A Christian Worldview from Silicon Valley

We are discussing hot topics for the church in one of the Sunday morning classes. Homosexuals in the church, Christian views on sex, masturbation, cohabitation, pre-, extra-, cyber-sex, war, preemptive strikes, pacifism, so far. Yeah, and it gets a bit heated, too. But, not always because of the topic at hand.

I generally begin my class with a list of “Things I think I think.” I didn’t do it last week, but should have. That point is beyond the scope of this post.

Here again are the things I think I think for newcomers to the class and for those who might like to discuss them without taking up class time.

1. There are answers to any and all problems. I believe Jesus is the answer, not mostly the answer. I believe the Bible has answers, not most of them. Read the rest of this entry »

If you haven’t already, go read Vivian’s post. Right now. And comment, too, because we live for comments. Anyway, the following thoughts were inspired by what she said, and it would be grossly unfair to her to start here just because mine is at the top of the pile for the moment.

Nearly two years ago, I read Why Men Hate Going to Church. It opened my eyes to several things that had been right in front of me forever, yet I hadn’t been able to “see” them before. The book made me wonder if some church practices (passive activities, sweet songs, and so on) had become unduly feminine. As I grappled with that thought (continuing to this day), I came across an oddly titled book, Jesus: Mean and Wild. I had to buy it — that characterization was so different from Jesus as I had understood him to be, yet I wondered what a “mean and wild” Jesus might look like. Confession: I tossed it on my huge TBR(ead) pile of books and didn’t read it for a long time. But I looked at it. And I talked about it. Every time I mentioned the title, I’d get that, “You’re crazy!” look. Okay, whatever. Some people don’t recognize hyperbole for what it is.

At Lewis’ suggestion, I agreed to co-teach the Sermon on the Mount with him, but I told him up front, “This is not my favorite topic. I don’t get it, and I don’t like reading lectures.” He told me, “That’s okay. You’re gonna love it when we’re done, because it’s my very favorite thing!” Okay, the gauntlet had been thrown, and I picked it up.

But I am so far from the “Bible is simple. All ya gotta do is open it and read it and do it. Done deal.” Maybe I’m just thick-headed, but a lot of times when I read the Bible, I’m like, “So? What did that mean? How am I supposed to do that?” Did Jesus really want me to pluck out my eye or chop off my hand? (Interesting how most of us do recognize the hyperbole here; at least I haven’t noticed any one-eyed, one-armed Christians running around, though I bet they have sinned through their seeing or touching.) Most of the Bible is told in stories. The stories reveal — obliquely!!! — the heart of God, his goals and purposes for people, his disappointments with their actions, his irrational love for downtrodden, ostracized, marginalized groups (like Israel). Read the rest of this entry »

While I was at the Pepperdine Lectures I heard about Shane Claiborne’s book, “The Irresistible Revolution,” and I finally started reading it.  He reminds me of our friend Bill in including this quote from nineteenth-century Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard:

“The matter is quite simple.  The Bible is very easy to understand.  But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers.  We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly.  Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly.  My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined.  How would I ever get on in the world?  Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship.  Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close.  Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you?  Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God.  Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.”

Then Claiborne talks about going to work with Mother Teresa and meeting a fundamentalist (not a selective fundamentalist) who actually sold all he had and gave to the poor.

I’m looking forward to seeing what else this ordinary radical has to say, and contemplating what I might end up doing as a result.

Anything in the Bible you are trying not to understand?

Over the years I’ve often wondered about the “balancing side” of bad things. For instance, what good is a flood? About five years ago, experts in Indiana said that the heavy rains and flooding they got that year had the benefit of temporarily delaying the “onslaught of disease-carrying mosquitoes.” Of course wet weather is a boon for the West NIle carriers, so I’m not sure that’s a fair balance, but we’ll take it.

What about mosquitoes themselves — any redeeming value or balancing benefit? Certainly the birds and bats think so, because they eat them. So do spiders, which is why I’m on friendlier terms with most spiders than a lot of folks might be. (If you don’t like spiders, you have that in common with mosquitoes.)

But there is one balancing benefit to many, many bad things, and that benefit is prayer. I don’t like it when bad things happen in my life or in the lives of those I know and love. I don’t like it when people get sick, when they are in financially difficult times, or when they are experiencing some emotional crisis. But the good side of that is that it causes that person, and more than likely many others as well, to turn to God in prayer.

God doesn’t always grant the requests of the prayers that are spoken in the midst of life’s challenges, I know, but he always likes it when we talk to him.

So don’t wait for something bad to happen, talk to him anyway. Just talk. If the world is going to be out of balance at all, let it be on the good side for a change.

I’ve been to some amazing places on this earth, some of them highly populated and some of them extraordinarily devoid of population. Some of those places have been startlingly beautiful, some of them have contained great works of art, and some of them have been sculpted into great works of art. I consider it a blessing to both see and appreciate all of that.

But the greatest joys of life — at least for me — involve people. So I was just a little sad this afternoon as I said goodbye (temporarily, but for a while) to Sterling Stuckey and his amazing wife, Harriette, who, in passing through the Bay Area for a season, came into my life and the life of PACC and made us all better for it.

Sterling is, in some circles, kind of a famous fellow, I suppose. He might say, with a wry smile, “Oh, I don’t know about that.” But he had stopped by the church today to give me a copy of the manuscript for his latest book, African Culture and Melville’s Art, a work that will be published this year by Oxford University Press, and anyone who can get a book like that published by a major house, let alone write it, has got something going for him.

The book’s subtitle is The Creative Process in “Benito Cereno” and “Moby-Dick.” Probably not what one would call “light reading,” but I’m looking very much forward to it.

Why? Not because the title itself interests me, although it does interest me very much, but because of Sterling.

By many of the world’s standards, one might not think that Sterling and I would have much in common. But he showed up one day at PACC, and in fairly short order we learned we had three important things in common: we love creativity and the artists who created; we love to think; and we love God.

As time went on we found out that we disagree on a lot of other things, and that enriches our friendship as much as our agreements. (See “love to think,” above.) But my point is this: my life is richer because Sterling and Harriette passed this way. I hope and expect to see them again, and look forward to it.

In the meantime, my goal is simply this: to enrich the lives of those I meet, even in places where I’m just passing through.

Which do you think is easier — to be a preservative for the world or to simply let it rot?

The world is rotting, you know, decaying morally and spiritually in many places in many ways, and it is happening all around you. Can you see it? Can you smell it? Do you even notice it in books, in magazines, on television, in movies?

The reaction I see from most Christians is hand-wringing, sometimes accompanied by a little bit of flag-waving. What I see too rarely is salt-shaking. But just the other day I came across a fairly long, obviously heartfelt, statement about language in movies that had me smelling the salt air, and it was as refreshing as standing on Carmel Beach. The writer was one John Ware, founder of the 168 Hour Film Project.

I’ve known about 168 for several years, and been on their mailing list for perhaps four of their five years of existence, but perhaps you don’t know them. Their web site states that “The 168 Hour Film Project is a competition where producers have 168 hours (1 week) to film and edit and 11-minute movie based on a theme and a Bible verse. All films are created during production week to premiere at the 168 Film Festival.” Pretty cool, eh?

But in John’s blog he wasn’t writing about film-making per se, he was writing about language. What should the judges do, he wondered, about film-makers who wanted to included bad language in their films? Producers could often make the case that such language was “necessary” to the film and the development of some particular character in the film, and I’m sure you can see that they could. But ultimately John decided to draw the line in the sand, and to deny any such film a place in the festival that included any such language. Not an easy call to make, I know, but good for him for making it and holding back the decay.

Too many of us might have taken the easier path of allowing those producers to make the film they wanted to make. After all, what could be the harm in a little dirty language sprinkled here and there in a film? But how much better to have the salt sprinkled instead!

Try to do that in your life and work. Don’t be one of those Christians for whom “slightly rotten” is the new “fresh.”

Should homosexuals and gay couples be allowed to be part of the church?

This is the topic we discussed this past Sunday morning.

Here’s a few things I think I think -

1. Homosexuals and gay couples absolutely should be allowed to worship with the Church.

2. Homosexuals can be offered communion.

3. A gay marriage and a Christian marriage are not the same thing.

4. It is up to the leadership of the local church (elders) to determine if a homosexual or partner in a gay couple can serve in a leadership position.

5. Homosexuals and gay couples, like all Christians, should participate in a small group Bible study that requires confession and accountability in their walk with the Lord.

What do you think you think?

Years ago I saw a science program on TV about vision. In one of several experiments that were conducted, volunteers were fitted with special “corrective lenses” that made them see everything upside down. The devices could not be removed by the volunteers, and although they were not allowed to drive, they were encouraged to live the rest of their lives as normally as possible.

Some of them got physically ill, which was pretty easy for me to imagine, and many of them stumbled and fell as they tried to do something as simple as walk down the street. Aside from various bumps and scrapes, headaches and feelings of nausea, none of them were really much worse for the wear. And not a single one of them “got used” to the idea of seeing the world upside down. No real surprises there.

But the test yielded one incredible — at least to me — result: within about 24 hours, every one of the volunteers saw the world as right side up. After that happened the scientists removed their special viewing devices so that the volunteers were all looking just through their own eyes… and the world was upside down again!

Add that to your list of amazing things about God’s creation: our brains can figure out that the image we are seeing is upside down, learn to make the correction, and change how we see everything.

Are we that adept spiritually? Can we see when things are upside down, or do we only look through the eyes of the world? Too many times I fail to use the vision God has given me to see things as they really are, and not as the world would have me see them. But when I do see properly, I fall down far less often.

Rocco needed more rocks. David picked up five smooth stones and used one, Rocco brought at least a dozen dimpled Callaway balls and 14 clubs, but they weren’t enough. After it was over, Rocco said he threw everything he had at him, including the kitchen sink, but even that wasn’t enough. He said, “I just about got him.”

What does all that say to us? Do David’s usually lose? From my perspective, David never loses. Sure, Tiger Woods won and got the U.S. Open title and the trophy, Rocco Mediate got the runner up check and the respect and admiration of lots of people, and life goes on. But David, the shepherd who became the king, put his trust not in specially forged weapons of steel and not even in his sling and stones, but in the Lord.

Put your trust in the Lord, and you, too, will prevail. You may die along the way, but you will prevail.

Back in some year long, long ago, a shepherd boy named David slew a giant named Goliath. As I write, a journeyman golf professional named Rocco has the advantage over a giant named Tiger.

Rocco Mediate vs. Tiger Woods. The 158th ranked player in the world vs. the number 1 ranked player in the world. A 45 year-old who has never won a major against a 32 year-old who has won 13 of them. Lots of people are rooting for David (Rocco), but not many people have been betting on him to win.

In the press room the day before this playoff for the 2008 U.S. Open championship, Rocco said he was looking forward to the match. He noted that they were just playing golf, not fighting. “If we were fighting, I’d be in big trouble.” Most observers figured he was in big trouble anyway, but with just two holes left to play, Rocco is not only not in trouble, he has a one shot lead.

It’ll be a compelling story if he wins, but is it really David and Goliath? David was risking his life for the Lord and for Israel, and was relying on the Lord for help. Goliath was trying to help wipe out or take over the nation of Israel, God’s chosen people. Rocco and Tiger are playing for a big title, for big money, and for a place in history.

But maybe, just maybe, as the media folks keep talking about David and Goliath, people who are watching Rocco and Tiger will think about the originals.

Stay tuned…