So, if the people behind Jesus Camp are looking to make a sequel, I think we may have found their source material.

Introducing Signs & Wonders Camp. It’s brought to you by the people at the other IHOP. You know, the International House of Prayer.

Like any other church camp, this camp is full of frivolity, fun, games, and worship, but unlike most other children’s camps this one has an additional, shall we say “non-traditional”, element.

Campers will learn how to perform miracles.

Seriously.

As I watched this video for the first time, I thought for the first couple of minutes “Seems like a pretty generic, evangelical children’s camp.”

Then around the 2:00 min mark, things took a turn for the, um, interesting.

Apparently, after teaching the elementary school children how to perform miracles, the camp then brings in sick people from the community around the camp and has the children test out their new found healing powers on the strangers.

Now, I’m not saying that God can’t or doesn’t perform miracles. Of course God can do the miraculous and I think that God does indeed continue to perform the miraculous in all sorts of ways.

However, apart from the fact that I find the idea of turning a children’s camp into a training and proving ground for the “miraculous”, this sort of thing bothers me for several reasons.

For starters, it frustrates me to no end that whenever I cast my doubt on the miraculous claims I hear about cancer being cured or the crippled rediscovering the ability to walk after being touched by a traveling snake oil salesmen evangelist, I am then accused of “doubting” or “limiting” God.

I’m not.

My suspicion of people like Benny Hinn or even those behind this camp stems not from a lack of faith in God, but a serious lack of faith in those claiming to be able to perform the miraculous. Too often, they have been exposed as charlatans, taking advantage of and exploiting those in need for their own gain. Certainly there are those, perhaps like the people behind this camp, that aren’t exploiting the needy. But that doesn’t lessen my suspicions.

Furthermore, emotions and perception are powerful things. Sugar pills can heal if the people taking them believe they are actual medicine. Likewise, when emotions run high in a religious setting, our perception of what is happening can be easily and powerfully skewed. So, if I doubt, it is man that I doubt, not God.

Secondly, there is a fundamental problem in the premise of this camp and the contemporary Pentecostal approach to spritiual gifts.

The gifts of the Spirit are just that.

Gifts.

They are given to some and therefore by definition they cannot be taught, let alone be doled out with the price of admission at church camp.

Whatever spiritual gifts we are given can and should be developed, but there seems to this mentality among those behind camps like this that real Christianity or living a full Christian life requires a believer to demonstrate, not just spiritual gifts in general, but a handful of specific spiritual gifts, namely healing and tongue speaking.

That simply is not the case and, in fact, is something Paul himself would have been very much opposed to.

In the few places (and you can count them on one hand) that the apostle does speak about these sorts of miraculous gifts, he does does with great caution and trepidation, making sure to point out that all of us are given different gifts, none of us should strive to perform gifts we have not been given, and the greatest gift of the Spirit are not miracles or “secret prayer languages” (a notion found nowhere in scripture). The greatest gift of the Spirit is love and that gift doesn’t require paying admission to a training camp.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the contemporary charismatic movement too often, but certainly now always, puts the emphasis of the gospel in the wrong place.

Jesus did come, nor did he give us his Spirit, so that we could perform magic tricks.

Jesus came so that all of creation could be saved, redeemed, and reclaimed for the kingdom of God. Our participation in this divine drama is not found primarily in the expression of charismatic gifts. It’s found in our willingness to be God’s hands and feet in the world, through whom the love, grace, forgiveness, and compassion of Jesus are incarnated to a lost and dying world.

That is where the real miracles take place.

Not in the highly orchestrated confines of a “revival” service, but in the unexpected, everyday moments of life when we have the chance to transform lives in very much the same way that Jesus transformed ours.

If for you speaking in tongues and the laying on of hands are a critical part of that life, then fine. But as you do those things, please remember these words from Paul,

“If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all
mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing….But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

Do you remember the story of God leading George Washington out of his tent and promising him that God would make of ole’ George a great nation and that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars in the sky and the sand on the shore?

How about the story of Thomas Jefferson going up on the mountainside to receive the law from God which outlined America’s covenant relationship with God?

Surely, you’ve at least read Benjamin Franklin’s epic work, the book of Proverbs, right?

If not, it’s probably because you don’t have a politician for a preacher.

Now, I’m sure this phenomenon exists elsewhere in the world, but in the United States politician preachers are an epidemic. What are politician preachers? Well, to borrow from Stefon, it’s that thing where your pastor is really just a politician who happens to preach at a church every Sunday morning.

Case in point, this video from one of the founding fathers of political preaching, John Hagee:

If you moved this “sermon” from a church to a state fair it would make for a great political rally. And that’s the thing. When we read America into the Old Testament story of God’s covenant relationship with Israel, Christianity quickly gets replaced by politics.

It’s a subtle move. The great politician preachers are so good at it that most of us miss it. By combining our love for God and country they are able to move freely back and forth between Biblical theology and American ideology, creating a new religio-political tapestry in which faith and politics are so intertwined that you can’t tell one from the other.

When this sort of alchemy occurs, the inconvenient Jesus of the gospels gets left out of the equation. Sure, the politician preacher might evoke his name every once in a while, after all, it’s good for business. But things like “sell all you have and give it to the poor”, “love you enemies”, “turn the other cheek”, “pray for those who persecute you”, and “put away your sword” don’t mix well when your beating the war drum and extolling the virtues of capitalism.

So why bother with the pulpit?

Why not leave ministry behind and toss the proverbial hat in the political ring?

I think it’s the same reason that Adam and Eve took the fruit from the tree.

Power.

Few things in life hold more sway than power. Money’s great, but if you’ve got all the power, you don’t even need money. And as a senior politican pastor leading a congregation of faithful constituents you can have both.

You see, the political arena has limits. One can only hold office if you get elected. Once elected the power you wield extends only as far as the compromises you can make and the bills you can pass. Even if you manage to exert you political will, there’s that pesky problem of term limits. Once out of office, who knows what will happen to all the “good” you did?

But the pulpit is different.

If you get the right mixture of charismatic preacher creating a church from scratch, the possibilities are endless.

Politician preachers don’t have to worry about being elected. They’re “called by God” and there’s always a flock out there waiting to be shepherded. Simply feed them your political brand of fiery political preaching, making sure to touch on those most sensitive areas of nationalism and faith, and you’re sure to get them running for the trough.

When your ecclesiastical constituency is of your own making, you need not concern yourself with the other side of the aisle. There’s only one side: God’s side. Everyone else is the enemy. Therefore, even the hint of compromise or working together is nothing short of treason and heresy.

There’s no need to work to get bills passed. As the chosen mouthpiece of God, thy will be done. You simply need to say magic words “God said” or “God wants” and any agenda you have you will immediately be put into action.

And, of course, perhaps best of all, there are no term limits in the pulpit. (That is, as long as you’re not in an appointment system, but no good politician preacher would be so foolish as to submit himself to that sort of nonsense) Without term limits, you can keep on campaigning until it’s time to go off to the great White House in the sky.

Now, let me pause and caution you about reading this as simply an attack on one particular party. It is certainly true that Republicans get the most attention for mixing faith and politics, but there are plenty of Democratic politician preachers out there as well.

The issue here isn’t right or left wings politics. It’s politics period.

As I said before, Jesus doesn’t fit well into political preaching. The reason being that in Jesus we see a new politic, one which is completely foreign to this world and which doesn’t mix well with others because it’s claims to communal living, non-violence, humility, submission, grace, love, and forgiveness don’t work with systems driven by control, greed, power, and violence.

And therein lies the problem with politician preachers.

Politician preachers don’t preach in a vacuum. They espouse their political theology everyday to thousands, perhaps millions of people who view them as people called by God to speak the truth.

So, when they start talking about America as God’s chosen people and the American political and economic systems as God’s preferred way of doing things, their congregational constituents naturally accept this as the gospel truth. What results then are people who, just like their shepherd, believe that Uncle Sam’s way is, in reality, Jesus’ way.

The ultimate outcome of this political-religious alchemy, however, is not the golden truth, but a new faith that has no space for the Jesus found in the gospels because the Jesus we encounter in the gospels demands we place all of our trust and security in him. When we follow the path of politician preachers and supplant the gospel with nationalistic ideology it simply demonstrates the reality that we do not actually place our faith, trust, and security in Jesus, but in a man-made, fallible political system.

Those political systems give us, rather than God, the power to control our world. Politician preachers, then, are simply the incarnation of our own lust for power which, like Adam and Eve, seeks to place ourselves in the place of God, the very definition of idolatry.

In other words, despite the gift of the gospel, we haven’t learned our lesson from Adam and Eve.

Preachers are given a profound responsibility: to preach the gospel of Jesus. When that gospel gets corrupted or hijacked by the political aspirations of a politician preacher it is lost, replaced instead with something so self-centered and driven by power and greed that is the very opposite of “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

So, let us somehow find the courage to kick our politician preachers out of office and live as a church as if we really believe that the kingdom of God which Jesus proclaimed is something which can actually be lived out. Otherwise, this whole Christianity thing is just a massive waste of time.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

I don’t feel much like a Christian.

At least not when I read the Gospels.

Jesus said “sell everything you have and give it to the poor.” On a good week I give 10% of my paycheck.

Jesus fed the hungry. I usually just feed myself.

Jesus said “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemies.” I still think violence can sometimes solve problems.

Jesus was mocked, arrested, and murdered for what he said and did. I worry about my non-Christian friends thinking less of me if I get too “serious” about this faith thing.

Jesus was radical.

I am not.

Most of us are not.

But the word radical has become very popular these days. You read all about it in books and blogs. You can go to conferences to learn how to be more radical. You can buy a t-shirt to let everyone know you’re radical. In the gospels, being radical was a particular way of life. Today, you can buy “radical” at the Christian bookstore.

But the sort of radical that’s being sold to the church these days doesn’t amount to much more than minor tweaks to our attitude and superficial adjustments to our lives, most of which simply involve giving more money.

A big part of the problem is that we pursue “radical” as an end in itself without either really understanding what that entails or even wanting to fully commit to such an extreme, yet particular way of life.

If the goal of faith is just being radical, then we can’t condemn the 9/11 hijackers. After all, they took being radical for your faith to the extreme. If being radical is something we are serious about, then it would behoove us to actually understand the sort of life we are claiming to want to pursue.

Jesus was certainly radical, but it was a particular way of being radical. Jesus didn’t seek out the radical life to stand out, to get attention, or as part of some sort of masochistic desire to suffer. Jesus was radical in everything he did because the sort of devotion that God called him to demanded it.

And while almost all of us hold up Jesus’ radical life as something to model our lives after, few among us really take his commands seriously.

Instead, we do mental gymnastics to wiggle our way out of and sanitize the radical nature of Jesus’ commands so that they become something we’re comfortable with, something we don’t have to put much effort into, something that doesn’t require any real sacrifice on our part. In doing so, the idea of being a radical follower of Jesus has become a bad joke.

I mean, surely Jesus wasn’t serious when he equated lust with adultery or when he said to give others more than they ask for. He was just kidding, right?

The truth is that despite our cool t-shirts and the books that sit on our coffee tables at home, most of us live lives indistinguishable from our non-Christian neighbors. We live in the same sorts of houses, do the same sorts of things with our money, dress the same way, watch the same things on TV, spend our free time the same way.

If we’re radical, then so are they.

Going to church in a culture that all but guilts you into doing so, putting a bumper sticker on your car, updating your Facebook status with a “if you love Jesus you’ll repost this” update, listening to Christian music, even going on the occasional mission trip, these things don’t make you radical.

Giving up your job and leaving your family to follow a teacher you barely know makes you radical. Telling others not to save your life with the violent means at their disposal, then allowing your enemies to murder you is radical. Giving up ownership of all your possessions so that others can give away what you’ve worked hard for is radical. Abandoning everyone and everything you’ve ever known to serve diseased strangers in a foreign country makes you radical. Refusing to resort to violence as your enemies sick their dogs on you, beat you, and imprison you is radical. Taking vows of poverty, celibacy, and obedience  in order to literally devote every moment of your life to the One you call Lord is radical.

Going to church once a week, playing church softball, putting money in the offering plate, and going down to the soup kitchen once a year doesn’t make you radical.

If there is anything radical about us it’s the extremes we go to to sanitize the things Jesus said in order to make them more palatable for our preferred way of life.

The issue is not that we’re imperfect and we try to be radical like Jesus but fail. The issue is that we don’t even try. In our evangelical obsession with the bottom line of salvation we’ve convinced ourselves that “all that’s necessary for salvation” is a few magic words at an altar. But the problem is that salvation isn’t a momentary thing. It’s a way of being in the world and what’s necessary for that way of life is a radical transformation from who you were before you met Jesus to who you’ve become after a journey with him that requires you to take up your cross and follow him.

That’s not a metaphor.

You have to die.

Spiritually…emotionally…materially…maybe even physically.

To actually be like Christ means you have no choice but to live a life of radical sacrifice and service to others. Not occasionally, but every day and with everything you are until the point when you are completely broken and the person you were is no more. For it is only then that you can be resurrected and recreated into the person God wants you to be.

So don’t kid yourself.

You’re not radical and neither am I.

I don’t know that that completely  nullifies our identity as Christians. I don’t think it does. I hope it doesn’t. I hope it just means that we still have a lot of work to do.

But at the very least it should give us knot in the pit of our stomach knowing that no matter how we spin it, our lives don’t actually look much like Jesus’ life. This conviction should challenge us to do better, to live lives worthy of being called the same same as the saints, to never be satisfied with a faith relegated to a moment at the altar.

At the very least, it should make us think seriously about whether or not the word “Christian” accurately describes us.

Being radical is absolutely how we are called to live, but we can’t be radical and live lives no different than the rest of the world.

To do so, turns both Jesus and his gospel into nothing more than a bad joke.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

In the past, theology was relegated almost exclusively to the realm of academia.

Men of means (and only men), who could afford an education, devoted themselves to rigorous academic study of the faith. Their insights shaped everything that everyone in the church believed, from the Pope all the way down to the common, illiterate farmer.

Like that farmer, your average person in those days could neither read nor write. Even if you put a Bible in front of them, they wouldn’t be able to read it. So, almost everyone relied on these learned men to tell them what they needed to believe and do in order to be a Christian.

Then came that pesky guy named Luther and his Reformation buddies, who thought that everyone should be able to read the Bible for themselves.\

Crazy liberal.

With that radical shift in the history of the church, theology came to the masses. After the advent of the Reformation, and so long as they could read, people everywhere could read the Bible for themselves and begin to do their own theological reflection

Which is a great thing.

But as Uncle Ben once told a young Peter Parker, “with great power, comes great responsibility”.

And I think that is where we as the church have dropped the ball.

When theology was confined to the realm of academia it was a highly structured thing, guided by tradition, reason, and, above all, scripture. Certainly, there was much in the theology department that needed rethinking, but in the 500 years since the Reformation, our theology, generally speaking, has become reckless.

We are guided today more by our gut feelings than any sort of structure, tradition, reason, or even scripture. And “why not?”, we cry. We are created in the image of God! How could our God given emotions lead us astray?

Perhaps because we suffer from a fallen, sinful nature that seeks to put ourselves in the place of God?

But I digress.

There is no arena in which is theology has become more reckless, unstructured, and not thought out than the world of social media. And in that world, Facebook reigns supreme as the wild, wild west of theology.

Facebook theology (as I like to call it since neither “Facebook/Twitter theology” nor “social media theology” have quite the same ring to them), in my experience, can be broken down into a few basic approaches, all of which attempt to do the impossible: sum up complex theological/social/ethical issues in a quick one-liner.

Simply put, Facebook theology is theology without thinking.

Now, I’m sure there are more ways to practice Facebook theology, but these are the ones I have observed.

1. The false dichotomy - This one can be best summed up in the viral video “Why I love Jesus, but hate religion.” There may be several different issues at play in a particular issue, but we’re too lazy (or naive) to deal with them. So, we break everything down into 2 opposing camps. Choose our camp, you get to go to heaven, choose the other and you’re going to hell. Like it or not, few things in life are as black and white as we want them to be.

2. The witty one liner – I must confess. I am often guilty of this one. After all, nothing makes an opposing position look more ridiculous than sarcasm. However, continually tossing out lines like “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” or ” Jesus had two dads and he turned out fine” don’t exactly help the conversation and in the end, can end up making us look more ridiculous than the opponents we’re trying to embarrass.

3. It sounds nice, so it must be true- This particular tenet predates Facebook by a long shot. But being people guided more by our gut than our brains, this particular theological approach can be particularly effective. Ironically, though, this tenet may be one of the most destructive. If someone posts that their loved one was just killed in a car accident, telling them that “it was all part of God’s will” is pretty much the worst comment imaginable. Just like hell, the road to being hurtful is often paved with good intentions.

4. Rip a verse out of the Bible – Is there any more powerful weapon in our theological arsenal than quoting out of context Bible verses? We can literally make them say anything we want. Which, of course, makes them perfect for Facebook. Just got a new car? Post a verse about God’s blessings. Mad at a co-worker? There’s some great verses about vengeance against enemies. Or maybe you just want to destroy your opponents with a single theological grenade. You can have your pick from any number of verses in the Bible that, by themselves, will instantaneously (at least in your own eyes) annihilate your opponent’s theological, political, or ethical position. That’s not to say you shouldn’t post Bible verses on Facebook, but can we agree to at least not do so in attempt to prove a point or right a perceived wrong?

5. The song lyric – This one is really a bookend to “it sounds nice, so it must be true.” That’s not to say that there’s not some great theology in the church’s hymnody. There is. But when you post “You are the famous one, famous one. Great it your name in all the earth,” I’m not sure if you’re talking about Jesus or Brad Pitt.

6. The “look how smart I am” book quote – Congratulations. You can read. Welcome to the educated elite. Now, once again, I have been guilty of practicing this tenet of Facebook theology as well. However, when we decide to quote people can we first 1)make sure they actually said it, 2)make sure they are actually saying what we think they’re saying, and 3)make sure we actually know what they’re talking about before we post the quote?

7. Something patriotic – Nothing gets a global church more fired up for unity than telling everyone you know that “America is God’s chosen nation!” [insert sarcasm font] Of course, things get even more fun when we find quotes from the founding fathers which happen to mention God and which, not so coincidentally, support the position of our particular political party. I’m sure that Jesus loves Americans, but he loves the rest of the world too. So can we please stop using patriotism as a litmus test for the faith?

8. Utter nonsense that’s so unintelligible that it must be a deep thought – This might be one of my favorite tenets. Apparently, most of us fashion ourselves as philosophers, which can be rather entertaining when you come across a status like “God’s essence marinates in our inner being, transcending us into beings of holy light who breath out love as we…” Wait, what? If you absolutely must use your Facebook status to wax poetically about your faith, please do yourself a favor and keep it simple.

Some of these tactics, of course, are less harmful than others. (Although, I often wish that being tacky was listed as the 11th commandment.)

However, social media, while a wonderful tool, has the ability to spread bad theology at an alarming rate. Bad ideas and speculative claims that otherwise might have been ignored, can quickly go viral with the click of a mouse doing untold damage, not just to the church and her theology, but to real, living, breathing people.

As the church which claims to be the Body of Christ, we are responsible for sharing the truth of the gospel with the world. This isn’t a responsibility we should take lightly, nor is it one we should allow to be hijacked by our own gut feelings and emotions.

Sharing our thoughts and ideas about the faith online isn’t a bad thing. However, we must take caution and remember that if we are serious about the issues we claim to be so passionate about, then we must honor them by not reducing their, often times, immense complexity down to a one liner solution.

The tough questions of our day deserve honest and thoughtful answers, answers which won’t be found in a simple Facebook status.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

This morning God answered my prayer.

Literally.

My wife and I have been praying for a while that we will find a renter for our home in Memphis before we end up in a situation where we’re stuck paying two mortgages. So, every time we pray for a meal, before we go to bed, or even sometimes when we’re just driving in the car we pray that God will sent potential renters our way.

Well, this morning God did just that. As we were just beginning to wake up the phone rang. It was the real estate company calling to see if it was ok for another agent to come by and show the house….right then.

Not in a hour or two, but immediately.

Normally that wouldn’t have been a big problem. However, despite the fact that it is mostly empty, our house was not exactly “show worthy” after a week of loading up the POD for our move. So, we had to say “no” to our potential renters.

In reality, we had to say “no” to God’s answer to our prayers because even though God had answered our prayers, we weren’t ready to respond.

Granted, this isn’t a major answer to prayer (although it is very important to us), but I think a lot of times we just sit around waiting for God to magically answer our prayers, but then when those prayers finally do get answered we’re not prepared to accept God’s miracle.

In my case, we might have finally had someone rent our house today, but we weren’t prepared for God’s little miracle. So, our prayers couldn’t be answered.

In other words, our prayers “worked”, but we didn’t do the necessary work on our end to prepare for what would happen when God actually did answer our prayers.

I think for a lot of us prayer is like a magic lamp and God is the genie hidden within. If we say enough prayers, or rub the lamp hard enough, then God will pop out of make everything magically better in an instant.

But prayer almost never works that way.

Most of the time God answers our prayers by opening a door for us to walk through. But if, like I was this morning, we’re still laying in bed in our pajamas when God comes to answer our prayers, then those prayers won’t be able to be answered because we’re not ready to walk through the proverbial door….or hole in the ceiling.

Do you remember the story in Mark 2 about Jesus healing a paralyzed man? Jesus had gone into Capernum to preach. Not surprisingly, the house where he was preaching quickly filled up and was busting at the seams with people, so much so that no one else could get in. This was huge problem for a paralyzed man who heard Jesus was coming to town and had come to the house hoping to be healed.

But a packed house wasn’t the end of the story because the man was prepared for God to answer his prayers.

Being paralyzed, the man had several friends help him get to the house that day. Once they arrived, they saw very quickly that there was no way to get their friend to Jesus, but apparently they were prepared to do whatever it took to get their friend’s prayers answered. I say “apparently” because once they saw they crowd they pulled their friend up onto the roof the house (I assume with rope) and then cut a hole in the roof of the house (I assume with some sort of saw) in order to lower their friend down to Jesus.

Now, unless these guys were first century MacGyvers, then I have to think that they brought the rope and saw with them or, at the very least, they had strategized ahead of time and knew what they might need to scavenge together in order to get their friend his miracle. In other words, they were prepared for God to answer their prayer.

And that is exactly what happened.

Mark says, “When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralyzed man, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” The paralyzed man experienced a miracle that day because he was ready to walk out the door on his own, before God ever answered his prayers.

This is the sort of faith and preparation we need to have when we pray.

Our needs may be great, and the only solution may be a miracle, but if we are going to take the time to pray to God for help, then we should do so believing that God will answer us, even as we do everything we can to make that miracle happen.

While today was certainly a lesson for me in home ownership, even more so it was a reminder that if I really want God to answer my prayers, then I need to do everything I can to be prepared for them to be answered. Otherwise, I’m living as if I don’t really except them to actually be answered and then if they are, I won’t be ready to accept God’s miracle.

So be prepared for God to answer your prayers because you never know when the answer might come.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

Recently, Vanderbilt University, in their ongoing attempt to summit the height of political correctness, created a policy that forbids school sanctioned campus organizations from excluding members who do not share their particular set of beliefs.

So, for example, should an atheist inexplicably decide to join and run for office in a group like Fellowship of Christian Athletes, then according to campus policy they would have to allow that person, who holds views contrary to their own, to potentially become president of their organization.

All of this, of course, is done in the name of tolerance.

Tolerance has become a very popular buzzword these days. Many times, tolerance is a great and noble virtue. It’s tolerance that allows us to live in a pluralistic society without constantly picking up arms and going to war.

But there’s an ironic thing about so much of the so-called tolerance we see bandied about today.

It’s actually not very tolerant.

Take, for example, the aforementioned non-discrimination policy from Vanderbilt. In their attempt at tolerance, they actually end up in a position of intolerance. In effect, Vanderbilt has banned its students from holding an opinion on anything. In other words, their ideology of political correctness won’t tolerate ideology.

Of course, the hypocrisy of the contemporary tolerance movement extends far beyond the campus of Vanderbilt University.

We may extol the freedoms of speech and religion, but if people dissent from popular sentiment we are quick to vilify those that disagree with us as being “intolerant bigots”. Yet, in doing so, we become the very intolerant bigots we decry.

I think our problem with tolerance is that we don’t really understand what tolerance means. I think, for most of us, we equate it with passive acceptance of our own or another’s views. We don’t require them to verbally affirm what we think, but we only consider them to be tolerant of us if they don’t voice their disagreement.

That’s not tolerance. It’s fascism.

The truth about being tolerant is that it means you have to sometimes accept that fact that people who disagree with you aren’t actually depraved, ignorant, hate mongering bigots. They’re people, just like you, who happen to disagree with you on certain things. And if we are really going to be the tolerant people we claim to be, then we have to affirm this disagreement as acceptable, even when the disagreement centers around our core beliefs.

So long, of course, as the disagreement doesn’t center around basic human rights like freedom or the ability to simply live.

Which leads us to the other level of hypocrisy in our pursuit to be completely tolerant people.

Tolerance isn’t something we should always strive for.

The truth is there are many things in the world which we simply should not tolerate. We shouldn’t tolerate oppression. We shouldn’t tolerate injustice. We shouldn’t tolerate poverty. We shouldn’t tolerant senseless violence. We shouldn’t tolerate hunger. We shouldn’t tolerate the exploitation of people.

When we reject these things as acceptable realities, then we are refusing to tolerate their existence and that makes us intolerant. But that’s a good thing.

Despite what you may have been led to believe, tolerance is not the height of virtue. Certainly it plays an important role in the functioning of a healthy society, but if it stands alone as a chief and guiding virtue, then, as demonstrated at Vanderbilt University, it only ends up in an unhealthy intolerance.

As Christians, we face mounting pressure from both inside and outside our churches to be more tolerant. Our critics quickly point to Jesus as a sort of quintessential example of tolerance which we as Christians should exemplify, lest we become hypocrites.

But a closer inspection of Jesus, one which wades through the popular mythos in order to actually read the gospels, reveals a Jesus who was very intolerant.

Jesus refused to tolerate the status quo. He refused to tolerate oppression and injustice. He refused to tolerate legalism. He refused to tolerate death as a final answer. And, like it or not, Jesus refused to tolerate sin.

Jesus was certainly a man who willing to sit and eat with his enemies, but in doing so Jesus wasn’t affirming the status quo which he clearly rejected. Rather, Jesus understood tolerance as a way of life in which his disagreement with the other was voiced not through condemnation and exclusion, but through his incarnating the alternative kingdom he professed.

I think that if the church is to find a way forward through the milieu of a pluralistic society, then it won’t be through a passive acceptance of the prevailing culture, nor will it be through condemnation and protests. The path of tolerance for the church will be found in embodying the kingdom life she proclaims. In that way, the church becomes a living testament to an alternative way of being, demonstrating its reality to the world, rather than wasting her time engaging in hateful rhetoric with a world that will not believe in the kingdom of God until they see it beginning to dawn before their eyes.

This doesn’t meant that the church will no longer be labeled as intolerant, for in embodying the kingdom of God she chooses a particular way of being in the world and, by extension, rejects others.  However, I think that following such a path allows the church to exist in the world with integrity, while allowing those who reject the kingdom to continue to live as they choose.

This is the sort of tolerance that we see Jesus embodying in the gospels and so this is the sort of tolerance we as the church must pursue as well.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

This story is fascinating and perhaps telling about the cult of personality that fuels many churches today.

Mike Aus, featured in the video below, is the former pastor of  a church named Theophilus in Houston. For a variety of reasons, apparently theodicy was chief among them, Aus has become an atheist.

Here’s his story via MSNBC….

It’s not unusual for people of faith, even pastors, to abandon their faith.

What makes this story unusual is that Aus’ former church in Houston chose to dissolve as a congregation after his “coming out” as an atheist, rather than seek out a new congregation.

From the church’s website:

Being merely an outside observer it’s difficult to make complete sense of this situation.

In the church’s own statement they mention that “churches come and go”. That is true. But pastors come and go too and for 2,000 years churches have, generally speaking, simply replaced the departing pastor. They did so because the church’s existence and focus didn’t rest on who the pastor was, but who their Lord was.

While I am not claiming that this is the situation here, this situation does remind me of a disturbing trend in many churches today, particularly, but not exclusively, in non-denominational churches. Most of these churches are created and experience growth around the charismatic pastor who founds the church. People flock in droves to hear that person preach or to simply be in their presence. It becomes a cult of personality. Then when that personality is no longer there, these personality driven churches almost always experience a dramatic decline in attendance and sometimes, like the church mentioned above, they close all together.

This cult of personality can be seen most clearly in mega-churches with celebrity pastors, but smaller churches are just as susceptible. And often times, it is these smaller churches that are forced to shut their doors because they can’t make it through the subsequent drop in attendance.

It is primarily because of this cult of personality phenomenon, although there are other important reasons, that I am a strong proponent of denominations.

While it has flaws of its own, it is for this reason that I appreciate the appointment system found in denominations like the United Methodist Churches. Pastors are appointed to churches by their local conference and after a few years they are reappointed to another church. The strength of this sort of system is that it prevents a church from becoming to focused on a person, their pastor, and (at least in theory) it helps the congregation to keep its focus on the real reason for their existence: Jesus.

Again, the only people who know why this church shut it’s doors are the people in leadership at Theophilus. Perhaps their own faith was so rocked by their shepherd abandoning them that they simply couldn’t find the strength to go own.

If that was the case, and I wouldn’t completely blame them if it was, then this might be a great example of the need for denominational support and accountability. But that is a discussion for another day.

Regardless of their reasons for shutting their doors, I hope the people of Theophilus don’t lose faith in their Lord, even though they have lost faith in their pastor and apparently themselves. Hopefully they will find a new community of faith which will give them the strength, support, hope, and healing they need.

Thanks to our friend Levi for sharing this story with us.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

I read this clever post about ordination recently and it got me to thinking.

What other “hot button” issues does the church need to rethink?

For example, we call most people who believe in creationism “fundamentalists” because we assume the idea is “fundamental” to the Bible, whereas those who support evolution are somehow breaking away from the basics.

But is that true?

More to the point, should Christians even believe in creationism?

Now, when I say “creationism” I mean belief in a literal six day creation of the world, not the idea that God is the ultimate Creator of the universe.

Yes, Christians should believe in God as the Creator, but I would like to suggest 10 reasons why Chrisitans shouldn’t believe in creationism.

#1 – According to the book of Psalms, nature reveals God’s glory and God’s handiwork. In other words, we can look at nature and discern how God created. Science has done this and discovered that nature reveals a God who created through evolution. So, if nature reveals evolutionary mechanisms at work, but God really created everything in six literal days, but chose to deceive the experts by displaying evolution in nature, then God is a trickster and a liar. In that case, the God of creationism is not the God of the Bible.

#2 – Speaking of nature, creationists would have you believe that contrary to the laws of nature, God created everything instantly. There’s a word for this sort of action which breaks the known laws of science. We call it “magic” or “witchcraft”.  According to Deuteronomy 18, however, practicing witchcraft or magic of any kind is a sin. To be a creationist, then, you must believe that God is a sinner.

#3 – Speaking of sin, creationists get really upset about the idea that humanity shares a common ancestor with apes. Instead, they argue that everyone descended from one man, Adam, and one woman, Eve. If that is true, then we are all the products of incest. However, according to Leviticus 18 incest is a sin. If that passage from the Bible is true, then creationism is founded upon sin. Monkeys, on the other hand, are not sinful.

#4 – If, according to John 16, it is that the Holy Spirit that guides our minds to the truth, and the Spirit has helped our minds discern the truth of evolution, yet creationism requires us to reject that truth, then creationism, by extension, also requires us to reject the Holy Spirit. Sounds a lot like the unforgivable sin of  ”blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” to me.

#5 – Christianity is all about restoration and reconciliation. It’s about uniting creation back to its Creator. Evolution supports this effort as it claims that all life on planet Earth is fundamentally connected. Creationism, on the other hand, argues that all plants, animals, and people on Earth, being created on separate days, are fundamentally disconnected from one another, thus furthering the division in the world which Jesus came to heal. Therefore, evolution is more Christlike than creationism.

#6 – If the majesty of creation tells us anything about God, it’s that God is all about beauty. The Creation Museum, however, is tacky and cheesy, both of which are the opposite of beauty. To be the opposite of something is to be its antithesis. Therefore, since beauty comes from God and (as we learn from looking at The Creation Museum) creationism is anti-beauty, then it is also anti-God.

#7 – According to creationists we must believe in a literal six day creation because everything in the Bible must be understood literally. If that is true, then Jesus’ command to cut off your hands or gouge out your eyes if they cause you to sin must also be taken literally. Since there are no creationists in the world who take these commands literally, creationism must be grounded in hypocrisy in order to work. However, in Matthew 6, Jesus says “don’t be like the hypocrites.”

#8 – The Bible is all about long journeys with God: 40 days on the ark, 40 years in the wilderness, 400 years in Egypt, etc. Evolution is a big supporter of really long journeys. Creationism, on the other hand, wants things to happen instantly and then be over with. If the goal of Christianity is to spend not just billions of years, but eternity with God, then creationism’s emphasis on getting things with God finished quickly seems to be anti-Christian.

#9 – If Colossians 1:16 is correct that through God all things in heaven and earth were created and science is a thing on the earth, then it is something God created. Therefore, when creationists reject science and the theory of evolution, they are in fact rejecting God’s creation and therefore God. Vice versa, when we embrace science we are in fact embracing both God and God’s creation.

#10 – Finally, creationists argue that dinosaurs and man lived side by side. If that is true, then The Flintstones is the most historically accurate portrayal we have of prehistoric life. While Fred, Wilma, and Dino are great, the church has enough credibility problems as it is. Trying to get science classes to use The Flintstones as part of their curriculum will only hinder the furthering of the gospel message. If we really want to spread the gospel, then we’ll have to let Barney and Bam-Bam remain on The Cartoon Network.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

This post is a continuation of a proposal I made last week, arguing that perhaps lay people, like clergy, should be allowed and encouraged to take a sabbatical from regular church attendance. 

On Monday, I addressed the underlying assumption behind my proposal. Simply put, the need for or even having the option to take a sabbatical seems to primarily be an American issue.

On Tuesday, I got distracted by Mark Driscoll.

Yesterday, I talked about how critical accountability would be to this process. A person maybe stepping back from the church, but they would not be stepping away from accountability.

Today, I want to wrap up this series by addressing the other critical component of any potential lay sabbatical: intentionality.

In yesterday’s post I alluded to this in my description of how a person taking a sabbatical would remain accountable to their church throughout the entire process. In order to remain accountable, of course, one must first be intentional about seeking out accountability. Accountability doesn’t happen by accident.

I think that this is one of the primary differences between a potential lay sabbatical and the current phenomena of people (primarily young adults) simply ceasing to attend church. In my experience many of my friends who have broken ties with the church, but by no means all of them, slowly faded away from the church. There wasn’t a lot of intentionality behind their leaving. Life got in the way, interests changed, frustrations mounted and one missed Sunday here and there became two missed Sundays in a row, which turned into a month away, and then eventually they couldn’t find any reason or desire to come back.

A lay sabbatical, on the other hand, would be an intentional effort, not to break with the church, but to renew a person’s love, passion, and commitment to the Body of Christ.

In order for that renewal to be accomplished, I believe a person would first need to understand their own reason for taking a sabbatical in the first place. This might take several weeks to discern, but it would be essential so that everything the person did (or didn’t do) during the sabbatical could be intentionally focused on addressing the need that spurred the decision to step back in the first place.

Once a person had come to the point where they could articulate to themselves and those around them why they needed a sabbatical, the process described yesterday would begin. Working together with a pastor, committee, or if those weren’t possible, a group of close, dedicated fellow believers, the person would create a specific plan for their sabbatical.

Not only would they need to decide from the beginning how long the sabbatical would last, I think it would be equally important for them to articulate why that amount of time and not a shorter or longer sabbatical would be necessary. For example, burnout out might be able to relieved in a few weeks. A deep crisis of faith, however, may need several months. Once again, in order maximize the potential “success” of the sabbatical, this step in the process should also be intentional so that the specific need of the person is being addressed.

While I believe it would be important to allow space for a person to take advantage of unexpected opportunities, I think it would be critically important to outline specific opportunities for service, Christian fellowship, and rest before the sabbatical began which would address the aforementioned reason for taking the sabbatical. So, for example, if a person was frustrated with a church they viewed as too inwardly focused, then perhaps (while still making time for Christian fellowship and rest) the emphasis of their sabbatical would be on finding ways to serve the would outside the church, i.e. volunteering at the local soup kitchen, working with an organization like Habitat for Humanity, or going on a long term mission trip.

On the other hand, if the reason for the sabbatical was that the person had been hurt by their local church, then perhaps (while still making time for service and rest) the focus of their sabbatical would be on finding alternative forms of Christian fellowship, i.e. a weekly meal and Bible study with friends, participation in an intentional Christian community like The Simple Way, or by visiting churches in Christian traditions radically different than their own.

Then again, if a person was overly committed at church and simply burned out from nonstop church programming, then perhaps (while still making time for service and Christian fellowship), the focus of their sabbatical would be on finding or creating quite space in their lives where they could turn off the noise from the outside world, be still, and rejuvenate their soul as they set aside time devoted completely and totally to simply listening to the voice of God, i.e. a daily time of prayer and meditation, a personal retreat to a local convent or monastery, or weekly walks alone in a local park.

Each persons needs and reasoning for taking a sabbatical would be different. In order for that time to be fruitful, a person would have to be intentional from the beginning about both their purpose and what they intended to do during their time away.

Ultimately we must also remember that Christianity is not about us. Therefore, in a lay sabbatical a person would need to also be intentional about keeping in mind how their own growth would eventually help the rest of the Body grow. While a person would clearly have no idea at the beginning what they would learn by the end of their sabbatical, as the end of the sabbatical did approach it would be important for a person to begin to think about how to share what they learned during their sabbatical with their local congregation upon completion.

Obviously, not everyone likes to speak in public. In fact, most people don’t. So, sharing a testimony about what happened during the sabbatical probably wouldn’t be the best way to share with the congregation. Fear of public speaking aside, however, I think that sharing should be more than a one off moment at church. Testimonies are great, but the reality is most of us forget what we hear our preacher say on a Sunday morning by the time we go to bed on Sunday night. There’s little chance that we would do much better listening to a lay person.

Even if we did manage to remember a few of their points, if that person took a sabbatical for several months, then I have to imagine they would have more to share than would fit in a 5 minute testimony. Perhaps the person returning from sabbatical could share what they learned in a small group setting for a few weeks, offering new ideas for their church to get involved in their community or possibly even giving advice to others who might want to take a sabbatical of their own. Then again, if the person is more creative in nature, perhaps they could create a gallery of pictures they took during their time away that would tell their story. Or maybe the person could write down their account, publish, and share it with their church. However a person chose to share their journey wouldn’t matter, so long as they were intentional about doing so in an effective way.

Like every other step in the process, intentionallity at the end of the sabbatical would just as critical as it was in the beginning. If the sabbatical is going to be Christian, then ultimately it must serve others. If we neglect this step at the very end, then the entire time away would have been only about us, our own wants, and our own desires. In that case, there would be nothing particularly Christian about this practice.

However, if we can be intentional about using this moment to ultimately edify the church and help her people to grow, then stepping back may be the very thing that draws us closer together as the Body of Christ.

Well, that’s my proposal. It’s not perfect and it certainly needs work. This idea of a lay sabbatical is something that I will continue to ponder and tinker with for sometime to come. Until then, I would love to hear from you. Is this something you would try? Would you support others who wanted to do it? What would you change? What would you add or take away? Let me know and don’t be afraid to get creative! 

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt

After having been distracted yesterday by Mark Driscoll’s ongoing attempt to discredit all of his critics, I wanted to get back to following up on my proposal that lay people show be allowed and encouraged to take a sabbatical from regular church attendance.

On Monday, I looked at an underlying, but previously unmentioned, assumption behind my proposal. Namely, that this seems to be a particularly American issue, in that we are so over-saturated with churches and church programming that the idea of lay burnout is something that is even possible. As opposed to churches in countries hostile to Christianity wherein church is something a believer must risk their freedom and/or life to attend even just once a week.

Today, I want to address what is, for me, the most important component of a potential lay sabbatical: accountability.

As I said in my original post, I am not in any way advocating either vacation from church or a complete break with the body of Christ.

The word “church” itself is very loaded, particularly in American evangelicalism, and I think that is what has led to some of the misunderstanding regarding my proposal. As good Protestants, obsessed with sola fide and hell bent on rejecting anything that even whiffs of “you need to do this or be here in order to be Christian,” we have over-spiritualized the concept of church.

That is not to say that as Christians we aren’t part of the transcendent Body of Christ which cannot be contained to one particular building. Of course we are. But that in no way excludes the reality that the church as a physical building in which believers set aside as sacred space to come together for worship and fellowship isn’t also a real and incredibly important component of what it means to be part of the Body of Christ.

For whatever reason, most of us have gotten drunk on the kool-aid of pop theology (I assume because it’s so tasty and easy to swallow), that we all but reject the idea that “church” is anything other than a transcendent group of like minded people. Conveniently, this also frees us from the “burden” of attending a physical church since we believe that such a thing is not “required” for salvation. It is also, I believe, from this same mentality that the misunderstanding over what I am proposing flows .

I am not advocating a form of Christianity lived permanently apart from the Body. No such thing exists even if we want to pretend otherwise. I am proposing that believers be allowed a time away from regular attendance at their local, physical church in order to seek out alternative forms of Christian community and participate in kingdom living outside the four walls of a sanctuary. In doing so, I think that both they and their local congregation could find much needed growth through an always needed reminder that the church must serve the world outside her doors.

To do this in a way that is both healthy and edifying to both the participant and the local congregation, accountability to that body would be absolutely essential.

The sort of sabbatical I am proposing would not occur on a whim. I do not have in mind people waking up groggy on a Sunday morning, hitting snooze, and calling it a sabbatical. What I want to propose is something in which both the participant and the local church would be accountable to one another before, after, and throughout the entire process.

In the case of the participant, the decision to take a sabbatical should be one that first undergoes serious reflection, prayer, and dialogue with either their pastor or other believers. This final decision to take a sabbatical would only come after this period of reflection which I think should last, at the very minimum, several weeks.

Once the decision to take a sabbatical was made by the participant, I think it would be essential for them to meet with their pastor and/or possibly some sort of sabbatical committee before taking their leave of absence. This meeting would set up parameters for the sabbatical: when it would begin and end, periodic check-ins with the pastor and/or committee to update how things are going, the development of a basic plan for what specific outreach and alternative Christian fellowship opportunities the person will participate in, and a means by which the participant will share what he or she learned with the church upon their return.

As I said, this would be no vacation. It would require time and effort on the part of the person involved. Although, I do think it would be important to incorporate times of physical rest during the sabbatical. Nonstop activity would essentially negate the whole idea of taking a break. Though again, to be clear, offering a lay sabbatical is not an attempt to simply rename and justify weekly attendance at “Bedside Baptist”.

All of that being said, is there a risk that the person taking a sabbatical would just sit at home and do nothing? Of course. But, that is already happening now. So, why not engage the issue head on and try to turn it into something positive?

Simply put, a lay sabbatical that provides opportunity and accountability would give the church with a much more productive approach to addressing those who already stay home, than our current approach of complaining about and then condemning them.

I am convinced that if we can find a way to grab a hold of people who are on the brink of leaving or who have already left and lovingly engage them in service, community, and fellowship outside our doors until they are ready to find their way back inside our doors, then ultimately it will only lead to good things both for them and for us.

So what do you think? Are there any other accountability mechanisms you would employ? If so, what are they and why would you require them for a lay sabbatical?

Tomorrow I’ll look at another critical component of this proposal, accountability’s twin sister: intentionality.

Grace and peace,

Zack Hunt