This has apparently been out there for a while, but it’s the first time I’ve seen it, so I’m sharing it because I think it’s hilarious.
And before anyone comes out of the woodwork to cry “blasphemy!”, this is not blasphemy.
No one in claiming Zach Galifianakis is Jesus.
Nor is anybody making fun of Jesus.
Whoever created this image is just pointing out the striking and hilarious resemblance between Zach and this portrait of Jesus.
Today officially marks the unofficial start to President Obama’s second term as President of the United States.
It goes without saying that there are just about as many people upset about today’s festivities as there are those chanting “four more years.”
We have a long standing tradition in the United States of being critical of the President. It’s been going on since the dawn of the country and probably won’t be ending any time soon.
But what if it did?
At least for Christians.
What if for these next four years we as Christians pulled back from all the rhetoric and instead invested that energy into proclaiming good news?
What if we took seriously our call to pray for the President and stopped pretending like he was the anti-Christ?
What if we stopped placing our hope for the future in the passage of legislation and instead lived as if we believed we really are citizens of a different kingdom?
What if instead of defending our right to violence, we found the courage to wage peace?
What if we allowed the person on the other side of the aisle to be a person instead of our soulless enemy?
What if helping others in need, regardless of their circumstances, was something we stopped arguing about and, instead, became something we started taking as seriously as Jesus did?
What if the alien among us became someone to defend and care for, rather than a economic threat?
What if for Christians social media became a place to share words of hope, rather than an arena for destroying our political adversaries?
What if the church was a place of hope, compassion, and unity for the nation, rather than a source of division?
What if we had the audacity to allow the the Gospel to take precedence over the Constitution?
What if we put to rest being “Democratic Christians” or “Republican Christians” and, instead, for the next four years we were simply “Christians.”
What would happen?
To be honest, I don’t know.
But I have to imagine that if we decided to put more energy into being authentic Christians rather than de facto politicians, then four years from now the world would be a much better place than it is today.
Grace and peace,
Zack Hunt
I’ve posted plenty of stuff over the past couple of years from the one and only William Tapley, aka The Third Eagle of the Apocalypse.
But if you’ve somehow managed to miss them, or you just skipped over them, now is your time to remedy that mistake.
If you have seen some of the Tapley posts, then you’ll probably recall that he has been featured on both Anderson Cooper’s Ridiculist as well as The Colbert Report. Both of those appearances were due in no small part to the Third Eagle’s epic expose of the demonic phallic imagery at the Denver International Airport.
Well, now Tapley as turned that prophetic expose into a music video.
Seriously you need to watch this.
It’s just. Wow.
You’ve gotta fight….
For your right…
To haaaaavvveee…
Church!
Ok, that was terrible. My apologies.
Last year Kevin James starred in a movie called Here Comes the Boom
Now a pastor in Valdosta, GA seems to be turning fiction into reality.
I know what you’re thinking.
How did Mark Driscoll not think of this first?!
Classes started up again for me this week, yesterday to be specific.
One of the classes I attended yesterday is called Reformation Europe. It’s a look at the various reformations (because there was more than one) that went on during this period in the life of the church, as well as the state.
During his lecture, the professor made an offhand comment that I found to be rather interesting. Apparently during this time it was required by law (because the church and state were effectively one and the same) for all newborn babies to be baptized.
As Epiphany Sunday was just a couple of weeks ago, this random fact got me to thinking.
My first thought was about how so many evangelicals would be appalled that infants were being baptized, after all, isn’t baptism a sort of confession of faith and how can newborn babies confess their decision to accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior?
Well, that got me to thinking some more.
As you might recall from Epiphany Sunday, or if your church still suffers from a Reformation hangover and the church calendar isn’t observed, then you might remember this from the Gospels – Jesus was baptized.
I’m not sure many of us give this event much thought.
Jesus was baptized. We’re Christians, so we get baptized too. What’s the big deal?
I would argue, it’s a huge deal, particularly for the broadly held Protestant/Evangelical understanding of baptism.
You see, in the Protestant/Evangelical tradition there are generally two understandings of baptism – either it is performed as an act of confession whereby the new believer professes their newfound acceptance of Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior or it is performed as an act of repentance, necessary for one’s salvation.
However, both of these approaches become hugely problematic when we look at Jesus’ own baptism.
On the one hand, it makes no sense to say that Jesus went down to the Jordan to be baptized by John as an act of confession whereby he was testifying to the world that he had finally (remember he was about 30 at this point) come to accept himself as his personal Lord as Jesus.
The other option would force us to argue that Jesus visited John by the riverside as part of an act of repentance for his own sins. It goes without saying that “Jesus the sinner” is, well, less than ideal for some of the most fundamental tenets of the Christian faith.
Worse yet, both of these options have the tendency to transform baptism from a sacrament focused on God into a celebration of us and our decision making ability.
Fortunately, there is a third option, one which is affirmed by those who continue to practice infant baptism (including many Protestants), but is inexplicably ignored by the vast majority of Evangelicals (no doubt due to that aforementioned Reformation hangover).
Jesus wasn’t baptized because he had accepted himself as his own personal Lord and Savior. And he certainly wasn’t baptized as repentance for his sins.
Jesus was baptized because he was being set apart by God to preach the Good News and bring the Kingdom of God to earth, just as it is in heaven.
When, towards the end of the gospel story, Jesus tells his disciples to go to the ends of the earth, making disciples and baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that act of baptism, like his own, isn’t simply for “the remission of sins,” nor is it being performed merely as a profession of faith.
Jesus command to the disciples to baptize the nations was a call to set more people apart, to make those people into disciples themselves so that they too could go preach the Good News and bring the Kingdom of God to earth, just as it is in heaven.
In other words, like Jesus in our baptism we too are being set apart by God to be His hands and feet in the world.
Now, this doesn’t mean there is necessarily something intrinsically wrong with attaching confession, profession, and repentance to our own baptism. There’s not.
But if Jesus is going to be our model in this as he is (or is supposed to be) in every other area of life, then the lesson of Jesus’ baptism is rather simple – there’s no need to get so upset about infant baptism.
If baptism is first and foremost about being set apart, which according the first account of baptism in the Gospels it is, then setting apart our children for service to God (or, more correctly, having our children set apart by God) isn’t something to be avoided, and it’s certainly not something to be condemned.
It’s something to be celebrated.
What’s more, when the focus of baptism is the act of setting apart by God, then God is, as God always should be, the focus of the sacrament.
So, while I know this plea is probably in vain, as Evangelicals can we please grab a cup of coffee, get over our Reformation hangover, abandon our anti-Catholic bigotry, and if we can’t find the humility to start baptizing our infants, let’s at least stop thinking those that do are somehow the heretical or ignorant ones.
Because they’re not.
Grace and Peace,
Zack Hunt
(via)
Yesterday at church I saw a video about hope in the new year.
There was nothing particularly wrong with it. Standard Christian video fare. An inspirational song set to cheerful images and lyrics.
What stuck out to me were the images being used in the video. On their own they were rather innocuous – smiling families, a big, new house, people celebrating a new job, etc. Again, nothing particularly interesting about those images in and of themselves, but when combined with the message of the video and a book I’ve been reading lately, the video unexpectedly turned into a moment of personal conviction.
The theme of the video, as I said, was hope in the New Year. As the video implied, that hope would be fulfilled through personal happiness – lots of smiling, celebrations, a bigger house, new stuff, and a better job.
It goes without saying that most of those are things many of us hope for, but a book I’ve been reading put those hopes in a slightly different light.
The book is called The Pope Who Quit
It’s about a medieval hermit named Peter Morrone who inexplicably was elected pope and became Celestine V. However, roughly six months later he would be the first and only person in the history of the papacy to abdicate St. Peter’s throne. That story is fascinating itself, but it was Celestine’s life before Rome, when he was just a hermit named Peter, that gave me pause yesterday and had me rethinking the things I should be hoping for in the coming year.
You see, when people like Peter walked the earth it was thought by many that if you wanted to find God one of the best places to start looking was a cave, especially one set high up on a mountain where you could be closer to heaven.
No one thought that God literally lived in a cave, at least not like a hobbit lives in a hole in the ground. Hermits like Peter didn’t believe they could simply stumble onto a cave, knock on the front door, and wait for God answer to welcome them in for tea.
People went looking for God in caves because the sort of life one would live in a cave, with all of its difficulties, challenges, and lack of comfort, was the sort of life these saints thought it took to better understand, and therefore embody, the difficult, challenging, and uncomfortable life of Jesus.
In other words, strange though it may sound to our modern ears, these hermits were trying to live like Jesus, not matter the cost.
How strange, then, would that video I saw yesterday seem to these most ardent of disciples?
The things this video, and by extension we as modern Christians, hope God will give, or “bless” us with, in the new year – personal happiness, a bigger house, more money – are the very things these hermits thought must be rejected in order to know God better.
Which, for me, raises an interesting question – Is God more likely to be found in a cave or a 5,000 sq ft house?
Maybe the answer is both. Maybe God can be found in the midst of wealth and comfort. I know most of us hope that is the case. But the story of Peter Morrone, or Celestine V, raised an interesting conundrum for all of us who claim to seek after Jesus.
Peter began in a cave, then moved to a palace, only to return back to his cave.
Now, the reasons for Peter abandoning the papacy are many, and you should read the book to discover them all, but what is clear from his story is that for Peter wealth, comfort, and the prestige that came with the success of being elected pope did not aide in relationship with God. They hindered it. They got in the way of the total devotion to Christ he was seeking.
Now, I’m not advocating that we all move into caves. In fact, I would argue that there is something a bit problematic about abandoning the world to live in isolation in a cave. (Though, it’s important to note that many hermits, like Peter, were still active and intentional about serving the needy in nearby communities.)
However, I do think the story of Peter does present an important challenge to us and that is this – What is it that we want from God and want does that reveal about our relationship with God?
If the video I saw at church is any indication, and I think it is in that it seems to simply put music to many of our prayers, then the things we want from God are wealth, health, prosperity, and personal happiness. Again, none of those things in and of themselves are necessarily bad and if you were raised as a good American, then you know they are fundamental to the American dream.
But if those are the things we want most from God, then God is nothing more than a genie, a divine ATM for us to withdrawal from whenever we choose, and our pursuit of God, nothing more than our pursuit of the American dream.
In short, God isn’t the focus of our desires. God is simply a means to an end. We don’t really want Him, we just want what He can do for us.
I think hermits like Peter understood this irresistible temptation to wealth, health, prosperity, and personal happiness. I don’t think they necessarily thought these things evil, but they understood their intrinsic power to warp our love of God and transform it into a love of stuff, comfort, and, ultimately, ourselves.
We may not have to go spelunking to find God, and personally I don’t plan to, but if saints of the church like Peter Marrone have anything to teach us, it’s that if we are going to claim to be followers of Jesus, then we need to do some honest reflection and ask ourselves why we’re following.
Because if we’re following Jesus for what we think he’s going to do for us, then, like the rich young ruler, we’ll be sorely disappointed when he turns to us and says “Sell everything you have and give it to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
But if we’re following Jesus because Jesus is all we want, then we’ll never be disappointed….even if we find ourselves living in a cave.
Grace and peace,
Zack Hunt
“Behold, I stand at the U.N. and knock.
If anyone hears my voice and lets me in, they will get to be an ambassador to heaven forever.”
Yesterday, Mark Driscoll sent out this tweet…
It was a not so subtle attack against the entire blogging community (ironic considering he has a blog himself), implying that bloggers don’t “get stuff done.” The logical inference being that people like him do.
There’s nothing really that surprising about this tweet attack.
It’s just another volley in a never ending stream of defensive maneuvers from celebrity preachers (not all, but many) who’s biggest pet peeve in life is apparently criticism or, more likely, criticism from people they don’t consider their equals.
As far as I’m aware there is not a secret cabal of celebrity preachers who meet to strategize their efforts to take over the world. Not being a celebrity preacher I can neither confirm or deny such a cabal’s existence. However, secret cabal or not, the vast majority of celebrity preachers that I’ve come across do seem to share the same defensive maneuvers.
It’s a two pronged effort that begins by simply ignoring the criticism.
Visit just about any celebrity preacher’s blog (most them, ironically, keep one) and you’ll notice a common theme: there is no comment section. Virtually every non-celebrity blogger (and many non-preacher celebrity bloggers) has a comment section where their fans/followers/random strangers can interact with the blogger, sharing their own thoughts and insights on what has been posted.
No so with celebrity preachers (again, not all, but many).
They apparently are to bee seen and heard, but not responded to.
Now, admittedly, celebrity preachers have a lot going on that occupies their time and prevents the sort of interaction that you would see on a regular person’s blog. However, while they, understandably, cannot respond to every comment or question that is tossed their way, completely removing the ability for others to directly respond, engage, or critique what they have said reeks of fear and arrogance.
Fear of being proven wrong on their own turf.
Arrogance in thinking they are above criticism from anyone outside their chosen circle of friends.
By choosing to become public figures they open themselves up to public criticism. Pretending as if such criticism is somehow an injustice or, worse, sinful, is the height of absurdity. Likewise, being a preacher is in no way a form of holy insulation from criticism within the church. The New Testament is full of bickering between disciples, churches, and even great church leaders like Peter and Paul.
Critique is not a sin. It’s an important tool in the practice of faith that keeps us accountable for the claims we make.
Yes, their time is valuable and celebrity preachers have less of it than most, and there are plenty of things online not worth responding to, but if Jesus could find time to respond to his critics, then for the sake of the church they should find time to do the same.
The second prong in the celebrity preacher defense is to be dismissive of bloggers and/or the online community in general.
This usually happens in a couple of different ways.
The first is to caricature bloggers as lazy nerds who live in their parent’s basement or, and this seems to be a particular favorite, simply “haters.” Celebrity preachers default to these caricatures because, well, they work. Why do they work? Because they dehumanize the opponent, turning them into a ridiculous parody which is fair game for treating as less than a person.
The reality is that many bloggers, at least those with the widest audiences, are smart, creative, active leaders in the church and their community. They’re missionaries, preachers, authors, artists, and activists. Which is probably why their critiques sting.
Are there “trolls” out there who do nothing more than pop out of their parents’ basement to attack and then disappear? Sure. But labeling everyone who critiques you as “haters” is absurdly juvenile and pathetically lazy. The truth is they may “be hatin’” on what you said or did because what you said or did was terrible.
But if caricaturing bloggers doesn’t work, then the other great way to dismiss them is the sanctimonious dismissive attack.
In this approach, celebrity preachers (and their defenders) dismiss bloggers as busybodies, or as Driscoll said yesterday, pontificators, who don’t “get stuff done.” In other words, according to celebrity preachers, if you’re taking the time to write down your thoughts, this must mean you don’t have time to do anything else “productive” for the kingdom of God with your life. After all, if you did, then you would be a celebrity preacher too, right?
Does it take time to organize and write down one’s thoughts? Of course. But it’s not an all consuming activity. If celebrity preachers can churn out books, sermons, podcast, blog posts, and tweets and still “get stuff done,” then why can’t the rest of us? Are we simply not as awesome as they are?
Again, many of the bloggers with the widest audiences are incredibly active people in both their church and their community. They volunteer, organize charity drives, become missionaries, campaign to get clean drinking water to those in need, fight about the sex slave trade, and raise awareness for a whole host of important issues that are often taboo to talk about in the church. In other words, if the measure of “worthiness” is who is getting the most “stuff” done, then that prize goes to the blogging community.
But “getting stuff done” isn’t limited to these sorts of activities. Writing, blogging, and speaking have the capacity to change hearts and minds, and, in turn, “get stuff done.” This is what bloggers do, or at least hope to do, when they write and, yes, even when they critique. This is also the exact same thing that celebrity preachers do when they preach, publish books, and write blog posts. For them to criticize and dismiss others for doing the same, simply because those others don’t agree with them, is the height of hypocrisy.
Whether celebrity preachers like it or not, the world has changed. The online community and the bloggers that come with it are here to stay.
And I, for one, think that’s a great thing.
Why?
Because faith is not done in a vacuum.
It’s not a one way street where you can say whatever you like without repercussions. The online community brings this reality to light. Facebook posts get “liked” and commented on. Tweets get retweeted, favorited, and responded to. Blog posts are commented on and reposted. People say things and other people respond.
The technology may have changed, but this process is nothing new.
This sort of exchange has been going on in the church since its inception. The early church fathers wrote countless letters, sermons, books, and treatises making their cases for and against each other’s theology. If they had the internet 2,000 years ago, I have no doubt that Augustine, Irenaeus, and Origen would all have had blogs or websites of their own because writing, critiquing, debating, and dialoguing are how theology is done and how the faith the faith is shaped. And blogs are a great place for that conversation to happen. Not a perfect place, mind you, but a good and vibrant one when done well.
Likewise, the online community offers an important element of accountability, particularly in the case of celebrity preachers whose accountability often doesn’t seem to extend beyond a hand selected group of “yes men.” The church is a body and as such a hand can’t say to the rest of body “I don’t need you.” Which means in the modern context of an interconnected world, and despite claims to the contrary, local church autonomy and accountability is being shown for the myth that it is.
As Christians we are all connected and, therefore, all accountable to one another, particularly in a globalized 21st century society.
The model of a celebrity preacher only accountable to his (almost never “her”) local congregation is dying. And that’s a good thing because it’s an unhealthy, unchristian, and simply dangerous model that left unchecked leads to theological tyranny. When no one is allowed to question the celebrity preacher (or local preacher for that matter), then their version of the faith becomes the only version of the faith and, in the end, Christianity itself because a faith shaped in their particular image.
That’s not leadership.
It’s idolatry.
This is exactly why celebrity preachers need their critics, why they need bloggers, and, in turn, why they need to find healthy ways to engage those within the Body of Christ who disagree with them. Critics keep us in check. They send up red flags when we go too far. Does it hurt? Yes. Can it be annoying? Of course. But that’s why they’re called “growing pains.”
Of course some people take their criticism to unhealthy extremes, but that is not justification for dismissing everyone. We need one another to remind us who we are, who we’re supposed to be, and to drive us to become the people God created us to be.
Reaching the status of a celebrity preacher isn’t a sign that growth is over. If anything, it’s a cause for more critique and accountability because more people are being affected by what these celebrity preachers have to say.
If celebrity preachers (once again, not all, but many) could stop ignoring or dismissing everyone who disagrees with them and, instead, find the humility to seek out healthy, creative, and productive ways to communicate with their critics, then everyone would benefit and the church as a whole would be stronger for it.
I, for one, hope that day comes quickly.
The church needs her people to communicate with one another.
She needs healthy and vigorous debate.
And she needs us to work together.
What the church doesn’t need is more juvenile whining about “haters.”
Grace and peace,
Zack Hunt
Yes, Jesus action figures are real and available for purchase
Unfortunately, you cannot redeem UPC codes to win the spear of destiny (which looks a LOT like a sword of destiny), the holy grail, or the ark of the covenant.
At least not that I’m aware of.
Is your living room a den of iniquity?
Is your favorite recliner in need of a little redemption?
If so, your prayers have been answered.
That is, of course, if your prayer was, “Dear Lord, can I please have some quasi-blasphemous furniture? It would really tie the room together. Amen.”
