January 1, I’ve got a lot of things on my mind.

Drop the last year into the silent limbo of the past. Let it go, for it was imperfect, and thank God that it can go. [Brooks Atkinson]

The object of a New Year is not that we should have a new year. It is that we should have a new soul and a new nose; new feet, a new backbone, new ears, and new eyes. Unless a particular man made New Year resolutions, he would make no resolutions. Unless a man starts afresh about things, he will certainly do nothing effective. Unless a man starts on the strange assumption that he has never existed before, it is quite certain that he will never exist afterwards. Unless a man be born again, he shall by no means enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. [G.K. Chesterton]

I’ve been thinking about it a bit and I think there are a lot of things for me to choose from. I’m not really into the New Years resolution scene. At all. At all. I think, for me, it would be better to just work on one thing at a time, and not worry about making something my goal for a year, just to do it. Some interesting options:

-The elimination of polarizing labels from my vocabulary, as McLaren’s pondering. I wouldn’t mind dropping words like “liberal” and “conservative”, but there are some I would rather not give up. There are some movements that I am proud to align myself with. I am a feminist, for instance, and that’s a very divisive word in the spheres I generally run in, and I’m not interested in going all Palin and saying “Oh, I’m not going to label myself either way.” It’s something I’m committed to. Some things you either are or you aren’t. Which brings me to a second, sort-of similar option:

-No more name-calling. Which would mean no picking on “liberals” or “conservatives” or whatever group of people. It would also mean I couldn’t call people idiots, which is sometimes a very convenient thing to do, for instance, when you’re driving down the road and these people let their trash can fall over and roll down the hill at you, or when you feel like remarking on the alarming amount of people who engaged in political party-motivated vandalism and destruction this fall.

-Radical Honesty, which is something I did not make up but instead stole out of Extras. This character opted for brain surge (surgery) that made it impossible for him to lie. He couldn’t even pretend anything. It made for some awkward times when they were being kidnapped and pumped for information by aliens, but the interesting thing about it was that whatever he said, you knew it was the truth. But again. It made for some awkward times occasionally. I think just regular honesty would be a better and more truthful choice. I suppose if you don’t have to tell the truth, it can mean more when you choose to do so. But even so, I’m not really talking about truth-telling, I mean some kind of soul-honesty. Very few people at any given time know what’s going on in my head and in my heart. It is kind of funny since I am also what is termed a rather “emotional” person (meaning I cry a lot) but I don’t talk about it. I tend to shut that kind of conversation down pretty quickly, especially if I sense that the other entity envolved is not likely to understand. It’s hard for me to make friends. I’m a really loud person, once you get to know me, but that’s the thing of it, it takes forever for me to really get to be friends with someone, and not so many people care to stick around that long. 

-Loving other people. Everybody says they love other people, but I think most of us clearly don’t. In his book Blue Like Jazz, Donald Miller talks about this guy he met who was so annoying to him and he felt like he needed to let him know it, so he treated him like crap, sort of subtly. And then God was like WTF? and Don realized what he was doing, that he was really trying to change this other person because he couldn’t love and accept him the way he was. Once he figured out (the kind of figuring out that involves real work, not just knowing something in your brain) that his only interaction with this other person was supposed to be one of love and kindness, he could fully embrace the other person for who he was and he found that he even enjoyed his company. He even liked him. He just decided to be delighted about this guy’s existence.

-Peacemaking, which is something that gets talked about a lot, and it generates protests against wrong and pig-headed policies, which is good, but other times I think we don’t actually do much to put peace forward as an actual, viable option for all of us living together. Peace on Mother Earth starts with peace with you and peace with me. How are nations ever going to get along if individual people can’t do it?

-Just listening more, just trying to…understand people, I guess, instead of making snap judgments about them. I suppose you could also call it empathy.

I think I’m not going to choose one, I’m just going to work towards them all. They’re all summed up right here. Maybe someday I’ll get there..

What a wonderful world it would be.

You know how in general I don’t believe in making New Years resolutions, etc.? Besides Jonas Brothers concerts, I’ve found one that is really, really swell. It sounds extremely difficult. It sounds impossible. But of course it could also change the world. It balances out.

“I’m thinking about…not committing yet, just thinking about it…making a New Year resolution–to try to drop polarizing words from my vocabulary in 2009–including words I’ve used in this short piece: left, right, liberal, conservative, pro-life, pro-choice, and so on. I wonder what would happen if a bunch of us tried it…as a way of breaking with the insanity of always doing what you’ve always done while expecting to get otherwise than what you’ve already got. Hmm.” -Brian McLaren

We could at least try. Have you ever tried that experiment, you know, that one they used to pull on us at youth conference and things like that? The group leaders or whoever used to challenge us to go an entire week without thinking about other people in negative ways. Or if that was too scary we could start smaller. We could start with one day. We always failed, of course, but I wonder who we could have become by now if we hadn’t given up after four hours disgusted with ourselves and our negativity. If, for instance, I hadn’t abandoned the whole idea as hopeless, but instead had actively replaced wrong thinking with right thinking, if I had sooner come to terms with my own inner condition, if I had looked for creative ways to spread goodness, I would probably be a better person by this time than I am now, and that’s the small picture. I used to think that if I tried to do something like that and failed, then that was it, I failed, I was a failure. My thinking’s been changing. I think now that if I try something and fail and keep trying, I am not a failure at it. The only way to get somewhere is to move. PS, this is one of my fave movies: :]

I’m not afraid to fall
It means I climbed up high
To fall is not to fail
You fail when you don’t try
I’m not afraid to fall
I might just learn to fly
And I will spread
These wings of mine

I’m not afraid to fall
And here I told you so
Don’t want to rock the boat
But I just have to know
Just a greener side
Or can I touch the sky?
But either way
I will have tried

I’m not afraid to fall
I’ve fallen many times
They laughed when I fell down
But I have dared to climb
Not afraid to fall
I know I’ll fall again
But I can win this in the end [Superchic[k], “Get Up”]

What if God was one of us? Just a stranger on a bus.

Hello kids! Today we’re going to learn what bothers me about the Left Behind series. [You know the one.] At least what bothers me the most. Yes, I’ve read them all. I admit I was terribly into them at a younger age. Obviously there’s the surface observation about how cliche and commercial they have become–very true. My discomfiture goes a little deeper, though, past the books themselves, way down deep to the theology itself. As in, the Rapture. There are only two verses in the entire Bible used to “prove” the theology of the Rapture, and these are taken widely out of context. They don’t support such an idea at all, unless you presuppose there will be a Rapture and read your assumption into the text.

Urban Onramps quotes an interview of Brian McLaren by the Charlotte, NC newpaper:
“Q: Today, many evangelicals are fascinated with the end of the world. There’s the popularity of the “Left Behind” books. And talk about the Rapture. Their belief is: Things will get worse, we will have world crises. They say that’s part of God’s plan, to have Armageddon. Is that biblical or is that thinking part of the problem, in your opinion?
“A: I write a good bit about this in the book. And on the tour, one of my talks will be devoted to this subject. I think this is an incredibly important subject. What a lot of well-meaning, committed evangelical Christians don’t realize is that the view of the end-times that they believe is biblical and the historic Christian view is actually a newcomer and an anomaly in Christian history. That view of the end-times was never, ever thought of in Christian history until the 1830s. Now, that doesn’t make it wrong. But it does make it suspect.”

And here’s a thought from makingwisethesimple on the crosswalk forums:

“Are any of you familiar with the shift in scholarly thought away from a Darby or a Schofield view of eschatology? The likes of N.T. Wright, Brian McClaren, and Rob Bell make the case for a physical restoration of creation as being God’s final plan for his people. The aim for us is not to escape this fallen and broken world, but rather it is for us to till and nurture it until God returns to make his dwelling with man, the ultimate form of Emmanuel.

“This brings us to the rapture. Rob Bell makes the interesting point that the verses in the Thessalonian passage referring to the rapture was written by Paul using language that was normally linked to the likes of a coming dignitary. The formula that was used in this culture for such an arrival was that the entire city would come out to meet the dignitary before he got to the city and then as a large group they would all enter the city together. What do we see when we turn to the passage in 1 Thessalonians? A coming ‘dignitary’ arrives and the people are caught up to meet him. Now Paul leaves it there, he doesn’t go on to explain ‘where’ they all go, but perhaps this is because the people he was writing to didn’t need to be told as they would have easily picked it up. It is like us writing a letter to family somewhere and in that letter we make mention of horses, now thousands of years from now an advanced civilisation [sic] may discover that letter and have no idea what these ‘horses’ were because we didn’t give the definition in the letter, but why would we!

“Another interesting point to note is that when we read these verses and we see words like “taken away,” “left behind,” etc., we automatically assume that to be taken is the desirable result and to be left behind is the undesireable. Why do we do that, when in every other account in Scripture to be taken away from the land of inheritance was to be taken away into judgment! Think of the exile for example. In fact I don’t think it would be taking it too far to say that rapture theology is akin to being exiled from our land.”

In addition to its dubious biblical support, it appears to inspire a defeatist attitude in fundamentalists ’round the world, which is exactly what we don’t need.

The people who read books like this religiously [in general--if you are in this category and do not match the following description, I'd like to meet you] appear complacent with injustice, war and many other wrongs in the world because “it’s never going to get any better”. So they never try. They read Blessed are the peacemakers in their Bibles, but when they have a chance to meet peace face to face, it’s almost anathema to them, something to be avoided at all costs. Peace to them doesn’t equal a positive thing–it means that soon and very soon, a dictator will rise to power over the entire world. They believe they’re “guaranteed” 7 years of safety because they’re Christians, and then they can get the heck out of here [or some variation of this]. The only way to vote properly is to choose “the lesser of two evils”, every time, because in their minds, all they can do is just postpone the worst a little bit longer. They’ve really distanced themselves from the world’s problems, which is super easy to do in America but it almost seems like it’s at the core of fundamentalism itself. I’m extremely disappointed with the “church” of today–if such a large group of people put their minds to bettering the world instead of condemning it, think of the possibilities. It always seems to be: “Homelessness? It’s too big to be fixed! Poverty? Not out of my pocket! Deforestation, endangered species, animal abuse? These things are too trivial to let them stand in the way of human rights…not that we’re going to do anything about those either..”

Last week I was looking at this magazine and I found a story about a family with 20–count ‘em! It’s not a typo–kids, 5 of them biological, 15 adopted. I was amazed. We were all sitting around eating lunch, and I read the story to my brothers and my mom. The first words out of her mouth were, “They need to learn they can’t save the world.” WHY? Why, why, why should they be told they can’t save the world when they already are? If their hearts and their paychecks are big enough to accomodate such a big family, more power to them.

It kind of made me wonder. When my parents send out cards every year to all the grads we know, cards that offer encouragement like “Believe in your dreams” and “Go out and change the world”, do they mean it? If they met the same person five years down the line doing meaningful work that had a big impact on the world, would they be happy? Or would they say to themselves, “They’re just trying to take on too much. They can’t fix the world”?

I’m a believer in dreams. I believe we can make a difference, a change for the better. I believe hunger, homelessness, extreme poverty are all solveable and peace is possible. I do not believe the world can only get worse and worse until God pulls us out of it and it deteriorates. The world will only continue down this path if we stand back and let it. No doubt you’re familiar with this line from Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [people]  to do nothing.” Am I the only one who doesn’t think that following Christ and saving the world are polar opposites?!

If Christ were coming again tomorrow, I would plant a tree today. –Martin Luther

Read more:

From A Prophetic Voice

“Is the Pre-tribulation Rapture Biblical?”

Aaaaaaaaaaand I’ll be doing some more research and continuing this another day.

Brian Mclaren on evangelism

Here’s a great article from Leadership Journal interviewing pastor, author, speaker, musician, activist Brian McLaren.

Q: How can we speak evangelistically to people today? Is it different from how we spoke to former generations?
A. Much of our evangelism here in the United States was developed in a context of Christendom, in which just about everybody knew the basic information of Christianity and were favorably disposed to it. Evangelism got people to act on what they already knew and, in a sense, already passively believed. You could call people to commitment relatively quickly. You could also use pretty forceful persuasive techniques. In dealing with postmoderns, you’re dealing with people who do not know the basics of Christianity. If anything, they have a negative idea of what Christianity is. So it makes no sense to them if you come on too strong and quickly ask for a commitment. We should count conversations rather than conversions, not because I don’t believe in conversions, but because I don’t think we’ll get many conversions if we keep emphasizing them.

Q: So what does evangelism to postmoderns look like?
A: When most people think of evangelism, the word “arguments” comes up–arguments for the existence of God, arguments for the uniqueness of Christ, arguments for the inspiration for the Bible. For postmodern people, anything presented as an argument is less persuasive because arguments suggest a message of conquest rather than a message of peace. Postmoderns are so assaulted by advertisements and political messages that for a message to be important and true, it must come in a form other than argument.

Also, we have become good at boiling the gospel down into little four-step outlines. Modern people love diagrams; it’s all about engineering. But postmodern people feel that truth comes as a mystery, a story, and a work of art; truth is more like poetry than engineering. This forces us to ask if we have a clear understanding of what the gospel really is. If, for hundreds of years, we have turned the gospel into a problem-solution mindset or series of arguments, we must ask how that may have distorted our understanding of the gospel. In many ways, the modern evangelical gospel is a message about how to not go to hell. When you step back and ask if that’s really the gospel from Jesus’ perspective, it’s pretty hard to answer yes. When Jesus talks about the gospel, he talks about the kingdom of God. That offers a whole realm of questions that are more important.

Q: How do you train people to be authentic witnesses for the gospel?
A: We don’t talk about having a missions department in our church. Instead, we tell people that what we do is missions. When we become a follower of Christ, we’re signing up for his mission. That involves doing good, caring for the poor, and giving out cups of cold water in Christ’s name, then telling others the story of the gospel and what God has done in our life. We talk about being and making disciples in authentic community for the good of the world. We talk about that because, according to Jesus, one of the things disciples do is help others become disciples.

Q. Besides showing kindness, how do you reach out without being pushy?
A. We emphasize that to be a good member of our church, we must get to know our neighbors. We say, throw parties. Have people over. Be nice to the children in your neighborhood. Be good people. Be good neighbors. That makes it easier to talk to people about your faith. You know that verse in 1 Peter 3 about  always being ready to give an answer? Well, that implies that people are asking questions. To me, part of the issue is how we can help Christians live such good lives that people want to ask questions. If people aren’t asking the questions, and we’re teaching Christians how to talk rather than walk, we might just be encouraging them to be obnoxious.

Q. What questions might people ask of Christians?
A. Many would ask, “Is Christianity good, and can it make me into a better person, or will it make me a jerk?” They ask that because when they think of Christians, they tend to think of people who are narrow-minded, judgmental, arrogant, and angry. And they think, “Wow, I really want God, and I’d rather be a Christian than a Buddhist or a Muslim, but Christians look like jerks. I don’t want to become like that.”

They might also ask, “How can I be a Christian without becoming hateful toward people of other religions?” If we answer that question by giving reasons why other religions are wrong, we just prove that we’re not the kind of person they want to become.

Q: How can churches be more welcoming to postmodern non-Christians or new believers?
A: To become this kind of church, we may have to accept people who don’t dress right, don’t talk right, don’t smell right, and don’t think right. If we’re not willing to let them belong before they believe, they will never believe in our church. Because if a group says we will only accept you if you agree with us, it sounds like any other worldly group. What people are looking for is a group that accepts them regardless of whether they conform. That becomes one of the validations of the gospel.

Still learning how to love?

Me too. So. Grab yourself your mp3 player or a blank cd, download Brian McLaren’s 1978 album* “Learning How to Love”, hailed as “an exceptional private press recording of dreamy acoustic rock that features beautiful melodies layered with silky guitar work and soft lulling vocals”, made available by the ever-fabulous Heavenly Grooves!

Here are some comments his album’s been getting since it resurfaced: “This album is a gem.” “This kid is going places.” “I had this album on cassette in the early 80’s. The tape broke, and I was heart-broken. Thanks for sharing this amazing album, it brings back great memories…” :] I wonder, though, why everyone was having so much trouble finding information about him on Google. I’m going to assume they weren’t familiar with his more recent work, and just failed to make the connection..

*Yes, this is the same Brian McLaren we’re talking about; yes, it’s good music; yes, it’s free (and out-of-print!). The album is saved as an RAR file. In order to convert it to your format of choice, you’ll need to decompress it first. A quick, easy, free + safe way to do this is to download 7-zip and use it to extract the songs. Happy McLarening, everybody.. :]