fuller.com/blogs

Everything Starts Where It Ends

2009-11-10T18:30:22-06:00

I'm convinced that there's no good way to start a first blog post (except perhaps by ironically pointing out that fact.)

So I'm just going to dive right in.

I thought maybe I'd just expand on one point in my about section, my academic interests, to give a better idea of some of the things you can expect to find here.

My primary area of interest/concern is regarding how the church can move not just beyond the modernist era into postmodernism, but how it can move even beyond postmodernity both academically and practically into an epoch where it can become relevant intellectually and culturally. Part of that includes tracing out the development, of what I and others call post-secularism, which is something I started work on with my thesis for my English MA which was on Kurt Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions. There are certainly volumes that could be said on this, so I'll be taking on various issues from time to time here. Let me begin though, by giving a brief overview.

It seems like it took until the mid-1990s through the current decade for theologians and other religious academics to really break through and bring attention to this shift within the academy in a semi-mainstream way. We certainly can't say at this time that mainline churches on the whole have adopted or have even seriously considered a postmodern outlook. Fuller, it seems to me, has been at the forefront of dialoging seriously with these issues. The timing, however, was perhaps fortunate and unfortunate simultaneously. Fortunate, because it was in the mid-nineties that intellectuals, particularly in America, began to realize in far greater numbers that the problem with post-structuralist “modes” like deconstruction is that they can become ideologies “without ideology” far too easily. That is, deconstruction was only ever meant to be a method of reading—a way to recognize the places in a text where the text itself is subverted by its own language. Such a method is supposedly without agenda or ideology; however, it has been widely misread and misunderstood to merely be an ideology, which undoes the priorities of other ideologies but simultaneously claims to be without ideology. The pessimism that came along with the dismissal of absolute truth was losing its importance among some by this point within the academy, and the return of Marxism was gaining prominence. This made it far easier for theologians to swoop in and point out the ways in which postmodernism was not threatening to The Church. Books such as Stanley Grenz’s A Primer on Postmodernism (1996), Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy (2004), James K.A. Smith’s Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? (2006), and within the secular academy, John D. Caputo’s work including The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida (1997) are all major contributions to The Church’s understanding of how postmodernism fits in with and helps to inform the Christian narrative in a much different way and are, on the whole and with the exception of Caputo's book, intended for informed lay audiences.

I say it was unfortunate because it seems it was far too late to make much of an impact on the culture of The Church--an impact that will matter ten or twenty years from now, that is. Many Christians are very fearful of the postmodern worldview. However, The Church is not addressing the postmodern from a position beyond it; rather, The Church, in general, equates postmodernism entirely with the secular, not realizing that they are still only barely holding on to the sinking ship of modernism. And even though the Emergent church has made attempts at change, they certainly haven’t been radical enough to constitute an entire paradigm shift in Christian culture. Many of these churches are not changing the way church is done—just the way it looks. And now the academy is transitioning away from postmodernism, leaving new hopeful scholars such myself wondering if discussions about how The Church can adapt to postmodernism are even relevant anymore.

In terms of paradigm shifts within the secular academy, I can really only speak for English departments, since that is where I was trained primarily, but what I can say is that the focus of high literary theory and the use of theory itself is currently experiencing a major shift. Timothy Keller, in the preface to his most recent book The Reason for God, cites an article written by Stanley Fish, a prominent Milton scholar, in which Fish relates a brief anecdote regarding the death of Jacques Derrida. Fish writes that following the news of Derrida’s death, a reporter asked him what would replace the triumvirate of race, class, and gender in high theory within the academy. Fish answered with one word: Religion. Fish of course isn’t suggesting that we’ll some how crawl (or fall) back into the Dark Ages or that we’ll return to religion because we couldn’t deal with facing the meaninglessness postmodernism presented us. Rather, I see Fish’s comment as representative of a post-secularism in which religion will be raised up from the mud it’s been thrown in to by the academy and searched extensively for any intrinsic value that can be found in helping us make sense of objects of study—as Marxism has, as the psychoanalysis of Freud and Lacan has, as deconstruction has. It will no longer be seen as an ideology of the Dark Ages that somehow managed to hang around despite the countless attempts on its life. It will be seen as a legitimate tool for exploring and writing about a text.

The interesting thing about the post-secular is that it's been around for a while. The buds of a full blown cultural and intellectual paradigm shift have begun. Postmodernism has never really seemed to be able to answer two pretty basic questions: Why has the "Metaphysics" section of the local Barnes & Noble seemed to grow exponentially over the last two decades? And then, given that, why does it seem that the popularity of the narrative of Science-will-explain-everything-someday has also seen exponential growth? The two phenomena seem incommensurable, and the inability of postmodernism to effectively explain away either seems to be its greatest failing. It also seems that, as with most major cultural paradigm shifts, the academy is leading the way in deciding which side will ultimately win that battle, and The Church needs to anticiapte what needs to be done when that happens. And I'm fairly certain all signs point to Science losing.

The vision of untrammeled human progress is really the stuff of the mid-twentieth century. My father grew up watching the moon landing, reading Tom Swift novels, dreaming about flying cars and robots. My generation, however, seeks the past, looks for comfort in the narrative of history. Deep down, many people in their mid-twenties don't necessarily think that Science is going to improve our lives tremendously five, ten, fifty years down the line. There is tremendous potential for it to do more harm than good.

All of this is to say that culturally, I believe we are going to see fewer and fewer people seeking comfort in science. As Terry Eagleton points out in his book Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate, the positive outlook that Science has on progress presupposes that humanity, generally speaking, is perfectly fine the way it is. In other words, it suggests that aside from a couple world wars, some mass genocides, etc., humanity is not in need of saving. We've already saved ourselves through Science. I, however, like Eagleton, cannot look at the atrocities of the twentieth century, of the Industrial and Nuclear Ages, at the genocides, at the disease and poverty that has all but obliterated much of the third world and agree that humanity is on the up and up. We are in need of saving. Is this beginning to sound familiar to anyone?

It is this desire to be saved that will turn people from the secular humanism of the late twentieth century toward religion in general. Which is not necessarily all positive for Christianity. We can probably imagine a thousand or more different scenarios where this could pose some very serious challenges for us as Christians. N.T. Wright already sees this taking place, as he points out in his 2006 book, Simply Christian. I will leave you with this metaphor for spirituality in culture which Wright proposes in the second chapter of the book:

A town is built upon an abundant spring, but in order to control the water, the city government built pipes to lead to people's homes and told them how much they could drink, until one day, the main burst and the town was flooded. The pipes had become rusty, worn out, and obsolete. The town could drink all they wanted. The problem was that the water had become muddied because it was everywhere. It was difficult to find clear water.

It is going to become increasingly difficult for people turning from secular humanism to find clear water among all the mud out there.

Oh, The Places You'll Go...

2009-11-16T20:16:12-06:00

This will be a multi-part post, written over a few days. It's Wednesday, November 11. Tomorrow, I'm flying to Colorado so that I can help my wife finally move out to California with me. We've been apart for two months. She's been living with my parents in Louisville, CO and I with hers in Rosemead, CA. I know--sounds like a great situational comedy.

* * *

Before moving to Colorado in 2007, I knew I wanted to go to Fuller. I had been reading a lot: N.T. Wright's Simply Christian, James K.A. Smith's Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?, and others that got me really excited about diving deeper into my faith and figuring out how to make it intelligible in a contemporary context. I also had two friends who were attending Fuller at the time, and they really encouraged me to think about it. But my path for the moment was set. My wife and I were moving to Colorado to both pursue master's degrees: hers in construction management, mine in English. I told myself that I would definitely be willing to do a second Master's degree, but that maybe I would feel burned out while doing the first. I needed to wait and see how I felt about graduate school. Just a year and a half before this, I probably would have never seen myself contemplating one master's degree, let alone two. We moved to Fort Collins, CO in June 2007.

My wife, Katrina began attending Colorado State University while I commuted to the University of Northern Colorado about 25 miles away. For various reasons, she decided to discontinue her program and went to working full time as an architectural drafter, something she had been doing before we moved. I found myself loving graduate work, growing hungrier and hungrier to read and learn as much as I possibly could. I was like a sponge, interested in anything and everything. I loved hearing about other people's interests in the department. I loved hearing my wife talk about the technical aspects of her job. I loved talking to one of my younger brothers on the phone or via GoogleTalk about what he was learning in his electrical engineering courses at USC. I had never felt like this before. I had been a mediocre student in high school and really all throughout college as well. I knew that I needed to keep this fire burning.

* * *

It's Thursday, November 12, and I'm sitting in my parents' living room, watching TV with Kat and my youngest brother, Andrew. Kat and I are trying to decide whether or not we want to leave early on Saturday morning and drive through the Rockies, possibly encountering a severe snow storm or if we want to leave tomorrow afternoon/evening and take the southern route through Albuquerque. I've never driven the southern way, but I know it's about 20 hours as opposed to 15 or 16 the other way (I-70 to I-15.)

Our car is going to be completely packed. It's a two door Civic. We started packing tonight just in case we decide to leave tomorrow when Kat gets back from her last day of work in Fort Collins. We also have our two cats to take back. I have no idea how that's going to work out.

* * *

About a year ago, I decided that I definitely wanted to earn a second master's degree. I really enjoyed the life of a scholar that I was leading at the University of Northern Colorado, and I knew that a PhD was in my future. I was immersed in reading Continental philosophers of the twentieth century, and decided that philosophy was a possibility. During this time, Colorado became less and less of a strange place. It started feeling like home. Imagining leaving our house in Fort Collins was really difficult. I decided that the best thing to do would be to try and stay in Colorado. I applied to CSU's philosophy program.

I thought for sure I was a shoe-in. I'd read so much philosophy, that even though I hadn't taken a formal course in the field, I was sure I knew what the discipline entailed. Besides, literary theory utilizes philosophy. Many philosophers, such as Derrida, also considered themselves literary critics. There was no way they were going to turn down a guy who was finishing a master's degree in English, such a closely related field. To be safe, though, I also decided to apply to Fuller. After all, going to Fuller was still a desire of mine. But at this point, I thought that maybe it would have to be put off indefinitely and perhaps forever. Three master's degrees did not seem to be in the cards.

From November to April, my wife and I made plans as if we were definitely staying in Colorado. We were excited about it. We had a good group of friends that consisted primarily of other young married couples. My parents were near by but not so close that we would feel obligated to see them multiple times a week. Kat had a great job, and I was establishing myself at a local community college and had an offer to continue teaching as an adjunct at UNC once my degree was finished. All that needed to happen was for me to be accepted to CSU.

* * *

It's Friday, November 13th. I'm reading the morning paper and taking care of some details around the house before we have to leave. We decided that there's no way we can drive through a snow storm in the Rockies with our car full and two cats, so we're leaving tonight. First stop: Albuquerque, NM.

* * *

In late April, I got my rejection letter from CSU. There was no explanation. Just a, "Sorry, but no thanks. Good luck." It was enraging. I thought that there had to have been a mistake. I had nearly a 4.0 in my program at UNC. I was well read in philosophy. I had the reassurance of the UNC faculty and my peers. I emailed the DGS of the department asking politely for an explanation and requesting an appeal. He said the bottom line was that I had no formal training, no letters of recommendation from anyone inside the discipline, and a writing sample that, in their mind, did not reflect the discipline enough. I sat for thirty minutes formulating a response after I read his reply. I was grasping at any shred of hope any hint in his email that there was a possibility for me to get in. I thought about taking philosophy courses at UNC for a year, earning a minor, and then reapplying. But that just seemed ridiculous. I finally realized that it would be a mistake to try and claw my way into a department that probably would not appreciate the interdisciplinary style I was prepared to bring.

Two weeks later, I received my acceptance to Fuller. It seemed to both me and Kat that Fuller was the only option. Kat has been a wonderful support in my path toward a PhD. She didn't want me to turn down my acceptance and end up teaching composition when what I really wanted to do was study and teach literature, philosophy, and theology. She knew that this was what God was calling us both to. It was a brutal summer of job hunting and failing to land anything. We thought originally that we would move at the end of June. Then August. Then mid-September--really the absolute latest I could move if I was going to start at Fuller in the Fall.

As September drew closer, we had to face the reality that we were going to have to become bi-statal.

* * *

It's Saturday, November 14th at 2:00am. We just checked into the Hyatt in Albuquerque. Thank the Lord for Hotwire.com. We got an amazing deal on a pretty nice hotel. The cats have been doing really well. They've just slept most of the time. Hopefully they just continue to stay in a travel coma the rest of the way. We have a twelve hour drive ahead of ourselves tomorrow. Time for bed!

* * *

I've moved five times now in the last six years, but no move has ever felt as bizarre as this last one. In the days leading up to it, I felt as though I were in a dream, just floating around, taking care of things in preparation for the move, but completely detached, trying to reattach and be there for Kat. I found myself doing things I never do, like buying orange cream soda at the store and Ben & Jerry's ice cream. It felt almost like I had to do those things for some reason. I spent my last day with Kat packing a small trailer with our TV, BBQ, and all of my music equipment. Our goodbye wasn't drawn out. Neither of us wanted it to be that way because that meant that we were preparing for a long separation. Both of us were hoping it would be a few weeks at the most.

My mom rode with me to California the next day. We drove thirteen hours from Louisville, CO to Cedar City, UT and another eight hours from there to my in-laws in Rosemead. For the first time in a long time, I wasn't really sure what to do with myself. I was sort of a bachelor again, which was kind of a scary thought. Not for fidelity issues, but because I didn't want to start staying out late again with friends regularly or playing video games a ton. I didn't want to unintentionally edge Katrina out of my life by filling it back up again with all the things I did before I was married.

I was also worried about landing a job so I could avoid accumulating much more school debt. Thankfully, God answered that need almost immediately. Three days after I moved back to California, I had an interview with Pasadena Covenant Church to be their new Director of Student Ministries. Two weeks, another interview, some reference calls, and a sermon to the youth group later I was hired. I've been there since the beginning of October, and it has been an amazing blessing.

* * *

Saturday still. We finally made it! It was a grueling drive, but the important thing is that we made it one piece, cats and all. Now I'm going to bed!

* * *

As our time apart grew longer, the distance became more and more difficult to bear. Kat was able to visit with my parents at the end of October. We both were expecting it to be an amazing reunion. To be honest, it really wasn't. Yes, we were both very happy to see each other, but Kat also got to see first hand that my life in California had really started, and she was still on hold in Colorado. She wanted to be a part of what I was doing at Fuller and my ministry and PCC. It hurt to know that she wasn't going to be able to for the foreseeable future.

A week or so later, she told me that she was going to give her two weeks notice and ask if she could work remotely for her firm. I was really nervous about it, but at the same time, I knew that she needed to be here with me. God blessed us again, and she got the green light to move and work remotely at least through January as a consultant for the firm. In two weeks we would be reunited again. Hopefully for good.

* * *

Sunday, November 15th. Kat came with me to PCC for the first time. What an incredible blessing this church has been! She jumped right in with the kids. I had a parent meeting today, and it was really great to have her there to meet the parents. I finally feel like the real work in this ministry can begin now that she's here supporting me. I look forward to what God has in store for us both in the next few years!

A Philosophy for Living on Earth?

2009-11-23T18:18:22-06:00

I had an interesting debate with a friend the other day about altruism. He claims it doesn't exist--that behind every seemingly selfless action is an underlying, perhaps subconscious, selfish motive. The conversation arose because I was telling him about a lecture I was privileged to hear given by Dr. Michael Spezio of Scripps College in Dr. Nancey Murphy's Philosophy of Religion course here at Fuller. Dr. Spezio is a psychologist and neuroscientist whose work of late has been focused upon virtue theory, an approach to ethics that emphasizes the character of the moral agent rather than the consequences of a particular action. His research has focused on groups of people scholars in his field call "Exemplars." These are people who, no matter what their own circumstances are, continually give. Economists, according to Spezio, call these people "idiots" or other, more colorful names. On a bell curve of giving, these people are at the far right side. Most of us would be in the middle--we give when we can, but we have limits. At the far left side, however, are the extreme opposite of Exemplars. They are what we might call miserly: the Ebenezer Scrooges of the world. But Spezio and his colleagues have a better name for them. They call them "Rands."

Having a masters degree in English, I find this to be pretty funny. For those of you who are not familiar with the reference, Ayn Rand was a Russian-American philosopher and novelist most famous for her two novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. She's also famous for developing a school of thought in philosophy known as objectivism. Essentially, the objectivist claims that there is an objective reality outside of our experience, that through perception, we come into direct contact with it, and that we can actually gain true knowledge of it through concept formation and inductive and deductive logic.

This is all slightly beside the point though. It's her ethics that is fascinating to me and the reason why the miserly in Spezio's study have her namesake attributed to them. The objectivist believes that the highest moral responsibility is to oneself, that upholding one's rational self-interest is the priority of moral behavior. Of course, then, the only social system in which this ethics can thrive is pure, laissez-faire capitalism. Hence, the true Rands of the world are naturally the miserly because the happiness of others can, ethically speaking, not be a concern unless that happiness directly affects their own. Rand characterized objectivism as "A philosophy for living on Earth," and I think capitalism is a true picture of that.

Rand herself has also argued that altruism does not exist for much the same reason that my friend did just a few days ago. I think it's safe to say that Rand was not a fan of Kingdom ethics. The gentle and the merciful don't exactly fit her utopian vision, because when has being gentle and merciful brought anyone the kind of happiness that belongs to the red-blooded faithful of free market capitalism? Those attributes will land you at the bottom of the corporate ladder real quick.

So what of altruism? What was my friend's major complaint? His argument is that all actions are reducible to self-interest including acts that appear selfless. This is because even in an act of selflessness, let's say giving a month (or even twenty or more years) of one's time to work in a third world country, the underlying motive is I'm doing this because of my religion. If I want to follow what Jesus has called me to do as a Christian, I must do this. Underlying that motive, is the desire to follow Jesus, which my friend translates as I follow Jesus because I believe he is the Son of God and through Him I will be saved and go to heaven when I die. That's certainly part of the reason we follow Jesus.

But if Christianity ended there, I think it would be a rather boring faith and meaningless faith. Doing good deeds is not part of our salvation. Doing good deeds is fundamentally part of what it means to be a Christian, just as salvation is a part, and really has nothing to do with where we go when we die. It has everything to do with who Jesus is--the fact that he is the Son of God, our creator, and we owe him everything. How could that possibly be selfish on our part? When we turn the other cheek, when we give in secret, when we show mercy, we do it not because we know it will make us look better but because of who Jesus is.

Another way to approach this is by looking at the character of God. God truly embodies what it means to be altruistic. God owes us nothing. Yet he is constantly giving and has already given more than we could ever pay back. He is the ultimate Exemplar. There are of course things that he desires from us. Worship, for example. However, I tend to think of worship not as something that God needs from us, but rather as yet another gift to us, free of charge. In other words, even God's desire for our worship is in many ways altruistic. Worship is a vehicle by which we learn humility. It is a vehicle by which we can express the gifts of music, art, literature, etc. Does God really need our worship to feel better about Himself? Please. God does not desire our worship because He is selfish and vain.

Do Christians sometimes act out of selfishness or vanity? Of course. They're human. That's why it's so easy to get confused between the people Christ has called us to be and the people we actually are. Sometimes we are hypocrites, sounding trumpets before us so that the world can see and congratulate us on what we've done. Our culture rewards altruism when it sees it.

But does that mean that altruism can't truly exist? No. I think it has to. I think the question of its existence is tied fundamentally not just to our behavior as Christians and the examination of our own motives, but also to the very nature of God and His sacrifice for us.

I See The Stars

2009-12-03T19:03:25-06:00

'Tis the season for Christmas music. My wife had a rule that she established last year: No Christmas music until after Thanksgiving. So on the day after Thanksgiving last year, I popped on my favorite Christmas music of late, Sufjan Steven's Christmas EPs. This year, the rule morphed into: No Christmas music until December 1. It's not that my wife hates Christmas music or Christmas in general. She just wants to make sure Thanksgiving gets its due, which now means we need enough time to allow the Thanksgiving feast to marinate (in our minds) for a few days before we jump into Christmas.

I see her point. Seeing inflatable snowmen and Santa Clauses coming into stores earlier and earlier, usually before Halloween, gets tiresome. Thanksgiving really gets lost in the mix of holidays. (That's perhaps a blog I should've written a week ago.) For me though, Christmas music is about reconnecting with a particular feeling. It's not a feeling I can describe adequately here. You either know what I'm talking about or you don't.

These Sufjan Stevens records are important to me because I encountered them and re-encountered them at important times in my life. They were released in 2006 while I was student teaching at Lakewood High School in Lakewood, CA for my single subject teaching credential at CSULB. I was so burnt out by that point. I had been waking up at 5am every weekday to get to the school by 6:45. I had been dealing with parents and students and even my mentor teachers putting out fires, grading, taking criticism. I was filing out mountains of paper work and jumping through what seemed like an endless number of hoops at the university. I would listen to Sufjan on my two hour commute home from Lakewood through the month of December. The songs got me so excited for the break. They made me feel like I was already there, already spending time with my wife and our families, already celebrating the birth of Christ. It was exactly what I needed to get through the three weeks in December between Thanksgiving and winter break.

The next year was my first semester in graduate school at UNC. Again, I was tired. I hadn't been in an academic literature course in two years. The community of graduate students was small, and I was feeling competitive with some of my fellow students. Those Sufjan records brought back that same feeling from the year before. But now it was in a different context. There was snow and cold temperatures. I 'discovered' new songs that for some reason were staying with me that year but hadn't the year before. I would sometimes sit in the school parking lot for ten minutes or more just listening, finding that feeling again.

Year after year, I keep coming back to these records. They're the same songs. I've heard them maybe close to a hundred times now. Maybe more. I've also thrown in other things over time. A friend gave my wife and me the Jars of Clay Christmas album last year, and we've enjoyed that. I've also discovered some Christmas compilations with bands I like (there's a Militia Group comp that came out a couple years ago that's great.) But those Sufjan Stevens EPs will always reconnect me with that Christmas feeling that I'm looking for. As this quarter comes to a close, that music has brought me a familiar peace that has been just what I've needed.

No Matter How Much He Drank The Night Before, The Rooster Always Woke My Father In The Morning

2010-01-08T12:55:14-06:00

I had a really great first quarter at Fuller. So great, that I rewarded myself with three weeks of doing nothing but spending time with my wife, friends, and of course, video games.

What I'm writing about today is something that I've been thinking about over break. Be warned: This is about grammar. I love grammar. Some people have almost certainly just clicked the back button frantically four or five times to keep their eyes from burning out of their heads, which is understandable. But this is also about Greek at Fuller, so some of you may want to read on.

The quarter was capped off with a meeting with my Greek professor, David Kiefer (also the registrar here) to go over my final exam. I've really enjoyed Greek so far. I would describe myself as a language kind of guy. Comparing the way New Testament Greek works to English has been fun.

By the way, I love grammar.

Toward the end of the meeting, Prof. Kiefer and got into a conversation about participles, something we're going to cover this quarter in Greek. A participle is a phrase which usually uses a non-finite (progressive) verb in order to describe the action of a particular noun either while that noun is doing something else, or before that noun does something else. Here's a biblical example: "While walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers." So the participle is "While walking by the Sea of Galilee" referring to what "he" was doing when he saw two brothers. In the English classroom, we usually broaden this discussion to "modifiers" which includes any introductory phrase that modifies the subject of the sentence: In the morning, we will leave for California. Modifiers are always an important topic in a first semester college English class because in English, they can dangle if you're not careful.

Consider the title of my post: No matter how much he drank the night before, the rooster always woke my father in the morning. We can certainly infer that in this sentence, dear old dad is the one waking up with the headache; however, grammatically speaking it's the bird with the empty bottles under his bed (or roost?). We call this a dangling modifier. In order to keep the syntax and make this grammatically correct, we'd have to put father at the beginning of the main clause: my father was always woken up by the rooster in the morning. But now we have passive voice! The noun being acted upon, father, which should be the object, is actually the subject. That's just not good writing. So the only way to really make this sentence work is to change the syntax completely, eliminating the modifier: The rooster always woke my father in the morning no matter how much he drank the night before.

Boring word order, I know.

But the magic of an inflected language as opposed to a more analytic (syntactic) one is that you never have this problem. Kiefer explained to me that in Greek, the participle verb will always match the subject of the sentence in gender, number, and case. English only really has number. We don't add things to our nouns unless there's more than one of them. Pronouns are the only words that still have cases in English. So if our rooster sentence were in Greek, the verb "drank" would have some sort of marker on the end of it to match the noun father, making it instantly clear that those two are connected.

I really appreciate how excited Prof. Kiefer is about Greek. He jumps at any opportunity to explain some aspect new or old in greater detail. He loves pointing out little tricks and coincidences to help us remember how things work. It's great because I know exactly how he feels. I was the same way when I was teaching English composition in Colorado. English grammar and punctuation usage is something that comes very easily and naturally to me. Greek obviously is the same for Kiefer. I also jumped at any opportunity to explain a rule or grammatical phenomenon (see above) to my students. I'm passionate about the English language. I sense that exact same passion from Prof. Kiefer. As we finished up going over my exam and just shot the breeze about voices, participles, question and command formation, and a bunch of other grammatical subjects, I really felt like these were things he just couldn't wait for me to understand. Because of his excitement, I can't wait either.

Don't Let the Door Hit You...

2010-01-13T16:37:23-06:00

Last week, rumors began to fly regarding NBC making changes to their late night line-up. Jay Leno was going to move to the 11:35pm slot as host of "The Jay Leno Show", followed by "The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien" at 12:05am (which is paradoxical as many in the media have pointed out because at that time it is no longer tonight, but tomorrow), and finally "Late Night with Jimmy Fallon" beginning at a ridiculous 1:05am. NBC executives gave the three hosts the weekend to think about their decisions. On Monday Conan O'Brien made his decision public in the form of a letter which you can read here: http://tinyurl.com/yalx9tx

This section, however, stood out the most to me:

For 60 years, the "Tonight Show" has aired immediately following the late local news. I sincerely believe that delaying the "Tonight Show" into the next day to accommodate another comedy program will seriously damage what I consider to be the greatest franchise in the history of broadcasting. The "Tonight Show" at 12:05 simply isn't the "Tonight Show." Also, if I accept this move I will be knocking the "Late Night" show, which I inherited from David Letterman and passed on to Jimmy Fallon, out of its long-held time slot. That would hurt the other NBC franchise that I love, and it would be unfair to Jimmy.

So it has come to this: I cannot express in words how much I enjoy hosting this program and what an enormous personal disappointment it is for me to consider losing it. My staff and I have worked unbelievably hard, and we are very proud of our contribution to the legacy of "The Tonight Show." But I cannot participate in what I honestly believe is its destruction. Some people will make the argument that with DVRs and the Internet, a time slot doesn't matter. But with the "Tonight Show," I believe nothing could matter more.

There is something endearing about Conan O'Brien. A typical bit on his show usual elicits a response that includes the words "What the" or "Why?", but far more often than not are those words found issuing out of Conan's mouth as part of his schtick. He is self-deprecating when a bit "doesn't work", he is "embarrassed" by characters like The Masturbating Bear, he is "dorky and clumsy" when he's around female guests, the list goes on. As part of the quality of his "character", he somehow rises above all the ridiculousness of his show like a kind of ringmaster of absurdity.

I put certain words above in quotes, because one would assume that the success of his show must be based upon these things being planned. But here's the thing: Conan O'Brien really is a classy guy. There is a playful innocence about him that is real and floats on top of the whole atmosphere of the show, finding its way into the things described above and more. Its also manifested in Conan's homage to broadcasting of the 1930s-40s-50s--The Golden Ages of radio and television. Look at his set. Look at his band. Look at some of his bits. You can even see it in the few episodes he wrote for The Simpsons in the early 90s where he references classic plots, themes, and elements (the musical-esque Monorail episode comes to mind.) The respect and recognition for those who came before him is obvious in its immensity as is his knowledge. There is a phrase we use in literary studies when we read a particularly effective, well-articulated article: There is a lot of reading behind this. What we mean is that even though an author may cite only ten to twelve sources, it is abundantly clear that he or she has read twenty, thirty, forty or more sources related to the sources used. It is very clear that the thought put into the overall production of Conan's show goes very deep. His unique contrast between Golden Age homage, playful innocence, and contemporary slapstick is something that I believe will never be duplicated again.

His classiness also pours forth from his letter. He would rather preserve the honor of "The Tonight Show" franchise, "Late Night", and Jimmy Fallon than become a pawn of NBC. Even if it means abandoning his childhood dream of being the host of "The Tonight Show." That is beyond noble, and very few in show business would have the bravery to do such a thing.

I'm going to be blunt about this: What NBC is doing to Conan O'Brien is wrong. Over five years ago, NBC announced that Conan would take over as host of "The Tonight Show" in 2009 and that Jay Leno would step down. Conan, as he mentions in his letter, spent countless hours preparing, moved his family, staff, their families from New York to Los Angeles, and after only seven months, NBC is pulling the plug. Leno experienced turbulence when he took over following Johnny Carson--an almost insurmountable feat, I might add. Even Conan is no stranger to this behavior by NBC. When he first took over "Late Night", NBC threatened to cancel him three years in a row--and not without reason since Conan had no real experience in front of a camera. But this time around, they have not given him even the time that Leno was allowed to get things in order.

From a Christian perspective, I can't help but re-evaluate how we think about show business. It's so easy for us to just say, "Well, that's how the business works." We know that's how it works. Conan obviously knows--he says in the beginning of the letter that no one should feel sorry for him, that if anything, he's been fortunate to have had the run that he did. But this incident has made very clear to me that NBC only cares about money. They care nothing for the people that work for them. And I don't think that's too harsh. If they were concerned about people, they would have given Conan more time or come up with a different solution--does NBC really think that Jay Leno's ratings are going to improve simply because he comes on at 11:35pm instead of 10:00pm? Please.

I know that NBC is not going to change its mind. They need to make money in order to keep making programming. Its not just the nature of the business; its the nature of capitalism. I guess that's why I'm a Christian and not a capitalist.

No matter what though, Conan still has his sense of humor, even in a serious situation. He ends his letter with this:

"Have a great day and, for the record, I am truly sorry about my hair; it's always been that way."

We know it has, Conan. You have nothing to apologize for.

If you are interested in supporting Conan, you can visit http://www.imwithcoco.com and follow @teamconan on Twitter.

We Need to Learn to Let Go and Let the Old Die.

2010-01-22T17:30:52-06:00

The other week I ventured to the pub with some friends from Greek after class to celebrate our successes in the Fall quarter as well as the start of the new one. We talked about what we did over the holidays, and one friend mentioned that his church spent New Year's Eve on Colorado Blvd. (the parade route for The Rose Parade for those of you not from around here) handing out hot drinks to people on the street. They didn't say anything to anyone other than asking who wanted some coffee, hot chocolate, or tea. If people happened to ask who they were with, they mentioned the name of their church. That was it.

He made a remark about the various people holding signs reading "REPENT OR BURN--JESUS SAVES", "FOR ALL HAVE SINNED", or "GOD HATES FAGS". I asked him if they offered those people anything, and he said they didn't.

That got me thinking. Why shouldn't we minister to the people who carry those signs? Obviously such a thing can get a little dicey, but I'm not talking about questioning whether or not they're saved or anything like that. Just whether or not they truly understand the grace of Jesus. Scaring people into conversion is not what Jesus called us to do when he gave The Great Commission. In Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus says to his disciples, "Teach [the nations] all that I have commanded you." I don't remember Jesus commanding us to do what that these people do.

What it seems to boil down to for them is righteousness. A person holding a sign like any of the ones above is saying to me, "I know righteousness because I believe in Jesus. I can show you the way to righteousness." There's a lot about this attitude that reminds me of the Pharisees rather than Jesus. Jesus blesses those who are persecuted in the name of righteousness (Matt. 5:10). But this attitude seems to be extremely pervasive, or at the very least, is the picture of Christians that most non-Christians have thanks to the media attention that fundamentalists draw to themselves.

I think this attitude is symptomatic of the way church exists currently in America. As I began discussing in my very first post, we're extremely Modern in our thinking--meaning we don't just believe we have the absolute truth, we somehow claim to know we have it. Now, I'm not saying that we don't. Certainly, as a Christian, I affirm that Jesus is my Lord and Savior, but my knowledge of this is not set upon anything that I would consider to be an absolute foundation. This is a point that will probably need much more discussion, but what it boils down to is I don't believe it is possible for us to know anything objectively, which means that even our reading of the Bible is based upon subjective interpretation, even if we believe the Bible to be the absolute Truth and Word of God. Part of having faith is never knowing absolutely in a philosophical sense.

Letting go of absolute certainty is extremely difficult for Christians. It's something that I had to come to terms with a few years ago as I immersed myself in the work of Jacques Derrida. I sat in Nancey Murphy's Philosophy of Religion course last quarter, which advocated a holistic approach to our knowledge systems and listened to students bravely try and defend the position of foundationalist epistemology and the ability to encounter absolute certainty. It is an impossible position to defend.

When will we decide that we have had enough of the "righteous" representing to the world who Christians are? These people need to experience the love, grace, and forgiveness of Jesus just as much as a non-Christian does, and in many cases more so. Learning to let go and let the old die does not just apply to our old lives before Christ. It can also apply to the way we conceive of The Church, if that way is not enabling us to live the way Jesus is calling us. I want to see The Church change in this direction. I want to see it freed from self-righteousness. I want to see The Church unbound.

Pasadena Food Guide Part 1: Burgers and Sandwiches

2010-02-20T01:21:42-06:00

I've been meaning to do a post like this for a while. Being the only native SoCal-er blogging, I feel like I should probably expose some of the secret places (some not so secret) in the Pasadena area for those of you wondering if the food out here is any good. I can tell you right now: It is.

This post will cover the two most basic needs--burgers and sandwiches. There is a myriad of locations ranging from the super cheap to the fairly pricey. I'm going to be hitting the highlights. I'll include a price scale ($ - $$$$) with each location.

1. The Counter: Pasadena, Santa Monica, Irvine $$$$

140 Shoppers Lane, Pasadena

www.thecounterburger.com

The Counter offers one of the best burger experiences ever. Essentially, it's a burger bar. You sit down with an ordering form and pencil, choose from a 1/3 lb, 2/3 lb, or full 1 lb burger, one of twelve different cheeses including Gruyère, Brie, Provolone, etc., four of twenty toppings including roasted red peppers, corn & black bean salsa, coleslaw, dried cranberries, etc., any number of premium toppings for $1 each including a fried egg, sauteed mushrooms, honey cured bacon, avocado, etc., and one of 21 sauces including wing sauce, classic BBQ, garlic aioli, basil pesto, or my personal favorite, ginger soy glaze. The best part is that every experience can be completely different. You can utilize all four free toppings or none of them. You can get your burger in a bowl on a bed of lettuce instead of on a bun. You can get a chicken breast, veggie or turkey burger instead of a normal beef patty.

The atmosphere is that of a casual diner. They also serve fries, onion strings, sweet potato fries, shakes, malts, and a selection of beer and wine. Burger prices start at $8.50 and are served a la carte, so you do the math. It's well worth it though.

2. Pasadena Sandwich Company: Pasadena, $$

259 Sierra Madre Villa Avenue, Pasadena

www.pasadenasandwichcompany.com

Certainly one of the all time best kept secrets in Pasadena. This is an old skool deli that makes some of the BIGGEST sandwiches anywhere. Seriously, if you're a light eater, this will be a two part meal. The meats are cured daily and cut fresh to order. One of the unique things about this place is their "Trust the Cook" special. Order it, make sure to let the server know if there's anything you don't want on there (sprouts, mustard, etc.) and you will get a massive creation put together off the top of the head of whoever is the cook that day. The only thing here I'm not a huge fan of are the dips, since they tend to slice their meat a little thicker than most other places.

One thing to keep in mind with this place is that the hours are sort of weird. The website (which is just a copy of the menu) is slightly out of date in terms of hours and prices. They are definitely open every day except Sunday around noon, but if you want to know the exact hours, you'll have to go in. All the prices are about $1.25 more than what is listed on the website.

3. Tops Burgers: Pasadena, $$

1792 E. Walnut St., Pasadena; 3838 E. Colorado Blvd., Pasadena

www.topsburger.com ; www.theoriginaltops.com

There's something fairly unique about Southern California in that there are literally thousands of small, hole-in-the-wall burger joints. But with so many to choose from, it's hard to know which ones are worth it. Now, I think it's fairly safe to say that most of them are not going to be awful. But you want to go to a place that's a step above all the others. Some just do burgers, some burgers and pastrami, some burgers and chili, some burgers and Mexican food--Tops does all of the above. Not only that, but I feel that the burgers and sandwiches at Tops are actually a little bit bigger than other places. Their fries are also different than the typical burger stand (which usually serves a steak fry-type cut)--Tops serves more of a shoe string cut. If you go, take someone with you because you'll be doing a lot of sharing. The small fries is more than enough for two people to share. The chili fries will take at least four to put down if you're doing burgers also. One of my favorite things to get is called the Tops Special. It's a cheese burger with a hefty amount of pastrami placed neatly on top. Not for the faint of heart.

Now, an interesting thing to note about Tops--notice that each location has its own website. That's because technically, they're different restaurants with different owners. In fact there are two more "Tops" locations just with different names: Everest Burger (2314 Lake Ave, Altadena) and T-Burgers (226 W. Foothill Blvd., Monrovia). Everest actually used to be called Tops Jr. about 12 years ago. Not sure what the story is with all of them, BUT if you find yourself up in Altadena or out in Monrovia and you're looking for a good place for lunch, now you know you can get Tops! The other cool thing is that even though the core menus are exactly the same (same fries, chili, pastrami, etc.) there are slight differences between them. For example, the Tops on Allen retains the standard, original Tops menu while the one on Colorado has many additional items such as sweet potato fries, Kobe beef dip sandwiches, and some additional Mexican specialties. Also, Everest Burger offers a ridiculous concoction called "Game Time": Chili cheese fries with a steaming heap of pastrami thrown on top.

4. Philippe's Original French Dip: Los Angeles $$

1001 N. Alameda St., Los Angeles

www.philippes.com

I'm sure everyone has heard of the French Dip sandwich. But do you know where it was invented? The legend is that a police officer came into Philippe's in 1918, and the founder Philippe Mathieu accidentally dropped the french roll for the sandwich into the roasting pan. The officer took the sandwich anyway and came back the next day with friends asking for dipped sandwiches. The name French comes either from Philippe Mathieu's French heritage or because the officer's name was allegedly French. Not even the current owners know the answer.

If you don't mind waiting in line for 30 minutes or more to get a taste of history, then it's well worth the trip over to Philippe's. Not to mention that the sandwiches are stellar and really not that pricey compared to other places. On top of making a great dip, they also make their own mustard which is incredible.

5. In-n-Out: Everywhere $

www.in-n-out.com

Yeah, I know it's a SoCal cliché to many, but to me, it's an institution. Here's the bottom line: If you're looking to get a cheap burger, why would you go anywhere else? Is it the absolute best burger in the world? No, but there is something extremely memorable about the taste of an In-n-Out burger, fries, and a Coke. Yes, even their Coke tastes better. Something to know about In-n-Out is that each location really has its own character, and some really are better than others or at least more consistent. My favorite is the one in Arcadia (corner of Santa Anita Ave., and Colorado Blvd.) but it only has outdoor seating. The In-n-Out in Glendale (310 N. Harvey Dr.) and Alhambra (1210 N. Atlantic Blvd.) are the closest ones to Fuller with indoor seating. If you've yet to have In-n-Out yet, it is a must for the full So Cal experience.

Another thing to know about In-n-Out is that even though their menu really only has four main food items, it doesn't end there. I'm sure most people are familiar with ordering "animal style" (grilled onions, extra spread, pickles, and a beef patty cooked in mustard), but there are other things too (most listed on their website now.) Some things still not on the website: Animal style fries (slices of melting cheese, grilled onions, and spread placed on top), any burger with fried mustard (know that this automatically adds pickles to your burger). You can also get anything, fries or burger, with grill scrapings. Yeah, they'll take those scrapies and through them right on top. Not my thing, but if you're into it, they'll do it.

This is but the very surface of the wealth of options available. I'm sure some locals have read this and thought of twenty more places. Believe me, I wish I had time to write about every great burger place in So Cal, but I don't. Instead, I'll just list a few more great ones, and you can discover them on your own!

The Hat (www.thehat.com) $$

Tommy's (www.originaltommys.com) $

Connal's (www.connals.com) $$

Wolfe Burger (www.wolfeburger.com) $$

Pie 'n Burger (www.pienburger.com) $$

Light Shines Bright All Around Me

2010-03-29T17:26:35-05:00

This was a really difficult entry to write, but it needed to be written perhaps for some selfish reasons, but also because it gives me a great opportunity to talk about the amazing community I've experienced at Fuller. As one of the pastors at my church has told me: This is my story to tell. And I want to share it.

About three weeks into the Winter quarter, my wife made the decision to separate from me. By the end of February, I was living with two friends in an apartment in Pasadena. A week later, we made the decision to divorce. Today I signed the paperwork making it official. It suffices to say that the Winter quarter was extremely difficult for me.

This event had me very conflicted. On one hand, I'd really been enjoying my experience at Fuller and have felt strongly that it is the place I'm supposed to be right now. I've also had people at my church sharing with me how I've been an answer to prayer and how God certainly brought me to Pasadena Covenant and Fuller for a reason. It must be part of God's great plan for me.

God's plan. That was so painful and difficult to hear from these people whom I was ministering to. I struggled with understanding how this was part of God's plan. How could God bring me to California, and surround me with people who love me and are lifting me up and counting on me, to feel as though I was finally on the right track in terms of what I want to do with my life, only to have my marriage come crashing down around me?

But I know the answer now. And the community at Fuller has helped me to see it. It was sort of unavoidable mentioning the situation to people unless I wanted to flat out lie to them. Which I didn't. It came up a few times in casual conversation--a "How's your wife?" or "What'd you guys do for Valentines Day?"--and I decided that these were not people I wanted to hide anything from. My Greek class takes prayer requests every class meeting, and I thought that this was definitely something I needed to bring to God in prayer. Any marital issues I'd had in the past were never brought to light--ever, which is probably the case for most people. But I felt God telling me that there was only one way to begin to find healing: To lean on the strength of others in my community. There was certainly sadness among my classmates, as there is when I tell anyone what has happened, but in those first few weeks, I also sensed God's love radiating from them in the power of their prayer for me as well as their friendship. The friends I've made at Fuller have been amazing to me.

Despite this, things were pretty dark for a while. The burden of having to explain things to people weighed heavily on me. The feeling that for a while at least I'm going to have the stigma of the "divorced" label attached to me hurt as well. I never thought that I would be in this situation. Ever. I wasn't sure what to do with all that.

It's clear to me now, although it's still very painful to accept. I think that through this I've seen I could never be the person God wanted me to become married to the person I was married to. I loved her and still do, but I know that I would not have been able to answer God's call to the extent I feel he is calling me. Our marriage was not God centered, and I see now that whatever relationship and hopefully marriage I have in the future, it must have God at the center. I keep coming back to verses like at the end of Luke 9:

He said to another man, "Follow me." But the man replied, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God." Still another said, "I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say goodbye to my family." Jesus replied, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.

Maybe that sounds harsh. I think it probably is. The problem though is that for so long I told myself that I could change my wife's mind about ministry, about God, about who Jesus is, but I was wrong. For the ten years I've known her, I've been wrong. And I see now that that is the case. The amazing thing is that I always thought coming to this conclusion would be crushing, would send me into a darkness that I would never return from. But just the opposite has happened. Instead, despite the pain I still feel, I am filled with light. The road ahead is lit up like it never has been before. I am surrounded by light. By family, friends I've known for years, new friends at Fuller, and at the church where I work.

I'd like to share a song. I tend not to do this very often in blog formats because it's hard to get the same sense of the song that I am right now, but it's too important to me not to. In working in youth ministry, I've been trying to keep up with some of the latest Christian music. Run Kid Run's last album Love at the Core, though not that typical of what I usually listen to, has reminded me that God is still with me, that He is the light in the others around me. The funny thing is that I'm not even sure what I've written below are the actual lyrics. It's just what I've been hearing. But I think that's more important than what the actual words are:

Rescue Me

Light surrounds me to bring forth new reckoning. It was Your love that rescued me. You rescue. Light shines bright all around me. Love like rain washes over me, and it's falling on the ones in need, and I'm calling. Sure enough time, time, time lost its value. It might take a while to break through. I've got a failure condition, a motivation that speaks love. This is my new disposition: You discover me and I discover You. As I take the fall, I find You and discover that I've lost it all with no hope to recover... Light shines bright all around me. In the making You see what I can be. A revelation, new creation carries me. Time, time, time gets the best of us. We never follow heart and we've had enough. I've got a failure condition, a motivation to speak slow. This is my new disposition: You discover me and I discover You. As I take the fall, I find You and discover that I've lost it all with no hope to recover on my own. I find you, and I know it was Your love that rescued me. You rescue me. As I take the fall, catch me. As I take the fall, I find You. Light shines bright all around me. Light shines bright; You surround me. Light shines bright.

You can listen here if you want: http://www.last.fm/music/Run+Kid+Run/_/Rescue+Me

I find You and discover that I've lost it all with no hope to recover on my own--that sums up exactly what has happened to me over the last few weeks. I feel as though I've lost the most important thing in my life, and that was the problem. God was not first. God was not at the center. God is giving me the opportunity to turn things around now and become exactly who He wants me to become, and I know He'll bring me through this.

Interpret Together or Be Confused Alone: The Lost Series Finale

2010-05-28T01:07:58-05:00

I've been away from blogging for a couple months due to the intensity of the Spring quarter, but now that things are winding down, I'm finding time to contemplate some really important issues--like the series finale of Lost.

If you're still trying to catch up on the show, you may not want to read this.

If you're of the opinion that books are just books, movies just movies, etc.--that these things are purely for entertainment and nothing else--the following may make you angry or at least greatly annoyed. Just sayin'.

I've been following the show since the beginning of the second season, buying the first season on DVD and catching up that way, so wondering how the writers of the show would end everything has been on my mind for the last few years. Let me begin by saying that many things about the finale were not surprising to me--especially the fact that it seems as though half of the viewing population is content, even moved while the other half is outraged and probably organizing an angry mob as we speak to hunt down J.J. Abrams (who, by the way, has had nothing to do with the show since the second season.) My two roommates, for instance, were quite displeased, citing the lack of answers provided about the mythology of the island: What was with the light? What is the four-toed statue? What's the origin of Allison Janney's character? And what about the myriad of questions left unanswered from the start of the series? No birth on the island, the Others wanting Walt, and on and on and on forever.

Let me suggest that perhaps it is the nature of the show to leave many of the larger questions unanswered. Yes, we can obviously recognize the practical reasons for unanswered questions--the writers simply did not have the time to come up with answers for them or decided to depart from certain story lines; however, since I'm trained as a scholar of literature, particularly postmodern literature and critical theory, I'm of the opinion that the author is "dead" in works of fiction (see Wimsatt and Beardsley "The Intentional Fallacy", Roland Barthes "The Death of the Author", Michel Focault "What is an Author?".) That is, the circumstances surrounding the life of the author and the literal creation of a piece of fiction have little or no bearing upon a useful interpretation of the text--keep in mind, I'm not talking about the "right" interpretation. I don't believe in that either. All I'm saying is that maybe Herman Melville had a nasty run-in with a large sea mammal when he was a kid, but that doesn't stop Moby Dick from being some kind of metaphor for the empty things that people spend their whole lives pursuing that eventually lead to their untimely demise.

Before I go any further, let's first divide up the last season into its two parts so we can avoid confusion. To me, the "flash sideways" utilized in the final season that turns out to be the characters in some kind of purgatory after their death was a complete non sequitur. Ultimately, it existed so that viewers could maybe feel more comfortable with not only Jack's death but the fact that so many concrete questions about the island are left unanswered. It existed solely for closure for the sake of the viewer and nothing more. Had that not been included, the main plot of the story would have been unaffected because, contrary to what some have interpreted, the characters are not dead the whole time, nor are they dead after the bomb explodes at the end of the fifth season. They are alive and well throughout the entire series with the exception of the flashes to purgatory which take place at some unspecified time in the future after everyone is dead. So I think that we can ignore those flashes completely in assessing the series as a whole.

What I mean when I say that the nature of the show is to leave questions unanswered is that the story, especially toward the end of the series sets up "Good" and "Evil" to exist in a constant slippage of meaning, a moment of differánce to use Jacques Derrida's terminology. I want to examine good and evil within the show in a couple different senses: Otherness and the conflict between Jacob and his brother, The Man in Black (T-MiB from now on.) The Other (in a post-colonial sense) is a major part of the story throughout the entire series. All of the mystery generated on the island comes from Otherness--a conflict between native and non-native. And Otherness on the island is slowly peeled apart like the layers of an onion until we reach--nothing but more Otherness. Throughout the first season, the survivors come to discover that there are other people on the island, "The Others" and also what turns out to be Danielle, another castaway. Slowly, as the story unfolds, those who are seen initially as "Other" become assimilated. First there is Danielle, who, while still sort of a rogue, becomes an aid to the survivors as she herself is also a castaway. In the second season, we are led to believe, briefly, that the survivors from the tail section of the plane are "The Others"--there is even an episode where, at the end, Jin calls out to Sawyer in broken English as they come up on the beach "Others! Others!" and we see who later turns out to be Mr. Eko. These people who we sensed as Other initially are revealed to be the same as our survivors all along. Finally, we are introduced to the actual group known as "The Others." Ben Linus and his group are shrouded in mystery for perhaps two full seasons. But once the end of the third and the beginning of the fourth season begin to unfold, we realize that many of The Others are not from the island: Juliette, Tom, Ethan, etc. Ben himself is in fact not an original member of this group. There are people more Other than he is. Richard Alpert has seemingly been on the island for some indeterminate amount of time--far, far longer than Ben has. Ben becomes a sort of Kurtz-like character (Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness") as a clear outsider who has assumed power but in the fourth and fifth seasons finds himself ousted for John Locke. Ben differs from other characters in his ruthlessness and his knowledge of the island, but we eventually learn that the range of that knowledge is very limited. The things that mark him as different, as Other, begin to fade away.

In the final season, we learn that even Richard Alpert is not fully Other--not completely unlike our group of survivors. He too was a castaway, brought to the island not of his own choice. He really does not understand what is happening on the island any better than Jack or Hurley do by the final episodes of the series. None of these characters are native--that is none fully understand the island. It seems then that the only characters who can fulfill this possibility are Jacob and T-MiB. Certainly, they are native in the sense that they were born on the island. Their adoptive mother is perhaps fully Other, but there is no way to know for certain since we don't know how she got there. Given the pattern of the show, however, I would venture to guess that her origin story is maybe not unlike Richard's.

Let's diverge from this for a moment to focus on Jacob and T-MiB. On the most superficial level, it seems as though they represent some kind of cosmic conflict between good and evil. From the first time we meet these characters, Jacob is in white, T-MiB in, well... Even at their birth, their adoptive mother places them in theses colors, somehow "destining" them to be "good" and "evil." But I question how good or evil either character really is. Consider their adoptive mother. She murders their real mother immediately after their birth. She proceeds to bring them up under the false belief that the island is all there is in the world. Yet she seems to be doing it out of pure motives--to protect the light (whatever it is) at the center of the island. It is really difficult for us to place a binary label on her without more information--something we never get. Similarly, T-MiB, once he discovers his mother's lie, wants nothing more than to escape the island to seek out who he really is and where he really came from. His adoptive mother destroys everything he had built--the relationships with the other people on the island. When he kills her, one could make the argument that it was because he was "becoming evil", but again, I'm not so sure that's an easy argument to make since it's not clear that his adoptive mother was purely good. Even once he becomes the smoke monster, it is difficult to say that he is pure evil. Yes, he's killing people, but we don't know to what ultimate end. If we say it's so he can get off the island and wreak havok upon the earth, we really don't have any basis for that claim. All he ever says he wants to do is find out who he really is. Then there's Jacob. He blindly follows his adoptive mother's commands, who begins her time on screen with the murder of his innocent, real mother, he kills his own brother, who we're not sure was purely evil, therefore we can't be sure if Jacob is purely good. He seems to rule over "The Others" through fear: Remember the episode where Alex's boyfriend tries to escape, and Ben locks him in a projector room forcing him to be brainwashed with a film where Jacob's name keeps popping up a la A Clockwork Orange? Through these three characters we can see how impossible it is to center meaning for the terms good and evil, even though the narrative both textual and visual seems to be trying to tell us that those binary oppositions exist and are clearly defined. Furthermore, we still have trouble calling any of these characters fully Other because we come to realize that none of them really know exactly what is happening. There always seems to be something more than what they tell us, yet I never got the impression that, say Jacob for instance, actually knew much more than he was telling us. He always seemed to be repeating back the story that his adoptive mother had told him and nothing more.

Then there's the light. The story of Jacob and his "family" is based upon some kind of unknown mythology regarding this light and its protection. But for what purpose? We really don't know that the adoptive mother's motives were pure. Maybe, since it's the source of "immortality"--some kind of fountain of youth--she wanted to keep it all to herself. Control over the island as a means to control vast power is certainly another theme played out through the conflict between Ben and Charles Whitmore. That conflict seems to be nothing more than two grown men acting like children in a game of King of the Hill. Jacob doesn't seem to be able to give us or anyone else any better answer than the one he gives Richard: The island is the cork that keeps evil from entering the world. We know from the final episode that he was not in fact referring to T-MiB. It's some kind of ubiquitous malevolence. Will it destroy the world? Maybe. Maybe just the island? Who knows? And is it really all that important? I'm not sure that understanding the mythology of the island would give us any satisfying answer about what's really going on or give us any further insight into any of the characters. Mythology is a fascinating form of storytelling primarily in that it has no discernible origin. It is transcultural, ubiquitous. That means that whatever story that could have been given to us regarding the island would not have been the concrete story we were looking for--and if it had been concrete, a story with origin, it would have no longer been myth and thus all the mystery generated in the show would have been sucked out in a single moment of vacuous solidification of the fluidity of the myth of the island. I'm not sure it would have provided any satisfaction at all. I think the mystery of the island, the mystery of its mythic history was given to us in the second season. There's a moment toward the end of that season where Locke allows the timer in the hatch to run down. I don't remember all the details, but he is knocked to the ground, the lights go out, black lights come on and a map of what is arguably the island and the other hatch locations is revealed. In the center of the island is a giant question mark, suggesting (in hindsight) that the members of the Dharma initiative were perhaps aware that the island harbored a secret at its heart, but were clueless regarding what it actually was. That question mark remains and was perhaps intended to remain from that point.

If we now return to the theme of Otherness that is played out in the series, we see that really the only Other left at the end is the island itself. No one could claim ownership of it--no one could be of it, could be native, not-Other. It is singular and thus not understandable, not explainable. If I may be able to take some scholarly liberties, I would say, regrettably without any detailed explanation, that we could make a move from post-colonial Otherness at this point to Hegelian or even Lacanian Otherness. That is, to put it in extremely general terms, the island represents a certain piece of us reflected in something outside of ourselves either in other people, God, etc. that we will never ever understand. I could probably spend ten pages explaining this further, but I'll spare everyone that pain and continue on to the implications of this move.

If we view the island in this light, then it is much easier to see that ultimately Lost is a story about people, not the mythology of an island, which is perhaps one of the primary motivations for bringing everyone together in purgatory--the events on the island changed these people profoundly. Outside of their development, Lost is a story about doing things and engaging fully in events we just don't understand. There are some serious theological implications here. I'm not trying to say that the show was some kind of existential exercise. Had it been existential, we would be able to definitively say that all the larger events on the island (the light, Jacob, T-MiB, etc.) were completely meaningless. Yet we know that there was some sort of greater, teleological importance outside of the castaways--we just don't know what that was. Rather, it seems to be about playing a part in a larger drama which we don't completely understand. Watching Jack somehow step up and sacrifice himself even more than he had throughout the entire series resonated with me. I think I see those actions as going beyond what he had accomplished previously because there came a moment in the penultimate episode, right at the end, where Jack accepts the immense responsibility of taking Jacob's place, of agreeing to kill T-MiB, for once without wanting answers. He is finally at peace with realizing that he is never going to know what was really happening. Upon reflection, I think that somehow gave me peace about not knowing as well.

Impossible Hospitality

2010-08-23T21:43:01-05:00

I took quite a long hiatus from blogging with all the summer activities I've been involved in. But I'm back, better than ever, and--just kidding.

Lots was going on this summer, from vacations with family to taking two summer intensives back-to-back to many, MANY beach trips and pool parties with the youth group. I'll take a couple posts to reflect on what has turned out to be one of the busiest yet also one of the best summers of my life.

Just one week ago, I was waiting in an airport in Guayaquil, Ecuador for a flight to take me and the 19-person team I was leading back to the United States. We spent a week serving in a small suburb of Guayaquil called Guasmo Sur at Iglesia Evangelica Vida Eterna and Esquela Telmo Maquina, a school founded by the church, teaching science experiments and music, as well as working on a small construction project. This was my first time leading a mission team, and it was a heart-warming, inspirational, and God-led experience. We worked with Merge Ministries (covmerge.org), and they were incredible facilitators and great people to be around all week.

From the beginning of the trip, I felt God telling me strongly, "I'm in control." When we arrived in Guayaquil at 12am two weeks ago, we discovered that our luggage did not make the trip with us from Bogota. We were without it for two days. Not only were we without a clean clothes, but half the materials for our science experiments had been packed in our luggage. I knew that God had a different plan for us. The majority of the team really sensed that too, and rather than spending two days complaining about the frustration of planning these experiments for two months only to not be able to follow through with the first day's plan, they remained flexible and willing to serve in whatever capacity they could.

It was clear to us after the first day that God did not bring us down to Guasmo Sur to just teach science and music. He brought us down there to forge relationships with kids and families who seemingly had nothing in common with us. As we spent the first day just hanging out with the kids, attempting to communicate as best we could, I was reminded of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's words in Life Together where he insists that the only common bond a community in Christ needs is Jesus Christ himself. Our faith in Christ tied us together. We didn't need anything else.

On our third night there, we were invited into families' homes to share a meal. It was incredible to be welcomed so warmly by people whom we had just barely met. I couldn't help but wonder if people in our congregation back home would be so trusting, so readily hospitable. It was closer to the impossible hospitality that Jesus speaks of than anything I've ever encountered. A hospitality that transcends anxiety and fear. A hospitality that readily invites in potential enemies.

Even though they spoke no English, and we spoke hardly any Spanish, we were still able to communicate and have a conversation. It was amazing to see God moving throughout the entire week to break down the language barrier and show us what we were capable of through His Spirit. While at dinner, my host asked me when we were leaving, and followed that question up by asking when we would be back. That convicted me deeply. So often short term missions teams will travel to different locations every year, rarely returning to a place that they'd been in previous years. In the case of my church, the youth group did missions abroad only every three years. I knew then that we had to come back next year.

And that's our plan. As the week went on, relationships continued to be forged. We attended two of their church services and were welcomed in just as warmly as we had been all week. I know the students as well as the adults on the team took away quite a bit from the trip and are anxious to be able to go back next year.

I think this is the start of something big for this church.

Whose Authority?

2010-10-18T11:05:52-05:00

It took me a while to get this post written. I think part of the issue was that I wanted to make sure it wasn't just a rant. My thoughts needed time to marinate. A few people recently have posted some of their own thoughts on deconstruction, God's will, Fuller's position on inerrancy, etc. This post will probably touch on all of these things in an indirect way.

This summer, I had the opportunity to take New Testament 1 (Gospels) with Craig Evans, a visiting scholar and professor from Acadia Divinity College in Nova Scotia. Dr. Evans is, as I understand him, a renowned scholar who speaks all over the world about issues regarding the historical documents that comprise our New Testament, their authenticity, their priority, their importance, etc. During the course of lectures in the first week, Dr. Evans touched on a number of approaches to hermeneutics which included redaction criticism, literary criticism methods, as well as just "opening the book and reading." Since the vast majority of the class was focused on the texts that comprise the New Testament, their authenticity, the controversies surrounding them, etc., it was clear that Dr. Evans felt that redaction criticism was the best approach.

This was confirmed when he told us the purpose of redaction criticism was to attempt to come to the author's original intentions and that other forms of criticism, particularly those of the literary variety, relied too heavily upon interpretation.

Stop.

As someone coming from the field of literature, I have some issues with this, especially when it comes to the Bible. Leaving Dr. Evans out of it from here on in (since he really was a very nice guy), I'd like to make a few comments on "authorial intention." This was not the first time I had encountered this phrase being used at Fuller as sort of the ultimate goal or endgame for Biblical Studies. I've had quite a number of conversations with other students who say that if we can't rely on the Bible as our ultimate authority, our go-to, and if we can't come to understand what authors originally intended, or at least come close, then how can we be sure about anything in our faith?

There are, in my mind, a number of contradictory words in that statement. We need to break this down in order to understand it better, but I'd like to preface that by mentioning that there will certainly be assumptions made below and things left unexplained.

Can We Know an Author's Original Intentions?

Communications 101: Speaker-->{{NOISE}}-->Listener

What this picture represents is something that is actually far more complicated than it seems at first glance. What it tells us is that in every communication, written or otherwise, something is interpreted. In more philosophical terms, when we hear someone speak, or read something someone has written, we are encountering the Other, someone not Self, and unfortunately we can never put ourselves in the place of the Other because to do so would be to make that Other into Self. Everything we encounter is interpreted, or, to put it in the (in)famous words of Jacques Derrida, "There is nothing outside the text"--meaning there is not a single thing we encounter or know that can somehow be known, described, etc. outside of language. I'll say it again--everything is interpreted. Sometimes, those interpretations happen so quickly, so intuitively, that we don't ever think of them as interpretations at all. They're automatic. If I say, to use a good friend's example for this problem, "A cat ran across the street," you would have a picture of what I meant by that. However, you wouldn't necessarily picture exactly what I had seen. In fact, without more information, chances are you wouldn't--especially if by cat, I meant a lion. Of course, once you have that information, you have an easier time picturing it. With all the information, there is no misunderstanding on a general level. I don't need to describe the lion exactly, hair for hair, though that would bring the listener closer to what I had actually seen. And therein lies the problem. Even if one were standing right next to me, witnessing the events, one might have a different interpretation of the events. We're two different people. We're going to see things differently, and even if those differences are slight, even imperceptible, they're still there. They will never have identity, and it is those differences that create the necessity for interpretation.

A Multitude of Interpretations

This absolutely applies to all texts, particularly when an author is deceased, but even when an author isn't. For example, an author could say in an interview that he or she intended a certain message in a text he or she wrote. However, what if you read that text, saw what the author intended as stated in the interview, but also saw another message, another theme, perhaps unintended? Is that not a valid interpretation? Think about what a story is in the first place. All the very best novels convey some sort of subtextual message, theme, etc. that is never explicitly stated in the story (only the bad ones do that.) So if we take that text autonomously--which for now we'll take as a given, though the autonomous nature of the text certainly could be debated--then the author is actually placing his or her own interpretation on the text. The author can justify the interpretation using textual elements from the story, perhaps contextual elements from the author's time period or life. Another interpretation, different or even contradictory to the author's may also be able to be justified using the exact same tools. This is why literary studies exists at all--and this is why Biblical studies exists. If we had discovered the "correct" interpretation of Milton's Paradise Lost, Faulkner's As I Lay Dying, or Shakespeare's The Tempest, English departments across the country would consist merely of fact checkers, trained to scientifically hash out the correct meaning of texts. The thought of such a thing should be ridiculous to us (or at least to me and my friends in literature departments across the country.) There are literally thousands of essays written on just one of any of Shakespeare's plays, each offering a different, nuanced way of reading them. But this idea of hashing through the facts to get at the "actual" meaning, the one true meaning, of Biblical texts is not ridiculous at all to some. In fact, this is the purpose of Biblical studies in the minds of some.

Do We Need Authorial Intention to Speak with Authority?

Setting aside whether or not knowing an author's intentions are possible or whether they equal the "correct" interpretation, I'd like to suggest that the term "authorial intention" does not add any authority to the reading of a text. Let's return to my statement about the cat. Some would say that my original intent, whether that be to give a warning about an escaped lion or to inform someone about a lost house cat, is communicated once all the details are given to a satisfactory extent. The question, however, becomes this: In order for us to say we understand a statement, do we need the phrase, "The author's/speaker's intent is..." in order to say that our understanding is correct, best, authoritative? I say no. We can decide the purpose of the statement without knowing exactly what my intentions are given other context. Here's an example from the Bible: Mark's gospel begins, "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Of particular interest in framing the text is the use of the phrase "the Son of God." If we know anything about the history of the 1st century Near East, we know that it was under Roman imperial control. We know that the Roman Imperial Cult, the Roman religious order of the day, held that Caesar was the one true Son of God, and it required that all people citizen or not of the Roman Empire had to worship Caesar accordingly. We can then deduce that this text, because it was widely circulated, probably caused a political and social disturbance in the parts of the empire where it was circulated. Was it Mark's intention to undermine the Imperial Cult? Probably. But does saying that it is add anything to our deduction that it most likely did undermine it? I would say no. What if we discovered, somehow, that this was not Mark's intention? Would we suddenly say the statement that Jesus, not Caesar, is the Son of God did not undermine the Imperial Cult? I don't think we would. We would perhaps call it an unintended consequence of that statement. Isn't that familiar to us? Aren't unintended consequences of communication a regular occurrence? In those cases, the consequences usually outweigh intentions. We gain nothing in terms of "correctness" nor do we come any closer to the "best" or "actual" interpretation when we claim an interpretation is what the author intended a reader to understand. Instead, statements about authorial intention become plays for power and authority over the text.

Whose Authority?

I think all of this is driving at one particular point--the purpose of using authorial intention. Scholars past and present have tried to arrive objectively at authorial intention because they believe that if they can, they'll know the one true meaning of the text. In other words, it's about gaining authority over a text--to be the one to disseminate the "Truth" of a text to others. The problem, as I see it, is that people who search for this and claim to find it, mistakenly see their interpretation as objective, authoritative truth, not realizing that it is another interpretation--and perhaps even a valid one! This maybe isn't a problem for a historian or someone in an empirical, secular field, but it should be a huge problem for Christians. Is the goal of Biblical studies to be able to lay claim to the authoritative reading of the text? What are we really saying when we claim that authority? I don't know about you, but I understand "the authoritative reading" to be the one that God would get upon reading the text. Are we really so bold as to claim that we can "see over God's shoulder" as Merold Westphal puts it? I think that's a dangerous game to play. It's what leads individuals and groups to metaphysical violence (rather violence over metaphysics) as I wrote about a few months ago (We Need to Learn to Let Go and Let the Old Die). In that post, I mention people who carry signs declaring the doom of sinners. Some of their protests (such as the ones put on Westboro Baptist Church) are really horrifying. Yet, they're acting on the belief that their understanding of the Biblical text is the understanding. They're attempting to disseminate that understanding. We can make excuses for them and say, well they obviously don't have the correct understanding. They're misguided. They haven't thought about it enough. They're not willing to look at the facts. All of that may be true, but the point is that their bottom line is their belief that they posses the author's true intentions, and all who oppose them will burn. Now, I don't want to make a direct comparison between peers at Fuller who think authorial intention is a worthwhile endeavor and the hate mongering perpetrated by the members of Westboro. I haven't encountered anyone at Fuller, student or professor, who hasn't wanted to discuss this issue or others when disagreements arise. I merely want to point out how easily the quest for or claim to authorial intention can slide into fundamentalism.

A Familiar Worldview

The source of the use of the intentional fallacy in Biblical studies is right in front of us. It's the same thing that fuels the fires of New Atheism, Young Earth creationists, and astrophysicists: Enlightenment science. Many Christians don't necessarily see this connection, but it's there. The basic, underlying assumption of the Enlightenment is that human beings have the capacity and capability to discover, either through scientific or philosophical inquiry, absolute truth. As Christians, we believe we have an idea of what that truth is. Notice I didn't use the word know. By the requirements of the scientific method, we don't know a lot of things. This is why so many Christians find it necessary to prove their faith through empirical means. We base what we believe upon the requirements of science. Science says we need empirical evidence to know something. We try to produce that through what many call pseudo-science, some real science, and examination and redaction of historical texts. These are tangibles that are supposed to point us in the right direction. But is it really necessary to "prove" the Bible is... what? True? Inspired by God? Many Christians aren't entirely sure what those terms mean. And if we do somehow prove these things empirically, then what? Do we somehow know any more about our infinite God than we already do now? Does the Bible become the core of our belief instead of God?

Letting Go

Let's look back at that first statement I paraphrased from those at Fuller with whom I've had this discussion and take apart two things. First, we should not rely on the Bible as an ultimate authority--God is our ultimate authority, and the Bible often times, but not all the time, helps us get to God. There are other ways we encounter God, his will, authority, etc. Second, we don't need to be sure in our faith the way a scientist is sure of gravity. When we attempt that, we put God in a box as the famed theologians of Five Iron Frenzy once said in a song. When we attempt that, we're not really operating in faith, or rather we're saying that faith is good enough for now, to hold us over until we can prove some things. It's possible to be sure in our faith without scientific proof. We need to let go of the idea that we have to "prove" the Bible. Trying to claim knowledge of authorial intention is part of that because it's an attempt to empirically describe meaning of the text. But as I've hopefully argued, there is no way to ever arrive at an author's actual intentions and even if there were, it wouldn't necessarily represent the authoritative interpretation. I could spend ten more pages arguing for why certain methods, deconstruction, new historicism, post-colonial cirticism, and others are worth using, but those methods can become just as falsely authoritative as authorial intention. I suppose then that the point is to recognize that we should not be trying to arrive at the reading of a text and instead recognize that a multitude of readings all contribute to a richer, fuller understanding of the text.

A Churchless Church

2010-11-02T15:53:08-05:00

A couple years ago, as I was beginning to think about the postmodern in relation to the Church, I had an interesting conversation with my parents about change. I had just finished reading James K.A. Smith’s Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism? in which he demonstrates how the thought of three French philosophers (Jacques Derrida, Jean-Fransçois Lyotard, and Michel Foucault) can be beneficial, even critical to the future of the church. At the end of book, Smith offers a picture of what the postmodern church could look like.

He imagines a place where, like other postmodern theologians such as Leonard Sweet have suggested, experience is the key element. Parishioners sit around circular tables adorned with candles, which provide the majority of the light in the room. A jazz fusion quartet plays a reworked, sometimes improvised medley of hymns and contemporary songs. A church leader, not necessarily a pastor, says some words of welcome followed by some scripture. Parishioners respond with anecdotes of their own experience. The worship team plays a U2 song. Someone stands at a table and reads some confessional poetry, something by Anne Sexton or Sylvia Plath. The atmosphere, the experience here is everything.

I’m not saying that this is what I think church should be. However, as conversations like the one Smith is engaged in move forward, those of us who are reaching forward trying to figure out what comes next need to be sensitive to the fact that some people may not feel ministered to at a church with candles, confessional poetry, and U2. We have to be okay with that. Not everyone is going to want to come along. However, it is equally important that those who would rather stay in their pews with their hymnal and pulpit be accepting of the reality that tastes and cultures change and some would like to change with them.

I was telling my parents about Smith’s book, how exciting it all seemed to me and my feeling that I was being called to ministry in order to help sort all of this out. After describing Smith’s vision of the postmodern church, my dad asked, “Why does anything need to change?”

To my father’s credit, he is much, much smarter than that statement sounds. Naturally, he is aware that cultures change over time. He can look back in history and see that his mega church in Lafyette, CO with its warehouse meeting space, lights, rock worship, and casually dressed church staff are not the same as church he grew up in or churches even fifty years ago. He would say the changes his church has made are good.

What he was referring to specifically was the idea that ecclesiology itself shouldn’t have to change. And it hasn’t. His church may have a full service coffee bar, a professional media production team, and a whole host of things that, say, the Puritans of New England did not or would have even possibly found blasphemous, but the core structure of churches in both those time periods has not changed. There is a preacher. There is a congregation. There are worship songs. Don’t those three things compose church services from the Middle Ages on into today? Smith’s point is merely that the teaching model that has existed for nearly two thousand years contains a basic assumption that the early church did not necessarily make: People need to be told by an authority what their faith is and how to live it out. That’s not to say that the church of Peter and Paul did not have authority figures. Clearly, throughout the epistles, Paul speaks with authority, rebuking, condemning, but also edifying those whom he is leading. That’s also not to say that anyone can have the privilege of disseminating knowledge authoritatively—the Bible is far too volatile to allow all to offer an authoritative opinion on its interpretation.

The issue is that authorities are humans, and as such, those they speak too need to have the opportunity to ask questions, to discuss, to respond in some way according to Smith. That’s what is missing from the model that we’ve used. We don’t seem to have any explicit information from Acts or any of the epistles about how parishioners were allowed to respond or if they were at all, other than the events of Pentecost perhaps. I don’t want to get into an exegesis of the text at this point. Rather, I’d like to focus on the fact that although churches had leaders in the first century, their gatherings were much more community-like than ours today. I say that we are not quite a community because, quite frankly, we have very few deep relationships at church. Ask yourself: How many people do I know really well at church? Sometimes even in our own small groups, which are designed to foster community, we can feel disconnected. These are the issues that Smith sees.

On the flip side, of course, there are plenty of people who are not merely complacent with the way church has been done, they're honestly filled by it. I work at a church (Pasadena Covenant) whose service is about as typical as it gets. And there isn't anything wrong with that. Worship styles may change, we sometimes have a variety of guest speakers from Fuller who may have different preaching styles or differing theologies, put at the core, that congregation is fed by singing songs and hymns and hearing someone, usually the lead pastor preach on Sunday. Will we ever move to a service with U2, candles, and Anne Sexton? Probably not in the foreseeable future.

What is fascinating to me is that although my parents’ church is emergent and casual, claiming to be more accepting and open than other churches, they still speak about how much better they are than other churches who would rather their attendees dress up and who insist on singing hymns and having choirs. They call them judgmental, strict, unloving, un-Christlike. Every time I’ve visited their church, one of the pastors has bragged about how great the church is because they’re different than traditional churches. But what’s wrong with the format of the traditional church if people are being fed? Should judgmental attitudes be addressed? Of course. The same, however, can be said about my parents’ church. The pendulum has just swung the other way. Anyone showing up in anything more dressy than jeans is going to feel uncomfortable. What if that person wants to dress up for church? What if they feel that is an essential part of how they worship and honor God? We can tell them they don’t need to do that to honor God, as my parents’ church does, but why? Shouldn’t Christians be fed however they feel they are best fed? If the answer from most emergent churches is “No,” then I wonder how much they’ve really changed. They still have an order of worship that includes singing songs and listening to an authority figure speak. They still retain the same judgment only it’s a resentment for those who originally judged them. Are rock worship, lights, set design, and video production enough to constitute a major paradigm shift in the way we think about and do church? Those things seem more like bells and whistles attached to the old model in order to make that model appeal to a different generation.

Don’t hear what I’m not saying. If a church with all those things appeals to you, then by all means, be filled by that church. But do not look at what others are doing to be filled, things that are Biblical and pleasing to God, and turn your nose up at it. That is wrong.

Let’s think about it in terms of outreach. Jesus’ instructions to his disciples were to make other disciples by proclaiming the gospel. He didn’t tell them in what venue that should take place, and he certainly did not stipulate that an institution very similar to the Jewish temple be the location where that happen—and I see emergent churches the same as traditional ones on this point. The institution of the Church was born out of necessity to get everyone on the same page. But Jesus doesn’t need a building called church. The Church is people (a body), not an institution—we’ve heard that a lot over the last twenty years. Why is it that it still has not gotten into the bloodstream of churches everywhere? More and more, we hear people saying that they don’t need church. They’re right! They don’t need the institution. But they need Jesus. They need people who know them and care about them with the love of Jesus. That should be the force that drives forward any group of people calling themselves the church.

After that, there’s no formula. That’s the point. There never will be an absolute formula. What needs to be called into question is not necessarily the viability of the sermon-hymn worship service or the Biblical basis for having a building with stained glass and pews as opposed to a warehouse with colored lights and a stage. What needs questioning is the attitude that nothing should change, that we’ve figured it out and no longer need to alter what we do in order to meet the needs of new generations or that everyone must change. I’m not advocating for consumer Christianity. The Bible is still the guide to our ecclesiology. I’m an advocate for a worldview that says that humans can’t know things absolutely, and this is how that translates into our ecclesiology. We recognize that our churches aren’t perfect. We’re willing to change when certain things no longer seem to be working, but we're willing to say that our vision may not be everyone's vision. In other words, the building, the format is no longer important. It's not central. Jesus is. The fact that a community comes together to learn, to worship, to grow. We become a churchless church. To answer my father’s question, things need to change because we’re not God—in our brokenness, we get things wrong. But there’s hope for us to begin to get things right. The change is in our attitude toward change.

churchunbound.wordpress.com

Pasadena Food Guide Part 2: Coffee Shops

2010-10-24T19:22:05-05:00

In my last food guide post, I wrote about burger and sandwich places around the LA area. In this post, I’m going to focus on a necessity for the busy seminary student: coffee shops.

In the immediate vicinity of Fuller, there are a few obvious places. Coffee by the Books, the seminary coffee shop, for instance, offers many of the same coffee drinks Starbucks or other places do and is attached to the back of the bookstore. That’s where most people pick up their morning beverage on the way to class. There’s also a Starbucks about five minutes walking distance from campus down on the corner of Los Robles and Colorado.

But the places I want to highlight are all unique for one reason or another, offering a great studying atmosphere, one of a kind roasts, and lots of local charm.

These are in order of proximity to Fuller.

1. Zona Rosa Caffe: 15 S. El Molino, Pasadena.

Just as close as Starbucks is this little (and I put great emphasis on that word) Mexico City-themed coffee shop serving up your standard coffee fare and a delicious spicy Mexican mocha and other Mexican drinks. There’s limited seating downstairs, but if you head upstairs, you’ll find an attic-like area complete with couches, arm chairs, and the like. There are also a number of rotating house bands that play music from time to time. A great place to spend a Saturday morning. You’re guaranteed to see someone from Fuller on any given day.

www.zonarosacaffe.com

2. Intelligentsia: 55 E. Colorado, Pasadena.

Okay, this place might be a little over the top for some of you. If you're a hipster (you know who you are), a free spirit, or just your average coffee snob, you will probably live here (no offense to my very snobby friends.) They also have a location in Silver Lake and Venice—once you’re in LA long enough, you’ll understand what that means. Intelligentsia has “roasting works” in LA and Chicago and a “lab” in Manhattan for “coffee experimentation.” Right now, you’re saying, “Joel—you haven’t even told me if the coffee is good or not.” Allow me to do so by giving you a peek into the world of Intelligentsia using a description of one of their single origin roasts (I’ll admit, I’m not exactly sure what that means) from their website:

Organic Ethiopia Sidama Homecho Waeno

“The aromatics of coffee blossom and violet make way for an incredibly graceful and elegant cup. The body has a light and silky quality, like fresh whipped cream, that beautifully compliments the ever-present note of citron, juniper berry and vanilla. As it cools, the cup blossoms into notes of confectioner's sugar, rosehips, and soft raisin, resonating on a pristine finish with a touch of milk chocolate.”

Yep. Just…yeah.

www.intelligentsiacoffee.com

3. Jameson Brown Coffee Roasters: 260 N. Allen, Pasadena.

Owned and operated by Fuller graduates, Jameson Brown has arguably the best tasting cup of coffee in the Pasadena area. Their motto says it all: Jameson Brown Coffee is simply passionate about coffee. Boom. Their roaster is right out in the open for everyone to see, and yes they use it; it’s not an art piece. On occasional Friday and Saturday nights, they open up a second, secret room and have some really great live music. This is a quiet place to study and great in the winter because they have a fireplace. Yes, it’s So Cal, but it does get cold sometimes! The only downside is they close at 7pm on weekdays, 6pm on Saturdays, and they don’t open on Sundays (because they host a church gathering: regenerationla.org). BUT I’m sure with more business that will change!

www.jamesonbrown.com

4. Zephyr Coffee House and Art Gallery: 2419 E. Colorado, Pasadena.

This place is easy to miss if you’re just driving by because it looks like a house. Well, it is a house. In the middle of Colorado Blvd., right at the end of the Rose Parade route. The atmosphere here is awesome and quintessentially Pasadena since the house is an old Craftsman. They offer some things other places don’t including crepes, a garden hookah patio, and regular art exhibits. Definitely worth checking out.

www.zephyrcoffeeandart.com

5. Bean Town Coffee Bar: 45 N. Baldwin, Sierra Madre.

I’m actually writing this post from what many regulars call “the A table” at Bean Town in Sierra Madre. This is my home turf, the place where I learned to love coffee shops. Bean Town offers a variety of tasty coffee beverages (their chai lattes are amazing), a colorful assortment of people, and fresh baked goods. Sierra Madre itself is a great place to visit, and Bean Town is really at the heart of its cultural activity. Located within walking distance are Villagio Pizza, Casa del Rey, and Lucky Baldwin’s Delirium, the counterpart to the popular pub located in Old Town Pasadena.

www.beantowncoffeebar.com

6. The Bourgeois Pig: 5931 Franklin Ave, Los Angeles (Hollywood)

Okay, so this isn’t close to Pasadena, but bear with me. Imagine you’re on a date with a very special girl (or guy) and you want to impress him/her with your intimate knowledge of Hollywood and it’s offbeat locales. The Bourgeois Pig will blow that person away. This place is primarily known for their tea selection and knowledge, but it’s the atmosphere that’s the best part. The main room has standard coffee shop decor with the exception of a red felt pool table. But the back room, as my girlfriend described it, looks like something out of Splash Mountain (a ride at Disneyland for those unfamiliar.) The room is black with lots of colored lights, giant sculpted trees with branches hanging from the ceiling and lots of comfy pillows, couches, and chairs to sit on. The Pig is also right next to the Upright Citizens Brigade theater and minutes from Hollywood’s main drags.

They have no website—that’s how legit this place is.

If you know of other places, feel free to post them in the comments section!

Giving Up the Islamic Ghost

2010-11-09T12:22:24-06:00

A few weeks ago, The Semi (a weekly publication put out by students here at Fuller) published an article written by a student that was an editorial response to Terry Jones and his plan to burn copies of the Qur’an on September 11. The article was quite polemical, firing names at Jones and questioning his intelligence and knowledge Acts 19, which Jones cited as analogous to his cause. In the issue the following week was a letter to the editor arguing that the author of the editorial had fallen victim to the same irrational reaction against someone he disagreed with that Jones and his followers had—that as Christians, we are called to react to hate differently. This interaction coupled with recently reading Slavoj Žižek’s The Fragile Absolute: Or Why is the Christian Legacy Worth Fighting For? got me thinking about a possible theoretical framework for understanding the Western response to the Middle East.

The title of my post is, in fact, taken from the title of the first chapter of the book: “Giving Up the Balkan Ghost.” Žižek posits that one of the methods one can use to define an epoch is to identify the “ghosts” that haunt the culture of the time. He writes that for Europeans, the Balkans represent the specter of its barbarous past where Serbians perhaps see the Balkans as “down there” somewhere south of them in Bosnia or Kosovo, but Germans would consider Austria and everything southeast Balkan territory given Austria’s historic connection with Eastern Europe, the French would include German culture as being opposed to their finesse and refinement and thus see Germany as part of the Balkans, and the British would perhaps include the whole of Continental Europe as threatening to their sovereignty, part of a new Turkey with Brussels as the new Istanbul (a point demonstrated, in Žižek’s mind, by their resistance to joining the EU.)

I began to think about the ghosts that haunt not just Western culture but Western Christian culture specifically, and Islam came to mind immediately. Just as Europeans fear the Balkans because that location and “people group,” whoever they are, have been historically linked to the Slavic hordes, barbarism, the threat of the East, the Orthodox, as opposed to Western democratic values and the “true” Christian civilization, so does Western Christianity, in America particularly, now fear the Islamic for being linked to terrorism and a mystique that is not quite Far Eastern spirituality, more threatening because it is so much closer to us, one of the three pillars of monotheism. I say closer to speak of both it’s relationship to Christianity as well as it’s geographical location. Žižek speaks of an invisible cartography that maps the Balkans differently depending on one’s culture and location. It is formed in concentric quarter-circles, moving further west, each new location subsuming the ones proceeding it under the cartography of the Balkans: Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria, Southern Germany, Northern Germany, France, and finally Britain.

However, Isalm’s invisible cartography is much more difficult to pin down. Where the map of the Balkan ghost is always knocking on one’s border, threatening to enter, but has not yet entered, the Islamic ghost is already inside our border. A television show like 24 demonstrates this clearly. There is a tremendous fear not that Islam will breach our border, corrupting our Western civilization, but that it has already done so, is already lurking in the shadows waiting to snatch everything we love from us, waiting to burn the entire nation to the ground, to bring us to our knees with nuclear armageddon. Even away from the fiction of television, we hear talk of “sleeper cells;” we have an over-abundance of security at airports; we feel threatened by an Islamic cultural center being built in Manhattan two blocks from the site of the World Trade Center. The article that immediately followed the editorial about Jones in that same issue was an account written by an MACCS student. In it he recounts a story that while he was doing his practicum in Minneapolis this summer working with Somali immigrants, he saw a mailbox with the words “We Are All Terrorists” spray-painted on the side. He took this to have been written by someone who perceives all Muslims as terrorists. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say.

This isn’t new to the US. Red Scare I. Japanese internment camps. The McCarthy Era. We’ve been haunted before. Somehow though these horrible displays of fear mongering and injustice always seem to partially fall on Christians. “This is what America as a Christian nation did,” people will say. They’re right. Haunting provokes Christians to a racism that at the time is justified by the threat of terror. A Christian today may feel justified in even claiming to be a tolerant multiculturalist, to be accepting of others just as Christ accepted all, while acting out his or her repressed racism as a response to terror.

And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I think one could make the case that sometimes the “enlightened” Christian response to those erring, “fundamentalist” Christians falls into the same trap. Academics feel justified in tearing down fundamentalists: 1. Because they’re typically white, and just as Žižek points out that Europeans are openly racist against those perceived as Balkans for the same reason, we somehow accept comments alluding to someone being white trash as okay when we would never accept analogous comments being made about an African, Latino, or Asian American. 2. Because as Westerners, fear of the Other is unfortunately a part of our social imaginary, and that fear sometimes finds its way out in one form or another. Much more could be said about this last point, but I’ll save that for another discussion.

If Islam is the ghost that haunts Western fundamental Christianity, then fundamentalism is the ghost that haunts the academic Christian, or the Christian Left.

The author of the letter to the editor in last week’s Semi really said it best: “How can we critique someone like Mr. Jones for engaging in activities that are meant to inflame rather than heal when we ourselves use language that is meant only to insult and not to correct? Should we not demonstrate and model the same restraint and love that we would see Mr. Jones use with Muslims in his community? In light of the verse from Romans 14 that was quoted in this article, shouldn’t we who work in academia work to show love and respect to those without the same level of education and etiquette we, ourselves, presume to have?”

I have only one word: Amen.

churchunbound.wordpress.com

Love

2010-11-19T20:56:20-06:00

I was trying to mediate the number of “academic” posts I wrote here, trying not to let those dominate my blog by posting things about Pasadena or TV, etc. Unfortunately, all I’ve done this quarter is eat, breathe, and sleep Hebrew and Paul’s epistles, so I’ve found myself doing a lot of outside reading on my own, which has caused me to spin out a number of more “heady” posts. Apologies.

Deconstruction (sometimes seen and heard erroneously as deconstructionism) seems to be a-buzz on Fuller’s campus lately both in the positive and the negative. I’ve heard professors and students alike refer to it as nonsense, as an absolutely relativistic way of viewing the world (though it isn’t a worldview), as something that is dangerous, an ideology that can damage the authority of Scripture (though it isn’t an ideology), and conversely as a really great thing that does something postmodern (though it’s hard to pin down what that something is.)

Deconstruction, by its very nature, is elusive. Or perhaps illusive. It is, to put it in the simplest terms possible, a method of reading. That’s it. A professor at Northern Colorado said to me once that she thought Jacques Derrida, the father of deconstruction, was quite possibly the most skilled reader in history. Deconstruction is not something someone “does”—the text has already done the work. In other words, the reader who utilizes deconstruction as a method is seeing in the text what is already there—metaphysical assumptions and priorities that tend to be subverted by their “opposites” and other things already found within the text itself. As such, it can easily be “equipped”to particular worldviews and utilized in a way that will serve that worldview. But that utilization is not itself deconstruction. This is why Derrida always accused his detractors of misreading him (ironic), claiming that the way they thought they saw deconstruction being used was actually dangerous. Even Derrida saw deconstruction as a keg of TNT waiting to be ignited.

But this is why it’s so important to us in biblical and theological studies. Something that explosive can be used to tear down mountains, dig tunnels, connect two locations previously unknown to each other. Jesus actually does quite well at deconstruction. John Caputo, in a wonderful little book called What Would Jesus Deconstruct?, talks about the notion of hospitality—something Derrida lectured on toward the end of his life. He asks a very pointed question: When we are being hospitable, aren’t we actually doing the exact opposite of what the word means? Think about it. When you throw a party, what do you do? You sit down and you make a Facebook invitation and by a process of selection invite those friends whom you want to be there. You might be careful to caution them not to talk about it too much, lest someone uninvited show up and ruin the party. Being a host is about posture in our culture. It’s about status—who is invited and who isn’t. But isn’t this the very opposite of what we want to mean by hospitality?

Caputo and Derrida both point out that there is a certain undecidability found within the word itself. The word is a combination of hostis and posse. The latter denotes power. Hospitality implies a certain power over the place one lives in that when I invite you over, you are coming to my home, not your own. The first part, hostis, is the stranger who is a guest (think of the word hotel), but it can also be used to mean the stranger who is hostile. When Jesus speaks of hospitality in Luke 14, he demonstrates this very undecidability. The master of the house, having been abandoned by those he invited originally, his friends all pre-screened and approved, fills his house with the hostis regardless of which they are—the stranger who is guest or the stranger who is hostile. There is no way to eliminate risk in hospitality, beacuse the second we do, the very moment that we screen, select, and invite, is the moment we are no longer practicing hospitality as such. Hospitality slips away from us.

That’s what deconstruction shows us. It takes what we’ve always held to be [T]rue and turns it upside down. This is why Derrida says boldly that deconstruction never proceeds without love. This statement is at the core of Caputo’s book.

Deconstruction never proceeds without love.

What this means is that deconstruction keeps us humble. It’s true that since Derrida introduced deconstruction to the American academy in the 1960s, it has been used without humility—as an arrogant ideology without ideology. But when it is used responsibly, it can do more than help us see our presuppositions in a new light; it traces the possibility of the impossible. When we proceed in biblical or theological studies with the intention of attempting to know Truth, to uncover it through particular, measured methods, historical, scientific, we destroy the possibility of the impossible. We are saying we can know it all. That’s not to say that those methods are not useful. They definitely are. However, when we believe that what we’re doing is uncovering absolute Truth, we tend to forget that as soon as we think we have it all figured out, it is gone, slips away, disappears. Hasn’t history proven that to us? And we have a serious problem, when we continue to hold on to what we think is Truth and refuse to see how it deconstructs itself. A posture toward deconstruction, toward the possibility of the impossible is what will keep us humble.

Besides, how can we really claim to serve an infinite God, but at the same time think it’s possible to understand more than just the most insignificant fraction of who He is, let alone all of Him? Augustine writes that if we understand something, then what we understand is not God—not that it isn’t from God, but that the understanding itself cannot be God, cannot encompass Him. Most students and professors I’ve encountered who are against the use of literary theory, especially deconstruction, to understand Scripture would not argue with that point at all, yet paradoxically, they want to hold on to the idea that we can know certain things absolutely.

And I understand. I was there once. There is a fearful question lurking: if we can’t know, then how can we know that what we believe is Truth? There is a deep history that lies behind this fear, wrapped up in Modernism and a reaction against science, but I think it is okay to let go.

A friend of mine gave me some great insight on this fear last week. The fact that we cannot even begin to comprehend God should not bother us because God gives us enough knowledge, enough to “go on,” to sustain us. That infinitesimally small drop that we get is enough to last us a lifetime. Do we stop searching, stop questioning simply because we know we can’t ever know God absolutely? Just the opposite. We continue to search because God wants us to seek Him and to encounter how incomprehensible and infinite He is.

churchunbound.wordpress.com

Storytime

2010-11-24T17:30:40-06:00

Story is a big deal to postmodernists. Whether they’re interested in postmodernity culturally or academically, the privileging of story and narrative over data, the cold, hard facts, is important. In many ways, it’s a rejection of the modern—not a return to the pre-modern, but a reclaiming of it. The pre-modern repurposed.

This is something I find myself agreeing with by and large. It’s sometimes troubling to me how Christian and non-Christian alike have come to see scientific inquiry as paramount when it comes human knowing. As the only way of knowing. It certainly helps, but it’s not the only way.

A friend pointed me recently to a blog called Pastoralia managed by Jason Coker, a Fuller grad, and specifically Coker’s response to an article published a year go in Harpers Magazine titled “Like I was Jesus: How to bring a nine-year old to Christ.” Rachel Aviv, author of the Harpers article, observes the Child Evangelism Fellowship, an organization whose focus is on bringing kids to Christ by approaching them, as strangers, on playgrounds and talking to them about who Jesus is. It’s a fascinating article. Aviv makes what she sees as important observations about how the Fellowship goes about their evangelism. Their primary mode is through emphasizing story and narrative as opposed to data. She sees this as returning to a more primitive way knowing—she actually uses the word primitive—but she doesn’t necessarily see this as negative. The Fellowship, in her view, is keeping a live a tradition that is still willing to believe in the impossible, in “magical explanations”—they’re capturing imaginations.

That makes sense. They’re talking to kids. Even though I’m not sure I agree with the ends the Fellowship is aiming at, their use of story was exciting to see. However, Coker’s response intrigued me. He writes regarding Aviv’s response to narrative:

But, Aviv’s remarks made me realize that it’s one thing to indulge in story (clearly we are a culture that is obsessed with narratives of alternative realities) – but it is another thing entirely to have faith in a story, especially a fantastical one.

(Seriously. We poke fun at people who organize their entire lives around fantastical stories, and for good reason. We recognize there is something juvenile about this. Think of “Trekkies.” More and more, the secular Western world looks at conservative Christianity as one giant version of Comicon. Yes, I know – these sorts of sub-cultural communities are hugely successful and lucrative. But is that really what we want to emulate? Is Christianity just another successful juvenile fantasy niche market?)

I had never thought of it this way. The reclaiming of story as a reaction against empiricism, fact, and data somehow, for me, overshadowed this glaring and obvious comparison that Coker draws here. If all we do is emphasize the story of Christ, how is our story better or more true than Star Trek, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, any number of massive comic book universes? I’ve fallen victim to this quite recently as I preach to my youth group. I always draw comparisons with stories and characters that are familiar to my students. What message am I implying though—that there is a direct correlation between the Biblical narrative and Harry Potter? A distinction needs to be made.

I don’t have a detailed answer about how to do that. But perhaps rather than drawing direct comparisons between fiction and the story of the Bible, we need to be sure we are using story and narrative as a tool with which to examine the biblical text. In other words, we can use the analysis of narrative (literary studies) to explore the truth of Bible. In my next post, I’ll demonstrate how this can be done.

The danger of any new movement (and the postmodern is certainly new to the Church) is that we can get excited about it quickly and react [too] strongly against whatever it is we came from. I think that’s what happens far too often among Christians. We need to slow down, pray, discern, and contemplate postmodernity and what it means for us personally and the Church as a whole.

Which is not easy.

But then again, should being a Christ follower ever be?

You can read Rachel Aviv’s article here.

You can read Jason Coker's response here.

churchunbound.wordpress.com

And So On...

2010-11-30T17:42:39-06:00

I read Stanley Fish’s New York Times blog from time to time, and one of his recent posts was sort of shocking to me. It was a lament of the decline of humanities departments and in particular the decision of SUNY Albany president George Phillip to cut their French, Russian, Italian, classics, and theater programs. Fish rightly points out that it’s silly to dream of the public being enriched by the humanities, to think that the man on the street should, as if by moral imperative, appreciate art, literature, language, and philosophy and especially appreciate it beyond it’s mere enjoyment and into the minutiae of academic study. In fact, Fish contends that the complaint on the part of scholars that the average person’s apathy toward the world of the intellectual, the world of French philosophy for example, is evidence that these endeavors are ultimately pointless is actually not directed at the right people. They shouldn’t worry about what the implications of French philosophy are for the average person because, in Fish’s view, there aren’t any. He writes:

"Don’t ask what does it do for the man in the street (precious little); ask if its insights and style of analysis can be applied to the history of science, to the puzzles of theoretical physics, to psychology’s analysis of the human subject. In short, justify yourselves to your colleagues, not to the hundreds of millions of Americans who know nothing of what you do and couldn’t care less and shouldn’t be expected to care; they have enough to worry about.”

In most cases, I think Dr. Fish is correct. Whenever a family member or friend not in school with me asks about what I’m studying, the second I start to get too technical, their eyes glaze over with apathy, they smile, nod, and say, “That sounds—interesting.”

It’s okay.

Biblical hermeneutics, literary theory, French philosophy, and systematic theology are not for everyone, nor do they need to be. But I’d like to make a short case here for why the study of the humanities is important and why, here at Fuller, you can find it infiltrating both biblical and theological studies.

Prior to coming to Fuller, I was earning an MA in English language and literature from the University of Northern Colorado. I wrote my thesis on Kurt Vonnegut’s Breakfast of Champions arguing for a non-postmodern (but not necessarily post-postmodern/post-secular) reading of Vonnegut in which the word sacred in the novel becomes a moment of deconstructive differánce which prevents the narrator from continuing to see humans as mindless robots, hopelessly trying to change their circumstances.

Most people read Vonnegut as supporting the early postmodern belief that humans futilely attempt to change their circumstances, to find absolute truth, when neither is possible. I see Vonnegut differently. He was a man deeply troubled by the way he saw people treating each other. He did, after all, experience the bombing of Dresden, easily one of the most horrific events ever perpetrated by one human being against another. Reading his corpus, one can easily see that human ignorance and violence are upsetting to him. But there is another side, like the two sides on a sheet of paper—human beings are also sacred to Vonnegut. That’s the puzzling thing about Breakfast of Champions. At times, the narrator uses that word as parody, mocking people for their violence and callousness and also their stupidity at trying to make the profane into the sacred. At other times, however, a marked “genuineness” slips in (hence, my argument for differánce.) There are points in the novel (and in others for that matter) where an argument for a satiric use of the word just doesn’t make sense. There is an innate use of the word where rather than characters attempting to assign a category of sacredness to something as mundane as a crack in a ceiling, the narrator recognizes an inherent sacredness within all living things that is there outside of human language. A pure, Real, sacredness. An unwavering band of light, as one of the characters of the novel calls it.

The impression the reader is given is that the narrator is struggling mightily with the dual nature of anthropology—human beings are important, sacred, chosen, yet tainted and sinful. One of my favorite passages from Breakfast demonstrates this well. Here, the narrator (who is a quasi-God-like character who has “entered” his own writing) is describing one of his characters, Kilgore Trout, as he attempts to cross a polluted creek:

His situation, insofar as he was a machine, was complex, tragic, and laughable. But the sacred part of him, his awareness, remained an unwavering band of light.

And this book is being written by a meat machine in cooperation with a machine made of metal and plastic. The plastic, incidentally, is a close relative of the gunk in Sugar Creek. And at the core of the writing meat machine is something sacred, which is an unwavering band of light.

At the core of each person who reads this book is a band of unwavering light.

My doorbell has just rung in my New York apartment. And I know what I will find when I open my front door: an unwavering band of light.

God bless Rabo Karabekian!

There is a redemptive quality to the epiphany that the narrator experiences here. It is Trout’s awareness of his tragic situation as such that is sacred. In other words, we are consecrated when we become aware of our brokenness and choose to do something about it. Rather than attempt to figure out how the cold, mechanical nature of humanity can be conflated with the sacredness he senses is inherently there, the narrator comes to the conclusion that the two parts can be reconciled.

What drew me to literature initially is actually quite cliché, but I make no apologies for it. It was the way in which stories can force us to see things we thought were so simple, so easy before, in completely new ways. Literature has the ability to make the obvious suddenly foreign and unfamiliar. And what really sold me on literary studies is that it unapologetically utilizes whatever it can to understand a text. If a mode of thought or ideology or method of reading (Marxism, feminism, psychoanalysis, deconstruction, historicism, religion etc.) can be used as a tool to unpack a text, then it’s fair game. There have been times here at Fuller where I’ve been so immersed in a Biblical studies course that I forget for a moment that there’s this whole other world, which some seminarians at other institutions rarely have access to—a world of hermeneutical tools outside of redaction criticism. I’ve had the freedom here at Fuller to use those tools as I learned to use them in the secular academy. I’ve encountered others who have experienced a similar freedom coming from their backgrounds in philosophy or anthropology or history.

The humanities has a wealth of tools to offer us as we try to come to a better understanding of the Bible. If you’re a Vonnegut fan, then you know how this post has to end. When we, as seminarians, as budding biblical/theological/religious scholars ignore the rest of the humanities, we miss out on an opportunity to see a broader picture. That’s a shame.

So it goes.

churchunbound.wordpress.com

What Should I Do?

2010-12-07T15:25:24-06:00

I’m a huge basketball fan. And of course, since I grew up in Southern California, the Lakers have always been my team. It’s been a great time to be a Lakers fan; even when they were struggling in the middle of the last decade, they were still fun to watch. This season, however, has brought the spotlight to a team 3,000+ miles away: the Miami Heat.

Lebron James’ announcement this summer that he would join the Miami Heat was met with shock—not necessarily shock at the decision as such, but at how he decided to announce it and the fact that his old team, the Cavaliers, had to find out with the rest of the world. From that moment, sports writers everywhere were speculating about this season: the Heat would be the first 82 win team in NBA history, the first undefeated champion in NBA history.

Talking head exaggeration knows no bounds.

It’s for this reason that there has been what I would be comfortable calling childlike delight at the dismal start the Heat have had this season. Last week, they were barely above .500 and are obviously struggling to come together as a cohesive unit (despite winning their last five games.) James himself even went so far as to say a few weeks ago that playing hasn’t been fun for him this season.

All of this is compounded by James’ own apparent willingness to buy into this new image. I’m referring of course to Nike’s “LeBron Rise” ad campaign which features James asking basketball fans what they think he should do: Tell Cleveland fans it was fun; remind people of all the drama surrounding his high school career; accept his role as a villain (something Pat Riley tends to encourage his players to do); stop listening to his friends; believe that he’s ruined his legacy; be who basketball fans think he should or want him to be.

A new video surfaced last week, mashing up the Rise ad with a Michael Jordan campaign from the mid-nineties, “Maybe It’s My Fault.” It’s rough. It’s an indictment of James, calling him out, claiming that his actions are selfish, that they demonstrate flash, not fire. It even goes so far to say that he is destroying the game. Andrew Siciliano of ESPN Radio’s LA Sports Live made an interesting observation last week as LeBron was gearing up to go back to Quicken Loans Arena for the first time since last season: Americans love to vilify. They love seeing someone rise to the top, and once he or she is there, they love to see that person go down in flames. It goes beyond the entertainment value of something like this happening—there is a deep-seated desire to see it happen. Siciliano thinks it’s wrong, even though he doesn’t necessarily agree with LeBron’s decision or the way he’s handled it subsequently. He’s the only sports guy I’ve heard to denounce the way the media and others have responded to James.

It’s true, LeBron’s The Decision special, which aired on ESPN, was over the top and egotistical. A simple press conference would have been fine. As a Laker fan, I’m of course happy the Heat aren’t doing well simply because I want to see the Lakers three-peat. But as a Christian, everything that’s been going on has given me pause to consider how James has been treated by fans of the game and the media. Where does this desire to see people burn come from? Is it insecurity? Or is it less specific than that, some general lack that people sense but can’t put their finger on, manifesting itself in behavior like this?

I’m not going to go so far as to say there’s a God-shaped hole inside basketball fans causing them to vilify superstars. I want to look at this phenomenon not as a lack, but as a consequence of something far more ubiquitous. I see this behavior speaking to a larger issue of individualism and an exercise of a repressed desire for validation of absolute autonomy in our speech. Never before have we been afforded to opportunity to speak our minds as openly and publicly as we do when we get on the Internet. Moments like the LeBron Circus afford people the opportunity to act out their frustration at being limited in other venues by social norms and morays. There is no universal norm that says online speech should be self-censored the way face-to-face speech is. That’s not to say that there aren’t those out there who think that it should be (see fellow blogger Cody Charland’s post “Cheap Pulpits” from a few days ago.) In many ways the possible anonymity for commenting on things like this somehow causes people to be as extreme as they can. All one needs to do is take a look at the comments section on any “controversial” YouTube video (as if popular Internet videos could be that controversial.) The existence of this level of extremity then gives professional commenters (sports media) license to take their comments to an extreme level as well. They now see that the public is not interested in fair and balanced approaches; they want their extreme viewpoint to be validated by someone publicly, thus giving credence to their anonymous statements.

Is there escape from this? No way. Not in the near future. It’s one of the challenges we face and have to keep in mind as Christians trying to reach out into a community. Given any serious thought, the issue leaves us asking the same question LeBron is: What should I do? I don’t know if we can fruitfully answer that question yet. We need to ask how this type of behavior shapes how we interact with and participate in culture. It’s something we rarely talk about in terms of how we do those things, and the behavior is something many of us find ourselves getting sucked into at times.

I know there was a moment a few months ago where I too wanted to spit venom at LeBron, hoping not just that the Heat would have a bad season, but that LeBron would have the worst season of his career.

I’m glad reason saw me past that.

You can watch “Lebron Rise” here.

You can watch the mash-up of “Rise” and “Maybe It’s My Fault” here.

churchunbound.wordpress.com

A Defense of Graduate Study

2010-12-28T10:32:54-06:00

Since the Winter Quarter is less than a week away, I thought this would be appropriate.

Quite a number of articles, blogs, etc., have recently come across the screen of my laptop bemoaning the fall of graduate studies, especially in the humanities (one of which I addressed about a month ago.) A friend from the English MA program I attended at the University of Northern Colorado recently posted a link to a blog entitled 100 Reasons NOT to Go to Graduate School. In some ways, I understood where she was coming from. Hardly anyone I came into that program with came out completely unscathed, unaffected by the challenges that graduate school presents, and I even saw a small number of friends there be beaten by it, failing to finish.

But.

I don’t agree.

Graduate school is necessary—just maybe not for everyone.

First, let me preface by saying that the list doesn’t really apply to practical degree programs, which is what the vast majority of people at Fuller are enrolled in (including myself.) The distinction between a practical degree and an academic one is that a practical degree prepares one for a licensed profession other than teaching and research (the MDiv, MFT, and PsyD are all examples as are a JD, MD, MSW, etc.) The MA and MS degrees (as well as the PhD) are research based, are generally rooted more in theory, and typically prepare one to have a career in academia. The items in the list can’t apply to practical programs because those degrees lead to occupations one can attain only by earning a specific degree.

Even though there are many at Fuller in the MDiv program who only wish to become a pastor or chaplain, recently, I’ve encountered a number of people who, like myself, plan to continue on to a PhD or ThD even though they’re in the MDiv program. So before anyone is discouraged by blogs of this nature, family members, or friends who question the value of graduate school, let me give you some hope.

Let’s just take a few of the reasons listed on the blog:

It’s very, very hard.

Yes. It is. There is a new set of expectations different from those in college. Professors are training students to become their colleagues. They’re trying to help them move to a mastery of a particular subject. That isn’t easy. But this certainly isn’t a reason not to go to graduate school. Lot’s of things are hard. One could say climbing the corporate ladder is also very, very hard. Climbing mountains is hard. Success in our culture requires lots of hard work. If you’re not someone who feels cut out for difficult academic study, then graduate school maybe isn’t a good option, but other types of challenges might be.

Okay, that was an easy one. Here’s something more difficult:

There are very few jobs.

This one, sadly, is true. However, if you know this going in, then there shouldn’t be any surprises. Again, there are very few jobs in a number of other fields as well and jobs can be just as competitive outside of academia. Also, don’t assume that earning your MA, MS, or PhD at a state as opposed to an Ivy League school means that you won’t be able to find a teaching/research job—though I can only really speak for the humanities on this point, not the sciences. I had the opportunity to serve as the graduate student member of a hiring committee in the English department at Northern Colorado. The particular committee I was on was looking for a 19^th century Americanist specializing in Frontier literature (fitting, since the school was in Colorado.) There were three rounds in the process: CV and writing sample review, phone interview, and campus visit. In the first round, we had over 100 applicants—an indication of how few jobs there were. Some had attended schools like Harvard, Cambridge, USC, Stanford, Oxford, etc. Others had earned their PhD’s at Stony Brook, Florida, KU, UC Irvine, etc. Still others even lesser state schools. What was fascinating to me was that where a candidate went to school never—I cannot say this enough—never ever ever ever entered into our conversation about who was qualified and who was not. The primary criterion was whether or not a person’s list of publications and apparent interests seemed to fit the area of specialization we were looking for. We had three candidates come for a campus visit (after a 7-person list for phone interviews): one from Stanford, one from Pitt, and one from CU Boulder. In the end, the candidate from CU was the person who best fit the specialization. All three were great teachers. All three had a lot to offer. (The Stanford guy also had an MDiv from Harvard Divinity.) But the guy from CU was exactly the kind of specialist we were looking for. That’s ultimately what mattered.

Mumbo jumbo abounds.

I love this one. Intellectual mumbo jumbo is certainly out there. The author of the blog points out websites like the Postmodernism Generator which creates a nonsensical essay out of postmodern terms, buzz words, and neologisms. It’s really easy in grad school for someone to start talking, throw out a lot of big words, and say absolutely nothing. On the other hand, it is possible to learn how to recognize when this is happening and tune it out. Professors usually call people on it. (This definitely happens everywhere, by the way, and Fuller is no exception). But mumbo jumbo exists in any profession, just maybe not to the same degree. And it’s not necessary for people outside of an academic profession to be able to understand that language (see my post “And So On…”) That language exists so that members of other academic communities can share ideas and see how others are approaching similar problems in their respective fields. They don’t (nor should they) expect everyone to understand or be enriched by that language (at least not directly.) Again, this is less of a reason not to do something and more like an important point to consider before embarking on the academic graduate track. If anything, it seems that this complaint is really aimed at the use of mumbo jumbo to describe mundane phenomena. I usually seeing it manifest itself in the over use of the word “fundamental”, i.e.: “It seems that football represents a fundamental desire to act out repressed rage against other people.”

We can all agree that no one needs to talk about football this way, at least not outside of very specific academic circles. And even then, the value of such a discussion would be questionable at best. But just because people can say really dumb things using smart-sounding words, doesn’t mean that those words themselves suddenly have no value at all.

There is a whole host of other reasons listed on the blog: People asking “What are you going to do with that?”; Possibly having little choice of where you’ll live (because of where jobs are available in your field; Starting a family later than most people.

And on and on and on.

The problem is that there are exceptions to every rule. You can choose not to take a job in Alaska or South Florida if you don’t want to work in those regions. I’ve known plenty of people who have families while in graduate school. And when people ask me what I’m going to do with all the degrees I plan on earning, I tell them the truth: I want to teach and be on staff at a church. Do I absolutely have to earn the degrees I have and am in order to do that? Maybe not, but I feel like it will benefit me in those endeavors, so I’m going for it. Anyone who needs more explanation than that either has a chip on his shoulder or maybe is not being as supportive as he should be if it’s a close friend or family member.

Many of the reasons listed on the blog should not come as a surprise if sufficient research is done. If you’re considering Fuller, contact the admissions office and set up a campus visit so you can talk to a student about what graduate study here is like.

A Church Unbound

Colorado to California: A Photography Blog

2011-01-04T13:58:23-06:00

I spent most of the break at my parents' house in Lousiville, CO. Two of my brothers and I made the drive out (because it's cheaper than flying) and had to brave the elements to get home. Below is an account of the journey made with my iPhone.

Lovedrug - EP 1 & 2, Fun. - Aim & Ignite, Further Seems Forever - How to Start a Fire, Anberlin - Cities, Broken Social Scene - s/t, Maritime - We, the Vehicles, Mates of State - Rearrange Us, Passion Pit - Manners, Jimmy Eat World - Clarity, Circa Survive - On Letting Go, Brand New - The Devil and God Are Raging Inside Me, Death Cab For Cutie - The Photo Album, Hey Mercedes - Every Night Fireworks, Portugal. The Man - The Satanic Satanist, The Snake The Cross The Crown - Mander Salis, Saves the Day - Sound the Alarm, The Temper Trap - Conditions, Cave In - Perfect Pitch Black, .moneen. - The Red Tree, Motion City Soundtrack - I Am the Movie

Here's to a great quarter.

Postmodernism is Not a Religion

2011-01-21T20:01:52-06:00

This quarter has been glorious. I feel like I can finally breathe again. Because of scheduling and course requirements, it’s rare that anyone gets the opportunity to take courses with his or her three favorite professors, but that is the case for me this quarter: Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, John Goldingay, and Nancy Murphy are teaching my courses. I’ve been excited because I really feel that these courses are helping me to come to a better understanding of and a better ability to articulate my own interests regarding postmodernism and the church.

Oddly enough though, often times those contributions are made through student comments and questions rather than the direct lecture of a professor. That is, when I hear another student wrestle with, challenge, or question something I’m concerned with and interested in, I’m able to, in my mind, begin to develop a response or perhaps use that moment to raise other questions for myself about things I hadn’t thought to question.

Such a moment of enlightenment occurred earlier this week in Dr. Kärkkäinen’s Systematic Theology 3 course. Dr. K was explaining the ecclesiology of the Emergent Church movement and the interplay of the postmodern worldview with the worldview of the Emergent Church. A student raised his hand and asked the following question:

“What’s the deal with this emergent thing? I never heard that phrase until I moved to California—seems to be a big thing out here. But I don’t understand how people can use postmodernism and call themselves Christians. I mean, if someone was incorporating Christianity into Buddhism, we wouldn’t call that person a Christian, right?”

Dr. Kärkkäinen is one of those professors who is very good at seamlessly and moving away from a conflict like this into his next point, which he did. Promptly. But this student’s comment really got me thinking about some important features of a theology that incorporates the themes of postmodernity.

I’ll leave what he’s saying explicitly in his comment about Buddhism and Christianity to someone who wants to write about general and special revelation or religious pluralism.

What struck me about the comment is that he very directly equated postmodernity with religion—an interesting proposition that requires some serious thought.

Not serious thought in that we need to consider whether or not postmodernists are “religious” with regard to their attitude toward the postmodern, but serious thought in terms of understanding how certain Christians may view postmodernity. It makes sense to me, after all, that someone who might not be well read in the postmodern would probably make this claim in the same fashion that one would claim that New Atheists seem to attack religions with a zeal that suspiciously resembles religion itself.

But there’s a problem here.

Maybe more than one.

First and foremost is the problem of reading. Merold Westphal, who will be teaching a two week intensive on philosophical hermeneutics this summer at Fuller, writes in the introduction to his Overcoming Onto-Theology that many Christian theologians who vehemently oppose the use of postmodern philosophy in theology have not actually read any of the Continental or the Anglo-American philosophers considered to be the fathers of secular postmodern thought. They’re familiar with the names, and perhaps familiar enough with some general ideas raised in the work of writers such as Lyotard, Derrida, Wittgenstein, etc. to be able to raise objections to those very broad concepts. But pushed a little farther, Westphal says, and they are forced to admit they haven’t really read the primary texts. This is a responsibility that falls squarely on us as theologians. We know postmodernity is “looming” over the church (to put it rather negatively), and as such we need to do our best to try to really understand what it’s saying and what it can offer, if anything. That’s not to say that one has to read everything—there’s far too much out there—but no attempt at all just isn’t acceptable anymore.

It’s so pervasive in both culture and the academy that to not give it its due at least as an important historical phenomenon is really to retreat into a cave and cower.

Second, there’s the much more narrow issue of thinking that the utilization of postmodern philosophy in theology is much the same as the utilization of the Qur’an or some other holy book in the development of doctrine. The problem is that no serious theologian would ever look at those other books as mere tools to use when conceiving of our own doctrine. Those books are, in their own right, the centerpieces of the faith to which they belong. To use them outside of that context requires some substantial justification.

Postmodern philosophy as a corpus, however, does not function this way. Philosophy is a second order discipline. That is, it tries to get at and make sense of the assumptions that other disciplines are built upon—to see how they tick, so to speak. Religions themselves are not second order disciplines—they’re not even disciplines in the academic sense of the word. But the study of religion as a subject or the systematic theologies of particular religions are not second order disciplines either.

Furthermore, it’s pretty difficult to make the sweeping statement that one should not use “postmodernism” when talking about one’s faith when “using postmodernism” could mean a myriad of different things. I always chuckle a bit when a professor says, “…postmodernism—whatever that means,” and a number of students laugh. They’re laughing because they think he or she is saying that no one knows what it postmodernism means. Really though, that is not the case at all. It’s just that part of postmodernism is recognizing difference as vitally important. Even lumping all Modern thinkers (Descartes, Locke, Hume, and Kant, for example) is really doing those thinkers a great disservice since in many cases, their thought differs greatly one to another, even though there may be some very basic underlying assumptions. Since I’m trained in literature, I’ll use that as an example. Someone could look at, for instance, Slavoj Zizek’s insistence on subjectivity in arriving at an adequate political theory to talk about the politics of a Charles Dickens novel. Or one could use Lacanian psychoanalysis to talk about the same novel in a different way. Or perhaps Derridean deconstruction.

Not that any of those would be necessarily good readings of the text. The point, however, is that while Zizek, Lacan, and Derrida all bear certain marks of postmodernism, those marks are different, and the three really can’t be conflated under one large banner of “The Postmodern.”

And the fact that those readings I pulled off the top of my head may in fact not serve us well in understanding Dickens illustrates another important point: When one reads a text and wishes to employ a particular theory, one is using that theory as a tool in so far as it is useful for the task at hand. You can’t force a theory or a philosophy onto a text. If it isn’t doing work for you hermeneutically, then there’s no point in using it.

This has chapped the hide of many a social-activist-would-be-Marxist-revolutionary-undergraduate-English-major who wants to argue that Falkner’s “A Rose for Emily” or Chopin’s “Story of an Hour” can be read as an allegory for the struggle of the proletariat.

(Not that one could never attempt to make that case, of course.)

All this means for biblical hermeneutics is that sometimes postmodern philosophy may be useful under certain circumstances and other times it may not be. This is perhaps why this student saw people using postmodern philosophy as picking and choosing what they want to use. I don't see anything wrong with that. It's just how hermeneutics works. We can't look on that the same way as picking and choosing what we take from the Bible. So there’s no need for anyone to convert to postmodernity. Postmodern thought simply (or I guess complexly) helps us articulate what I see as a better approach to understanding scripture, ecclesiology, and religious experience in general. Of course, I would argue that seeing the Bible “postmodernly” is often times more helpful than not and that we should always take a posture of humility forcing us to recognize our study of theology as limited rather than pursing, as Westphal calls it, an onto-theology where we are attempting to contain God in our very limited understanding, to understand his being in its entirety.

The postmodern, whatever that is, keeps us intellectually honest and prevents us from thinking we have the ability to look over God’s shoulder.

Crisis

2011-01-28T03:46:28-06:00

The discussion group I’m in for my philosophy course this quarter met for the first time yesterday. We had a great conversation about the course material, beginning in The Refectory and eventually wandering down to Coffee by the Books to continue the discussion. It was at this point that the conversation shifted from the material itself to how difficult it can be to reconcile the material with our faith traditions and how easy it seems to be for Nancy Murphy to do this. For instance, if we no longer see scripture or belief in God as a foundational, absolute belief, how do we defend our faith or develop doctrine?

I won’t get into the answer to that question here. Rather, I’ll emphasize the fact that a question like this, raised in all of Murphy’s philosophy courses, can be extremely troubling for someone from a more orthodox or conservative background. And there’s another problem. As we continued our discussion one group member finally said in frustration: “How do we explain this to people? How is this important to anyone sitting in a pew?”

I think I know what I want to write my dissertation on now.

He recounted a story about a professor in a New Testament exegetical course who demonstrated a deconstruction of the text. After the professor was finished, a student asked: “Okay, so--how do I preach that?”

The professor replied: “You don’t.”

In my last post, I expressed some frustration with what I and others perceive as a lack of reading among Christian scholars when it comes to postmodern philosophy. This professor’s comment demonstrates that. Not because he said you don’t explain a deconstruction of a text to a congregation—he’s absolutely right about that. But because he left it at that. He could have raised the possibility for postmodern philosophy to shape our thinking about how we approach a biblical text to begin with—not that deconstruction specifically, as an act in itself, should.

He should have assured that student that deconstruction is one mode, one small facet of what it means to think postmodernly—it’s not necessarily important for someone behind the pulpit to know how to read a text that way.

As we talked about all of this, one of the group members said to me: “You seem to be one step ahead of me in your thinking with this. I feel like I’m still in crisis. It seems like you’re past that point.”

He’s absolutely right. My faith was thrown in the fire and hammered out as I wrote my thesis from 2007-2009 for my MA in English. I was trying to understand how a deconstruction of the word sacred as it’s used in Vonnegut’s Breakfast of Champions could end up affirming the sacredness of human beings, which is how I read the novel. Deconstruction was supposed to be the thing that destroyed any notions of transcendence whatsoever--at least according to the chair of my thesis committee. I really can't explain the process better than just to say this: It was a difficult road. But when I came out on the other end, I understood the importance of confronting and wrestling with tough questions, to be able to reconcile my belief while in crisis.

Now I seek out these situations. Not because I want to defeat them like some kind of bully looking for people to beat down in order to exercise some demons, but because I want to refined in the fire again and again.

And in many ways, I think I’m pretty fortunate to have experienced the fire within the secular academy. That fire is expected for a Christian. I wasn’t under the impression that the professors and other students in my program would answer questions the same way I did. But in seminary, that’s a huge expectation, and when it’s not met (and it never should be), it can be frightening.

Then came the most important statement of the day:

“But this can be so painful at times. Everything I’ve known and found comfort in has been turned upside down. I don’t want to drag my congregation through the same thing that I’m going through now.”

My group members have been wrestling with an epistemological crisis as I did while I was writing my thesis. That is, they’ve encountered a roadblock in their faith journey—something they’ve run up against that their old tradition won’t allow them to reconcile, so they’re seeking out reconciliation.

I don’t think, however, that this experience is restricted to those in seminary. Death will do it. The death of a child. A parent. A spouse—of anyone before their time, really (and who’s to say when that is?) I also think of Paul on the road to Damascus, blinded by God’s glory, convicted in such away that there was no possibility of return to his old way.

In other words, our congregations don’t have to encounter an academic epistemological crisis in order to wrestle with their most deeply held beliefs about who God is and how he interacts with the world. In fact, I can say without a doubt that we will encounter people as we do ministry who are struggling with roadblocks but who have never read Derrida, Zizek, MacIntyre, or taken a class with Nancy Murphy.

That’s a good thing.

It’s necessary for us to struggle with our faith. That’s the first Beattitude, after all. To be poor in spirit is to struggle with faith. (See Dallas Willard.) God doesn’t want us to get to a place where we’re comfortable, complacent, or satisfiedthe sense that we don’t need anything else from Him or that we think we understand Him completely. This doesn’t mean we have to be miserable either. We’ve heard countless sermons on Hebrews or James about being tested about persevering. Just open up to any random psalm and start reading. Faith in God means being uncomfortable in a way that makes us better, more faithful people. Crises don't have to be walls we hit and never overcome. They're turning points, allowing us to never see the same way again, just like Paul.

No seminary education required.

Trust with Teeth

2011-03-31T11:18:45-05:00

I'd like to share my first sermon with you, which I delivered at the beginning of Spring Break.

No one here has really talked about preaching [or internships for that matter], something I know from meeting prospective students as a Fuller Ambassador is on a lot of people's minds. I work at Pasadena Covenant Church, about a mile from campus, as the Director of Student Ministries. There are many, many churches in the area, almost all of them familiar with and supportive of Fuller and Fuller students. The internship possibilities are practically endless. PCC, with a congregation of 250, has four Fuller interns and a number of other students in attendance who are thinking about an internship there. It's a really fun and exciting place to be.

The lead pastor, Tim Dally, asked me at the beginning of March if I would preach in the main service on March 20. At the time, that was less than three weeks away. I had always thought for some reason that I would have 6-12 months of prep time, that the church wouldn't really trust the youth pastor, a Fuller student, to just get up there and preach the Word. But no--I had fifteen days. In many ways, that was better. It was like ripping off a band-aid.

Of course, it may be different at other churches. Some are probably more cautious. Either way, most, like mine, really desire to mentor Fuller students. Whatever you're looking for from a church or internship, you'll be able to find it at a church in the area.

I'll leave it there since the sermon is about 30 minutes.

You can stream or download it here: Trust with Teeth

Love Won

2011-04-06T15:38:46-05:00

I received an email from my dad the other day as I was headed to my Monday night Contemporary Literature and Theology course that said this:

“I'm reading a book called ‘Love Wins’ by Rob Bell, who says he is a Fuller graduate - - do you know anything about this guy? - - the book is certainly non-traditional in its descriptions of heaven and hell. Just thought you might have an insight.”

I love my dad, who is an engineer. Because of his engineer's mind, he and I tend to think about things differently. Three years ago, as I was in the middle of my MA in English, he remarked in response to something I was saying, drawing a distinction between us: I’m an intellectual, and he is not. Since my dad is certainly one of the smartest people I know, I thought that to be interesting, something I had never considered before.

During my first quarter at Fuller, my dad asked me how I liked my classes and wanted to know what I was learning about. I started telling him about Nancey Murphy and non-reductive physicalism (the belief, essentially, that there is no such thing as a soul.) About three minutes in, he put his hand up to stop me and said, “Does this affect whether or not Jesus is our Savior?” I told him, no, it didn’t. “Okay,” he said, “as long as I don’t have to try to understand any of this stuff, then I’m okay.”

My dad wasn’t writing off what I was studying as not worthwhile—just as not of practical value to him. To be clear, this difference between us hasn’t been a point of tension in our relationship either. Lately he’s been marveling at the fact that currently two of his four sons are in graduate school studying things that are way over his head (a third is getting an MBA, which is right up my dad’s alley.) This difference between us has actually been fruitful in the sense that it has helped me to gauge whether or not a particular abstract idea (some hermeneutical tool, for example) would be helpful necessarily in practical application or at least to start to develop an idea of how it could become helpful someday.

I think that’s really important. One of the biggest problems I see as I sit in philosophy and systematic theology classes, have coffee with other like minded students, stay up late with my roommate smoking pipes around our fire pit, all the time discussing these lofty, invisible structures in our thought that lie behind and support practical concerns is that far too many people in the church still cling to modern ideology and ways of knowing, but they're a long way off from seeing it. That’s one of the primary reasons Bell’s book has stirred things up so much: It’s a full frontal assault on that way of viewing the world. But the difficult issue for me becomes how to help people see that without dragging them through years of careful philosophical reflection and study. It’s not at all a matter of smart versus stupid—it’s a matter of intellectual versus practical.

I decided the very minute that I heard about John Piper’s tweet (“Farewell, Rob Bell”) that even though I would be reading Love Wins, I wasn’t going to engage with it in a public forum like this. Other Fuller bloggers may have avoided it for similar reasons—we’re just not fans of drama here. Besides, Greg Boyd, Dr. Mouw, and others have basically said all that needs to be said:

It’s a book that simply raises a question about something that is perhaps contradictory in Christian tradition and calls readers to seriously think about that question.

And somehow that is seen as heretical.

But then there’s my dad’s question.

Here I am—here we all are—wrapped up in the culture of Christian pop-academia. I would venture to say that there are very very few people on Fuller’s campus who do not know the name Rob Bell or who are not at least vaguely aware of what a controversial figure he is within Evangelical circles.

But then there’s my dad’s question.

My dad grew up in the church, coincidentally at Pasadena Covenant Church, where I now work. My mom is a Christian as well, growing up at Lake Avenue, down the street from PCC. They took my brothers and me to Sierra Madre Congregational. None of these churches lean very far in one direction or the other on the conservative/liberal scale. They’re pretty close to the middle. My parents now attend a church in Lafayette, CO called Flatirons Community Church—a place not unlike Rob Bell’s own congregation in size and style—which is also near the middle.

I responded to his email the next day, explaining who Bell is, what the controversy is over, and then pointed him to Boyd’s, Mouw’s, and [for a laugh] Donald Miller’s responses to Bell’s book. I told him that for me, the important thing Bell’s book does (and Bell really says as much in the preface) is not just to raise this one question about who is in hell and how we can know that but to raise a much larger question about where particular doctrine even comes from in the first place—something most Christians don’t really think about day to day.

My dad called me later that afternoon.

“I was going to email you, but then I thought I’d call,” he said. He thanked me for the links to the blog responses. He particularly liked Dr. Mouw’s.

And then he said something that I thought was profoundly important.

“It just seems to me,” he said, “that we can’t limit God by saying he will punish people in one particular way. We just don’t have enough information to know something like that. And I really like that phrase: Generous Orthodoxy [referring to Mouw’s blog.]”

I realized then how vastly important Bell’s book and others like it could potentially be. My dad, a man with no particular academic or intellectual interest in his faith, who knew nothing of Bell or the controversy surrounding the book, just someone who simply cares about reflecting on it because he wants to grow spiritually—who saw the book at Costco and thought it sounded interesting—was able to grasp the thrust of Bell’s argument—the larger purpose at which he is driving. Somehow that gap between intellectual and practical was crossed. In my mind, that is an enormous victory for any kind of “postmodern” theological movement.

Rob Bell will obviously never see this blog, but someone needs to tell him that he has accomplished what he set out to do. Nice work, Rob.

churchunbound.wordpress.com

Summer of Service

2011-07-22T16:35:43-05:00

I took a long hiatus (longer than I thought) from blogging here to focus on a lot of other writing: school, youth group, A Church Unbound—it’s been a busy last few months! But I wanted to share a part of my summer so far.

Last summer was my first as a youth pastor, and I probably did what most first-time people do: I planned a ton of fun stuff for us to do. We were doing a mission trip to Ecuador, so I thought, why not? Let’s just go to theme parks, baseball games, the beach… We had a great time. But none of it seemed necessary. For the most part, the students were happy to come to stuff when they could, but it seemed like we could be doing just about anything, and they would’ve been just as happy to be a part of a community gathering no matter what it was.

This summer we’ve been trying something radically different. We’re calling it Summer of Service. We don’t have a midweek program in the summer. Instead we have five service events planned throughout June, July, and August. Between those are two beach trips, two pool parties, middle and high school camp (Campus-by-the-Sea and CIY Move respectively) and one middle school trip to Magic Mountain. You’ll notice that it’s pretty much an even split between service and “fun only” events (because service is fun too!), but the impact so far has been incredible.

That’s because there’s a twist. We call each service event a “Random Act of Service.” What this means is that students have no idea what they’re going to be doing when they show up. We tell them what they need to know (bring gloves, you’ll be eating, etc.), and they come. I’ll be honest: I was skeptical at first. In the past, our service events haven’t achieved all that much success mostly because students tend to judge whether or not they’re going to be there depending upon how comfortable they’ll be or even on how useful they think the project is. If they can’t see the impact, or they feel like its too small, they may not want to go. As backwards as that is, it does come from a good place: students want to make a difference. They want to change the world. As a youth worker, that attitude is an awesome thing to have on my side, but it has to be molded and mentored. I wasn’t sure if not telling them what they’d be doing would achieve different results.

There’s another aspect to this that we’ve been intentional about, which separates these events from your standard youth group service project. Service events typically tend to be two things: serving outside of your community and serving others. By community, I mean outside of the church body, sometimes outside of the city, particularly if the church is in a suburban community (like Pasadena.) So for our first event, we cleaned up the youth room and moved some furniture in the childrens’ classrooms. We started as close to home as possible, trying to show them the importance of serving each other in the body. It was a good start, but it was only a preview of the sort of radical change that we want to incite. We started small and then went huge.

By “serving others,” I refer to the soup ladle. Far too often, service can mistakenly become a means for us to retain or affirm the power and privilege we have over others. That’s not to say that service is meant to do that—on the contrary. We need volunteers to serve others in a variety of ways we’re all familiar with. But when we give opportunities for the untrained to have one-off experiences, we tend to set them up for failure. That’s because those projects tend to be things like handing out sandwiches to the homeless, serving in soup kitchens and missions, etc. These events, while necessary and potentially very worthwhile, leave too much potential to enable students to stay safe behind the glass while they reach through the slot to “care” for other people. Is that really caring? If students don’t bring their experience back to their own community, allow those experiences to radically transform them, then… why did they do it? Why are we taking them to do it?

I’m not trying to say this is easy. But I think what we’ve been doing this summer is a small step forward. Here’s an account of our second event:

We told students to meet at our youth room at 6pm on a Wednesday and to come hungry because they would be eating. Many were understandably confused. One 7^th grader asked me, “Uh, Joel? How are we going to serve anyone by eating dinner?” I told him he would see. A staff member brought his truck with a propane grill. We loaded my grill in the truck, piled into cars, and drove over to Central Park, just below The Green Hotel in Old Town. Its nickname is “Homeless Park.” We pulled the grills out, got them heated up, and filled them both with burgers. Then a few kids wandered the park with some leaders and invited the people who were enjoying their evening to come and join us for a burger.

The joining part was confusing to students in the beginning. At first, we just had a small trickle: one guy, two more. Some students were rushing around, offering them water, ketchup, mustard, stuffing a plate into their hands. The staff and I had to keep reminding them quietly: You’re not serving them—you’re eating with them. In many ways, this could’ve been called a Random Act of Hospitality. Or a Random Act of Fellowship. As those walls began to break down, through students witnessing leaders and members of the college group (these have been joint events) carrying on conversations with our guests, the students also started sitting down to talk with people who were coming to eat. More and more people arrived. We served about forty burgers (beef, turkey, and veggie) and a number of grilled cheeses too.

The most fascinating thing to me was to see how this event radically defied my expectations. One of my concerns was that students would eventually get tired of talking to people and go back into their own cliques. The opposite happened though. As the regulars in the park kept pouring in, they set up their community among us. A chessboard came out and games began. It suddenly became difficult for our students to break in because the people they were trying to talk to became immersed in their own community. It was incredible. This seemed necessary. It also taught me and the college intern a lot about what we’ll do next time: Bring our own chess sets.

Connections were still made despite the “first round” difficulties. One gentleman even took us up on our offer to join us the following Sunday. The next RAS (which will be next Saturday) won’t be the same thing in keeping with the randomness of these events. But this impromptu BBQ was a sign to us that these random acts are something that need to continue into the school year. We’ll definitely be back to Central Park before the summer is over. If you’re in Pasadena, keep a look out for us and come have a burger!

And if you do, bring your A-game. Those guys are really good at chess.

You Are Not Your Degree

2011-11-01T18:33:40-05:00

I've been working on PhD applications this quarter. I've been thinking about this time of my life for the last four years, when I first entered graduate school at UNCO. I started making lists of programs back then. I dreamed about what sorts of classes I wanted to teach and create, what types of PhD students I would be taking, what sorts of dissertations I wanted to see written under my direction. I was getting a little ahead of myself. I was already looking at the other side of the chasm, already imagining that I had found a way across. As I finished that MA (in English), completing and defending a thesis, I thought, I'm not quite ready yet. I was 26, had previously thought about coming to Fuller where I had some friends who had attended and encouraged me to consider it. My thesis had strong religious undertones--something that didn't sit very well with the chair of my committee, though she praised and passed it anyway. Coming to Fuller seemed like a great option, a way to round out my education, supplement my interest in theology and the philosophy of religion. I will definitely be ready to apply to PhD programs after another MA.

When the chair of my thesis committee found out that I was going on for a second MA, she pulled me aside and said, "I have former students who are currently working on a third or fourth masters program. You do not want to be those students. They are afraid of themselves and afraid of rejection. You will never get anywhere in your academic career with a handful of masters degrees and no PhD."

I didn't listen and came to Fuller anyway.

Now here I am, in my third year with just three classes left after this quarter. In my second quarter (Winter 2010), I grabbed a beer with a TA from one of my fall classes to ask him about the PhD process. He said the most important thing to do was to start emailing professors I wanted to work with. "The more they know you, the better your chances," he said. I took in his advice, tucked it under my cap for a rainy day. I was only in my second quarter. Probably in, like, a year from now I'll be ready to do that, I thought. I got to read some books first, get to know some of the work of these professors, do some more program research--I'll be ready next year. In February of this year, I began toying with the idea of applying to Cal State LA and LMU for an MA in philosophy. Nancey Murphy told me it couldn't hurt. She's sent many students who have been rejected from PhD programs to earn their "obligatory" MA in philosophy from CSULA. They then get accepted to top philosophy programs. One of them is at UCSD right now.

I could use an MA in philosophy, I thought, after my meeting with Murphy in the middle of the winter quarter. Literature. Theology. Philosophy. A triple threat. Yeah, I would definitely be ready to apply to PhD programs after that. That sounded familiar.

In the spring, a fellow Fuller student, a friend and a brilliant Old Testament scholar, heard back from the programs he applied to. He had done an independent study with Leslie Allen in order to produce a flawless writing sample and window into what his dissertation would be like. He had stunning recommendations from Allen, John Goldingay and other world-renowned Fuller faculty (our OT faculty really is one of the best.) He even had the opportunity to go out to Wheaton, one of his top choices, and sit down for lunch with the professor he wanted to work with. You know where this is going. For all of that, he didn't get in to any of the five programs he applied to. I remember how devastated he was. Professorial work had just been his plan. We talked about it over coffee.

"I went to Goldingay for some sympathy," he said. The look on my face told him he didn't really need to say how that went.

"Yeah. Dumb idea. He told me, 'You know. You just have to accept that no matter how smart you are, there are other people who are smarter and more qualified than you. End of story. Own that and move on.'"

I nodded solemnly.

"I think. I think that I allowed the title of PhD to define not just who I wanted to become but who I am now. That's why this hurts so much."

I nodded solemnly.

"Goldingay's right though. For how much of a--you know--he can be sometimes, he's absolutely right. I need to move on."

That's what my friend did. He was able to, at the last minute, on the eve of finishing his MA, switch to the MDiv program and pursue pastoral ministry. He loves it. Something about closing doors and opening windows. Or fire escapes.

In July over lunch, Rob Johnston suggested I consider the ThM at Fuller. After all, I had written a thesis for my English MA. If I were still considering PhD programs in English, I could knock out an awesome statement of purpose. I studied Kurt Vonnegut and post-structural theory. I could talk for days about those things and how I see them working together to produce really interesting understandings of late 20th century American literature. There is no thesis requirement for my MA option at Fuller, and it was too late to switch to the Worship & Arts track in order to write one. He wasn't saying that he didn't think I could get into PhD programs now; he was merely suggesting that doing a ThM would help clear my head, get me focused on a particular problem. That would be okay. A ThM is a step above an MA. It's still a vertical move.

At the beginning of this quarter, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen (God bless that kind, Finnish man) got me to finally see straight. "You know what I think?" he asked me (Can you hear his accent? I hope you can.) "I think ThM says 'traditional theology route.' But if you apply to the PhD with MA in English and MA in Theology, they'll think Whoa. Now this guy--he seems like kind of a rebel. Look at that background!" He gave me some programs to add to my list of consideration.

"Now start emailing people," he said.

I did. It was terrifying at first. In the summer, I had actually written an email draft to Graham Ward, who now teaches at Oxford. It was all of me in three paragraphs. It was me popping veins out of my neck and forehead to try to get across how amazing and brilliant I am and how he would love to have me as a student. It sat in my "Drafts" for four months. I didn't know if what I was saying made sense, if it was specific enough, if I said anything interesting--or if it was total garbage crap that meant nothing.

I finally sent it a month ago. I sent many more. The more I sent, the easier it was. Many people didn't write back. One or two wrote back and were pretty rude or ambivalent. But many of the ones who did, including Ward, sent some positive feedback. And Kärkkäinen was right. "Interesting background" was a common theme. I was able to set up a meeting with a professor at Claremont Graduate Union, others offered to talk to me on the phone, others encouraged me to come out to visit, gave me names of other professors to also make contact with.

My last step was to meet with a current PhD student here at Fuller. I still needed to narrow down my interests. He helped me do that in about an hour. I had really known all along, even since my program at Northern Colorado, what direction I would take my dissertation. This sounds horribly cliche, so I wouldn't be saying this if it weren't absolutely true: My dissertation idea had always been inside me. I just needed someone else to help me talk it out.

In a sense, that's what I had been doing all along in this four-year process--trying to work out what it is I'm really passionate about.

It's obviously not over. Graham Ward told me he'd help me write a proposal that would enable me to apply to study with him at Oxford. But doing so would require that I abandon critical theory almost completely and focus on the work of French anthropologist Bruno Latour. Haven't heard of him? Being not just original but utterly groundbreaking is what it takes to get into Oxford. I'm not sure I'm ready for that--and that's okay. My other prospects are CGU, Syracuse, Marquette, Virginia, and Duke. Those last two are certainly long shots--and that's okay. If I don't get in anywhere, I'll spend the next year reading, studying, refining, rethinking, and I'll try again. And probably one more time after that.

What I've discovered through this, what has been so vital for me is to remember that no matter how many people believe in me, no matter how smart I think I am, no matter how right I do everything, I still might not get in anywhere.

And that's okay.

I will still exist.

A Man Said to the Universe

2011-12-05T17:39:59-06:00

A man said to the universe:

"Sir, I exist!"

"However," replied the universe,

"The fact has not created in me

"A sense of obligation."

-Stephen Crane, 1899

Last week, some hurricane force winds hit Pasadena, and wreaked havoc across the city.

My house was without power from around 3:30am Thursday morning until Saturday evening at 6:30. A path through the tree has been cut, but there is still debris everywhere. We don't have internet yet, so I write from a coffee shop in Sierra Madre that was restored to complete functionality as of yesterday afternoon.

There are a lot of really cliche things one could say, but nothing that hasn't already been said:
We don't know what we have until it's gone.
Our most valuable commodities are the ones most taken for granted.
We're far too dependent on man made things like refrigerators and television, so let's get back to nature.
The LORD giveth, and the LORD taketh away.

I guess all of that's true. My roommate, who is a really relaxed guy, was having a small panic attack the last few days because of finals. We were actually lucky: We live next door to the youth room at the church where we both serve, and it had power. So we were able to save all of our refrigerated and frozen items and run an extension cord to our house for some minimal power. It was sort of an adventure. It felt like we were camping.

What I wondered about in the face of this was the ways in which we assign meaning to these types of events. What we say about them and how we say it. A few days ago, a dad of one of my students told me how he saw God's hand protecting a lot of homes on his street: A tree fell between two houses; a big limb blew the opposite direction of a roof; and so on. Even the tree that fell on my street, he noted, missed the porch of the house across the way by mere inches. Just a decade older and it probably would have crashed through the front of the house.

I'm not saying it's wrong to assign such fortunate circumstances to the hand of God. I actually appreciated the sincerity in this dad's stories of God's grace. I think he would agree, though, that if we praise God for his mercy, we have to cry out to him in the face of the tragedy that befalls us. Thankfully, I have not heard report of any fatalities from this storm. I hadn't even seen any major home damage myself. And there was plenty of opportunity for that given the size of the trees around here. Sunday morning, a sixth grade student offered a prayer request to me for the family of a home he saw on Orange Grove as he was on his way to church. He said their house had been smashed in half by a fallen pine.

"These things happen," I told him. I was thinking about the meaning of meaning and how wind just blows and trees just fall. Sort of a Stephen Crane cursing the Universe moment.

Sometimes I forget that I'm working with 12-18 year olds.

His concern is valid. Arguably, so are the cliche claims to have been taught something really important and transformative through events like this.

I suppose the problem I have is that they're not really that transformative especially in the face of what many of us experienced last week. Not unless your house has been smashed to pieces. I know that sounds dark, but there's something to be said about recognizing the insight that Crane offers us: We don't change the universe--it changes us. Because we want it to. We need it to in order for tragedy to mean something because the horror of meaningless tragedy is too much to bear. As a Christian, we would probably say God changes us through the action of the universe--random and senseless or not--and sometimes he does that when we're trying our hardest not to be changed by circumstances.

I'm okay with that.

Still, I'm planning a hiatus from Facebook probably starting now because I'm sort of tired of reading about how people have learned the value of electricity and hot water because they were without it for 1-3 days. My friends are good people (you are), but we need to do better sometimes at stepping back and reflecting on what is really happening. There are way too many factors to try and tackle in one blog post, but Facebook is sort of a catch-all example. We know the problems associated with social media: the barrier between us and the "real" world allowing us the safety of spitting out whatever is on our minds in an instant for all the world to read, whether the world wants to or not. Consider the irony of lamenting the loss of power on Facebook, probably from a Starbucks, library, etc. We want to feel like we're a part of events like these. The way we did that in the past was we would drive or walk over to a friend or neighbor's house and talk about our experiences. Now we just shout them on Facebook. That's just how it is.

It's silly. And it wouldn't bother me if people really didn't believe what they were writing. Maybe some don't. But I know that some do. I've done it too. It's really easy to do without thinking about it. But with this, the sheer number of people who were posting in the midst of blackouts has simply become comical. It's fascinating to me that this is now how most people assign meaning to extraordinary events: They create is by posting what they learned on Facebook.

With the fast approaching holidays, Pasadena and the surrounding areas will be back to normal in the next few days. The missing trees around the valley will serve as a reminder for a while, but things will be normal again. We'll be using electricity and hot water just as we always have.

Suspicion and Faith and Hating Mother Teresa

2011-12-16T17:05:27-06:00

Christian reaction to the news of Christopher Hitchens’ death last night of complications due to cancer have certainly been mixed. Tweets jovially poking fun at the New Atheist read “ ‘Hitchens doesn’t exist anymore’—God.” Many more conservative Christians vindictively celebrate the death of someone whom they probably felt had backed them into a corner along with the other three (self-titled) Horsemen of New Atheism (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett.) Now one is gone. Just as they celebrated the death of Osama bin Laden, so they celebrate Hitchens’ untimely demise. Chalk one more up for us. It’s been a good year.

Then there are the more progressive Christians, mostly academics that I know, who are posting about how much Christopher Hitchens’ improved their faith. After all, we were all decrying belief in the same god—the god of fundamentalism, violence, and empire that is clearly not the God of the Israelites, of the Bible, of the universe. I have to agree with them. While I didn’t grow up in an ultra-conservative, fundamentalist home, I understand why my friends who did are grateful to Hitchens and the other New Atheists for exposing the flaws in a Christianity that has its grip on so many American Christians. The hermeneutics of suspicion can be quite powerful. And Hitchens, et al. are not the first to bring such glad tidings to Christians looking for a better way than the idols of their past. Freud, Nietzsche, Marx, Heidegger—many 19th and 20th century philosophers preceded the Horsemen pointing out many of the same flaws in believing in a god who would condone the violence perpetrated by fundamentalist religion. Of course, none of these philosophers nor the New Atheists believe that they’re freeing the religious from their own dogma so that they may experience a better, more robust faith. That’s beside the point here, however.

I hesitate in participating in either strand of response. The first for obvious reasons. It isn’t so much hesitation as refusal: Christians should never celebrate the death of another human being. And while I identify with friends who’d rather celebrate Hitchens’ life, in some ways seeming like a back-handed way of saying to atheists, “You have no idea what actual Christianity entails, let alone actual religion,” I have trouble celebrating the life of a man who made a career out of spitting venom at others. If he had been a Christian doing this to atheists or Muslims or anyone else, we would have been appalled. I recognize that Christianity abides in the sort of humiliation Hitchens and others seek to pile on to us—that above all, our call is to humility to the point of death (Matt. 16:24-25). But Hitchens’ vitriol went beyond just trying to prove how dumb religious people are.

The man hated Mother Teresa. He thought she was a complete fraud. On top of that, he ironically supported the Iraq War—because it was leading to the death of Islamic fundamentalists. What’s that saying about strange bedfellows? Fundamentalist Christianity could link arms with Hitchens and sing some songs together over that point. What we need to be careful of us not caving to quickly to the pressure of expectations. Atheists expect Christians to be celebrating, so those of us who do not identify with that group of Christians desire to distance ourselves quickly by talking about what a tragedy it is to lose someone so brilliant. It is certainly tragic to see someone die before his time, especially someone who did contribute fruitfully in some ways to the demolition of religious fundamentalism. I’m on his side in that. But I can’t ignore the rest. He was extremely misguided, not only in his account of history but in his responses to some important contemporary issues as well. I won’t celebrate that part of his life.

[www.achurchunbound.com]

You Wanna Go Where Everybody Knows Your Name

2012-04-17T00:41:20-05:00

I'm in my last quarter here at Fuller. My last class, my last quarter. I have just one online course, so I'm hardly even on campus anymore. I haven't written in a while. Last quarter was one of the most difficult I've had despite taking two classes pass/fail. Now that I've gotten into the swing of this quarter, I hope to write a little bit more.

Something happened last Friday that made me startlingly aware that my time here at Fuller is almost done. One of my friends finished his degree in the Winter quarter and was headed back to Phoenix to try and figure out next steps. There was a going away party for him Friday night. It wasn't his departure that served as the reminder; lots of friends have departed while I've been here. As soon as I walked in the house for the party, I instantly realized that I knew no one who was there save my friend and maybe one or two others. People at Fuller are generally friendly, so I met some first or second year students, and eventually some more familiar faces arrived. As I talked to some of the newer students and saw their circles forming in the living room, I realized a hard truth about graduate study: two or three years is gone so fast. It really doesn't seem that long ago that I was the new student at Fuller. Now I have the admissions office calling me up to meet with prospective PhD students because I'm the "veteran." Crazy.

And when I meet with those students, they always ask me about community at Fuller. Does it exist? Are people nice? Do they want to be friends? Those are interesting questions because Fuller is so completely what you make it. I think some other bloggers have even written here that Fuller is in no way like a traditional college experience. In some ways that's true, but in others, I think that I've found a similar sense of community that exists at college. I have made friendships that I genuinely feel will be lasting. It seems that, for the most part, every incoming group of students is able to find their people here if they're willing to do a little bit of work. That going away party was a shining example of the sort of community that can be found at Fuller. There were well over 25 people crammed into this little house in Altadena, singing karaoke, drinking "punch," eating cake, and just enjoying each other and celebrating this friend that they had become at least acquainted with during their time at Fuller.

Who doesn't like cake?

They Call Me Trendy Richter

2012-05-18T02:45:25-05:00

One of the great things about living in Pasadena is that you're really close to Los Angeles, Hollywood, and all the cool things those places have to offer. The funny thing is that I thought I had done just about everything, was over the hype, was really only interested in the little niche activities (hiking in Eaton Canyon, coffee at The Bourgeois Pig, etc.) because I grew up here (in Arcadia) and I thought I'd done it all.

Since coming to Fuller, though, I've discovered that there was so much I didn't know about and hadn't done. That's because so many people attend here from out of state (or country), and being new, they're on the lookout for cool things to do. One thing it seems like everyone does at one time or another is go to the taping of a show in Burbank or Hollywood where shows like Ellen, Conan, The Tonight Show, Jimmy Kimmel Live, etc. are filmed. The tickets are free--you just have to sign up for them on a particular day and show up a few hours before the show is scheduled to tape.

I went to my first taping ever on Monday. My brother and his wife got tickets to see Conan, had an extra one, and invited me along. It was a great time. Even though I grew up here, and despite popular belief about native Southern Californians, I did not grow up next to movie stars or seeing famous people every day, and I'm starstruck and in awe of seeing something like the Conan set in person--or Conan O'Brien himself for that matter.

I was also met with a surprise: I ended up on camera for one of the bits. I won't explain; I'll just let you watch the video here. I'm the last "target" in the bit. As you can see, I enjoyed that a lot, as have my students and friends!

Who is this guy?

2009-11-10T23:49:34-06:00

Disclaimer #1:

Before you begin reading this please BE WARNED: this may not be a spiritually inspirational blog. If you're looking for a heartwarming, goosebump-forming, tear-jerking testimonial, kindly keep clicking to another blog because I think you'll be disappointed here. Though I'm thrilled to be starting my Master of Arts in Theology degree here at Fuller Theological Seminary, I'm not currently in that spiritual "sweet spot" with God that many evangelical Christians often talk about (genuine or not). However, I do have plenty of joy and happiness in my life, and I'll probably share about that now and then, but I just don't want you to expect any warm and fuzzy devotional insights from my rants... er... thoughts on Christianity and spirituality. This will be a raw (but hopefully responsible) outpouring of my personal and spiritual struggles as I wade through the theological topics that piss me off... as well as the hope that keeps me from leaving the faith.

Disclaimer #2:

Don't think that my jaded attitude towards God, theology and spirituality is a reflection of the typical student here at Fuller. From my experience so far it seems that most of my peers have come here because of a sincere devotion to Christ and a deep desire to know and serve God. Most seem to feel called by Him to pursue a deeper understanding of scripture, ministry, theology and spirituality (and rightly so - that's the purpose of the school!). My cynicism shouldn't be taken as a reflection of an average Fuller student. And to be clear, I'm not paid by Fuller to do this blog or encouraged by Fuller to say nice things about the school.

Disclaimer #3:

Nor do I want to give the impression that I'm an unbelieving "heathen" (I'm probably now speaking to you more conservative readers out there). I can't say that I feel "called" to study here like many do, but I'm definitely seeking Truth which I trust/hope (want to hope) is found in God through Jesus Christ. My inescapable background and worldview foundation is Christian Evangelicalism, like it or not. I've not given up on Christianity by any means, but I'm not as confident today in Christian orthodoxy as I was during the first 30 years of my life. The American church, for the most part, has had little to offer those who ask the sincere but difficult philosophical questions about faith, purpose, and Christianity (though some places like Fuller do welcome the questions. Mostly I've seen the church ignore, poorly address, or smugly chide the "faithlessness" of those who question the evangelical worldview. So I guess I'm pretty disappointed at we Christians. But I'll try not to be too snarky about "us" here.

So let me now give you a little background about me. I grew up in a loving and stable Christian home in semi-rural north Texas. My parents were wonderful during my childhood and are now even closer to me in my adulthood. My father was pastor of a small, non-denominational, evangelical church for as far back as I could remember. He's still one of the wisest men that I've ever known and I have a huge respect for him. (He also happens to be in school currently as well, finishing a Doctor of Ministry degree at Denver Seminary) My mother was a supportive pastor's wife who put up with a lot being "married to the ministry". She was also a piano teacher as early as I can remember and is a loving, fun person. I also have two older sisters. The "ideal" American nuclear family. I also grew up with a strong and loving Christian community where my Dad was the shepherd. I'm realizing now that much of my theological influences from childhood (particularly from my Southern Baptist friends) leaned more fundamentalist and I'm sure some of that foundation has affected my current spiritual disposition.

Attending a non-denominational Christian university (John Brown University) in Arkansas was one of the smartest decisions I ever made. I studied Christian ministry and was very active, leading worship, serving in ministry, learning from the diversity of different perspectives. After graduation, I was offered a full ride to stay and earn a Master of Science in Leadership and Ethics, a new program that they were starting at JBU. So I ended up staying there for a bit. Met and married my remarkable wife, Jenny, while there and for the first couple of years of marriage, we lived the American Dream. Rockwellian small town, double-income-no-kids, charming house with a yard, dog, great friends and family nearby. We had it pretty good. Then I felt the urge to move to LA and bring the truth of Christ to Hollywood (because obviously that was a mission field that was ripe for the harvest, or so I thought). We've lived here in southern California now for almost three years and it has been good, but very unexpected (perhaps more on that later).

So that should help give you some perspective if you wish to return here and try to figure out what I'm trying to say in these blogs. I will end with an encouraging little principle that I've heard Dr. Mouw (President of Fuller) talk about a few times recently. With certain difficult issues about theology (particularly those with a variety of possible Christian perspectives) he has embraced and allowed for plenty of "mystery". I like this concept. Perhaps during the early years of my Christian faith I got the impression that every question could be answered with black and white clarity through scripture and theological tradition. Though those tools are surely helpful, once I realized that the world just didn't work with that level of coherence, I began to despair about faith. But with this new perspective that embraces the mystery of God and stops trying to figure out His exact modus operandi (the way He works in the world), I just might be able to discover a deeper, stronger, and more resilient faith while I'm here at Fuller. At least that's my hope...

Flashback to September '09

2009-11-13T09:53:18-06:00

Flashback to September 29, 2009... The past month has been scorchingly hot in Southern California (and hot makes me cranky!). But at this moment, the sun has gone down, a cool breeze is wafting through the windows and I'm sitting on a comfy brown leather couch in the "Catalyst" (that's the hip name of the student center here at the Fuller Pasadena campus). I must say I'm feeling pretty good right now having finished my first day of seminary classes. I'm actually quite excited about them: Christian Ethics (taught by Dr. Erin Dufault-Hunter) and Topics in the Philosophy of Religion (taught by Dr. Nancey Murphy). I think both will be very interesting professors.

Sitting in the classrooms today felt very different, however, from my previous educational experience. The classroom setting was similar. The students weren't so different (though most of them a bit older and more mature). But something was naggingly and refreshingly different today. Best I can figure, the difference must be in me. No doubt I've changed dramatically from the 18-year-old fundamentalist, know-it-all, passionate, earnest, prideful, devoted, deeply spiritual young man who sat in a similar desk-chair in 1995 when I started my undergrad education. I discovered the internet for the first time that year! My assumption was that all I had to do was LEARN everything (which I assumed was a quantity of black and white knowledge about the world), and then DO everything. I very much expected to conquer all obstacles and achieve the highest goals humanly (and inhumanly) possible. I was actually quite certain that I would bring every willing soul to Christ, acquire great wealth, and even become president of the United States (literally!). My idealism was off the charts to the point of near delusion!... Well, I've certainly been humbled in the 14 years since. And I'm sure that I've been made better for the humbling. But it sure has changed my view of the world. I expect when I leave Fuller in three (or four or five) years my worldview will have changed even more... And I'm confident that again I will be better for the humbling that will take place while I'm here.

The Road

2009-11-29T00:29:55-06:00

Just saw the film The Road with my brother-in-law. You can see it for yourself or at least read about it on the Web if you don't know the story. Heavy, intense, dark, and profound. A non-gratuitous reminder of the depravity inherent in humanity, kept at bay so tenuously by civil order (at times) and religious ethics (at times). We are so frail... I guess the fact that we haven't completely self-destructed is some evidence of a divine hand in the world.

The film caused me to reflect on both of the courses that I'm taking at Fuller right now: Christian Ethics and Philosophy of Religion. From our discussions in philosophy, this film once again caused me to consider the true nature of humanity. Are we purely animals that simply possess an advanced neurological system which allows for a type of self-awareness? Or is there some other immaterial "stuff" within us (i.e. soul) that will survive after death? Neither option can be proven at this point (neither scientifically nor scripturally it seems). It's a matter of faith and perspective. There are definitely times (as seen in this film) when humans seem to act more like animals than anything resembling an Imago Dei. Sometimes it seems that the only difference between us and the animal kingdom is the fact that we can shake our fist at our creator in frustration and anger at the suffering of the world. Animals are unable to question God...

In Ethics we have been discussing some of the major strains of philosophical ethics such as Kantian (universal moral laws and an innate duty to follow them) and utilitarian (ethics based on practical formulas toward the "greatest good"). But then, of course, the ethic of Jesus stands in stark contrast to many other moral codes. The counter-intuitive giving of oneself for others and not resisting evil done against us. In theory this selflessness seems right and good and Christ-like and I have no problem accepting the truth that I should not harm someone who tries to harm me (even if I don't always act according to it). The difficult theoretical questions arise when it comes to the defense of the innocent. When faced with the choice of violence or non-violence toward an attacker in the case of protecting the victim, what would Jesus do?

Some may say that these questions are hypothetical and unhelpful, but that appears to me as simply an inability or refusal to face the tough questions. Would Jesus harm and attacker to save the victim? Most of us would scream "YES!" until we look at the Gospels and see Jesus time and again reject any form of violence. Unfortunately, the writers of the early scriptures did not give us any account of Jesus violently resisting - or not resisting - another human who is committing a physical injustice upon another. In the cases where there might be a correlation, it's Jesus' negotiation skills that miraculously weaken the violent ones. But we are not armed with such miraculous power. Some say "Yes, we are! Just look at the power wielded by Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr." True, these are wonderful examples of non-violence succeeding. But to assume that this will work every time is naive and irresponsible. In both instances, the powers that were being confronted were - at their core - still responsible to a Judeo-Christian ethic and this could be one reason why non-violence worked. But in other parts of the world and throughout most of history, the powerful meet non-violent resisters with extermination. And injustice continues.

If someone (and perhaps someone did) tried to calmly and peacefully reason with Major Hassan to stop him from shooting the unarmed soldiers in the classroom at Fort Hood, they most surely would have been shot and killed along with the others. It took the violence of Sergeant Munley to stop the injustice that Hasan was doing to that room of unarmed people.

I'm struggling with these issues now as I write a paper about the Just War Theory and Pacifism. Perhaps I'll dedicate future academic study to this difficult, complex, and poignant question...

Beginning a new quarter

2010-01-06T17:00:33-06:00

Today I'm starting classes for my second quarter of study at Fuller. Though grades from last quarter haven't come in yet, I'm fairly confident that I got A's. This is important in helping to raise my GPA to become a better candidate for PhD programs. This quarter I'll be taking two courses again: Spiritual Traditions and Practices and Early Church History. The history one will be interesting and probably a straight-forward survey of significant Christian figures from the Apostles through Augustine. The Spiritual Traditions course will, I think, be a whole different animal and I'm not sure how I feel about it. I think it will either challenge me or annoy me. Though it will also be dealing with significant Christians who have pioneered contemplative movements in the past, the class will also be an interpersonal exploration of spirituality for each student. So I will be required to engage with practices of mysticism and internal spirituality - of which I am extremely skeptical given the many abuses and frauds out there. I much prefer to stick to the academic and intellectual pursuit of God and philosophy. But at the same time, I have some deep sense that this experience might be very good for me... We'll see.

My wife and I are also moving to be closer to Fuller at the end of this month. So no more commuting for 4 hours each day to get to campus! We've put a deposit down to rent a 2-bedroom place in Altadena, which is just about 3 miles from the Fuller campus. I'll most likely be riding my bike to and from the school. We've had mixed feelings about leaving our friends and family in Orange County, but I think we both know that this is the right move for us. Besides, we'll only be an hour away. We are also hoping to adopt and/or bring in foster children soon, but I need to find some kind of stable income before that happens. The few hours each week that I work now is just not enough and I want to be able to be the main bread-winner when we have kids so that Jenny can focus on them (which is what she really wants).

Over the December break we got to travel back to Arkansas where my parents live and many of our old friends remain. It was a socially packed and wonderful trip. We got to experience some rain and cold weather (which we seriously miss!) and spend good times with folks we love. I also got the chance to talk to some of my old professors from John Brown University and pick their brains about my plans for a teaching career. It was encouraging, but I do seem to get mixed advice when it comes to the question of whether an MDiv or MA is better for a teaching career. Some people say it's important to get the MDiv and some say an MA in Theology is really all that is necessary to get into a PhD program and get a job teaching. Although I'm sure that the MDiv would give me a bit more experience and knowledge, I'm just not sure if that extra year (or two) of school is critical for helping me in the future. For now I'll stick with the MA program. But I do need to figure out soon what kind of PhD program I want to get into. Everyone tells me that schools are glutted with applications from philosophy applicants and it is very hard to get a teaching job in this field. So I'm either looking at Ethics or some kind of historical theological study. I've always been a huge fan of C.S. Lewis and a mentor from JBU suggested that studying his works might be a good route. I just need to do more research and figure out more about what schools are looking for when hiring and what PhD programs are looking for in candidates. I'll share more on that later.

Moved Closer to Fuller!

2010-02-09T18:21:21-06:00

About a week ago we finally moved out of Orange County and closer to Fuller. We now live in Altadena, a residential suburb just north of Pasadena and at the foothills of the San Gabriel mountains. I'm about 3 miles from Fuller, so my commute to and from school is about two hours faster! My wife and I have been amazed at the support and community provided to us by her group of friends from the Fuller Wives bible study and our neighbors (who are mostly associated with Fuller as well). The place we got was formerly an official Fuller housing property, but recently was sold off. But still most of the tenants are either alumni, staff, or current students. One neighbor bought pizza for our move-in crew (our fantastic friends from Orange County) and another neighbor made dinner for us the night that we arrived! Aside from the great community we love our new place itself, which is probably 1/3 bigger than our previous apartment and about $200 cheaper per month.

So, needless to say, it's been a very busy few weeks. I had a mid-term exam last week in my Early Church History class. It was a bear of a test, but many of my classmates rallied in the few days prior and we pulled together a reasonably comprehensive study guide. Don't know how I did on the test yet, but I'm sure glad that so many other students stepped up and worked together to help one another study. That was a cool academic community experience. It was also my first real exam in seminary. Many of the classes are primarily graded through papers so from now on I will probably check the course descriptions so that I can avoid classes that depend heavily on exams for the grade. I much prefer to write a paper than cram for an exam that could cover 400 pages of content!

Spring

2010-03-29T12:59:11-05:00

It's a beautiful spring day in Pasadena! I'm getting ready to begin a few hours of work here on campus, then a meeting with the "vocational discernment" office as I need to find some full-time work after this quarter, and then my first spring class this afternoon, "The Ethics of Dietrich Bonhoeffer". In addition to this Bonhoeffer course, I'm taking "The Theology of C.S. Lewis" and the Old Testament course "Job and Human Suffering". I'm thrilled about these courses. Good diversity but also some overlap between the subjects. I've always loved Lewis, always respected Bonhoeffer, and always been frustrated and confused by Job. So this should be good!

We love living up here in the San Gabriel valley. Last week during spring break I took an afternoon to go hiking alone in the mountains above our house (we live about a mile down the street from the main trailhead). It was an incredible experience, alone on the mountain trails for nearly 5 hours, amazing views, and beautiful weather. I think I'll be making a habit of regular hiking while I live here.

Last week I also contacted one of my professors from the fall quarter and asked if she would help me to put together a presentation which could hopefully be accepted and presented at an ethics or theology conference within the next year. Although she was traveling in Asia somewhere, she was still kind enough to reply and offer her help when she returned to the States. So that should be a challenging and interesting experience which will also be a helpful for my academic resume.

We visited the Mosaic pasadena campus yesterday (a few blocks from our house) and heard Erwin McManus speak. He's a great communicator, but my wife and I went away feeling unsure if that is the right church community for us, even though we met some wonderful people there last week. Church is a weird thing to me. So many different styles and perspectives and approaches. I'm sure that my own past colors my view of what is healthy, or what is a good "fit" for us, or what is off-balanced. It's difficult (and really impossible) to discern what kind of body Christ would approve of (if any) if he walked among us in America today. Perhaps He would appreciate and approve of most or all...

It's the uncertainty of all these questions which frustrates me the most. But that need for certainty is also what creates extreme and divisive perspectives among different groups. So I want to be open and accepting, but (and maybe this is just my fundamentalist background) I also feel a deep need for objective standards and practices. There are a few major ones that we can all agree on (murder, adultery, stealing), but sometimes I'd like the assurance of knowing (with ecumenical certainty) what the tighter boundaries are for individual Christians and for Christian communities. Scripture does seem to spell out quite a few expectations above and beyond the Ten Commandments. But perhaps I need to just live in the grace of uncertainty and be at peace that, in the end, God will not judge us too harshly for our good intentions and poor practices. Hmm... that was an unexpected little rant... :)

My problem with modern churches

2010-04-18T15:13:12-05:00

I think I've identified the element about Christian church services/gatherings that turn me off the most: an insistence upon having a teaching/preaching/message (I think the word "lecture" is usually more fitting) by some Christian leader. It's the thing that turned me off the most when I was a child and bored out of my mind on Sunday mornings, and its the same unfortunate trend that frustrates me the most when I visit churches. Don't get me wrong, I believe teaching is good and occasionally extended messages can be fruitful. But if you could identify the most common element of a Christian gathering (irrespective of geography or nationality), it would most likely be the insistence of a "teaching time" or sermon (some sort of community singing or music might be a close second).

But the problem I see is that this lecture-element is the most passive, often the most boring, and the most one-sided aspect of the Christian gathering. Maybe I'm the sorry product of a media-saturated culture with a rapidly decreasing attention span, but what I know from my own experience is that no matter how much I like the speaker or how interesting he/she is, my mind will usually wander off out of boredom and disinterest. I think that the sermon is the least effective tool of ministry, spiritual formation, evangelism, or Christian education. Yet it is also the activity most commonly associated with weekly church gatherings and with the role of Christian pastors.

The circumstances where I feel that I have learned the most about myself, scripture, and the Christian life, have not been from lectures or sermons but from group discussions, one-on-one chats, and my own reading and reflection. Interactivity is the best way to see growth and spiritual fruit (at least in my generation). We are no longer satisfied by listening to and taking notes from an authoritative Christian figure who dictates to us what we need to know about God and the Christian life. We need to discuss it and wrestle with it ourselves in order to truly adopt it as our own (such a scrutinizing requirement for faith is even more necessary in a world where any and every dangerous ideology or philosophy is available at our fingertips). The church must move away from passive forms of ministry - such as the weekly sunday morning lecture - and move toward a more interactive model.

But even the "emergent", contemporary, or edgy churches are using this same tired method! They stand on candle-lit stages with ripped jeans and fohawk haircuts, and even teach radical, new, and fresh perspectives on Christianity. But they're still using the lecture model! I want a church that rejects all forms of passive engagement with scripture, God, and one another. But I've yet to find a church willing to work outside this box. I'm great with a teacher and a prepared message, but I want to be able to interact with it, ask questions, and add my own thoughts. How about fewer group lecture times on Sunday mornings and instead more community discussions? Am I fated to simply endure the Sunday morning lecture in order to experience the refreshing and challenging studies and discussions which happen in Christian small groups?

Passive forms of ministry = fail. Sermons = fail.

Response to Matthew Borba on: The Sermon

2010-05-09T19:29:33-05:00

Okay, I'll bite :) Let the blog debate continue!

First I must give thanks to fellow Fuller blogger, Matthew Borba, not only that he read my blog in the first place, but also for his thoughtful response (http://www.fuller.edu/blogdetails.aspx?userid=2147483668&id=2147484887&blogid=2147483730) to my frustrated rant, "My problem with modern churches," about how the Church depends too heavily on lecture-style preaching as the primary means of educating and exhorting the Body. He made a fair defense of traditional reliance upon preaching, but I will now defend and clarify my own view further while rebutting some of his points.

Let me first reiterated from my original post that "I believe teaching is good and occasionally extended messages can be fruitful." So I'm not advocating the tearing down of pulpits and limiting speakers in church services to five-minute devotionals. There is an occasional use for lecture-style teaching in church services and I do not, in fact, think that they should be "thrown out completely" as suggested by Matthew. In addition, I should add that the sermon may be quite effective for audiences of certain ages and sub-cultures; though personally I feel that it is highly ineffective for my own generation (X), and younger, in America. Nor am I suggesting that we should do away with corporate gatherings, as scripture clearly indicates that this is necessary and good (Hebrews 10:24-25).

My main beef is with passivity! And from my experiences in Evangelical churches, the tired format of Greeting-Announcements-Music-(leading toward the all-important...)-SERMON format breeds passivity among believers, who can simply sit and (sometimes) absorb information with little personal effort. My contention is that subconsciously - if not admittedly - many members think to themselves, "Why should I study the Bible myself when the pastor is going to tell me about all the important stuff on Sunday mornings anyway?" (if they're even listening to the sermon at all!). So although the sermon can be an effective tool in the Christian leader's kit, the lecture-style homily/message should not be the primary means of communicating Truth to the Body in the 21st century. I don't think Fuller should cancel all homiletics classes and fire the communications professors, but churches should de-emphasize this and try new means of educating the body.

Let me now respond to a few of Matthew's statements, particularly for the sake of clarifying my own argument. Matthew argues that a Christian church service where people would "actively engage" without the centrality of the sermon is only possible in an "ideal world"; he regrets that in reality, where interactive and small group formats are encouraged, church members are just "not equipped" and will apparently prove unsuccessful. He is right that the situation of the ill-equipped layperson is a sad truth in most churches, but I believe that the primacy of the sermon - and the resulting passivity - is mostly to blame for the ignorance of such a layperson. Perhaps if there was more emphasis put on personal study, group study, and interactive Christian education during gatherings then the problem of the ill-equipped layperson could be improved. That is my realistic belief. Worn out tools must be replaced by new and different tools as generations change. One commenter pointed out that Jesus employed multiple methods of communication when teaching, and only used the sermon method a few times (that we can confirm). If Jesus didn't use sermon as His primary tool, then why are pastors doing that?

It is a truly skeptical view that considers the uninformed believer incapable of independent or group study. Matthew claims that the sermon is "almost a necessity" to maintain a basic level of Biblical knowledge in the unmotivated layperson. I don't disagree that for these people lobbing Biblical bombs at captive audience members may be the only means of "maintaining" some level of spiritual knowledge among the body. But we should not settle for this lowest-common-denominator-approach as the central means of educating in our churches.

Matthew laments, "if the main sources of Christian knowledge and teaching comes from Sunday morning, we have missed the mark greatly." That is exactly my point! We have indeed missed the mark greatly. This is why I think we need to explore new models that are not based on the same old Sunday morning format. We should NOT throw out the "gathering together weekly as a community". We DO need to throw out a crusty and ineffective focus on one communication tool to the detriment of other means of education and teaching. It cannot be argued that most pastors currently put just as much effort into small group training and development as they do in preparing for their Sunday morning lecture... This is what must change. Let's not kill the sermon, but rather take it off it's throne!

I attack this particular flaw of church practice not for the sake of complaining about how broken the Church is, but rather because this is a problem that can be remedied with minimal adjustment and result in (I think) significant fruit. As another commenter shared, services can be gradually shifted over time to rely less-heavily on one form of teaching/worship and move toward a more diverse means of building up the body, which, used in concert, will be more effective in strengthening and equipping the church.

I still stand by my assertion (though now clarified, I hope) that: Sunday-Sermon-As-Primary-Educator = FAIL (at least for the coming generations)

Thanks for the lively discussion, Matthew. Hopefully we can get the Church to wrestle with both sides of this important question :)

Summer Films

2010-07-06T17:43:21-05:00

The break is now officially over as I started my first summer course today, New Testament I: Gospels, with Craig Evans. Looks like it should be a fascinating class and very good for me personally as I've been plagued with doubts about the reliability of the Gospels over the past year in particular.

But in the few weeks that I've had a break since the Spring Quarter ended in June, I've been able to see a few of the summer films and I'll share some of my thoughts about Iron Man II, Prince of Persia, Robin Hood, How to Train Your Dragon, and Toy Story.

My wife and I went to see Iron Man II shortly after it came out and we had high expectations since we really enjoyed the first film of the franchise. But we were quite disappointed by this one. The story was much the same as the original, except that this time, the main character learned nothing. He didn't grow or develop. He remained the egotistical, narcissistic self-centered playboy which he was at the beginning of the first film. It actually seemed that his character regressed since the last movie due to his new fame and success as a superhero keeping the world safe. Most superheroes are at least principled in some way - even if their principles may be misguided at times - but the Tony Stark in this second film was only interested in protecting his own company, wealth, fame, and power. Though at times humorous, he's a sad role model for millions of kids who undoubtedly are now playing with the action figures.

My brother-in-law and an old friend went to see Prince of Persia with me. And we got what we expected. It was a swashbuckling action film with great eye candy, a nice plot, and fun characters. The story doesn't generate any deep theological topics of discussion, but the moral integrity portrayed by the characters does. I was pleased to see moral strength and honor in the main protagonist, Dastan. Though he's a bit rebellious and roguish, in the classic hollywood style he ultimately conducts himself with loyalty and bravery. Though I do respect films which honestly depict the darker sides of humanity, it is refreshing to be reminded that much of the ethical core that we see in most hollywood characters still generally reflects Judeo-Christian virtues - regardless of what the pessimists say.

On second thought, Robin Hood was just too disappointing to talk about and I'd rather just forgive the director (Ridley Scott) and forget about it...

How to Train Your Dragon was a surprisingly fun and entertaining film. I'm usually skeptical about any animated film that doesn't come from Pixar, but the folks at Dreamworks at starting to up their game. I think the title threw me off as I knew nothing about the film and was not expecting a nordic medieval adventure film full of heart and humor. I took my niece to see it last week and we thoroughly enjoyed it together. Good fun clean family flick. I might have even felt some moisture in my eye...

Yesterday my wife joined several other family members at Disney's El Capitan theater on Hollywood Blvd. to see Toy Story 3. Those folks at Pixar amaze me. The writing, animation, music, characters... all extraordinary. My wife said it was her favorite of the trilogy. I'll have to see it again to make that judgment, but I will see it again... If you haven't yet, you should. Every adult should be nostalgic afterwards and every kid enchanted. Enough said.

I'll talk more about story, theology, and culture soon. I'm fascinated by this and might do more with it...

Not-About-Me Week

2010-07-14T13:16:06-05:00

Like or not (admit it or not), we live most of our lives in selfish pursuits. But next week, my wife and I are dreading (and also looking forward to) the most selfless week of each year.

Last summer we finally succumbed to the continual invitations by our friends to join them in volunteering a week of our summer to work at a summer camp for children who are wards of the state. Royal Family Kids Camps are held throughout the country (and some overseas) each summer and designed specifically for children who - due to abuse or neglect - have been taken from their parents and are now living in foster homes or group homes. We pay to serve them, but it is free for the children to attend.

The camp where we have been volunteering at is mostly staffed by volunteers from two Orange County churches and the children all live in southern California. The organization is Christian and we do talk about Christ, but the main point of the week is to give these children positive memories that they can hold onto as points of love and hope in the midst of their difficult and sometimes tragic childhoods. The state puts many expectations and regulations on the camp experience, and we counselors are usually assigned to care for two children during the entire week.

It is exhausting! But also SO rewarding. When the children get on the bus at the end of the week to leave camp and return to their "normal" lives, there is hardly an adult standing there waving goodbye at the buses with dry eyes.

We can't fix their emotional scars and relationship disorders. But we can shower them with love and hope. We can give them the positive attention that they have seldom received from adults.

And we are so focused on serving them and meeting their needs, that we just don't have time to think of ourselves and our own cares. It is hard and tiring, but also extremely refreshing to focus my energy and care into someone other than myself.

Please pray for all of us and for all the hurting children of the world when you think of it...

Theology and the Arts

2010-07-27T21:08:30-05:00

Well, I have officially modified my degree program at Fuller. I was working toward the general Master of Arts in Theology, but I've now added an emphasis in Theology and the Arts and I'm very excited!

When I came to Fuller, I had assumed that my past career in film/video production was a finished stage in my life, but my wife and others helped me to realize that creating visual media that inspires and challenges people is part of who I am and integral to what I want to do with my life. So I have decided not to abandon theological studies, nor film, but rather to merge them. Most of my elective classes will now involve theology and film.

I'm still not exactly sure what I will do with this degree, but I do feel confident that this is the right move. Whether I go on to produce more projects or end up teaching others to do so, I'm excited to continue exploring the theological and philosophical implications of art and film on our culture and our understanding of God. This interests me much more than any other theological discussion going on at Fuller. Plus there is already a great group of students and people connected to the seminary who are working in Hollywood and/or talking about film and theology.

Hopefully the next path after Fuller will become clear to me over the next couple of years as I continue to learn and explore the theological connections to art.

If you'd like to know more, check this out: http://www.fuller.edu/theologyarts/

New Quarter, New Year

2010-10-06T22:52:12-05:00

Nice to have all the students back on campus for the fall quarter. Got to see many of my friends from last year. I didn't realize how many friends I had made in Fuller classes until I started seeing everyone and was excited to hear about their summers.

I'm taking it easy this quarter and only taking one class. With a part-time job on campus and several video projects in the works, I wanted to make sure I didn't put too much on my plate. Also, since I'm taking the Touchstone course for Theology and the Arts, I really wanted to just focus on that course and make sure I'm prepared for this new emphasis in my studies here. The professor for the course, Barry Taylor, is fantastic and I felt like someone was finally speaking my language during his lecture Monday afternoon. He's quite unorthodox and makes some people nervous, but for me his view of theology and Christianity is much more honest and very refreshing.

I've also been able to get more involved with the Brehm Center for Theology and the Arts and been meeting students and alumni left and right who are involved with film (which is my artistic interest). The Brehm Center is a great resource, but just talking to people and making friends is really turning out to be the best way to network and move forward with my goals. Over the summer I got to help out with a film where several of the crew, including the director, are associated with Fuller. That was a great experienced and helped a lot with networking.

There are also exciting changes afoot in my personal life, which I will share more about soon.

No luck finding a church home up here in Pasadena yet. But I think my wife and I are being a little bit picky.

Fall Year Two

2010-11-04T17:14:02-05:00

This fall quarter has been a good one, but very different from my past quarters. Taking an independent study course (IDL) for Systematic Theology and I really need to buckle down and catch up with that (developing self-discipline)! I'm also taking the Touchstone Course for Theology and the Arts (intro class) for my new emphasis (Theology and Art) taught by Barry Taylor. I like Barry very much and his perspective on Theology and Christianity has been quite refreshing for me. A few weeks ago, we had a guest speaker, Doug Pagitt, speak to our class and that was really cool. Doug is a leader in the Emergent church movement and I feel that he has a good beat on the pulse of modern culture and Christianity's role in it. Barry's thinking is also very unorthodox and I appreciate that since orthodoxy has done little to satisfy my questions and struggles with the Christian faith.

Also been working on more writing and video projects, which has been fun. A fellow student contacted me several weeks ago and invited me to be a part of a writing team with her to develop the characters and concepts for a half-hour comedy sitcom which had peaked the interest of some producers. That was a fun opportunity and has made me more excited and interested in developing projects of my own again. It's been a couple of years since I've thought about TV, so I've enjoyed researching that world and that style of storytelling again. Also been meeting with more students who want to be writers and have formed a writing group with a few guys. It's just at the beginning still but we're hoping to push each other toward better writing and completion of personal projects.

This has been a great community to network and dialogue with artists and filmmakers who also have an interest in theology and deeper philosophical issues of humanity. Also looking forward to going to the Sundance film festival as part of Fuller class in January! Will definitely write more about that.

Becoming Foster Parents

2010-11-14T21:29:00-06:00

My wife and I are now pre-certified to begin our training to become foster parents! We are very excited about this new ministry that will mean a significant change in our lives. Over the past few years we have been increasingly feeling that we should be doing more for the cause of the orphans in our world and this is a very tangible and much-needed role that we are able to play. We would be glad to adopt, but we simply can't afford to do that directly! And we've also learned that there is a huge need for healthy and safe foster parents to provide a temporary shelter for children who have undergone huge trauma. Our hearts have broken for the children whom we have worked with over the past two summers at a special camp for foster children and we now feel that this is the best option for us rather than having our own children or going straight to adoption.

Some of the statistics are quite astounding:

- About 510,000 children live within the foster care system in the U.S.

- Roughly 127,000 of those children cannot be reunited with their parents and are adoptable

- Most children are placed in foster care due to parental abuse or neglect

- Many foster children end up homeless or in prison due to a lack of developmental stability or social support

- These children, most than most, need special attention and love in order to heal from their abuse

- About 40% of the children in the foster system will eventually need to be adopted permanently by new parents

Shouldn't Christians be the first in line to bring these wounded children in to their homes? Many children are moved into several different homes before being reunited to their parents and this can cause even more emotional stress and inhibit them from developing normal attachments to humans. When children grow up with undeveloped "attachment", they are unable to empathize with other humans, they have a hard time trusting and working with others, and therefore they become even more detached from society and positive relationships. We are convinced that many of our social problems, from child abuse to homelessness, can be drastically reduced if more Americans opened up their homes and provided a safe and nourishing refuge for these children who, if left alone, would most likely end up in a destructive lifestyle and continue the abusive cycle with their own children.

We have a few months of training and filling out paperwork before we will be able to bring in a child to our home next spring. It's not a difficult process and if more Christian families are willing to adjust their lifestyle a bit, perhaps we can really make a difference in our culture and fulfill one of the oldest and simplest Biblical directives: to care for the orphan.

Winter Quarter - Film and Theology

2011-01-11T23:39:40-06:00

This is going to be another great quarter! I'm taking another class with Barry Taylor called Topics in Theology and the Visual Arts: Art, Cinema, and Theology in Dialog and Interaction. It's a long title for a course where we're basically talking about theology and visual art by watching films that deal with significant artists throughout history. It's been fun and informative so far. Our first class began by discussing the 30,000-year-old cave paintings in Europe and the possible origins of art through religion/spirituality. This week we discussed perspective and how the Enlightenment not only opened up a new epistemology but also new artistic expressions of the world and of reality.

The other class is Engaging Independent Films and the core of the experience will take place in two weeks at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah! There are about half a dozen of us from Pasadena and probably a dozen more Fuller students from around the country who will join us at the Festival, along with about 100 undergraduate students from various Christian universities around the country. We'll take part in larger discussions as a group and then split up and go watch 10-15 films playing at Sundance. We get to choose pretty much whatever we want as long as it fits into the schedule. Looks like a great line up of films this year and I'm really pumped! I'll write about the experience there when I return.

Our Fostering Adventure

2011-04-07T14:34:28-05:00

Almost three years ago my wife, Jenny, and I were encouraged by friends to join them in volunteering a week of our summer at a camp for foster children, kids living within the state foster system. Those weeks spent with children who had experience severe abuse or neglect at the hands of their own parents or caregivers were transformational for us. Through our training and preparation as counselors we learned quite a bit about child abuse and the foster system, identifying some of the false stereotypes about fostering that we had formed in our own minds.

Our eyes were opened to the tragic and often cyclical nature of families caught in the grip of sub-par education, poverty, and psychological immaturity. The basic fact is that tens of thousands of children across our country are abused or neglected by parents or relatives. But thankfully our government pours millions of dollars into agencies which rescue children out of harmful situation and then conduct investigations into whether they can safely return to their parents' care.These government systems are far from perfect, but the issues regarding family rights, parental reform, and child development are also very complicated. This process of investigations and legal proceedings involves numerous agencies and individuals and can be quite confusing, taking months and even years to decide who will ultimately become the child’s caregiver. But many thousands of other children remain in abusive homes because no one has reported their situation to child protection authorities.

Those who are taken from their homes not only suffer from their previous abuse, but are now forced to deal with new challenges as they are ripped form the only lives they have ever known and sent to live with complete strangers. Sometimes those foster parents are not even very nice. But even when these new people are nice, the children are still very confused and must deal with many extra challenges such as new schools, making new friends, and living with new foster siblings. It is such foster children, taken from their homes, confused and angry, who come to these camps to experience a few days of fun and escape their anxieties.

With knowledge about these issues, along with training on how to deal with the psychological repercussions and behavioral patterns of abused children, we gave every moment of ourselves to those children during that one week out of the year.At the end of each week we were always emotionally and physically drained, but we also felt deeply fulfilled and satisfied that we were able to offer a short period of fun and loving experiences to these 6-12 year old children. For many of the kids that week of camp is the highlight of their year, where they are able to let loose and enjoy their childhood with a sense of safety and freedom. (if you're interested, the nationwide organization is called Royal Family Kids Camp and more info can be found at rfkc.org)

After the second year of camp my wife and I began seriously exploring the possibility of becoming foster parents ourselves, and offer a temporary or permanent home to children in need of a healthy and safe place to grow up. We had also heard from friends about a couple in our church who were podcasting about their foster-adoption experiences. So we began listening to their episodes and the more we listened the more Jenny and I became convinced that fostering was an important role for us to fill as people who care about children and want to participate in creating a healthier society. The "Foster Parenting Podcast" was entertaining and eye-opening, offering us a clear path for what to expect once we entered into foster parenting. (this highly-recommended podcast can be found on iTunes or fosterpodcast.com)

Based on this podcast and recommendations from other friends, we looked into a foster-adoption agency in our area that could help us to train, prepare, and help us to navigate the complicated government social service systems that are activated when a child taken from his/her home. We had an initial meeting with the agency last fall and began attending training classes for CPR, cross-cultural parenting, child psychology/development, and preparation for potential adoption of a child if the legal system determines that no family member is available or able to care for the child. We then began preparing our house to be safe and friendly for children and informed our agency that due to our age and life-stage that we would prefer to receive a child of 2-years or younger, any race, and either gender. Our agency, Olive Crest, is wonderful and we recommend them to anyone living in the areas which they service (more info on them can be found at olivecrest.org).

We finished our last training about around February 12th and began preparing for our final home inspection/walk-through, the last step toward fostering certification according to the standards of the county Department of Child & Family Services. The walk-through was scheduled to happen on February 24, 2011. But on February 17th we received a call from our agency that a newborn baby boy had been detained at the hospital due to prenatal drug abuse by his mother and he needed a home immediately. So my wife and I began frantically finishing requirements necessary for our home to be certified by our agency. Seven hours later we picked up a 3-day-old baby boy. After only seven weeks with us we love him dearly and feel privileged to be able to care for him and provide a safe environment for as long as necessary.

We are expecting to get our hearts broken after caring for children like these should they someday have to leave our care, but someone's got to do it and for some reason we have been given the knowledge and motivation to take up the cause of these temporary orphans. Perhaps one day we will be gifted with the chance to adopt some of them and offer a forever family to children who might have otherwise had to grow up in dangerous situations or even risk never growing up at all. We will chronicle our journey here as a therapeutic device for ourselves as well as a possible guide to those considering a similar journey. I hope you gain new knowledge from our experiences and maybe one day join us in meeting the needs of hurting kids.

Look UP

2009-11-10T14:20:17-06:00

Before I left Idaho I would frequently look up and catch sight of an osprey, or from time to time and eagle, and think to myself "here's one way I will miss Idaho. Surely I won't be able to look up and see birds of prey in the sky above LA."

As I became aware of this thought, I started purposefully looking to the sky to see if I might catch a glimpse of something large and majestic in flight. The more I looked, the more I saw. I looked for sentimental or even spiritual significance that could be attached to these sightings, and thought of a few. I cherished each sighting as a treasured parting sight of my home, as an encouragement from God, and as a reminder of promise.

When I drove out of Idaho, I chose to ride the first shift alone (with three of us traveling in 2 vehicles, there was always someone alone) because I was sure I'd probably get a little emotional. I thought about the goodbyes left unsaid, the relationships I've nurtured and the ones I've neglected. I chased the promise that the discomfort of change makes room for the fulfillment of God's bigger plans. And as I drove the lonely stretch between Boise and Mountain Home I saw what I believed would be my last bird of prey.

I've been in California several weeks now. My birds were in Idaho, and I am not, so I stopped looking up.

For a while.

But something caught my eye not too long ago. Just as I was leaving the Santa Monica beach, I looked up, and there it was. The largest bird I had ever seen in flight (I am pretty sure I was a condor, based on the markings. I had to look it up). At first, I thought it was a small plane, but as I continued to stare, it happened: wings flapped, and I knew it was a very large bird, much closer than the distant plane I had taken it for.

Recently, as part of a class requirement, I spent about three hours alone with God in silence at a beautiful convent. I spent most of the time just listening, and abiding. And I just happened to look up. Circling the convent as if simply waiting for me to notice, was a golden eagle. It circled a few times overhead and then, making a few large grand passes, it flew away.

I mention all of this only to point out that I had no expectation to see such majestic birds once I was in the middle of such a big, busy city. But my experience continues to defy expectations, and I will remember, and continue to look up.

Derek Webb Up Close

2009-11-12T02:16:22-06:00

Quite possibly my favorite anti-americanity musician (who am I kidding? He's the best!), Derek Webb came to campus last weekend for a small private acoustic concert for Fuller students. Yep, my roommate and I scored front row seats. Lucky Derek doesn't spit when he sings, we really were that close. Just sayin'.

This man and his music are worth checking out, if you haven't heard (of) him before. His lyrics may push you, but take the time to examine what he's saying, and how it compares to your Bible. You may be surprised to find that He's giving us more Biblical truth than your favorite cable news network.

A word to my baby-boomer friends: this isn't the Christian music you may be used to, but it will shed some light on where we X'ers and Y'ers are coming from. It became infinitely more clear to me last spring, as I participated in a round of the Truth Project at my home church, that there is a huge generational gap in perspective at work within the american church. So many still believe that this is a Christian nation, literally Christian. So so many of us know it isn't. At least not any more. I'm not saying we should pack it in and go into hiding; I'm just saying that our perspective has a huge influence on how we interact with others. If we are coming from the misapprehension that everyone already knows who Jesus is, and that we just need to get this country 'back on track' we're sadly mistaken.

There are so many people right next to us who don't know what our Jesus-lingo means, and the only representative of Christ that they are getting exposed to are defensive talking-heads who condemn. Of course we all have sin, and I'm not saying that God's just fine with it. But stop for a moment and consider, if you didn't know what sin is from God's perspective, and someone pointed their finger at you and told you that you're terrible and that you're damned for eternity for being who you are, would you be enticed to listen to anything they want to call 'good news'?

We do everyone a disservice if we think we're all on the same page. Maybe fifty years ago the nation was churched enough to know what all the lingo meant. But we're not in Kansas any more. And America is not the New Jerusalem.

Familiartiy has bred neglect

2009-11-30T16:45:20-06:00

"Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes with the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. "
Ephesians 6: 14-17

Ok, sure, we've all heard this one a few times, haven't we? You might even be recalling a dorky cartoon image of a warrior, all outfitted in shiny metal armor; a common staple of Sunday school classrooms. (I remember an old video game I had when I was a kid, where you walked around ghettos and shipyards looking for different pieces of God's armor and pieces of the Fruit of the Spirit that actually looked like fruit).

Who puts on a breastplate these days? Honestly. But here's the thing, God's word is living and active right? So if we've oversimplified this mental image, we've lost track of the great mental picture we are given of the provisions we are supplied to strengthen and protect us. I've recently come back to this verse with a humbled attitude, realizing that perhaps I have not taken God seriously here. And you know what? He's been showing me areas in my life that I've made myself vulnerable to attack, simply because I've neglected the armor and weapons that he's given me. But he hasn't left it there, oh no. I am being blessed daily with examples of how God has granted me his full armor out of his love for me, and that I am equipped to use it.

So, I encourage you to consider asking God to help you identify your need for his spiritual armor (we need it whether or not we're aware of it), and ask him to equip you with the armor as he reveals your need for it. He will not fail you! Get specific with each visual we are given in the verse above, and start exploring each one individually. God will reveal to you how they work together, don't worry about that.

As the old saying goes, "familiarity breeds contempt". I suggest we've maybe let our familiarity with the visual image of Gods Armor breed neglect for discovering the truth of God's word here.

The Paradox of the Mourning Christian

2010-01-12T15:01:15-06:00

Tomorrow, the Fuller community will gather together to mourn. Over the Christmas break Ruth Vuong, Dean of Students, suddenly passed away.

There are many people on campus who knew Dean Vuong personally, and many who did not. Personally, I only had the privilege of meeting her on a couple of occasions. Yet even to someone who did not really know her personally, her loss is nearly tangible on campus, as the community collectively mourns. I do not need to have been in personal relationship with her to know how this feels. We all have experienced loss, haven't we?

Loss and mourning are strange creatures, especially for Christians. At times, it seems wrong to be sad, to mourn, to feel the pain of loss over another Christian. After all, no matter the specifics of our theology of Heaven, we all basically understand that death isn't the end, right? Don't we know, somehow, that if she goes to heaven, and we go to heaven then that means we'll be together again? Isn't that what we believe? And if it is, then why are we sad? Afterall, haven't we all heard the saying, "it's not good bye, it's see you later"? So why do we still mourn? Does it betray us, showing what little faith we actually have? Or is it something else?

This gets me to thinking about Lazarus; well more specifically about Jesus and Lazarus. Jesus stood at the tomb, knew what he was about to do, and how did he respond? He wept. Jesus wept knowing he was about to restore Lazarus.

I don't think our mourning betrays our faith. We have lost years of opportunity for relationship with Ruth Vuong. Opportunities to create memories, to benefit from her wisdom, to have shared experiences, to get to know her. It is our loss, and it is right to acknowlege it.We are created for relationship and community, and a measure of it is taken from us when someone dies. Jesus knew this, and felt the very real pain of that loss before he restored Lazarus.

There is the paradox of the mourning Christian. We weep over a temporary loss, that in our finite understanding feels so eternal. But this is, in a sense, good. If we can mourn, despite our understanding of the afterlife, it reveals the value we have for relationship. And there, the God of relationship can and does minister to us.

Shadow Boxing

2010-01-24T13:14:18-06:00

Pursuit of God.

We get told that we should be in pursuit of God, don't we?

We often approach the pursuit of God like we're trying to step on our own shadow: repeatedly stepping forward, trying to plant your foot squarely in its middle, only to find that it has moved just past you once again.

We run after God to attempt to somehow quench this feeling that He is unreachable, only to find the feeling really hasn't changed after all our efforts. We end up feeling exhausted and alone.

We miss the clear truth that we were already standing on our shadow, before we ever took that first step.

The pursuit of God is not about chasing after him, not the way we've been thinking. It's not really our pursuit. He's chasing after us! Glued to us, closer than our own shadow.
All we need to do is be still, and know He is God.

Are you lazy?

2010-02-02T12:15:53-06:00

Man, sometimes I feel like the laziest person I know.

I live with two other women, and we're all quite different from one another. Both of my roommates put me to shame when it comes to focus. They both always seem to be studying, or getting lots of other things done. One of my roommates has commented on several occasions that since I've moved into the apartment, she feels like she's been on a nearly non-stop vacation. She means it as a complement, but I can't help but feel the indictment in it too.

Let's add to the equation, that the sermon series for the last few weeks at my church has been Fresh Start (it's good stuff. listen to it here). This series among other things, has been challenging us to recognize where we may've dropped the ball --perhaps in 2009-- and encouraging us to get back on track in 2010. Hey, there's no shame in placing a sermon series at the top of the new year that hopefully capitalizes on our desire to start a new year off on the right foot.

All totaled. I feel like a lazy lump. Over the last few months, my to do lists seem to be less and less crossed off. I'll even confess that I may have avoided making a list (literal or metaphorical) on a few occasions, just so I wouldn't have to face it unfinished at the end of the day.

But, I keep returning to God on this topic, and we're working on some things together.

So, do you feel lazy? Are you doing anything about it?

A current playlist

2010-02-09T03:00:41-06:00

****I made several attempts to get the playlist to embed into the post, but it wouldn't work, and I had to give up. So if you're interested, take a listen here .*****

It has become my habit, for various reasons, to create a playlist for myself when I am cast in a show. The songs I select are usually ones I already own--although it isn't unheard of for me to purchase a song or two for my playlist--that address the character I am playing in some fashion or another. The music I select may or may not be songs that the character herself would listen to. I can often be found updating the playlist, adding or removing music as I find my way through the rehearsal process; but I rarely mess with it once the show has opened.

The playlist, as you may imagine, is for me and not something I openly share with friends or cast-mates; at least until the end of closing night. It's not that my playlists are super-private or personal. I don't think they're too revealing about who I am as a person or anything. They're just something I do. Compling the music I use backstage for my personal script time, and warm-up time, greenroom time, and whatever-time, has become a useful tool.

You may find my selections trite, and predictable. I'm not sharing this sample playlist to impress you or anything. I just was mulling over the thought that our culture is attached to popular music in a very interesting way--specifically since the modern occurrence of soundtracks that accompany one of our most popular means of storytelling: film. The way we relate to music these days is a significant part of what drives me to create these playlists for myself. Perhaps one song helps me access a mood that my character shares. Perhaps this song deals with the play's subtext (or actual plot). Whatever it is, it is an behavior that we all engage in; some more deliberately than others. I simply put it to use for the plays that I act in--and I'm certainly not the first actor to do this.

I am excited to share that I have been cast in the upcoming production of the newly formed Fuller Company, in two of the one-act plays that will be offered. I thought it may be interesting to do something that I've never done before: make my playlist public before a show, should anyone happen to be interested. So, you will find part of the playlist I have compiled--as it stands tonight--for one of those two shows, below.

If you happen to be in the Los Angeles area on March 5th and 6th, we will be performing in Fuller Theological Seminary's Travis auditorium.

I only ask one thing of you: This playlist is provided for your enjoyment, and perhaps some masochistic need to expose myself to criticism. This playlist is not intended to be representative of the plays themselves, are not the approved soundtrack of a director, nor should be considered in any way a teaser for what you should expect of the performance. They are simply the songs I'm listening to while I do my script work, and may be the ones I listen to at some point before I go on stage. So my request is this: enjoy the music for now; and forget about it when you come see the show.

Fuller Vandalized?

2010-03-15T14:23:15-05:00

Today marks the official start of finals week for the winter quarter at Fuller and students scampering across campus to take exams or begin last minute research found something unexpected in front of the library.

There's no signature on the work, nor any explanation. Apparently the popular theory is that "science thugs" from Cal Tech thought it would be funny to give our religion a little science. It's a little artistic for scientists, I think, and there is no comment from Cal Tech. That is to say, I didn't ask them for comment.

Just a little stream-of-consciousness

2010-03-19T12:52:52-05:00

Something got my mind spinning this morning on our nostalgic hold on the idea of family, and how the reconstruction of this concept has been a little threatening to some. It made me think about the way we idealize our collective past: "the good ol' days". How much of this nostalgia seems to me to be rooted in our desire for security. So then, I wondered, what if we could be bold enough to loosen our grip on our need for security? What if we gave up our right to demand security?

Well, then, we'd have to really trust God, wouldn't we?

Funny thing is, the God I know is far more capable of keeping us safe and secure than we could ever do for ourselves.

So then, I asked myself, What would it look like if I put aside my attempts at maintaining my comfort, my security, my safety? What if I instead used that time, energy and resources, to engage the world around me?

What do you imagine would happen in our world if we dared to live that way?

(How's that for end-of-finals-week delirium?)

More on-campus shenanigans

2010-04-06T16:22:57-05:00

The campus pixies have struck again. Now, in addition to the chalk drawing of the periodic table of the elements that I shared with you a few weeks ago, Fullerites encountered a whole crop of pinwheel-flowers that had sprung up overnight. And what's that? There are also small wind chimes hanging from many of the trees. Again, no explnation has been offered, nor any credit taken.

41 blessings in one day

2010-04-09T01:42:23-05:00

1. I woke up on time (yes, on a day like today, undoubtedly a blessing)
2. I managed to get to my 8 am class on time
3. before I got to class, I actually had time to grab a cup of coffee.
4. and before that, I managed to eat a decent breakfast (this will be even more important in a moment)
5. I had finished my scholarship application the night before, and was able to head right out to the post office
6. made it to the post office in time to send scholarship materials via priority mail instead of express mail, at a savings of ten dollars
7. because of some very lovely friends, I had my bicycle here in Pasadena, which was a nice alternative to driving my car around town all day wasting gas that I can't afford to buy.
8. had first dental check up in over two years (thanks to my new handy-dandy dental coverage) and have no "problem spots" or cavities
9. I have dental insurance for the first time in years, and because of this, I did not have to pay for my e-xrays or check up.
10. the bike ride on to my next stop, the DMV, had light traffic, and was mostly downhill. Yay for coasting.

11. I made it to the DMV to get a shiny new California drivers license just a few minutes before a ton of people, and ended up in a long line, instead of a LONG LONG horrible long line.
12. Happened to be in line with a lovely lady for about two hours who was very nice, had great stories about her family, and was a pleasant waiting companion.
13. got inside into the air-conditioned shade of the DMV in under an hour and a half (again, you might not think that this is a blessing, but people behind me in line waited longer than that)
14. once I got my number inside the DMV to wait my turn, I was told that I should expect another hour and a half wait until my number was called. It was less than half that time.
15. the creepy guy who sat next to me in the waiting room, who kept talking to me, was called in first
16. the nice looking biker setting behind me gave me the "do you want me to take care of the creepy guy?" nod.
17. I didn't have to tell him yes
19. every DMV employee I dealt with was actually very nice (well, except one, but she only took my picture, so she hardly counts) despite the fact that the place was crazy busy.

20. One of those very nice employees yelled at creepy man when he tried to make a pass.
21. I managed to actually get some reading for class done while I waited in various lines today
22. Although it did not occour to me that I should be spending that waiting time reading the California driver's handbook in case they have some crazy laws I don't know about, I still passed. And yes, there were questions about crazy California laws that I didn't know about.
23. I realized near the end of my DMV experience that I had not eaten since 7 am, and was gratefully only mildly hungry.
24. SOMEHOW I was patient through the entire process.
25. the cute elderly couple I got to watch go through the process of getting ID cards together. They were easily 500 years old, each, and still twitterpated.
26. my bizarre temporary paper license that I can send a copy of to Idaho, and will end my woes with the Idaho State Jury Commissioner.
27. Somehow, I managed to get through the whole DMV process before they closed at 5, thereby avoiding the need for a return trip.
28. Upon returning to where I had left my bike locked up, it was still there, with nothing missing, and was not boiling hot.
29. the target store that was close to the DMV: by now my body was mad at me for not having food or more water (I'd had my water bottle with me, but I'd long since finished it off) so I could go in for more airconditioning, a snack and some water

30. target carries baskets that will attach to the handle bars of your bike (and man, my backpack was at least 20 pounds. seriously.)
31. The security guard at target went out into the parking lot with me and attached the basket to my bike for me since I did not have the necessary tools.
32. In the TEN MILES that I rode today on my bike (well, it's a ton for me. don't judge) there were no scary incidents with any other solid objects, moving, stationary, or otherwise.
33. as I pathetically continued to peddle myself home, way too exhausted, sunburnt and dehydrated, somehow I made it home to a big piture of water, and a nice, long, cold shower.
34. I didn't have to heat up a dinner, I don't think my body would have accepted it.
35. I was able to stay home once I got home. I don't think I could have gone out again.
36. the aloe that I keep in the fridge
37. the light ice cream that was in the freezer.
38. the last of my stock of lactaid that was enough for me to eat that ice cream.
39. I have lovey friends who would care enough to let me tell them about my crazy day in a list of 38 things that turned out to be blessings.
40. I can recognize that God blessed me in at least 39 ways today, and I wonder how many more that I didn't notice.

I think some of the circumstances I encountered today could have given me a really bad mood, and then today would have been the worst. Instead, I kept looking for something lovely, for ways that things went right instead of wrong.

41. God blessed me with the perspective today that enabled me to see a busy, stressful day as an adventure full of blessings. There's no way my human self would have seen it that way if He hadn't of helped me to.

A Life of Quiet Desperation

2010-10-05T01:17:42-05:00

It is already week two of the new quarter and I find myself feeling terribly behind in both homework and other sundry life-things. Circumstances being what they are, last week was horribly busy for me, and did not really allow any time for school work to be done. This is not a complaint, however, because I made thoughtful choices about several of the things that took my time, and felt that they were the more important ones. Not one of those choices stand out to me at the moment as one I would go back and change. But, as the case often is, there are consequences for our choices, and the consequences I face at the moment is a flurry of activity as I try to make up lost ground before things get too far; before I resign myself to simply being behind and mildly disappointed with myself (as those two things are usually linked for me.)

As my evening class went on break tonight, I couldn't help but start to compile a mental list of all that needs doing. The chapters that need to be read, the films that need to be seen (yes, this is actually homework) the assignments to be written, and so on. I was very tempted to tell myself that this is all so very stressful, and that I am in a stressful place. I was tempted to tell myself that I am stressed, when in point of fact, I was not feeling "stressed out" as we say so often. Yes, I have plenty to do, and it may feel stressful very soon, but at that moment, I wasn't feeling "stressed out", merely mindful that there is much to be done.

I have a close friend who seems always to be in a state of being "stressed out" as she puts it. There is a never ending barrage of things in her life that seem to attack her relentlessly. She does have a lot going on, and I recognize that she has every right to be stressed out from time to time. But I also can't help but sometimes feel that she chooses it. She will identify situations that shouldn't be categorized as stressful by anyone, as things that bear down on her. I think perhaps that she feels the weight of decisions with so much gravity, that there is little room in her economy for a bad decision, or even a less-than-ideal one.

Somehow tonight the thought of my to-do list, mixed in with the thought of my friend. I actively chose not to take on a perception of stress in my life.

This brought to mind a quote from Thoreau: "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."

And I have to admit that in a sense, theologically, Thoreau is right. There is always so much to be done. There is always so much that we need. There is always so much that we cannot accomplish on our own, or for ourselves. We lead lives of quiet desperation, because our efforts--and we should make an effort--is only buoyed by the Grace of God. I mean that quite literally. We have a choice, where we can recognize that we need that Grace, that we live by that Grace, and that we are sustained by that Grace. Or we can not. Either way, we are living lives of quiet desperation, but I think we can make a distinction about how we look at it. We can focus on the desperation and simply live there, which results as Thoreau put it "What is called resignation is confirmed desperation." Or we can focus on the Grace that we are offered, and say "please" and "thank you".

I think this choice matters in lots of ways; two of which I can think of at this moment: choosing Grace allows us to sleep better at night. And, accepting Grace means we have some to give to others when they need it. If we are living in a state of desperation, we have no grace to spare for anyone else, because we don't think we even have enough to get by on ourselves.

Yeah, I have a lot to get done, and not too much time to do it in.

By God's Grace, it will come out.

How Do You Count?

2010-10-23T17:55:32-05:00

I am not a woman who is capable of finishing everything I attempt to start; nor do I finish things with perfection. I make reading plans so I won't fall behind in class, and then fail to use them. I plan ahead so that I won't be frantically finishing an assignment the same hour I have to go to class--and still end up printing and sprinting. Even this blog is something that I have attempted to bathe in self-discipline, only to fail. Daily we are all asked to take on things that we are capable of doing -- many of them things that we could do well. We get a lot of them done, but not all.

But is it failure?

I would like to submit the idea that we could all use a moment of self assessment; not on our rates of failure and success, but on our definitions and standards when it comes to failure and success. Sometimes we really don't come through on something we need to have done. Sometimes we mess up. Sometimes we drop the ball. Sometimes we encounter the unforeseen and we make the choice to put people before tasks. Sometimes we have delusions of minute grander that suggest to us that we are capable of ignoring the constrictors of time and space--and social lives. Sometimes we make the wrong choice. But sometimes we make the right choice, and for some reason, we want to think that it was wrong.

I wonder what would happen if we stopped to ask God his opinion before we kicked ourselves?

I would like to submit to you that God is interested in how we love Him and each other--and that our to-do lists come second to those priorities if they are in conflict. Sometimes we love best by getting things done. We all rely on each other, and if we regularly failed to get important things done, we'd have serious problems. But, I doubt that it pleases God when we get down on ourselves for not being as self-diciplined and as accomplished as we think we ought to be. I think that the Kingdom definition of productivity is slightly different than our own, and that perhaps we could benefit from learning a new way to count.

A Christmas Devotion

2010-12-09T18:15:55-06:00

There's a lot that we can say about the Christmas season, and this year is shaping up to be no exception. We're no strangers to the blessings and trials of the holidays, and by now, we've all certainly heard the popular yearly reminder as to who is really the reason for our season.

This year, however, I've been reminded to take another look at some other things that we maybe gloss over during Advent.

There is a reminder that we can catch in the Christmas season: our God is the God of Deliberate Action, and His deliberate action rarely takes the form we expect. How often to we stop to recognize the subtle acts of our Savior? Like this song suggests, the coming of Christ was a deliberate action that took a very specific form.

He is a God of process, presence and relationship that was delivered in a very small small package, with ten fingers and ten toes.

We'll hear much over the next several days about everything that can possibly be related to Christmas, from Santa, to sales, from Season's Greetings to "Jesus is the Reason" and we are tempted to find the whole thing overwhelming. But, like the song says, God came quiet, soft, and slow, and in the midst of everything that we are told to believe is a part of Christmas, God offers us an invitation to share His quiet, His soft, and His slow in our own lives. He is after all, the Prince of Peace, and his Peace--the one that surpasses understanding--can also surpass supermarket lines, traffic jams, parties, plans, and business. His peace is portable, and inexhaustible.

May we all find the peace that Holy Peace we can carry with us through our Christmas season, and beyond.

Welcome!

2009-11-13T13:49:23-06:00

Welcome! If you are reading this blog, you are most likely interested in what it is like to be a student at Fuller Theological Seminary in beautiful Pasadena, CA. Well, that's what I'm here to tell you about.

In the coming weeks I'll be sharing a look back at my 3+ years here at Fuller, as well as keeping you up to date on what's going on now. For those of you who have never lived in Southern California, I'll be giving you a peek into that life as well. I am a transplanted northern Californian who has spent the last 7 years living in Los Angeles and Pasadena doing both my undergraduate and graduate work.

Finally, and closest to my heart, I'll be sharing with you what it's like to be in active ministry while being a student -- both the challenges and the rewards.

Until next time ...

Why I Chose Fuller

2009-11-20T23:55:57-06:00

I suppose it's best to start at the beginning ...

I didn't begin my education intending to be a psychologist. I actually entered college intending to be a musician. I still am, but not professionally - or at least not regularly. Psychology developed as an interest through my time at USC. The more I learned about it, the more I wished there was a psychology that centered around Christ -- a psychology that could really help explain what people are like in relationships to God. Something that went beyond the "4 Spiritual Laws" and talked about everyday life.

In looking at graduate schools, I only looked at Christian focused schools. I knew that would be giving some things up. Not being at a major research university, for example, means that certain research projects are simply much more difficult (there's no undergraduate pool to easily draw from for research subjects!) The social environment is entirely different at a place like Fuller than at a university. The academic experience is also different. By comparison, there are a handful (5-6) of clinical psychology doctoral students at USC (with social, experimental psych students in addition). At Fuller, my starting class was close to 40, and I only expect that number to increase in future classes. And then there's the finances. A university simply has more options in terms of scholarships, grants, fellowships, teaching assistantships, etc.

So I chose Fuller specifically because it would give me training and background for ministry, whether it be in the local church, or as a psychologist who is Christian, or both.

Anyways, the winter quarter is nearing a close ... more on that later!

Balance ... and other things ...

2009-11-28T01:32:35-06:00

Happy Thanksgiving! I hope you have been able to enjoy the holiday and relax.

Relaxing ... that's what prompts today's post.

Finding that balance between work and play, between the different obligations one has in life, between doing something or leaving something undone. As a student trying to work to get through graduate school, it seems like balance is especially important. Add on to that the pressures of ministry ...

Ministry has huge rewards. For me, being a youth pastor, I would exchange all of the not so pleasant stuff for the experiences such as seeing two of my students be baptized earlier this year (whoo Brooklyn and Unique!). On the other hand, depending on where you are at, the politics of your ministry may be overwhelming.

This is something that I don't think a lot of students training for ministry hear, or if they hear it, they think it only happens in "bad" churches:

... Pastors at the same church talking badly about each other behind their back ... Staff meetings where conflict slowly bubbles underneath the surface ... Coming to work in fear instead of hopefulness ... Communication problems between senior members of the church and you find yourself stuck in the middle ... Pastors quitting their jobs in anger ...

Things like this might be "normal" in a regular job, but in Christian ministry, where particularly as leaders in a church or organization we're expected to be models of Christ?

The thing is, as we turn the corner into the last month of this year, I've been reflecting. And I've seen all of the kinds of things I mentioned above in church ministry within this last year. I don't think I've seen these things because the people I've worked with are bad people, that they're not serious in their desire to lead people in Christ. Yet the reality is that conflict, disagreement, bad communication, and yes, fear, discontent, and so on ... exists when you're dealing with people.

Sometimes, I think you just have to sit back and try to get some balance. If you approach a situation in ministry when you're a student as though you know more than someone who has been in ministry for decades ... you're going to get an education pretty quickly. On the other hand, maybe you have a skill that no one else around you has, and God has put you in the place you are in ministry for the very reason that your special skill is needed.

In any case ... the chance of a few days to spend away from writing papers, reading, going to lectures, and doing ministry has been welcome. But I'm sure in a day or two, I'll be ready to be back at it again.

Until next time ...

Synchronicity

2009-12-08T00:01:06-06:00

This has happened to me a couple times here at Fuller. By chance, last week in two different classes I'm taking this quarter we happened to be talking about the same thing at the same time. This time around it was ... the end times. In my Systematic 3 class (Ecclesiology and Eschatology) we were studying eschatological theology and in my Acts-Revelation class we were studying Revelation.

I think there are few topics which can divide the church so much, but which tend to have any real impact on how Christians live their day to day lives. Am I missing something?

In other news ... this is finals week. And Christmas preparations. A potentially deadly combination. Easter and Christmas are definitely times to watch out for in seminary.

Which brings me to a consideration for next time ... grades ...

A New Quarter

2010-01-07T20:53:18-06:00

Happy New Year! This week is the start of a new quarter at Fuller. I'm excited about the classes I'm taking this quarter.

I'm taking two exegesis classes, one in Greek (studying Galatians) and one in Hebrew (studying the Psalms). I'm also taking a class on worship and spirituality, as well as continuing this school year's practicum for psychology.

Some would say I'm crazy for taking two classes which use the Biblical languages in the same quarter, but the type of things you do in an original language exegesis like these I really don't get a chance to do anywhere else. I can learn about Christ through actually doing ministry at my church, but I don't know of any church that does the deep kind of study of Scripture that you do when reading in the original language.

Now, studying the Scriptures at a place like Fuller does bring up a question which some Christians object to: are there "mistakes" in the Biblical text? Fuller's official position is that Scripture is "infallible" but not "inerrant." What this means practically is that the Bible has no mistakes with respect to matters of faith, but may contain inaccuracies about historical details, etc. The difficulty some Christians seem to have with that position is that they believe that if there are any inaccuracies in the text then the whole of the Bible cannot or should not be trusted at all.

This might be worth a whole post in the future ...

SoCal Part 1

2010-02-04T12:30:33-06:00

Pasadena is a great place to live. Nice weather year round, anything you want to do practically at your fingertips. Here are some of my favorites around the L.A. area

(I think this post is going to turn into some free advertising for some folks.)

Movies. If you're in L.A. you've got movies everywhere. Walking distance from Fuller is this theater: Laemmle Playhouse 7 (http://www.laemmle.com/viewtheatre.php?thid=6). This theater shows independent and foreign films that are hard to find anywhere else. But then, what if you're a broke student and want to see the last blockbuster from a couple months ago? A few blocks down at the Academy you can see just such a movie for literally $1. Now if you're the more adventurous type, you could venture all the way out to Hollywood to go to Arclight Cinemas, home of the Cinerama Dome built in the 1960s. They show new movies as well as have a rotating schedule of reshowings of classic movies and other special events. I've seen a couple of my favorite classic movies, including Lawrence of Arabia and Vertigo there a few times.

A little off the beaten path: frisbee golf. They say it was invented here in Pasadena by the folks at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. There's a free course that they say is the first one in the country. You can pick up a few frisbees, grab a few friends, and hit the course. Or if you're more into regular golf, there are several golf courses in Pasadena, 9-hole, 18-hole, par-3.

In a place like Pasadena, you've got practically every restaurant, from McD's to L'Orangerie within reach. Or shopping, practically every kind of store you could want. Into board games? Then visit Game Empire (http://gameempirepasadena.com/) and pick up something more than Monopoly. Or come for a Saturday tournament and show off your skills.

But wait, there's more! Concerts. Horse racing. Baseball. Basketball. Yes, even USC football. FIGHT ON! Dance studios (a new one opened around the corner a couple months ago). Sight seeing. Museums. Just for starters in Pasadena alone, The Norton Simon (http://www.nortonsimon.org/) and the Huntington (http://www.huntington.org/) are two major art museums, not to mention the Gamble House (http://www.gamblehouse.org/index.html) and all the rest of the smaller museums. Yes, there is even NASCAR about 45 minutes away at least twice a year. The Queen Mary in Long Beach (http://www.queenmary.com/) is one my favorites. Where else can you set foot on a historic transatlantic ship that was bigger than the Titanic?

Want to venture out even further? Get away from it all and spend a day on Catalina Island.

Well enough from me ... I'm going to go discover something new!

But is it true?

2010-02-09T19:43:12-06:00

This week has been an interesting one in classes. One professor in particular (who will remain nameless) said two different things that taken out of context sound very controversial:

(1) "God doesn't keep his promises."

(2) "No one in the Bible tells God that they love him."

Of course such statements need qualification. But for now, I'm just going to leave you with those two. Those are the kinds of things you'll sometimes hear at Fuller.

What is truth?

2010-03-01T00:27:38-06:00

"What is truth?" Famous words spoken by Pontius Pilate in the Bible. But should we cast off such words as simply faithless, even as rebellious? Or should we take them differently?

I think that any seminary's primary goal, whether it's explicitly stated or not, is to answer the question "what is truth?" As far as Evangelical seminaries are concerned, it seems there will always be a range of answers to that question: some "liberal," some "conservative," some "emerging," and others ... Yet that is where seminary attempts to take its students.

Seminary sometimes gets a bad rap as a place where people earnestly seeking God come to study, and in the process lose their faith. When I started at Fuller, I heard professors talk about something called "deconstruction." This is something that Fuller, and other seminaries (at least Evangelical ones), intentionally do: in order to bring students into a place where they can study of the word of God in a way that is richer and deeper than one can encounter in many other places, it may be necessary to deconstruct previous "training" about God one has gotten through churches.

For example, the saying "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" is a phrase that might be taught in a particular kind of church for a variety of reasons, as a way of expressing faith, as a way of answering questions, as a way of achieving a certainty and stability in belief. While that kind of a statement and ideology might do all of those things, it leaves out one important question: what is it that the Bible says? Fuller attempts to train students to answer that kind of question, using the best that academic and logical inquiry can offer, and the best that faith in God can provide - both.

Sometimes the training that academic examination of the Bible provides seems to run in the face of the church's teaching. There was one such instance of this which I recently found and quoted in my last post. The statement was this

"No one in the Bible says that they love God."

Now, this seems totally against everything we hear in church. Nearly every worship or praise song written in the last 30 years seems to have as its theme the desire to tell God that we love him. Yet, a professor at Fuller says that no one in the Bible says to God that they love him?

I have to admit, I have not taken up the question personally myself. I have not gone through the Bible with a fine tooth comb to investigate whether it is accurate that no one the Bible says that they love God. I will probably at some point do so. However, even without doing so, I can see that some of the major texts of the Bible - the Lord's Prayer - for instance, or the Psalms (which was the prayer/worship book for the church throughout most of its history) simply do not have professions of love for God readily visible. Why is it that the church has taken to professing love for God over and over when it is not present in the Bible - a text which any Christian denomination seems to as its foundational text?

I don't pretend I can answer this question. But by posing it, I can start to highlight the difference between Fuller and the church. Not to say that one is right and one is wrong. However, as a seminarian working in the church, I have to come at this relationship carefully. I would not teach in one my youth classes that teenagers should not tell God they love him. On the other hand, maybe with some adults, with those who are more mature in their faith, I might introduce the idea that the modern church's worship is not the same as the Bible's example of worship. At the same time, there are things that I study in seminary - for example, the psalms as a method of worshiping and praying to God - which I would directly use in teaching or ministry in a church. The lament psalms, for example, I include in discussing how to pray, even for teenagers. Without introducing these psalms at a relatively early age, I think we give growing Christians a sense that their faith life has to be always cheery and positive, or it is not really a faith life at all. Being able to be real with God is much more important to me that looking the right way among other Christians.

I started this post thinking I had some to a fairly firm placing of being able to explain how to translate the complexity of rigorous, intellectually sound study of Scripture to the ministry of the church. But I find as I try to describe it, that it is much more of a process - something which I cannot describe in "4 easy steps." Seminary can open one's faith in God up to new heights and depths, but in doing so, it will also create ripples, waves, cracks, and even turn whole mountains into valleys at times. But should we expect anything less from God, from the God who sent his only son in the form of a man to die?

You who read this and believe in Christ, pray for us seminarians as we continue on this complex road. Pray that we may be faithful to God, and through be faithful to the human mind and heart, and that we who are called to leadership ministry in the church may have discernment in leading.

SoCal Part 2

2010-03-04T15:11:31-06:00

I got to do something neat this last weekend. Starting just this year, Dodger Stadium hosts a college baseball doubleheader. And the afternoon game?

USC vs. UCLA

The rivalry, the showdown ...

Better yet, the cost for two baseball games? $5 But wait, there's more! That $5 got you general admission seating, meaning you could sit anywhere, including the normally $300+ seats in the Dugout Club. Nice ...

Too bad the Trojans didn't make it.

This next weekend? Disneyland!

Deconstruction and Worship

2010-03-16T15:25:25-05:00

I wrote about the idea of "deconstruction" a couple of posts ago, and I think it's important enough that I want to write about it again - in a kind of case study.

I think it's a safe thing to say that seminary will make you question things, whoever you are. You will hear perspectives about the Bible, the church, Christians, even about Jesus himself that challenge what you have learned in your own church(es), from family, from other believers. This will sometimes happen on a daily basis. I was talking with a friend here at Fuller who is doing an M.Div. exclusively and thus has much more of an intense exposure to this, and we were both talking about how being at Fuller at times it just dawns on us how much the church just seems to be getting plain wrong.

This can lead in several ways. One of the good ways is a personal and corporate strengthening of faith. Although I know this is not true for everyone, I think my faith has become stronger as a result of coming to seminary. At the same time, I probably have twice as many questions about God now then when I started. But I have some more "answers" to - or at least ways to endeavor towards the answers.

One of the bad ways that deconstruction can lead is cynicism. I don't mean a healthy type of questioning, the type of questioning and wondering that hopes in the future for God's church to be better, but the type of cynicism that rejects the church as beyond all repair, the type of attitude that leaves the church out to dry because it's so far gone.

What I have to talk about can teeter on the edge of cynicism. I don't mean it to be that - what I mean it to be is a call for consideration, maybe even a call for change.

-------------------------------------

As I've come to follow Christ and be a regular part of a church during all of that time, one of the things that has started to be a source of "irritation" (for lack of a finding a better word) is worship. Sunday morning worship. The main thing about worship is the words the church sings to the songs we corporately call worship. So as part of an unplanned experiment, I tried something last Sunday morning at my church. Listening to the songs we were singing, I tallied up the times that the song referred to "I," "we," "my," and other first person pronouns and compared that to the number of times a song had "you," "Jesus," etc. - any 2nd person reference to God. My theory was that for everyone one reference to God, there would be at least two references to I, we. etc.

After tallying up the numbers (and let me say that this was entirely unsystematic) over 3 worship songs, there was approximately 40% more 1st person references than God references. Better than I thought it might be. However, one song (which will go unnamed) had 3 first person references for every God reference. Another thing I noticed was that a majority of the God references were as the object in a sentence, and not the subject. Too often the subject of the sentence was "me."

Now, by talking about this I don't mean to say that worship songs should never have "me" or "I" or "my" in them. But I do want to point out that there are plenty of Psalms that do not use any of those words through a whole song. How many contemporary worship songs or traditional hymns could we find that do that?

I am no expert at worship, or of the Psalms, or of ministry. But I think the church in general, or at least non-liturgical churches for sure, need to reconsider their worship. I, for one, wouldn't mind summarily banning from Sunday morning all worship songs that have the word "I" or any of its variations more than twice - I would be happy if my church did that for a whole year. In nothing else, we need to counter balance what I think are excesses of individual focus of faith. What if we had a year of singing only "God - you are."

Why do I think this is so important? Because on an average Sunday morning at my church, there are 2-3 times during the service where active participation is available. One is the time of greeting, which lasts maybe 60 seconds. The other is the time of offering, which in terms of participation is even more minimal that greeting. The final is singing during worship. We passively sit for 20-30 minutes while we listen to a sermon. Somehow we expect that the sermon will have the most impact on our lives, yet for 10-15 minutes during worship we are actively engaging our bodies in singing along to words of a worship song, or at the very least standing up while we hear others around us sing. I think that active component far outweighs the effect of passive listening.

Yet the theological content of our worship songs is, from my perspective, often poor. Even more, the church rarely seems to consider the content of the songs, at least not in a way that indicates how much what we sing often seeps into our consciousness, or even subconscious. If a song has 3 "I"s for every "you," does this not implicitly teach our congregation selfishness? Why do we sing "Here I am to worship" - glorifying ourselves and the fact that we get to worship - rather than singing "God is great?" Even songs that try to do that - "Our God is an awesome God, He reigns" - still feel compelled to "own" God by making it clear that God is "ours."

There is a time for "I" and "me" in worship. There is definitely a time to testify to God's goodness by saying what God has done for "me" or "us." But sometimes the time for "I" and "me" is more "I am broken apart" than "I am amazing because of God."

Yes, there are ...

2010-03-23T18:59:42-05:00

Yes, there are "Conservatives" at Fuller.

I hesitated about posting this. This is a political comment. It is hard to find a place where politics of any kind does not descend into emotional ravings. But, in the interest of showing you, potential Fullerite, the diversity of opinion in these halls - political or otherwise - here it is:

My heart breaks over what happened in the United States House of Representatives this past Sunday.

As a follower of Christ, I believe that the means of this bill are unjust and unrighteous. I believe that were Christ here, he would be shaking his head over all of us, left and right, about our arguing over this while too many of us Christians sit idle, expecting others - the rich, the young, the old, the powerful, the willing, or should I better say "insurance companies," "pharmaceutical companies," "physicians," "nurses," politicians," "tax collectors" - in short, anyone but ourselves to take action in the footsteps of Christ.

Christ Jesus could have come and turned every government on its head, bending the earth to fit the Kingdom of God once and for all. He did not. His silence in this respect is deafening, unbearably so to some, it seems.

This is simply not how I see Christ acting in Scripture. I do not see him calling us to this.

For the psychological types

2010-03-30T19:28:23-05:00

I want to give you prospective Fuller types - and especially those of you considering a Ph.D. or Psy.D. in clinical psychology - a glimpse into a part of the program that I really did not know too much about when I started here.

Clinical training.

As you're applying for Fuller, I'm sure you're going to see something about what the training line-up is like. Ph.D.: Pre-Practicum, Practicum I, Practicum II, Clerkship, Pre-Internship, Internship. Psy.D., skip the Pre-Internship. You might understand it on paper, but the process was something that I think caught many off guard.

For me, as a Ph.D., the first two years of training was basically all decided for me. In pre-practicum, Ph.D. do something called "live-team" where you practice some of the very basic skills of therapy with an upper class student acting as a client. During a typical quarter, you may get only one hour of "face-to-face" time with this "client," maybe 2 if you're lucky. The rest of your clinical training group and your supervisor are watching behind a one-way mirror the entire time. To be honest, it's a slow start. But, as a Ph.D. degree is focused more on research (I had research experience but basically no clinical experience applying to Fuller), it makes sense. Then, the following year, Ph.D.'s are all assigned to a Practicum at Fuller's in house clinic, but only offering therapy to theology students, ones who have been screened to rule out any major issues. You're working "independently" under supervision, setting up appointments on your own schedule, and seeing clients without your supervisor right there, but you're still only seeing one client at a time: one hour of face-to-face therapy a week.

Then things change. Practicum II for a Ph.D. means you have to apply to various sites throughout the L.A. area, including some in Orange County - 45-60 minutes away.

In the time I've been at Fuller, we've had 3 directors of clinical training - the point person for obtaining sites which are approved by Fuller. You get course credit, paying for a 4 unit class of psychology, in order to be trained by these sites. I do not think it is typical to have directors change as frequently as this, so some of my experience is likely biased by this reality. However, I think it's still worth considering if you're thinking about Fuller - or any program in graduate psychology.

The director of clinical training when I arrived at Fuller gave the message to my class that the process for applying to clinical training sites was essentially not a "competitive" process. Experience has shown me that this was 10% true and 90 % not true. The reality is that many of the training sites accept applicants from various graduate schools around the area, so in reality, students applying for clinical training often are competing for a spot. Application require vitas, letters of reference and recommendation, and an interview - all three almost always. Even if a site is "captive" to Fuller (captive meaning that the site only accepts Fuller students), you are still competing against your classmates for a place most often.

Something else happened that makes the process potentially even more complicated. Some of the training sites decided to form an organization whose abbreviation is SCAPTP (Southern California Association of Psychological Training Programs ... I think) that has standardized rules for applying and notification, very similar to the APPIC (Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers) which is a nationwide organization that handles internship applications. However, some sites elected not to do so.

What does this mean for someone applying to sites? A lot of things. Let's take the simplest case: one applies to only SCAPTP sites. You will submit applications and hopefully be asked to interview at 1-5 sites. Then, on April 12 in the morning, you will either receive a call from one or many of the places you applied, or you won't. Sure, there are points of stress. You may get an acceptance call from a site which would be ok, but not your first choice first thing in the morning. You must either say yes immediately, no immediately, or ask to hold the offer for 30 minutes in the hopes that you might get another call in the mean time. But at least it happens all on the same day. However, what I've seen from classmates is that they interview mid March and then must wait until mid April to hear about their interviews. The period in between can be nervewracking.

It gets more complicated if you try to mix and match independent sites and SCAPTP. In my case, this is what I did, and I ended up having to say yes or no to a site before I even knew if I had a chance at even being interviewed at another site (the other site in this case was captive to another school, but might have had places left over after they finished their process).

Ultimately, the process is not "competitive" in that everyone who enters into the process ends up with a site. However, not everyone is matched in the process I just described. Last year, when my class applied for Clerkship, nearly half of my entering class was not matched through this process. The director of clinical training was able to find sites - either additional spots at sites already available, or negotiate with other sites (e.g. a private practice) - in order to find a place for everyone.

I feel I've been very fortunate so far. I have been able to be placed in the "first go" for Practicum II, Clerkship, and Pre-internship. I think a huge part of this has been the fact that I am able to offer services in Spanish, something which is invaluable in Southern California.

All of this takes on a new dimension when one studies at a Seminary. How should one think of this kind of competition, where you know that you may have a spot at a training site someone else was strongly desiring? Or how should you consider God a part of the picture when the site you think is perfect for you never even offers you an interview?

I suppose that's a topic for another time ...

In defense of the modern church

2010-04-20T16:32:33-05:00

What is a seminary’s job? Is it to train individuals to be more faithful to God? It is to train individuals to minister in the church? Is it both, or maybe something else altogether?

Having been here at Fuller for several years, I think I have a sense at what the “on the ground” answer to this kind of a question is. Officially, Fuller defines itself as “dedicated to the equipping of men and women for the manifold ministries of Christ and his Church.”Although personal growth as men and women of God necessarily comes as a part of that mission, I believe that ultimately coming to a place like Fuller requires us seminarians to have our minds about the ministry of the church.

When I as a seminarian think about the church, I am pulled in two different ways. I am often pulled towards cynicism and despair. There is much about “the church” that is wrong. I wrote a blog not that long ago about worship in the church, and I was critical of the way contemporary worship focuses on “us” rather than on God. Rob Bethke, a fellow blogger here, just wrote a blog about preaching. (I encourage you to read it here: http://www.fuller.edu/blogdetails.aspx?userid=2147483659&id=2147484876&blogid=2147483694). I might have very well written the same things that Rob wrote. Sunday morning is one of the only times I go to hear a “lecture” in my daily life beyond the classroom.

At the same time, there are two things which over the past few weeks have led me away from a place where I come dangerously close to being cynical and ultimately dismissive about the church. One in the release a new book by Eugene Peterson called Practice Resurrection. When the tasks of being a leader in the church and the problems inherent in this work get to me, Peterson’s books have been there to call me back to a place of faithfulness. The second thing that has impacted me over these past few weeks is a class in homiletics I am taking here at Fuller.

Don’t get me wrong – there is absolutely a place for faithful followers of God to come to the church and say “this is not right!” and to do so with force and insistence. I think there still need to be voices which speak up about the nature or worship, be it our music or our preaching, and call the church to change. At the same time, seminary can become a place more of ideals than of real life – as can any academy. Peterson has helped me remember that as much as the church seems dysfunctional – even outright wrong – God ultimately has chosen these people, this church to be part of his mission, to even be part of God. I think there is a reason that the church is called the body of Christ.

That all is fine, but if I stop with this argument right now, you might think that I am arguing that whatever God’s people do, they’re ok just because of the fact that they’re God’s people. While I actually think that’s somewhat true – God is the one who justifies us after all, if God calls us his people, we are ok – I think it is incredibly important that we consider what it is we are doing.

I have been tempted to say the same thing about the sermon that Rob does – throw it out completely. But I think that would ultimately be disastrous for the church. In an ideal world, a church would exist where people could come together on Sunday morning and everyone would actively engage in understanding Scripture and in the tasks of following Christ. Yet the reality in most churches is that people, even long-time Christians, are often simply not equipped to do this. As an example, I once heard on Sunday morning a member of a church say, in earnest, that a Bible which had printed on its cover “Holy Bible – King James Version” was not really the Bible, but something written by “King James.” While this is a particularly egregious example, I believe it is the reality that many Christians, many church members and visitors do not have a level of knowledge about the Scripture and about the Christian life that would be considered even a “bare minimum” for an independent kind of study. For this kind of a person, preaching is almost a necessity to keep their level of information from sinking further.

What can be done in this situation? At some level, there has to be an “authority” within the church. There has to be some person or group of people who take the time to not only study the plain meaning of scripture and the Christian life, but to apply that to the very particular situation of individuals and the congregation.

My problem, then, is not with preaching itself, but with the quality of preaching – or perhaps, better said, the place that Christians give preaching. If we confront the facts, preaching is by definition a difficult job. How can one person (or maybe, in the exceptional case, a small group of people) give a message to a group of hundreds of people, expecting to give a message that not only is faithful to scripture, but also meets each of those people where they are at? I think the conclusion that one has to reach is that it is extremely unlikely that any preacher will be able to do this, except by the grace of God. But I do not think that God intended the Sunday morning sermon to be the end all of faith.

Yet, as Rob said, the sermon is one of the defining aspects of the church, not only across the world, but even to some extent across time. Since I do not have the expertise to consider how this would apply to other cultures, I am only going to focus on contemporary American Evangelical culture.

To me, if the main source of Christian knowledge and teaching comes from Sunday morning, we have missed the mark greatly. Consequently, for me, the preacher who comes to the pulpit on Sunday mornings intent on “teaching” a text has missed the point of preaching. I agree that learning about Scripture and about the Christian life is a complex endeavor that requires interactivity. Within the evangelical church right now there exists a variety of structures to deal with the teaching and learning aspects of the church – Sunday school classes, small groups, cell groups, life groups, accountability partners, mentors, discipleship programs, affinity groups, spiritual directors– the list could go on and on. What these programs, classes, and relationships all have in common is their small scope. A handful of people meeting together, or even groups of 2-3. Things can be accomplished in these kinds of formats that Sunday morning simply cannot.

Still, why not then throw out Sunday mornings as they are? There is something necessary about a local body of believers gathering together, whether they be 20 or 2000, and coming together to worship God. That should be the focus of Sunday morning. Small groups and such should be focused on living the life, learning and teaching. But Sunday morning, including the sermon, is worship.

Worship is not a time to separate ourselves from the world, nor to “grow closer to God.” It is a time that we express something of our relationship to God, and God’s relationship to us, however. In worship we remember, celebrate, and even at times re-enact the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the importance that event and others in the existence of God and humanity have.

How does the sermon fit into this? Although I risk sounding like a fundamentalist in saying this, I do believe that in many ways the preaching that happens on Sunday mornings is “the Word of God.” That is, I believe that a preacher who comes to a group of believers who have gathered together in common, and who is faithful in his preaching, brings a message on behalf of God. No, it is not ideal. I would much prefer that the gathered group could “tap into God” directly. However, in this world which continues to crumble until Christ comes again, I believe that God would have individuals come to preach to his gathered people, in much the way that they are today – not to teach them, not to lecture at them, but to bring a message from God. If anything, to continue to encourage them to grow closer to God by learning with other believers, to join a small group if that is what it takes, to find a mentor, or to be a mentor to someone else.

I expect for the rest of my life the Sunday morning messages I will hear will be vastly similar. I will hear the same passages preached on for the rest of my life. But I do come to Sunday morning expecting that a preacher will bring a message, though it be garbled and distorted. I come expecting that this message is one that God has chosen to bring through this medium, through a sermon, through a pastor, priest, or reverend who proclaims a message to the gathered group of disciples.

The Age of Information

2010-04-18T02:06:08-05:00

The combination of the disciplines of psychology and theology share a particular emphasis on questions of ethics, on the best way to live, think, and feel. In both roles, we are expected to have expertise. As psychologists (at least as a good psychologist!) we should be able to point to some specific evidence to back up our claims, preferably research conducted to a high standard which gives a confidence that that standards psychologists set for better living and decisions are more likely than not true for most people. As theologizers, we look to the standards of God – and people expect us to have some level of discernment in this area.

- The age of information -

With the internet, people have the ability to access information at an extraordinary level. The information we have goes beyond the practical such as maps and directions, historical facts and dates, and other such tidbits. Social information is also available, in both “primary” and “secondary” ways. What you’re reading right now I consider primary information. The person writing the information chooses to post it, recognizing that it is available to practically anyone, around the world. Primary information can also be distributed through sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and MySpace, just to name a few. Then there’s the secondary information – other people or sources post the information. Taking a job might mean that information gets posted on a company website. Other people post public information through a social site.

The kind of information available – from both sources – astonishes me. I can understand some of the information that is out there. Facebook, for instance, can be a way to reconnect with people known years ago, or who live across the country. On the other hand, sometimes very personal information exists online. I am not sure what to think of this.

For instance: I found out a couple days ago that a woman I dated a couple years ago – someone I have not seen or heard from since – was raped as a child. I found this one through a blog she herself posted, publically available with no restriction on access. I didn’t know her long enough or well enough for information like this to be relevant. In fact, at the time she had told no one - neither friends nor family - about what had happened. Yet, on the internet, it is readily available, of her own choosing. This is far from an isolated incident. I can find information about others I know or knew, both primary and secondary, often of a personal nature as well.

The ability to access information does not lead to wisdom. The psychologist in me wonders whether this kind of a pattern – broadcasting and accessing (and both parts are necessary – I had to take initiative to read the blog) are healthy. It seems that in the past such information would only be privy to a small group of people. Theologically, I do not know. The blog in question is a theological one, and the information was presented in a way meant to highlight the grace of God. Does this change things?

As a youth pastor, I find it invaluable to have the extra perspective of a site like Facebook into teenagers’ lives. At the same time, dehumanized information seems difficult to navigate.

Summers at Fuller

2010-07-20T02:54:44-05:00

This is my 4^th summer at Fuller. I have taken classes during all four summers. While classes during the other 3 quarters happen on a regular schedule, every class during the summer happens as an “intensive” – 10 weeks worth of class are condensed into 1,2, or 5 weeks. Or 30 weeks of Greek or Hebrew are condensed into 10 weeks. It’s an interesting change of pace, and for those of us in the psychology program it’s virtually required for us to take classes most if not all summers in order to finish within the planned timeframe for the program.

With the practical training schedule for psychology students, summer ends up being a transition time. For example, in August I’m transitioning from my clerkship to my pre-internship, wrapping up at one while getting oriented and set up at the next.

In my last entry I wrote very briefly about the role of a seminary. Since then I’ve had opportunity and necessity to think in more detail about ministry.

Although I know this is not the case for everyone who comes to Fuller, I think it would be safe to say that a majority of the people who study at Fuller do so because they either currently are employed in ministry or planned to be so employed in the future. This is speculation, but I imagine that this is the least true in the school of psychology. It is entirely possible that a graduate from the school of psychology would never advertise the fact that his or her schooling took place at an institution of Christian education. Despite a trend towards more openness towards religion and particularly towards spirituality, it is still the case that a bias against religion exists in psychology. But that is a topic for another time.

What I wanted to consider was a reality that those considering seminary should think over carefully. If you are considering a life in ministry, are you comfortable with the church being the source of your livelihood?

If you are someone who feels called to the ministry, this may seem like not problem for you. You may feel that you have a specific call to a specific role within the church and that part of that call means that you need to devote full-time hours towards ministry. It is just that such a person should have a means to earn enough money to secure the necessities of life. Yes, even enjoyment beyond necessities.

However, western culture is centered on consumption. Many, if not most professions directly involve the production of goods that can be used, sold, or traded, or they involve the provision of services. Even as a future psychologist, I can provide tangible services – a standardized analysis of a person’s behavior through psychological testing for instance, or a plan for treatment of a particular diagnosis or problem using specific methods over a particular defined period of time.

There is nothing inherently wrong with consumption or a system that is driven by it. In the field of psychology, for example, I personally see it as a positive that the field has defined itself in terms of product. From a history in which psychological or psychiatric treatment meant years of bi- or tri-weekly talk therapy sessions for any chance of healing, a system which encourages evidence to be provided regarding the efficacy of its processes and interventions is a necessary corrective.

Yet the same should not be said about the church. Although I believe that part of the mission of the church is to change lives, I do not believe that the Kingdom of God of which the church is part is called to provide a product designed to change lives. At the same time, changed lives are a result of faith in God.

This is a complex topic, but for someone going into paid ministry it is a relevant one. It is difficult to go against the current of money for product, if this indeed what we in the church should be doing. I have been strongly influenced by the writings of Eugene Peterson, who stresses that the work of the church is distinct from many types of work in that what we do in service to God is not a quick, direct “fix.” At the same time, can we completely get rid of the idea of effectiveness, product, and providing services? Without considering ministry in terms of products or services, for example, how would know whether we are doing a good and effective job at our ministry?

Saying “I don’t know”

2010-09-28T20:37:14-05:00

It’s the start of my 5^th year at Fuller. A long time to be going to school – especially after spending 4 years as an undergrad, but ending up with 3 degrees after it’s all done makes it seem at least a little bit more reasonable.

There are several things I could write about – for example, the record breaking 113°F heat wave we’re having here (at the beginning of fall!) – but I thought to start off the new academic year I would write about something that’s come up for me a few times over the past few weeks, something that I think may be single overarching thing that studying at Fuller has taught me. And that thing is seeing the value in saying “I don’t know.”

If you’re thinking of coming to Fuller, read on. This may be something that helps you decide whether this is the right place for you.

I think if we’re honest about it, there are many times saying “I don’t know” as a Christian seems unacceptable, especially if we’re talking about a question of faith. Faith, it seems, is about certainty – “I’m sure that Jesus lived, that he died, and that he was the Son of God, God himself.” To say “I don’t know” about any of those things, in any manner, would seem to be blasphemy.

Now, I think that having certainty about who Jesus is and certainty that it is through Jesus that we can have salvation is the core about what it means to be Christian – and there are things as Christians that we should have some level of certainty about. We should be able to say “I know” and be confident in it. However, leaving all matters of God, the church, and life to “the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” mentality does not constitute faith. In fact, it seems as though excesses of certainty can result not in real faith about a real, present God, but in ignorance about a myth.

-------

When I started at Fuller in 2006, one of the first things I remember hearing about was the idea of “deconstruction.” Although it may seem harsh, “deconstruction” is the idea that in order to be able to teach and learn, sometimes one needs to unlearn and deconstruct old ways of thinking. If you come to Fuller, I can pretty much guarantee you that you will be taught that some of the things you learned in church were wrong, particularly if you grew up in the church.

The process can be uncomfortable. I remember one of the psychology professors talking to us neophytes that first year saying that in his experience the deconstruction process almost always led to someone in each year’s class having a crisis of faith, and sometimes even having led to someone “losing their faith.”

This process of deconstruction will likely continue the whole time you are at Fuller. For example, during this summer I took a class on the Prophets. One of the things that came up just about a month ago during the class was that although there was archeological evidence that seems to fit the destruction of Ai told in Joshua 8, there is no such evidence for the destruction of Jericho told in Joshua 6, at least not at the time the Bible identifies it happening.

What should we do in this case? There are certainly lots of options. One would be to say that the archeology is somehow wrong. The site claimed to be ancient Jericho could be the wrong one, or the carbon dating process used to indicate how old recovered objects are could be flawed, or maybe the evidence of the walls falling down simply has been destroyed over time. Another option is to say that the story in the Bible is not a literal story. Another option is to simply say that the Bible has either the details of the story or the whole story just plain wrong. Although the last two possibilities may seem the most unpalatable, each of these possible solutions presents problems. Neither our understanding of archeology nor our understanding of the Bible is perfect. So, we have to use critical thinking in order to try our best to piece together the evidence we have, being faithful both to trust in God, and to our ability to understand. So I, right now, can say that “I don’t know” if the story of Jericho in Joshua is “real” or metaphorical. There are many other things about God, the church, and theology that I also can say “I don’t know” about. Some maybe I will never know, others maybe I will.

-------

Why would a place of Christian learning intentionally want to “deconstruct” its students, knowing the potential risks? From a philosophical standpoint, this makes some sense to me. A person who is only able to say “I know” cannot be taught. It is only once someone reaches the point of saying “I don’t know” that learning can begin.

There’s more to it for me than just an impersonal philosophical argument though. It has also meant a personal deepening of faith for me. The kind of faith that deconstruction can bring is not the faith that always says “I know.” It’s not the kind of faith that has ready, easy answers. It’s not the kind of faith that tries to deny the complicated nature of much of life, steamrolling over difficult questions. For me, it’s been the kind of faith that at least has a chance of going beyond the surface, that at least has a chance of being something that honors God through faithfulness in the life God has given us.

And now for something completely different ...

2010-10-05T13:56:18-05:00

Sure, this blog is about Fuller, and written for those of you who might be considering coming here. But that doesn’t mean that every entry needs to be a serious one.

So for this entry I’m going to write about … 3d movies.

Particularly since the advent of Avatar, there seems to be an increasing trend toward major movies being released in 3d. I don’t dislike 3d, but there’s something that makes me consistently not want to see movies in 3d anymore. I’ve tried to think about what it is, and I’ve finally come up with it.

A 3d movie gives control of the experience to “the movie,” taking it away from the audience. I was struck by this most clearly watching Avatar in the theater in 3d, and then seeing part of it later in 2d. In a “two dimensional” medium, such as a painting or a photograph (or a series of photographs such as a movie) I as the viewer can pretty much focus my eyes wherever I want. Sure, the creator of a photograph can direct my eye by making some objects out of focus and some objects in focus, and there are other techniques that can encourage this, but ultimately, I as a viewer can still choose to focus anywhere I want. And even in out of focus images, there can be a remarkable depth to exploring the whole of what a filmmaker puts on the screen.

In 3d movies, the creator of the movie still has the ability to control focus of objects, but they now also have the ability to affect the perception of depth. Whereas in real life if I wanted to focus at a background object, say by looking out of my window at the trees across the street, my eye could focus on those objects leaving them appearing in focus to me, while objects in the foreground (such as my computer screen) would be out of focus. But not so in a 3d movie. If you try looking to a background in a 3d movie and in the film the image is out of focus, it will remain out of focus – even if your eye, deceived by the perception of depth expects to be able to focus.

To me it seems like providing both control over focus and control over simulation of depth gives a filmmaker a way to bash the audience over the head about what they should be looking at. Several times while watching the 3d version of Avatar I tried to focus on a background. In a movie as visually complex as Avatar, I was surprised to find that doing this was often either visually very boring, or once or twice literally uncomfortable to not focus on what the director wanted me to focus my eyes on.

I haven’t figured out if my critique of 3d is a technology problem or a creative problem. In order to make a 3d movie life-like, the reality is that almost every image onscreen throughout the entire movie would need to be in focus. This would then mean that the viewer has control over what would appear in focus and what wouldn’t at any given time by where in the virtual 3d world they are focusing. My suspicion is that there is the technology to do this. If there is, then it seems like the problem is a creative one. Maybe the techniques of brilliant, world-class 2d moviemaking simply don’t work the same way in a 3d presentation, and filmmakers need to learn how to film and program for 3d in an effect way. Given that 3d movies nowadays are over a post-production add-on to a movie that will eventually be released in 2d on DVD or Blu-ray, it seems like it might be a while yet before filmmakers take the time to think of 3d as a separate medium, requiring its own techniques to be at the top of its game.

An Experiment

2010-10-12T14:19:34-05:00

This is an experiment, and I don’t know how it’s going to turn out. I want to give you, the reader, a sense of what it can be like to think about a theological topic as a Fuller student. What does “deconstruction” really mean? So I’m going to pick a biggie – the idea of “God’s will.”

Now, this is not something that I have taken a class on – although come to think of it taking God’s Will 101 doesn’t sound like a bad idea at all. Rather, my intention is to give a sense of how I as a student might think about this. If someone came to me and asked me “what do you think about God’s will for my life?” what would I do? What would I start to think about as I formulated an answer?

This is going to be a messy process. My own idiosyncratic way of thinking is going to be wrapped up with my experience thus far of psychological and theological training, so don’t take my example as representative of all Fuller folks. But, anyway, here it goes …

-------

When thinking about God’s will, I would want to start from what one might call a “bottom up” approach. Is “God’s will” even something worth talking about – is it even something that really exists? Is it something that is Scriptural, something that is actually a real part of the way God and people interact, or is it an artifact of a contemporary culture? At some level, I feel like I would have to ask the question does God have a “will?”

Thinking about Scripture, there seems to be clear evidence that God cares about what people do. There are certain particular people in Scripture that are called by God very specifically and very clearly to do something. Abraham and Moses are two particular examples, but there are others. God also seems to care about what a group of people does. The prophets have multiple examples of God talking to or about a nation, a group of people in a way that seems like a “will.” So, for this example, I’m going to assume that God does have a “will.” There are things that God would like people to do, at one level or another. (Whether God has a “plan” – a detailed itinerary for one’s individual life – might be another question entirely.)

At the same time, there seem to be few examples of God’s will being demonstrated in Scripture in the way that contemporary Evangelicals often expect: pray for it, and it will come. On the contrary, the people most chosen by God seem not to be asking for God’s will at all! Or if they have a concern or a wish, it’s not related to what God wants of that person. Abraham was worried about not having children; he didn’t call to God for “God’s will” to be done, but God’s will was done through him in a very unique and special way in any case. Moses was a murderer and a stutterer, yet God called him to be his messenger in a particularly special way. Might it be that God’s will is done in ways that we cannot expect?

Why might it be that we don’t see examples of people in the Bible calling out to God fervently for God to reveal God’s will, but yet today some churches today stress this over and over? Pray to God, pray hard, pray a lot, and if you’ve got faith God will give you the direction you ask for. Not to entirely dismiss that, as there are many people who could testify that God works in this way. But I get the sense in Scripture that God’s will has already been revealed. In the Old Testament God’s will was clearly the Law. In the new covenant, God’s will is expressed through Jesus.

The question still remains: what about those life situations where looking at the example of the Law and Jesus does not seem to satisfy? Shouldn’t we be praying about those, as we seem to be suggested to do? Again, I cannot ignore the reality of other’s testimony about God. There are times where praying to God gives a believer a sense of direction: this is what I should do, this is what I know God wants me to do.

Yet as a psychology student, I have to have some skepticism about at least some of that. I know how easy it can be for a person to “project” their own desires onto God. There is no guarantee that just because someone says or believes earnestly that they know God’s will now that in 10 or 20 years the situation will look the same in retrospect.

Some might read this and think “what a faithless way to think about God.” You’d be right, if it ended here, in questioning, doubt, and cynicism. But from here there’s the possibility of heading deeper. God does indeed have a will for the world, for us individually, and as I see it that will is a world recreated with justice and righteousness. That will is the Kingdom of God.

My experience has been that sometimes when we ask God about God’s will in a “what should I do: A, B, or C?” way, God’s response seems to be “I don’t care.” This is not because God is not a caring God, but maybe because God’s will is not what we do, but how we do it. God’s answer might be “A, B, or C: but with justice and righteousness, bringing in the Kingdom with Me.”

This may be a different way of thinking about the relationship between us and God. Yes, we are God’s children, and God is our Father, our parent, but not the kind of parent that wants to direct the every move of a child. God is the kind of parent that will work with us; “A, B, or C?” God may say “You decide.” See, God does not want automatons. In the coming in of the Kingdom I believe that God wants those people who will work with God, who God can trust because God has done the slow, painful redeeming work of turning our petty concerns into something we at many levels cannot even begin to imagine: conformity with Christ.

God is the kind of God that we can only partly understand right now. This is where our sinfulness is most real – try the best we might, we cannot really understand the full implications of what we are doing, what we are praying, and what we are thinking. So God can seem to act and react in ways that make no sense. We are children in that respect compared to God, but God also calls us to maturity, not naivete. Use what you have, God says, and I will provide the rest.

-------

Postscript – So there it is, a mess to be sure, incomplete, and almost surely incorrect at places. But being a student, that’s how I expect things to be at this point. Being a student means that I am still learning, still trying to understand how to answer difficult questions, how to be honest to the material of Scripture and honest to God.

But I can’t leave this without saying one critical thing: this is not something that can be done outside of a worshipping community. It is extremely hard for a seminary to be both fully a place of study and fully a place of worship. It is not that these two things are mutually exclusive – quite the contrary! – study has allowed me to worship more fully. It is just that study takes enough effort and time by itself, as does true worship.

As a seminary student you need a church. You need a place that is a place of worship primarily and study only secondarily. It is unfortunate that particularly in the school of psychology too many people go without a place to worship. It is too easy to get stuck in the cynicism of critical study if you are not part of community of worship, and getting stuck there is what can lead to loss of faith.

Heavy enough? Next time, a shout out to some local area places to help a student kick back and relax ...

The Crown of the Valley

2010-10-22T23:25:27-05:00

The name Pasadena comes from a word meaning “Crown of the Valley” or “Key of the Valley.” … Pasadena makes a difference …

Tonight was the beginning of a prospective student event and I got a chance to have dinner with some of the prospective students for Fuller’s school of psychology. One of the topics that came up was Pasadena and both I and one of the prospective students remarked that Pasadena was one of the few southern California cities that feels like one could live here without owning a car. Now that’s not entirely true, but the area of Pasadena that Fuller is in (officially the Playhouse District) definitely has that feeling.

Although it might seem trivial, this ended up being a fairly big part of my decision to come to Fuller. Where a school it can be particularly in the doctoral psychology programs, living in one place for 5-6 years or longer. Make no mistake, Fuller is not like college – at least it was not at all like my college experience. Although there are great ways to find community here at Fuller, it’s necessarily automatically “built in” like at a campus with tens of thousands of students. So the surrounding community can be exceptionally important.

Pasadena residents, what do you like to do around town?

Inception

2010-10-26T17:12:01-05:00

I recently saw the Christopher Nolan movie Inception, courtesy of Pasadena’s local “dollar theater” – the Regency Academy (http://www.regencymovies.com/main.php?theaterId=8) – which just happens to be walking distance from Fuller. Since the movie deals with dreams, a most psychological subject, I thought I might blog about my impression.

Disclaimer: There may be spoilers ahead.

I’ve seen several of Nolan’s movies. Insomnia is one of my favorite movies; I also enjoyed The Dark Knight even though I’m not a comic book fan. However, I did not like Memento, primarily because I felt the ending destroyed any sense that the protagonist might have the ability to grow despite all that happened to him.

I came away from Inception thinking that whether one enjoyed the film or not, it was a new idea. In a movie world that walks the same ground over and over, it is a breath of fresh air to have new ideas. Granted, Inception uses some clichés. The “dream within a dream” trope has been used over and over in movies and TV and Inception takes it to a whole new level.

But what is unique about Inception is the way it realistically treats dreams. Granted, there are “special effects” such as the sandwiching of Paris that was much featured in the trailers, but the whole of the movie treats dreams as real places, mostly bound by the laws of physics, vastly similar to the real world in which we live. The ability to “share” dreams is another unique idea. In some ways it works, but in others it totally falls apart.

It’s that same “real dream” idea that creates all kinds of logical problems in the plot. Don’t try to figure out the details of the plot of the movie, because the logic is broken in several places. It makes up rules midway through the storytelling to further the story.

One thing I appreciated about Inception that it did not take the Freud route all too common when talking about dreams. There were practically no “symbols” in these dreams, symbols in the sense that objects stood for things they did not appear on their face to be. The movie did recognize an important psychological point that nearly every version of psychological theory recognizes: as humans we have internal representations of real world people, things, etc. (sometimes simply called “objects” or “projections”). These internal images and conceptions of people in particular are often not the same as the real-life counterparts. Sometimes our psychological problems can come from misconceptions or dysfunctions of these objects. While I appreciated this (from my perspective) more mature look at psychology, making dreams seem so real has the opposite effect of removing the truly fantastical aspects of real-life dreams – flying, falling, disconnected worlds and images.

Like Memento, I could see that the ending of Inception could easily make or break for movie for someone. On the one hand, I appreciate that the movie didn’t knock you over the head with a straightforward answer. There are many ways of thinking about what the ending scene means in the context of the movie – and there seems to evidence present in the film supporting many different conclusions.

Ultimately, the movie seems to be about the connection between reality and imagination, and in some ways begs the question “what is reality?” Under the right circumstances that seems like a reasonable question. Other others it seems laughable.

It’s not a masterpiece, but if you haven’t seen it, I’d recommend Inception.

But where are the cheerleaders?

2010-11-06T01:29:18-05:00

I thought of this going back to visit my college this past weekend for homecoming. A lot of folks coming to Fuller come here right after or soon after college. One of the things that I bet a lot of people wonder about is what the social life at grad school is like. Is it like college?

I think in a lot of ways the answer has to be a big no. Now, my perspective is somewhat skewed on this. I’ve never lived in seminary housing, and from what I hear the experience can be much different living in housing that is all students. My neighbors, though, are working age or retired folks.

In college practically everybody is single. When I started here, I would say that 25% of the people in my incoming class in the psychology school were married. Four years later, I’d say that number is probably near or over 75%. And there are good number who also have children.

Whether you’re single or married in grad school, there are unique challenges. The support of a spouse can be a great thing, but the amount of studying and work that must be done for school, the amount of debt that can accumulate through student loans, and the potential pressures of moving to a new city can strain any relationship. As a single person seeing classmates get married, it’s often been difficult to feel the odd man out. And as someone who wants to be married someday, I’ll be honest – it can be a deflating thing sometimes.

One of the things I heard from people when applying and interviewing for graduate school came from a current student at a “competing” school to Fuller. This has to be taken with a grain of salt, but this student said that she had considered Fuller but had decided against it and for her current school because of the sense of community at each school. Fuller did not seem to have the kind of supportive community that her school did.

If I had it to do over again, I would still choose Fuller, but I think I do understand this potential criticism. Fuller is not a college, and it doesn’t try to be.

So you want to be a psychologist?

2011-03-29T18:37:12-05:00

I think like any profession, being a psychologist has its positives and its negatives. Speaking from the position of someone who is not yet a psychologist, but who is getting ever closer to finishing school in order to be one, I want to share some of my thoughts about what this profession is like. I think we often go into things not really knowing all of what to expect. And if you, reader, are thinking about spending 5, 6, or even 7 years of your life here (and potentially spend tens of thousands of dollars) at Fuller to study psychology, and then to have a career in it, it seems like you should have as much information as possible. So here it goes. Three random thoughts.

#1. You will help people. I think a lot of students go through some doubt about this during their first few experiences in a classroom or working with their first clients. Student therapists often feel they are (and almost always actually are) ill equipped to deal with what they're being presented with the first few clients they have. This is simply the nature of learning this type of a profession. Rest assured, if you put in the work, you will be competent to help people - and you will help people. You will work with some people who are in desperate situations, who have tried to solve problems on their own and simply haven’t been able to do it, for one reason or another. And sometimes the smallest little thing from you as a their therapist can be the thing that sets positive change in motion.

#2. Think about yourself. I’m serious. If you intend to be a therapist (and it’s possible to be a psychologist without doing therapy, it’s just harder because if you’re coming to Fuller you’re intending to be a clinical psychologist), but if you do intend to be a therapist, you’re going to be seeing many people a week, many of whom have significant problems. Are you strong enough to be able to helpfully empathize with suffering, and yet keep yourself distant enough that you’re not being overwhelmed by hearing 8 stories of childhood sexual abuse and 3 stories of suicide attempts a month? Granted, I’m not saying that every psychologist is going to experience this. Some might experience more, some less. But you should know what you're getting into, and really gauge whether you're the kind of person who could handle crises with your clients, because it's almost guaranteed they will come up.

#3. Think about your colleagues. This is something often overlooked. If you’re working as a lawyer, you’re going to be working with other lawyer-types. If you’re working as an engineer, you’re going to hanging around engineer-types. Same thing with psychology. Get to know what other psychologists are like. You’ve got a group of people who are on the whole empathetic, and often quite perceptive. But just because someone has been trained to help people does not make him/her a good person. In fact, sometimes being trained and being under stress of dealing with patients can mean that fellow psychologists are easily burnt out and occasionally not fun to be around. And that definitely potentially includes everyone, including you and me, potential psychologist.

These are just things that popped into my mind this morning. I’m sure there are many more. There are. In fact, I have one bonus thing.

#4. We need good psychologists. And I think think we really need good Christian psychologists. Unfortunately, this is a field that has a reputation among some that is not good. I was at a conference recently where the presenter mentioned that she had heard psychologists honestly described as “quacks.” Again unfortunately, I think this label is not undeserved. There are bad psychologists out there, people who have methods of treatment that are bizarre and untested, but psychologists who are blatantly unethical in a variety of ways. So we need people who are ethical, who use methods of treatment that are tested and supported. And we need Christian psychologists too, committed to advancing Christian thought about the human condition.

Why I No Longer Use Google

2011-04-11T11:24:32-05:00

“Don’t be evil.” The image that flashes in my head when I hear those words is series of scenes from Citizen Kane. Charles Foster Kane – a stand-in for real-life publisher William Randolph Hearst – stands confronted by his long time friend, Jedediah Leland.

You see, as a young man, as a new publisher full of idealism, Kane wrote down what he called a “statement of principles.” Now years later, after Kane has clearly broken his own principles again and again by publishing in a way that serves his own goals and ambitions, his old friend mails him the old handwritten page on which he wrote:

“I will provide the people of this city with a daily paper that will tell all the news honestly. I will also provide them with a fighting and tireless champion of their rights as citizens and as human beings.”

Kane tears up the page in anger. The full extent of Kane’s tragic flaw is revealed.

-------

As much as “don’t be evil” sounds like a catchy, post-modernly conscientious slogan, I believe that Google has shown itself to be anything but living up to that motto.

Now, it may in fact be that in terms of its dealings with money, Google has in fact stuck to their word. They may have not been “evil” when it comes to how they’ve used their money in a business sense. I don’t know about Google’s finances and I actually don’t care to investigate. I know they have money, lots of it. But it may be that Google’s tragic flaw is that they think only about money. In so doing, they may ignore all of the evil that they do in pursuit of “information.”

Information is a new commodity in ways it never was before. Google products like Google Earth and Street View are remarkable and I am glad that they exist. But I do not trust Google with that kind of information. Here’s why.

There has already been much made about Google’s Wi-Fi spying scandal of last year. For those who don’t know, in order to make the images seen on Street View, Google sent out a fleet of cars equipped with an array of camera that take pictures in 360° as the car is moving. But what those cars also did is scan unsecure Wi-Fi networks, including those found in private homes, for information. The amount of information collected is vague, but Google has said that this was a mistake and that they have contacted regulators. If the story ended there, that would be one thing.

Here are some statements that have been made by CEO Eric Schmidt:

"We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less know what you're thinking about."

"Show us 14 photos of yourself and we can identify who you are. You think you don't have 14 photos of yourself on the internet? You've got Facebook photos! People will find it's very useful to have devices that remember what you want to do, because you forgot."

"If I look at enough of your messaging and your location, and use Artificial Intelligence, we can predict where you are going to go."

"I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions, they want Google to tell them what they should be doing next."

“We can suggest what you should do next, what you care about. Imagine: We know where you are, we know what you like.”

"There is what I call the creepy line. The Google policy on a lot of things is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it."

As if these kinds of things weren’t enough, Schmidt has also said that people who didn’t like pictures of their houses being taken by Street View should move, and that he believes that upcoming young adults will likely need to or should be able to easily change their names once they reach adulthood in order to be able to disassociate themselves from youthful indiscretions made apparent on any number of social networking sites.

The issues that Google is straying on are not simply privacy issues, they are issues of human identity. Google seems to fundamentally want or believe that human identity (things like “what should I do next?” or “what do I care about?”) should be based on a depersonalized access to knowledge.

I disagree. No Google, I don’t want a device that will “remember what I want to do, because I forgot.” I don’t want you to “suggest what I care about.” I know those things. People have found ways to know those things about themselves for thousands of years and they’ve done it without you.

With a CEO saying things like Schmidt is on the record saying, there’s no way that Google is living up to their motto. Although I can’t avoid Google entirely (Fuller’s email uses a corporate version of Gmail and I’m required to use that address), I do not use Google for my searches anymore. I do not use a personal Gmail account. And whenever I can avoid it, I do not use any other Google products. I do not use Chrome. I will not own an Android device. For me, issues of human identity are too important to be left unanswered and I will do what little I can to deny Google its access to me.

Choosing Fuller Again? Pt .1

2011-05-12T23:55:20-05:00

This blog is going to be kind of strange one. But I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently: if I had to make decisions about coming to Fuller over again, would I make the same decision?

I have to be honest: there are two reasons why I wouldn’t make the same decision in coming to Fuller and I won't sugar coat it: they are big reasons. If you’re considering Fuller, I would really think very carefully about these things, particularly as a psychology student.

This part one of a two part series. In the next blog I'll consider two reasons why I would choose Fuller again.

Here they are:

1. Money. Fuller is expensive, especially as a psychology student. Living in southern California is expensive. And there is not a lot of financial aid available from Fuller. Unless you are very resourceful, or have a lot of savings, you’re going to be going into debt, and probably substantial debt.

The way I’ve put this in perspective for myself is this. As an undergrad at a large research university, I got a scholarship totaling approximately $120,000 over four years. That’s money I didn’t need to pay back and that money came straight from the university I went to. I know I’m the kind of student who is able to get that kind of a scholarship. Those kinds of scholarships simply aren’t available at Fuller, first of all. Second of all, I’ve gotten aid from Fuller, but it’s been a fraction of what my undergrad university did for me, a small fraction.

The other reality is that at universities, psychology doctorate programs can be “sponsored.” Through a combination of grants, scholarships, and working as part of the university (as RAs or TAs, etc.), the school basically sets up a program that pays for school. There are parts of that available at Fuller through fellowships, but by design it’s simply not available for everyone. I’ve heard stories of some people making it their goal to get multiple scholarships from outside sources and having been able to pay for school entirely that way, but it seems to me that most if not all students at Fuller have considerable debt.

The other thing that seems like it is the reality is that the majority of people at Fuller are working to make money in a field that has little or no relationship to their field of study while at Fuller. This has been mostly true for me. I have earned very little money actually doing psychological work – to the contrary I have had to spend tens of thousands of dollars on class units to do the kind of work I want to do as a career in the various practicums required up to this point. This has been frustrating.

This is simply the reality. The university I went to has hundreds of thousands of alumni, some whom have become very wealthy. They've been around much longer than Fuller has. Put the pieces together and Fuller simply cannot compete with that kind of organization.

It is a big weight hanging over your head to realize how much in debt you are going to be at the beginning of trying to establish the foundations of a career.

2. Fuller is a “big” school. Now I came from an undergraduate university that had approaching 30,000 students. Fuller has less than 4,000. I don’t mean that by the overall size of the student body Fuller is big. But I do mean that your experience as a psychology student can be of being one in a crowd. At a research university, it is possible for you to be one of 5-6 students in a clinical psychology program in any given year. At Fuller the numbers have been trending towards ten times that amount. I believe this last year’s class had 45 students admitted.

I have to say that my experience in a psychology department at a large research university felt “smaller” than at Fuller, at least in some ways. In doing an undergraduate thesis (which was not standard for my program), I had an experience somewhat similar to what a graduate student would have had, at least in terms of research.

I’ve also experienced much more of a sense of competition and anxiety surrounding this competition from students here at Fuller than I did as an undergrad, and I think some of that has to do with having so many more students all focused on more or less identical goals. At my undergrad university, the 4-5 graduate students I regularly had lab meetings never seemed to be competing with each other. They were competing with students at other schools, certainly, but not with their own classmates.

I have to be honest – and this is difficult make tangible and to put into words that are fair – but I have been put off at times by this sense of anxious competitiveness at a place of Christian education. I understand there is always a level of competition against fellow students, and there is real competition for clinical placements and for scholarships, at the very least. I’m not sure why this is, although I could probably make some theories, and probably top of that list would have to the worry that students have about paying of their student loan debt. In any case, I don’t know if it’s something that’s unique to Fuller or that really happens anywhere, but if you approach seminary as a place that will be of great support, it may not necessarily be so.

Anyway, I don’t have a great way to wrap up a post like this. So for now, I’ll leave these questions open. Think seriously about practical things like this: as a psychology student you’ll have half a decade or more spent on these kinds of issues.

Choosing Fuller Again? Pt. 2

2011-09-29T20:02:28-05:00

Like so many stories, this one has two sides. Last post I talked about some reasons that might make me reconsider Fuller as a place to become a psychologist. This post I look at three reasons why I would pick Fuller again. Here they are:

1. The uniqueness of the experience. There are several levels at which the experience a student at Fuller gets is distinctly set apart from others. For a psychology student, Fuller is one of a handful of schools in the United States that offer graduate studies – in particular doctoral levels studies – in psychology from a Christian foundation. The integration of psychology and theology is also unique even among those school that do have a Christian focus. As a psychology student, you will be taking theology classes with students from the theology or intercultural studies schools, spending time with future pastors, missionaries, and other folks working with the church. If you are a student who is committed (as I was when I applied, and am still) to a Christian approach to psychology, Fuller has got to be on your list of places to consider, no question about it.

2. Diversity. I think this is a place where Fuller being a large seminary (relatively speaking) and being an interdenominational seminary also sets it apart. The diversity I mean is one that goes beyond race or ethnicity (although I think Fuller is relatively diverse in that sense as well). At Fuller, you will encounter people with a wide variety of experiences, traditions, and history. The environment that Fuller as a whole fosters is one in which students and faculty learn from each other as we explore our diverse experiences inside and outside the church.

3. You will use your mind. I struggled to come up with a word to describe what I mean by this. At first I thought of calling this “intellectualism” but I realized that term sounds elitist, and what I've experienced at Fuller is not that at all. This idea is something I have heard explicitly talked about and that I’ve seen in practice throughout my time at Fuller. Fuller strives to be a place in which Christian belief is intentionally explored using the human intellect, without neglecting or rejecting that faith is the foundation. You are forced to asked and to try to answer difficult questions here, and you may find that easy answers you thought were reliable do not stand up after study. For me, though, this is one of the main reasons that I think Fuller is worth it. It is a place where faith and reason can and do stand together.

So, there are the two sides of the coin as I see it right now. Deciding whether to spend half a decade or longer earning a doctoral degree at any place is a major decision, and it’s a very personal one. There’s no school on Earth that’s right for every person, and I know that for some people Fuller is not the right place. But it was the right place for me.

I hope that this glimpse into how I might look back at the decisions I made over 6 years ago now might help you to see if Fuller is a good fit for you. Please – listen to what other people have to say as well, and most of all, listen to God.

The Doctoral Psychology Internship Crisis

2012-04-04T16:24:21-05:00

There’s a topic I’ve been wanting to write about here for some time – that topic is the application process for the pre-doctoral internship in psychology. However, I’ve held off on it because I was going through the process myself and I wanted to be able to write about it from the perspective of having finished.

Fuller’s doctoral degrees in psychology are of the clinical variety so obtaining real-world clinical experience is an important part of the process. Part of the requirements of completing the Ph.D. or Psy.D and eventually being licensed as a psychologist is completing supervised clinical hours working with clients or patients. The main way that a student accrues hours is through a full-time internship during the last year of his/her program. You can look back at one of my previous posts (http://www.fuller.edu/blogdetails.aspx?userid=2147483668&id=2147484789&blogid=2147483730) to see an overview of the clinical practicums students do during their other years at Fuller.

Fuller students in their final year of doctoral training participate in a nationwide process organized by APPIC (the Association of Psychology Postdoctoral and Internship Centers). In a nutshell, clinical and counseling psychology programs across the country join this organization as do sites offering full-time (and a small number of part-time) internships. Students from doctoral programs submit applications to the internship sites through a website which APPIC runs. Students may then be offered interviews by the internship sites they apply to – just like they might if they were applying for a job or internship outside of school. What makes this process different is what comes next: students then submit a ranked list of sites they would like to train at and the site submit a ranked list of students they would like to come to their site. These lists are then analyzed by a computer, which uses a simple algorithm to match students to sites based on the preferences both students and sites indicate. Students and sites are then all notified of the results of this match on the same day (which this year happened to be Friday, February 24). This type of matching process is not only used by psychology programs but a number of other health related fields including dentistry residencies, pharmacy residencies, and medical residencies.

I wish this were the end of the story. There is a crisis with this process in the field of psychology, and this crisis has been developing for a number of years. There are too many applicants for the number of sites available. As a result, approximately 20% of the students who tried to match last year were not able to obtain a spot. This year’s match is still partially ongoing, so it is not entirely clear what this year’s statistic will be like, but it is almost certain that 20% or more of applicants will not match this year either.

The fact that there is a significant shortage of internship spots for psychology students makes what is already a stressful process significantly more stressful. Even if there were enough internship spots for applicants, the reality of the system is that students’ ability to choose their internship placement is limited by a number of factors. For example, the fact that the internship matching process is nationwide means that many students complete their internship outside of California. For some students this is probably a blessing. A student can move to live closer to family, start practicing in the state they intend to practice after they graduate, etc. However, for some students this means that they may be forced to choose between moving away from where they intend to practice (or maybe even uprooting families and leaving friends) or not have an internship. This may be particularly true for Fuller students because internship sites in the LA metropolitan area tend to be in high demand, with a large number of applicants applying for each available spot.

I do want say that I my personal outcome with the match was great. I did match during the first phase and it was to a site that I am very excited about. I am very grateful for this. However, I know the reality is that others do not feel so fortunate at this point in the process. The more than 1,000 applicants nationwide who didn’t match during the first phase of the match and the 400-800 who did not match after Phase II are probably not feeling that great right now.

***

Here’s a different picture of the internship crisis. Suppose a Fuller student was particularly interested in practicing at a university counseling center in the future and wanted to get an internship at a university. If this Fuller student wanted to stay local, she could apply to the USC counseling center. Last year, USC received 134 applications for 4 internship positions. Another local university, Cal State Northridge received 88 applications for 3 positions. Suppose another student wanted a placement at a hospital. A southern CA hospital relatively close to Fuller (Patton State Hospital) received 218 applications for 6 positions while a Kaiser site in Los Angeles received 159 applications for 4 positions. Information about sites from other parts of the country is available at this link: http://www.appic.org/directory/search_dol_internships.asp. Suffice it to say that obtaining an internship is a competitive process. It is daunting going through the process of applying knowing how many applications are being submitted for each position. It’s easy to think that one’s application could not possibly be the 2-5% of applications that would be eventually be accepted for the position.

Another reality of internship is that although all APPIC sites are required to pay interns (unlike nearly all practicum sites for Fuller students, which do not pay), the stipend or salary is often quite low for the type of work interns will be doing. Last year’s average stipend was about $24,000, but stipends of $18,000 are not unheard of. Luckily, some sites do provide benefits such as health insurance or dental insurance. But for full time work in a city with housing as expensive as it is in the Los Angeles area, it’s very difficult to live on $18,000 a year.

There is more to the story, and this news is both good and bad. The good news is that APPIC is not the only option for obtaining an internship. For example, some California training sites have joined together in an organization called CAPIC that is an alternative to APPIC. If push were to come to shove, a student might be able to complete an internship outside of either of these systems by obtaining agreement to work for an agency and have that agency provide supervision. This tends to be a difficult process, however, as in order to be licensed one has document that such an internship would fulfill the requirements of the state a student wants to be licensed in after graduating.

Depending on a student’s goals, there may be no true viable alternative to APPIC. The American Psychological Association accredits internship programs (along with psychology programs – Fuller is an APA accredited doctoral program) and CAPIC internships are generally not APA accredited. In fact, not all APPIC sites are APA approved. For some students, an APA accredited internship may be very important. Students who want to work in the VA, for instance, must have completed an APA accredited internship to even apply for a job in the VA due to federal regulations. Certain career specialties (e.g., neuropsychology) also would strongly favor an APA accredited internship, making extremely difficult to have a career in this field without an APA internship.

Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be any great solution to the nationwide internship crisis, although – stay tuned – next time I’ll highlight some nation discussion about what to do about it.

What If There Is No Afterlife?

2012-04-17T18:06:49-05:00

I had an interesting experience at a Bible study within the past couple of weeks, one that highlights the kind of theological study one engages at Fuller.

We were studying Habakkuk (an admittedly difficult book) using an inductive method. We reached a point towards the end of the study for that week where we were talking about the afterlife and how that might fit into what Habakkuk was writing about. I found myself arguing that I didn’t think that Habakkuk necessarily understood the afterlife the way we do now and that I didn’t see any evidence of him writing about hope in an afterlife. Someone else in the group made the point that if it weren’t for the afterlife, she would have no reason to follow God. She also said that she thought if people didn’t have hope in the afterlife they would end up as a group of “depressed people.”

The conversation continued and I think resolved itself, but it got me thinking about a lot of different things. First, I realized that it was experience at Fuller that lead me to say that I wasn’t sure that Habakkuk wrote about the afterlife. I knew from Old Testament classes I have taken here that some scholars believe that the idea of what the afterlife was life and if there was an afterlife at all evolved in OT times. This is hardly a perfect example, but in thinking about this idea, my mind returned to the ending of the book of Job. If there were ever a time to say that Job “went to heaven” for his faithfulness, it would be at the end of that book, but that’s not how the book ends. Instead the book says that Job is given back all of the things he lost in this life (kind of) and that he lived a long life, being able to see his children’s children through four generations. Pretty amazing. But then, he “died, old and full of days.” The end.

What if our ancestors in the faith really did not believe in an afterlife the way we do? What if when we rigorously read some of the OT books we will find not talk about an eternal life or a life after death? Some people might read those questions and react to them as though they were heresy, plain and simple. As Christians we know about eternal life and we know about what Christ has promised. That’s all there is to it.

These kinds of ideas are the type that can give Fuller a bad name in some quarters. “Those people at Fuller, they don’t even believe in the afterlife,” I could see someone say. But that would be misunderstanding what I actually was pointing out. I don’t know if the followers of God in ancient Israel and Judah believed in an afterlife. I’m questioning whether that’s true or not and saying that from what I see I don’t think it’s true that all of our ancestors in the faith believed in an afterlife.

Sometimes that questioning all by itself appears to be dangerous. If someone believes in God only because they have hope in the afterlife and you start asking questions about that belief in any form, there’s the real worry that one’s entire faith could tumble. Instill doubt about whether all of the followers of God have believed in the afterlife and the whole of faith slowly cracks and falls apart.

But what if we look at it another way: our ancestors in faith believed in and followed God even though they maybe didn’t believe in the afterlife. What does their witness say to us, knowing what we know and believing as we believe? For me, it is actually a very powerful witness. In the midst of times everything around them being destroyed, their whole way of life questioned and turned upside down (e.g., in the Babylon exile), they still believed and they still tried to be faithful to God. They still struggled and I see a deep and persisting beauty in that struggle. Their witness actually points out to me that if the afterlife really is the only thing holding me to following God it may (and let me stress that may again) be like I am someone who only plays the game to get the trophy at the end, rather than someone who plays the game for the simple love of the game or who plays out of love for the One who created the game.

------------------------------------------

At the end of my last post, I said that I would also talk about the internship crisis in psychology again – so here it goes.

First, here’s a link to a recent edition of a magazine for grad psych students that has several articles about the internship crisis. http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2012/03/index.aspx

For someone in a doctoral program or thinking of applying to a doctoral program in psychology, there is little that one can on his or her own to change the situation. In the long run, either fewer people need to be seeking internships (lowered demand) or more internship placements need to be created (increased supply). Neither of those two things are going to happen overnight and they’re not going to happen without numerous different organizations working together to solve the problems.

As an individual, you can join together with others to lobby and advocate for change. Outside of this, my perspective is that the best you can do is attempt to maximize your individual chances to match. Now, this is easier said than done, because I can’t point to a specific set of factors that are a sure-fire way to guarantee that as a graduate student you’ll get placed in an internship. One way that Fuller recommends to do that is to not geographically limit where you apply for internship: in other words, be willing to move anywhere in the country. I limited my applications geographically and still got placed, but did decide to take an extra year in school to gain more clinical experience and to finish my M.Div. and dissertation, so that may have balanced out the geographical limitation.

My perspective is that as a potential applicant it’s to your benefit to start thinking about this issue even before you apply. Could you move anywhere in the country in 5-6 years? What arrangement gives you personally the best opportunity to find experiences that advances your future career by obtaining an internship that provides excellent training and opens doors? How can you find the best place for you to accomplish that?

There's a Place for Us

2012-05-15T18:52:09-05:00

A psychological study recently published by Science magazine has been making the rounds on various news outlets recently. Have you seen any of these headlines?

“Analytic Thinking Can Promote Atheism” (Livescience.com/MSNBC.com)

“Losing Your Religion: Analytic Thinking Can Undermine Belief” (Scientific American)

A team at Harvard conducted a study on a similar topic that was published last year in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. The headlines for that study were very similar.

“Intuitive? Try God” (Harvard Gazette)

“Belief in God Boils Down to a Gut Feeling” (Livescience.com)

While headlines and even entire articles about scientific studies often sensationalize and over-report the actual findings of said studies, these headlines give the gist of what the researchers concluded from their studies: people whose style of thinking is more intuitive are more religious than those whose style of thinking is more analytical.

Now, I’m going to make a big leap here and skip over discussing the details these studies and jump over analyzing the methods and results of their research (an easy example of why one might want to think twice about the results of the Harvard study could be because participants were recruited online and were 60-70% women, and thus potentially not representative of the overall population). Instead, I’m going to make the assumption that the gist of the argument is correct. People who make decision based more on gut feelings than on a systematic analysis are more likely to say that they believe in God. What should we as believing Christians do?

To me the answer to this question starts with how we interpret the results. There’s one interpretation that sensationalist reporting seems clearly focused on and to put it very bluntly that interpretation is “only stupid people believe in God.” If people who engage in intuitive decision making, people who making decisions based on their “gut reactions” are not smart, then yes, this is the conclusion we should draw.

However, I do not think it’s the conclusion that we should reach. Psychological research and theory itself would tell us that intuitive and analytic reasoning are both equally valid and equally have their place. No one person makes 100% of his or her decisions in life based on either purely intuitive or analytic processes. There are situations in which both types of reasoning can fail, both have benefits and both have potential pitfalls. Decisions in which reaction time is a major factor, for instance, intuitive reasoning often is the superior process. People often talk in intuitive terms about major decisions in life – romantic relationships being one of the clearest examples. How often have you heard the idea of “you’ll just know it” when it comes to love?

So what if these two styles are equally valid? Then what? What should be as believing Christians do with this knowledge? One answer came to me recently in reaction to worship.

I recently heard a song called “Who Are You” written by Tommy Walker, a well-known Christian musician and worship leader at a local church (but not also the song recorded by not the best band ever, The Who). The opening lyrics are these:

Who are You
How can I ever know or ever see
When all my reason has to bow down
To my heart, to my faith

To my mind You’re only darkness
To my heart You’re the light ever shining

I’m surrounded by things that tell me
You’re just a lie, why even try
But my soul is ever longing
It somehow knows there must be more.

The song was moving. It was one of those types of songs where for me the melody and the text match very well. Musically I thought it was very well done. The lyrics, however, were another matter. To me, these lyrics highlight perfectly the conflict between analytic and intuitive thinking. The song settles clearly on one side: if analysis (the mind) says that God does not really exist or that God is distant, one’s heart or one’s gut (intuition) knows otherwise.

Listening to these lyrics I found myself unable to personally relate. I could understand the lines “to my mind You’re only darkness/To my heart You’re the light ever shining” but in my personal experience not only has that not happened, but only the exact opposite had any sense of truth for me. I’ve had times where God felt like darkness, but my mind knew the opposite – if nothing else from the wealth of testimony from our ancestors in the faith and remembering their stories of God’s goodness.

It was then that the idea came to me: what if the way we should interpret this study on intuitive vs. analytic thinking is to recognize that both types of people exist in the world and exist in the church but that the church only does a good job in speaking to one type of person: the intuitive person. It seems to me that this is likely the case. In fact, in certain circumstances, it seems that the message communicated by the church to those who are more analytical in their way of thinking is that they are not welcome (unless they change their way of thinking).

If you’re reading this and thinking that my experience sounds a lot like yours, then there is good news: at Fuller you will be encouraged to be analytical and faithful. Actually, you’ll be encouraged to be analytical and intuitive and faithful –to be a balanced and integrated person with respect to your faith.

--------------------------------------------

As I’ve continued to think about this idea, I’ve started to wonder why is it that the church in general often seems to rely on intuitive reasoning. One answer is that “faith” seems to be something that is simply intuitive, something that I do or believe ultimately because my gut tells me to. But is that really what faith is, or is that only one way of getting to faith? For me, faith is more about acceptance and it is present in every sphere of life, including the analytical. The problem is that in order to get to faith from the analytical side alone, one has to learn to say “I don’t know” and learn to accept even though one does not know for sure.

Saying “I don’t know” is not easy and it is often uncomfortable. I think sometimes we want to get rid of that uncomfortableness so we try to find a way to be sure. Intuition is one way. “I’m sure about God because I just know, my heart, my soul, my gut tells me so.” Trying to find proof is another way, but there are things about the past that we cannot prove “beyond a reasonable doubt.” For me, one way of increasing knowing is to rely on the testimony of others. I have to do this to a great extent about one of the greatest events in history, the resurrection. I have to trust the testimony and accept it, have faith that the testimony is accurate.

I’m sure I will continue to think about this and I hope that church leaders and Christians who have had similar experiences will think about what it means to have true faith for all the people, not just some.

intro

2010-09-02T14:08:07-05:00

I know what you're thinking: "Who's this guy, and why do I care about his blog?" Valid questions, and I already respect you for asking them... so let me tell you!

I'm Jon, and I'm the admissions recruiter here at Fuller Seminary, which means that I get to travel all around the US and talk to people about this wonderful institution we call Fuller. If you want to see where me and my fellow recruiters will be in the coming months, check out the Fuller On The Road page.

In addition to being the admissions recruiter for Fuller, I am also a proud alumni. I graduated with an MA in Theology in June of 2009, and I focused mostly on biblical studies and theology during my degree. Needless to say, I'm a huge Fuller fan.

So what do I want to do with this blog? A few things: First, I'd like to update you on where I'm going and where I've been during the Fall recruitment season. Check back often to see where I am in the US, what colleges I'm visiting and what conferences I'm attending.

Second, I spend a lot of time answering people's questions while I'm on the road, and I'd like to include some of those answers here. If I meet someone at a school or conference who asks a particularly pertinent question, I'll be sure to include my answer on this blog. You make get some answers that you need without even realizing you had that particular question!

Finally, I'll probably use this blog to give you some travel tips every once in a while. Sure, this isn't exactly Fuller related, but we could all use a little help making travel plans, and doing this job, I've learned what works and what really doesn't work.

So be sure to check back early and often... See you on the road!

- Jon

(any questions? email me at jon-adm@fuller.edu)

It has begun

2010-09-07T17:45:45-05:00

The recruitment season has officially started. Today (at an ungodly hour), I flew from warm sunny Southern California to, well, warm sunny Chicago, IL to exhibit for Fuller at the Christian Community Development Association's 2010 National Conference (Are you attending this year? Stop by and say hi or send me and email - jon-adm@fuller.edu). We're all set up in the exhibit hall, and the conference will officially begin in a couple hours.

As I think about this week, I'm starting to get excited about all that the recruitment season brings. I am excited to have the chance to talk to so many people who are attempting to discern God's call on their lives, and I am honored that they allow me to have a small part in that process. There are some who have felt a call to full-time ministry since they were young who are now ready to take the next step toward that goal. There are others who only recently realized that God is calling them to bring much needed mental, emotional, and spiritual healing to people around the world. Each story I hear is different, and it reminds me how wonderfully diverse the kingdom of God really is.

I know you have a story too, and I want to hear it! While I would love for our paths to cross sometime in the next few months, I know that may not be possible. But that's just another way this little blog can be helpful. Tell me your story in the comments section. How is God leading you at this point in your life? How are you seeing God's call take shape? How can we help?

- Remember, to see where Fuller's recruiters will be this Fall, be sure to check the Fuller On The Road page.

The Value of Education

2010-09-28T17:09:19-05:00

I heard something on the radio while I was recruiting in Nashville last week that really got me thinking. The host of the radio program was talking in somewhat negative terms about what he sees as a typical approach to education in the US. In his estimation, so often people from the US approach education as a means to an end - and that end is usually more money. Education becomes just something some of us feel like we have to do to get rich. In other words, the goal of higher education is success, and success, in this country, can usually be measured by money.

This radio personality really got me thinking, and I tend to identify with his frustrations. What should be the goal of education? To make more money? To have more power? To be influential in some way? Or should the goal of education be the education itself? Should we, at least partially, want to become more educated just for the sake of education - or perhaps I should say, for the experience of becoming educated?

One of the primary benefits of education is not acquiring data - it’s not how much information we can compile on a particular subject. The primary benefit of education, in my opinion, is the capacity of critical thought. Said another way, in school, we learn how to learn, not just what to learn.

As I’ve mentioned before, I earned an MA in Theology from Fuller. Many of my classes were in biblical studies, biblical languages, and theology. When I talk to people about my degree from Fuller, I usually get some version of this question: “What are you doing with your degree?” I never know exactly how to answer, mostly because I know what they want to hear. They want to hear that I’m in some form of traditional full-time ministry putting all of my newly acquired theological knowledge to use. How do I explain to them that what I’m really doing, or trying to do with my degree is think better? It doesn’t sell well, does it?

What am I suggesting here? I’m not really sure. Maybe I would just hope that we (myself included) would start valuing education for education’s sake - that the experience of studying at a place like Fuller or any of the other quality graduate schools around the world is worth it, whether we ever really “use” the degree in a traditional or expected sense.

Does Fuller care about the Bible?

2010-10-13T12:10:34-05:00

As Fuller’s admissions recruiter, I get asked a lot of questions. People come to my table and ask me everything from the cost of tuition at Fuller to how well I know Joel B. Green. Usually, the kind of questions I get can be answered relatively easily, but at times, the questions are, well, above my pay grade.

The most common question of this nature is the question of Fuller and the Bible, specifically why Fuller has chosen to use the word “infallible” instead of “inerrant” when referring to scripture in its statement of faith. Much ink has been spilled on this issue, I wouldn’t dare try to reiterate the many comprehensive and thoughtful studies scholars have done in relation to this question. I’m just a lowly admissions recruiter. What do I know?

But I do want to add a couple thoughts that I share with people when they ask me about Fuller’s stance on infallibility and scripture. So many times, at the heart of this question is a concern that people have that Fuller doesn’t value scripture. They have caught wind of the debates of the last couple decades between those who hold to inerrancy and those who promote the idea of infallibility in regard to scripture, and although they may not understand all of the nuances of the debates, they have heard some things that don’t sit well with them.

As I stated, I’m no expert on this issue, but I do know a few things that I try to communicate with those who ask me about Fuller and scripture, and these few things are important to note. Perhaps it’s best to consider these things as a starting point in the discussion - a foundation that must first be established before going deeper into the issue.

First, Fuller cares deeply about scripture. Both the faculty and students at Fuller consider scripture to be the authoritative word of God, and they would affirm what Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, that “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.”

Second, Fuller has a profound respect for scripture and desires, above all, that scripture be interpreted responsibly and accurately. The emphasis in the classroom is to teach students to listen to scripture and allow it to speak to us. This involves allowing it to speak on its own in the way the authors and God intended.

I once heard author David Dark say, “Being faithful to the witness of the Bible is a more difficult task than proving the Bible.” It is this difficult task that drives both the faculty and staff of Fuller Seminary as they attempt to faithfully interpret scripture.

So let me reassure you, as I do with all the people who ask me this question: Fuller cares deeply for scripture as the authoritative written word of God. In Fuller’s 60+ years of training men and women for the manifold ministries of Christ, this fact has not changed, and it never will.

The Cost of Living

2010-12-01T12:49:09-06:00

With this blog, I've been sharing some of the questions asked of me by prospective students while on the road as Fuller's admissions recruiter. Today, I want to take a different approach to another common question prospective Fuller students ask me: "What is the cost of living at Fuller's Pasadena campus?" Generally, with my answer, I tend to focus on the "cost" part of the question - how much is rent, food, gas, insurance, entertainment, etc. - which are definitely important details to consider.

But with this blog, let's focus on the "living" part of the question. As a (nearly) five year resident of beautiful Pasadena, CA, I can write with confidence that this part of Southern California is one of those places in the world where you can really enjoy life! In other words, there's a lot of living to do not only in Pasadena, but in the greater LA area.

Let's start with Pasadena. What do you like to eat? Most likely, it's here. There are so many restaurants in Pasadena that you could take a year exploring the dining possibilities in this city and not get bored. Are you a film buff? Head to the Arclight for new releases, Laemmle for limited release or indie films, the Regency Academy to see second run blockbusters for $3, or the Gold Class Cinema for dinner and a movie at the same time.

Maybe you prefer a slightly more cultured entertainment experience. You can visit any of Pasadena's quality museums like the Norton Simon, The Pacific Asia Museum, or The Pasadena Museum of California Art. You could also take in a play at the Pasadena Playhouse.

Perhaps you enjoy the outdoors. There's plenty for you, too! Pasadena is located at the foot of the San Gabriel Mountains; a mountain range that is full of incredible hikes for hikers of all ages and abilities to enjoy. You can also join the hundreds of runners and walkers who visit the Rose Bowl park every day. And let's not forget that the beach is just a short drive down the freeway.

And this is just the Pasadena area. The city of Pasadena is part of the network of cities that make up the greater Los Angeles area; an area that is rich with culture, entertainment, cuisine, and more. Many Fuller Pasadena students enjoy taking advantage of the proximity of the entertainment industry by attending some of the free show tapings offered. For no more than the cost of parking and a couple hours out of your day, you can be part of the studio audiences of Ellen, The Price is Right, The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, Conan O'Brien, Jimmy Kimmel, and many more.

The greater LA area also boasts some of the best live music in the US. Many professional musicians live and work out of LA, and they love to get together on random nights of the week at small venues and jam. With a little diligence, you could find some incredible free shows almost any night of the week.

There's so much more I could add here. Instead, I'll just give you a short list of some of my favorite things to do in the greater Los Angeles area:

And these are just a few of my favorites. I'm sure my friends and colleagues at Fuller would have much more to add.

So while the cost of living in Pasadena is definitely something important to consider, let's not forget how fun it is to actually be living in Pasadena!

Spring 2011 Recruitment

2011-01-28T15:05:23-06:00

Hello friends!

The Spring 2011 recruitment season is underway, and a Fuller rep might be coming your way very soon. Currently, there's a group of Fuller reps, profs, and students attending Calvin College's Symposium on Worship in Grand Rapids, MI. Me? I just made it to Vancouver, BC for Missions Fest. I'll be here until Sunday.

Just a sampling of where a Fuller rep will be in the coming months:

Catalyst West
Jubilee 2011
Orange Conference
Hawaiian Island Ministries Conference
Justice Conference

If you're wondering where you can meet one of us in the next few months, go to Fuller's On the Road page. Check back to that page often as it's regularly updated and new events are added.

See you soon!

Diversity and Fuller

2011-05-24T11:25:47-05:00

Diversity is a word that gets thrown around a lot, especially at places of higher education. It seems to be a badge of honor for an institution if it can claim to be a place of diversity. And I think the reason is fairly obvious. God has created a world rich with culture, expression, and life, so why wouldn't an institution want to be a mirror of the diversity God has already built into this world?

With that said, we also must realize how broad a term "diverse" actually is. When we, as a seminary, talk about diversity, we can be referencing ethnic diversity, denominational diversity, gender diversity, cultural diversity, diversity in age, and so on. To simply make the statement that Fuller is a diverse learning community is not telling the whole story. What does that diversity look like, exactly?

First, Fuller Seminary is an ethnically diverse learning environment. There are over 70 nations represented among the Fuller student body of just under 5000 students. Granted, not all 70 of those nations are represented equally, but there are students enrolled at Fuller who hail from all over the world.

Second, Fuller Seminary is a denominationally diverse learning environment. Within Fuller's student body, there are representatives from over 100 different denominations and faith traditions. These denominations and faith traditions all fall under the Evangelical Christian umbrella, but the difference in approach to theology between many of these denominations is fascinating.

Third, Fuller Seminary is diverse in terms of gender. I know what you're thinking. Gender diversity doesn't seem like a huge deal. Most schools have both men and women enrolled in their programs. This is true, but as I unpack this idea in a later blog, I'd like to talk about exactly how Fuller expresses gender equality among the student body with a commitment to the full expression of women in ministry and gender inclusive language, among other things.

Fourth, Fuller Seminary is a culturally diverse learning environment. Please note, I use the term "culture" as something separate from "ethnicity." People, especially in the USA, can be part of the same ethnic group but have very different cultural experiences. For instance, I am caucasian, and I grew up in a small town outside of Philadelphia, PA in the home of a pastor of a Pentecostal church. A friend of mine, who is also caucasian, grew up in Hawaii in the home of a missionary. While our ethnic backgrounds are the same, our cultural backgrounds are very different. More on this later.

Finally, Fuller Seminary is diverse in terms of age. Students at Fuller represent many stages in life, from the students who come to Fuller right after completing their undergraduate degree to the students who have worked in the market place for many years and are coming to Fuller to pursue a second career.

Just from the brief introduction to diversity at Fuller, you can see what kind of learning environment Fuller really is. So here's what I'd like to do. Over the next few weeks, I'm going to unpack each of the ideas above, one at a time, in a greater detail with the goal of highlighting Fuller Seminary as a truly diverse learning environment. Stay tuned!

Diversity at Fuller: Ethnic Diversity

2011-06-13T12:33:22-05:00

A few weeks ago, I started a blog series designed to highlight Fuller Seminary as a diverse learning community. You can read the intro blog to this series here.

To continue our discussion in greater detail, I'd like to focus first on what I will call "ethnic diversity" as it relates to Fuller Seminary. The raw numbers* are as follows:

6% Students of African descent
7% Students of Latin descent
20% Students of Asian descent
58% Students of European descent
9% Unknown/other

At first glance, you may think that these numbers don't seem to represent an ethnically diverse student body at Fuller, and you're partially right. Many of us here at Fuller share the same thoughts. While Fuller is an ethnically diverse learning environment (remember, over 70 nations are represented in the student body), we are continually trying to increase the ethnic diversity of our student body. Centers on campus like the Centro Latino and African American Church Studies are working hard to address the unique concerns of their respective people groups as they relate to higher education.

(Did you know: Students at Fuller can complete entire degrees in both Spanish and Korean?)

While the actual numbers representing Fullers ethnic diversity could be higher, Fuller is still a rich and complex learning community in terms of the seminary world. It's not long before a new Fuller student is confronted (in a positive way) with the ethnic diversity at Fuller both in the classroom and in the community as a whole. The student also soon learns that ethnic diversity goes far beyond skin color. Two students may look similar, but the reality is often that they have two different ethnic backgrounds.

Next, we will discuss the denominational diversity at Fuller and how this aspect of diversity contributes to the learning experience of Fuller students.

*Statistics taken from the Fall 2010 incoming class for all campuses

Diversity at Fuller: Denominational Diversity

2011-07-11T12:31:32-05:00

Continuing our discussion about diversity at Fuller, I'd like to turn our attention to denominational diversity as it relates to Fuller. (To read the introduction blog to this series, click here. To read the blog on Ethnic Diversity at Fuller, click here.)

Fuller is a multi-denominational seminary, and as such, it is not officially affiliated with any particular denomination or faith tradition. As a result, students from a variety of Christian faith traditions come to study at Fuller. At last count, there are over 100 different denominations represented in the Fuller student body. The breakdown in terms of basic percentages* are as follows:

25% Non-denominational
20% Presbyterian/Reformed
11% Pentecostal/Charismatic
10% Baptist
8% Holiness
6% Methodist
2% Lutheran
2% Anglican
16% Other

Fuller's Office of Denominational Relations serves as the student's connection to the various denominations, whether that be to help the student find a local church to attend or to help the student meet the various requirements of ordination in his or her denominational tradition.

What does denominational diversity look like at Fuller? How does it play out in the classroom? A story I like to tell that illustrates Fuller's denominations diversity comes from an experience I had in a class called Exegetical Methods and Practice, taught by Dr. Marianne Meye Thompson. As our final assignment for the class, we were instructed to study the practice of baptism. We began this study by discussing in class how our faith traditions, and, as an extension, how we ourselves approached the practice of baptism. This was follow by a historical study of baptism, a contextual look at the practice in the New Testament (and similar practices in the Old Testament), a detailed word study on various forms of the Greek words translates as "baptism" or "baptize," a deeper look into our own faith tradition's teaching on baptism, and so on. As we shared our findings in class, and as we discussed in further detail the approach our faith traditions took when practicing baptism, I was in awe! I had no idea all of us Evangelical Christians approached the same topic in such different ways. And I'm not just referring to the actual practice of baptism (sprinkling, immersion, infant baptism, etc). I'm also referring to the theology behind baptism (is it the point when salvation is conferred on the believer or is it just an outward expression of conversion).

This experience open my eyes to a few things. First, I saw how wonderfully rich and complex the body of Christ really is. We are all loving and serving one God, yet we love and serve in different ways. And this was not threatening to me. It was encouraging and exciting. I glimpsed not only what makes us all unique, but also the many ways we are all similar.

Second, this experience caused me to take a deeper look at my own belief system. In a sense, my own approach to baptism was challenged when I heard from other faith traditions. I need you to hear me here: This was not a bad thing! This was an event that caused me to evaluate the teachings I've held since childhood so that I could properly understand them and fully make them my own. At the end of the assignment, my views of the practice of baptism were much the same as they had been before the assignment began - with one exception - they were now truly my own views and not something that had been merely handed down to me.

Fuller Theological Seminary is a denominationally diverse learning environment, and as such, students are given the unique ability to sharpen their theologies against the theologies of others as iron sharpens iron.

*Statistics taken from the Fall 2010 incoming class for all campuses

Diversity and Fuller: Age Diversity

2011-08-15T19:14:08-05:00

A few weeks ago, I began a blog series centered around the discussion of the diverse nature of Fuller Seminary (you can read the intro blog here, and parts one and two here and here). With this blog, I'd like to jump ahead in the conversation and talk about Fuller's diversity as it relates to age. After this blog, I'll address the topics of cultural and gender diversity at Fuller. To hold you over in the meantime, check out Mark Baker-Wright's recent blog on Fuller's view of women in ministry.

I can't say for certain when people discuss the topic of diversity that the topic of age is considered. Most often, it seems that discussion of diversity are centered around ethnicity and culture. But when it comes to learning environment like a seminary, the age diversity of the student body is something to consider.

While this may not be true across the board, age does bring a number of benefits with it including, among many others,wisdom, calm, charity, patience. These characteristics are indispensable when it comes to theological education, and often times, these are characteristics that are earned through time and hard work. They're not like talents we're all born with.

For this reason, it's immensely important to study theology in place where people of all ages are welcome to study and dialog

switching coasts.

2010-10-11T19:09:58-05:00

welcome to my maiden blog entry.

i'm not sure where to begin on something like this, but if you're patient with me, i think we'll get this figured out...

ahem. so, hello there. as you can tell from my bio to the right, i'm beka, as in "rebekah", yes, my parents gave me the hebrew spelling although i have no jewish blood to speak of. although i'm originally from the south, many confuse me for a californian. i don't know if it's due to my lack of big, blonde hair, accentless voice, or the fact i'm laid back, but i guess, i can now officially claim california to be my new home.

i like to think that the past 5 years spent in new york have helped ease the culture shock that people experience when moving to los angeles.

hipsters, check.

dogs as children, check.

a city made of many mini-worlds...

fuller boasts hosting students from about 70 different countries. by the end of orientation week, i met like 5 different people who come from 5 different countries. that's pretty awesome considering the fact that i just started here. so far, i've been very amused by the cast of characters i've met.

most people tell me l.a. is a sunnier, more laid back nyc. as much as i love and miss my friends from "the other coast", i can see what people mean. sure there are no changing autumn leaves nor crispness in the air, but i could get used to it here.

cheap therapy?

2010-10-27T01:18:09-05:00

fall has come. after several days of wetness, the sun has emerged and there is what appears to be a crispness in the air.

in the midst of (actually) enjoying learning again, midterms have snuck up on me.

i could say i'm getting my money's worth. between attending classes and reflecting on the reading my professors have so generously assigned, i can't help but wonder if i'm getting a bit of free therapy in the process. i always thought that school would be easy, especially when it was a program like this, tailored to one of most interesting topics: people! but somehow the content of the material has become a sobering, fascinating, and challenging catalyst that has resulted in me to internalizing and re-processing both who i am to myself and to others. too many rhetorical questions have pierced my conscious and have caused me to re-analyze the lens of how i see the world. my understanding of how we see ourselves, communicate to others, and process the world has been challenged. it's hard to not be affected by the material and it's only week 5!

great, thanks. perhaps it's about time that i head to therapy myself...where shall i send the bill??

sufjan stevens: part man, part artist, part genius but all awesome.

2010-10-29T17:24:37-05:00

oh, sufjan. how i love thee. thanks for paying us a visit last weekend.

not only did you bring a little bit of nyc-ness to me, you also brought together friends from college that i didn't even know were coming into town for the show!

but beyond your amazing ability to bring lovely people from my past together, i'm thankful for your uncanny ability to make metallic spandex cool, along with your seamless ability to make electronic beats into danceable lullabies with deep-seeded lyrics. cameron lee would be proud of your integration of faith and music. you make me proud of your new album.

thanks for writing it for me, no, you shouldn't have.

his newest album: age of adz is not for the faint of heart.

imagine an 11 piece band orchestrated with all sorts of classical and old-school electronic instruments...

then add amazing visuals and yes, some metallic spandex.

http://asthmatickitty.com/the-age-of-adz

for all those who don't know sufjan, please check him out: http://asthmatickitty.com/sufjan-stevens

he has something for nearly everyone, just taste-test any of his albums.

"illinois" is a classic and is part of his collection dedicated to the midwestern states.

(and no you're not crazy, the film "little miss sunshine" uses alot of his music.)

my top 10 sufjan songs :

10. palm sunday tornado hits crystal lake http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej8XdgvaR4U

9. all the trees of the hills will clap their hands http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mr_VkAXWZA

8. chicago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mLSeqNS8rs

7. seven swans http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99TCWaHmWKc

6. for the windows in paradise http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59BRCOiQVKI

5. john wayne gacy jr. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twWAupM99I4

4. concerning the ufo sighting near highland, illinois http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b0fdETmRng

3. i walked http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tghLxt9Qqo

2. to be alone with you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-E2DI01GyQ

1. romulus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUwuT6m5roU

(feel free to agree or disagree-and of course feel free to send me your thoughts of personal favs)

and for a fun twist, check out the remixed version of his illinoise album, rightfully called: illinoize.

listen and download for free:

http://www.tormusic.net/downloads/illinoize/

a very seminarian halloween party.

2010-10-31T18:02:51-05:00

happy halloween...or shall i say: happy all saints' day eve!

last night i attended what ended up being a ridiculously good costume party, held by one of my buddies' apartments which is part of fuller's "allelous" intentional living communities (for more info: http://www.fuller.edu/page.aspx?id=1746&terms=allelous). i wasn't sure what to expect...but i was pretty sure i wouldn't be seeing my usual flock of slutty versions of normal costumes, you know what they say about girls dressing up for halloween...so, in the midst of the typical characters (pirates, cowboys, characters from peter pan) i expected to see a nice showing of seminary appropriate ones...you know like the modesty police (nicely done, man!), but this one just blew me away.

a kid with a tee with the duck-taped message:

calvinist only the elect will get this.

my applause for his ability to come up with this get-up just 5 minutes before heading to the party.

i know that this might be over most people's heads, but in the seminary world, i guess we like religious irony (yeah, the guy isn't a calvinist, nor does he even necessarily believe in predestination), but it worked.

(and for those who asked about my costume this year, here you go...that's right, i'm the travelocity gnome.)

bridezillas, relationshipzillas, and the entertaining reality of reality t.v.

2010-11-29T02:09:28-06:00

leave it to reality t.v. to come up with another "entertaining" show concept which exploits relationships...this evening, in an effort to find something fun to give myself a break from class reading, i got sucked into watching "bridezillas" with my brother and his fiance. to give credit where it's due, it was my brother's idea to watch "bridezillas" and the title didn't lie.

when faced with the temper-tantrum, over demanding, spoiled bride-to-be's (or maybe i should just call them "queen b's") on the small screen, it is hard not to refrain from applying psychology terms or getting exacerbated with the grooms who allow this unhealthy behaviors to continue. the therapist-in-training in me can't help to come out. where do they find these couples, anyhow?! apparently in this episode, one the jersey shore and another from chicago. i want to think that there was some acting involved, because if not, poor grooms.

i know that weddings can be stressful, i was a bridesmaid in 3 weddings within 14 month timespan, so watching brides get a this crazy on t.v. was pretty hilarious. but i wasn't really ready for the next show. "jilted," keeping with "we" (as in "women's entertainment" network) the wedding sunday theme, was dedicated to watching women propose to their boyfriends and give them the ultimatum that if they didn't marry them in a week, the relationship was over. oh, yeah, and the wedding was already planned-talk about pressure!

although this show didn't focus on "bridezillas," perhaps it was safe to say that it was instead dedicated to "relationshipzillas." the more i watched this show, the more it became apparent that these women were most concerned with being married rather than being patient with the timing their current relationship. maybe the men were being a little slow or uncommittal, but in the episode i watched, i don't think that this was necessarily the case.

at this point in this post, if you're still with me, you're probably wondering: ok, beka, where are you going with this? good question. at this point, all i can say at the 2 hours of my life wasted watching these reality t.v. shows, i did sense that these shows are getting on to something: either these shows illustrate a disappointing commentary or maybe these shows were really on to something deeper? i'm one of the first people to claim that reality t.v. is not reality, but there is an enticing element that draws watchers to these show concepts. is it the drama or is there something deeply personal found in these seemingly doomed relationships that is somehow captivating?

bridezillas, relationshipzillas, and the entertaining reality of reality t.v.(2)

2010-11-29T19:12:58-06:00

leave it to reality t.v. to come up with another "entertaining" show concept which exploits relationships...last night, in an effort to find something fun to give myself a break from class reading, i got sucked into watching "bridezillas" with my brother and his fiance. to give credit where it's due, it was my brother's idea to watch "bridezillas" and the title didn't lie.

when faced with the temper-tantrum, over demanding, spoiled bride-to-be's (or maybe i should just call them "queen b's") on the small screen, it is hard not to refrain from applying psychology terms or getting exacerbated with the grooms who allow these unhealthy behaviors to continue. the therapist-in-training in me can't help to come out. where do they find these couples, anyhow?! apparently in this episode, one the jersey shore and another from chicago. i want to think that there was some acting involved, because if not, poor grooms.

i know that weddings can be stressful, i was a bridesmaid in 3 weddings within 14 month timespan, so watching brides get a this crazy on t.v. is pretty hilarious. but i wasn't really ready for the next show. "jilted," keeping with we's (as in "women's entertainment" network) wedding sunday theme, was dedicated to watching women propose to their boyfriends and give them the ultimatum that if they didn't marry them in a week, the relationship was over. oh, yeah, and the wedding was already planned-talk about pressure!

i was half surprised when a therapist was called in to help the couple in "jilted" address some of their problems although i was disappointed in the seemingly shallow questions she asked. ok, judgment aside, perhaps the counseling session was edited but i was happy that the groom stood his ground and didn't just marry the pressuring bride. i applaud the groom for taking marriage seriously. i admit it is easy for me to hastily judge the woman as being too obsessed with the concept of marriage to actually taking an honest look at the health (or lack thereof) of her relationship. it sadly reminded me of people who naively get into relationships because they are at that "magical" age when they're supposed to get married (like at the end of college, i went to a christian school, so it's even more pronounced there) or because they have been in a relationship for a set amount of time, that it's just time for them to get married. this is not to say, that i believe that it's wrong for people to get married after college or after they have invested a x-amount of time into a relationship, but it just makes me think of when couples get engaged seemingly as an indirect (or direct) result of social or cultural pressures. it depresses me to think of how many people get caught up with the concept of marriage without actually considering the big commitment it entails. perhaps i'm making too big of a conclusion based on reality t.v., but i think that media makes a noble effort to gives us what we want and that is says something about us. gulp.

advent is here: it's 25 days until christmas-SLOW DOWN!

2010-12-01T19:49:40-06:00

i can't believe december is here. somehow my first quarter of school is coming to a close and the holidays are basically here. whereas before thanksgiving, grocery stores and malls were ambiently playing christmas music, now that we're officially in december the volume has been turned up seemingly everywhere. don't get me wrong, i love a good carol or a classic. i like them all regardless if sung by bing crosby, mariah carey, or a cute children's choir, but this year really took me by surprise.

being in a seemingly seasonless, california, it's hard to remember that it's winter. oh, wait, i'm a student. and that means one thing: finals.

so, in the midst of finishing up this quarter, i'm trying to balance the energy and inertia that propels me to rush toward christmas-one of my favorite times to spend with family and old friends! thankfully advent is here. here to help quiet me and remind me to patiently await the coming of christ. but waiting is hard. i don't know many people who do waiting well, let alone for something as warm and fuzzy as the holidays.

growing up in a southern baptist church, i never became aware of this special season of advent. it wasn't until i went to college and attended an anglican church that i began to slowly understand why it is so important to slow down and wait the coming of christ. i admit that, although it's been almost 10 years since i began attending churches that follow the church calendar, advent gets me every time. in the midst of the craziness of finishing off the year, the fun of holiday parties, and the anticipation of seeing loved ones, i find that i often overlook the true reason we are celebrating this season:jesus.

so as a little personal project for myself in relation to this blog, i'm making a concerted effort to take a moment to quiet myself and post something advent and/or christmas related. this is a tall order when all i want to do is focus on finishing finals and time with friends in california. in this way, this will be my "lay-advent" tradition to help quiet myself as i prepare for christmas. so, be prepared for 25 days of a variety of christmasness. cue charlie brown christmas music.

day 2: the gift of the co-hort.

2010-12-03T03:30:52-06:00

i know it's a late, but i just got home so i don't consider it officially tomorrow until i have gone to bed. so to keep with my advent goal of taking a few moments to quiet myself down and reflect, i'm sharing a little something before i head to bed...

so i'll make my post quick tonight and get right to my thesis: i just love my co-hort!

it's amazing to think that as of today, we've just finished our first quarter. as miyoung hammer, our clinical foundations prof, said to us in our final class this morning: we didn't just survive this quarter, we thrived! as emotionally taxing as this program as been thus far, i can in many ways attribute this "thriving" to my fellow MFT colleagues. thanks, friends.

i have plenty more to say, but for now, i will just say: good night.

day 3: losers can be lovable.

2010-12-04T04:54:55-06:00

had i not been at a study session tonight, i would have totally gone to tonight's free screening of "coyote county loser," a comedy co-produced by a fellow fuller student and blogger, rob bethke. not only is it award winning, but my friend who went told me it was great, so i'll have to take their word on it until i can watch the film for myself. until then, i'll just follow his blog: http://www.fuller.edu/bloglistings.aspx?userid=2147483659.

For more information on Coyote County Loser, please visit the film's website, www.coyotecountyloser.com

interested with the title, check out the synopsis below:

Can losers find love? Southwest desert radio station K-RAP is struggling to pay the bills when radio jock Jack Proctor (Beau Clark) zooms through Coyote County on his way to LA to take the gig of a lifetime. But the deal stalls, so Jack temps on-air work for K-RAP. Dr. Lauren Hartford (Nikki Boyer), local on-air relationship expert, gets under Jack’s skin by questioning his love advice — so Jack initiates a high stakes contest to find Coyote County’s biggest loser and help him woo the county’s most unattainable woman. Before this battle-of-the-sexes is over, Jack and Lauren will learn love is for losers after all.

day 5: the simple prayer to the stressed out student.

2010-12-06T01:09:02-06:00

so rest in the knowledge that He is God and that He is in control.

(this is my prayer for all my friends going through the anxiety of finals and the demands that come at the end of the quarter. if only this were that simple this time of year! may you sleep well and be well. see y'all in the morning which is coming all too soon.)

day 7: community & healthy dose of competition

2010-12-08T02:33:17-06:00

misery, i mean, studying loves company. in the race to prepare for finals this quarter, i found myself surrounded by not just my colleagues, but my friends. i've been told that there is something special about the co-hort experience, but i think it's actually true. we're in it together-to encourage one another, to share a study guide, to get us caffeine when we need it. this is one of the first times, since like elementary school, that i have been in an academic environment where competition was not the underlying tension hoovering in the air.

as much as we want to do well, we want to see our peers do well. this is community.

at the end of today, after completing 2 finals, after a communal sigh of relief, it was rewarding to rejoice together and head to t.boyles, a local dive bar, for an evening of pizza, beer, and shuffleboard. here is where competition reared its ugly head. correction: competition's "ugly" head was just hilarious. we ended up laughing about how ridiculous we can be over shuffleboard, but after a long quarter, it's exactly what we needed.

i had to agree with my buddy, dairek...this is the fun, college experience i've never had! going to small, christian, colleges sometimes limits the types of fun you can have, but it's nice to just hang with your classmates over a beer and relax after a long day of school. sometimes all you want to do is just be.

as i looked around at my fellow classmates, i couldn't just help and smile and think about how thankful i am for them. how together, over this first quarter, we've become community, and how this community was a beautiful thing.

day 13: grace, the most expensive free gift you should give this season.

2010-12-14T02:29:49-06:00

in light of the christmas season, it's hard not to think about grace. grace as a feeling. grace as a action and a state of mind.

i don't know why i think about grace as such a paradox. i mean, i look around me this time of year and i'm encouraged by people's elevated state of generosity and joy. is it because christmas is coming and people are more aware of the season? perhaps. but i can't help but think about what a gift grace is to both give and receive.

i know that sounds super cheesy, but it's true. in the midst of running low on physical energy, i am the first to admit, that perhaps my emotional energy suffers alongside. and with that, goes my ability to show grace and patience to those i love most. after having a draining quarter, i'm glad to have a couple of days to recoup. time to think and reflect on my relationships over the past year. the good, the bad, the ugly. maybe this self-reflective state can also be due to the year coming to a close, but there's something different about this year. grace.

for all the heartaches and disappointments of this year, i have to thank whoever is praying that God give me grace, because somehow he has. i'm not sure why i act so surprised. grace, like mercy and love is one of those gifts that comes from something beyond us. and the only way i can describe its source is that it is an overflow of the grace that i have experienced from God and those around me. it's humbling and beautiful and as in a pay-it-forward type way, has the potential to ignite a domino effect.

grace is reciprocal but it often needs to get started. sometimes this requires someone taking the first daring move to put their pride down. so just as we're called to forgive people regardless of whether they even ask, give it. give it freely. you have no idea what kind of rippling effect it can have. in this christmas season, regardless of how you're feeling, choose to give grace, the most expensive free gift you can give someone. no need to wrap it up.

day 23: it's not too late to be a philanthropic santa.

2010-12-24T00:44:48-06:00

didn't get your christmas shopping done?? well, don't have a cow- then give one. seriously.

i confess, i'm both the best and worst gift-giver out there. i love the hunt for the perfect something, but sometimes my high expectations can leave me empty-handed. i'm such a fan of fair-trade and anything that is amazing, creative, and of course, the fact that the purchase helps others, gives you-the giver-the best warm fuzzy feelings that you can enjoy for no extra charge!

here's few of my favorite go-to sites for fun creative gifts that you can click and buy-RIGHT NOW-and get in time for christmas and of course, make a huge difference in the lives of others less fortunate than yourself. talk about a triple dose of awesomeness-fast, fun, functional.

heifer project (http://www.heifer.org/ )-discovered them in college and have enjoyed giving animals in honor favorite people to people across the world who need them. my personal favorite gifts are goats & ducks.

world vision (http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/pages/gift-catalog-dynamic-search-holidays?open&campaign=10152558&cmp=KNC-10152558 )-after running a half-marathon to raise $ for haiti earlier this year, i found out they have a variety of other fun ways to help internationally. everything from buying soccer balls, to clean water, to of course their classic-sponsoring a child.

oxfam (http://www.oxfamamericaunwrapped.com/home.php )-they claim to have a gift for evey occassion and i think they're right! give anything from a veggie garden, a cute alpaca, or help rebuild a school.

i know there are so many other sites, but here's a start! it's not to late to be santa, especially a philanthropic one. if you've already been good and have everything wrapped up and under the tree, it never hurts to be a little more generous and give a few more gifts. happy shopping and have fun.

the silence is over...the blog is back!

2011-04-26T21:57:43-05:00

Like ancient prophets...there was a 400 year silent period, between Malachi and when John the Baptist enters the scene. As for me, a mere blogger, it's been a while and my apologies, much as happened. I'm not even sure where to begin...leaving off from the end of first quarter of my Fuller experience, change. Change is a big theme for me.

First of all, I'd like to announce something exciting which has helped reshaped my experience here: I've added another program. Although I enter Fuller as a Marriage and Family Therapy student, I decided to add a Masters in Theology and Ministry or MATM...and to clarify what one of my friends from NYC asked me, I am not planning on becoming a priest or a nun. This is just something that I'm interested in since I now will be able to take more classes in Theology, but I will also be able to explore Theology's relationship with the arts (one of the biggest passions of my life!)...here is when I should inform those of you who don't know me well, and let you know that one of the things that most attracted me to Fuller was the Brehm Center (http://www.brehmcenter.com), whose spirit is captured by it's motto: an innovative space for the creative integration of worship, theology, & arts in culture. I grew up with the arts and the creative. Although my parents started me with music (piano and eventually oboe), it was my love for the visual arts that continued into my adulthood. At the encouragement of my college photography professor, I moved to New York to pursue photography, but it was there that I became disillusioned by many for the photographers I met. My love for art didn't die but rather it transformed from action into thought and concept development. Rather than creating projects, I nursed ideas and penned them into moleskins. My church in Manhattan was a place that fostered all sorts of conversation and incorporated the creative into its form of worship. (I guess here's a great opportunity to place a plug for All Angels http://www.allangelschurch.com/ oh, and it's where ironically one of my favorite writers, Madeleine L'Engle (think Wrinkle in Time and Walking on Water) used to attend as well.)

Anyways, with that said, I feel like as I've added this additional program, which means more time and work at Fuller, I kind of see it as a form of "self-care." Ironic, I know. I guess this opportunity to explore about these different passions, art and people, that I have make sense of them in light of theology.

More, to come....I promise.

Haha...the jokes on me.

2011-11-29T03:29:21-06:00

So I’m aware, it’s been a while…but silence can be golden….making you want more or maybe a little mystery is fun because by leaving an ellipses, you, the reader can fill in the blank. Well, time to break that silence. Seriously.

It's funny how distance makes the heart grow fonder. Although I have been at times, a delinquent blogger, that doesn't mean that my processing and reflections on my time here at Fuller has stopped. If anything, the distance, and by distance, I mean distance from my computer, so let's say silence, has allowed me to distill some of my thoughts and adventures that this season of my life has endured.

With that frame set, let's get a quick update since my last entry, which is further than I'd like to admit. In this hiccup of entries, my older brother (and ex-roommate), got married and moved to NYC. My sister, currently still living in Germany, recently had a baby, making her daughter officially the first grandchild for my parents.

I spent the majority of my summer attempting productively both in the classroom and out by taking some intensives, working on Orientation Crew (whoo-hoo!), and getting a job working at one of my favorite stores, Anthropologie. To me, working in such a creative and people-person environment has become a form of self-care. That and a place to see some of my course material come alive as I watch and engage with a variety of folks. Time and again, I run into a Fuller alumn or a Fuller fan.

And speaking of summer…so like I had alluded to the fact that my older brother and I were roommates. Well, he’s married now and left me for his wife (obviously). In the summer interim, I housesat for none other than a lovely theology professor and his wife who I happen to know from my past life in NYC. The best part, you know, besides having an adorable house to myself, was the fact that not only was it conveniently located just blocks away from campus (which is a beautiful concept when you have daily 8 o’clock summer intensives) is that it resided in a Fuller faculty housing community. Let me say that a different way…I was living next to several of my teachers. You know, my Gender & Sexuality prof (and his lovely wife) next door. My Clinical Foundations teacher (and her cute kids) across the yard…you know, it was like living on an episode of Mr. Rogers or Leave it to Beaver. I’ll fondly refer that that time as the “Summer of Eleven.”

Currently I live on campus with 2 lovely roommates who, too, are in the MFT program. So it's nice to share a space to externally process our experiences in this program while enjoying the finer things in life like make dinner and laundry. I’ve traded in the yard for a hallway and silence for roommates. It’s great for an extravert like me.

So, the joke, where is it? Am I the only one laughing...maybe. The joke is the silence is over, for a little bit. (Annie, can you hear me? This is for you.)

Since it’s way past my bedtime, I’ll leave you with an ellipses...(again).

it's tomorrow in austrailia, but it's advent everywhere.

2011-12-09T00:13:18-06:00

So it's supposed to be "the most wonderful time of the year" or did the songwriters of that famous holiday tune forget the reality that many of us students are in: FINALS!

Being in school this time of year is always a bit jarring for me. I went from finally getting into the groove of class to Thanksgiving, then BOOM! It's finals week where the crescendo of work crashes into the Advent season and I'm left with a confused look on my face with the thought bubble over my heard with the quote: how's the quarter almost over??!

Well, in the midst of paper writing and cramming those last bits of information for final exams, I take a moment and consider the Advent Season.

Yesterday as I searching for the biblical passage that corresponds to the day of Advent (so yesterday was 7th), I ran into this Australian website. After reading the post for that day, I was moved to action. I hope that you will be too.

Please enjoy (and tell someone in your family you love them).

(follow link below for the original text which include pictures, etc. I've pasted the message too for your reading convenience.)

http://www.caritas.org.au/advent/index.html?gclid=CNvOl4_s8KwCFRBphwodjQ_XOQ

(message from website)

I am... the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob."

Exodus 3:1-6

Los Mari contracted HIV from her first husband, the father of her three children, who died from AIDS several years ago. Her family rejected her and for a while she lived on the streets. Our Cambodian partner, Maryknoll, helped Los Mari and her new husband to buy a small house boat, as they both have fishing skills: "I am happy with the boat, I feel secure and have a livelihood; as long as we have our own place to live I feel at peace."

Reflect

God identified himself to Moses by saying: "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." We find our own identity within a family or community. No wonder, then, that Los Mari found it so hard when her family rejected her. Now she is happy in a safe place where she can have her husband and children around her. How much do I appreciate my own family?

Pray

Lord, thank you for my family members - even those I never knew - and for the life you have given me through them. Amen

Act

Tell someone in your family that you love them.

Philithropic Santa returns.

2011-12-14T19:06:54-06:00

Last year I shared some of my favorite sites to find philanthropic gifts to give this holiday season. This year, I wanted to build on the list and add some new resources, including ones that come from some amazing designers or retailers. So, check your list twice and even if not everyone has been perfectly nice this year, you can still give knowing at least there are others that will benefit from your generosity:

Gifts that Give (www.giftsthatgive.com) -donates 20% of the proceeds to the charity of your choice! Find everything from pj’s to champagne glasses to some adorable Jonathan Adler merchandise…yes, that’s right, they’ve teamed up with some cool designers.

Heifer Project (http://www.heifer.org/ )-discovered them in college and have enjoyed giving animals in honor favorite people to people across the world who need them. My personal favorite gifts are goats & ducks.

Caritas Global Gifts (www.caritas.org.au/globalgifts) -this site helps you impact the lives of people globally through funding medical treatment, safe childbirths, sustainable agriculture and more.

World Vision (http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/pages/gift-catalog-dynamic-search-holidays?open&campaign=10152558&cmp=KNC-10152558 )-after running a half-marathon to raise $ for Haiti earlier last year, I found out they have a variety of other fun ways to help internationally. Everything from buying soccer balls, to clean water, to of course their classic-sponsoring a child.

Oxfam (http://www.oxfamamericaunwrapped.com/home.php )-they claim to have a gift for every occasion and i think they're right! Give anything from a veggie garden, a cute alpaca, or help rebuild a school.

Kiva (www.kiva.org) -Join in their goal to empower people globally via microloans. Not only have they been awarded Charity Navigator’s highest award (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=12978) ,

They have simple instructions:

1. Choose a borrower

2. Make a loan

3. Get repaid

4. Repeat!

in search of clarity: what opens when resolutions die.

2012-02-24T07:13:01-06:00

It’s been an interesting last few weeks. Ever sense the new year began, I can’t help but reconsider my hopes and aspirations for my time here at Fuller. I know it’s natural to use the start of a new year as a time of reflecting on how things have been and more often than not, it is used as a time to consider how the following year to look like. New Years always seems like the perfect opportunity to start afresh. But one thing I’ve noticed, not just in myself, but also for many of those around me. Although our intentions are good, it is very difficult to follow-through with this renewed dreams and goals. Resolutions seem to die quickly once the new year has lost its novelty or when we get into our rut again so I decided to do things a little differently this year. I resolved to not make any official resolutions, but would rather use that energy and effort to stay focused and present in the here and now.

What exactly does that mean? I don’t think I could give you a clear answer. Honestly, I still think that I’m trying to figure this one out myself. I guess, I’m just being direct in admitting that I’m attempting to be candid and yet conscious of my state of mind. How I’m feeling about things, especially in time here developing myself as a future therapist in whatever form that eventually takes me…

Currently I’m navigating in a state of limbo, walking the line between the school of theology with the school of psychology while keeping one foot in my original co-hort (that being those who are graduating this summer) with that of the newer co-hort (those who are in the middle of their first year in the program). Although this is nothing new, somehow in the last few weeks it has felt especially comforting to be friends with my original co-hort as they near the end of their practicums as I finish applying for mine. Hearing from their varied experiences helps guide me as I interview and wait to be placed.

In addition, it has been helpful and clarifying to have theology classes that help me grow beyond my time in the school of psychology. By having my hands in both pots, I experience the benefits of learning to explore what integration looks like beyond the courses in integration that Fuller’s MFT program has intertwined in its coursework. My theology classes expand my vocabulary as I challenge my view on the lingering question: what am I…a Christian therapist or a therapist who is a Christian?

I’ve appreciated the question that remains unraveled. I don’t know if I will get it neatly answered before I leave Fuller. I think that my time in practicum might begin providing clarity in what direction I might go in vocationally.

I'm back in school and it's converging on my real life again(2)

2010-09-29T20:22:27-05:00

Me and the roomie are back in school this week! Here’s our back to school picture from Monday. (The weird thing is, technically I have 3 first days because each time I start a class, it’s a first day…anyway….)

I am really excited about this quarter. I think it’s going to be a fairly easy workload, which will be a transition from the past two quarters I’ve had. I am taking Christian Ethics with Dr. Glen Stassen who is a leading Christian Ethicist. I am also taking Spiritual Traditions and Practices with Dr. Bradley as well as Poverty and Development with my favorite professor, Dr. Bryant Myers.

I have been to two classes so far (Ethics and Spiritual Traditions and Practices) and both of them, yes BOTH have intersected with my real life, or life outside of Fuller. In everything we’ve been reading so far in Ethics is about the Sermon on the Mount. The teaching pastor at my church just so happens to be in the middle of a sermon series on The Beatitudes and it’s been my meditation for the past couple weeks. I have been focused on the Sermon on the Mount like nobody’s business in my own personal spiritual life. Then Tuesday, in Spiritual Traditions and Practices, the professor talked about the Sermon and specifically Jesus’ call to fasting – which my roommate and I are studying this week in our book study on Richard Foster’s The Celebration of Disciplines at my church. The whole ST&P class is about how our spiritual disciplines and traditions are to interact with our faith in a daily way, which is exactly what Richard Foster talks about. Not only that, my husband Seth and I had a nice long discussion about fasting a couple nights ago. In my past, I’ve felt like fasting is empty and meaningless. I feel like I am emptying myself of food, but not filling myself up with the Holy Spirit. I am not taking the time I spent eating to pray. As God has been taking me on a personal journey of fasting, it was great to hear Dr. Bradley's perspective on the matter as well as Dr. Stassen's.

Ultimately, I am noticing that God is meeting me in so many ways, regardless of me seeking after God or not. God’s meeting me in my church, at the mall, in my home, and now, yet again, in my classes. Our God is a great, big God and I am feeling like God's holding me in his hands. God’s showing me that he’s around me and with me, and in front of me and behind me. God’s preparing a place for me this quarter, and I am ready for it.

I miss when life was easy

2010-10-05T23:44:01-05:00

I'm sitting inside in my semi-warm house, drinking a cup of hot apple cider, listening to the soft sound of rain, mixed with the musical stylings of Jon Foreman. What could be better right? Today, I've missed the pre-grad school life. I missed the lazy afternoons after work, being able to come home and do nothing but veg. No homework to work on, papers to write, books to read, just the warm silence of my home and a warm mug of something steaming.

Honestly, I wouldn't change this opportunity for education for anything in the world. I've learned so much and grown so much in the past year, but I am realizing as I begin this second year, that I miss the easy days. While not much in my life was easy, I'll be honest, there were days that were carefree. Sure I had the worries of work and being a good wife, and things going on at church. But none of those worries went away when I started grad school. They got compounded with papers and reading book after book.

I've been going through Richard Foster's Celebration of Discipline with the women's group at church, and this week's discipline happens to be study. In his chapter on the discipline of study, Foster argues, "Remember that the key to discipline of study is not reading many books, but experiencing what we do read" (pg. 72). The reading of many books is what I'm good at, but the true study of something is what I miss. Understanding the depth of the moment spent on my couch with nothing happening around me but my cat curled up at my feet, a hot drink in my hand (preferably in my Mugg & Bean mug because it bring back so many memories) and the rain outside.

Study is not easy. Neither is the graduate type of study. It's a privilege that I treasure so much, but it hasn't made my life any easier. Filling my brain with so many facts, words of wisdom, cultural insights, biblical bullet points, and the multitudes of literary works has aided in my coursework and maybe when I'm done, I'll be able to say it's aided my study of things around me. But today, it feels hard, bothersome, and cold.

So while I could be studying right now, I am choosing to study. Study the moment around me. Study the songs of the birds, the puddles on my porch, the way my toes crinkle when I'm cold, the way the soft breathing of my cat brings calm, and the way that God is alive in this moment, studying his own creation. Me.

Eagle vs. Chicken

2010-10-17T00:38:11-05:00

A farmer went out one day and as he was walking his fields, he found a baby bird. The bird was so young that he had no idea what kind of bird it was, but he handed over the care of it to his chickens. As the bird grew, it became pretty evident that it was not a chicken at all, but an eagle. But the funny thing was, the eagle had no idea he was any different.

One day, the farmer's brother came to visit him from the big city and saw the eagle with the chickens and said, "What is that eagle doing there?" The farmer told his brother, "That's not an eagle, it's a chicken." The brother looked at him incredulously and said, "Don't you see that is an eagle? That one, there. With the big talons, hooked beak. That's an eagle". The brother said, "Oh that one...no he's a chicken." To prove it to his brother, the farmer picked up the eagle, set him on his forearm and tried to launch him into the air. The eagle flopped onto the ground and began to hunt and peck for corn pellets with the other chickens around him.

The brother pondered the eagle.

On his next visit, the brother said to his farmer brother, "This is an eagle and I can prove it." He took the eagle to the top of the farmers barn, climbed out on the to roof and put the eagle on his forearm. He launched the eagle into the air. But the eagle jumped on the roof, and managed to find his way back down to the ground, hunting and pecking again for corn pellets. The farmer gave his brother a chuckle and walked away.

The brother pondered the eagle.

On his next visit, the brother said to his farmer brother again, "This is an eagle and I can prove it". This time, he took the eagle, and began walking. He walked a long journey with the eagle. He climbed to the highest peak around them. It was a long and difficult climb, but they came to an open expanse where land meets sky. There was nothing but blue all around them.

The brother picked up the eagle and put it on his forearm. This time, before launching the eagle, he whispered, "You are an eagle. You were created to soar. You have been given eyes to see the smallest animals below. You have been given talons to capture animals mid-flight. You have been given wings to carry you farther than you ever believed you could go. You are an eagle." After he spoke to the eagle, he reached back and launched the eagle as far as he could.

The eagle soared and soared and soared.

When you see the poor, do you see a chicken? Or do you see an eagle?

Why TV can't fix the problem

2010-10-21T19:50:50-05:00

Glee's very first episode was amazing. I was intrigued by ALL the characters, I thought they all had something to say and was impressed by their talents. But as Rachel Berry's skirts got shorter and shorter, Quinn's convictions got fewer and fewer and Mr. Shue's ex-wife kept lying and lying, I lost interest. In all honesty, I see that every day. I am constantly seeing situations that Glee makes light of in my daily life. I would rather use TV to challenge my reality and provide a thought-provoking picture of humanity - not see it's worst parts skewed with an inappropriate innuendo. And I realize that most TV doesn't portray that anymore, nor are audiences looking for that. But when I can have kids through aresol cans into my backyard that they'd been huffing, and see girls from my own undergraduate, Christ-centered university get onto the trolly exposing their underwear because their skirts are so short and their ugg boots are too high, I need to be engaging them in discussion, not watching a TV show that promotes it and qualifies it as okay because it's just high-schoolers figuring out "who they are".

Please don't take this as a "I am much better than other people because I don't watch Glee or anything on TV" because I am SO not that person. And I do watch shows that are questionable at times (I can't get enough of Big Bang Theory and it's regular discussion of "coitus"). But this year, since moving into our new house, I've watched less TV. I am sure partly it's because that Seth has refused to let me get cable because it's too expensive and partly because if I had it, I would be watching it all the time instead of reading my thousands of pages for grad school. But I must admit, it's been pretty nice not having it. While I've grown more dependent on my netflix que, I've realized that I haven't missed things as much as I thought I would. Sure, I miss mind-numbing sitcoms, but honestly, I think I miss the social aspect of them more - knowing that I know what people are talking about the day after something airs. Knowing that I am "in the loop" about what's going on in pop culture. But, if I were to be totally honest, I'm not very in the loop with some of my friends. I am not very in the loop with my neighbors or immediate community. Nor am I always aware of the loop that God is creating around me.

A couple of years ago, I felt like my world was surrounded by the rich and famous. I wanted to know everything about them; who they were dating, where they ate dinner that night, what whacko name they had come up with for their next kid, etc. But eventually I had to take a step back. I realized I knew way too much about what coffee shops people were frequenting than how my best friends were doing while teaching English in China. While sometimes I still look at people.com, I've realized that people.com is about more than celebrities - it's about PEOPLE. Sure, there are days where I wish I were famous (because then I could SO get away with naming my future daughter Cinnamon), but those are the days that I realize that I feel lonely and just want people to "know" me.

I don't think TV, as scandalous or as wholesome as it can be is the answer. The answer is people; knowing each other and being with each other through life's predicaments of teen pregnancy, understanding our sexuality, divorce, and a smidgen of OCD. It's embracing the spirit of the inner being to dwell on things that are pure, noble, and righteous, and telling those around us, "Don't stop believin'!"

Spread wide in the arms of Christ

2010-11-18T01:04:40-06:00

For a class called "Spiritual Traditions and Practices" we had an assignment where we participated in a silent retreat. The class was doing it this past Friday, but unfortunately, I had class and needed to do it on my own. Now - if you know me at all, I don't particularly like being alone, never mind being alone in silence. But since I had an assignment due for this retreat - I couldn't get out of it. And of course it happened to fall in one of the busiest weeks of the school year, but after some nudging from God, and my friend Ashley, I did it this morning.

The "retreat" which consisted of me laying, reading, and praying in my bed, was guided from a handout and focused on a time of thanksgiving and a time of confession. I spent the first portion of time centering myself, which again, if you know me, is a mighty feat in and of itself. But I did and was able to meditate prayerfully on Psalm 103. It was very good and life giving and as I was praying and meditating, I kept coming up with things to be thankful for. I think it helps that I have embarked on a thankfulness journey this month, but I just have so much to be thankful for! Then I got the song lyrics from Casting Crowns, Your Love is Extravagant in my head, but just the portion "Spread wide in the arms of Christ". As I kept singing it over and over, I just got this amazing picture of Christs arms spread wide bestowing me with so many blessings. I saw items, persons, nature scenes, and symbols of love and grace and mercy just coming at me through the open arms of Christ. I thanked God for that picture and moved on to confession.

Now, I've been going through Richard Foster's Celebration of Discipline through our women's group at church and last weeks discipline happened to be confession. In all honesty, I had done a lot of confession the past week, so I wasn't sure that there would be much more. But as I was praying and reflecting through Psalm 32, I got the same song lyric and picture in my head, but this time it was different. I still saw all those blessings, but this time, I saw Christ's arms HOLDING my burdens. All the things I had confessed last week were in his arms and he was holding them up, while still bestowing blessing after blessing on me. It was an amazing, powerful, tear-inducing image of the God who loves me so much carrying my burdens like they aint no thing while still giving me everything I need and more!

My life truly is spread wide in the arms of Christ. He is my supply and my confessor. He is my alpha and omega. His arms hold me, my marriage, my house, my relationships, my sins, my filth, my dirt, my laughs, my family, my joys, my heartbreaks - and he holds all of yours too. Isn't that amazing?

It's a new year and an old me

2011-01-06T11:47:30-06:00

Isn't it amazing how we are conditioned to want to start over every year? We want to erase the old and live in the new. But I find after about two weeks (I'm being generous with myself here) the same old same old seems to be rolling in again. A cousin of mine on facebook this week, posted this as her status:

Thankful that life is broken up into months and years. Increments of time that contain our memories. I stand in awe of how God has moved in years past and wonder to what lies ahead...

I thought that was so poignant of how I feel. But if I am honest, I am going to forget this in a month. I am going to forget that Christ has called me to be a new creation, and I will get back to being the same old me. But is that so bad? Is the same old me really so bad?

The end of one year and the start of another should be a time of reflection and memory, as Erin so aptly stated. As I reflect on 2010, I remember the hard times. I remember how at one point last January, everything was crumbling down around me. I remember how work was falling apart fast, I was suffocating inside our small apartment, I wasn't sure if Fuller was the right place for me, I felt like I didn't have any friends, and it was all around a no good, very bad month. But I also remember March too. I remember planning my sisters wedding, I remember finding out we got a house, I remember having my grandma share my birthday with me, I remember finding some good friends at school and taking classes that spoke to me in the deepest of ways. But I also remember the Fall - school was hard and really wearing me down emotionally and spiritually. Work, while it stabilized, became more intense and forward-moving at a rapid pace. I remember not seeing Seth for what seemed like weeks upon weeks. Sure, we saw each other, but we weren't really "seeing" each other. And I remember not feeling God close, even though I was reading all about him. But then again, I remember now. I remember this morning - and I how I got new mercies when I awoke. How the old me was made new, yet again. Yes, today happens to be New Years Day, but tomorrow won't be. Tomorrow I'll be the same me - but I'll still have another chance at a new day.

So as my day comes to a close, I lie in bed and reflect on the old year, and the old me. But really, I think I am okay with it all. Because all those months and years have made me...well, me. The increments of time that contain my memories hold both the good and the bad. Just as I am. I contain both good and bad, old and new. For we cannot know the new without knowing the old, right? If that's true - I have to know the old year before I can begin to know the new year. I have to know the old me - before I can begin to know the new me.

I think that's why so many people's resolutions fail...they don't know their "old" selves. They don't know who they are - they just know they want to change. But here's the kicker - we don't have to wait for a new year to change. Like I said - our mercies are new EVERY morning. Every second of every day, we can be made new. So as we reflect on our memories from this past year - embrace the old, for in it, the truly new will be found. Oh...and Happy New Year.

I'm feeling antsy

2011-01-13T15:14:25-06:00

Do you ever get that feeling? It's that in between of kinda bored, kinda wound up? Where you have too many projects to do or finish and no ambition to do either? I'm in that mode. It's a beautiful day outside - I wish I had a hammock to swing in while deciding why I feel antsy. Alas, I don't. Instead, I've opened the window in the office and I am sitting in my swivel chair, and let me tell you, swinging in a hammock isn't nearly as nauseating as swing in a swivel chair.

But back to the antsy. It's this feeling in the pit of my stomach...but not the bad pit. The good pit, if there is one. I'm not entirely certain as to what is contributing to this feeling, but I have a couple of ideas. Reflecting on the idea that I'm still me in this new year, I have to face the fact that this year, things are going to change. It seems like I started at Fuller just yesterday, but in 6 months, I'll be graduating. That's weird. I'm going to walk across a stage, get a diploma, and toss my hat in the air in such a short time. Wait...do we toss our hats in the air in grad school? Are we too refined for that? Anyway, in my spirit, God's doing something. He's preparing me to be done with school. That preparation is making me antsy. I know I still have 6 months to go, but I feel like God's giving me all these plans for when I am done.

When I started Fuller, God made it very clear to me that this was a two year process. I knew there were big things planned for me and my life, but God knew that I wanted to take time before those big things to go to Fuller and soak up the knowledge of professors and peers. So I have and I am. And I am loving every bit of it. But this isn't the big things. Don't get me wrong, this time at Fuller has been big, huge, monumental, and radically changing for me in so many areas of my life. But Fuller isn't everything. Fuller isn't what I was created for. And knowing that Fuller is coming to a close makes me antsy. Can I really put into practice the things I've learned at Fuller? Can I take the knowledge I've gained and use them to benefit my spiritual life, my work like, my church life, my married life?

I have a lot of things still to finish at Fuller - the three classes I am in now and 6 more to start and finish. But the antsy feeling of God working is here now. The time for me to strike out on my own, so to speak, is coming and rather quickly at that. It's kind of exciting to be honest. Okay, it's 30% exciting and 70% scary. I'm trying to focus on the excitement, but that antsy feeling is still there. Maybe I've just been spinning in my swivel chair too much - somebody get me a hammock.

My me's

2011-05-19T10:50:21-05:00

For class next week, I have to turn in a 5 to 7 page paper on my potential as a development practitioner. I'm supposed to compare me and my personality, style and training to the characteristics of the holistic practitioner discussed in class. My question though, is how? How am I supposed to compare me when I am not sure who me is? I mean, I know me....but do I know me? Everyone says you come out of school, especially Seminary, more confused that when you went in. Which is true to a certain extent. See, everything I thought to be me has turned out to be me. But what about the me that I discovered along the way? Where does that me fit? I don't think that it's being confused about me, but not knowing how to be all the me's that I can be. How do all these me's fit into....well, me?

There's the school me. She's sometimes smart, and sometimes studious, and often times outspoken, regardless of the fact that what she says is not always smart and studious. But she tries hard. Then there's the wife me. She often is right, and does her darndest to not back down when she isn't. But she's easily won over by sweet kisses from a man who makes her melt. Then there's the family me. She's a girl who is deeply committed to other women because they teach her more about how to be a woman than anyone else. And no matter what, she's always going to have the family me somewhere in there. But there's also the work me. She puts a lot of pressure on herself and doesn't always get it her way, but she has good ideas and wants to see things grow and change. There's other me's too. There's the organic me, the church me, the reader me, the selfish me, the writer me, the cat-lover me, the actor me, etc. etc. etc.

So how do all these me's add up to me? I think I've figured it out. Here's my answer:

I. Don't. Know.

But what I do know, is that I like those me's. I like all those different parts because they make me me. Do they make me a good development practitioner? I don't know. Could they? probably. Will they? no clue. I know though, that all those me's can't be contained in 5 to 7 pages. Those me's are big. And they've got big plans. The school me, who know's, maybe she's gonna become PhD me someday. And that wife me, maybe she's gonna turn into Mommy Me, and those affectionate kisses are gonna be shared with more than just me. And family me, maybe she's gonna become a generational me - in a strong line of women of Christ learning how to be everything me is. Work me? She might be something else entirely. Maybe she's gonna be CEO me!

But in the mean time...I think I am satisfied with just being me. And I'll try to be me as best I can, but I'm not making any guarantees about my page count.

My Intervention

2011-06-20T16:27:38-05:00

I've been watching a lot of Intervention lately. It's a show that centers around someone who is an addict. They think they're in a documentary about addiction, but really it's all a rouse for their friends and family to stage an intervention. All the shows start out the same way, "My name is (fill in the blank), F-I-L-L-I-N-T-H-E-B-L-A-N-K. And I am addict". The addictions range from methamphetamine, to pot, to pornography, to gambling, to shopping, and the list goes on and on. They addict does interviews as does their friends and family. They often show the addict using, or cutting, or whatever the case may be. They go to great lengths to show the addict in what seems to be their worst state. They show them full of rage, lashing out, getting back to their most primal state. Then they show the intervention led by the trusted interventionist...and Jeff Von Vandren happens to be my favorite. Something always strikes me about the show though. When talking about their children, the parents always start off talking about their child with, "She was a bright child. She loved to learn, and she was brilliant. She was reading as a newborn, and by 6 months was putting together strings of sentences. By 9 months she had potty trained herself, and by 2 she completed high school". Yes...I just and it seems a little absurd, and maybe it is, but the fact is that I'm noticing a trend. The brightest ones fall the hardest. The ones that seem to have everything going for them are the ones who just a few years later are the dropouts. The White House intern who got asked to return three times has now become addicted to pill popping. The guy who was a promising musician has now become addicted to smoking crack. Why is that?

Often times, tragedy strikes in ways and times people least expect it. Generally, from my observation, these once bright minded kids are easily influenced by the evil around them. They are the product of things like abuse, and rape, and abandonment, and accidents. But here's the thing: My story isn't much different than theirs. They've got abuse, I've got that too. They've got hurt, I've got that too. They've got abandonment, I've got that too. They've got molestation, I've got that too. The list goes on and on and on. So what's the difference then?

You see, I've just graduated with my Master's Degree a couple weeks ago from Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena. It was a long, hard, arduous, but so rewarding two years. So rewarding in fact, I'm considering going back for more. My time at Fuller has changed me...and will continue to change me if I let it. In the Book of Ruth, when Naomi is returning to Bethlehem, she urges Orpah and Ruth to go back - to turn away from her. She wants them to go an find a better life for themselves in their home land, in what they know and what's comfortable. Orpah turns away, albeit not without tears, but she turns away. Ruth on the other hand doesn't. And in her sticking it through, we read some of the most beautiful words of scripture:

"Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me."

There's the reason! Did you catch it? Ruth, Naomi, and Orpah were not without tragedy. Their family and their land was Moab. Yes...the Moab. You know, the people who came from a incestuous relationship. I mean, they lived through a famine, through the death of their husbands and faced a life of fear, regret, and bitterness. That sounds an awful lot like those addicts I see on TV. And to be honest, it sounds like me at times too. There have been times in this season of change I've been walking through that I wanted to be like Orpah. I wanted to turn around. I wanted to understand that going forward was scary and unnerving, and I had NO idea what the crap was happening next. But you know what, I do know what's happening next. Unlike the addicts who have no idea that they will get an opportunity to absolutely change their life by getting treatment, I know I have that opportunity every day.

One of the things I love about Intervention is that when all the family gathers together and they bring the addict in. Their thrown off their guard. But the family often will read letters to them telling them how much they love them and how much they mean to them, reminding them that if they didn't care, they wouldn't be in that room. Then, they start talking about the "special gift" they will receive today, if they choose it. That gift, for them, is treatment for their addiction.

For me, my "special gift" that I received was Fuller. And I knew going into it that there were going to be dry spells and heartache. I knew what I was getting into when I started, just as Ruth knew what she was getting into with Naomi. Ruth knew exactly what she was doing. She walked whole-heartedly into that foreign land, claimed a God to be her own, and asked for death to be brought upon her if she turned back. She knew she had a choice, just as me and those addicts do. So while I may have once been in some of the same positions as those addicts, overcome with abuse, pain, and heartache, I know that I've been given a special gift. I've come from the land of Moab, into the land of Promise. My name is Karen....K-A-R-E-N, and I am no longer an addict.

Los Gatos, Noun Declensions and Pastoral Ponderings

2010-10-05T20:54:40-05:00

So...it finally happened. To tell you the truth, I had been expecting them - dreams about the nuances of Greek translation. The Fall quarter has barely started and yet after only a week, my mind is bowing to the inevitable - the persistent weight of noun declensions and the never ending wave of Greek vocabulary memorization. Last night I arrived home late from my Greek class and hastily threw myself into my bed, drifting off to sleep nearly as quickly as it took for my head to hit the pillow. A small time later I found myself dreaming, sitting in my room and endlessly chanting noun paradigms while being concerned that I was going to forget minute differences between similar sounding prepositions. Welcome to the Fall quarter, my brain seemed to be saying.

I am thoroughly enjoying my quarter thus far. On Friday, two buddies and myself traveled to the Presentation Center in Los Gatos for a Cohort retreat and for our first Cohort class together, Pastoral Theology. Surrounded by towering trees and a tall, blue sky, we participated in morning orientation and then proceeded to our first class session. Dr. Randy Young was our professor and the time spent in his class was well worth it - his lectures were well written, and his wealth of experience and understanding of pastoral nuances was impressive. Later that night we participated in a light round of worship and a get-to-know-you time where we met and heard from the guest speaker, the hilarious and endearing Pastor Chuck Roots.

The next morning the Cohort met after breakfast in the Pablo-styled worship hall where we worshiped together one last time and listened to an inspired sermon on pastoral ministry. We departed after we all shared communion and returned to our homes - our hearts re-energized and our minds invigorated, ready for the myriad challenges that were sure to materialize in the coming quarter.

I am very excited to see how God changes my heart and instructs my mind this Fall. For as long as I have engaged in academic study, He has never failed to challenge my ways of thinking and of how I believe ministry should be practiced. I look forward to sharing with you how God walks me through these processes throughout this academic year.

Perhaps dreams filled with Greek paradigms and memorization conundrums is not everyone's idea of a good night's sleep but at least I can rest in the fact that the words were not in Aorist form - the stuff of translation nightmares!

Seminary and Sisyphus: The Challenge

2010-11-04T02:14:06-05:00

For those who enjoy the challenges and rewards of scholarship, receiving your acceptance letter into the Fuller community is a surreal feeling. When I received my letter of acceptance into the M.Div program, I felt joyfully numb. The prospect of new professors, books to be explored and expanding horizons was intoxicating. Within hours I had exhausted my address book and had called anyone even remotely connected to me to deliver the news. Graciously, those hardy and loyal friends did not murder me nor did they call for me to be muzzled for which I am, now that I look back, immensely grateful. Youthful exuberance, after all, is a wonderful thing, but in a large dose it can be sort of like that guy in the movie theater who just won't put his cell phone (and the glare it causes) away.

Fast forward to November 2010. I am currently enrolled in Pastoral Theology and Greek I and the true weight of the M.Div program has settled solidly onto my shoulders. The joy is still there and I still often look up during a class session and say to God, "I still cannot believe I am here...thanks big guy!". But amid raising two daughters, leading a Jr. High youth group and studying for my classes, well let us just say that time has become a precious commodity. The intellectual and spiritual treasures hidden within each class comes at a high price: time, energy, dedication and balance. If you wish to move on to the Ph.D program, as I do, grades add an extra element to the equation and it can become a constant fight for survival. In many ways this struggle sometimes reminds me of Sisyphus, the Greek hero who was doomed by the gods to push a boulder uphill for all eternity. Each class is quickly followed by another, regardless of fatigue. We must fight for excellence, for balance: seeing to it that all facets of our lives require the necessary care and tending. Less important priorities such as sports or video games have to bow to those which are worthier of our time.

To be sure, the constant struggle is balanced by the positives: you make incredible connections with other people, the profs often stimulate discussions that expose you to viewpoints that you never imagined (just wait for your first class in ethics or taking a leisurely stroll through systematic theology). The fight is worth it and you emerge from each semester (if you put the necessary time into it) stronger, wiser and further prepared for the ministry that God has for you to do.

I would like to end my blog by giving you a glimpse of one of my favorite experiences at Fuller this year. Perhaps it will be a story to encourage you in your own journey. It began during the summer when I took two intensive classes. One was Social Ethics, taught by the amazing Ron Sanders and the other was Isaiah, taught by Cynthia Engles. Let me tell you that this summer was tough. The papers required in Social Ethics and Isaiah required careful consideration, and the book lists that needed to be read nearly drove me to despair (2-3 books a week at some points meant a lot of late nights). Yet my time in Isaiah was spiritually formative and notable in a special sort of way. Cynthia, you see, had a way with words and her Hebrew acumen was nothing short of spectacular. I can still hear her, when discussing chapter 6:3, closing her eyes and quietly reciting the Hebrew words for "holy" Kadosh, kadosh, kadosh. When she read Isaiah, the book came alive and you were swept off your feet as she discussed various points within that book. Her honesty and openness won the class over and by the end of the intensive, the entire class was immensely fond of this astounding Isaianic scholar. For the rest of my life, it is probable that her reverence for the text will cause me to revere it as well.

For a time all of us must assume the role of Sisyphus, pushing through seemingly insurmountable obstacles to achieve our academic dreams. But unlike poor Sisyphus (why would someone punish their son with such a name?) we have hope that our journey is heading somewhere, somewhere important. And through God's grace, we will all see it through.

A Nod to Balance: Maintaining Spiritual Health Amidst Academic Overload

2011-01-04T15:23:32-06:00

"When the angel of devotion has gone, the angel of prayer has lost its wings and it becomes a deformed and loveless thing." - E.M. Bounds

That a healthy and balanced lifestyle is important should come as little surprise to the seminary student. Most of us entertain multiple roles and it is challenging to fulfill them all adequately, let alone well. Even at the bare minimum the need to take care of our health, of jobs and friendships eat away at the daily allotment of time that we have, leaving very little of it to fritter away. For myself, each day is filled with waking up early to feed my daughters, cleaning the house, rushing kids to school and then spending the rest of the day in some chaotic mix of making dinner, working on academics and in making sure my kids and significant other are given the attention that they deserve. Somewhere in this maelstrom of activity is supposed to be a significant section of time that I dedicate to refreshing my relationship with God. It is this priority that has been a significant challenge.

When I entered the M.div program here at Fuller, I made the mistake of believing that academic study of the Bible would in some way replace my regular devotional study. It did not take long for me to realize my error - academic study could not substitute for a regular and daily surrender to the will of God nor did it fully substitute for the daily transaction with Christ that must take place if we are to remain consistent and strong in our faith.

It is a troubling discovery to find yourself knee deep in a John commentary and yet to feel spiritually malnourished. It is equally frighteningly stunning to realize how much we can do without the daily renewal of our devotional life - we can easily find ourselves feeding off the echoes and fumes of past victories and half-remembered spiritual vitality yet be far from where God wants us to be. Every character in the Bible that experienced success in the eyes of God was a person who knew where their bread was buttered and spent time consistently on their knees and in the presence of their master. Our ability to get the most out of our education and to satisfactorily integrate that which we learn hinges on our ability to view the world through God's eyes and according to his paradigm.

Thus, with reflections such as these on my mind today, I exhort you to think about the words of Paul in 1 Thessalonians 5:17 and in Philippians 4:6. Pray often, pray with fervor. Do whatever it takes to stay spiritually balanced and to keep God at the center of what we do and who we are. Remember that true success in a program such as the M.div can only be ratified if we accomplish it in His strength, His grace and His way. May God bless you and give you great success in your studies and relationship with Him this year!

Hermeneutical Circles and Christlikeness

2011-04-17T17:49:09-05:00

Life has a way of getting away from us all.

Between two daughters, a church home transition and the conclusion of my previous tenure as youth director, time has simply flown by with seemingly little to mark its passing. How I keep things up in the air without rampant calendar casualties, I cannot guess. But then again, what do I have to complain about? Baseball is back. Spring has been delightfully rainy while the promise of Summer is slowly creeping up on us with its potential for barbecues and family vacations. What could be better?

In the midst of myriad blessings, I confess I have been battling some seeds of discontent. One of these "seeds" I would like to share with you.

The origin of this seed comes from my class, Christian Ethics. A required book for this class is Doing Christian Ethics from the Margins by Miguel A. De La Torre. Now, De La Torre is largely concerned with those people who are marginalized in society. In essence, De La Torre is looking at situations in which an individual or a group of people are oppressed or denied rights based on their level of wealth, race, religion or gender.

Importantly, in our case, De La Torre outlines how we are doing in terms of equality and freedom as a global community. The picture is fairly depressing. As the nations of the world increasingly submit to neo-liberalism (a system that places economic prosperity above personal integrity or ethics), the overall health of many less fortunate countries or individuals are slowly being choked to death by oppressive regimes that seek to use the labor of 98% of the country for the benefit of might be 2% of the world's population. Healthy communities that once were centered around mills or industrial factories - thus giving many jobs - have now faced outsourcing as cheaper production trumps the value of communities and the individual workers. Corn growers in Mexico or Coffee bean growers in South America are often forced to sell what they grow for less than what it takes to grow the products in the first place. This is due to global market abuses in which market controls ought to be exercised but are not, most likely at the behest of organizations or companies with special interests (De La Torre, 76) who often care more about profits than the needs of the workers or country that the controls are meant to protect.

While the situation for marginalized can be grim, I want to focus on the positive here. In this case the positive is how De La Torre proposes that we ought to approach oppressive systems. Let's pretend that we are going into an urban area in which a group of individuals are encountering oppressive structures. For De La Torre, the answer is to employ what he calls a hermeneutical circle. This theory asserts that you cannot help a group of marginalized individuals unless you enter into their situation and personally experience what it is that they experience. Because many of us are privileged and have a hard time understanding what oppression really means, it makes sense that this sort of idea is crucial to accomplish real change. Indeed, this is the first step out of five in the hermeneutical circle. We first experience and enter into the suffering of others, then we analyze their situation via whatever methods (economics, anthropology, political science etc.) so that we can truly get at the center of what is really the heart of the oppression both economic, ethical and political elements are central to the oppression. Then, we are to pray - seeking God's guidance and support. Finally, we implement a cogent and thorough program to address the causes of oppression and regularly re-analyze the plan so as to adjust and address any inadequacies.

Now, can you see how this might help us practically? We all have our areas in which God has placed us. We do not have to go "to the ends of the earth" to put this into use. Are you a youth pastor? The chances are that you will have the chance to minister to those families who have been affected by prejudice or who have been marginalized. Are you a CFO at a top rate company? How will you make a difference in the way policies are implemented so that people of a certain gender, race and wealth levels all get fair treatment? This can help.

God's kingdom has given us a mandate to free those who are chained by oppressive systems. We should not rest well at night if we are not doing our part to draw those who are hurting around us into a loving community that can show them unconditional love and genuine acceptance. Let's get to it, people!

You are a (temporary) Greek Conditional Modifier

2011-05-27T16:42:53-05:00

Finals are the time of year when you actually feel like a Greek conditional modifier. No, really! It’s true! Well, at least that’s how I feel, anyway. This quarter I made the decision to take three classes amidst a great deal of life changes and little did I know how difficult it would be to grind through it. Papers, online discussions and multiple tests fly at you with vicious intent, all of them trying to knock you out of rhythm and off your already dubious game.

Finals, when the quarter begins seem far off, even legendary. The here and now is what is important and as week four slips into week seven you suddenly realize that the faint concern for finals has become an all out panic attack. Advil, Redbull and repeated calls to your church’s prayer line become routine, just a part of your life really. Dreams of becoming a part time 7-11 worker or flight to a foreign country seem almost overpowering at times.

This is why I think of myself, at this moment, as a Greek conditional modifier. You see, even though we all use conditional statements every day, we usually fail to recognize how deep those statements really are. For example, if you say to your children, “If you clean your room, then I will give you candy,” you are making a conditional statement that assumes that statement is true – if a then b. There are others (called a 2^nd and 3^rd class) that either assume for the sake of argument that a statement is true even though false (If you had bought a Macbook, then you would not be having these computer issues) or we assume a hypothetical situation (If I was a millionaire, then I would not be doing finals). Isn’t that how we all feel right now - suspended between the different types of conditional statements, not knowing exactly who we are? Is the statement, “I rocked my finals” true? Is it simply false or a hypothetical daydream? We just don’t know until a few subsequent weeks later when we receive our grades.

The summer beckons tantalizingly a short distance away. We long to put our grammatical resemblance to rest, if only for a little while.

Isn’t temporary schizophrenia grand?

Growth, Struggle and Discipleship

2011-06-23T02:17:55-05:00

The world needs a hero. I am the father of two darling daughters whom I had waited a long time to actually meet. My wife and I decided to achieve some financial stability before welcoming any children into our lives. Once we did so, I found being a father to be a blessing beyond any others I have ever known. Whenever my daughters tell me that they love me or look to me for guidance, support and comfort amid their eternal bouts with boo-boos, nightmares and the dreaded vegetable of the day, I feel as if life could not be any better - I like being a part of the process in positively shaping my daughter's perception of what a father should be like. I enjoy the challenge of preparing them for the day when they become independent women.

But yet, it takes only a few minutes of time with an online news site to realize that the world in a postmodern era is simple. It is rather quite complex - shared understandings of morality have begun to dissipate under the weight of relativism (not all of this is bad); the environment is taking a pounding and ideas on how to fix it or even if we should become a cacophony difficult to unravel. The church herself faces many daunting issues and internal challenges that will shape the texture of the church for generations to come. The skills and savvy required to raise children well is one that demands every ounce of heart, mind and soul that one can muster. These sorts of concerns were part of the reason why I came to Fuller - I did not feel prepared to deal with life in a postmodern age. I felt that I possessed neither the tool set nor the vocabulary to equip my children for times when they would face situations and problems that I cannot foresee. 1st Peter 3:15 has become a prime motivator of my life and of my passionate commitment to uncover every tool or scrap of biblical acumen that I can as a student.

Since my first day of attending Fuller, it is interesting to contemplate how the experience has changed me so thoroughly. I feel so different and I see the world so differently in so many ways - a hybrid of past and present that is simultaneously comforting and yet foreign. While existing in the middle of the uncertainty and the necessary readjustment that such change requires (much I am learning will take a lifetime of grappling with to even slightly master), I honestly would not have it any other way. Growth and struggle are good for the soul - a lifetime of earnestly wrestling to wring every drop out of life so that I can live in a way that honors those around me and the One who graciously created me. They keep me alert. They keep me honest in light of my own weaknesses and foibles.

Modernism and its proud insistence concerning the autonomy of man, and its subsequent fall in the face of the twentieth century has left us with a generation that is needy for hope. This is compounded by advocates of deconstructionism and others like Alasdair MacIntyre who (rightfully) tell us that worldviews and metanarratives are not independent affairs at all, but are instead conditioned and perhaps infected by their own personal perspective. It may be true but unfortunately most deconstructivists have not given any hope or alternatives to the terrible questions that follow: Who are we? What is the point of living if there are no grand metanarratives by which we might derive purpose and meaning? I know that the Scriptures have much to say and offer in this world. This is why we come to Fuller. This is why we grapple with difficult concepts and plod through dense books that can occasionally give us migraines. In their book, Truth Is Stranger Than It Used To Be, J. Richard Middleton and Brian J. Walsh say that, "This indwelling (the Christians participation in the biblical narrative) requires us to become intimately familiar with the biblical text in order to to gain a deep, intuitive sense of the story's dramatic movement and the Author's plot intentions." We take our role as Christians seriously, not that we can become heroes - we are not up to the task. Rather, we study so that we can become clear prisms that refract God's light to a world who needs his love and guidance. They need a hero. We have the ability to direct those in our lives to a real one. Let's get to it. :)

I are blogging (or, going against the grain of the internet universe)

2010-10-03T17:07:06-05:00

My Friday mornings are now "Writing Mornings". When I first tweeted that fact this morning (yes, I tweet and proudly use all the obnoxious terminology that goes along with it) I typed "writings mornings". Writings. Mornings. Let’s hope the rest of this blogging venture will fair better than that one. Then I only had 140 characters with which I could let the internet world down. Here I've got about 48 posts with which I could successfully disappoint, bore or scare you, myself, the Admissions Office, and my family.

No pressure, self.

Today being a “Writing Morning” means I did not shower, am basically wearing in public what I wore to bed last night, and am sitting in the Fuller library. It's a pleasure to take this social bullet for you, new friends. Well, technically I have been blogging for the last 3+ years on my own Wordpress site. So that means I have been taking this social bullet for myself for a while now. That’s the beautiful thing about a technological age in which anyone can blog. Anyone can be a writer. Anyone can validate their desire to wear their pajamas as real clothes and not adhere to Western, albeit anal, hygiene standards. I will support anything that promotes those two things. Thus, I am here. Writing to you.

It’s nice to meet you. (You should know I don’t usually look like this.)

Perhaps you should also know a few other things about me as we are about to embark upon a new, exciting and strange internet relationship. Typically the way the internet works is someone begins a blog. Then, someone else begins to read it regularly. The second someone, the reader, will undoubtedly begin to feel as if she or he knows the blogger well. However, the blogger always has the upper hand. While the reader will feel as though she or he knows the blogger well, the reader only ever knows the constructed "blogger" that the blogger projects. Are you following me? Basically, I could trick you into believing a lot of impressive things about me.

But, I won’t be running that kind of show here. It may be going against the grain of the internet universe but I will make some kind of honest effort at candidness, transparency and humanity. In this space I will be writing to you, prospective student that stumbled upon the Fuller website when you typed into Google “evangelical seminary” or you, current student, when you were sitting in class and the internet in Payton Hall wouldn’t load Facebook so you were stuck browsing the Fuller.edu website. Or you, Mama, because I told you I was blogging for Fuller now. With all of you in mind I will begin to chronicle my last year at Fuller.

Some basic (honest) things you might want to know to begin to understand me:

-I lived in the South my whole life (with the exception of a brief, 3 year stint in Germany when I was a kid), until moving to California last year.

-The West coast feels like a breath of fresh air compared to the Bible belt. Although, I do miss thunderstorms.

-I don't believe in 'face wash'. I wash my face with hand soap. I have been doing that for a while now and my face has yet to turn into a hand. 'Face wash', turns out, is a capitalist ploy.

-With the exception of the previous comment about face wash, I will rarely get political on you. So we can all just relax now.

-I take photos.

-I took that photo of myself above my bio.

-I am entering my second year as a full-time MAT student. I have an emphasis in Biblical Studies and am fascinated by the way our Biblical interpretation shapes our perception of reality.

-I would love for this to be a two-way conversation. So leave your comments, questions and truth and dares below. Who knows, I just might oblige.

seeing seminary sacramentally

2010-10-12T01:10:08-05:00

I have been making notes all week long about things I’ve learned in seminary in order to share them with you. I’ve got quite the list now. And no, this list isn’t full of things like what open theism is or what color the hat is if you get your doctorate in Finland. (It’s purple. And it’s a top hat.) This list I’ve been working on contains less serious things (the Finnish doctoral hat is, after all, a very serious thing)

First on my list is a note about how beginning seminary means you immediately stop having time to groom yourself properly. Seriously, I got so busy last Spring quarter I forgot that maintaining attended-to toenails was a thing that human beings have to do to, you know, not be judged harshly by other human beings. Turns out I was not the only one who forgot this. During the (mere ten day) summer break between the summer and fall quarters I remarked to my friend Dave that I had “so much time on my hands!” He replied, “I know! Me too! I even cut my toenails today!”

See.

Second on my list of things to share with you is that it’s pronounced “Bart” not “Bar-th”. Now, I knew this before starting seminary so I didn’t technically learn it here. But since coming to Fuller I have learned that it’s extremely awkward to listen to other people embarrass themselves by proudly making a comment out loud in class about the “significance of Bar-th’s contribution to evangelical theology”.

Thirdly I’ve learned that if you want to feel abundantly intelligent just use the word “pneumatological” in a paper, over and over again.

I also made a note to share with you tips on eating other people’s leftovers in order to save money, but I’ll just leave that for another time. (Though, if an opportunity presents itself this week and you have questions, just shoot me an email or DM me.)

As I thought about this list of things all week, I realized that the most significant thing I’ve learned while in seminary is scribbled on a post-it on my desk at work and is actually quite serious:

The sacrifice makes it sacred.

These words come from a teaching called “the Sacred Waste” by Rob Bell, teaching pastor at Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids and face of the uber-popular Nooma video series. In this teaching Rob recounts the story of King David in hiding, reminiscing about the waters of Bethlehem. After hearing David, his men hike 12 miles each way, through enemy lines, to fetch David some of this water. When the men return to David, David takes the water, refuses to drink it and pours it out onto the ground “before the Lord”. “Far be it from me to drink this”, says King David. What David recognized, according to Bell, was that the sacrifice of his men made the water sacred.

The sacrifice makes it sacred.

These words have begun to govern my attitude about every student loan I must take out to fund my seminary education, every page of Plato I begrudgingly read, all of the terrifying thoughts that slip into my mind whenever I begin to think about getting a job next year. The sacrifice makes it sacred.

We live in a world governed by results and outcomes. We want return on our investment. If we put time and energy into something we do not want it to be for naught. David, however, saw the world sacramentally, which is a drastically different way of seeing the world. To see the world sacramentally means that the significance of one’s invested time and energy is not found at the end, in the results. Instead, the significance of one’s invested time and energy is inherent in the sacrifice of one’s time and energy. The sacrifice, not the results, makes it sacred.

I did not come to seminary as part of my ordination process. I did not come to seminary because a Master of Arts in Theology is a necessary prerequisite for my dream job. I came to seminary because I felt like I was supposed to. My coming to Fuller involved personal desire and that still, small voice inside of me that knew it was right. In many ways, I’m realizing, I did not come for the snazzy end result.

Seminary is a lot of money. Seminary is a lot of time. Seminary is a lot of stress and seminary is a lot of painful self-reflection. And there’s all of this sacrifice with no specified promise of a certain end result. In this sense, seminary is not, by the world’s standards, a lucrative endeavor.

But vital to one’s seminary experience is learning to see seminary sacramentally. Vital to one’s journey of becoming a healthy, contributing, critically-thinking follower of the Way is learning to see all of life sacramentally. Seeing sacramentally is to recognize that the significance, the sacred-ness of what one has been called to is not found in the end results. Instead seeing sacramentally is to, in the words of Rob, “take the cost and take the sacrifice and offer it up.” In this sense, seminary might be one of the most sacred things I’ve ever done.

Enter the Mess: a Theology of Fostering

2010-10-19T23:13:08-05:00

This Saturday I attended the 2010 Lewis B. Smedes Conference on Foster Care and Adoption. This event is a partnership between Fuller Seminary and Child S.H.A.R.E. and honors the late Lewis B. Smedes, a faculty member of Fuller Theological Seminary, and his commitment to the work of Child S.H.A.R.E.

I expected the event to offer introductory information to the agencies and avenues one can take in order to foster or adopt children. Instead, the conference (which also served as credit for current foster parents to maintain their credentials) was for me a bit like jumping into the middle of a conversation---a heartbreaking and beautiful conversation.

I attended the conference purely out of my own personal interest in fostering and adopting, as both are something I am interested in for the future. Fortunately, I got to spend my day surrounded by fascinating individuals who are already fostering children and some who have fostered many children throughout many years. I attended the various breakout seminars on topics such as educational rights and advocacy for foster children, disciplining children who have experienced trauma and Fetal Alcohol Syndrome right alongside these foster parents. I was fascinated not only by the intricacies of “the system” but also the resolve and fortitude of these people who are willingly giving their time and energy for the betterment of these children born into unfortunate, usually tragic, situations.

It seems quite fashionable in Christian communities right now to adopt children. I do not mean this statement to serve as ridicule. After all, there is a beautiful theology of adoption in both our Bible and in each of our own lives that as Christians we can and should wholeheartedly commit to living from. Most of us have ourselves been grafted in—adopted into a beautiful life with God and the people of God, a life of love and benefit. However, if I can be so bold as to theologize after having spent one day at a conference, I would like to make the claim that what Christian communities now need is a theology of fostering.

Fostering is inherently messy. In one of the conference sessions the lecturer discussed what one’s household begins to look like when fostering. The lecturer added, one by one, small figurines to a doll house sitting on the table: two figurines for the foster parents, two figurines for the foster parents' biological children, one figurine for the foster child, one figurine for the foster child’s social worker, one figurine for the foster child’s attorney, one figurine for the birth mother, one figurine for the birth mother’s attorney, one figurine for the birth father, one figurine for the birth father’s attorney….you get the picture.

When you sign up to foster children you are signing up to enter the mess. Although some critics may make claims about foster parents who are in it for the money let me assure you—the foster parents I saw on Saturday were neither in it for the monetary reward or the feel-good easiness. These are people are legally voiceless in court and yet dedicate their lives to caring for a child they did not bring into the world. These foster parents have a unique tenacity to them. The strange and difficult task in front of them requires both creative assertiveness and patience. A foster parent is ultimately an advocate—someone constantly pressing the system, asking questions, wading through the paperwork and wild goose chases that are all part of the task of caring for foster children.

Fostering is, at its core, incarnational.

Somehow it seems Christians have developed this idea that life--the Christian life--is supposed to look a certain way, and this way is not to involve too much trouble or drama, heartache or turmoil. Instead, Christian people should appropriately go through certain steps in life, get certain educations, date in a certain way, marry certain people, create a family in a particular and very clean manner---and all of this because we are Christians and we are to live to the good, “abundant life!” And yet, when one steps away and reads this description of the Christian life objectively one might notice that it looks nothing like the life of Christ. It looks nothing like the incarnation.

In the Incarnation God entered into the world as a human. The Incarnation was the grand gesture in which God willingly and tangibly entered into our mess.

If we are to be incarnational people then we are to be people who enter the mess--not with judgment or our own certain beliefs on how life should look and relationships should play out. Instead we are to be people who acknowledge that life is messy. Life requires creative assertiveness and patience. Life requires tenacity and resilience; it calls us to advocacy. And the distinctly Christian life requires these things from us, on behalf of other people.

Damp

2010-10-25T12:27:56-05:00

I took a trip to Joshua Tree this weekend with some friends. We drove down in the early morning, hiked in the day and shared a campsite that night with some unexpected new friends. It’s been cold and rainy in Pasadena for the last ten days so it was nice to retreat to the desert, where it was dry and cool and the sun was bright.

In the evening, as the sun went down beneath the mountain range in the distance and the temperature began to drop, Scott got to work starting our fire with firewood he bought in Pasadena. Unfortunately since Pasadena had been damp all week our firewood was too. Having damp firewood is much like having no firewood at all except worse because it just sits there in a pile, ineffectual and taunting, while you shiver in the dark.

Scott, the engineer, was determined to make a fire. Others in the group suggested we just make our s’mores and campfire bananas on the Coleman and then retreat to the Westfalia.

And I sat there quietly, huddled in my scarf, believing in that fire.

Eventually our neighbors offered us one piece of dry wood in exchange for two pieces of our damp wood. And in time, Scott managed to get a fire going. Our fire burned for hours and was still smoldering in the morning. In the morning one of our camp neighbors told us that he had spent part of his night warming himself by our fire after we had all gone to bed because he had left his sleeping bag at home. It was a really good fire.

We returned to Pasadena the next day and went to church where the sermon was about earthly wisdom vs. Godly wisdom—forcing control vs. releasing control. After church Scott and I were talking about all of the implications of releasing control of hard, even hurtful situations in our lives. The release of control is unlike anything that God can call you to. It is perhaps one of the most intangible disciplines of the Christian life. It requires facing a real, tangible, difficult, impossible situation with a posture that is completely intangible.

However, when you give up your control of a situation or relationship or the ability to know or determine someone else’s response to you, you are not simply giving it up for some unnerving feeling of being out of control. Rather, as children of God, we are trading our control for hope. We are trading our control for belief.

There was a great interview with theologian Cornel West in Rolling Stone magazine a few years ago. The response of West in this interview when he was asked, “Are you optimistic about the future?” still lingers in my head:

The categories of optimism and pessimism don’t exist for me. I’m a blues man. A blues man is a prisoner of hope, and hope is a qualitatively different category than optimism. Optimism is a secular construct, a calculation of probability. Black folk in America have never been optimistic about the future-what have we had to be optimistic about? But we are people of hope. Hope wrestles with despair, but it doesn’t generate optimism. It just generates this energy to be courageous, to bear witness, to see what the end is going to be. No guarantee, unfinished, open-ended. I am a prisoner of hope. I’m going to die full of hope. There’s no doubt about that, because that is a choice I make. But at the same time, the end doesn’t look too good right now.

At the risk of this being a rather elementary illustration for a seminary blog, I must say---I’ve definitely got a giant pile of damp firewood in my life right now. And it’s just sitting there, staring at me, taunting me with the difficulty of its impossibility and the pain of its ineffectiveness.

But hope is a qualitatively different category than optimism.

The people of God are, if nothing else, a people of hope.

May we trade control for hope. May we, as people of hope, if for no other reason than because of the hope of God in us, sit huddled by our piles of damp firewood, believing in the ability of them to become fire.

A Case for a Lower Christology

2010-11-04T19:43:27-05:00

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about Jesus’ humanity.

A friend of mine went to a Christian university in Michigan that offered a course titled, “Why the Humanity of Jesus Matters Everyday”. I can’t remember what he said the teacher lectured on; I was too hung up on how awesome the course title was.

Before I left for seminary I was asked to teach one Sunday morning in an adult Sunday School class. The class was on Proverbs, which is my least favorite book of the Bible. (That may be an exaggeration. Perhaps it’s my least favorite book of the BIble of the books of the Bible people quote most often.) Needless to say, I was a bit stuck in terms of what to teach this class of students about my least favorite book of the Bible of the books of the Bible people quote most often. I ended up offering a lesson entitled, “Jesus: An Excursus”. In my teaching I discussed Jesus and the wisdom tradition. I even cited the apocrypha. (This is quite racy in an adult Sunday school class at an Assembly of God church in the Bible belt). The response from this adult class was mostly positive. That’s at least what they expressed verbally, to my face. Afterward one of the people in the class started a conversation with me about beginning seminary. She knew I was moving to California in the coming weeks and wanted to offer me some advice. “Stay conservative”, she said. “So many people want to make Jesus a human.”

I was floored.

First of all, no comment on her initial piece of advice.The categories of liberal and conservative have never done the world much good.

Secondly, Jesus was a human.

Jesus’ humanity is exactly what was so fascinating about him.

How did she miss this? How do so many miss this?

My friend Scott wrote me a note the other day. He had been reading Hebrews:

“…most Christians understand Heb 2:18—that Jesus had to be tempted in every way so that he could be an understanding, forgiving High Priest to those who are tempted and give into temptation. But earlier, in Heb 2:10, there is a similar statement that is often overlooked—it was “fitting” for Jesus to be perfected and to bring us to glory through suffering. In other words, just as he was tempted so that he might identify with our temptation, he also suffered deeply so that he might fully and empathetically identify with our deep suffering. I think this helps answer the question, “Why does God allow suffering?” It’s part of the human experience. And it’s why Jesus suffered deeply—so that he might be a compassionate, loving minister when we suffer.”

This note from Scott was beautiful and moving and (perhaps unbeknownst to Scott) very Moltmann-ian, which I love. But the most moving part of the note was the short line that came at the very end:

“And we’re here for you too.”

We absolutely cannot ignore the humanity of Jesus.

I have been reading Richard Rohr lately, Franciscan priest, contemplative and zen aficionado. In his book, Everything Belongs, he says something really fascinating about our understanding of Jesus:

“It seems that we Christians have been worshipping Jesus’ journey instead of doing his journey. The first feels very religious; the second feels human, and not glorious at all” (p. 20).

Kester Brewin, emergent church leader and theologian from the UK, blogged about this matter recently in a post titled, “What Exactly is Community? Gathering Around an Absent Christ”. In this piece he claims that, “Where community draws people into commonality around a shared place or interest, Christianity draws people around…an absence. At the centre is an ascended, transformed, disappeared figure…God has not died, but has chosen to be paradoxically present-absent, and thus chosen to leave us to gather around an absence. Why? Because it is only by gathering around absence that we begin to care for the other.”

There is something central about the humanity of Christ to our Christian faith. Where high Christologies fail to offer much hope in midst of our suffering and troubles, a look at the Incarnation, the flesh and blood of Christ, offers the hope of a God who enters in. Similarly, the Incarnation allows Christians the ability to do Jesus’ journey rather than simply worship it.

The humanity of Jesus is precisely what allows my friends to say to me, during a dark time, “And we’re here for you too” and absolutely mean it.

Lemons

2010-11-08T23:13:16-06:00

Sometimes life hands you lemons.

And sometimes, just before you can reach out in all of your optimism and bright hope ready to make a beverage, life squirts those lemons right in your eyes.

Remember how I promised that I would go against the grain of the internet universe and be honest with you? Share my story honestly, candidly? Well, get ready. I'm bout to unleash some honesty on you folks. (You may begin to regret this arrangement.)

On Sunday morning I opened up my one year old Macbook Pro to find that it could not start. In fact, it could not find the hard drive. Turns out, the hard drive is dead. Completely dead. My MacBook is now sitting in a warehouse in Burbank where some technician is going to charge me $75 an hour to work on it (i.e. plug some chords into it then eat Chinese take out and browse NewEgg.com). Then, lots of dollars later, he will tell me what data he can recover. Sorry. She.

When I first asked the Apple employee what my odds were in terms of recovering any data from the dead hard drive he said, "Well, the good news is it didn't explode or catch on fire."

Yes, Apple employee. That is, safe to say, great news in any situation.

"Grandma's dead."

"Yes, but at least she didn't explode."

Turns out, this is a great time to lecture you on the importance of backing up your hard drive. This at least seems to be what most people consider an appropriate conversation to have after I state the fact that my hard drive died on Sunday.

"My hard drive died on Sunday."

"Did you back it up?"

"......" (I probably would not be telling you this news in such a sad, aggravated, histrionic tone if I had a back up handy.)

As I sat waiting for the Geniuses at the Pasadena Apple store to call my name yesterday afternoon, it was obviously the perfect time for an Apple employee to come out and give a presentation on the importance of backing up your hard drive and how easy to use TimeMachine is.

I get it. Smart people back up their computers. But, lectures aside, I've still lost a year's worth of graduate school notes and papers and the music. Oh god, the music. So much music. And now I'm computerless for 15 days. So much for working on my IDL coursework in a timely manner. I went to the 99 cent store tonight and bought a spiral notebook, you know, for doing the school. It's not even college ruled.

When I told my roommate that I hate to act like this situation, the failure of my MacBook's hard drive, is a big deal in comparison to the more global scale of sadness in this world, she kindly reminded me that my hard drive's death is not dissimilar from the death of a village's cow in the developing world. I've been taking comfort in this idea. My MacBook is my cow. And it's dead.

This metaphorical dead cow is just another thing in a long line of suck in my life in the past few weeks. Accordingly, I've been doing what all Major Depressive, creative types do when they are feeling angry and sad--I've been reading a lot of poetry. When your life is ugly you've got not much else to do except depend on someone else to make it beautiful for a while, a short while. Even if only for 15 seconds.

Enter Mary Oliver.

I Will Try

I will try.

I will step from the house to see what I see

and hear and I will praise it.

I did not come into this world

to be comforted.

I came, like red bird, to sing.

But I'm not red bird, with his head-mop of flame

and the red triangle of his mouth

full of tongue and whistles,

but a woman whose love has vanished,

who thinks now, too much, of roots

and the dark places

where everything is simply holding on.

But this too, I believe, is a place

where God is keeping watch

until we rise, and step forth again and--

but wait. Be still. Listen!

Is it red bird? Or something

inside myself, singing?

So, needless to say I'll be taking some time off from this blog. I'll be back in about 15 days. In the meantime, let me know if you want to pass wide-ruled notes in class. It's like gchat for the '90s.

Things I Thought I Hated

2010-11-17T11:39:13-06:00

I’ve recently joined with some friends in starting a weekly postmodern philosophy of religion reading group. We have a stated disregard for asking orthodox questions and it’s been said by one member that the only thing we will pass judgment on is silence. Basically, bring snacks and bring questions. The first book we’ve been discussing is John Caputo’s On Religion. Next, we’re considering Zizek’s On Belief. I’m eating it all up.

I’ve also been shoveling back Richard Rohr’s book on contemplative prayer, Everything Belongs. Interestingly enough, I’ve only got 15 pages left before I’m finished with it and he’s yet to talk about prayer as something you sit and do. Rather, he has discussed prayer as a way you live, a way you posture yourself toward the universe and something that happens within you through your suffering.

You should know that I have, on multiple occasions in my life, said things like, “Me and philosophy do not get along” and “I don’t pray”. Seriously. Until this month, I was convinced that I hated prayer and loathed philosophy. Prayer, as a religious concept, only served as a source of guilt for me. Like, there’s this thing you should do more often and you’re not doing so you’re letting the God of the universe down (and all of your hurting friends). Philosophy just never seemed to matter, like, if Aristotelian thought doesn’t connect with this thing about life that I’m experiencing I will be so bold as to say Aristotle is stupid.

But, in this past month, prayer and philosophy have become these completely new experiences for me. The way prayer and philosophy have been hitting the ground lately and the way that Rohr and Caputo alike are allowing these things to have a new life put on them and released into my mind and heart have been quite transformational. For Rohr, you are not, through discipline and structure, a person that prays. Instead you become a person of prayer, a contemplative, through suffering and liminal experiences. Reading Caputo on post-modernism and post-secular thought is a bit like reading the results of a personality test. All of the sudden you get this new, enlightening understanding of yourself. Like, oh, that’s why I’m this way. There is this great cloud of (philosopher) witnesses grappling with the same questions about our God, ourselves, our world that keep me awake at night. (Also, did you know that many philosophers are quite like poets? Who knew?)

[Is this making sense?]

This month has been quite treacherous. When things get treacherous it seems like everything becomes more vibrant. My own humanity has felt so real and tangible, the divinity of my God so striking. And, as a result, the contrast between who God is and who I am has become quite clear.

The other night a friend in a hard place asked me, in all of her despair, “Why would God bring me here?”

“Here”, for her, is a place of darkness, anxiety, personal conflict and aguish.

[Haven’t we all been “here”?]

The only answer I could think to offer was actually no answer at all. It was the result of all this new exploration of prayer and philosophy.

“I don’t know,” I told her, “But God is there too.”

Here's to philosophy mattering and prayer being about your being. And here's to a God that meets us there.

Home

2010-11-22T13:26:08-06:00

I got an email this week from an inquiring prospective student. She stumbled upon this blog while researching a School of Psychology program (School of Psychology, you are officially welcome. Or, wait, is it the other way around?). In her email she said I wrote like Anne Lamott and that she had some questions about Fuller she wondered if I would answer. What she didn't know was that, to me, telling a writer they write like Anne Lamott is a little like telling a Christian they forgive like Jesus. I teared up a little. And then told her I would answer anything she wanted because of her comparison. Actually, I would probably do anything for her because of her comparison. Erin, you do understand you put me in a rather compromising position, right?

I started to write her back and tell her a bit of my story, then I realized, I've not really shared much of my story on this blog. Sure, I am sharing my story in the present active sense. But I've not shared much about how I got to this place, how I've come to ask these questions, why I am at Fuller and not Princeton Seminary, why I think the Incarnation is the most beautiful idea God has ever had, and, perhaps most importantly, why I didn't give up on it all when I wanted to, or why I don't give up on it every time I continue to want to.

So, I think I will begin a series. (What do you think of this idea, Anne?) Someone remarked recently that blogging, by nature, is narcissistic. Hmmph, I thought. I'm not sure I can argue with that. I do own my own domain name simply because I think other people want to read my words and see my images. However, it's my hope that my narcissism will be effective for the Kingdom (ha.). But seriously, I want to share with you not out of a desire to read my own story in my own words but in hopes that my story, which I think has been marked by the grace and spirit of God, will help you to identify the grace and spirit of God already present in your own story. After all, I do believe God does not have to be invited, but rather is ever present. God needs only to be discovered, not inserted. That is, people were made to be discipled, not colonized.

Last night I made a last minute decision to go home for Thanksgiving. I had been resistant to the idea for the past two months because it's quite a long flight back to the east cost for a mere four days at home. However, I realized last night that I really, really need to see my family. There is something about being home that centers you, grounds you, reminds you of who you are when your circumstances have made you feel that person has become an unfamiliar shadow.

We've been talking about the idea of home at church for the past two months, reading the book of James. James is written to the Christian Jews that have been dispersed. The letter, then, is essentially written to refugees, wandering and displaced people. At the very end, James' letter cuts off rather abruptly, "My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins." In the second to last line of his letter, James brings up the idea of wandering. This image would have evoked so much of the Jewish story as well as the parable Jesus taught about the wandering sheep.

What James is essentially saying to a wandering, displaced people is that being "brought back" is possible. There is a normative, orienting truth. There is a center. There is a home base.

When you feel displaced, this idea is profound.

When who you are begins to feel like an unfamiliar shadow, the idea of home is life saving.

Deconstruct, Reconstruct, Repeat

2011-01-10T21:12:50-06:00

Another blog post has been a long time coming. Mostly I’ve been having a hard time sharing what’s really been on my mind. “I’m afraid it will sound like I might drop out of seminary,” I told a friend about my bloggers block. “What’s wrong with sounding like you might drop out of seminary?” he asked.

[It was a fair point.]

I went on to tell him all that’s been bothering me lately about Christianity and seminary (it was a long gchat session, bless his soul). There’s an upcoming article in our campus publication, the SEMI, titled something like “Flannel Shirts: Trendy or Imago Dei?” This, for all intents and purposes, is the straw that has broken my seminary camel’s back.

I come from a fairly conservative Christian background. Recently someone asked me how I turned out the way I am having been raised Assemblies of God and attending a Church of God university. “My theology professors went to Princeton,” I told her.

During college, I did my share of kicking against my upbringing. Sometimes it was more ugly than it was pretty, more destructive than constructive. But, thankfully, the reconstruction eventually followed and I came to rest in a place of belief, faith and practice for myself, no longer having to define myself by what I am not [which feels nice].

Having already gone through this process of deconstruction/reconstruction during my undergraduate study, I thought I was immune to having the typical, “I don’t know if I believe what I believe” seminary experience. And, for the most part, I’ve been unscathed. The first few quarters of my time here at Fuller were mostly refreshing and really very constructive. I discovered Miroslav Volf and learned that I do not hate Augustine as much as I had originally thought. I fell in love with a bunch of people who professed similar faith practice as me and I learned some beautiful lessons about community.

But lately, I’m feeling disenchanted again. But this time, it’s with a different brand of Christianity. Lately, I’ve found myself really wanting what “the world” has (to use an utterly Christian dichotomy). I read the blogs of some very creative people, living lives I envy. They have these solid, committed, close friendships. Most of these people would make no claims about being Christian. And their lives are so beautiful.

I’m realizing that, in many ways, I stepped from a very conservative Christian background to a new, refreshing way of “being Christian” but this way, like anything really, is often just vocabulary and lip service paid, used to mask what’s really being lived out (typically hyper-individualism and self-gratification).

“Community” and “intentionality” are, I’ve found, some of the most used yet least lived up to terms in this new brand of progressive, culturally assimilating, evangelical Christianity quite pervasive at Fuller. This is where the article about flannel shirts comes in. We’ve become so entranced by this idea that Christians too should have a place in culture and contribute our gospelized versions of everything (apparently even flannel shirts). Yet, the end result ends up being graduate level publications about flannel shirts and…the image of God. What?

Some of those people I met and fell in love in my first few quarters at Fuller were, it turns out, simply paying lip service to a way of Christianity that Shane Claiborne has convicted many people of but has converted very few to. Many say “community” but run like hell when things get hard. Somewhere in all of our writing about flannel shirts and the imago dei, study of culture and Christianity we’ve missed it. We’ve forgotten what it is to be a friend, to be emotionally stable and communally responsible.

The biblical text at church this week was the story in Luke 11 when Jesus bashes (for lack of a better word) the Pharisees and the experts in the law. The preacher challenged us to resist identifying with the Pharisees in the story, identifying with the religiously zealous. Instead, he challenged us to identify with Jesus. After all, this is the person our faith is oriented on, the person we are to “follow” and become like. This challenge proved to be impossible for me. Throughout the sermon I kept finding myself identifying with the Pharisees. I found it next to impossible to identify with Jesus. This concept quite literally felt foreign, like writing my name with my left hand. The preacher encouraged us to be ambassadors of relational reconciliation that way Jesus was, willing to sit down at the table of his enemies. I could not keep myself from thinking of who my enemies are, those who make me “other”. The idea of loving them, sitting down at their proverbial table, potentially allowing myself to be hurt by them yet again felt utterly impossible.

Have we produced a brand of Christianity that truly does not know how to be like Jesus?

The same friend that asked what was so wrong with this blog post sounding like I might drop out of seminary also told me that he thinks that my pattern of deconstruction/reconstruction is the way things should be: “That’s how life works, how we grow, a constant cycle of rejecting and re-appropriating things, always going deeper.”

Once again, the challenge presents itself. I hear the still, small whisper.

Be angry or be different.

Be burned or resolve not to treat people the way you’ve been treated.

Walk away from it all or live from that subtle conviction that there’s room in Christianity for true creativity and intentionality.

Drop out or stay in and learn to write with my left hand.

[I wonder if Jesus felt lonely most of the time.]

Reconciliation?

2011-01-26T15:08:41-06:00

One time, during college, I was in a history of Christianity class and the professor was lecturing on TULIP. I raised my hand to state my protest, “I guess I just have too high a view of humanity.” My professor responded quickly, “Or a really low view of God.” My classmates hemmed and hawed. I just sat there, thinking it over.

I still think about his response. The longer I’ve thought about it the more I’m convinced that it’s not one or the other. Rather, one’s view of God determines a lot about your view of humanity, and vice versa. This kind of circular theology, I think, is really beautiful. But, the trouble in believing in people to believe in God is that things get really difficult when people fail you. Reconciliation, I’m learning, has a lot to do with believing in God in order to believe in people again. Like, maybe things can get so bad that only God has the ability to make any of it better.

These days it seems like a lot of my faith is riding on the possibility of reconciliation, which is unfortunate because these days reconciliation seems impossible.

I've been tossing around a lot of questions in my head about this sort of thing...Is the way of Jesus really reconciliation, or is the way of Jesus sacrificing yourself and your vindication? What role do your "rights" play in reconciliation? What's expected of the other person in the "way of Jesus"? Was Jesus spineless?

Ideally, people should make life easier. But it seems they usually make it harder. What's the role of community in light of all of this?

Maybe some of these questions will become posts. Maybe not. It seems I've got a lot of figuring out to do.

who knows what we'll talk about!

2011-03-29T19:12:09-05:00

You can all send your flowers and thank you cards to one Simon Castagna, Web Support Assistant, in the Admissions Office for bearing with my weekly (maybe bi-weekly. definitely bi-winning.) inquiries about the status of the Fuller blogs, which have been out of commission for quite some time (as you may have noticed). This wasn't Simon's fault, you guys. That's why you should send him flowers. Because it wasn't his fault and he let me complain to him anyway. He likes daises. He says they are dainty!

But now the blogs are back and accessible and just crying out for posts. So, here you go. A post. Actually, these are just some photos I've taken recently. Words to follow soon. A lot has happened since we last met up here--Charlie Sheen went warlock and everyone started making bad bi-winning jokes, America's international dealings got a bit more complicated, Rob Bell got kicked out of Evangelicalism, I moved into a new apartment and Zondervan came out with a new Bible.

But we won't talk about any of those things. Who knows what we'll talk about! Check back soon.

I believe

2011-04-03T03:50:52-05:00

I think one of the truest sentences in the entire bible is found in Mark’s gospel account, from the mouth of a father of a boy in need of exorcism: “I believe; Help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:24)

Perhaps this strikes me as the truest sentence contained in the pages of the Christian canon because, on a really personal level, I resonate with it more than any other biblical sentence.

I recently saw a painting by Bernadette Lopez of a group of people sitting at a table together. The title of the painting was in French. Je crois à la communion des saints.

I believe in the communion of the saints.

These words are found in the centuries-old Apostle’s Creed where they are listed along with confessions of belief in God the Father [sic], Jesus as Christ, and a Holy Spirit responsible for a virgin conception.

The words I believe in the communion of the saints come toward the end of the creed in a laundry list of belief statements. I believe in…a Holy Ghost, a catholic church, the communion of the saints, forgiveness of sin, bodily resurrection and everlasting life.

The statement of artist Bernadette Lopez in her painting is a significant one. In theology, particularly of the Reformed persuasion, the “communion of the saints” is over-theologized and over-spiritualized (yes, such things are quite possible). But Lopez’s painting is striking because it paints something quite different. It depicts a group of faceless people, men and women, sitting at a table together, presumably waiting upon the arrival of food. They are sitting close, sharing space, sharing air. Knowing the nature of people with people, they are probably bumping elbows, talking over one another, saying bad things about one another, saying good things to one another, passing shallow compliments, passing the butter. There are two faceless children in the bottom right hand corner of the painting. It’s difficult to tell whether they are sharing and playing with the round object between them, or if they are arguing over it. Knowing the nature of people with people, it really could go either way.

Lopez’s painting sets a very non-spiritual scene (well, this depends on of your definition of spiritual, I suppose). The communion of the saints, it seems Lopez is arguing, is the passing of butter and the holding of one's tongue (both common in my experience of sitting close to people.)

What then does it mean to state a belief in the communion of the saints?

Belief is a word Christians typically reserve for the most holy of holies (say, for instance, God the Father [sic], Jesus as Christ and a Holy Spirit responsible for a virgin conception). What then does it mean to express a belief in people?

I’ve received a few emails from readers of this blog and each have contained questions about my previous blog entries in which I alluded to the difficulties of community life, of sitting close to people. When I got these emails, I began to worry that my honesty was too honest. But I’ve been encouraged by others to continue to be honest with you about the difficulties of living a life in which you depend on others and allow others to depend on you. So, here I am, still being honest about it.

I’ve learned a few things in my attempts at sitting close to people. And here they are: people will leave you. But you will probably leave them too. And sometimes they come back. And usually you should too.

“I believe; help my unbelief” has long been my woeful and hopeful cry to God about my up and down, in and out faith in God the Father [sick], Jesus as Christ and a Holy Spirit responsible for a virgin conception. And, I’m learning, it is also the most honest cry I can make to God about communing with the saints.

Because here’s another thing I’ve learned (and this lesson is a quote, direct from the mouth of a fellow saint): grace is more powerful.

Retaliation is more satisfying, anger more natural. But grace. Grace is more powerful. Communion is more powerful.

The showing of grace and the practice of communion have the power to change the the ways of human nature and, therefore, the ways of the world.

I believe in the communion of the saints; help my unbelief!

Don't embarrass yourself (Or, Things New Students Should Know)

2011-10-19T13:45:11-05:00

I started writing this post at the beginning of the quarter. We are now in week 4. The content of the post still applies. My delay in posting it even kind of proves the point I'm attempting to make in this post. It’s so nice when that happens.

Hi, I’m Janna. Fuller blogger. MAT student. Soon-to-be Fuller graduate (December 11, yeah!). I have compiled a list of things I think new students should know. Here we go:

Things new students should know:

The doorknobs to library basement two twist opposite of what you'd expect from a door knob in the northern hemisphere. Be careful down there: don't embarrass yourself.

Secondly, yes, our library has a basement. It's where the books are. Actually, we have two basements. You should get familiar with them both. Also, I hope you find it funny that biblical studies books are identified with call # BS. Every time I go down the library and see the call #s I give an audible chuckle. And then I get stares from the really intense students that study in the library basement. (These students take themselves way too seriously. Don't laugh down there; don't make out with your boyfriend down there--although if you do, the oversize books make nice step stools--and, by all means, don't study down there. You don't want to be "that" student.)

Further, no matter how cool they look, don't take the advice of lazy students. Here's how you can spot a lazy student. Next time you’re having a conversation with someone in proximity to the Refectory and another student (probably under-groomed) chimes in with something like "Oh. You don't want to take Exegetical Methods with Joel Green. It's impossible to get an A.” You should scream something about that student being too lazy to pack their own lunch or take a meaningfully difficult course and then walk away—quickly--because that is a lazy student. Also, you just screamed in the middle of the Garth, so walking away quickly also prevents you from having to stick around for the “crazy student” stigma you just earned.

The thing is you SHOULD take difficult classes with challenging professors. Sound overwhelming to know you’re signing up for a course that you will probably not succeed in? Okay. Join me in this exercise in redefining success, won’t you?.....

Step 1: Take your youth-group all star perfectionist obsession with making good grades and earning a gleaming GPA into your palm (take it into your palm proverbially. Again, don't embarrass yourself) and then take your other hand and slap your two hands together really fast. Imagine you are killing your dreams of perfectionism (don't worry, they deserved to die.) And then repeat your new mantra: you're not in seminary to impress anyone; you're in seminary to learn things you didn't know before.

If you've grown up in the church you're probably used to repeating things at someone else's command before you actually understand what you're saying. I will mention two things at this junction: 1) discernment (you should get some). Not everything you've been taught or that you've repeated after someone is true or good or healthy, no matter how cool that person looked. 2) however, in this instance, what I just had you repeat is true, good and healthy. You are not here to impress anyone. In fact, most people outside the Christian bubble will cross their eyes and stick out their tongue when you explain that you are "in seminary". These two physiological responses are tell-tale signs of people either A: not understanding or B: not caring. The people who indeed care that you are in seminary are your grandmother and my grandmother. And you cannot disappoint grandmothers, so you don't need to worry about that anymore. Just go back to repeating the mantra.

Are you still repeating it? Ok.

Good job.

Here's what your new mantra means: Often true learning looks a lot like a C on that paper you worked really hard on. This rule also applies (I'm sort of sorry to tell you) to friendships and romantic relationships. The beauty and ugliness of seminary is that you are in graduate school, yes. But the rest of life does not stop for graduate school. Picture your bills and health and your dog and your children (if you believe in that sort of thing) crossing their eyes and sticking out their tongues. In this case it's because they are not caring. Life does not care that you are in seminary. You will get really good at juggling a lot of things, but it will usually feel like you're getting worse at it. Don't worry, that just means you're an adult. Welcome. Fill out a name tag ("Hi, my name is: Exhausted.") and grab a drink (if you believe in that sort of thing). You’re in seminary now.

IBM's Next CEO is a Woman (and other things the church can learn from the world)

2011-11-09T17:38:37-06:00

I recently wrote an article for our campus publication, the SEMI. I thought I'd share it here, too. Also, the SEMI just recently launched a new, snazzy website. Check it out here: http://www.thesemi.org/

_________________

In the past I would have wanted nothing more than to write this article, to woo you with my words. I would have done theological somersaults and hermeneutical acrobatics all in an attempt to usher you into the house of egalitarian gender relations, where the honey is sweet and the milk is flowing. If I had been enlisted to write this article a few years ago, I would have rushed to my computer the way the ancient prophets, with the Holy Sprit whispering in their ears, must have sat hunched over their scrolls, getting themselves messy with ink, writing for hours. Instead, I’ve filled more than three Word documents over the course of the last week, none of which have even made it to second base (i.e. being saved to my hard drive). The thing is, I no longer approach the “issue” of my gender with energy and vigor, not because I don’t care but because I am exhausted. I am exhausted from years of working to defend my gender.

I told a friend last week that I didn’t want to write this article because I didn’t want to have to talk about the Bible. I didn’t want to have to spend time unraveling and re-parsing the Greek verbs and prepositions. But you have to, he rebutted. That’s the language your audience speaks, he claimed. And that may be so. But, quite honestly, I really don’t care. I know I should do the pastoral thing, meet people where they’re at, yada yada yada. But I’m over it. Sometimes meeting someone where they are feels like nothing more than enabling and validating sin.

There are very few places in the rest of the educated world where I must continue to perform intellectual somersaults and acrobatics to convince you that I’m capable despite this female body I’ve been given. In Western culture, young girls are no longer birthed and bred to be wives and mothers only but instead are encouraged to achieve and excel in any sphere of the world just as their male peers do. With one exception: the Church. It’s as though some kind of twisted transubstantiation happens when a woman crosses the threshold of a church. Successful female CEOs, professors and authors are, upon entrance into the sphere of the Church, often relegated to the position of associate pastor at best, silence at worst. While I gratefully acknowledge the progress that Protestant Christian churches have made in the last 25 years in a move toward egalitarian gender dynamics in the Church, the Church, speaking more broadly, still remains one of the few corners of Western culture where deliberate and institutional oppression of women is still sanctioned, legal and practiced.

Churches, because they are technically private not public institutions, can get away with blatant sexism. A current job posting for the position of senior pastor at an evangelical Church in Vermont reads: “Our Church is seeking a pastor with a true heart for God…The pastor's wife should also be committed to loving people and sharing in the ministry of Christ with her husband.”[1] I face blatant sexism every day as I walk my dog in the form of heckling men and catcalls made from passing cars. I should not face it in the Church, a body of people who are supposed to be marked by the all-inclusive Gospel of Jesus Christ.

There are many things the world can learn from the Church. Gender relations is not one of them. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. The world is moving forward, acknowledging the societal sins of the past and working to make it illegal to continue to perform such sins. Meanwhile, over here in the Church, we’re still talking about whether I, as a female, am allowed to teach a male, stand behind the pulpit, don the cloth or be responsible for the spiritual well-being of a group of people.

I am making no claim at the perfection of society in regards to gender relations. While I applaud laws against sexual harassment in the workplace, the very fact that such laws must exist suggests that perfection within people’s character has not been reached. It is fairly evident that things are not the way they should be, nor will they ever be on their own. We are sinful, broken people. We are hungry for power and looking for ways to grasp it and exert it over others. But at least society is aware of its sins and is implementing change.

The evangelical church, in its relation to society and popular culture, has long since lived and thrived within the dichotomy of secular and holy. As a young kid growing up in the evangelical church, the line was very clear: society is secular, bad, wrong, damaged and the Church is holy. The Church therefore must influence society and never the other way around. The bad news is, Church, it seems the secular world has become far more holy than us when it comes to gender relations.

I will graduate in December with my Master of Arts in Theology. Once I’ve completed seminary, I will have over six years of theological education under my belt. I have years of administrative leadership experience, have been a relatively faithful member of a church community for the last two years and yet, in my post-seminary job search I have discovered that I possess a few very significant details which apparently cancel out my years of theological education, professional experience and beautiful, heart-breakingly creative wit: a vagina, two breasts, a monthly period that means I could one day be a mother, the hormones LH, FSH, progesterone and estrogen and, of course, the various social trappings that make me female, and the fact that sometimes I wear skirts.

In fact, in my post-seminary career search my gender has been a stumbling block nowhere else but in the sphere of the Church. While many still argue the existence/non-existence of the glass ceiling in society I can be certain of this: the glass ceiling is alive and well in the Church. In fact, it looks as though someone recently shined it up, gave it a good gloss, perhaps in an attempt to keep us from noticing that it’s still there.

In our “secular” society, women hold high government office, run corporations, lead field-changing research efforts, publish books, teach students and start small businesses. It is about time the Church heard the good news of the “secular” world and repented, or we might just get left behind.

[1] http://www.Churchjobs.net/jobs/listings/5889.html

Introduction to the Journey

2010-09-28T23:47:26-05:00

Yes, that's the Trolley from Mister Rogers' Neighborhood on the shelf, right next to the Mickey Mouse Transformer.

My name is Mark Baker-Wright. I've been a part of the Fuller family since 1997. I had really only learned about Fuller a few months before, while visiting family in Southern California, and didn't think too much about it at the time. I was actually taking classes at another seminary, living with my parents in Louisville, KY for a short time while I worked out where to go next. I was in the ordination process in the PC(USA), and didn't really think that attending a non-PC(USA) seminary would fit with that calling all that well. Then I stumbled on the results on an internet survey that informed me that more Presbyterian ministers had graduated from Fuller than from any other non-PC(USA) seminary. (In fact, due to the small size of many PC(USA) seminaries, I now suspect that Fuller beats quite of few of the "official" seminaries as well!)

Remembering that my grandparents were talking about Fuller when I was visiting them a month or two before, I called them up. My grandmother went to talk with the pastor of their church--a Fuller graduate--the next day. While she spoke with him, he called up Fuller's Admissions department, and had them forward late application materials to me while she was there in the room with him. Less than three weeks later, I packed my car and drove from Kentucky to California, arriving in Pasadena on the Saturday before the start of the Fall Quarter.

At this point, I had no Financial Aid, no place in town to live (my grandparents lived a good two-hour drive away), and hadn't even been formally accepted yet. This was a leap of faith. I drove up from my grandparents' place early Monday morning, reported to the Academic Advising Office, and worked out my course schedule. Later that day, I got a call from a person who needed a roommate in town, and I found my lodgings for that first year. Formal acceptance and Financial Aid took a little bit longer to work out, but I suppose that it goes without saying at this point that my needs were met.

A few years later, I had completed all of my required academic classes, but still needed to complete one more internship to graduate. I had the opportunity to take a drama internship back in Louisville, but I couldn't shake the conviction that I still needed to be here in Southern California for a bit longer. I was working only 10-hours a week as a reading tutor at the time, and even that meager job depended on my status as a student. If I was going to make staying in Southern California work, I needed to find a full-time job. Finding an opening for a Faculty Assistant in the School of Theology, I applied for the position. Another leap of faith.

The whole concept of a "calling" is one deeply embedded in the Christian tradition. Many people equate "calling" in terms of "vocation," or perhaps "God's plan for my life." An "end point." Other people prefer to think of "calling" in terms of a journey. A story. I don't know what my "end point" will be. I entered Fuller thinking that I was going to be a pastor. Maybe I will, someday, but that's not what God's had in store for me so far. I'm not complaining. I've been in a good place for over a decade now, and have had the opportunity to meet and work with some amazing people.

And how many people get to keep toys in their office at work?

Starting the Year Off Right

2010-10-05T13:58:26-05:00

Before the Festival of Beginnings. Before Fall classes start. Before new students have started to arrive on campus, Fuller kicks off the new academic year with the annual Faculty/Staff Welcome.

The event has two major components. The first is a breakfast, usually held in the breezeway of the School of Psychology building (officially called the C. Davis and Annette Weyerhaeuser building, but pretty much no one actually uses that name much). The Deans, Vice Presidents and other administrators traditionally act as servers, providing coffee and orange juice for staff while they eat, and President Mouw and his wife, Phyllis, go from table to table to personally welcome the people who work behind the scenes to make sure that Fuller does the work it is called to do.

As people eat and enjoy the fellowship of fellow staff members from all over campus, there is traditionally some kind of game or activity present to get people thinking about some aspect of Fuller that the administrators want to highlight that year. A few years ago, this involved trading cards featuring people who have figured prominently in Fuller’s history. This year, we were given small potted plants, intended to tie in with the theme chosen for the year: “Joyful, Patient, Faithful.” This is (as those who attended the Festival of Beginnings during Week 1 may remember) a reference to Romans 12:12. We were then encouraged to go to one of several tables set up in the breezeway to decorate our paper pot however we saw fit. I made mine look somewhat like a Jack-o-Lantern, considering that Fall was just about to begin.

After breakfast, everyone goes inside Travis Auditorium to enjoy the second major component of the annual welcome event: corporate worship. Again, the theme chosen for the year is highlighted, as everyone sings praise songs and hymns and President Mouw gives a brief welcome sermon discussing ways in which we find joy in the hope of God, patience in times of hardship, and show our faithfulness as a praying community. One would hope that it would go without saying that worship is at the center of everything we do at Fuller, but I find that this is only true if we are intentional about making it so. The Faculty/Staff Welcome event is just one of those intentional times. If it’s not too much of a conflict of interests for me to say so (my wife is Director of Chapel, after all), I’d suggest visiting the Fuller Chapel page on Facebook to find others.

A Visit to Taylor Hall

2010-10-14T12:41:26-05:00

Fuller Theological Seminary is privileged to possess several historical buildings on the south side of its Pasadena campus, dating back more than 100 years to the early days of Pasadena. Taylor Hall, built in 1904, is just one of these houses which Fuller has repurposed for academic use.

The building is named for Herbert J. Taylor, one of the earliest Fuller trustees and a charter member of the National Association of Evangelicals. Like many of Fuller's historical buildings, it was moved from its original location (on Ford Place) some time ago.

Today, Taylor Hall is where the School of Theology's PhD programs are administered, through something we call CATS, the "Center for Advanced Theological Studies" (a former director of CATS insisted that it would never become the "Department of Graduate Studies"--check the acronym!--so long as he had anything to say about it!). PhD students spend quite a bit of time here, not just working with the CATS staff, but also for seminars (in Taylor's sole classroom, on the first floor), to take their comprehensive exams, and to enjoy the lounge reserved for their use. In addition, several School of Theology professors also have offices in this building on the second and third floors.

One of the lesser-known truths of this building is that it used to serve as a dormitory for Fuller students many years ago. In fact, my understanding is that a couple of current professors here used to live here back when they were students! I don't know if those pennies were stuck in the staircase pedestals back then, or if that's a more recent phenomenon, but it definitely adds to the unique character of the building.

Community for Dummies

2010-10-20T18:24:12-05:00

Back when I was a student (starting in the late 1990's), yellow "Dummies" books were all the rage. I had in mind to write a parody of such a book for Fuller way back then. One of the hot topics on campus then was "community." So, why not do a "Community for Dummies"?

The demands of being a student dictated that I didn't get too very far in the project, but I imagine that this is one of those concerns that persistently comes up for students even today, so here's a sampling:

Lesson 1: Get Out of the House!

This may seem an obvious point to many, but the fact is that it is impossible to have community when there are no other people present. Just sitting at home by yourself is a sure-fire way NOT to build community. While it is true that the internet is a valuable tool that can be used to communicate with people while sitting at your computer in your underwear, it is not intended to be a substitute for actually going outside and meeting people face-to-face (but please put some clothes on first!).

Lesson 2: Say "Hi!" OK. So you've made the step of placing yourself in an environment where there are people around. Now, initiate contact! Walk up to someone and introduce yourself. Please remember that this is NOT an internet chat room anymore! Telling someone you meet face-to-face "Hi! I'm 'Spock4Prez@geek.com'" will not leave a favorable impression on the person you wish to build community with. Try using your real name. Trust us, it works!

Lesson 3: The Art of Conversation at Fuller

DOs	DON'Ts
What classes are you taking?	I worship Satan.
How did you come to Fuller?	Ministry is for losers.
What is your call?	I think God is a figment of your imagination.

However, it should be noted that even these "DON'Ts" can have positive community building results, because people will be so concerned for your spiritual welfare that they will constantly pray for you and spend time with you to help you "see the light." The important thing is that you actually do have conversations.

Perhaps it's just as well that I never got around to writing any more....

We Are Diminished

2010-10-25T21:39:23-05:00

Earlier today, the Fuller community was shocked by the passing of Praise Goh, a recent graduate who had started to work for our Admissions department just a few months ago. The passing was unexpected, to say the least, and details of exactly what happened are still coming in.

I didn't know Praise well, although her name stood out among the many papers that collected in my office awaiting student pick-up. I can't begin to offer proper sympathy to her friends and family, but feel that I need to share what came to my mind as I reflected on the issue: a story from a 1991 Star Trek comic.

The story, entitled "Once a Hero," was the final story written by author Peter David as he finished his second (and, to the best of my knowledge, last) run as the comic's regular author. It told of Captain Kirk's efforts to write a eulogy for Ensign Thomas Lee, a recent recruit aboard the Enterprise who had died while saving the captain's life from an alien attack.

Struggling to come up with words to honor a person he never had the chance to know, Kirk asks the other members of the crew for advice. Unfortunately, it turns out that none of them had the chance to get to know Ensign Lee, either. The realization of this lack of connection concerns Kirk, as demonstrated in this exchange with Dr. McCoy:

McCoy: Eulogies are written for the living, Jim. Not the dead. The dead couldn't care less.
Kirk: That's very considerate, Doctor. The problem is.... It doesn't matter if he couldn't care less. I should care more. I'm letting years of command numb me to individuals. Lives and deaths are blurring together. My people are becoming cyphers to me. That shouldn't be.

Thomas Lee deserves more than empty words delivered by a captain who didn't really know him.

Eventually, Kirk delivers the eulogy, citing the standard "Starfleet approved eulogy," and then continues:

I have more facts at my fingertips. But I don't know his favorite color. I don't know his tastes in music, or if he was ever in love, or how he took his coffee, or if he drank coffee....
...There was absolutely nothing special about him. And it was the realization that I perceived him as not being special, that indicated there was something wrong with me....

...How many have we lost? How many have we cared about? While we are busy exploring the unknown wonders of space, we must not lose touch with exploring the wonders of each other.

We must always make time for one another, because we don't know how long we'll all be around. I will always regret having taken for granted someone who sacrificed himself without a second though. Because the death of even one of us, diminishes us all.

Praise Goh, I'm sorry that I never got to know you. I pray that God will be with your family and friends.

I Am the Very Model of a Fuller Individual

2010-11-04T11:16:43-05:00

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm in need of a bit of levity right now. In that vein, I'd like to share a parody I wrote many years ago (image of myself with Weird Al Yankovic, undisputed king of parodies, is in no way meant to imply endorsement). If the powers-that-be want to bring back the old "Fuller Follies" concept, I think this would fit in nicely.

(to the tune of "Modern Major General", with apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan)
By Mark Baker-Wright

I am the very model of a Fuller individual.
I'm taking classes practical, and biblical and spiritual.
I'm learning all about the facts of how to exegete a verse.
But I must say that all this makes my headaches keep on getting worse!

If I am asked to say who wrote the Institutes or Table Talk,
I probably will make you think that I am worse than Mr. Spock.
Why I could rattle on and on about the most pedantic things. (pause)
Like how the hermeneutic exegetical assignment rings.

Like how the hermeneutic exegetical assignment rings.
Like how the hermeneutic exegetical assignment rings.
Like how the hermeneutic exegetical assignment-ignment rings!

My social life is dominated by lots of religious talk
About how Jesus is the Christ and Simon Peter is the Rock.
In short in matters practical and biblical and spiritual
I am the very model of a Fuller individual.

If my professor tells our class that everyone must read a book.
I'll guarantee that very few will not give me a dirty look.
When I inform them that the book was sold out several months ago.
Because the bookstore thought that only a few students would enroll.

When translating a passage of First Peter or Leviticus,
The Hebrew or the Greek editions tell me what to do with this.
Because I know the meaning of the nominative article, (pause)
which tells me that the passage I'm translating from is marginal.

which tells me that the passage I'm translating from is marginal.
which tells me that the passage I'm translating from is marginal.
which tells me that the passage I'm translating from is margin-arginal.

If you should have a question about Hebrew terminology
I quickly will be able to show you the truth from BDB
In short in matters practical and biblical and spiritual
I am the very model of a Fuller individual.

If you want me to tell you why the crucifixion had to be
I'll give a dissertation on atonement substitution-ry.
I'll talk about the Trinity, how our God can be Three-in-One
And you may wonder what a seminary student does for fun.

I've been at Fuller several years, and still I haven't run away.
And now I'm writing silly songs about the debts I have to pay
For I'll be working overtime to pay off all my Stafford Loans. (pause)
While cutting some expenses by eliminating my cell phones!

While cutting some expenses by eliminating my cell phones!
While cutting some expenses by eliminating my cell phones!
While cutting some expenses by eliminating my cell my cell phones!

I have no money because pastors are to live in poverty
But I don't care, my flesh I'll starve, for my soul is in liberty
In short in matters practical and biblical and spiritual
I am the very model of a Fuller individual.

Not Ashamed, But Not Stupid

2010-11-12T11:01:35-06:00

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile." (Romans 1:16 - New NIV)
"I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves." (Matthew 10:16 - New NIV)

I received a note from a friend some time ago. She is serving as a missionary in another country (for the sake of the friend's safety, both her name and the name of the country will not be used here), and was giving me an update on her family's recent move to another city.

One thing that I need to make clear about this friend: she is no way bashful about proclaiming her allegiance to Christ, nor about talking about the amazing things that God has done in her life. Even so, the thing I want to talk about here is the fact that every mention of a religious name in her letter is carefully edited, so that they come through as "G*d" and "L*rd." My friend does not do this because of a personal conviction that God's name is so holy as to avoid its use (as can be seen in some traditions). She does this because the area in which she and her family serves is not entirely secure. She knows that e-mail communications might be intercepted, and they occasionally screen for explicitly Christian names. The edited forms are used as a means of protection. But even beyond that, they are in some way a condition of her continuing to serve in this region. If she and her family were kicked out of the country (or worse), how would they be able to continue to bring the word of God to people in that region?

I'm reminded of a bit of a controversy at Fuller a few years ago when one of our three schools, then called the "School of World Mission," was renamed the "School of Intercultural Studies." Naturally, many of our donors and constituents assumed that this change was being made because of some "liberal" desire to move away from the word "mission." But that really wasn't the case at all. It was increasingly evident to us that the word "mission" was actively inhibiting our students' ability to actually do mission in certain foreign countries, often at the cost of the students own safety (not to mention that of their families!). Fuller realized that if they were to continue to bring God's word to these areas, they would have to be wiser about what words they used. A student with a "School of World Mission" diploma might not even be allowed into a country, whereas the same student whose diploma said "School of Intercultural Studies" would be perfectly welcome. By making this simple name change, more students would be enabled to spread God's word than was previously possible.

There's a sense out there in some circles that the word "compromise" is something to be avoided at all costs. I disagree. Not all compromise is good or desirable, but in many cases, it is simply necessary to make sure that good things get done. One's safety should perhaps not be the primary concern in matters of missiological importance. I am certainly glad that there are such people like my friend who are brave enough to go into these sometimes dangerous areas. But I would argue that they will do more good by continuing to live unharmed in these regions than they would as martyrs, and if a simple word change here or there is all that it takes for this to happen, and if the essential message itself is not damaged, I'm very glad that they are willing to make those changes.

Thanksgivings and Family Feuds

2010-11-19T11:14:32-06:00

Since moving to Southern California in 1997, I'd guess that I've spent just a little less than half of my Thanksgivings in Placerville, a town about 30 miles east of Sacramento best known for the Gold Rush era, which is where my parents grew up. Most of my extended family (from both sides) still lives in that area, and so it's always a good way to see a lot of people in the comparatively short time frame a Thanksgiving vacation provides.

My mom's side of the family loves playing games, and we have a particular affection for game shows (Grandma was a five-time undefeated champion on a 1975 game show called Split Second and won a car--despite the fact that she's never learned to drive!). Over the years, I've collected a lot of game show home games, including multiple versions of Family Feud alone. Family Feud is ideally suited for these situations, and we almost always have a good time playing.

Of course, for many families, Thanksgiving is an occasion for an entirely different kind of "family feud"--one that's a lot less fun. I'm sorry to say that my family is not an exception to this rule. In fact, it seems to me that my being at Fuller may well have increased some of the tensions that exist in certain parts of my family, or at least I'm probably more aware of them due to my now-educated religious background.

I suspect that this is true for many others at Fuller, as well. I don't want to diminish the tensions that might exist between Fuller students and family members who don't accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior. I'm sure the pain of these differences is deeply felt. However, my experience has given me surprisingly little of that for me to talk about here. The struggles I have tend to be those of dealing with other Christians. One thing that Fuller prides itself on is its ecumenical community. Christians of many different traditions learn and worship here. But if lively debates between Calvinists and Anabaptists in class are one thing, such debates between family members of differing Christian opinions are wholly another!

It is often the case that members of my family might say "Well, at least we're all Christians." And that's at least nominally true. But when you've got Presbyterians, Southern Baptists, Mormons, Roman Catholics, and megachurch non-denominationalists (I'm sure I've missed one or two besides, and I haven't even started talking about differences of opinion that still exist between people who share denominational backgrounds!) all sitting around a table and talking about issues that are deeply important to them (and, as is good and proper, that means issues of religious significance) around a table, it often doesn't take long before peaceful community is threatened. And we all know how family members--people who've known us our whole lives--often know just what buttons to press to get a reaction out of us!

If you're looking to be with family this Thanksgiving season, I hope that it is an enjoyable time for all concerned. But in case that isn't the situation for you, I pray that you will be assured that God is with you in the midst of those "feudin'" times, and is bigger than all of those differences put together. I also pray that those times may be for you a kind of "refiner's fire" that helps you to better serve God through the diverse world in which God has placed us, and that you truly do find things to be thankful for through it all.

Thankful for Black Friday

2010-11-26T10:11:52-06:00

There is one thing that you absolutely must understand about me if this post is to have any meaning at all: I am an introvert. Perhaps I might even be correctly characterized as “shy,” although that’s not the same thing. I really hate crowds, and don’t do particularly well at large parties. Folks who only know me through such public settings may well assume that I’m not very friendly, because I’m much more likely to just sit by myself than I am to approach a group to join a conversation. I hope that I can say with integrity that people who know me well would agree with my assertion that can be very friendly in when the setting is just a few people, but I’m sure that’s not the impression I leave people with when they first become aware of me.

Given my antipathy for crowds, it’s probably no great surprise that I’m not the type of person who enjoys shopping on “Black Friday” (traditionally considered the busiest shopping day of the year). Indeed, the holiday season as a whole can be a bit much. If you’re an extrovert, and therefore possibly have trouble understanding this, may I recommend this article?

It therefore will probably come as a surprise to people that I remember fondly a particular Black Friday experience, one in which I worked in, of all places, a toy store! (It’s no surprise at all to those who know me that I would work at such a place. The surprise is that I wouldn’t hate being there on Black Friday!) This was the Fall of 1996, a year before I came to Fuller, and I was living in a little out-of-the-way town in South Carolina attending another seminary (I came to understand that, outside of maybe one or two cities, all towns in South Carolina are “out-of-the-way.” No offense intended to those of you who call South Carolina “home.”).

That season was a particularly difficult time for me. A fairly serious relationship had just ended (the writing having been on the wall for some time already), I wasn’t doing especially well in my classes, and even my roommate had announced that he would be leaving at the end of the semester. Needless to say, I was rather depressed, and if I had my own way, I’d probably have just sat in my own room with the doors locked all the time.

Staying at home all day wasn’t an option, as my finances weren’t in very good shape, either. I was able to find a job, paying just barely over what was then the minimum wage. Even so, I had to drive for nearly an hour to reach the mall where the KB Toy Store in which I would be working was located. Of course, part of the reason the store was hiring at that time was because the Christmas shopping season was approaching, and so even though my family drove down to my home in South Carolina to spend Thanksgiving with me, there was absolutely no way around the fact that I would have to leave them alone on Friday so that I could go to work.

I remember arriving at the store about noontime to start my shift. KB had already been open for a few hours at that point, and there were people swarming all over the place. Toys were in disarray off the shelves and on the floor. I immediately started to work at picking up toys and putting them in their proper places on the shelves and pegs, but was soon told that they needed me to work the cash register that day. Working the cash register was actually something of a treat for me, as I usually worked in the storeroom in back. Although I do enjoy time by myself, spending all those hours back there with nobody around was often quite boring. I happily took a position behind the register and started helping people with their purchases.

In retrospect, I expect that we had it pretty easy that day. I don’t recall any angry customers that needed placating. Just lots and lots of people buying toys for the families and friends. Some of them would engage us in light conversation, but many more just made their purchases and went on their way. It wasn’t especially mind-tasking work, but it was just what I needed at that point in time: something that I could do—and do well—for other people that would keep my mind off my own problems. Or, perhaps it might be better to say that it gave me something to do rather than just sit and complain. I’m not talking about problem avoidance, so much as the very real need we have as human beings to get outside of ourselves and interact with other people. This is as true for introverts as it is for anyone. Our needed balance of “alone time” vs. “social time” is simply different.

My co-workers were an important part of this process, as well. They were a very friendly group of people, and we got to know and trust each other during the brief time I was there. I was actually offered the opportunity to stay on at KB after the Christmas season, but since I had already chosen to leave that seminary and return to Louisville (where my family still lives. This was still several months before my decision to come to Fuller), it was a moot point.

I was somewhat surprised to realize some time back that I had only lived in South Carolina for a total of just over three months. There is much about that time that I am pretty happy to leave behind me, but I do remember that job at KB Toys, and the people who I worked with, and am grateful to have had that experience. When I go shopping, I often still stop to clean up shelves and put things where they belong. It’s a small thing, but I know from experience that if I don’t do it, some staff worker will have that much more they have to do later.

As you go shopping this Christmas season, I’d invite you to consider the staff workers at the various stores you visit. These are jobs that don’t pay very much money, and often the people who work in them don’t get very much respect. But God used such work, and such people, to help me start to refocus on the outside world again a number of years ago, and I hope that I never forget that.

Finals Week Considerations

2010-12-03T10:46:11-06:00

It's the end of Week 10, which for many students means scrambling to study for exams and/or complete final assignments. For nearly a decade, I was one of the people who would see what this did to students first-hand, as students would come to my old office to turn in assignments to be given to professors. Unfortunately, the old system was often more than a little confusing, with multiple locations scattered across campus that a student might have to go to get their paper turned in to the proper location. As you can imagine, having to turn an already-frantic student away at 4:55 pm and tell them that they have to go to the other side of campus is no fun for anyone.

Effective this quarter, this process has been largely streamlined. If you are on the Pasadena Campus, and in either the School of Theology or the School of Intercultural Studies, the odds are that you will turning in your assignments to the Academic Advising Office on the first floor of 250 North Madison. Of course, if you're turning in your paper by e-mail or postal mail, or have turned it in to the professor directly, this doesn't apply to you. Also, School of Psychology students must still go elsewhere. But, even so, this is far simpler than things used to be, where the first question we would often have to ask is "what professor taught the class?" and tell the student where they would have to go based on that information.

Taking on this task is an added burden to an already busy Advising Office, so I'd like to take this opportunity to mention a few things that I have found helpful when I used to accept papers. It is my hope that this will make things easier on everybody, but I have to say all this with the disclaimer that, because I do not work for the Advising Office, and am therefore not one of the people taking papers anymore, this is at best unofficial advice.

Please make sure that the following information is clearly marked on any assignments you turn in:

Your name (you want to get credit, right?)
Your professor's name (the person you give the paper to needs to know who to send it to)
The course number and name of the class (some professors teach more than one class in a given quarter)

It is perfectly appropriate to include a self-addressed stamped envelope so that papers can be returned to you. If you do so, please make sure that proper postage is on the envelope. You'd be surprised at how many envelopes I used to get like this one. A single stamp will never work on this kind of an envelope! Not only would the assignment itself almost certainly weigh more than an ounce, but the Post Office charges more for this size of envelope than they do for the small white envelopes in which a card or letter might be sent. If you don't have a postal scale and/or feel like bothering with the USPS web site to determine postage on your own, you can take your assignment and envelope to the mail room on the first floor of Payton Hall and ask them to weigh it for you before you take it to the Advising Office.
The deadline for all assignments is 5:00 pm on Friday of Finals Week (12/10 for the Fall 2010 Quarter), unless an earlier time is specified by your professor. The doors to the 250 N. Madison building automatically lock at 5:00 pm, so make sure to give yourself plenty of time to get there. Account for possible printer errors and such beforehand. Murphy's Law very much applies here!
If your professor has given you permission to turn in an assignment after 5:00 pm on Friday of Finals Week, you still need to have the professor sign an Incomplete Form (available from the Advising Office) and have it turned in to the Registrar before 5:00 pm on Friday of Finals Week. This will ensure that you don't get a shock when you see a low grade a few weeks later. Even if you are able to work things out with your professor afterward, this is still one of those times when an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I hope that this is helpful. Finals Weeks is always a stressful time, and I'm sure everyone is looking forward to getting assignments over with so you can get to the more important stuff of life, like visiting with family for the holidays. Best wishes!

Marriage, Education, and the Economy

2010-12-13T16:42:11-06:00

After hearing a news report on NPR early last week, I started writing what would ultimately become this article. A few days later, I found a different, but topically-related, post on Scot McKnight's blog, which helped me to refocus my thoughts into something I was finally able to post.

The NPR report discussed the reality that more couples are choosing to have children without getting married. This in itself didn't surprise me too much, although I was struck by the fact that this issue was discussed from an economic angle rather than the usual religious angle that I often hear when this topic comes up. Specifically, it suggested a link between education and deciding not to marry despite having children. The report seems to infer that economic realities (can a parent get a job that pays enough to afford marriage and/or divorce should things go wrong?) are the real issue. Unfortunately, the NPR report makes this inference based more on anecdotal evidence than on anything actually supplied by the data, which was mostly about the education, not the economics.

McKnight's entry also discusses the decline of marriage in connection with educational factors. He summarizes the report he links to as suggesting the following:

Marriage is an emerging dividing line between America’s moderately educated middle and those with college degrees.
Marital quality is declining for the moderately educated middle but not for their highly educated peers.
Divorce rates are up for moderately educated Americans, relative to those who are highly educated.
The moderately educated middle is dramatically more likely than highly educated Americans to have children outside of marriage.
The children of highly educated parents are now more likely than in the recent past to be living with their mother and father, while children with moderately educated parents are far less likely to be living with their mother and father.

Unlike the NPR report, McKnight makes no attempt to argue from education to economics, but he seems to be working from the same root data, which comes from "The National Marriage Project" via the University of Virginian. Basically, the line seems to be between those who obtain a four-year college degree and those who only get a high school diploma.

I am actually glad to see these kinds of discussions of marriage that argue on the basis of secular data rather than any attempt at religious argument or moralizing. It's not that I don't think that marriage is a sacred institution. I do very much. But if we as Christians are going to decry the erosion of marriage in our society, yet we only discuss marriage's importance for religious reasons, we have no reason to expect that non-religious people should listen to our arguments. Or, to perhaps turn that around just a bit, if we only criticize people who choose to have children without getting married on religious grounds ("they're disobeying God," etc), why should they care that we disapprove?

Although I would rather see a new study more explicitly linked to economics before making this case too strongly, I do think the argument about economic status could be important. As one person in the NPR report said: "Time was, a man could go from high school to a well-paying, secure factory job. No more." While one of the mothers depicted in the article does comment on the old "marriage as a piece of paper" chestnut, but it was surprisingly NOT to just to argue that marriage is meaningless, but that it's something of comparatively low (but not non-existent, as I'll get to in a moment) meaning that costs a lot of money! Unfortunately, that cost (as cited by the person interviewed) was particularly seen on the divorce end. It's "a piece of paper that costs a lot of money to change." Even with a child already present, the view does indeed seem to be one that asks "what if I want out?" rather than one expecting marriage to be permanent.

And the NPR article suggests that this attitude seems to ensure that relationships between couples with children, yet who remain unmarried, are not permanent. These couples are twice as likely as married couples to split up before the children are five years old.

The data cited by McKnight brings up some interesting questions. As he says "What... should/could be done?" If the decision to enter into marriage is linked to the amount of education one receives, and if there is any desire to see more couples with children actually make the commitment to marriage, then it stands to reason that we want to encourage people to get more education. But encouraging people to get education, itself, has economic implications. College is expensive! I'm not necessarily trying to argue that college should be free, or where any more money to make education less expensive should come from, but this is clearly something that Christians who care about making sure that children grow up in homes with both parents should be looking into.

Perhaps the most intriguing thing about the NPR report, however, were the ways in which it was demonstrated that marriage (or, at least, having a wedding) continues to be held in high esteem even among these obviously secular couples. For example, one person suggested that she did want to get married (and, in this instance, was actually engaged when she got pregnant), but apparently didn't consider getting the marriage license at the courthouse as an option. Although it is not stated explicitly, it is implied that she wanted the trappings of a full ceremony, and just getting the license wasn't enough.

If even non-religious people see marriage as having importance, I think we do have hope of being able to work out some kind of solution. The question becomes, what will actually work?

Hungry? Go to Los Güeros in Monrovia (and Save Some Money at the Same Time)!

2011-01-06T12:18:21-06:00

My wife and I have been married for about 7 and a half years, now, and if we can claim any single restaurant as "our place," this is it. Like a number of restaurants we discovered when we were dating, we first went to Los Güeros having found a coupon for them in the Entertainment book, but we really got attached to Los Güeros during our premarital counseling in Arcadia, after which we would go just a little further down the street to enjoy dinner at Los Güeros each week. A year or so later, when we moved to Monrovia, we were thrilled to discover that our new apartment was just around the corner from our favorite restaurant!

It's true enough that Mexican food places are fairly plentiful in Southern California, of varying degrees of quality. Besides the fact that Los Güeros simply provides "good food," one thing that makes them really stand out is the guacamole cart. The cart will come right up to your table, and you can tell the server exactly what ingredients you want to include in your guacamole (we add everything except the peppers, since my wife doesn't have a very high tolerance for spicy foods), and you can watch the guacamole prepared right there in front of you. Guacamole doesn't come any fresher than that!

The prices are quite reasonable, but a little bit of preparation can save you money in a number of ways that are generally more than worth the effort. I've already mentioned the one you can get from the Entertainment book, but similar "free entree" coupons are easily found in local publications, and the servers will occasionally provide some at the restaurant itself as an incentive to return (not that you're likely to need much arm-twisting!). If you're going to bring a group, I recommend the coupons you can get at Restaurant.com, but the dinner coupon requires a minimum purchase of $40, so it's not really viable if there are only two of you (but if you reach that minimum, it's totally worth the effort. Even more so if you use one of the 70-80% off codes you can find via Big Crumbs, which will also reimburse your PayPal account a percentage of any purchases made through their links. You can often get more than $20 off of your meal for just a couple bucks!).

If Mexican food isn't quite your thing, there are lots of other restaurants you can get discounts for with those links, as well. And with the cost of living in Southern California, every little thing can help!

A Classic Routine with a Seminarian Twist

2011-01-14T10:48:35-06:00

OK. Full disclosure first. I didn't write this. My "writing energy" has been admittedly low this past week. It's for a good reason. My wife was ordained to the Episcopal priesthood this past Saturday. You can read about that over at my own blog. But in the week that's followed, that's still the only writing I've found energy to do.

So, I'm pulling out something I found a number of years ago, back when I was taking Hebrew for my MDiv, and I ran into this take on the classic Abbott and Costello "Who's on First?" routine. Usually, I don't post works that aren't mine without having received explicit permission from the author. In this case, I've seen the work in enough other places that I'm assuming that it was the author's intention that the work be shared freely. I'm happy to remove the post if it is determined otherwise.

ABBOTT & COSTELLO LEARN HEBREW
attributed to Rabbi Jack Moline (some editing has been done on the version I found)

ABBOTT: I see you're here for your Hebrew lesson.

COSTELLO: I'm ready to learn.

A: Now, the first thing you must understand is that Hebrew and English have many words which sound alike, but they don't mean the same thing.

C: Sure, I understand.

A: Now, don't be too quick to say that.

C: How stupid do you think I am? Don't answer that. It's simple. Some words in Hebrew sound like words in English, but they don't mean the same.

A: Precisely.

C: We have that word in English, too. What does it mean in Hebrew?

A: No, no. Precisely is an English word.

C: I didn't come here to learn English, I came to learn Hebrew. So make with the Hebrew.

A: Fine. Let's start with mee.

C: You.

A: No, mee.

C: Fine, we'll start with you.

A: No, we'll start with mee.

C: Okay, have it your way.

A: Now, mee is who.

C: You is Abbott.

A: No, no, no. Mee is who.

C: You is Abbott.

A: You don't understand.

C: I don't understand? Did you just say me is who?

A: Yes I did. Mee is who.

C: You is Abbott.

A: No, You misunderstand what I am saying. Tell me about mee.

C: Well, you're a nice enough guy.

A: No, no. Tell me about mee!

C: Who?

A: Precisely.

C: Precisely what?

A: Precisely who.

C: It's precisely whom!

A: No, mee is who.

C: Don't start that again! Go on to something else.

A: All right. Hu is he.

C: Who is he?

A: Yes.

C: I don't know. Who is he?

A: Sure you do. You just said it.

C: I just said what?

A: Hu is he.

C: Who is he?

A: Precisely.

C: Again with the precisely! Precisely who?

A: No, precisely he.

C: Precisely he? Who is he?

A: Precisely!

C: And what about me?

A: Who.

C: me, me, me!

A: Who, Who, Who!

C: What are you, an owl? Me! Who is me?

A: No, hu is he!

C: I don't know… maybe he is me!

A: No, hee is she!

(STARE AT ABBOTT) C: Do his parents know about this?

A: About what?

C: About her!

A: What about her?

C: That she is he!

A: No, you've got it wrong! Hee is she!

C: Then who is he?

A: Precisely!

C: Who?

A: He!

C: Me?

A: Who!

C: He?

A: She!

C: Who is she?

A: No, hu is he.

C: I don't care who is he, I want to know who is she?

A: No, that's not right.

C: How can it not be right? I said it. I was standing here when I said it, and I know me.

A: Who.

C: Who?

A: Precisely!

C: Me! Me is that he you are talking about! He is me!

A: No, hee is she!

C: Wait a Minute, wait a minute! I'm trying to learn a little Hebrew, and now I can't even speak English. Let me review.

A: Go ahead.

C: Now first you want to know me is who.

A: Correct.

C: And then you say who is he.

A: Absolutely.

C: And then you tell me he is she.

A & C: Precisely!

C: Now look at this logically. If me is who. And who is he. And he is she. Don't it stand to reason that me is she?

A: Who!

C: She!

A: That is hee!

C: Who is he?

A & C: Precisely!

C: I have just about had it. You have me confused and I want to go home. You know what I want? Ma!

A: What.

C: I said Ma.

A: What.

C: What are you, deaf? I want Ma!

A: What!

C: Not what, who!

A: He!

C: Not he! Ma is not he!

A: Of course not! Hu is he!

C: I don't know! I don't know. I don't care. I don't care who is he, he is she, me is who, ma is what. I just want to go home now and play with my dog.

A: Fish.

C: Fish?

A: Dag is fish.

C: That's all, I'm outta here!

END

The Necessity of Chapel

2011-01-21T16:23:07-06:00

In a Fall Quarter post by Matthew Borba, students were encouraged to find a local church they can go to while students at Fuller. As he said, "As a seminary student you need a church. You need a place that is a place of worship primarily and study only secondarily."

I wholeheartedly agree with Matthew. I think this is true both for students individually, as well as for the seminary as a whole. This is why All-Seminary Chapel exists. It is not intended to supplant the need for a local church, and indeed could never do so. However, it is also important that the Fuller community gathers together regularly for a time "of worship primarily and study only secondarily."

I'm sure that some would argue--correctly!--that acts of academic study can, in and of themselves, be acts of worship. But let's not kid ourselves. Without the academic goals that each class intends to meet, there is no seminary. We may well be a place of worship, but that's not what makes us a seminary. It is the primary purpose of academic study that makes us a seminary. And, indeed, whether we like to admit it or not, a seminary can exist without being focused on the worship of God (may it never be so at Fuller!). Wikipedia notes that "in some countries, the term seminary is also used for secular schools of higher education that train teachers."

So we need to be intentional about having a time to just worship together. To remember that God deserves it. To praise God for what God has done for us. And, perhaps, to ask for God's continued guidance as we attempt to do the work God has called us to.

For those of us on the Pasadena campus, that time is every Wednesday during the academic quarter, from 10:00-10:50 am. The place may vary from week to week. Often, it's in Travis Auditorium, but sometimes it's in Payton 101, or out in Mall, or even at one of the nearby churches. Be sure to look for the signs regularly posted on campus, or the ad placed in the SEMI every week, or via Facebook and Twitter ("fullerchapel" for both). The Chapel department wants you to be able to find them!

Hope to see you in All-Seminary Chapel on Wednesday!

Challenging Obvious Assumptions

2011-01-28T10:57:34-06:00

It is well-known that Fuller Theological Seminary was founded by radio evangelist Charles E. Fuller. Many people therefore rightly assume that the seminary was named for him. But this is not so.

I didn't learn that I had been making this error myself until I had already been associated with the seminary for a number of years, but the evidence is right there, displayed for anyone to see, just outside of Payton 101 in the main foyer of Payton Hall. Fuller Theological Seminary is, in fact, named for Henry Fuller, Charles' father.

I expect that things like this are happening all the time. We make assumptions about the world around us. Indeed, it would be impossible for us to do otherwise. It is a coping mechanism that allows us to function in the world with the information available to each of us at any given time. But how often is evidence that would show us that we have been mistaken literally right around the corner, or perhaps staring us right in the face, and we simply don't notice it?

After all, it's not like the assumption that Fuller is named after Charles is some unfounded leap of logic. He is the seminary's founder. He is the one who had the world famous radio ministry, and who's name is still remembered by evangelicals everywhere. I have no doubt that had the seminary been named, say, "Payton Theological Seminary" (after Charles Fuller's wife's father), it would not have gained the same amount of early notoriety that helped ensure its success. The fact that the seminary isn't named after Charles is, perhaps, merely a technicality. But even so, it's simply the truth.

The human tendency to make reasonable, if false, assumptions is everywhere, from facets of our everyday relationships, to our political and religious assumptions. It is easily possible to make assumptions based on facts that, ultimately, need re-evaluation in light of further discoveries. Indeed, this is part of what higher education, and certainly a seminary education, is all about. We therefore need retain a healthy humility about what we "know" to be true, and remain teachable. That's not to say that would should act like we therefore don't know anything at all. We know enough to do what God needs us to do. But we seek to know more.

The revelation of the seminary's true namesake has made me a bit curious to learn more about Henry, and so I've started to do a bit of research on the man. I've learned, for example, that he was not only a devout Christian (no doubt a strong influence on the young Charles), but that he traveled around the world, and wrote a book about those experiences which is available for free download, being in the Public Domain. Perhaps I'll post a follow-up about the life and times of Henry Fuller at some later date. I'm still seeking to know more.

Ever Wonder About The Cat in the Hat?

2011-03-30T11:00:05-05:00

Every institution has its own quirks and oddities. Things that make it unique. One that currently relates to Fuller is the image of the Cat in the Hat that appears just outside the door to the Brehm Center (Grosse Hall). I'm sure that many people who have noticed this image have wondered how it got there. Allow me to fill in some of the details.

Fuller's annual Spring Festival of the Arts (sometimes referred to as "the Arts Festival" or just "Arts Fest") has been a tradition for many years now. The number and style of events changes somewhat every year, but for a long time, one of the highlights of the Arts Festival was the annual "Chalk Walk" on the Saturday of that week. This was an event that brought in families from both Fuller and the surrounding community. Sometimes there would be other events going on at the same time: Performances, face painting, pottery lessons, and so on. But the main event was the ability to access chalk and similar art supplies (often provided by the seminary) and draw on the sidewalks in and around the Arol Burns Mall.

Although the drawings were always allowed to remain on the sidewalks afterward, so that students and guests of the seminary could see the works of art, the designs would always naturally fade away after a week or two, as rains would wash the chalk away or feet would trample the patterns into non-existence. While some artists knew the trick of "fixing" their drawings by applying hair spray over them to make them more durable, chalk drawings are nonetheless understood to be ephemeral.

The Cat in the Hat has so far been a clear exception to that rule. I won't swear to the exact year that the Cat was drawn. I think it was during the Arts Festival of 2000, but I might be off by a year or two. A couple of factors have contributed to the Cat's longevity. One is that the Cat was placed in an area that is reasonably well-protected. Rain doesn't fall directly on the sheltered corner of the Grosse Hall doorway, and people tend not to walk so close to the side. Another, perhaps more important, reason is that the artist used oil-based crayons to draw the Cat, rather than chalk. Even so, the design has faded considerably over the past decade, but the fact that it has lasted this long deserves some recognition. The next time you stop by the Brehm Center, have a look!

Save the Fuller Bookstore!

2011-04-06T08:57:17-05:00

You may have heard that the Fuller Bookstore (also including the "Coffee by the Books" café) is in danger of being closed. This rumor has probably been accompanied by other rumors and whispers of what’s going to happen. Some of these may have truth to them. Others are either wild speculation or out-and-out falsehoods. I’ll try to clear some of that up.

At the beginning of the year (January 25th), the Board of Trustees was confronted with the reality that the Fuller Bookstore is losing money to the tune of over a million dollars over the past five years. A financial hit averaging more than $200,000 every year isn’t something that can be ignored, and so the trustees have asked the seminary to consider options for restructuring the bookstore… or closing it down. To this end, a task force chaired by Dr. Clayton Schmit has been working on the situation.

I’m not on that task force, and so I’m sure that there’s a lot that’s been considered that I don’t know anything about. Even so, in my role on SOT staff I expect that I’ve had access to some conversations that most others haven’t been able to hear. Some of this, being privileged information, I may not be able to share freely, and it has been my practice to err on the side of caution when it comes to such information. I can safely say, however, that every single time I’ve heard faculty members discuss the matter, the intent has always been toward figuring out ways to keep the bookstore open. For the people I’ve heard from, closing the bookstore is simply not an option. I don’t say this to suggest that there is no danger that the bookstore will close, but rather to say that there are people working extremely hard to save it.

Yesterday, the task force convened a “Town Hall” meeting to give students and staff the chance to voice their own concerns. While I don’t have exact numbers, I can say that the meeting was well attended, and that many people did in fact step forward to speak on the matter. The task force asked those in attendance to consider the following questions:

How important is the bookstore/café to you?
How do you use the bookstore?
What would we be willing to do to help subsidize bookstore?

To give a proper a sampling of the many, many positive comments which were made during the hour, I'd need to make this a very long post. I'll limit the representatives to three which I think are especially important.

The bookstore is an essential part of the educational enterprise. While Amazon.com and other options may be valuable, there’s nothing like a brick and mortar bookstore to help someone to encounter something they didn’t know they were looking for. (I, myself, found the book Introverts in the Church in much this way, which is proving important in my own vocational discernment)
The bookstore serves a social purpose. This includes not just a place to "hang out" between or after classes, but also access to knowledge of the people who work there, or are in need of mentoring from current students or staff, not to mention as a place to bring people who are visiting the campus (perhaps considering Fuller as a place to work or study as faculty, staff or students). Several people suggested that they wish it were open later, and/or provided more space (the café is rather short on chairs at present). It's current location is uniquely suited to attracting attention from those who aren't already part of the Fuller community (contrast, for example, with the locations of the Catalyst and the Refectory, both of which you have to already be fully on the campus grounds to see).
The future of the bookstore is a moral issue. Consider not only the services provided to our community, and what the existence of the bookstore says about our reputation as an academic institution, but also the question of how we treat those who currently work there (many of which are international students, who are legally unable to work off-campus).

Although the responses were overwhelmingly positive in regard to the need for the bookstore to continue to exist, there were a couple of criticisms that I think are important enough that I want to mention them here:

The bookstore does have failings when it comes to serving our Spanish-speaking students, and the (primarily English-speaking) staff are often unable to provide adequate assistance in this area, despite being stellar in this area in regard to English-language needs. Spanish-language texts also have a reputation for arriving after classes have started, meaning that Spanish-speaking students often get a smaller amount of useful class time with those texts.
The financial challenges are real. What would we be willing to sacrifice/pay in order to keep it intact? Would students be willing, for example, to pay a proportionate amount of the bookstore's deficit in addition to their tuition? Volunteering of time was voiced as an option.

Options for the bookstore to remain open are still being worked through, but the task force did share some preliminary ideas. These are just a few:

Have the bookstore operate online. Expand and improve its existing website
Expand the coffee shop, while keeping less stock in the bookstore.
Events. Book signings. Art Shows. Make the Fuller bookstore the Vroman’s of the theological world.

If having the bookstore and Coffee by the Books remain a continued presence on campus is important to you, now is the time to act. Interested parties are asked to fill out a survey, available at this link. Responses will be accepted until 5:00 pm on Friday, April 8th, 2011. A final decision on the bookstore’s future will be made on April 26th. In the meantime, why not head on down and buy yourself a book and/or a cup of coffee?

The Secret Theology of Women

2011-04-14T11:51:48-05:00

I recently had the opportunity to be part of group of Fuller students and staff (specifically, those of us who serve either as "Ambassadors" for the seminary or who write for this Fuller Blogs site) who were invited to have lunch with Fuller President Richard Mouw. During the hour, we were invited to offer our perspectives on the seminary and ask questions about things that interest or concern us. I took the occasion to ask Mouw about Fuller's ongoing commitment to women in ministry.

To preface his response, Mouw told a story about the first woman who graduated from Fuller. She was part of one of the seminary's first graduating classes, so this would be roughly 60 years ago. Because the prevailing interpretation of the time was against allowing women to ordained ministry, the seminary actually created a degree for this woman: "Master of Sacred Theology".^* However, when it came time to print the diplomas, there was a typo, and so the woman's diploma instead said the degree was in "Secret Theology"! (An abbreviated form of this story appears here, but it oddly doesn't specify that Fuller was the school, so take this story as anecdotal).

One could wonder about the possibility of a Freudian slip, as if to suggest that women doing theology would have to do so in secret, but I find myself thinking more about the ways in which people with different experiences inevitably bring those experiences to bear on the ways that they think of God. For good or ill, there is a reason that what is sometimes called "liberation theology"--for example--comes from parts of the world that have suffered tremendous poverty and/or oppression. A woman preaching in my church a few weeks ago used an illustration of something that happened to her while she gave birth to one of her own children. That experience clearly impacted the way that she thought about (in this case) the way that God provided her with strength that she didn't believe that she herself possessed in a difficult time, and it's the kind of experience that no man can legitimately lay claim to.

I don't mean to say that such knowledge is truly "secret," in the sense of "consciously hidden," so much as I mean that it may remain "unknown." It isn't knowledge that all people have equal access to. If one doesn't have a certain set of experiences, one must be in communication with a person that has in order to be able to access the wisdom that comes out of those experiences. This is one reason why having pastors and theologians from different groups can be so important.

One argument I often hear from those who think that the Bible doesn't allow for women in ministry, besides their insistence that the biblical texts prohibit it (an argument I've addressed elsewhere enough that I won't bother with here), is the myth that those of us who disagree with them think that men and women aren't different, all obvious evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. While I might not think that the differences extend in all the same ways that they do, the fact that there are such differences is not something we seek to ignore. Far from it, those differences are one reason why we advocate for their right to all forms of ministry in the first place. We deny ourselves the benefit of these differences if we deny women the right to preach. We don't want to keep the contributions of women "secret," but to bring them out into the open.

^*I note that "Bachelor of Sacred Theology" (STB) degrees do, in fact, exist today, especially in institutions run by groups that don't ordain women. These degrees often do seem to be roughly equivalent to the MDiv with the exception that they do not prepare a person for ordained ministry. Although I haven't seen explicit mention of this as being created to provide degrees for women, this does seem to be exactly the kind of thing that might be done as a workaround for a woman who wants an "MDiv-like" degree from such an institution. There is also an actual "Master of Sacred Theology" (STM) degree, but it is a post-MDiv degree (I wonder how it compares to Fuller's Master of Theology (ThM) degree).

NOTE: All images in this entry are provided by Baptist Women in Ministry and used with their permission. Readers are encouraged to check out the Baptist Women in Ministry Fan Page on Facebook, as well as the page for the book This is What a Preacher Looks Like, edited by Pamela R. Durso.

Hostility and the Church

2011-04-21T16:26:38-05:00

I was listening to a sermon some time ago on what is often called "The Parable of the Great Banquet." Basically, Jesus tells of a person who had a great, big, party. But although lots of people were invited, they all had excuses for not coming, so the person sent for more guests. Jesus makes fairly clear that the person throwing the party is not pleased to be snubbed by the original invitees.

While granting that the parable seems to be most directly about God's relationship with the people of Israel, I don't think the preacher was out of line applying it to the dedication of Christians today. As a specific example, he talked about the growing problem of declining church attendance, which most denominations in America have been struggling with for many years now.

The thing he said that caught me by surprise was when he said that "it's not that people don't like church. They're not hostile to church. It's just 'second.'" The point, of course, was that even among people who profess faith in Christ, there is a tendency to prioritize other things. I can certainly agree that this is a problem.

But, given that I have been reading a lot of material that specifically suggests that, yes, many people are "hostile to the church"--if indeed "friendly to Jesus Christ"--perhaps my surprise at hearing a preacher say that people aren't "hostile to church" is only to be expected. I thought that the rest of the sermon was quite good, but I spent quite a bit of time wrestling with this inconsistency.

Ultimately, and despite the seemingly diametrically-opposed statements, I don't think that the preacher and I really disagree on the important points, but I think that we are looking at the situation from rather different points of view. The preacher, I'm guessing, is responding to a vocal minority of Christians who seem to use that language of "hostility" a lot, themselves. Usually in sentences like "our culture is hostile to Christian faith" or "Christianity is under attack." Obviously, there is at least a sense in which that's true. But if I understand my preacher-friend correctly, it's not that "the atheists are trying to destroy the church" (as such Christians sometimes argue) so much as that there is something about human nature and the world in which we live that, if we're not careful, slowly and subtly works against the values that Christianity advocates. But even given this reality, it seems to me that we live in a culture that is still, even to this day, predominately (if nominally) Christian. For example, we still expect our political leaders to profess faith in God (if in a watered-down sense that doesn't alienate any particular denomination), and it is nearly inconceivable that a Muslim or atheist could be elected to national office (the ravings of certain extremists against our current President notwithstanding).

But what I think my preacher-friend may not recognize, but which I see and read about all the time, is the sense in which many people have been actively injured by those who profess Christian faith. Women who have been told that they cannot hold certain jobs because "Christians" tell them that they can't. People who, having pasts scarred by certain particular types of sins, are ostracized by "Christians" no matter what they may have done to repent. And, of course, Christians of devout faith who have had their faith called into question because of some disagreement on a matter of doctrine (usually, not a matter of orthodoxy--that is to say, not a matter decided as heretical by one of the ancient ecumenical councils--but something that much more accurately describes the kinds of doctrinal differences that separate one Christian denomination from another). I think that there are a great many people out there who have been brought up in a Christian faith, but who have turned their backs on that faith more out of the ways in which Christians have treated them than out of anything else. Such people are, sadly, very "hostile" to the church, but only because the church has been hostile to them first.

And, of course, the very church that alienated these fellow image-bearers often continues to blame them for the alienation. "They're just rebelling against God," such a church might be heard to say. There may indeed be rebellion here, but I would posit that rebellion against a church that behaves in an ungodly way against people is not the same as rebellion against God.

Now, I'm obviously not anti-church. Just read any of my previous posts, and hopefully that should be clear. The church is the body of God, and is God's vehicle for spreading God's word, so it should be taken seriously. Still, I think that we of the church have created a good deal of any "hostility" that exists towards us unnecessarily, and I think that God weeps over that fact.

Our 100% Diverse American Heritage

2011-05-09T12:56:45-05:00

There's an essay I originally read some years ago, written in 1936 by a sociologist named Ralph Linton, that I think Americans of today would do well to read. Originally found in the book The Study of Man: an Introduction, it is commonly referred to as "The One Hundred Percent American." The essay follows a typical American male as he gets up out of bed ("built on a pattern that originated in the Near East...") and follows him through his morning routine. At every step of the process, the origin of the practice or item being used is mentioned, and a diverse and colorful array of foreign influences quickly becomes apparent.

...He slips into his moccasins, invented by the Indians of the Eastern woodlands, and goes to the bathroom, whose fixtures are a mixture of European and American inventions, both of recent date. He takes off his pajamas, a garment invented in India, and washes with soap invented by the ancient Gauls. He then shaves, a masochistic rite which seems to have been derived from either Sumer or ancient Egypt.

Fuller is proud to have students from all corners of the globe, and I'm sure that even within our student body, opinions of America, and of Americans, vary. But for those of us who are Americans, most of us are rightly proud of our heritage. Even so, I can't help but feel that we do not claim our heritage as fully as we ought to. Our heritage comes from every part of the globe imaginable, and indeed our very "American-ness" is what it is because of parts that came from ironically "un"-American places.

This should not surprise us, of course. Part of being a mature person is to learn how to adopt practices and qualities that are desirable, while leaving behind the ones that are less so. We learn, for example, that our parents are human beings just as capable of making mistakes as anyone else, and yet most of us love and revere them anyway for the roles they've played in our lives. This also applies to the myriad of cultures that have contributed to making our American culture what it is (perhaps for good or ill). If Fuller wasn't already pre-disposed against nationalistic jingoism by the fact that so many of our friends, colleagues, and neighbors come from elsewhere, a solid recognition of our own history should ensure that we never disrespect the contributions of others.

For those of us who consider ourselves Christian, it's worth remembering, as Linton reminds us at the close of this section, that the diversity of heritage even applies to our understanding of God.

...While smoking (the American male) reads the news of the day, imprinted in characters invented by the ancient Semites upon a material invented in China by a process invented in Germany. As he absorbs the accounts of foreign troubles he will, if he is a good conservative citizen, thank a Hebrew deity in an Indo-European language that he is 100 per cent American.

Although The Study of Man is available via the Internet Archive, which typically houses only works in the Public Domain, my research suggests that it should still be under Copyright, having been duly renewed in 1964. However, I cannot determine who currently owns the work. I therefore cannot make any promises as to how long the link should remain online, nor be responsible should anyone choose to copy the work. The section being discussed here starts on page 324.

Your Future is in Front of You

2011-05-28T13:37:11-05:00

It's that time of year again, when graduation looms just around the corner. Even though I myself got my degree from Fuller several years ago, this is a season that affects everyone in the Fuller community. Whether you're a graduating student looking forward to the completion of your own degree,or a current student just looking to get through your current class and perhaps preparing to say good-bye to some of your friends, or a staff member preparing end-of-fiscal-year budgets or closing out committee work for the academic year, the rhythm of the academic cycle ensures that graduation time is an important season for all of us at Fuller.

Among my important influences growing up was involvement in a series of youth conferences conducted by the Montreat Conference Center, arguably the most prominent of several conference centers run by the PC(USA). During an 18-month period that culminated in the summer just after I graduated from high school, I had the honor of being a member of the planning team for the youth conferences that year. One of the activities we arranged for the conference was a concert by a singer-songwriter named Ed Kilbourne, and as part of our preparation for his contribution to the event, we were each given a cassette of his work (yes, I'm dating myself by referencing cassettes!). Besides just singing songs, Kilbourne told stories that had been described to us as along the style of Garrison Keillor, and one of the stories on the cassette I was given told of how Kilbourne had been invited to give the message at a high school graduation ceremony. He told of how he accepted the invitation to speak mostly out of a feeling that this represented an opportunity to "make up" for the speech he had to listen to when he graduated from high school.

I'm sure many of you have had to sit through similar messages. Kilbourne told of how the "important and dignified" speaker came to the podium to elaborate on the obvious message, "Your future is in front of you... and your past is behind you." As Kilbourne said, "he gave the speech equivalent of an airball... he missed everything!"

At Fuller, the message at the graduation service (or, perhaps more accurately, "commencement," but we all know what I'm talking about) is always done by President Mouw. If for no reason other than the fact that he'll want to say something that keeps his own attention rather than just rehash the same thing he's said to graduating students every year for many years now, I'm confident that he'll want to go a bit deeper than the shallow and obvious "future in front/past behind" message that Kilbourne described. Perhaps he'll talk about some specific ministry opportunities that lay ahead for some of our students. Perhaps he'll talk about some of the ongoing realities in our world today and how the world needs what trained Christian leaders have to offer.

I don't know, and I won't presume further to speak for him. While I certainly hope that Mouw's message will be a source of inspiration for listeners rather than a trial to endure, and as obvious as the statement of a future in front of us may be, it does represent the truth of the limitless opportunities that lay ahead. God only knows what specific path each graduate this year will take, but it is my prayer that each of you who are graduating will not only continue to seek God's guidance in that path, but that you will be able to go into that future with the assured hope that God will empower you to accomplish the tasks to which you have been called, and that you will remember fondly the ways in which Fuller has been a part of preparing you for that mission. The future doesn't just "lay there" in front us, but God has granted us the privilege of shaping it.

Fuller's Position on Women in Ministry (and a bit of humor, too!)

2011-07-19T16:40:16-05:00

As Jonathan Damiani's current series is demonstrating, the world of Fuller Seminary is very diverse. It should come as no surprise that people coming from differing ethnicities, denominations, and other diverse contexts have differing opinions on any of a number of matters. While Fuller has maintained its position as a strongly "evangelical" seminary, even that term "evangelical" has been the subject of debate, whereby some would argue that those who call themselves "evangelical," yet differ on some particular point of interpretation, aren't "really" evangelical at all. Because these kinds of discussions can obviously become contentious very quickly, those positions on which Fuller takes a strong, consistent stand--despite the fact that the stand will anger some would-be constituents--are especially noteworthy.

One place where Fuller has stated a firm position is on the right of both men and women to all forms of church ministry. This position separates Fuller from at least some other institutions that also lay claim to the "evangelical" label, but consistent with Fuller's strong evangelical stance, we seek to defend that position not on the basis of the world around us, but on the basis of what Scripture commands.

Naturally, this means dealing with passages traditionally used by those who would argue against women in certain roles, such as pastor. Fuller recognizes that it has a responsibility to account for these passages as being fully a part of Scripture, and therefore to be taken as authoritative, while at the same time defending its position that to use such passages against women in ministry is to fundamentally misuse them. To this end, Fuller has adopted a statement, originally written by the late Dr. David M. Scholer for the Evangelical Covenant Church, to articulate Fuller's understanding of how Scripture, rightly interpreted, in no way prohibits women from holding church offices traditionally available only to men. This statement has recently been posted on Fuller's web site, accompanied by a series of videos with Fuller professors further explaining the seminary's stance. To read the statement, and to view the videos, start with this link, and then work your way through the links on the right-hand sidebar of the resulting page.

For many years, Dr. Scholer taught a course entitled "Women, the Bible, and the Church," which was one of Fuller's most popular electives. In it, Scholer was able to give far greater depth to discussing the relevant biblical passages than a simple set of web pages could hope to achieve. I took the course many years ago, and my wife was TA for it on three separate occasions, and thus I feel safe in saying that it represented solid biblical scholarship (and I hope that a way of disseminating the lectures more widely may be found in the future). But the course wasn't all "serious business." Toward the end of the course, Scholer also shared this "Top Ten" list (along the style of David Letterman). Scholer didn't write it, and indeed he admitted that he found it somewhere along the way while advocating for women in ministry, but the actual origins of this list have since been lost to history:

Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained

10. A man's place is in the army.

9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.

8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be "unnatural" for them to do other forms of work.

7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.

6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.

5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.

4. To be ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.

3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.

2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, and maybe even lead the singing on Father's Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.

1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.

Is it Actually Hypocritical to Go to Seminary?

2011-08-26T16:49:51-05:00

I try to keep up with a number of other blogs and websites that pertain to matters related to both Christianity in general and seminary education in particular. One site that I've found especially thought-provoking from time to time is Internet Monk, a site started by Michael Spencer, which I'm pleased to see continues on despite his untimely death from cancer over a year ago. Some time ago, I stumbled upon this piece, written by Jeff Dunn, detailing how God often chooses people who don't seem especially qualified to do God's work.

Of course, such an observation is nothing new. I've certainly heard comments to this effect before. But Dunn's piece is noteworthy for the care he takes to demonstrate this point with a multitude of examples throughout the Bible and in a great variety of "leadership" positions.

Consider, for example, this reflection on the calling of King David:

“I’m really sorry I let Saul become king,” the Lord said, and sent Samuel out to anoint a new person as king. This time God did the choosing. And once again, he passed over the most qualified candidates to select a boy whose own father didn’t even consider good enough to introduce to Samuel. He was the runt of the litter, a shepherd (which was a job on the level of trash collector today). Yet God thought he would make a good king and instructed Samuel to anoint him with oil and proclaim he would be king one day over all Israel.

And Dunn doesn't shy away from the "failures" of David's tenure as king, having already been so chosen by God:

And God’s man did a good job for the most part. Oh, there was that incident with Bathsheba and the subsequent cover-up that involved knocking off her husband. And there was the census thing that resulted in a plague that wiped out 70,000 people. Hey, everyone has their bad days, right? Yet God still considered David a man after his own heart. But from our viewpoint, David’s heart seems as far away from God’s heart as it can be. What is it that God sees that we don’t?

Now, I do hasten to note that we have other "good" kings in the Old Testament accounts who don't seem to have David's rather serious problems with adultery and murder (to say nothing of that census, which although the Bible is clear enough that it was undeniably disastrous, is somewhat less clear if David did it because God told him to or if Satan did!), but that changes little. The Bible seems to gloss over these problems when it comes to giving it's opinion of how good a king David was. "A man after God's own heart," we're often told. That says it all, doesn't it?

Given this mountain of evidence that God chooses people without regard to what kinds of qualifications they've received, and Dunn's subsequent suggestion that we shouldn't seek to be "useful" to God, one wonders why we even bother with seminary education, to say nothing of the other kinds of institutions (many explicitly Christian) that exist to equip men and women of faith to do what (we claim?) God calls them to do. This is hardly limited to any particular theological or ideological leaning, either. It's not like "liberal" Christians have such schools while "conservative" ones don't. There are options enough for all. Are we hypocrites?

I don't think so. Dunn's recognition of the primary importance of the relationship between God and the person God calls is a good one, but to acknowledge that God sees beyond human vision to call (and equip!) people to do things for which we may not consider them qualified is hardly the same thing as suggesting that "qualified" people should be barred from doing God's work. Indeed, there is plenty of work for all, and the Bible shows how God uses our experience and training to do God's work, as well. For example, while Dunn is certainly right to point out Paul's ill-suitedness to Christian ministry on the basis of his former life (as Saul) persecuting them, Paul makes more than adequate use of his Pharisaic training to craft writings to the churches of his day that have blessed Christians through all the centuries since then.

Training for God's work remains important. Still, it's probably a good thing that God does something "off the wall" every now and then, if only to remind us that God sees things in ways we can scarcely imagine!

Travis Auditorium Gets a Face-Lift

2011-09-08T17:33:57-05:00

This morning (Thursday, September 8th), Fuller celebrated its annual Faculty and Staff Welcome event. As was the case last year, this meant that I not only got a free meal, but enjoyed a time of worship with the Fuller community afterward. This also provided my first opportunity to see Travis Auditorium after some changes that have been made to the room over the summer. New carpet is now in place, new chairs have been added, and the walls have apparently been given a new coat of paint. If you're already familiar with the room, the differences are perhaps too subtle to really be noticeable in the picture to the left here, but it's readily apparent as soon as you walk into the room.

More obvious, perhaps, are the new seats. New Provost Doug McConnell joked about the leather seats a bit, essentially asking us to please try not to puncture them with pens in our pockets or knives or similar implements. We'd like to keep these around for a while! Each seat also features a fold-away desk surface, much as before (and, much as before, I fully expect that many students will need more than one surface if they're expecting to write and keep a laptop handy at the same time). I've not yet had a chance to see if any more of the desks serve left-handed students than before, but I always worked around that issue by using the desk intended for the seat to my left, anyway.

Obviously, these are mostly superficial changes. If you were dreading a particular class before, the slightly different colors and leather seats won't suddenly make things any easier than they would have been before. On the other hand, even small changes like these demonstrate the continued attention Fuller gives to making its learning environments as welcoming and productive as they can be, and when people know that others are paying attention to them, they tend to be happier, and even to do better work (I have no idea if the powers-that-be at Fuller were specifically thinking of such concerns, but it's true all the same). It provides an encouraging start as we enter into a new academic year!

I mentioned that there's a free meal involved in the welcome event, as well. While enjoying breakfast, everyone is encouraged to participate in an activity tied to the theme chosen by the administrators for Fuller for the year. If you're interested in reading more about that, I discuss that aspect of the welcome event in my personal blog: Transforming Seminarian.

Being Evangelical

2011-10-11T12:30:10-05:00

There's a lot of debate these days about the precise definition of the term "evangelical." When it shows up in the news, it often refers to a movement that is at least as much political as it is religious. Sometimes, people assume a fairly narrow set of doctrinal beliefs that must be adhered to in order to be properly "evangelical." Historically speaking, Fuller has tended to eschew such narrow definitions and explicitly political directions, preferring to cast a fairly broad net over those who would claim the "evangelical" label.

This is not, of course, to suggest that Fuller does not care about how the word "evangelical" is defined, or that confusion about how the word is defined is a new phenomenon. In fact, former Fuller president David Allen Hubbard (whom current President Richard Mouw almost always describes with the phrase "of blessed memory") wrote a book on the subject. What We Evangelicals Believe is intended to be a basic primer to Fuller's understanding of the term. Although it was written a couple of decades ago (and thus the way the term is used today does have some variation from its usage then, as terms often shift in meaning over time), it nonetheless still provides a good basic overview of who and what an "evangelical" is. It attempts to show that the definition of "evangelical" encompasses a broad diversity of Christian denomination and tradition.

Fuller's stance on a broad definition of "evangelical" is not without controversy. To demonstrate with just one example, I'd like to focus on Fuller's Statement of Faith, which reads, "Scripture is an essential part and trustworthy record of this divine self-disclosure. All the books of the Old and New Testaments, given by divine inspiration, are the written word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice. They are to be interpreted according to their context and purpose and in reverent obedience to the Lord who speaks through them in living power." Fuller affirms that adherence to the Bible is absolutely essential for the evangelical Christian. What We Evangelicals Believe has a section discussing the Statement of Faith. In it, Hubbard suggests that the Statement of Faith declares that "the Scriptures are precisely what God wanted them to be." (WWEB, p. 47) Yet, oddly enough, this seemingly obvious point is arguably the part of the Statement of Faith that has created the most controversy.

To understand this, one must go back a few more years. Although a Statement of Faith has always been a part of Fuller's identity even from its beginnings in the late 1940's, the original version was not identical to the one we have today. In the original version of the seminary's Statement of Faith, the analogous paragraph said, "The books which form the canon of the Old and New Testaments as originally given are plenarily inspired and free from all error in the whole and in the part. These books constitute the written Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice." Over the years, and for various reasons, the Statement was revised in quite a number of ways, intended to keep the guiding doctrine of the seminary up to date with the times while true to foundational intentions for evangelical study in an academically rigorous framework. Specifically, in the revision to this part of the Statement of Faith, the seminary chose to change this portion in favor of the current form of the text as it appears in the previous paragraph. Phrases like "plenarily inspired," "free from all error," and "inerrancy" (although the word "inerrancy" does not appear in the original Statement of Faith itself, the concept is closely linked) are still something of a litmus test among conservative churches and institutions. To many, if "inerrancy" is challenged, the authority of the whole Bible is lost. This, needless to say, is not Fuller's current position. Fuller strongly believes, now as then, in the inspiration of Scripture, and in the necessity of Scripture for forming the foundation of any evangelical doctrine or position. More to the point, the authority of the Bible is not considered to be in jeopardy if factual historical or scientific errors happen to be found in any portion of the text.

The controversy that arose from the revision was the centerpiece for a book entitled The Battle for the Bible, which argued that "inerrancy" was a doctrine without which one could not be considered "evangelical." Shortly before this book was published (in 1976), Dr. Hubbard, having been the seminary president for over 12 years at the time, gave a chapel address to the Fuller community in an effort to prepare them for the controversy which would follow. This speech, entitled "The Good Ship Fuller," is collected in Fuller Voices, a work edited by former Fuller Provost Russell P. Spittler (and for which I myself had the honor of transcribing many of the speeches contained therein from the original audio recordings), which collects a number of speeches important to Fuller's history. In this particular speech, Hubbard did not seek to defend the seminary's stance in dropping the concept of "inerrancy." Rather, he spoke to defend the seminary's right to continue to call themselves "evangelical," despite the statements in The Battle for the Bible to the contrary. Here are some excerpts:

Evangelical unity has been threatened by what I must consider narrow definitions of the term "evangelical." This large and cherished word must never be given a sectarian meaning. (Voices, p. 71)
The purpose of our scholarship is not to destroy, but to build up. It is not to lay bare the humanity of the Bible, but to expose the way in which the Spirit of God used the humanity of the Scripture in order to bring us the truth. (Voices, p. 73)
Once we are committed to engage in intellectual dialogue with various academic disciplines, particularly the historical and behavioral sciences, there is no way to back out of the responsibilities of using all the tools and methods of investigation open to us as scholars. Of course, faith and scholarship will go hand-in-hand; but one can never substitute for the other. It is particularly important that we not use the tools of scholarship to buttress our confidence in the teaching of the Scripture, when at the same time we reject them if they call for the correction of some of our traditional interpretations. (Voices, p. 74)
We cannot spare the time to defend our right to call ourselves evangelicals. The Lord knows who are his. We have heard him call us by name. We stand humbly and gratefully in the company of his people....We need only to be reminded that it's not enough to brand ourselves "evangelicals," we must be about our evangelical tasks. ...My basic thesis [is] that we must never use the term evangelical without our hearing the ring of the gospel in it. A seminary, a church, or a person can be evangelical only when bearing these marks:

Loyalty to the content of the gospel, including the reality of the incarnation; the centrality of the cross; the triumph of the resurrection; the hope of Christ's return, confidence in the power of the gospel to cut to the heart of our basic human problems and to call men and women to be reconciled to God;

Motivation by the spirit of the gospel, expressed especially in our love--despite our differences of race or color, occupation or education, interests or traits, habits or standards;

Control by the demands of the gospel, including the demand to go into the world making disciples and the demand to teach these disciples the things that Christ commanded, including God's concern for human need in every form. (Voices, p. 76)

Although What We Evangelicals Believe, written years later, does not explicitly mention the controversy regarding "inerrancy," surely some of it was still in Hubbard's mind when he wrote the book:

Scriptures are to be used in light of their context. Every part of God's word was given in a human situation and written by human hands. Whether the need was a psalm for prayer in sickness, proverbs to help with the raising of children, parables to understand the kingdom of God... every part of Scripture was given to meet a specific human need. Understanding that context and purpose brings us closer to understanding God's word. The human setting of the divine word is not a limitation but a strength. God has deliberately bent over to speak our language and to meet our needs. (WWEB, pp. 49-50)

If statements like these do not display an "evangelical" (from a Greek term often translated as "good news") mindset, I'm not sure what would....

Seven Dwarfs as Mortal Flesh

2011-10-18T17:13:50-05:00

Folks who have been reading my posts for a while know that I enjoy writing parodies from time to time. My wife and I put this one together a number of years ago. Riffing on hymns may seem a bit sacrilegious, but it's all in good fun. I definitely imagine the Disney version of the dwarfs when I think of this song:

(To the tune of "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence")

Let all seven dwarfs keep working
In the diamond mines all day
Let them sing about their labors
As they earn their daily pay
Then they'll march on home, "Heigh-Ho! Heigh-Ho!"
To their house of stone and hay

(My wife, a professionally-trained musician, notes that one could segue straight into "Heigh-Ho" from here if you like. It works really well!)

Cycles of the Year

2011-11-04T14:33:33-05:00

As I write this, we're just finishing up the season for mid-terms. Pretty soon, students will be scrambling to finish papers and study for final exams. Then we'll take a few weeks off for Christmas, maybe (if we're lucky) get to spend some time with family, and then we'll all return to campus on the heels of New Year's to start taking classes again. It's all part of Fuller's academic cycle, and most of us who have been here any length of time have gotten more or less used to it. We may still bemoan how much shorter a 10-week quarter is than a 13-week (or so) semester, but it not only is what it is, but we've come to understand what that means for our lives as students and staff at Fuller.

I've come to think of many things in terms of "cycles" these days. The common joke about Southern California versus the other parts of the country (or world) that many of us come from is that all those other places actually have seasons. "Out there," you get to see things like leaves changing color and falling off of trees (apparently that's why they call this season "Fall." True story. I looked it up on the Internet!), or snow falling and turning the entire landscape white, or the subsequent change of the world from a brownish-grey haze to a vibrant green, shortly before the heat of sun calls us all to the local swimming pool again. If these changes happen at all here in Pasadena, the changes are definitely much more subdued, and it becomes easy to lose track of the passage of time that these cycles represent. I've found that I have to be more intentional about recognizing the cycles of my world.

I recently had occasion to listen to a podcast over on the Burner Blog (which is run by Fuller's "Lowell W. Berry Center for Lifelong Learning") featuring my wife's PhD mentor, Dr. Todd Johnson. In it, Dr. Johnson talks about the cycles of the church calendar. While not all Christians realize it, we pretty much all recognize at least parts of this calendar of the church year, which begins with Advent (just a few weeks from now!) as we use the time waiting for the celebration of Christ's birth not only to prepare for that coming, but also for Christ's promised Second Coming. This is followed (obviously) by Christmas, which is actually a season lasting a couple of weeks, as we celebrate the incarnation and its implications for our faith. Skipping ahead a bit, many Christians observe Lent to prepare for and recognize Christ's death, prior to the Easter celebration of Christ's resurrection and victory over death. Like Christmas, many Christians celebrate Easter not just on one day, but over a period of weeks to allow time to recognize Christ's post-resurrection interactions with his followers prior to his ascension, followed by Pentecost, as we remember the coming and empowering of the Holy Spirit for the Church. We then spend a few months considering anew the ways that God calls the church to live in the world before it is time to start the church year over again and observe Advent. All of these various holidays ("holy days") and observances help remind us of who are as Christians, and what we believe, and we do so in an ongoing annual cycle because we, frankly, need those reminders time and time again.

So, as we prepare for another "cycle" of life with Christ, it's perhaps worth thinking about the cycles we observe. Why do we observe them? How do they help us? What might we perhaps be missing if we fail to notice them?

Obsessions, Distractions, and Allowing People to Serve

2011-11-16T13:56:09-06:00

A couple of days ago, Scot McKnight posted an article about the consecration of women bishops in the Church of England. Naturally, this is causing the usual consternation among those who don't believe that God wants women to serve in church offices (much less the really high ones!). The article discusses some of the usual responses: some people are leaving the church (it specifically notes how some bishops and priests are taking the Catholic Church up on an offer to allow them to transfer over to Catholicism, but I'm sure that many Anglicans are leaving for other denominations, and some members are no doubt leaving altogether under some "I can be a better Christian without the church" mindset), while others are choosing to "fight from within." It's a familiar pattern by now.

Likewise, the following paragraph from the article isn't really anything new:

The Church of England has been criticised for being obsessed with such issues at a time when families are struggling with economic hardship amid rising unemployment, higher prices and frozen wages as part of the British government’s attempts to rein in a record peacetime budget deficit.

While the argument that the church is "obsessed" with issues such as women's ordination, with the implication that they should instead be working on various other important issues, is hardly new, I find it to be more than a little disingenuous. Yes, there are many other deep needs out there, and yes, the church should be doing more about meeting those needs than they currently are. If anything, this only means that we need to be empowering everyone who feels God's call to serve in such areas to do so! I would argue that the argument of "obsession" should be directed squarely at those who oppose ordaining certain people to high office.

When I say this, I cannot ignore that the "obsession" argument has been used on other issues, as well, such as the ordination of practicing homosexuals in some denominations (including my own PC(USA)). I'm really not interested in taking those other issues on (Fuller's position is clear on the point of homosexual sin), but I will say that whatever valid arguments might exist against the ordination of women (Fuller's position, on the other hand, is likewise clear in favor of ordaining women) or practicing homosexuals or whoever else, the "obsession" argument is not one of them. If a person opposed to letting other people serve thinks that arguing about it is distracting from meeting other important needs, than that person should just stop arguing and go meet those needs!

Parables Aren't Like This

2011-12-12T13:47:07-06:00

Many of Jesus' parables follow a familiar pattern: "The kingdom of heaven is like..." and he goes on to give some illustration from the world of their day that might help his audience to understand heaven just a little better. It seems to me that these illustrations are always in the affirmative. That is to say, Jesus always says "the kingdom of heaven is like such and such," rather than ever saying "the kingdom of heaven is not like such and such."

This strikes me as a little odd. One of the things we often like to affirm about God is God's "transcendence." That is, God (and, by extension, heaven^*) is unlike anything we can imagine. Whatever we can get our heads around, God and heaven are so much bigger and greater than that.

But even beyond that, if our understanding of Jesus' verbal bouts with the Pharisees (and others) are any indication, there were plenty of misconceptions of God (and, again, of heaven) to be had. In this vein, I posit the following parable for the modern era:

The kingdom of heaven is not like a new car lot, where you can choose whatever car you feel suits your own purposes, or where the owner might send a salesman to you to make sure that you choose a particular car and no other. No, the kingdom of heaven is indeed not like that.... —The Gospel According to Another Mark Entirely, chapter and verse to be determined

^*It is probably worth noting that Matthew uses the phrase "the kingdom of heaven" in precisely the same places that other gospels use the phrase "the kingdom of God."

Should Denominational Pastors Always Come From Denominational Seminaries?

2012-01-13T12:06:25-06:00

If you're reading this blog, I assume two things about you: 1) You're interested in things related to Fuller Seminary, 2) You probably read other blogs, as well, at least some of which are religious in nature.

In my own blog reading over the years, one subject I've seen discussed a few times regards the ordination of pastors (or priests, as appropriate). There are many out there who, seeking to ensure that pastors are a good fit for their denomination, argue that all those desiring to be ordained in a given denomination should be taught in schools related to that denomination. Indeed, a good number of denominations do have such requirements, and this affects some students here at Fuller, who must go to another school for a year or so to complete denominational "residency" requirements.

Besides my connections to Fuller, I'm obviously not coming at such a discussion unbiased. Although my understanding of my calling has since shifted away from ordained ministry, I was in the ordination process of the PC(USA)—the denomination I still consider my home—for nearly twenty years (not all of it contiguous!). On top of that, my wife is a priest in the Episcopal Church, which naturally has it's own ordination process. Each of our denominations struggles with whether a student who got their MDiv exclusively at a seminary—such as Fuller—not explicitly tied to their denomination has been taught the distinctives of that denomination sufficient to ordination. And Fuller has worked with each of those denominations (in addition to many others) to help students do whatever their denominations might require to meet those needs.

I should clarify that I'm not talking about requirements in addition to a degree such as ordination exams. Rather, I'm talking about the discussions regarding the sufficiency of the degree itself, and the idea that it would be simpler for everyone if the PC(USA) (for example) would restrict ordination to only those who have attended PC(USA) seminaries. Although my connection to Fuller no doubt telegraphs how I feel about this question, I don't want to dismiss out-of-hand the idea that a denomination should require that its pastors attend one of their denominational institutions. As I said, many denominations do, in fact, have such requirements. I certainly don't want to oppose such a solution only out of self-interest, if in fact it would be helpful for the denomination as it seeks to do God's will in regard to its pastoral leadership. But I still feel that barring non-PC(USA)-seminary graduates from PC(USA) ordination would be the wrong thing to do.

I had the honor, many years ago, of helping former Provost Russell Spittler transcribe speeches given at Fuller for a work he was editing, eventually published as Fuller Voices. One of the speeches featured in that work is the inaugural speech of Edward John Carnell, Fuller's second President, given in 1955. Although the world he was speaking to was radically different in many ways, I still can't help but think that his argument in regard to requiring that pastors graduate from denominational institutions would still apply today:

Those who resort to ecclesiastical legislation to solve the problem of ministerial training do not always appreciate the new difficulties they create. Once it is supposed that fitness for ministry can be decided by so mechanical a manner as the school where the candidate has taken his training, it is all the more likely that the Christian church will ultimately be controlled by clerics who, in fact, are more concerned with their ecclesiastical security than they are with preservation and propagation of the eternal gospel. Fitness for ordination should be decided by an organic approach to the candidate: call to the ministry, religious experience, purity of life, orthodoxy of theology, assent to denominational distinctives, attitude toward fellow ministers, and the total set of gifts and talents brought to the office. Unless both the theological seminary and the Christian church learn to hold the unity of their distinctives within the plurality of wider Christian efforts everywhere, church leadership will pass into the hands of professional holy men. The voice of the prophet will be heard no more; the reformer will be driven from the city; and the madness of daring individuality will be scorned.

When I was reading this, I found it especially ironic to reflect that a lot of the people who would argue for limiting ordination to graduates of the denominations' own seminaries would also argue for theological diversity. Indeed, they would often suggest that such diversity is in apparent opposition to what they think non-denominational schools such as Fuller teach. This has actually been a fairly common experience for me when I find myself in exclusively PC(USA)-oriented settings. I find myself having to defend Fuller when I am in conversation with fellow PC(USA) members who happen to know Fuller only by reputation. I generally try to point out that, although Fuller (either as an institution, or as represented by any one of its constituents) may have particular stances with which they may personally disagree, the school is not monolithic, and is in fact far more diverse than it is often given credit for. It is, very intentionally, multi-denominational (for those who don't know, we prefer that label to "non-denominational"). Moreover, our core beliefs are very much in conformity with the core beliefs of the PC(USA) (and, so far as I can tell, the Episcopal Church and many other denominations, as well). So long as we retain whatever denominational distinctives the denomination requires (as demonstrated by ordination exams, and whatever other tasks a student may be required to complete before ordination), having graduated from such a diverse institution adds something that will help make us unique and valuable voices in denominational discussions. Having graduated from Fuller does not, in my opinion, detract from my PC(USA)-ness.

Speaking for my own denomination, although I certainly understand some of the suspicion that Fuller graduates may be more conservative on certain issues than PC(USA)-seminary graduates, on the whole, I would nonetheless ask that non-PC(USA)-seminary graduates not be barred from the possibility of PC(USA) ordination (and, of course, Fuller is considered more liberal than other denominations would seem to prefer, which suits me just fine). I'm not saying this out of some feeling that "I'm right (about some theological disagreement or another) and they need to listen to me," however important it may be that such voices need not to be cut off from the conversation. I say this because I know that students do not always reflect all the attributes of the institution (especially those attributes that are unpopular). Give us a chance! You may be surprised at how much we agree with each other! And, for those areas where we still disagree... well, can we at least learn from each other?

Millstones and False Ultimatums

2012-02-15T10:22:47-06:00

There was an article in Christianity Today some time back, about Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Al Mohler, that generated quite a lot of discussion. Long-time readers of my entries will already know, especially given my outspoken defense of the right women to full access to Christian ministry (in full agreement with Fuller's position on the matter), that I disagree with Mohler on a number of issues. However, I'm not writing now to talk about Mohler, per se.

One article responding to Mohler's claims—specifically, the assertion that one cannot believe in evolution yet be an evangelical or biblical Christian (a claim I also dispute)—is especially worth reading. But the article itself, written by the president of the BioLogos Foundation, caught my attention less than this individual comment responding to it by one "Jon Garvey":

The real danger, it seems to me, is not disagreement but polarisation.
On the one hand, the young people who, torn between fundamentalism and accepting science reject Christianity altogether. Millstones and necks come to mind: to these fundamentalism is a “skandalon”....

Mr. Garvey is, of course, referencing a famous teaching of Jesus. Here's that teaching as it appears in Matthew 18:5-7 (CEB):

⁵"Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.
⁶As for whoever causes these little ones who believe in me to trip and fall into sin, it would be better for them to have a huge stone hung around their necks and be drowned in the bottom of the lake. ⁷How terrible it is for the world because of the things that cause people to trip and fall into sin! Such things have to happen, but how terrible it is for the person who causes those things to happen!

This, of course, is a modern translation. I grew up hearing that "huge stone" referenced as a "millstone," which is almost certainly the specific kind of stone Jesus had in mind. But few people today have first-hand experience with such things. It took me actually looking up images of millstones to realize just how large such stones can be. Look at that image up above closely (you can click on it for a larger version), and you'll realize that a millstone, itself, can easily be as large as person (if not larger!). Imagine having that thing tied around your neck!

Generally, when I hear this passage, I've always heard it as something like "don't teach people that sinful things aren't sinful." Rather, we should teach them the ways of God. Indeed, I expect that Mohler would argue that his insistence on creationism and that women should not be ministers would be in keeping with his convictions about this very passage.

Garvey, however, is arguing something rather different on the basis of Jesus' words. Mohler (as referenced in the BioLogos article) suggests that atheists and he agree that evolutionary theory is incompatible with Christianity. Thus, a person who cannot believe in creationism has no choice but to be an atheist. Leaving aside whether this duality actually does represent the only choice available, it is undeniably a fact that many people, having been taught that evolution is indeed incompatible with Christian faith, upon learning more about scientific knowledge from the secular world, do end up abandoning the faith.

Could it be that this tragic turn of events is actually the "millstone" that causes a person to stumble? (Incidentally, "skandalon" refers to a Greek word representing something that causes a person to stumble or fall—in this case into sin—it is the word from which we get "scandal") As I look at the rest of the chapter, I see Jesus calling people to humility. I see a parable about seeking after the lost, and rejoicing after the lost is found. I am increasingly convinced that the "millstone" Jesus is warning against has little to do with "false teaching" such as evolution (even granting the enormous assumption that it is false simply for the sake of argument), but rather with forcing would-be followers of Christ into false choices, such as the one teaching that insists that one must believe in creationism in order to be a Christian, that may ultimately cause them to turn away from a life with Christ.

How tragic that, in trying to defend the faith, passionate Christians may well be working against Jesus' intentions. I guess it wouldn't be the first time....

Why You Shouldn't Give Up Facebook for Lent

2012-02-17T11:33:19-06:00

In spite of the intentionally provocative title, I understand that people will have different needs. It may well be that, for you, going for a few weeks without Facebook could be a good thing. But I do want to push back against what's become a popular thing for Lenten-observant Christians to do these days, and offer a reason not to just do what others are doing.

Former PC(USA) General Assembly Moderator Bruce Reyes-Chow posted an excellent reflection on the matter a couple of years ago (this link leads to archived version via Archive.org), but to be frank, I doubt most of my non-Presbyterian friends (or even some of my more conservative friends among those who are Presbyterian) will see his name as a reliable source on the subject. But since this is a Fuller blog, I'll instead share something I learned from one of our professors a year ago that I think makes the point in another way, although I have to go without names and places here in the interest of the privacy of some of the other people involved in the story. This professor attends a church that my wife and I used to attend when we first got married, and although we are all Caucasian, it is important to note that this church is predominately Asian (actually, a very specific ethnicity within the broader Asian context, but again, I'm trying to protect privacy here).

Anyway, during the Lenten season a year or so ago, a high school student in that church's community who was shot and killed in what sounds like gang-related violence. Although the student was not a part of a family that attended that church, one of the church's members had a connection to the student, and so the church was invited to do the funeral service. Although the church is predominately one particular ethnicity, and the student's community was another, the church saw this as an opportunity to build relationships with those who had been affected by the student's death. As is not uncommon in many churches, the funeral service included an invitation to learn more about Christ (side note: these things must be done very gently, recognizing that people at funerals are in a very vulnerable state. I trust the professor when he tells me that this invitation was very appropriate). Apparently some 80 students filled out cards and gave their Facebook addresses.

That's the part that surprised me. The contact information of choice for these young people was Facebook. The professor didn't mention home addresses, telephone numbers, or e-mail. Just Facebook addresses. Here are people asking to start conversations with people who call themselves Christians, and they're asking to do so on Facebook. If members of the church that held the funeral had decided to stop using Facebook for Lent, who would be left to engage these people in the conversations they're asking to have?

I often hear people talk about how Facebook (and other Internet venues) don't foster "real" relationships. One person I've read specifically advocated for giving up Facebook for Lent and using that time to engage someone in a "real" face-to-face conversation. The idea that Facebook relationships are somehow less "real" is something I very much want to push against. I certainly don't mean to say that one should use Facebook to the exclusion of face-to-face relationships. That way lies madness. There is no substitute for such "non-virtual" contact. But nonetheless, Facebook communication is real communication. There are live human beings on the other ends of those computer terminals reading what we have to say. While face-to-face communication may well be better for certain needs, Facebook is better for others. Many of the friends I have on Facebook are dear friends that I simply wouldn't currently be in contact with at all without it. Others are people that I am able to learn more about because we can grab those snippets of time on Facebook when a more personal contact simply isn't available to us (say, when both of us are at work, not currently engaged in a task for our jobs, but able to take a couple of minutes to say "hi" before the next task comes in). There is real communication that takes place here that wouldn't happen at any other time, and giving that communication up may not actually do anything that helps draw us closer to each other nor to God. And if something being given up for Lent doesn't draw us closer, then it's missing the point of why people give things up for Lent in the first place.

So, by all means, you should make your own decision about how you should observe Lent. If something's keeping you from a closer relationship with God or with other people, then by all means consider giving it up, at least for a few weeks. But don't just do it because other people have been doing it. Consider what you're giving up, and why.

Finding Hope in Failure

2012-03-07T12:28:30-06:00

A classic Peanuts comic strip opens with Charlie Brown lamenting the loss of yet another baseball game:

Charlie Brown: Another ball game lost!! Good grief! I get tired of losing... Everything I do, I lose!
Lucy: Look at it this way, Charlie Brown. We learn more from losing than we do from winning.
Charlie Brown: That makes me the smartest person in the world!!

Of course, we don't feel very smart when we lose. In fact, I imagine that most people would just as soon forget their failures. Sure, we learn valuable lessons from those failures, but the price of that knowledge is so high that few of us bear it willingly.

I'm reminded of a speech originally given by a Senior Professor in Fuller Seminary's School of Psychology, Dr. Archibald Hart, to a group of students about to graduate in 2002. I don't believe I was actually there for the speech when it was originally given (although I actually did graduate earlier that spring, I believe I had attended the previous year's Baccalaureate service), but I definitely must have heard it not too long thereafter, as it was one of the speeches I was asked by former Provost Russell P. Spittler to transcribe for Fuller Voices, which itself was published in 2004.

Hart opened his message suggesting to these students who had all but completed their formal education that there may yet be something that they need to learn: "a theology of failure." Hart was speaking from experience. Although by this time he was a beloved and respected professor at Fuller, having even served at the dean of the School of Psychology for a time, Hart had originally set out to be a civil engineer! He relates the story of how, having risen in his chosen profession fairly rapidly, he realized that he would need additional mathematical skills to go any further, and so Hart got his employer to pay for a year-long program to boost his calculus skills. At the end of the year, the time came to take the test upon which the rest of his career would rest... and he failed. Miserably.

Obviously, Hart was able to bounce back in a new career, and he also relates a few other stories of well-known people who failed, yet recovered to eventual renown. It's hard to miss the message that says "never give up!" This is a good message, and as hard as it can sometimes be to take to heart, it is one we would do well to take seriously.

But one of the important messages that Hart had for his audience of graduating students is that we need to reconsider what "success" means in God's kingdom. We tend to glorify success (and vilify failure) even as Christians. This can make it hard to consider what God might be trying to teach us through our failures, as we often stubbornly refuse to recognize them for what they are. So, before we run too quickly to the feel-good poetry and images of perseverance that we like to send each other on Facebook, I should note that the kind of success God has in mind for us does not necessarily mean that one should keep trying at the same thing again and again despite repeated failures. When Hart failed his calculus exam, his career as an engineer was essentially over. He eventually found success by trying at something entirely different.

Truth be told, I'm probably too risk-averse. When I suffer a failure, it hurts, and it hurts hard. So while this message is as much for myself as for anyone who might be reading it, I do want to share about a failure from nearly a decade ago that nonetheless did have a silver lining for me. Shortly after graduating from seminary, and while still keeping a full-time job at Fuller to pay the bills, I accepted a job as a Youth Coordinator at a small Methodist church in the area. Although this church was a predominately non-white church, I'd had some experience in non-white churches in the past that I thought would help me to navigate the cultural differences that I knew I would face. I was wrong, and ended up blind-sided by several cultural assumptions (both on my part and on theirs) that brought me to the point of leaving that job after only about six months. I have not held a church youth position since (although I have been a part of my church's Christian Education committee dealing with youth issues in more recent years). But on my last day at that church, one woman came to tell me how something I said (I still don't know what) during a children's message helped bring her to know Jesus.

For years, one of my deepest wishes as a Christian was to know that God had used me to bring someone to know God through Jesus. I imagine that this is a common desire, especially among Evangelicals. In the midst of one of my career "failures," I got to see that wish granted. That gives me hope that God isn't done with me yet.

Manifold Ministries, Ordained and Otherwise

2012-03-23T15:40:19-05:00

This picture of a shelf in my office, featuring the trolley from Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, is one of my favorites, and I've used it both on my own blog and on my Twitter site for some time now. Over the years, I've devoted entries on my blog to a couple of the other items visible in this picture: the Transformers M&M's dispenser and the black-and-white Mickey Mouse Transformer. The other item in the picture that's of particular importance to me is the little piece of paper just to the right of the trolley. You can't really tell from the picture (even if you click on it to get a larger version), but that's a quote from The World According to Mister Rogers that I've always felt could have been written especially for me.

I've known for many years now that Fred Rogers—Mister Rogers' real name—was an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (now the PC(USA), but Rogers was ordained before the denomination had that form). I even gave an oral report during my senior year in high school highlighting that fact as I described him as a twentieth-century hero. Those who know me or who regularly read my blog know that I've been fairly open about my own struggles on the path to become an ordained minister, culminating in my finally withdrawing from the process less than a year ago. Long before I had made that decision—years, in fact—I came upon this quote.

As the quote appears in The World According to Mister Rogers on page 188, Mister Rogers is talking about his own ordination: "When I was ordained, it was for a special ministry, that of serving children and families through television. I consider that what I do through Mister Rogers' Neighborhood is my ministry." The version of the quote I have on my shelf comes from the calendar associated with the book, and picks up from there:

A ministry doesn't have to be only through a church, or even through an ordination. And I think we all can minister to others in this world by being compassionate and caring. I hope you will feel good enough about yourselves that you will want to minister to others, and that you will find your own unique ways to do that.

I've tried to keep that attitude in the various jobs I've held throughout the years. At one point, I was ministering to students by helping them learn how to read better. At other times, I've ministered to parents trying to survive the Christmas shopping season. And, yes, at other times, I've ministered through various jobs in the Church. These days, I minister to students and teachers involved in the process of learning or teaching (respectively, yes, but not exclusively distinct in those categories) at Fuller Theological Seminary. For the past nearly 12 years, this has been my ministry (not necessarily my only ministry, but certainly the one that pays the bills).

Here at Fuller, we like to talk about training men and women "for the manifold ministries of Christ and his Church" (as it says in Fuller's mission statement). This includes not only "ordained ministries," but many other kinds. In fact, I often find myself surprised at the sheer number of people seeking a ministry that is specifically not one that requires ordination. They have a clear call from God to do a specific kind of ministry, and come to Fuller for tools to help them do it better, but they don't need for the church to specifically call it a ministry to know that it is one.

As I have heard the stories from my friends who are seeking ordination, I have often wondered if Fred Rogers would have been granted ordination by the Presbyterian Church of today. I'm honestly not sure. "Specialized ministries" (as non-church-job ordinations are sometimes called) do indeed happen from time to time, but ordaining people to such ministries seems not to be the preference of many in the denomination. Somehow, I'm not sure that it would have made a bit of difference for Mister Rogers. I think that, even if he wasn't ultimately ordained, he still would have done his television show, and he still would have used the teachings he learned by going to seminary (done while he was working in public television!) to do that job even better. Mister Rogers knew what his calling was, and with or without the imprimatur of "ordination," he pursued that calling.

Secret Parking Space

2012-04-20T12:09:15-05:00

Those of us who have been connected to Fuller for any length of time know that parking has been a perennial problem. It's not terribly uncommon to come to campus, find there isn't any space in the first lot you arrive at, and while attempting to leave to try one of the other lots, pass by at least one or two other cars about to make the same discovery.

While I expect that this problem is hardly unique to Fuller, it should in any event come as no surprise that the parking situation is an easy target for jokes and parodies. On my own blog I've shared a game show parody that was performed at a "Fuller Follies" event several years ago, and the parody I'm sharing today was originally written at about that same time, with the help of my wife.

The song on which this parody is based, In the Secret (In the Quiet Place), is perhaps a little old now. I haven't actually heard it during worship in several years at this point. I am therefore not only including a link to the lyrics, but a link to a video so you can hear the tune. Honestly, the original song almost works as a parody of itself, as there is no explicit reference to God at all. Just implicit ones, and if one doesn't read this song with a religious understanding already in place, it sounds an awful lot like a stalker talking.

But this post isn't about that oddity, but rather about the parking parody, so here we go:

(FYI, Claremont is a town roughly 30 miles from Pasadena. A longish commute, to be sure, but one that is not by any means unheard of among our professors and students)

Secret Parking Space
By Mark and Michelle Baker-Wright

There's a secret
Secret parking space
I'll be parking my car there
In the morning, in the early hours I wait
Hoping for it
’Cause I want to park there more

I want to park there
I want to find a space
I want to park there more
I drive from Claremont
I don't have time to waste
I want to park there more

I am reaching for the highest goal
That I might receive the prize
Pushing onward, pushing other people aside
Out of my way
’Cause I want to park there more

I want to park there
I want to find a space
I want to park there more
I fought the highway
I don't have time to race
I want to park there more

I want to park there more

Broccoli

2010-10-03T12:43:07-05:00

I'm almost two months in to my season at Pasadena. Anytime you move or change into a different stage of life, there are bound to be some major readjustments. For example:

I have to learn to have a small amount of money in my bank account

It's hard coming from a salary to trying to get by. I can't buy food like I used to. I have to make the most of what little I have. Peanut butter sandwiches are now my best friends. I refuse ramen.

I have to manage my time better everyday.

You have to prioritize. It's a simple as going through your head the night before or the morning of and knowing what you have to do today. I just make a list of the things I need to do, number it 1-5 in priority and work in order. I have to make time to talk to my girlfriend & best friend (Ali Jo) in NC. What's really different is that although there's less class time, you have more freedom outside of class to get the tasks done.

The hardest thing continues to be time with the Lord. No matter your setting, this has to be the priority. Being in seminary doesn't make it any easier since you're surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. If anything, it's more difficult to learn to balance your workload with your time of divine relationship. I've felt the pull of allowing your coursework to be a time of devotion and in some ways it can be. But it's not the primary means. The enemy wants you to believe otherwise.

Even if you're tired, do your responsibilities

The other night, I went to see the Avett Brothers concert. It was a late show and they didn't start playing until 10pm. No big deal of course, but I didn't get home until 2am. I had homework due on Saturday at noon I hadn't started yet. Plus, I had to wake up at 6:30 for flag football which ran from 7-12. So, I had to stay up until 4am to get my stuff done. This is what I call, "Eating your broccoli".

Vegetables make you stronger, right?

The Field

2010-10-09T19:43:24-05:00

I took an online course this summer, "The Art of Evangelism". It offered a lot of insight into how much I don't know about something I thought I knew decently. During one of the lectures, Dr. Peace told us about how in his advanced evangelism class, they actually had to plan and execute an out-reach event for people who weren't Christians. It seems like an appropriate assignment except he said that all the seminary students complained that they didn't know any non-Christians.

On Tuesday night, I went with my friend Brett to Young Life club for South Pasadena HS. One of the things I love about California is how different the youth culture is than North Carolina's. But there are also a lot of similarities. Teens love to gossip about people. There are the same kinds of obnoxious that you find on either side of the USA. And teens still need to hear about Jesus.

I don't want to be an example to future classes about how I'm such a hermit. I want to be out of the bubble. If I'm spending time in the laboratory, then I need equal time in the field practicing what I've learned. Jesus said, I tell you, open your eyes and look at the fields! They are ripe for harvest (John 4). So, I'm going to be a YL leader at South Pasadena. It's something that I should have prayed about way more than I did, that's easy to admit. But I know there's a need for both parties involved. I do feel the call to be out in the (high school) world again.

I don't want to be in a position where my faith isn't being tested and expressed. If it's a living and breathing organism, then you have to get out of the bubble.

Changes

2010-10-16T19:36:29-05:00

Tupac said it best. Or maybe Bruce Hornsby did.

Thinking about the underlying motives for why I came to seminary after I came to seminary seems illogical. But I can't help but think about why after the fact I can't change it anymore. Once you're at seminary, you've always gone to seminary. And word always gets around that you went. You're always viewed differently from now on. True story.

One of the reasons, and I think a lot of people can relate is that they feel inadequate about their theology or training. You have to be somewhat (I would say 4/5ths) solid in what you believe before you go. The big things count that make you a Christian cannot change and won't change here. But there are the little tangibles and variables that make everyone different that will be affected here.

So I'm learning to expect changes. It is the Holy Spirit ultimately who does this. He does it without you even defining the source of what the heck is going on internally. I've been rocked this week on church structure. I think the current, traditional model sucks. And more specifically, the system that's designed to best grow and mature our students is causing both sides to feel abandoned. Change needs to happen not just to you, but to the systems and institutions we're involved in.

But don't be surprised to encounter those who think they know it all. They are easily found in classes for reasons that everyone knows. I like to think the quiet ones are like me, trying to absorb everything. And I'm really just trying to keep with not only the material but also with the changes occuring.

Things will never be the same.

The Too Common Question

2010-10-23T19:14:16-05:00

There are some questions that everyone gets asked.

Or you feel like you hear that question too often. Last week at the Sticky Faith Cohort Summit (aligned with the Fuller Youth Institute ), Steve Argue told the story about how a pastor once asked him, “How do we get young people to come to church?”.

This question has been known leave some sick to the stomach. To some it feels rhetorical, or true/false. It can even make you laugh. But to most who are in youth ministry, you’ve likely physically sweated over the answer.

When you think of the relationship of the church and adolescents, you often see a relationship in decline. Obviously there’s a systematic and underlying issue that’s pushing one away from the other nationally. It’s essentially conflict between two parties.

In Matthew 5, Jesus says, Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

Steve paused for the moment on the question. He wondered if there was a bigger, underlying issue. He told our cohort that he then counter-proposed that pastor by asking, “How do we get the church to come to young people?”.

Has your church left a certain demographic “hanging”? Has it left the college students in town without a place to worship? Do the high school students feel served and encouraged in their faith? Is that group affirming that they have what they need? Maybe we need to ask ourselves the right questions before we express concern for others.

In any case: Before you ask to how to restore the relationship, maybe you should reconcile and find out why they left.

Cheap Pulpits

2010-12-03T22:46:28-06:00

Last Sunday, Stevie Johnson of the NFL's Buffalo Bills dropped a game-winning touchdown pass in the fourth quarter. This is an almost weekly occurrence for any type of football, something that most fans and players have witnessed or experienced. Although he rushed out of the stadium after the game was over, Johnson voiced his feelings through a tweet saying:

One of the many beauties of social media is the concept that everyone is now freely granted a platform to communicate. All it takes is an email address and a pulse. The stage is at equal height and ability for everyone to voice their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs to anyone who will listen -- namely your Friends and Followers.

But the danger lies in that the majority of these unearned (cheap) platforms are the same ones that are most noticeable and publicized. Text has always been an ally to the human voice, but is quietly seizing our influence thanks to digital means. It's a shame that despite all the faith-based material that was uploaded/tweeted/posted this weekend, Stevie Johnson's tweet was the most reported and circulated. Many late night shows, bloggers, and writers have widely criticized him since. He later regretted and attempted to clarify his intentions on Tuesday.

How unfortunate is it that scarcely any actually heard his cry but millions saw it?

As seminary students, we have to realize that what we say is being looked at differently than our friends. Every post is now intensely scrutinized like Stevie Johnson's because of our network. It's not just the Christian's point of view, your words are from a (future) overseer. You are someday the leader of the Church and what you put online instantly allows everyone a glimpse of your heart.

Before you post:

Is it truly genuine? …Is this a direct reflection of my thoughts/beliefs? Or is this just what people expect or need to hear from me?
Is it clear? …How are people going to perceive this? Is it what I want them to think?
Is it needed? … Don’t water down your message. There’s enough spam online.

I’m not perfect at this. It’s all a work in progress for everyone. But we are warned- Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless (James 1:26); this includes every word that comes from our mouth or our fingertips.

Don’t let your words be considered cheap.

Chronos and Kairos

2011-01-15T16:39:28-06:00

In ancient Greek, words are funky. And I only say that in comparison to English, but that's like the pot calling the kettle black.

Chronos means time, as does kairos. More specifically, chronos is an vague point or period of time. Kairos is like a season, a definite amount of time. Their use is determined by the context in the sentence- Chronos usually for tasks and events and Kairos refers to vague times such as the present and future. Sorry for the greek lesson.

Being here, it's becoming hard to distinguish tasks (chronos) from eternity (kairos). I get bogged down, and so do my emotions from the day to day routines. It might be the problem everyone faces, or It could be:

Just the process of becoming an adult.
What seminary challenges you with.
Being in a completely new & different environment.

Thomas Kelly writes, "Men nowadays take time far more seriously than eternity" (from A Testament of Devotion). I feel like I'm getting chronos and kairos confused not in the classroom, but in my life. They are completely separate entities and if they become intertwined and indistinguishable, life's over.

How often do we forget that eternity is planted within us (Ecclesiastes 3:11)? We weren't made to be taskmasters, or work 1000 hours a week. Not that I'm doing that, (or you either) but it feels like we're encouraged/threatened to daily.

I need to remember that there's a time and season for everything. I'll be finished with school eventually, dinner is in a few minutes, marriage is later on but soon, etc...

But there's only a limited amount right now. Make sure you spend adequate time with the right things.

Enter at your own risk...

2011-10-10T21:30:47-05:00

Hi there.

I see you have stumbled onto my blog. Maybe you’re some nice guy or gal who is interested in Fuller and want to see what it has to offer. You probably thought to yourself, “if only I can get a student’s perspective, then I can get a better picture.” I don’t blame you. Being able to get the perspective of a student who was where you were and is where you potentially want to go is a good thing.

But don’t let the black and white smiley picture in the right corner fool you.

Seminary can be a crazy place with crazy people that can well…drive you crazy.

In other words, as someone’s dad once said about something… “It’ll put hair on your chest.”

But, crazy is sometimes good and chest hair…well, you get the picture. The point I think I’ve failed at making is that this won’t be a blog of all the reasons why I love Fuller (and believe me, I do love Fuller, they wouldn’t give me a blog if it wasn’t true). This is a testament of all of the things I encounter at Fuller; the good, the bad, and the ugly (how come no one ever mentions beautiful?). Now, granted, it may be kind of random, but I’m random so please bear with me.

I have my own personal blog that I call Honest Conversation. I would like to bring that same concept here. Being at seminary is a unique experience that brings on a world of emotions, and shakes the very foundations you thought were solid. At the same time, it is an amazing place where community is built, lifelong relationships are made, and (hopefully) faith is strengthened. You are challenged at every turn, and if you’re lucky, get the chance to laugh along the way.

I will spend time exploring some of the theological questions and topics that every seminary student must face, but to be honest, I’d like to “keep it real.” Regardless of what you may think of seminary students, we don’t sit around talking about Bonhoeffer or Calvinism all day, we actually have social lives. Mostly, I’d like to explore how seminary affects the rest of life (or lack thereof). Because even though it doesn’t seem like it, there is life after seminary.

So, I hope you will join me as I strive to keep my sanity in the midst of all of this. Like I said, seminary can be a crazy place. Let’s just hope there’s not a straitjacket waiting for me at graduation.

Enter at your own risk...(2)

2011-10-10T21:34:23-05:00

Hi there.

But don’t let the black and white smiley picture in the right corner fool you.

Seminary can be a crazy place with crazy people that can well…drive you crazy.

In other words, as someone’s dad once said about something… “It’ll put hair on your chest.”

University Series: Unity within Diversity

2011-10-20T23:19:26-05:00

OK, you're still here. That's a good sign.
I'd like to start what I call the University Series. University is a term I learned about a year ago (not the actual term, I am in grad school). When I use the term "university" I am referring to creating a space for "unity within diversity." I'd like to explore this because Fuller is a very diverse place (as expressed in Jonathan Damiani's Blog series). What I would like to do is to go deeper than the facts and take a look at how diversity is expressed in various context throughout the institution (and beyond). To start, I'd like to share the original post with you that was the result of participating in a Gospel Choir during Chapel in the Spring 2011 Quarter:

University: Unity within Diversity

Today in Chapel I got a chance to be a part of a gospel choir. I had a blast doing it (I hadn't been in a choir in years!). But I was more excited to see the reaction of the people more than anything else. This intrigued me for a few reasons. I'll admit, I'm a people watcher and enjoy watching people's reactions to things, but that isn't the only reason I was interested in the reaction of the people. In my five weeks here, I have found that there is a desire for more diversity which (to my observation of the responses of people around me) has yet to be fulfilled. I found this interesting since there seem to be so many people from different places that attend this school. The fact that I get a chance to study with people from all over the world was one of the things that attracted me to Fuller and yet it seems that we are faced with the same challenges that we would find outside the church. Now, before I go any further let me say this: I am not saying in any way that Fuller Theological Seminary is racist. In my experience here thus far; THIS IS NOT THE CASE. I personally have felt so welcome by everyone here (from students, professors and staff) and it is this since of community that has been the encouragement for me to keep going. It is my goal to share my observations and desires to see more of this sense of community expressed in the richness of the different cultures represented.

I mentioned in an earlier blog about Ellis Smith from Detroit, MI giving a word at our church where he shared with us what he calls "university" that is; unity within diversity. What I gathered from this message is that our churches shouldn't be considered places where we go to worship with people "like us" (by this I mean the same social, cultural and economic background as ourselves) but quite the contrary: our churches and places of worship should be the very place where people from all different walks of life come together to worship the true and living God. After all, shouldn't God's power and love transcend all of the factors that we have determined to be factors of separation and segregation? It was this very love that Jesus walked in when He was seen sitting with tax collectors, healing gentiles, and loving the "unlovable" and if we are called to be followers of Christ, we are obligated to walk in that same transcending love.

This is why I was so intrigued to see the reaction of those at chapel the day of the gospel choir. I was excited to share the richness of my culture with others, and even more excited to see the unity within the expression of diversity. It is my goal and desire to see that expressed through the Latino and Asian communities as well. I believe that there needs to be a greater sense of "university" on the Fuller campus. I am not saying that we are not unified under Christ, but I would like to see a greater expression of diversity within that unity. I recently went to a meeting for a group on campus for students of African decent and during that meeting they asked for suggestions of things that we would like to see the group accomplish. My main suggestion is for us to not just be a group that "helps students of African decent feel welcome" but to give the Fuller community an opportunity to enjoy the richness of experiencing God through the African culture. There are so many cultures represented on our campus and I for one would love to be apart of those expressions. There is so much to learn from those of African descent, or Latino decent or Koren or Asian decent. There is a richness and a history that I would love to experience. Our goals as ethnic groups should not only be to gather those who "look like us" together simply for the sake of recognition and comfort. We have an obligation to share our culture with others, for our voices have been shaped by the lives of those who have come before us and we would do them a disservice if we simply conform to religious norms for the sake of "unity." This is also why I would like to see more culture representation in our professors, textbooks, student groups, newspapers, etc. I am by no means saying that this isn't happening, but if you feel that we have reached the pinnacle of diversity within the Fuller campus, then please respond to this blog with your observations and I will stand corrected.

I would like to quote Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr in his sermon "Remaining awake through a great revolution:"

All I'm saying is simply this: that all mankind is tied together; all life is interrelated, and we are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. For some strange reason I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. And you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be - this is the interrelated structure of reality.

I believe that despite our difference, we all thrive on our interdependence to one another. In an interdependent relationship, all participants are emotionally, economically, ecologically and/or morally self-reliant while at the same time responsible to each other.* In this sense, each culture is in and of itself significant but as the body of Christ we are also responsible for one another (in love and accountability). I believe that there is a deeper level of understanding of God's love that I can experience through learning about my brothers and sisters in Christ who's lives are different than mine. I simply cannot obtain this understanding without the willingness to see God in all of His expression. How can we claim to have a grasp of the revelation of God and negate the very people who He created in His image because they are not like us? If that is my thinking then I most surely need to be retaught.

OK, I'm ranting.... (smile)

There is so much more out there that we have yet to discover; let us no longer allow our love to be hindered by our unwillingness to engage in the richness of the diversity that God has bestowed upon us. Instead, let us show the world God's love by embracing our differences and allowing that love to transcend them; unifying us as one Body in Christ.

Let the greater Body and the world see us the way we are to be called:

Fuller Theological Seminary....a University.

Expectations

2011-11-05T20:10:50-05:00

So, it’s been about a week or so since my last post. This is partly because school has been CRAZY and partly because I want to develop this University Series more and want to be sure on how to proceed before I actually post anything. I can tell you that there is much in store for this series; from my takes on what the term “university” means in various contexts to actual testimonies from friends at Fuller who represent what I am trying to get at. What I hope to accomplish with this is to open up conversation about what it actually means to be a diverse community (and all of the tension, fun, and wealth of knowledge and perspective that it brings). So, please be on the lookout for those posts and feel free to leave any comments, questions, or concerns you may have. Remember; this is still means for Honest Conversation.

Now that I’ve managed to do a shameless plug, I thought I’d talk about what I am actually doing in seminary, so that those of you who are considering it can grasp a better picture of what went through a current student’s mind when they began this journey. So, the reason I started seminary is…

I have no clue.

Well, that’s somewhat true. OK, more than somewhat but I think that I have a clearer picture than I did when I started. Looking back on it, I think I can share the same view of one of my professors when I say, “I came to seminary out of crisis.” It was February 2011 and I was spent. Throughout the last year or so, I was planning on going to some form of Grad School but had no clue what that looked like. All I knew is that I wanted to be about writing. MFA? Well, that sounds good but I don’t want to just learn about screenwriting or creative writing. I know, how about the Master’s of Professional Writing Program at USC? That sounds perfect! But even in my trying to complete the application, I knew something was missing. So by the time February came around I had no clue what I wanted to study. But I’d just lost my job and knew that I needed to do SOMETHING!

Then God reminded me about seminary. Many moons ago I had a strong desire to go to seminary and study theology. It wasn’t that the desire wasn’t still there; it was just buried, and God’s reminder had a way of bringing it back to the surface. OK, seminary, I can deal with that. But WHICH seminary? I don’t know anything about theology really, how am I going to know how to choose a school that speaks to who I am? What about writing? What about arts and promotion? How do I find a program that represents all of me?

God answered my question in three words: Worship, Theology, and the Arts (it IS three words, stop counting conjunctions and articles!) All this time I thought I was supposed to go to school just to learn how to write, when all along God wanted to give me something to say. I didn’t think that when I first started. I was only looking for answers, when God was trying to reignite my passion for the questions. I was looking for the clear picture; God was showing me my broken pieces. I was looking for how to be more independent; God was showing me the importance of community. I now realize that coming to seminary wasn’t just about learning something, it was way beyond that. It is and continues to be an experience that transforms me so that I can help to walk with those who are being transformed. (Notice I didn’t say “transform others.”)

So, that’s just a little of my story. I hope to share more as we continue this journey together. For those of you considering Fuller; know that this isn’t just a time to get trained to go off to where you are called (though it is that). It is another season of your journey; filled with lessons and mistakes and blessings and people who you will form lifelong relationships with. Don’t be surprised if you don’t get what you expect, but don’t expect anything less than what God is capable of.

When Absence Speaks Louder than Words: A Theology on Marching

2012-03-28T14:54:27-05:00

This is a cross post from my personal blog. It's still a work in progress but I'd like to know what you think....

I went to the Trayvon Martin rally and march in downtown Los Angeles yesterday. Its been a while since I last participated in a march, and I missed the energy that is connected to a community of people taking a stand in the name of justice.
When I returned home, I couldn't shake the high that I was feeling; and I didn't want to. This was something more to me than just being upset about the situation (which is by far an understatement). This was different from simply posting an article on Facebook, or a note on Twitter in response to that anger. No, this was different.
This was different because I actually got up and did something.
Now, this is not to say that the use of technology isn't important to spreading the word about a cause. Quite the contrary. Technology has played a major part in not only making information assessable, but in being able to connect people from all over the world, unifying them under a single issue. Technology and social media both play a major part in showing the truth of what is happening in the face of biased media networks and other hidden agendas. Thus I do not wish to present an argument that is against social media; what I wish to do is to express is the importance of coming together for something like a march, and the lasting statement that our presence makes.

Even though it is true that I make a statement by what I put on my Facebook page, or on my Twitter account, or even on this blog; the fact of the matter is that those statements can only go so far. There is that slight sense of being disconnected that somehow prevents me from being fully committed to a status or tweet. Now, as a writer, this is saying a lot: to admit that there is some feelings of disconnection in association to my writing. But please note that I do not mean it in that I am not truthful or do not stand behind my words. I am simply saying that I experienced a deeper conviction and commitment as I walked with others from the community on behalf of Trayvon. And I believe that conviction is deeply theological.

I have yet to read a variety of books on theology, but I am confident that the form of bodily presence that I speak of when I speak of marching has theological implications. I say this for two reasons: 1. the statement that our bodily presence makes when we come together to march, and 2. the way that our non-violence resistance rejects not only the form of oppression, but its methods.

1. There is just something about being present. Whether it is a requirement for school, or marriage, or a friendship, or a job; our presence is important. Thus when I say that our bodily presence makes a statement, I am saying that it speaks in ways that our words cannot. Think about the marches and sit-in's of the Civil Rights movement. Their presence in those diners or walking down those streets sent a message that words could not touch. You may be able to disregard my letters (no matter how eloquent they are) but you cannot ignore my body; sitting in your diner or walking down your streets. You may try to ignore my words, but you will not ignore me.

This is also evident in the bible. Let us reflect on John 1, "In the beginning was the Word...The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." The Word (Jesus) became flesh. This is not speaking against the weight of God's Word, but there is something significant about the taking on of a bodily presence to make a statement. God did not simply speak, He came. Even if we managed to ignore His words, we couldn't not ignore Him.

2. The use of non violent resistance is extremely important in the stance against injustice. The use of non violent resistance has deeper implications than I thought before this particular march. The fact that this march was so peaceful really resonated with me (not that I expected anything else, nevertheless, it is always nice). Despite the fact of others opinions of an "eye for an eye" response, marching has a way of taking a stance against more than just the action. Marching for Trayvon isn't only about taking a stance against the fact that he was killed. Its taking a stance against the way he was killed. Marching (using non-violence as an act of resistance) doesn't simply speak against the action but it speaks against violence itself. It says, "we will not react in the way that you have. we will be better."

I am sure there is much more that could be said about this, and I hope to be able to develop this more. I just wanted to get some initial thoughts down in hopes to spark some conversation. My hope is that we grasp a better understanding on what it means to be present. To take the time to do more than send a tweet. We live in an age where our lives can become completely outside of ourselves. We can date online, go to school online, even go to church online (that's a whole different story). Thus, we are in danger of being assessable yet not being present.

I encourage us to reflect on what we mean when we post, or tweet, or blog. Hopefully we will be willing to show up when necessary. Lest our absence begin to speak louder than our words...

My Confession

2012-04-13T19:54:32-05:00

Hi there…

My name is Tamisha A. Tyler, and I’m a procrastinator.

I know this sounds a little silly writing a blog about this and all, but to be honest, I feel like I need to do something! This procrastinating is getting a bit out of hand. I guess it really hit me today when I got a grade back on a paper. It wasn’t a bad grade really, it’s just that I know I could have received full credit for that assignment if only I didn’t wait to the last minute. I’ll be honest, (which is a big deal since I’m pretty sure my professor (who shall remain nameless) will happen to stumble across this blog (as they always seem to do) and figure out that I’m talking about their class)…I actually wrote the paper while in one of my other classes right before the paper was due.

(This is the part I duck to dodge the stones being thrown…)

I know, I know; this is really bad practice and should be avoided by anyone in school or considering it. What made it worse was that my professor in the class I was writing the paper in stood by my section of the class almost the entire time while they were lecturing. All the while I’m looking up and nodding like I’m listening and typing my paper at the same time. My friend, who was sitting next to me could do nothing but shake his head and laugh. It wasn’t even like I didn’t have the time to write the book review, I actually finished the book a couple of days before the paper was due. But there is something about having my back against the wall of a deadline that I just can’t seem to shake. What’s worse; I don’t even remember what I wrote! I didn’t have time to proof read it or edit it or anything. I’m cringing just thinking about it.

Now this is not a new thing. I’ve been procrastinating throughout my college career. I remember those nights in undergrad where I would be writing my research papers the night before (including the research!). It’s a sad existence, but a rush I can’t seem to get away from. It’s like a drug! (And something has to be seriously wrong with that).

So I decided to go to the place to get some good, sound advice on matters like this….Facebook. And the only response I got was to…well, stop. Stop procrastinating. Get to it. Be proactive. I even went and Googled “how to stop procrastinating” to see what came up and it all pretty much said the same thing. But even after reading all of that stuff, I still didn’t feel like I would be able to stop waiting till the last minute.

What’s wrong with me!? It’s not like I don’t care about the material or the classes; I’m having an amazing time in all of my classes. But I just can’t seem to stop procrastinating; and it’s only week 3! I can’t live like this! I gotta get it together!

I figure there has to be something deeper than just the rush I get when I’m up against a deadline. It was in meditating on this issue that I realized that there is also something exciting about getting back a pretty decent grade knowing that you procrastinated. It’s like you got away with something (if that isn’t a cheap thrill than I don’t know what is). I know this all sounds crazy; but it’s true. There is some sort of satisfaction when you realize you got that A- on your final paper that you wrote in 3 hours. Some sort of demented accomplishment that you were able to get a good grade without putting your best forward. But beneath that sense of fulfillment is fear. Fear that if you do put 100% into it, you won’t do well, and that your best won’t be good enough. So if half way is OK, then everybody wins; you teacher gets a paper worthy of a fairly decent grade and you get to stay comfortable.

It’s a sad, sad reality. I’m not sure if this is why others procrastinate, but it why I do. But to be honest, it’s getting old. There comes a time in your college career where half way just won’t do. That time where you have to make the decision that it’s all or nothing. Now, I would hope that most of you made that decision before you decided on going or getting back into school; but for those of you like me, I can tell you that this decision is inevitable. I now find myself disappointed when I get good grades; because I know I didn’t really work for them. I now have to make the decision to put my all on the line, regardless of the fear associated with it. My grades (no matter how good or bad) can’t define me (no matter how much they mean to a PhD program).

So, I’m still figuring out how to stop procrastinating. Not because I don’t love the rush of a deadline, but because I need to get over the fear of failure.

Am I alone in this? Has any of you dealt with procrastinating of some sort?

University Series Testimony: Lanre Orepo

2012-04-13T20:42:04-05:00

A few quarters ago I asked a friend to respond to a few questions in efforts to spark some conversation with our brothers and sisters from other cultures. I decided to do this because I believe that everyone has a right to tell their story; whether we agree or not or whether or not it makes us uncomfortable. The point of “university” is not to create a group of homogenous people; forcing those of different cultures to conform to what we believe to be standard for the sake of “unity,” but to allow our differences to speak in hopes that we will see the greatness in the diversity of the body of Christ.

So I hope you are able to read this in light of what it means to be among the body, and how Christ (through his life, death, and resurrection) showed us what it means to live in community together; being challenged to love beyond our own limitations…

Below is just a brief bio of my friend Lanre Orepo:

For over a decade, Lanre Orepo has been involved in church planting in Africa and in the United Kingdom. A pastor and mission facilitator, Lanre is an alumni of London School of Theology, U.K and presently doing his MA in Intercultural Studies at Fuller Theological Seminary.

I also decided to include the questions so that you can get a better feel for where this article is coming from. I encourage you to engage with some of his thoughts here, as my decision to do this is simply to facilitate conversation; which I believe is one of the great things about Fuller Seminary: the ability to provide a safe space and facilitate conversation concerning matters of the church.

1. What you are doing in Nigeria

2. What are the needs of the people in Nigeria

3. How would you "critique" our Western, mainstream theology in light of your experiences and how it does or does not meet the needs of the people of Nigeria?

4. What do you suggest may be done to give voice to what is happening and how might our view of theology and mission be transformed by this voice?

AUTHENTIC SYNEGY

…. Key to global mission

Nigeria is a country in West Africa with a population of 120 million. It is a diverse country with more than three hundred tribes, but only three tribes have achieved the status of becoming an ethnicity. The three tribes are the Yorubas, the HausaFulanis, and the Ibos. Nigeria is considered to be a religious nation with large congregational attendance in churches and mosques. Today Nigeria is the most populous Christian body in the world. It has the biggest church auditoriums in the world, and is a key nation in the mission sending efforts to Africa, Europe and America.

Spring Life Global Mission (siglom)

My ministry began in Nigeria in the year 1995, with strong passion and a vision to impact my local community with gospel of Jesus Christ, and to bring people into the awareness of the presence of God. The “SpringLife,” as the ministry was called, started with four people. Today SpringLife has grown into three church plants and an organization that incorporates mission outreaches with a emphasis towards global leadership. SpringLife presently networks with ministries and churches for mission development and training. These Networks have developed in England, South Africa, Ghana, Namibia and the USA.

Authentic Synergy

Effective Partnership in Leadership

As a pastor of a local church, I discovered my ability to initiate ministries that bring leaders of churches together to form a network where they could assist one another in their various ministries. Seven years after planting SpringLife, I sensed the Lord leading me to partner with other Christian leaders in “mission synergy” (Mission synergy is a concept of promoting partnership among mission organizations for greater result).

These leaders come from different cultural contexts, experiences, and they demonstrate different gifts and skills. My mission was to facilitate ministry opportunities that would bring these leaders together to work and speak to the life local churches, missions, and regions different from their own.

The biblical bases for the concept of mission synergy come from Acts 8: 14 and Jeremiah 51: 31. Acts 8:14 talks of the blessing that comes by allowing the apostolic into the life of a local church or mission. Jeremiah 51:31 shows a prophetic picture of partnership that is a sign of an unending breakthrough in cities and regions. Partnership among leaders is God’s plan for effective mission.

Ministry and Callings

People without a sense of God’s calling in their lives have no business in Christian ministry. The idea of being “called” into ministry is significant to ministry success and how far one can go in fulfilling their mission. In Africa, most people attend seminary after they feel a strong call into the ministry. In most cases they are already engaged in active ministry work before going to seminary. This is contrasted against seminary graduates in the West, where many enter into a job-hunting market after graduating from seminary because they were taught little about knowing God’s calling and hearing the voice of God.

The Bible and Prayer in Mission

Mainstream Western theology has a view of the Bible that is different from how Africans understand and interpret the Bible. In the African context ministry and the Bible are intrinsically connected for anyone going into Christian ministry. The Bible is interpreted in such a way that it relates to people’s daily lives, needs, and experiences. The ordinary person in the African reads the Bible and makes sense of it within their lives. They also have the ability to articulate and share their faith in their community leading them to bring many people to Christ without having been to theological school. They prove the Bible works in their lives and open their friends to the unlimited resources of God’s word. This process begins with the person’s attitude towards the Bible and involves faith, prayer, and the studying of God’s word. The reading of the Bible is done in such a way that it provides meaning and value to the life of the ordinary person. From the grassroots level to the professional level, people are seriously and completely committed to the Bible and attendance to ministry.

Meanwhile in the West, the Bible is mostly approached from a scholarly perspective. The Bible is studied abstractly without context. Secularization and post-modernity in the West have shaped the standard of Western exegesis. Hence, the fresh seminary graduates’ approach to ministry lacks particularity or personal attachment to the Bible. There is little or no time paid to the reading and studying of the Bible, even in the seminary.

In Nigeria prayer is considered an integral part of a leader’s own personal spiritual disciplines that is never an option. Prayer is a fully embraced aspect of ministry in Nigeria. Churches hold prayer meetings for long hours, and even for days, with amazing results such as revivals and multiplicity of membership. The key to outstanding breakthrough, in the churches and in mission, is that the leaders spend more time praying and fasting than doing other official ministry duties.

In the African Mission the Bible and prayer are integrated into every part of ministry and life. The Western mission needs to create a framework for this type of ministry. It changes our orientation to the church and ushers in the power of God in the community of God’s people.

The Need for Today

Along with the strong growth of Christianity in Nigeria, there is need for partnership with mainstream Western theologians. Each region holds the Bible in a different context and position, and there is need for each context to engage in dialogue in order to establish a global theology that does not give preference to one over the other.

The West can learn from African/Nigerian church considering the rapid growth and success in ministry in that part of the world.

Today Nigeria is home to the world’s largest church congregation, 5 million members. This church, Redeemed Christian Church of God, is making great in-roads into America and Europe. The biggest church auditorium in the world belongs to The Living Faith Church. It seats 55 thousand people; they have four services every Sunday and are also making powerful contribution to Christianity in both Europe and in African countries. In the United Kingdom, especially in London, Nigerian pastors are leading figures in church growth. This growth is spearheaded by KICC (Kingsway International Christian Center), which is led by Mathew Ashimolowo. KICC has 12 thousand members in London alone. In the Ukraine, in Eastern Europe, Sunday Adelaja is pastor of the Embassy of God, a church with a membership of 25 thousand in Kiev alone, which is considered the largest congregation in Europe today. We can no longer ignore these developments in church growth and African leadership. Nigerian Pastors are gathering the largest congregations and making an impact wherever they go. The West needs to embrace these new developments as a study for global theology.

I advocate for African theological thinkers and leaders partnering with the Western leaders and vice versa. The body of Christ is one; thus we have the need for united scholarly leadership, who can merge the current developments in mission work with scholarship and training, for the future preservation and education of the Church. What is needed is the ability to bring our context, wisdom, spirituality, and hermeneutics into a global format that can be learned, taught, and preserved for future advantage.

Also, I am committed to bringing leaders from Africa into dialogue with their Western counterparts for the sake of the global growth of the church. Finally, I am committed to encouraging and working with Western leaders to-be, so that they can learn from the African way of church planting and ministry. In order to synergistically adapt an African context towards a Bible based mission into their Western context.

Mainstream Western theology needs to embrace new perspectives of working cross-culturally with African leaders and seek ways to integrate into Western theology global understandings of God’s mission in the world.

There are strong, healthy, growing churches in Nigeria at the moment. These churches have passionate leaders, who minister in their context and effectively minister to their constituent. There is a lot to be learned and taught, whenever Christian leaders humbly work together for the glory of God.

University Series Testimony: Catherine Kelley

2012-05-14T15:11:18-05:00

I want to continue this series by adding another testimony. I hope you take something away from this and feel free to engage with these stories as well!
Catherine Kelley is a good friend of mine who brings a lot of wisdom to any conversation. I hope you enjoy her testimony!

What lead you to Fuller?

The truth. Some time ago a friend had suggested that I take a personality test to find out what kind of work situation would most likely be in sync with who I am. So $250 later (and forever grateful to my friend who paid for the bulk of it) I received the results of a fantastic personality test: find an organization with a mission. I began applying for administrative positions with nonprofit companies. My husband and I, together with some close friends, prayed that God would "hit me over the head with a two by four" to find the "right" job. I have been at Fuller ever since.

During the very first week here on campus an academic advisor, LeAnn Aldrich, was in our office speaking with my supervisor and said something like, "So, how about that new MDiv recovery ministry degree." I was stunned, because I had been involved in the 12 Steps for about 15 years and never thought that a seminary would have beautifully blended the study of theology with 12 Steps. Six months later I walked into my first class taught by Dale Ryan. Tada, there's a two by four for you.

How do you engage theologically as a woman?

This is a tough one because I am probably quite affected by the influence of secular feminism from my college days more than I realize. During my twenties I discounted the importance of the Bible in my life because of its male dominance. This was a popular stance because I went to college in the mid 70s and the women's liberation movement was still strong. As a result of these influences I selected a field education experience at a domestic violence clinic where I also volunteered in small groups with male perpetrators for a couple of years.

Today, I look for opportunities. That "opportunity based" mindset comes from having gone through the 1960s and 1970s where I witnessed, first hand, some of the inequities that women have confronted and, sadly, still do. Female theologians like Elizabeth Johnson (author of She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theology), who provide room for dialogue about possibilities. For me this means a leaning toward a female Holy Spirit (special thanks to Rob Johnston, whose Systematic Theology I course provided lively dialogue and an opportunity to question feminist theology).

You may have noticed that our seminary has some amazing leaders (both men and women, including the late David M. Scholer, who helped blaze the trail). They work hard to incorporate a diverse range of materials that give "voice" to addressing societal inequities. That being said, as a woman (and special thanks for faculty who have had me in their classes), I ask questions. Even outside of classroom settings, though shy by nature, I am vocal about the intersection of theology and recovery.

As a Greek American?

Labeled as s Second generation Greek American: that describes who I am, a lot. In addition, I am also a native New Yorker. That explains the origin of my passion and enthusiasm. When one is raised in a home where parents are busting out proud to be new Americans, and never (no, never) returned to Greece, there are certain outcomes. Why? They wanted us to succeed in America and they saw that minimizing the Greek and maximizing the American side of life would mean success.

As a result the Greek side of me became secondary (Steve Demetre Georgiou aka "Cat Stevens" was my first love, though he never knew it). First, my parents did not really encourage us to learn or continue speaking Greek after five years old. Second, they moved out of regions in New York where bastions of Greeks thrived. Third, I did not know that my parents wanted me to marry someone Greek (that is, until after I became engaged to my non Greek husband, and what a blessing he has been in my life!). Fourth, my parents never put any limitations on me (i.e., they told all of their children they would be going to college, and they stood by me through a joint degree in law and business administration). In fact, I would not be in seminary had it not been for the strong foundation they provided for an intimate relationship with our sovereign God.

There are pros and cons to falling away from one's culture of origin. I came to understand that truth during one of my courses here at Fuller. Love Sechrest's "Race and Christian Identity in the New Testament" (a must take for anyone who doesn't live underneath a rock) made me aware of the things I missed out on, the questions I had failed to ask as a child, and the ways in which I could still express my Greek heritage. (This is where the female Greek thing comes into the picture.) For example, growing out my hair has been my cultural "embrace" during the past year and a half. I don't straighten it out the natural Greek waves (my father's ethnic hair) the way I used to, and I don't dye it because it helps me to connect with wise older Greek women like my mom (gray and all). Another good thing is the way in which Greeks love to embrace life and relationships. I naturally enjoy cooking and having people come to our home for Bible study and fellowship. So, hospitality blends who I am both as a Christian and Greek.

The not so good news is that Greek was not my first language, nor has it been my second (thank goodness for the patient, kind, and encouraging professors at Fuller such as Marianne Meye Thompson and Peter Hintzoglou, whose classes I weathered through). Prayerfully, I will continue to grow in my love for the Greek language in the years ahead. A particular area of sadness for me is the lack of color that the reformed tradition misses out on in comparison to Greek churches and their worship experiences. In spite of that deficit, I am blessed to be a part of Fuller's community in which the Byzantine flavor has been shared through the Hubbard Library's exhibit on iconography and our chapel experiences where beautifully sung chants bless my Greek ears.

How has your experiences shaped your theology?

Theology, for me, is in a large part seen through the lens of Twelve Step Recovery (both Al-Anon and CoDA). This is no surprise for those who know me, as I slowly plod through the road of being a part time student and full time employee. The faculty, whose courses I have gratefully walked through, have allowed me to experience theology through my Twelve Step eyes and heart.

I take my theological studies pretty seriously. One big reason is because I entered seminary later in life and I want each experience to count. Another reason is because I have seen some pretty terrifying things in connection with addiction. As a result I have walked through my studies here at Fuller pretty intentionally and with lots of questions. Being able to explore things such as forgiveness or even paraphrasing Colossians with a Twelve Step twist has been freeing and eye opening. These experiences helped me to appreciate that the Bible is truly the Living Word of God. God works through the written and spoken Word and we are transformed.

How has mainstream theology shaped your experiences?

Mainstream theology has impacted: how I view God and my relationship with God, how I treat people (most of the time, though I am quite imperfect and fail...a lot), how I volunteer in church settings and in the community, how I "do" worship, and where and how I work. I have questioned and loved what I have come to know as our Christian heritage.

There have been, and continue to be, some "mainstream" theological beliefs with which I am uncomfortable and continue to struggle. These are typically issues that involve injustices perpetrated on others in the "name" of Christianity. For example how are we to treat our sisters and brothers who have experienced drug addiction? Or who have been arrested in connection with addiction? Or who have connected with crimes of violence? What about my brothers and sisters who are gay? Just because someone is different in some ways aren't they just like me in all the other ways? Are these differences enough to separate me from them?

Did Jesus separate Himself from us because we were and are sinful even though He was sinless? The answer is: no. As a result, I am invested in being as faithful as possible to this Christian walk with others (whether or not they are fellow Christians) in love, understanding, and the continued sharing of burdens and joys.

How has your experiences at Fuller helped to provide space for such a shaping?

I love the opportunities for growth and challenges that have shaped me. Women like Jeannette Scholer, Ruth Vuong, Christine Cervantes, Shannae Rickards Anderson, Lisa Lamb, and Marianne Meye Thompson, have helped to shape who I am as a woman, a wife, a friend, and a Christian. They gave me space to question when the going got tough, share laughter in the midst of storms, encouragement to hang in there, and prayer. Faithful prayer.

And finally, if you could say one thing as a Greek American Female Theologian what would it be?

I don't know if I'd capture who I am and what I am about as a theologian. I don't know if I have walked that road long and far enough, or have even studied enough to qualify as one.

I do believe, however, that we have an awesome God, without whose grace and love we'd be lost and left for dead. God is all about relationship and that relationship is embodied in God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. We have been given a chance on this earth to reach out in love and be a part of community for God's greater glory. May we find it now.

Prelude

2011-10-13T00:10:20-05:00

When a good friend of mine found out that I was to blog for Fuller, he suggested that my first post be about who I am, where I’ve come from, and why exactly it is that I decided to pursue an MFT degree here at Fuller. I personally think this is boring information that not a lot of people would really want to know… But who knows?? There may be someone out there who's just dying to know.. Either way, I promised him I would, and since I’m a good friend, here goes:

I am a first generation Korean-American, fresh out of undergrad at the University of Texas in Austin. (Hook ‘em horns!) I’m a pretty bubbly and outgoing person who loves movies, trying new foods, doing old granny stuff (such as knitting, crocheting, going to the art museum, listening to jazz music, etc.), and using instagram to pose as a decent photographer. My current parents got married December of 2008 and since then, I have been a proud older sister of Jae, Jenny and Jason. My dad’s a naval architect, mom’s a full-time mommy, and my three younger siblings are… well, typical 9, 13, and 14-year-olds who love me but are too cool to show it most the time.

[my beautiful family. :D]

I had felt a calling to go to seminary my freshman year of college – in the midst of taking “Intro to the Philosophy of Religion” and “Rise of Christianity” – but I knew I didn’t want to be a pastor. When I first found out about the Marriage and Family Therapy degree, I was so excited because I had no idea that such an option was available in seminary! I thought to myself, “Wow this is perfect. I love talking about boys and relationships anyway, so might as well get paid doing it!” (Now of course I’m not as entirely shallow as I’m making myself sound, but it’s actually a pretty accurate reflection of what was going through my mind.) It wasn’t until my senior year of college that I made a connection between my passion for marital therapy and the experiences of my own childhood.

You see, my parents were on the verge of divorce when they themselves first sought marriage therapy. Even though I was pretty young, I still remember the early years being filled with constant bickering and ineffective communication. Sure they were devoted Christians, but they were still young and human and, quite frankly, a bit clueless on how to come up with solutions to the list of issues that just kept getting longer. Through marriage counseling and support from group marriage sessions, my parents’ relationship began to transform before my very eyes. It was slow, but it was steady. Soon enough, my parents renewed their marriage vows to one another and asked God to somehow redeem the first 7 years of their god-awful marriage; He was so faithful to use marriage counseling once again to answer their prayers. The next ten years of their marriage were spent counseling others, supporting husbands and wives who had hit rough patches, and making themselves available to listen and gently guide those who had no idea what else could be done to salvage their damaged relationships. Growing up as a witness to this kind of transformation, how could I NOT be attracted to the work of marriage therapists??

When I first got here, it didn’t take long to realize that I am the baby in almost any room I find myself in. Most students have either taken a few years to work after their undergrad or have years of ministerial experience and/or other master degrees under their belts. Seeing all of these older students I wondered if I even belonged here. Do I have enough experience? Was I naïve to just jump right into the program? Am I too young? But in the midst of wresting with these thoughts, God’s voice was very, very clear: Don’t compare my plans for you with the plans I have for these other students. You’re supposed to be here, Eunice… so be here. sigh. how am I supposed to argue with that?

THUS, here I am.

Perhaps the only “experience” I have is the many years of witnessing my parents’ ministry, but I know without a doubt that I’m where I’m supposed to be. I believe in the work I’m investing both time and money to learn more about. The more and more I see what all it takes to be a great therapist, the more I feel an overwhelming combination of humility and ambition that I’ve never felt before in my life. I don’t know about you but I think that’s a good enough reason to be excited for what’s to come.

What's my name?

2011-10-18T23:29:44-05:00

Today for integration groups, we met up for a community seminar-type thing to discuss the issue of humility. I definitely see the benefits of talking about this issue given that we are all training to be part of a profession that gives us much power over the lives of others; I can totally see why Fuller (and God, for that matter) would want us to be humble in our practices. The professor got up and essentially shared with us two stories – one of how Jesus humbled himself as a servant although He was God, and another of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16). The professor said a lot of insightful things that I want to remember for a long time, but our closing activity is what’s currently messing with my head as I sit at my laptop to write this post.

(Before I get into what he talked about, I want to make sure I point out that the professor wasn’t doing a Bible study. He was taking a parable and pulling from it, just one of many application points. I don’t want anyone to read this next part and freak out because “Oh no, that’s not what Jesus was trying to say when he taught the story!” Okay. Moving on.)

Basically he took the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man and turned our focus to the fact that Lazarus had a name whereas the rich man’s name was… well, “The Rich Man.” He was named based on what he did, his status in society, his behaviors and his successes in life. There is not a deep sense of authenticity that rings with his name. He was simply, the rich man. The Bible tells us that Lazarus, on the other hand, had nothing but sores on which the dogs could lick, and yet, he is the only character in all of Jesus’ parables that holds a personal name. Later in the story, Lazarus is found in the bosom of Father Abraham whereas the rich man agonizes in the pits of hell. The professor instructed each of us students to be honest with ourselves and to ask what our names are – first, the name that describes who we really are today, and next, the name that describes who would like to be.

Coming up with the first name for myself was easy: Disengaged.

Ever since I got to Fuller, it’s been a crazy whirlwind of activity. Welcome Week was a meet and greet on steroids, settling in with my neighbors at Koinonia was sensory overload – kids are WAY loud, people are WAY friendly, food was WAY diverse, saw WAY too many faces – and the assignments for classes deceived me by making me think they were emotionally manageable. The concept of REST seems a bit foreign to me. Even when I do get enough sleep at night, my head is spinning things I must get done as I lay down to sleep and buzzing with a mental check-list as I greet each morning. The result? Disengagement. There are only snip-bits of my day where I find myself truly in the moment let alone enjoying it. There are so many blessings to marinate in but I can’t be thankful for a majority of them because I’m running on autopilot. I feel one degree away from each situation; I’ve become an observer of my new life here in California.

I know I sound incredibly existential right now. But that’s okay. Despite my mental state of feeling disconnected from myself, my spiritual life doesn’t feel severed (… yet). I’m in prayer. All the time. But like I said, I’m always on the go so that whole concept of being STILL before the Lord is somewhere out in the stratosphere of my life. Again, God has been so good to me to meet me where I am – in my textbooks, lectures, church-hopping, friendships – and I am SO grateful. But I realized during this lecture that it’s really not enough. Thinking of these things, I knew what name I would want to describe me.

“Happy and Victorious One.” (Did you know that that’s what ‘Eunice’ means in Greek?)

Simply put, I want to be able to live up to the name that God has already given me. By “happy” I mean “joyous.” I want to be overflowing with a deep sense of contentment and thanksgiving for the things God has already pronounced over my life. I am healthy and young and vibrant and loved. I have been uniquely designed by a big, big God to do crucial things for his Kingdom that’s already around me. There is great joy to be found and I don’t want to miss out on that for a second. Also, I want to be one who is victorious. Victorious over my studies, habitual sins, insecurities, fears of failure, undisciplined lifestyle, injustices that I see and contribute to in my own small bubble of society… I realize that it will probably take a long time, but slowly and surely, I would like to see victory in my life; so much of it, in fact, that it hangs as a name over my head.

I am happy to say that, at least for me, the seminar served as a reorientation towards a more healthy direction. Maybe the whole issue of humility didn’t hit home for me as the coordinators of the seminar would have wanted, but it did make me stop and reassess where I currently stand in my new life here. It helped me see that I’m really not as present as I would like to be; I’m living my days but not truly alive in every moment. Honestly, I’m not entirely sure what it’s going to take for me to get to where I want to be… but it’s okay. The fact that I can verbalize how I feel and call it for what it is makes me a little more triumphant than I was yesterday.

No Laptop, No Problem

2011-10-14T17:45:38-05:00

So it’s the end of week four of ten in Fuller’s Fall quarter of 2011 and it’s been three weeks since I’ve had a functioning laptop. Right at the end of my first week this quarter, my laptop suddenly died which made me ever more grateful for automatic backups. Had they not been there, a year’s worth of my research for the School of Psychology would have been kaput. So far, I’ve been getting by using my Kindle 3’s experimental browser, the Hubbard Library computers, and the graciousness of friends’ laptops and iPads. Thank God for good friends and available resources.

It’s sad, but it’s made me realize my own fickleness. I can’t watch Big Bang Theory or How I Met Your Mother or Community while I’m cooking. Woe is me. Well, at least I still have an Xbox 360. What on earth would I do?

But as much I’d love to join the Western-hating bandwagon that trucks through many of our classes as we highlight our privileged statuses, how about a little gratitude instead? We have resources in the United States. Yes, this is true. But forgive me for not feeling as bad about it as some of my counterparts. We have advancements, so we need to use them. I have papers to write, so am I going to feel bad using a personal computer to do it? No. Definitely not. Absolutely not. Instead, I’m going to be grateful that I have enough resources (or at least access to resources) that allow me to pump out thousand word papers to appease the powers that be.

I’m not for wastefulness, but I am for gratefulness. Be efficient. Use what you have and use it well. There’s no need to feel guilty unless it causes you to act, like donating computers to individuals or people groups. Otherwise, you’re either just going to make yourself and others feel bad without any ultimate gain. Alternatively, you may find individual gain in becoming self-righteous in your enlightened awareness.

Good for you. I’m gonna keep typing on this computer because it’s awesome that there’s one in front of me. And thank God that it’s still functional.

(Although, if I could be whiny Westerner for a moment, having a functional laptop again would be really nice. I mean, this is grad school. Honestly. I’ve thought about breaking into Hubbard library at least twice just so I could get some work done…or maybe just to watch some tv. )

Starry-Eyed Surprise

2011-10-20T15:22:32-05:00

Last night back in my Fuller housing complex, it was a pretty chilly night accompanied with a thick fog that rested over Los Angeles. I was having trouble going to sleep, so I decided to sit down and look up to the sky and check out the stars. There’s only two problems with this.

It’s LA.

It’s a foggy night in LA.

Okay, so it doesn’t look like I’m going to have this romantic night with myself as I star gaze. But, I decided to look up to the sky anyway. I got distracted and started looking the trees above me. They were pretty to look at, but that presented another problem.

Trees ≠ stars.

Things are going great so far. But I was reminded of a trip I took a few months ago with some friends from my clinical psychology cohort and an MFT student (also a friend!). One night, we stood at the edge of the Grand Canyon and looked at the sky. I’m telling you, it made me think of God at creation like a little girl in pig tails armed with black construction paper, a glue stick, and a gigantic bag of glitter. God in his capricious creativity threw a bunch of glitter in the sky because God thought it was pretty and liked shiny things. I couldn’t agree more, great Creator of the Universe.

I missed those stars last night. But I knew I’d never see those stars unless I kept looking up. I wouldn’t see them if I stared at the trees. But you wanna know what was the most frustrating part? No matter how hard I squinted, no matter how high I jumped, ~~no matter how badly I wanted to break into the roof access of nearby buildings after midnight,~~ none of that would have helped me see those stars.

Some nights we see the stars. Other nights we don’t.

Some nights we look up and see the stars. Other times we can try as hard as we want to and we still won’t.

But I’m still counting for at least a star or two to break through the sheath of the LA sky. And when those stars are ready to shine again, my eyes will be waiting and I’ll greet them with a short smile.

Good to see you again, stars. I knew you’d be back.

Walking in an October Wonderland

2011-11-05T23:13:56-05:00

Last weekend, I was in New Jersey for my brother’s engagement party and experienced one of the worst snow storms I can remember, and definitely the worst I can remember happening in October. It might seem counterintuitive, but I’d like to explain something to my Californian brothers and sisters:

Snow storms bring out people.

Not in the sense of having snowball fights or making snow angels, but in the sense of magnifying characteristics of people that are already present within the individual. Allow me to offer my anecdotal evidence.

At some point, I was driving my four cylinder, front wheel drive vehicle in a snow storm three other people in it uphill. Lovely. My vehicle got stuck in what I can best call a mudtrap from MXC (Most Extreme Elimination Challenge anyone?) I got out of my car, took off my suit, rolled up my sleeves and got to pushing as my mom went into the driver’s seat. Clearly I’m not going anywhere, but two cars behind me, a gentleman decides to give me some encouragement by honking his horn. Makes sense right? I’ll push harder now, thanks buddy.

Another man gets out of the car directly behind me and starts pushing. We’re still going nowhere. On the opposite side a man gets out of his car and starts giving us directions on which way for my mom to turn the wheel and when for us to push. He looks up and calls me aside and says “Look, tell the ladies in your car that if a tree falls down to stay in the car.”

“Why?” I ask

“Because if a power line falls, we’re all fried anyway. They’ll be safe in the car.”

Awesome. “Hey mom, if a tree falls, stay in the car.”

“Why?” said my mom already freaking out.

“JUST STAY IN THE CAR!” (Okay, not my best moment, but it felt necessary at the time. For the record, I don’t endorse yelling at your mother. But in a matter of mortality, I make an exception.)

In the meantime, some guys snapped branches on the fallen tree that blocked most of the road. Oh nice, the guy that honked a sound of encouragement has now just passed me. Oh thanks man, he gave me a thumb’s up.

Oh. Not his thumb.

One of the guys that helped me push the car ended up getting back in his car to get something…and left. This is getting better and better. Finally, two other guys showed up who I had to flag down and stand in the road to get. (It was me vs a Dodge Ram 3500. I think the only thing that stopped this guy was that he didn’t wanna get blood on his new chrome bumper.) They eventually got out of their car and pushed us up and out. I gave them all solid handshakes and went on my way, only to get stuck again about a mile away. But I’ll spare you that story.

The point is, I got to see different kinds of people come out in a snow storm and for those of you who have never experienced snow, perhaps you just did too. Some flip you off. Some push your car and then drive off when the road is cleared for them. Others will stay with you until the job is done, even if they don’t know you and there isn’t much incentive for them to help. And even more will stay in the safety of their homes, snuggled up by a fireplace wondering why anyone would be outside.

I didn’t know what kind of person I would be until I was in the snow storm. For the rest of the ride home, I’m trying to keep the tone of the car calm and collected with my cousin (thanks Hannah) as we wondered how my dad and brother were faring in their ride home in another car. It took us 90-120 minutes to get back home for what would have otherwise been a 20 minute ride.

When the four of us in my car got home, we were ecstatic to see my brother’s car on the street. Thank God, we all made it back. By the end of the trip, I drove under four power lines and got my car stuck twice. My brother luckily never got stuck (yay 4WD!), but had a similar experience with road closures and power lines and freaky, icy hills.

It could have ended very differently, but thank God it didn’t. And a lot of that had to do with the people that came out in the snow storm. My aunt and my mom praying for safe passage home, my cousin and I keeping the mood of the car calm, my brother and my dad calling to check up on us, the guy who pushed my car and left, the guys who ended up freeing my car, the man who warned us about the power lines, and maybe even the guy who gave me the bird.

It’s not a matter of whether we come out during snow storms. It’s just a matter of how.

This Christmas at home should be a blast.

Changes

2011-10-21T03:31:23-05:00

Starting seminary has brought a host changes in my life. I moved to Pasadena from San Francisco. The first noticeable change was the climate. The week that I moved down here I met the Sun. I arrived in the first week of September, which I quickly found out is the hottest time of the year. The apartment I moved into does not contain this thing called air conditioning. The heat of the first night was unbearable; I could have done the hundred meter breaststroke in the pool of sweat on my bed. The next morning I conferred with my housemate, who described to me this mystical object called a window fan that can push cold air into the room and pull hot air out. I discovered that this item is a highly coveted commodity in Pasadena, going from store to store to find them sold out. After a few haphazard experiences with swarthy proprietors whom I met via the ever reliable website craigslist, I acquired this sacred totem. I eagerly installed it in my window, anticipating its foretold cooling abilities. The next day, the hot weather subsided. Apparently, the heat is a short term phenomenon.

Currently, I live with three women. This was more of an accident than a conscious choice. I found the apartment, again, through craigslist. This change was a bit of a dramatic one for me. My former home had five other men. Among other things, our hobbies included not sleeping, listening to Wu-Tang Clan at full volume all night, and eating seven to eight meals a day. Most male readers, who have lived in frat-like facilities, will recognize these habits as common symptoms of male community. In my new abode, there are multi-hour discussions of gender relations, cleaning-charts, and no Wu-Tang. At first, this level of gender acculturation was a shock to my system, which I think was caused by the over-masculated environment of my former housemates. I am adjusting however and enjoying some new features of my life. I am rediscovering lost notions of sleep and cleanliness.

My mode of transportation is a bike. This was never a problem in San Francisco. The infrastructure, proximity of necessities, and attitude toward bicycles welcomes bicycle transportation. Pasadena, however, is not ideal for bicycle transportation. I was riding home from work the other day and was taking a modest portion of a lane because the street had no bike lane. My Michael Jackson mix was interrupted by the sound of a car horn behind me. I turned around and saw a poop-colored van swerving behind me like a shark. I halted at the intersection and the feces van pulled up next me. A fifty something, red-faced man preceded to deliver a barrage of cursing, erroneous citations of traffic law, and insults about my personal appearance. Angered and having not yet taken Professor Stassen’s class on peacemaking, I scornfully remarked on the appearance of his van and corrected his incomplete recitation of traffic law, at which point the man emerged from his tank to settle the dispute physically. As a scrawny vegan, I knew that I did not stand a chance in the ring against Shrek and bolted off on my bike. Apparently, drivers in LA are still adjusting to bicyclists.

The environment of seminary has also been a dramatic change. I did my undergraduate education at San Francisco State University, which, among other things, is a brewing pot of liberal malcontent. My friends were various manifestations of Marxists, communists, and anarcho-syndicalists. The school is ethnically diverse, receiving second place as the most multicultural institution in the US. Christian friends and professors were rare, but not unknown. After my first trip to visit Fuller last spring, one thing stuck in my mind: so many white women. Somewhere on the prospective student site, it mentions something about diversity. Maybe this is addressed to those in the Fuller community coming from wonderfully diverse regions like Kansas or Oklahoma. Also, my classmates so far seem relatively happy. Maybe it’s the lack of gloomy clouds or liberal ire, but Fuller students seem happy about the world. It could be the perpetual high of car fumes floating above the city or Jesus, but as a generally indignant Marxist, I will say that I have smiled quite a bit since I’ve been here.

Structural Racism, Mad Men, and Ethical Denial

2012-01-09T15:06:33-06:00

In my ethics class, we watched a documentary film called A Time for Burning about a small Lutheran congregation in the 1960s wrestling with issues of black integration. Most of the film involves the minister speaking with the black community and his white congregation, trying to convince them that face-to-face contact is the best approach to ease the tensions and deconstruct racism. While the rhetoric on both sides is at points wincingly inflammatory and discomforting to the modern viewer, it is the white congregation’s consistent rejection of the plan for reasons of inconvenience and concern for the more racist members of the congregation who might leave the church that really frustrate and irritate. During a particular racist diatribe, the person seating next to me leaned over and said with a voice of disbelief, “Could you imagine living in a time like that?”

In many ways, I think our fascination with the “civil rights era” is in a large part a way for us to neglect the existing structural racism. For instance, near my previous home in San Francisco, there is a community called a Bayview/Hunter’s Point. During World War II, this district was a bustling shipyard, employing thousands African Americans to build war ships. With the growth of Oakland’s port and the expulsion of African Americans from other communities in the city through urban redevelopment, or, as it is known by the members of the displaced communities, gentrification, Bayview and Hunter’s Point was neglected and eventually deteriorated (there is one grocery store with the entire confines of the neighborhood). Furthermore, toxic waste dumps have left many parts of the neighborhood contaminated and barely habitable; one elementary school houses radioactive and toxic on its grounds that the city has yet to determine to remove it. Most recently, San Francisco has decided to once again displace the African American community by giving over the land to Lennar, a development company, that plans to demolish the area in order to build expensive condos. And yet, in spite of this blatant structural racism, San Francisco still maintains a reputation of being the progressive city in the world.

The television show Mad Men exemplifies this denial tendency. In its first few seasons, the show garnered interest for its harsh depictions of sexism in the office. Nevertheless, the show has continued to win countless Emmys for its accurate depiction of the era. American fascination with this show is a subconscious desire to historicize sexism and cathartically participate in it at the same time. Let me explain. Today, sexism and misogyny has become more unspoken, coded, and structural. Television programming, advertisements, and media outlets continue to spew ideology that defines women as essentially sexual and inferior. At the same time, the hegemony of political correctness and civility (a euphemism for multiculturalism, which if given freedom to set the discourse would neuter humanity’s most significant and radical traditions) refuses to allow us to acknowledge this oppressive discourse. The anxiety that this causes is released by shows like Mad Men because they confirm what we already suspected about the world. Wiki-Leaks struck a similar chord. We already knew the government was up to some shady things. What Julian Assange’s project did was allow us to fake surprise or dismay and which in turn absolves ourselves from guilt that comes with having known what was going on. Returning to the civil rights era ideology, we do the same thing here, over-glorifying it, pretending that it is the panacea that solved the major problems. In this way, we can forget that those same problems are not still here today. Instead of Jim Crow, we have American capitalism, every bit as racist, just much quieter about it.

Fuller does this too. It always was interesting to me the degree to which Fuller’s stance on women in ministry is touted as an achievement, an issue my progressive and apparently ignorant mind thought had already been won. However, this quarter I find myself in a Women in Church History and Theology class with students of mixed and diverse perspectives, some still exploring the idea of women in ministry as a possibility. Yet, Fuller continues to talk about it, as if it were a talisman-like fetish, because the institution wants to ignore the structural prejudice embedded at fuller; we want to ignore the fact that we are that racist church in A Time for Burning; our new metric of oppression is sexual orientation. We would like to think that somehow racism is qualitatively worse, but it’s not. Our sinful, prejudiced nature tells us it’s different in order to exonerate ourselves for our continued shameful treatment of different human beings.

After the end of the movie, a fellow classmate volunteered to pray. He prayed that we would continually look into our own lives for forms of this prejudice. It is a nice sentiment, but this whole strategy of peering into one’s own life for injustice rarely works because we don’t want to know the truth—nor could we see it even if we wanted to. Today, as in most cases, it is not a problem deep within ourselves—a kind of sinful epicenter sending out harmful tremors—but an institution whose parameters continue to oppress, a blatant injustice that neither hides nor feels the need to justify itself. As Paul said “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 6:12).

Why Roman Catholics are Right After All

2012-02-06T03:47:02-06:00

1. A central issue in Protestant circles is the stability of tithing. With the mobility and transitional nature of American Christians, churches are often uncertain that they can meet budget. A source of this problem is theological. Since Protestants have personalized salvation, the church becomes a unnecessary luxury. While the priesthood of all believers does seem to be “biblical,” the Roman Catholic understanding of salvation proves itself to insure church stability through the instability of personal salvation. By attaching salvation to practice of the Eucharist, binding the Christian to the parish, and the priest to the sacraments, Christians must regularly attend to ensure their salvation. A consequence of this is the benefit of expected tithing. As such, Roman Catholics need not concern themselves with either job security or the maintenance of the church community. Protestants need to consider revising their soteriology.

2. Protestants have been wrestling with gay ordination. Protestants believe that anal sex and other gay activities are sinful and thus gays cannot be ordained, as they are living in an overly sinful lifestyle. Part of the problem is the Protestant assumption that priests should be allowed to engage in sexual activity. The Roman Catholics have an answer to sticky gay issue. Within Catholic doctrine, priests are not allowed to marry, preventing them from being tainted by sexual activity. In theory, a gay catholic could be ordained as long as he—I must use “he” here—maintains his vow of celibacy. Protestants could adopt this model, giving us a final solution for the gay conundrum, since Protestants—meaning Fuller—only condemn the activities of homosexuality, not the innate disposition.

3. All Protestant denominations are currently in decline, while Islam remains the fastest growing religion in the world. This is not a result of conversion, but birth rate. Once again, the Roman Catholics have an answer to the feckless Protestants. Roman Catholic's condemnation of birth control, though seen as foolish by the world, will actually ensure the survival of the Christian faith.

4. Many Protestant communities, particularly Fuller, are mired in the sin of postmodernism. Truth has now become synonymous with preferences in hip hop music and yogurt. We can trace this back to sola scriptura and the vernaculizing of the Bible, which granted lay people--die Volkleute--the ability to interpret the Bible for themselves. As a result, we have inherited things like dispensationalism and the Westboro Baptist. At the other end, liberal denominations now use Buddha and Foucault as interpretative lenses for the trinity. The Roman Catholic Church, however, has avoided these sinful tendencies by relegating absolute authority to educated clergy. Though that does prevent the Catholics from enjoying some of the more creative interpretations of scripture, like the discoveries of the Left Behind series, the Roman Catholics do have a stable structure of theology.

Ergo: Based on these benefits of Roman Catholic theology, Protestant denominations should rethink reconciliation with the Pope and his church.

Why Roman Catholics Are Right After All Part II

2012-02-11T02:59:09-06:00

(Read Part I First)

Here at Fuller, we love social justice. We want to influence the government to move toward equality and justice for all. But instead of looking to magazines like Sojourners to learn how to transform society, we should be learning Latin to read edicts from the Vatican.

Evangelical Christians have become one of the largest voices in American politics over the last twenty years, yet many of the major social issues that they advocate for have not been realized. Part of the reason is the sin of schism. The constant separation of churches into “denominations” has diluted the unity of Spirit that Jesus had intended. Protestant Christians, but evangelicals in particular, have created this Frankenstein-like institution called the non-denominational church, in which individual “ministers” are allowed to determine doctrine and ethics. That, in conjunction with modern Christian friend-with-benefits approach to church attendance, has created a marsh of ethical belief, in which ethics become relative, making it difficult for the church to unite around an issue, like anal sex. For instance, evangelicals constantly bemoan abortion, but have done nothing about it since Roe vs. Wade, except create a helpful moniker called "pro-life" to help Republicans vet political candidates.

The Catholic Church’s most recent run-in with the Obama administration illustrates to protestant Christians how they can influence society: absolute moral ethics and unity under singular authority. President Obama threatened to take away Catholic hospital’s grant money if they did not agree to provide contraception. The Catholic Church, however, does not budge on moral issues, particularly in regard to sexual ethics, and refused to back down from Obama’s mandate. Recognizing his instability with swath of terrifyingly competent GOP candidates in the approaching election, Obama retracted his demand.

The Papacy was successful because of their unequivocal position on sexual ethics, having devised specific standards for specific sins. For instance, the Church has specific standards on everything from masturbation to sex toys, from oral sex to sexual stimulants. With clear standards, there is no ambiguity about what sin is; no moral discernment is needed because truth is readily accessible. Moreover, because there are no divisions within the Catholic Church, there can be no argument against the Papacy. In this way, the Catholic Church has not been infected the sinful disease of postmodernism: relative ethics and experimental sexual activities.

So what can Protestants learn?

Protestants—meaning Fuller—have weakened their ability to promulgate moral claims and certainties, constantly equivocating on the gays, the environment, and every other political issue imaginable. The Catholic Church, however, takes a stand on issue and refuses to budge. As a result, the most powerful imperialist warlord backed down to the Papcy this week in humiliating fashion.

Ergo: Based on these benefits of Roman Catholic theology, Protestant denominations should rethink reconciliation with the Pope and his church.

The Seven Deadly Sins of Postmodernism

2012-02-16T04:08:12-06:00

The seven sins of postmodernism have prevented the salvation of many in the Christian church. In order to prevent the damnation of more, to act as Isaiah, I will warn Israel—meaning Fuller—to repent of their lustful attachment to untruth.

1.Postmodernism blasphemes the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ said through John Calvin “I say, therefore, that he sins against the Holy Spirit who, while so constrained by the power of divine truth that he cannot plead ignorance, yet deliberately resists, and that merely for the sake of resisting.” Postmoderns continually resist truth through denial in order continue their sexual exploits. Therefore, postmoderns have lost their salvation, but they regain it by partaking of the Eucharist in the PCUSA.

2.Postmodernism allows one to use the Buddha as interpretative lens for the trinity. Buddha taught atheism, teaching that only the individual could work out salvation by their own means. Clearly, Buddha reincarnated as Pelagius, who is considered, by God’s holy vicar the Pope, a heretic. Later, Buddha reincarnated as Ronald Reagan, who, as the anti-Christ, exhorted Americans to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, channeling works-based salvation. Therefore, postmodernism is an eternal sin.

3.Postmodernism leads to sexual liberation, which guarantees eternal damnation. By endorsing freedom of the individual, as opposed to submission to the bishop, postmodern teaching leads to sexual fun. The Pope teaches that the purpose of sexuality is pro-creation, while postmoderns propose that each individual finds his or her own truth in personal belief, which leads to pagan-style sexuality. God is the master of sexual intercourse, even though she has never had sex because it is finite.

4.Postmodernism is a sin because it birthed the emergent church, which oppresses women. The emergent church emerged as the result of the rejection of divine knowledge given through the Vatican and the PCUSA. In its place, they have created an institution for guilty white liberals to talk on their iphones in church and pontificate about the loving the gays, as a mere speculation. The prophet of the emergent church is a holy man named Mark Driscoll, whose words have created a whole generation of subservient women, a.k.a. pastor’s wives, who will follow the patriarch. Mark Driscoll, as their God, started a neo-conservative reawakening that blasphemes the Holy Spirit by not acknowledged the Holy See and his affiliate the PCUSA.

5.Postmodernism is a sin because it is inherently racist. Only trust fund, Willliamsburg white males are allowed to speak with authority under postmodernism’s dominion. White people love postmodernism because it excuses them from slavery and the continued systematic oppression of people. Postmodernism continually denies historical fact, claiming that there is no truth (and no God). Thus, how do we know if there ever were slaves or if the colors white and black actually exist (as they are the only two colors available in America)?

6.Postmodernism is sin because it promotes genocide because of its inherent cultural relativism. Who’s to say that it is wrong for White Europeans to have committed genocide toward the Native Americans and then ghettoize them on reservations? Underneath postmodernism lies the justification for denying the Armenian genocide because that’s just a word to be deconstructed. Who’s to say that Ahmadinejad is wrong in denying the Holocaust, I mean, it’s true for him.

7.Postmodernism is a sin because of this: “Perhaps something has occurred in the history of the concept of structure that could be called an "event," if this loaded word did not entail a meaning which it is precisely the function of structural-or structuralist-thought to reduce or to suspect. But let me use the term "event" anyway, employing it with caution and as if in quotation marks. In this sense, this event will have the exterior form of a rupture and a redoubling.” (Jacques Derrida) This is the language of the beast and the highest level of hell.

Therefore, we call the supplicants— meaning Fuller PhD students—of the cup the Whore of Babylon—meaning Foucault—to repent of this eternal sin and pray for their redemption, which is against God’s will.

#1

2011-10-14T13:36:43-05:00

So, here we are. Funny we find ourselves here. Well, I guess funny you find yourself here, am I right? This is how I see it. It can only be one of two things. 1. You are interested in Fuller and stumbled on these blogs hoping to get some insight into the "Fuller Experience" or, 2. You googled Oily T-Zone and this page came up about 3 search pages in.

Either way, Welcome! It's gonna be a party.

Let me take a second to introduce myself. My name is Matthew Johnson and I am originally from South Carolina. I attended a small Bible College in Columbia, South Carolina called Columbia International University. Fuller was always on my radar for a few reasons. First, it was in Los Angeles.(Seriously, who doesn't want to live in L.A.) Second, it had the reputation around my college campus as being "liberal" and I liked the way that sounded.

This would be a good time to mention a prompt I was given in my recent Communications class here at Fuller. The Professor asked the class to get up and in 3-4 minutes explain to the class, "Why are you still a Christian?" This prompt threw me for a few reasons. First, I was to answer this difficult question with about 10 minutes to think. Secondly, the word, "Still" bothered me. Maybe I am just overly analytical but that adverb (it is an adverb right?) seemed to me to presuppose something. Something like, "You are still a Christian? Really?" or "Oh, he's still a Christian." It felt like I had an old phone or I was middle schooler talking to a high schooler about math, "Oh, you are still doing long division? Wait till you get to Algebra, that's the real hard stuff."

Anyway, I got up there and said something about confidence, love and relationship. Blah, Blah, Blah. I can't really remember. But, I have been thinking about it since and if I was asked that same question again I think I would say something different. Something like;

I am still a Christian because I do not know anything else. I was born into a Christian family and being raised in the south being a Christian resembles something more like a bullet point on a resume. However, for me this was a slow realization. Following my time in a conservative Bible College that viewed certain Biblical principles pretty rigidly, I set out to see what to see what stuck. Without going into the absurd epistemological principles, I decided to change my framework from something resembling a firm structure. A pyramid requiring each piece to be in the right place to maintain structural integrity. Instead I wanted view it more like a net. Everything working together but if something was removed or changed, the net would still function.

This perspective change allowed me to experience and rationalize my faith in a different and rewarding way. Like when Jim Carrey's Truman from The Truman Show leaves his fake, mediated world and experiences the real world for the first time. I am curious to create an ethic for myself that resembles more of the reality of Christian experience that I know to be true, instead of the one that was modeled by my surroundings.

Or something like that. Let's suffice to say, Fuller has been a beneficial place to appropriately work out these ideas, under the leading of some of the leading Theologians and Biblical scholars. I'm sure in the future I'll have something bad to say about Fuller but for now I'm glad I came.

This blog has been painfully lacking rap and hip hop references. I promise to correct this in the future. But, in the mean time. Listen to Das Racist. It hurts it's so good.

So thanks for stopping by, no matter how you got here. Oily T-zone or not, you're always welcome.

I just turned 26.

2011-10-21T15:12:22-05:00

I turned 26 the other day. I know, I know I don't look a day over...that's a cliche' joke. I'm sorry. I'm sure the reason you decided to read this blog again is because I set a standard of high brow wit. I won't condescend to you. But, back to 26. For some reason, unknown to me, this was a difficult birthday. I had dreams/thoughts/ideas of what and where I would be when I turned 26, and you know what? I have actually accomplished some of these things.

I recently I found an old journal from right after I graduated college. I wrote down like 5 or 10 things I wanted to have accomplished in the next 5 years. I have no clue why it is I did this. I probably heard a more driven friend of mine from college mentioning how good it is to "have goals" and "write them down." Lame. But, whatever I did it. Probably on one of those nights when I felt especially like I was going to do nothing with my life. (We all have those days right? Please lie and tell me we all do)

Well, two of the things I wrote were; Live in a large city. Be in Grad School.

Vague. Really vague. But, hey I did it. I could cross off two items on my "Life List" (that's what I've taken to calling it.) That's pretty cool. So, I made another life list the other day in hopes to put my upcoming graduation (December 11) and entrance into the real world, into perspective:

1. I have a Masters Degree

2. I have been dating a girl for over a year.

3. I have a job that I intend to go Full-time in after graduation.

4. I am working on a creative project that is really exciting. (I'll let you know more about this, I promise)

5. I am getting better looking with each year.

Not to bad if I do say so myself. The girl I mentioned in number 2 up there goes to this hair dresser. He said something to her before she finished her Master's program that helped her (and me) put this crazy world of ours into perspective. He said, "You are about to have a Master's Degree? You should be working at a coffee shop to make enough money so you can see as many concerts as you can. You have plenty of time to start your life"

Interesting. My Judeo-Puritan-American work ethic that was instilled in me from somewhere makes me fight against that idea. But, if nothing else, this is reason to calm down and realize, I am doing OK. Those of us in Seminary or Grad School can rest easy and realize that we do have plenty of time to "Grow up", whatever that means. (I mean with plastic surgery I fully intend to look like a teenage boy for the rest of my "natural" life). But, also we can take pride in the fact that we have been proactive. Some of use have moved across the country to invest in a future that doesn't have a set of steps for us to follow. Instead, we are willingly taking time to figure things out in the best way we know how. For me it was to move from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina to study Theology and continue to work to build my own Ethic for which I would view the world. That's all I got for now.

For you it may be that you need a change and Sunny L.A. sounds pretty good or you want get a PH.D. and change the face of theology or become a Pastor.

Either way, I don't think it's a bad decision to go back to Graduate School. More often than not it will be scary, but in the long run totally worth it.

So, Here's to you 26. You're not that impressive. No famous basketball players have that number. So, what do I have to worry about?

99 Problems and Remembering

2011-11-04T17:00:58-05:00

It's raining in L.A. today. (11-4-11)

My Girlfriend has the high score and fastest time on solitaire on my phone.

I don't like the bookstore on campus anymore.

There is a hole in my favorite jeans.

I twisted my ankle like 5 weeks ago and it still feels a little tender.

The NBA is still locked out.

When I thought about writing this week these are the things I thought of. I thought to myself, "Ooh, maybe in some sort of Orwellian fashion I could turn one of these things into a narrative essay that speaks to political and social issues while simultaneously being engaging and funny." But, no dice. Instead I look like a shallow dork who doesn't really care about anything or think deeply about anything. Would you be willing to give me a pass because I just finished midterms? No? Ok. Well, I'm sorry.

Anyway, the other day my girlfriend, Rebecca and I were talking about our first nights in Pasadena. When we were talking I couldn't help but smile thinking back on mine.

I drove into Pasadena, straight to my apartment, after a week long trip across the country. This trip included a visit to Memphis and listening to soe blues, Steak in Texas, the Grand Canyon and Vegas. Without a doubt one of the more life changing trips of my life. I, literally and metaphorically left behind my family and friends to start on a new adventure in California. (I want to make a gold rush joke here, but that is so over done, amiright?) I'm confident that when I pulled up I was different person than I had been only a week before.

A good friend from SC drove across the country with me. That night we went and saw the newly released Inglorious Basterds at a theatre in downtown LA. The next morning I took him to LAX and he flew back East. I was alone. I'm pretty sure if I let myself think about it I would have really freaked out. At that point, I knew no one and didn't own a bed. Not that those two things are related accept for one reason. That afternoon I went and bought a mattress, boxspring and frame. (I still have it today!) Here's the thing, I didn't have anyone to help me move it into my empty house. Luckily, this kind of sketchy mattress store had delivery guys. Otherwise it would have been a royal pain getting it into my house. That was the first time it hit me, I was alone. Over the next few days and weeks, I grew accustomed to this. I ventured out and did a lot of touristy things on my own. I bought things for my house alone. I saw movies alone. I talked to my Mom a lot. It was such a bizarre experience. I remember being very conscious of my breath. It smelled bad. I think because I didn't open my mouth as much because I had no one to talk to.

But, now that I reflect on that time it's funny to think through some of the decisions I made. (I paid like $9 for parking when there was a $2 lot around the corner) I have spent 2 1/2 years here. I know people. They know me. I know about the cool and trendy restaurants. Some of the places I frequent know me. They know my order and start on it as soon as they see my face. My experience now is a far cry from what it was.

If I really gave it a lot of thought at the time I'm sure I could've rationalized returning home out of fear, but instead this move has been one of the smarter decisions I've made.

If for no other reason I discovered avocados and I never want to go back.

The Public Queue

2011-11-11T15:31:15-06:00

Is it still nerdy to like the internet? A few short years ago I remember friends of mine who would scoff at someone who maintained a blog. People considered it a badge of honor stating how long they held out before they signed up for facebook.

How things have changed. I personally maintain a facebook, twitter, google+, pinterest, a personal blog and some other things that are not as popular. My obsession with the internet has grown significantly over the last two years. It would probably be fair to state that it has run parallel with my time in seminary. If I am being honest with myself, I should probably admit that it started in one of my classes as a result of boredom.

One of the big questions that were being wrestled with at the beginning of my time at Fuller was whether or not the internet should be allowed in the classrooms. Students were apparently doing other things on their computers while the professors were lecturing! **GASP!!** Professors would argue that the students paid for it so they need to pay attention. Students would that they have paid for it, so leave me alone. Either way, I sat in a class bored so I started looking for other things to read to pass the time.

This is not to say that all of my classes were boring and seminary is boring. Quite the opposite. Most of the time my classes were interesting and engaging. However, sometimes you just need a break to read about whether or not Justin Beiber has fathered a child.

Anyway, the other day I happened on this article by Brian McClaren To sum up the article, seminary isn't the problem, the church is. Students leave seminary excited and ready to go. Ready to put some ideas into practice, push the envelope but instead they encounter, as Mclaren puts it a "brick wall."

This is why I think technology, internet, blogs are great. Unfortunately, a lot of my friends will encounter such an experience when they/we leave seminary. But the difference today verses even 5 years ago is the ability to find like minded people inside of the blogosphere and engage one another on topics that interest them.

In an attempt to critically engage these topics, create a space for dialogue and have a little fun, some friends and I have launched a website. On 11-11-11 we launched The Public Queue to help facilitate the above topics and much more.

At The Public Queue we want encourage dialogue from anyone and everyone who has a passing interest or a deep interest in spirituality and theology to contribute and participate in this larger conversation that is taking place. Instead of starting a yelling match, we want to help facilitate fun and interesting dialogue of culture and it's intersection with theology.

So, please stop by and let us know what you think. The logo as a dinosaur, that should be reason enough to check it out.