a personal level at the prompting of the Holy Spirit. Small groups form out of relationships. That’s something I cannot “lead” anyone to do. Sure, I can make resources available and emphasize the importance of small groups. I can even create a “launch” to highlight that ministry…but over-leading something that organic can be disastrous.   

Similarly, I under-administrated the facilities project by not providing more direction. By not laying out clear deadlines and specific objectives, I left those involved with little structure to complete their task. I should have switched styles for these two events. If anything I should have over-administrated the renovations and under-administrated the small groups. The funny thing is: I’ve been around this mountain in other churches before. I’ve read books warning of the exact scenario I experienced in these two projects. But what works in one church rarely works in another. To me, in church work, it’s often the intuitive nature of dealing with people that makes or breaks a project. And there’s no sure-fire way to predict the success or failure of any project. But it seems that the nuances of  leadership style – how people react to a particular form of leadership – is more central to its success than the specifics of the project itself.

Boycotting U2…

I know this post is going to disappoint some of my more trendy readers out there. It’s certainly going to disappoint my wife.

I’m boycotting U2. I’m done with ‘em. As a postmodern Christian, I must confess (to my own shame) that I have not purchased their latest album. That may rend the hearts of some of my generation’s most “missional” leaders. I’m sorry. I just can’t listen to them anymore. Don’t despise me; just listen to my plea for reason.

U2 is great band. Their music is great and I own about seven albums myself. I remember at age thirteen, when some CCM music mag did an article on them. I was enchanted for years to come.  In U2, we find the subtle Christian overtones of “Where the Streets Have No Name” and the socially conscious lyrics of “Mothers of the Disappeared,” “Pride (In the Name of Love),” “Sunday Bloody Sunday,” and “Love and Peace or Else.”  There’s the poetic beauty of “One” and the moral confidence of “Walk On.” And then, there’s “Grace.”

Ahhh….”Grace.” Rarely do you find such good theology in a song.

I started to get jaded about five years ago. Christian artists and worship leaders collectively released a “We Love U2″ tribute album. U2 became “trendy”…along with the other two members of the cultural Christian Trinity: coffee shops and drawing spiritual significance from The Matrix. Socially conscious and spiritually aware, Bono became Jesus. Or maybe Rauschenbusch came back as Bono…I can’t remember which…It could have been both. Besides, Bono is gonna single-handedly “make poverty history,” right? When not mingling with dignitaries, he evidently browses books on comparative religious studies and post-structuralist anthropology. All of this has allowed him to declare a new message to us (in 3-D, no less): we should  all “co-exist.” I know that’s been said before…but now Bono has said it. And we should do it.

I heard a lot of “timely messages from God” a decade ago about the coming wave of Christianity that would no longer cater to superstars of the church. You know…the megachurch leaders and the personalities of Christian TV. God was going to advance his kingdom with a “faceless” generation. That’s a great idea. But for many in the postmodern Christian milieu, it’s empty rhetoric. We’ve ridiculed the shallow Christians who give their money to televangelists. We’ve also laughed at those who followed the fashion trends of Sex and the City. We’ve dismissed the former generations who have declined to participate in the “emerging conversation.” We have even snickered behind the backs of ministers who still find solace in a lectionary. Some people think Paris Hilton has something important to say…

…and we’ve got U2.