A New Direction in Life…

Sorry for the lack of posts this week. I had a few things going on! The final interview went fine and I’m pleased to announce that I’ve accepted the position of Director of Discipleship and Family Ministries at Thomasville First United Methodist Church. It’s a great opportunity to work with a great staff. I’m really excited about it. So what will I be doing? Everything family. Children’s ministries, small groups, marriage and family spiritual formation, member assimilation. I start in two weeks after a quick vacation with the family.

TFUMC is an unusual place. It’s a unique mix of traditional and contemporary worship. It has a membership of around 1200 or so. Big church for a small town. But what is most interesting about the church is that there has been a personal and individual revival going on for about four years now. No one announced it – it just began to happen one person at a time. People are hungry to know God more and are excited about worshipping him. We are in the middle of a large building program to accomodate the steady growth. The staff began to gauge my interest in ministering there about six months ago – which was a surprise. We went there, not only because we were spiritually feed, but also because we could remain “under the radar” while finishing school and entertaining ministerial positions elsewhere.

We honestly didn’t think the opportunity was there to minister. But we have grown to love that church and are extremely excited about the chance to “give back” to a church that ministered to us in such a personal way. Plus we get to stay close to grandparents and friends. So, when the chance to stay was presented, we jumped at it! We were looking to serve in an associate role in a larger (1000+) church anyway. We just assumed we’d have to move across the country to do that. So, God met our needs in every way. He’s good like that, you know…

On Friday, I graduated from the doctoral program at International Seminary in Orlando, FL. Thank God I’m done with school! I’ve learned soooo much and have enjoyed my academic training. I’m interested to see how that aspect of my ministry finds a place at TFUMC. I was part of a class of about 95 graduates – and International is truly that. I sat next to a doctoral graduate from Ghana during the ceremony and another two seats down from me travelled from Singapore. Cool huh? The funniest thing about the trip was our inability to find a restaurant before or  after commencement. We ate fine quisine at Checker’s before the ceremony and three hours later, Beth grabbed some pizza on Church Street while I circled the block since we couldn’t find parking. We celebrated by heading back to the hotel to watch the last half of “The Wedding Crashers” on TV.

I know it’s normal for doctoral students to end up teaching somewhere…and maybe I will. But right now, I think I’ll stick with pastoring in a local venue. That’s really where my heart is anyway. I did school for me, not for an occupation. I suppose I’ll keep blogging if that’s okay with everyone. Though I don’t know if I’ll have the time to do so quite as much. If they are less frequent I’ll do my best to make sure they’re worth your reading them. So, a new stage of life begins – we’ll see how it goes.

A Busy Week…and an Interesting Article

Few things going on this week. I have a final interview with a church committee on Wednesday for a local ministerial position. And then on Friday, I graduate. Woo hoo! I haven’t donned a cap and gown for a while so that should be interesting. I’m most excited about the fact that I get the chance to get away for a day or so with Beth.

This article caught my attention this morning: “Americans: My Faith Isn’t the Only Way to Heaven.” Give it a read and give me some feedback on what you think about it. I’m curious as to your reactions. I also have some thoughts I hope to put down soon. Most of its contents didn’t surprise to me too much.

Want Clarity and Focus in Your Christianity? Try Fear of Death

The title is obviously tongue-in-cheek, people. He’s a little story from my past.

In the fall of my senior year in high school, I closed off the subclavian vein in my right shoulder and developed multiple blood clots in the same region. No one is exactly sure how that happened – probably a combination of heavy weightlifting and a smaller upper chest cavity. One evening, I notice my right arm had swollen and was becoming discolored. I wasn’t too worried about it until we saw a vascular surgeon who admitted me to intensive care the same day. As a eighteen year old with his life ahead of him, I faced the possibility of restricted use of my arm (a horrible scenario for a piano player) or worse - death.

Needless to say, that information pulled the rug out from under me. Though I loved God and served him wholeheartedly, I was unaware of the numerous other aspects of life that I allowed to define me: academics, popularity, sports, music, and physical appearance. Though I had prided myself on being above such trappings, when confronted with the possibility of losing them, I was terrified. Obviously, I survived the ordeal – I was in ICU for about seven days (I think) while the clots were dissolved and a network of ancillary veins slowly took over for the damaged one. But my time in that hospital bed changed my life.

I remember coming back to school a few weeks later after missing the last two games of football season. As I walked the halls with the other students, something had changed. Conversations that I normally would have jumped in or found interesting held absolutely no significance for me. I was completely lost within a new paradigm far removed from my immediate surroundings. I didn’t know what to do. I don’t think I talked much for a few days other than basic pleasantries and questions about the hospital stay. I was overwhelmed by the two conflicting sets of priorities. Personally, my priorities had shrunk to a very tight set of values revolving around God, family, and evangelism. Suddenly who I was taking to the prom seemed frivolous.

Gradually I adjusted back towards a normal “teenager” mentality before I headed to college. But I will never forget that feeling of being completely lost inside the familiar. One literature teacher, after watching the look on my face for about two weeks, asked me about it. I told her how I was feeling and she still uses the story in a lecture on some book – I think All the King’s Men. Anyway, some experiences in life, no matter how unforeseen, can change you permanently. I guess the lesson in all of that is this: when you find yourself in the middle of one of those life experiences, do your best to recognize how those events may shape your life in the future. In this way (pardon the philosophizing for a moment ) process philosophy’s concept of humans as the sum of their personal experiences is correct. We are, to an extent, our history. Whitehead was just stating the obvious. And everyone has a “storyline” that shapes their paradigm. True friendship comes when others are interested enough in you to learn your “storyline” and interact with it.

On a side-note, as a Christian, one of the other most memorable moments in that whole ordeal was right before a surgery. I had been tired and nauseated for days and really didn’t want to speak to anyone. I had people praying in my hospital room constantly. Frankly, I was tired of praying. Really tired. I put on some headphones and started listening to a CD, Extreme’s III Sides to Every Story to be exact - a really good rock album, by the way. The people in the room stopped me. Saying, “You’re right before surgery, don’t you think you should pray some more?” I said, “No. I really want to listen to this music. I just need a break.” They said, “There will be time for music later.” Reluctantly (mostly because I was too tired to argue) I turned off the CD player and listened to people pray the exact same things they had been praying all morning. I don’t mean to sound flippant or ungrateful. I was thankful and I believe God brought me back to health – I should not be able to use my arm at all…and I have full use of it without restriction. But in that moment, I did swear to myself that I would never put someone that emotionally and physically tired under that much spiritual pressure. I wanted to think about anything else other than that surgery. As Christians, we should learn to read the nuances and respect the wishes of those we are praying for. Strange lesson to learn when facing the possibility of death, but an important one nonetheless.

I hope you’ve enjoyed the trip down memory lane with me. I’ll try to pick a lighter topic next time…

With Christianity, Less Is More

I love the Eastern Orthodox Church. Really, I do. There are a lot of reasons for this – one of which I would like to explain in this post. In Western forms of Christianity, we have the tendency to explore and systematize every single aspect of our faith…so much so that we find more disagreement than unity trans-denominationally. This is the exact reason I pointed out in my last post that we attack others so quickly with the term “heresy” when “heterodoxy” is a much better fit. In other words we are so restrictive and nit-picky with our doctrine that there’s no “wiggle room” for exploration and “out-of-the-box” thinking. We’re afraid to question and explore other biblical options for fear of crossing some invisible line that was created while we weren’t looking. Not so with the Orthodox.

Eastern Orthodoxy’s approach to doctrine could be stated as “less is more.” As Gregory of Nazianzus said, “To be only slightly in error [is] to be orthodox.” Now, that, my friends, is an amazing quote. While Western theologians dissected every theological detail focusing mainly on the intellect, Eastern theologians, like Gregory, did the exact opposite concentrating on “heart issues” like personal devotion and prayer. The Orthodox believe a Christian must experience the doctrines of theology, not just understand them. So, their theologians have rigorously maintained a small, essential list of beliefs, but have also allowed an openness to govern other doctrines that fell outside a few core essentials.

Yet, this “liberal” approach to interpretation where every “i” is not dotted and every “t” is not crossed has not produced the chaotic results Western Protestants would expect. Most Westerners would assume that such an approach would allow scriptural misinterpretation, self-seeking excess, and a blatant disregard for the traditions of the church. However, within Eastern Orthodoxy, the opposite has been the case. It has actually produced a theological conservatism among its adherents. Amazingly, their flexiblility, not their rigidity, has created this conservatism. The Orthodox, unlike Western Christians, have remained conservative and unified in their beliefs because of their limited dogma.

This illustration may help. Imagine you are stranded at sea with a single raft with no land in sight. Though you may occasionally take a leisurely swim, chances are good that you won’t stray to far from that raft. Why? Because that raft, though small, is your safety. It also represents your known point of reference in a sea of unknowns. For the Orthodox, their theology acts like a raft. The Orthodox never stray too far from their “raft” in order to get back to it. So, by maintaining a small, but exact set of beliefs, believers never stray too far from the essentials into a sea of philosophies and theological error. By allowing some individual creative freedom, they minimize doctrinal excess. Unfortunately, the opposite has been true in the West. Many Christians have reacted strongly against the church’s tendency to control theology by over-explaining doctrine to the point where it has stifled creative expression.

Fortunately, things are beginning to change in Western Protestantism. The postconservative evangelical movement is attempting exactly what the Orthodox have already done. Stanley Grenz, Roger Olson, Clark Pinnock, Kevin Vanhoozer, John Franke, and Nancey Murphy represent this tradition and have often drawn from the works of Bernard Ramm, Lesslie Newbigin, Alasdair Macintyre, and Nicholas Wolterstorff. They believe that much of the restrictive doctrinal trends in conservative evangelical circles should be relaxed. A core set of essentials should be rigorously upheld while at the same time a level of theological exploration and creativity should be embraced. This – if the Orthodox are “correct” – will produce an evangelical “raft” for the next generation. The funny thing about that is that in order to create conservatism, one must relax his grip on the non-essentials. You have to go “left” before you can go “right.” That’s difficult to do if you believe you already have reached the pinnacle of theology – which many conservative evangelicals believe they have.

So what are the essential themes that postconservative scholars uphold? There are only five: 1) the value and authority of Scripture, 2) the importance of conversion, 3) centrality of the cross, 4) the importance of sharing your faith, and 5) social transformation. Other than that, theology should be done with the heart, concentrating on the transformation of the individual rather than on the insistence of structured information. It may be that the Orthodox have had it right all along. Personally, as an evangelical, I welcome the change.

Heresy, Cults, And Crazy People: What’s all the Fuss?

I was watching a documentary on the History International Channel, which after watching it, should be renamed the Stylized Historiography Channel. The documentary was on cults and their destructive influence on society. Popular examples of religious freaks took up most of the documentary’s time – like Jim Jones and David Koresh. One phrase captured my attention though, simply due to its overt bias. In the conclusion, the narrator said, “In a world littered with cultic tragedy, others loom upon the horizon.” Wow. Now that’s some nice fear-tinged rhetoric there. As the narrator spoke these words, an image of a large group of Christian charismatics lifting their hands during worship appeared. Of course, that made me angry simply due to the implication. It’s hard to call a global movement of 500 million believers a cult. But what really irritated me in those words and images is the narrow understanding of the sociology of cults and heresy.

Contrary to popular views of religious history, “cults” or sectarianism has been the norm for religious belief, including Christianity. ”Cult” simply means a fringe alternative movement standing for something outside mainstream values. Globally speaking, that means that in Hindu or Buddhist nations, Christianity is the “cult” there. The values may even be the same – just a more intense desire for, say, holiness. Paul Tillich said that sectarianism is “the criticism of the church for the gap between its claim and its reality.” Usually the horror stories (like Jones or Koresh) come from sectarian groups that don’t develop a large following (a few hundred people). They normally pass into history unnoticed. However, all Western and Eastern religions that exist today started as fringe religious movements. Everyone has been a “cult” at sometime or another. That includes all major Christian denominations. Even Christianity began as a radical, marginalized sect of Judaism.

Sects/cults become credible over time as new members are added and others begin to accept their existence. As sects turn into more accepted denominations, they often breed spiritual complacency among their members who begin to desire to return to the “good old days” when the movement was smaller and more radical.  In turn, this produces more sect formation by dissatisfied members. These “renewal movements” only  become independent sects when the existing church rejects their overtures for spiritual renewal. They merely want to renew the spiritual life of the church. If they are accepted, we call them “revivals” and talk about how great they are. Pejorative labels such as “cult” are given by the mainstream body after rejecting the movement’s overtures for change. Often times, sects require strict adherence to beliefs and high levels of commitment – essentially an  ”all or nothing” approach. Conversely, sectarians believe that the stress of asceticism is rewarded with spiritual power – something the group that rejected them did not possess.

And that’s when all the heresy talk starts. Our understanding of heresy now (which is applied to all types of religious “infractions”) is not the same as the early church. Initially, it only dealt with foundational truths of the Christian faith – namely the divinity of Jesus. In the fifth and sixth centuries, it became associated with other aspects of Christianity - for example Origen’s musings about universalism. But honestly the modern term most commonly derives its nastiness from the writers of church history. Hopefully everyone knows by now that only the “winners” in history write the books. And the same is true of church history. Cult critics initially only disapproved of a group’s method of worship, not the doctrines themselves. But over time, as accusations are repeated in church histories, the doctrine was often deemed heretical as well. For example, the Montanists (initially apart of the church) were a rigorous and devout group of Christians – orthodox in their foundational beliefs. However, by choosing to recognize their own leaders and holding a place for women in leadership, they came under ecclesiastical fire. Along with that came the critic’s rejection of the Montanist’s use of spiritual gifts. It’s not that the gifts were wrong – but that women were allowed to practice them. Eusebius quotes Apollonius: “Does a prophet paint his eyelids?” The issue was not with prophecy but rather who was prophesying: someone the church had not sanctioned. Throughout church history, heresy had little to do with doctrine and much to do with issues of recognized authority.

As such, cults aren’t usually heretics in the authentic sense of the word. What cults oftentimes are is heterodox. Now that doesn’t mean “wrong.” It means outside of mainstream acceptance. Any evangelical historian worth their salt will tell you that “orthodox” simply means the “majority opinion” – it doesn’t necessarily mean that the majority opinion is “correct,” though many times it does. So, many of the “orthodox” opinions we hold today were at one time heterodox, until enough people accepted them. To step away from religion for a minute, we all hold gravity to be an “orthodox” part of science. But Newton developed the “heterodox” idea of gravity from occult beliefs in Paracelsian correspondences, Neoplatonism, and alchemy. That may surprise you. But that’s a perfect example of something “heterodox” evolving into an accepted mainstream and orthodox belief. If the origins of gravity embarrass you, then you’re missing the point. All things are heterodox at their inception - including religious belief systems.

So, what should you glean from all of this? First, stop throwing around the term “heresy” for every little religious belief that doesn’t match your preconceived ideas. Secondly, no matter what mainstream religious group you belong to, you can thank your original “cult” leaders for being persistent in the face of opposition from the mainstrean religion of the time. What people called “crazy” then, we call “normal” now. And, third, be kind to the people “beneath” you on the religious food chain – they will be were you are within a couple of centuries…

Interview with a Wiccan

I had an interesting conversation the other day. In a small town in the south, rarely do I encounter people who are open about their alternative religious beliefs. So, I was delighted when I happened upon a Wiccan the other day. I talked to him for about forty-five minutes. Since alternative and occult religions are a passion of mine, I asked him some pointed questions about his faith. I thought I’d recount his answers (as best I can) for you here.

Though formerly involved in a coven, this Wiccan now practiced on his own, not adhering to any specific method (like Gardnerian or Alexandrian) – just a smorgasbord of ritual that meant something personally to him. He had only met one other Wiccan locally. I told him that there were others – that I had met a young lady who practiced Wicca about three years ago.

I asked him if he believed in a personal God. He said, “Yes, I believe in God and that he can be personally known and that everyone should seek to know God. However, I also believe that all the earth’s religions have similar themes to those found in Christianity. So to exalt Christianity above other religions is inappropriate.”

I asked him what he thought about Christians. “They don’t seem to follow their own precepts very well. I believe in the Wiccan Rede and the Law of Three that basically expresses the same ideas found in the ‘golden rule.’ Yet, Wiccans are much more tolerant and gracious than most Christians I have met.” I apologized for the behavior of the Christians he had known that had offended him.

I asked about his religious background. Surprisingly, he told that he had been raised old-line Pentecostal. The legalism associated with what to wear and how to behave left him unsatisfied with his experience. When I asked him specifically about the emotional manifestations he observed within the church and the use of spiritual gifts, he said, “Oh I have no problem with that. That was their way of allowing God to touch them.”

“Oh really?” I said.  “So spiritual experience is not a bad thing?” “Not at all,” he said. I asked him if the prospect of spiritual experience had drawn him to Wicca. He said it absolutely had and that personal spiritual experience is the desire of all Wiccans. “So you rejected the overt legalism of your Christian upbringing but not your belief in experience?” He said, “Yes, I found the experience elsewhere.”

Then I asked him one of the most common criticisms of Wicca I read. “Doesn’t that make you unaccountable in your religion?” He firmly responded, “Oh no – I’m not accountable to some guy in a suit who tells me I’m supposed to do what he says. I have never given any minister that right. But I am most certainly accountable to God for what I do. Wiccans are very moral and their belief in a higher power leads them to a higher standard of ethics than most Christians. I am accountable to God and not to another human.”

Once I got him started, he rarely came up for air, simply happy to find someone who wouldn’t judge him and dismiss his beliefs. And he knew I was a minister. That didn’t bother him – I was someone interested in his life choices. I didn’t try to convert him or prove him wrong when he attacked the Bible or told me about some of the things other Christians had called him at his employment. But I did say this: “I am really sorry for the behavior of other Christains. I hope you know I would never say that to you. Though I don’t agree with everything you say, I hope you know that I value your choice of religion. You have taught me a lot today. I would love to come back and talk to you some more in the future. Is that cool?” He said it was and that he would look forward to it.

I’ve said this before: people don’t care about your correct doctrine until they know for certain that you care about them as people. Only when that trust has been established are they willing to entertain the possiblity of your beliefs. People who evangelize others like they are a point on a scorecard or a notch on a belt really misrepresent the heart of the Father. People don’t care what you know until they know that you care.

Some Biblical Wisdom for Father’s Day

Enjoy!

http://www.claudemariottini.com/blog/2008/06/fathers-day-2008.html#links

The Theology of “The Shack”

I just finished The Shack by William Young. I laughed. I cried. I finished it in two days. What a beautiful, beautiful book. If you have not read it, please, for the love of all that is decent and holy, pick it up.

Though it’s fiction, Young deals with some amazingly complex theology in the book. And, though most reviews slam the book’s theological perspective, I would like to help set the record straight. Below I point you to some scholarly sources that confirm and elaborate on the ideas found in The Shack. I don’t agree with everything I read (though I certainly agree with a whole lot of it), but it’s important for you to know that Young isn’t expounding some “strange wind of doctrine” to whisk the Christian community into deception. He’s actually more theologically up-to-date than most of his detractors.

But how did I know I was really  going to like this book? In his acknowledgements, Young lists Malcolm Smith as an influence in writing the book. Malcolm is one of the most unrecognized yet most influential Bible teachers of the last 50 years. You want depth in your Christianity? Go to his site and buy every book and CD you can purchase.

I don’t have time to provide academic references for everything in The Shack, but a few should help you know that Young isn’t some crazy dude who’s making up stuff.

Concerned about Young’s use of metaphor and gender in describing God (chapter 5)? For metaphor, go read Sallie McFague’s Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language. For gender, see Elizabeth Johnson’s She Who Is, or Paul Smith’s Is It Okay to Call God Mother?: Considering the Feminine Face of God.

Concerned about Young’s equality among the Trinity (chapter 8)? Read Robert Jenson’s The Triune Identity: God According to the Gospel, Karl Rahner’s The Trinity, or Catherine Lacugna’s God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life.

Don’t like the idea of God having the “scars” of Jesus on his hands (chapter 6)? Read Jurgen Moltmann’s The Crucified God or The Creative Suffering of God by Paul Fiddes.

Don’t like the idea that Jesus proved his humanity in healing others (pp. 99-100)? Read about “Spirit Christology” in James Sheldon’s Mighty in Word and Deed or Gerald Hawthorne’s The Presence and the Power.

Confused by Sarayu’s speech on God as a “verb” rather than a “noun”? Read Miroslav Volf’s Work in the Spirit: Toward a Theology of Work.

Confused about Jesus’s lecture on submission and equality between men and women (chapter 10)? Go read Paul Jewett’s Man as Male and Female: A Study in Sexual Relationships from a Theological Point of View.

Don’t like Sophia’s view of judgment (chapter 11)? Go read Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Creation and Fall/Temptation.

Don’t like the idea of God being limited by his love for us? Read W.H. Vanstone’s The Risk of Love.

So, that should help. Young isn’t saying anything new – just things that have remained within academic circles until recently. Hopefully this encourages you to study out some of the ideas Young put forward in his book…oh, yeah, and go check out Malcolm Smith.

The Prosperity Gospel of the Ages

I grew up on a steady diet of T.V. evangelists. And as a young Christian I adopted much of the “prosperity gospel” or “Word of Faith” message I heard. Now, there’s much within “Word of Faith” that needs correction. A pastor friend of mine wrote about that here. But there’s some good things about it as well. That may be strange for you to hear, since normally people either love the “Word of Faith” message or they think it’s heresy. Sorry, I wish it were that simple. Sure, prosperity preachers say some wacked out things. But they also believe God actually cares about the day-to-day issues of life, like finances and health. And that’s something a lot of their detractors have no answer for. People that say God does a greater work by “healing the soul,” not the body, are completely out of touch with real life. Of course there’s balance – God’s not gonna give you a Mercedes because you confessed it into existence. But neither am I the least bit afraid to say that God does bless people materially and financially.

Most people see the “prosperity gospel” as a new phenomenon – something created in the last 40 years or so. An “Americanized” form of Christianity that hinges upon Western consumerism and greed. And if you merely study contemporary reflections of Christiantiy, you may convince yourself that you are correct. But there are countless examples throughout church history that say otherwise (you can start with historians Keith Thomas, Valerie Flint, and Stephen Wilson for this information). For example, Keith Thomas in Religion and the Decline of Magic, tells the story of a local parishioner who believed his excommunication was ineffective since he had his best crop production the following year. In other words, this guy thought that if God had been angry at him, he would not have received such blessing. Yet his material prosperity stated otherwise. Most Christians throughout history have followed this line of thinking.

Equating material and relational “prosperity” to Christianity is as old as the church itself. This most commonly involved alternative uses of consecrated items found within the church. Parishioners drank holy water as a cure for illness, sprinkled it on their homes, their fields, and on their cattle for protection. Clergy performed exorcisms to make fields fruitful, lit holy candles to protect animals, and spoke curses to drive away vermin, weeds, and crop destroying insects. During communion, parishioners would not swallow the host but hold it in their mouth until they returned to their seat. They then carried the host as an amulet for protection, to cure disease, or sometimes ground it into powder to sprinkle over crops as a charm against caterpillars. Christians also took the blessed palms from Palm Sunday back to their farms where they placed them above their beds, on religious pictures, over doors, or planted them in the fields to ensure good crops. They were also placed in the cradles of babies, used to ward off storms, or weaved into small crosses that the people used as talismans. The practice of making palm crosses was banned in the 1540s, yet people continued these practices to the end of the 1800s. At calendar festivals, animals were blessed by the priest, sprinkled with holy water, and ritually washed or dipped as part of ceremony for health and protection. There are reports of parishioners withholding their tithes from ministers who refused to perform such remedies.

Despite clergy’s efforts to state otherwise, Christians have always believed in a properity gospel. The examples above explain this thinking: though Jesus helped in the afterlife, a cross worn around the neck protected from peril now. Though the Eucharist represented a life of spiritual communion with God, the host could be sprinkled over crops now. Though the blood of Jesus atoned sin, communion wine could heal a sick child now. It shouldn’t surprise anyone to learn that the rise of such practices roughly coincided with the marginalization of spiritual gifts by clergy.

Belief in ”prosperity” did not stop with the Reformation or with the Enlightenment. With Catholic and Protestant clergy condemning their use, people continued to employ alternate methods for physical and financial well-being. In 1594, Lutheran inspectors in Germany reported that “the use of spells is so widespread among the people here that not a man or woman begins…or refrains from doing anything…without employing some particular blessing, incantation, spell, or other such heathenish means…” They did this because clergy gave them no Christian alternative. So, they found substitutes. Documented examples like this exist into the twentieth century.

So, Sam, what are you trying to say? I’m saying that most Christians (until they are taught otherwise) honestly believe that God should be willing to intervene in their daily lives bringing “prosperity” in the forms of material blessing, protection, deliverance, healing, and wealth. Telling them they shouldn’t expect such things has never deterred anyone from seeking God’s blessing. The “Word of Faith” movement is merely a modern manifestation of this. And though some may see such requests for “blessing” beneath them, the majority of Christians throughout history have thought differently. The “prosperity gospel” isn’t new. In fact, wherever you find well-meaning Christians seeking the kindness and generousity of God, you’ll find it. If God cares at all, then he must care about all aspects of our lives.

I Passed!

My dissertation defense was yesterday. It lasted about two hours and covered all manner of topics. The majority of the questions revolved around the interdisciplinary methodology I used and its pitfalls as well. But, all in all, though comprehensive, the defense was fair and went well. So, I passed. That’s the end of my doctoral studies. Four years later, though I learned a tremendous amount, I still feel like me. That may be strange to say, but about halfway through I wasn’t sure how I was going to weather the work and research I had undertaken. But, hopefully,  I think I’ve escaped the tendency to become a scholar of my own opinion. There’s a subtle difference there. As much as I have studied, I also realize that I must continue studying as well. So “school,” though formally over, is far from done.

I treated myself to a milkshake from Steak and Shake afterwards for the four hour drive home. I also got to catch up on some good music while driving. I listened to the new King’s X album, XV, twice. Now that’s a good album. I also listened to the new P.O.D. album, Angels and Serpents. And as much I enjoyed the lyrics and song styles, I must say I absolutely hate Marcos’s guitar tones. Ugh. Sorry, dude, I liked Truby’s alternate tunings and tone much better. I also listened to Downhere, Wide-Eyed and Mystified. Good solid rock album. My brother was right – they remind me of the Kry – an excellent band. BTW, the Kry gets my vote for releasing the best praise and worship album that no one bought: God of Infinite Worth. Worship leaders, there about five excellent corporate worship songs on that album you should consider teaching your congregation. I’ve also been into piano rock lately – particularly Sara Bareilles’s album Little Voice – great percussive use of piano (like Billy Joel’s “Allentown” or the first album by the Swift).

Now that I’m done with school, what am I gonna do with my life?