Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to All!
I did want all of you to know that the rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated. I am still alive and I am actually writing a lot - just not much on the blog. So I'm writing a short hello to wish all of you a very Merry Christmas and to update you on my activities this fall.

I am on the home stretch of my Doctor of Ministry program and am trying to finish off my thesis by the deadline - which would be the end of January. I have completed about 80 pages so far (out of a total of around 200 pages or so). I do have my work cut out for me. I plan to continue devoting as much time as necessary to try to complete my thesis on time.

The schedule is roughly as follows. I need to hand in my final draft sometime before the end of the first week of February. Then when it is returned, I will need to make the necessary corrections and get a final good copy ready with proper formatting and printed on acid free paper, etc., etc.

The thesis defense will be scheduled sometime in March and I will need to travel to Boston for that. Then if everything goes well my graduation is scheduled for May 9th amidst many hallelujahs and much rejoicing and "I told you so's" and "I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes" type comments.

The working title of the thesis is "The End of the World as we Know It: New Expressions of Church for the 21st Century"

I also want to apologize for missing a number of opportunities for blog entries. I made almost no comments about the American (or Canadian) elections. I also haven't been checking out what others have been saying.

I have put many of my regular activities and connections on hold but hopefully I can make it up and do some significant reconnecting come February and March. Promises promises!

Many Blessings
May Jesus continue to be the reason for the season in your lives.
Merry Christmas and a Christ filled New Year.

Take This Phone and Flush It

Are you on your cell phone right now?

It seems like everyone is. But I don't like it. With the legislation banning cell phone use in cars being introduced in Ontario things may change - at least while you're on the road. Have you ever done your own informal survey and counted the number of people talking on cellphones while in their cars? I've done it a few times and each time the number of people on cell phones while driving their cars always outnumbers the ones who are not on cell phones.

With these unlimited plans some of the usage gets a little creepy. I know someone who was on the phone with someone literally all day - they called and then just left the phone on - talking once in a while as they were vacuuming or preparing their meals. There were some long silences but also lots of little chatter about nothing - they were just together all day. I don't get that.

I also don't like the interruptions so I often ignore calls - especially if I'm with someone else. That's why caller ID is so good. I almost always ignore "Blocked Caller ID" calls - if someone really wants to get in touch with me they can leave a message - almost no one does. And i never answer any 1-866 or 1-800 numbers - that's just somebody trying to sell me something.

I realize it's become a reality of our lives but I will not go easy into that dark night.

I was encouraged today when I read this little article by Lauren Winner (who wrote Girl Meets God). It was fun to read.

You Are What You Watch

I just heard the results of a study done on adolescent and young adult behaviours.
I looked up the study and found that CTV posted something about it on their website.

The report starts like this ...

"Groundbreaking research suggests that pregnancy rates are much higher among teens who watch a lot of TV with sexual dialogue and behavior than among those who have tamer viewing tastes."

So what you fill your mind with and spend your time looking at will influence your behaviour? Say it isn't so! Well actually studies show (like James Potter) that most people (88%) actually believe that what they watch or listen to in the media doesn't affect them. However, most of those same people believe that it does affect other weaker people and that those weaker people ought to avoid certain violent or otherwise offensive programming.

New neuroscience research, however, suggests that what we do in this physical world determines who we become. The model of a spiritual soul that is influenced by one category of our weekly activities – worship, prayer, church attendance, etc. – but not by our more mundane daily activities (like watching tv or playing video games) is becoming more and more ridiculous. This neuroscientific research has shown that:

"By repeatedly performing some behaviors we can change the function of our brain and even reshape it. Furthermore, repeated activities such as observing or reading about the behaviors of other people can change the physical shape of the brain and the strength of the neural impulses that correspond to the observed behaviors. The importation of external knowledge, feelings, morals and attitudes through sensory experience has been shown to change the shape and functioning of the brain."

"As an example, in London England taxicab drivers must spend two years learning every street, boulevard and cul-de-sac before they can begin to drive. When they began their training the hippocampus of these drivers was normal in size and density. This area of the brain is responsible for our sense of direction. After two years of intensive training, the hippocampus of these drivers was larger and denser than it had been, and it was also larger and denser than the hippocampus of comparable non-cabbies (Maguire et al., 2000). Intense memorization and training altered the hippocampus structure of these drivers. Considering this change from a different perspective, we could say that changes in the brain as a result of repetitive behaviors may reshape a person’s soul!"

[Much of this stuff on the function of the brain is from an article written by friends of mine Paul and Cahleen Shrier called Mirror Neurons and Visiting the Sick: A Neuroscientific Exploration of John Wesley’s Means of Grace.]

So we can reshape our brain by learning. The same research shows that our behaviours also reshape our brain. We change our brain by what we habitually do. We used to call that "developing a good habit." Now science proves it.

Actually, almost 300 years ago, John Wesley postulated that we can become sanctified by our repeated practices of spiritual discipline. Wesley’s theology of sanctification, highlights his role for "the means of grace" in sanctification, and his belief that acts of mercy, such as visiting the sick, allow God’s grace to sanctify us.

Some of the outward signs, words or actions that Wesley included in his means of grace were prayer, searching Scriptures, the Lord’s supper, gathering together in worship, and also acts of mercy towards others. Wesley believed that love of God and love of neighbor could not be separated. Therefore, acts of piety such as worship and prayer will increase a person’s love for neighbors, while acts of mercy such as visiting the sick and prisoners, providing others with food and clothing, will increase a person’s love of God.

He wrote that those who neglected acts of mercy “do not receive the grace they otherwise might.” Further, he argued that those who fulfill the acts of piety may still become weak and feeble in their Christian walk, because they have neglected acts of mercy.

Maybe the author of the Book of Hebrews was right when he said in chapter 12:

2Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. 4In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.

He started that section off with:

let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.

Fix our eyes on Jesus - great advice (an imperative really) in this media murky societty, and ...
Run your race with perseverence
Get rid of the stuff that tangles you up.

The truth still echos through our culture.

Behaving Before You Belong or Believe

I've been reading a chapter by Alan Kreider in a book called The Origins of Christendom in the West - fascinating stuff really. He speaks about the erosion of deeply Christian behaviour in the church from the second century or so until the fifth or sixth century. He's really the guy who coined the phrase "Belong, Behave, Believe" (after Grace Davie who wrote a book about the British Religion in Britain since 1945: Believing before Belonging).

He makes a statement on page 3:
"Christendom was the product of millions of conversions. In the early centuries, becoming a Christian entailed a many-faceted change which involved a rupture with conventional values: the converts’ beliefs, belonging and behaviour were all expected to change. To foster this change, the church developed a process of catechesis and ritual which culminated in the cathartic experience of baptism. "

Baptism and entrance into the church during the first couple of centuries did not occur until after behaviour had changed or until there was absolute certainty that conversion had really occurred. This sometimes involved a three to five year adult catechism period. I wonder what that would do to church growth in the 21st Century? Probably slow it down at the beginning but then I think it would really start speeding up.

Another comment:

"Thus conversion was bound to challenge more than a person’s mental ruts or philosophical categories; it was bound to be more than a Glaubenswechsel or a ‘reorientation of the soul of an individual.’ Indeed the change in belief was often quite secondary to the change in behaviour. People were first attracted to the Christians, not by their ideas, but by their distinctive behaviour and/or by the mysterious spiritual powers that seemed to be among them. … Early Christian writers often commented tht people were drawn to inquire about the faith by observing Christian behaviour."

To explain it further:

"Conversion required something deeper [than experience or attraction]. It required the ‘candidates’ – those who had been impressed by the Christians’ exorcisms (i.e. power encounters) or question-posing lives – to submit themselves to a journey of multi-dimensional change. The catechetical programmes that emerged were developed to superintend this change and to ensure that it was genuine. In the fullness of time, this journey would culminate in baptism as the candidates died to their old selves and were reborn. Then and then only, would the process of conversion be complete."

What happened?

"In the early centuries of the church, we have noted, conversion entailed a process of resocialization which taught converts the skills and understanding necessary to live the deviant life (i.e. different from early Mediterranean culture) of an alternative society; and this required of every candidate a change of life. Now, after Constantine, the alternative society was becoming society itself; and conversion was enabling the now deviant pagans to shape up, equipping them to conform to the now normal norms of a Christian society. As this happened, the processes of conversion changed."

"Significantly the subject matter that they were taught was shifting from earlier patterns. The teaching of Jesus which had been central to early catechesis had now in (the Edict of) Milan (i.e. post 313 AD) been supplanted by stories of the Old Testament patriarchs and behavioural guidance from the proverbs, and the stories and examples of Jesus had been supplanted by stories and examples of the saints. Meanwhile the formation of Christian conduct had come to be replaced by a concentration on the Lord’s Prayer and the Creed."

The Results were predictable:

"In Constantine’s baptism, the church had required the Emperor to change his lifestyle; in Volusian’s baptism (a century later), there is no hint that conversion required a respectable aristocrat to change - whether in his attentiveness to the needs of the poor, in his attitude to violence, or apparently in the opulence of colour of his dress (i.e. wearing purple signified a governmental position which Christians and also many in government had felt was incompatible with following Jesus). It is hardly surprising that in Rome the result was a respectable aristocratic Christianity."

We certainly see that in the current presidential race. We actually see it in many of our churches and even in our own lives. I have been asked countless "ethics" questions. Can I still do this (fill in the blank) and be a good Christian. As Rodney Clapp says in Peculiar People:

“The question is no longer ”How can we survive and remain faithful Christians under Caesar?” but now becomes “How can we adjust the church’s expectations so that Caesar can consider himself a faithful Christian?””

Wondering About the Church

I've been following the discussion at the Jesus Creed about people checking out Catholicism here and am still fascinated. I’m still working through all this in the context of where the church is actually going in the grand scheme of things. I often have a callous and cavalier attitude toward all church structures and traditions and am convinced that we don’t really have a detailed biblically mandated structure to follow. I've also been doing my share of deconstruction - wondering exactly what should be part of church and what shouldn't - both biblically and historically and sociologically and Holy Spirit guided -ly. So I’m doing some wondering aloud here …

There are a couple of wonderings here – mostly out of ignorance. I wonder if the RCC and EO hierarchies are sufficiently staffed to sustain a huge influx? One hears about the paucity of “vocations” and the scarcity of new young priests. Is there sufficient interest in this generation to staff the potential growth indicated by this interest we’re talking about? Are those expressing interest actually pursuing ordination? Or as I mentioned above is it more about a spiritual search that is consumer oriented.

My second wondering: Is this combination of factors (interest in RCC/EO, lowering of denominational walls, deconstructionism, consumerism, general interest in spirituality, lack of trust and commitment to organizations and institutions, the Emerging church, etc) leading us to a spiritual landscape where there are a few stable towers of hierarchical ecclesiology (the Catholic traditions on one hand and the mega church phenomenon on the other - plus a few reformed holdouts) and then the teeming masses of small groups, house churches, new monastic orders, aging and fading mainline congregations, each consuming religion where they want. Maybe the parallel is the emergence of the super store and the disappearance of the mom and pop shops. Some people will still be fiercely loyal to their neighbourhood stores but most will shop where they get the best selection and the lowest price.

Or maybe a better explanation is that we are going back to the pre Reformation days (sociologically not theologically) whereby there are the cathedrals, where major religious events happen and also the many small folk religions and superstitious practices and beliefs (remember I am speaking metaphorically here).

Any body done some reading or writing on this?

Catholic and Emerging?

Scot McKnight has observed that many college aged people are exploring the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox traditions. He has posted about it on his blog here.

I've found it rather interesting in the light of the last post about the Millennials being dissatisfied with church as we know it. There is a deep interest in Jesus and in spirituality in general but some are finding a hard time expressing it or finding it expressed in typical Evangelical churches. The post is worth reading (so I'm quoting some of it below) but the comments and responses have been very interesting.

Here are some of Scot's comments ...

Paradoxically, I see this as part of the emerging movement. One of the themes of the emerging movement is made up of several threads: weariness with evangelical bickering, a yearning for liturgical form, and an awareness of the value of the ancient fathers of the Church. But instead of pursuing the vicious radical low church ecclesiology we see in some writers today, which is evangelicalism on steroids, these young students move out of evangelicalism with some emerging ideas and return to the ancient church traditions.

How do you explain it? Here is the beginning of my thoughts:

These kids come to college with:

1. No ecclesiology to speak of in their low-church evangelical experience.
2. Complete ignorance of the first 1500 years of the Church.
3. A chaotic postmodern culture in search of anchors.
4. Pastors who act like popes and read the Bible authoritatively with reckless disregard for anything prior to 1500.
5. Professors who each interprets the Bible for himself (or herself if they are lucky to have a woman reading the Bible).
6. Learning to read the Bible for themselves … again with little regard for anyone or any tradition.

And… then these students …

1. Land upon Ignatius and Irenaeus and Athanasius, each of whom materially shaped what we believe.
2. Are told by professors how important these great thinkers were.
3. They see the budding rise of early Catholic and Orthodox thinking in these writers.
4. Know that Nicea is not only a good set of ideas but something you better believe or you get kicked out.

In other words….

Everything in favor of thinking EO or the RCC just might be the way to go.

And I suspect they have friends, good solid mature spiritual friends, who are EO or RCC.

Millennials and Church

My niece wrote a little piece on Millennials in the church. I really liked it so I thought I would post her introduction. I think it really captures the flavour of this next generation of Christians: passionate about God but disappointed with the institutional church.

I called my brother this week.

A freshman at the University of Pennsylvania, he’s the epitome of this generation’s busy youth. Besides his studies at this Ivy League school, he’s involved in the gospel choir, the running club, the science department’s research lab, and a local church. When I called, it was one in the morning (Eastern time,) but he laughed when I scolded him for being awake: “Alison, this is early!”

Despite his age, my brother is one of the wisest persons I know. I often call him to get advice, to complain about my boy problems, to discuss politics, or to debate theology. This time, though, he was more reserved. And, after our unimportant small talk, he spoke with an exasperated sigh.

“I don’t know if I can do this much longer,” he said.

"Do what?” I asked.

“This, this - church thing,” he replied. “It’s so boring – the same thing every week! Will it be like this for the rest of my life? Can I put up with it for that long?”

At that moment, I didn’t know what to say. I knew I should encourage him, tell him it would get better, push him to “stay strong”… but I couldn’t. Frankly, it’s because I feel exactly the same way. And, I’ve felt this way for a while.

If the truth were told, I’m tired of going to church. In fact, I dread Sundays. To me, they represent three hours of boredom. I’m tired of listening to a pastor speak at me for 45 minutes (from my 20+ years of attendance, I can usually predict the outcome of his message.) I’m tired of “dressing up” to worship. I’m tired of wearing a plastic smile. I’m tired of seeing our corrupt leaders on the nightly news. I’m just tired.

And, I’m not alone. Besides my brother and I, there are millions of people in the United States today who are fed up with the state of the American church. Statistics show that people aren’t interested in traditional Christianity – both inside and outside of the church. Most importantly, there’s a generational gap that’s growing increasingly larger as time goes on. 

The millennials (the generation just hitting adulthood) are the least churched generation in this nation’s history. And for some reason, institutionalized churches have been unable to successfully attract or retain most of them. Current church programs aimed at the millennials are not working. If the American church wants to survive into the future, they must be flexible enough to re-shape their current structure to be more relevant and applicable to this generation’s youth and the next generation’s leaders.

Thus, young people are leaving the church and turning to other sources for spiritual satisfaction. Within Christianity, three new trends have evolved: Churchless Christians, the Emerging Church Movement, and House Churches. By engaging in these options, some people have found the satisfaction lacking from their typical church attendance. The American church must learn to be open to such new ideas if it wants to survive in the future.

Ancient Hebrew Stone Tablet Affirms Resurrection

Here’s an interesting piece. In the midst of discussing scripture and issues about the Messiah with my Jewish neighbours there comes this announcement about the nature of the Messiah – that is actually already eight years old. Inconvenient truths travel slowly. It comes from a number of reports in newspapers (Haaretz, Israel Today and The New York Times, The French Press and the Jewish Journal) and was reported in Joel Rosenberg’s blog. 

Ancient Discovery Challenges Tradition


At an event marking the 60th anniversary of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Israel Museum unveiled an ancient stone tablet that had been unearthed in the region of Jordon, eight years previously. The tablet, likely dated shortly before the birth of Jesus over 2000 years ago, contains 87 partial lines of ancient Hebrew, which may well provide authentic evidence substantial enough, because of its pre-Christian reference for suffering, death and resurrection, to challenge traditional Judaism as it relates to Jesus Christ and Christianity. Although the tablet requires more scrutiny, initial extensive examinations are proving to be very encouraging. Messianic believer and New York Times best-selling author Joel Rosenberg, widely acclaimed for his prophetic insight, said that the discovery “strongly suggests that religious Jews of the day were expecting the coming of a Messiah who would suffer, die, and be resurrected three days later. Most Rabbis and other Jewish scholars have long argued that the death and resurrection of a Jewish Messiah was a “Christian” invention, not part of long-established Jewish thought or Biblical teaching. But [this news] has a lot of [Jewish] people asking: Are Jews really supposed to believe their Messiah will actually die and rise again, and was this really Orthodox religious thinking before the time of Jesus?”

The tablet’s text will help to validate, according to leading Israeli Bible scholar, Israel Knohl, that: “a savior who died and rose after three days was an established concept at the time of Jesus….[the tablet proves that] what happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and His followers based on an earlier messiah story.” Notably, Mr. Knohl’s lecture at the anniversary event is entitled: “The Gabriel Revelation and the Birth of Christianity.”

Tsvi Sadan, an Israeli theologian and also a Messianic believer said, “One can agree or disagree with Knohl’s conclusion, but the persistence of one of the leading Old Testament scholars in Israel today [Israel Knohl] to prove that the death of the Messiah for Israel’s sake is not a Christian innovation is commendable in light of the tenuous relationship between the Jewish people and Jesus.”

Parable of the Shrewd Manager (Addendum)

Someone has questioned my assumptions about the role of stewards in the first century CE in the post I just published.  I make the assumption that the steward in the parable can actually be be commended or held responsible for good behaviour because although he was actually using someone else’s money he still had the authority to make decisions about rents and profits. Therefore an explanation is in order concerning how much authority the steward actually had as he took charge of the rich man's accounts.  I believe that he did have the ability and responsibility to act – and with almost complete autonomy. It would have been the steward who set the rents and collected the debts – or actually overcharged the tenants in his desire to make his master wealthy and increase his master’s honor (and therefore his own). That situation was common in first century well-to-do households. A quote from another source (a real book and a first century expert) might help my position here.

I have been reading Ritva William’s book Stewards, Prophets and Keepers of the Word: Leadership in the Early Church (Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA 2006). It has provided a wealth of insight on the patriarchy and patronage system in place in the first century. A few quotes should make the situation with the steward and his master’s money more clear. First she quotes from another author:

"In the "limited good" world of the first century Mediterranean ... seeking "more" was morally wrong ... Because the pie was "limited" and already all distributed, an increase in the share of one person automatically meant a loss for someone else. Honorable people, therefore, did not try to get more and those who did were automatically considered thieves. Noblemen [like the rich man] avoided such accusations of getting rich at the expense of others by having their affairs handled by slaves [the steward]. Such behavior was condoned in slaves since slaves were without honor anyway.”
Malina, Bruce and Richard Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. 2003 p.124

Williams continues with these comments:

"Here we see one reason why the majority of private and public oikonomoi [the Greek word for steward] were of servile origin. Slaves were not only regarded by their elite masters as lacking the appropriate sensibilities for honorable activities, they were also actually encouraged to develop the money-grubbing attitudes and behaviors that their masters despised. Slaves and lower status persons (clients [or tenants]) were socialized to believe that their “well-being was completely wrapped up in the well-being and benevolence of the patron. Slaves and freedmen who had been put in charge of their patron’s wealth were proud [and honored] when they were able to increase it.  (p.58)

The unjust steward actually does have significant control over the financial debts owed by the tenants. Others have also asserted this as well - but for different reasons.  I believe Williams gets it right when she asserts that the first century stewards were more like "high roller" profit maximizers [fund managers?] as opposed to hesitant, obsequious "go-fers" [domestic staff like a butler or cleaning lady].

Christian in America (and Canada)

In light of the American election race a couple of things came up that I thought I would share.  I have been comparing Canadian approaches to church and Christianity and politics with American attitudes and approaches and some of my musings I posted here while I was in Boston.

The first little thing was this hilarious picture that my son sent me.

Producing a card that said "Keep Jesus Canadian" just wouldn't make sense and just wouldn't be funny. But in so many ways Americans really do have their own Jesus.

This comes to light in the second thing I saw this week. In the latest issue of Time Magazine both McCain and Obama share a bit of their faith journeys. Barack Obama is pictured praying while holding hands with Rick Warren. John McCain has a picture of him reverently bowing his head. They also make a few personal comments. Allow me to quote a few lines.

McCain Relates a story from his time in a Vietnam prisoner of war camp: "On Christmas Day I was standing in the dirt courtyard when I saw that same guard approach me. He walked up and stood silently next to me not looking or smiling at me. Then he used his sandaled foot to draw a cross in the dirt. We stood wordlessly looking at the cross, remembering the true light of Christmas, even in the darkness of a Vietnamese prison camp."

This is a great story celebrating the cross of Christ and the true meaning of Christmas. But if a Canadian politician shared the same story he/she would be censured for their exclusive statements about religion - implying that he/she would not be inclusive or fair in their treatment of people of other religions.

Barack speaks of his own faith story this way: "I began my Christian journey over 20 years ago, as a young man fresh out of college. And since that time I've been serious not only about deepening my relationship with Christ but also about the way that all Americans can live together in our diverse, pluralistic society. Faith shows us that the weak and defenseless are not a problem but rather a priority, and a chance for us to live out the message of the Gospels."

Wow! I commend both of them for speaking frankly about their faith. To be honest, it sounds like Obama has a more personal faith - more in line with what Evangelical Christians would affirm whereas McCain's faith sounds a bit more "mainline Protestant." But that's only my view from a distance.

The sad thing is that in Canada comments like that would have marginalized both candidates. I honestly think that many Canadian journalists and more left leaning politicians believe that a strong faith makes you incapable of running for government positions. Actually it is only strong Christian faith that disqualifies you. Being Jewish or Muslim or Sikh or a devotee of Wicca would be acceptable options.