H.B.log

Naked and not ashamed to be at church? - Part 2

Before Christmas, we looked at the conundrum of nude art in church, the key question being this: Do you hide or cover nudity so as not to offend unsuspecting churchgoers or do you leave it up out of respect for the artist? (See original post)

Answering this question is more difficult when some nudity seems to have real artistic value while other crosses a line.  It is doubly vexing when the line is fuzzy and people can't agree on its location.  Given these crux, I found myself recalling the great southern humorist Lewis Grizzard, who once distinguished between the terms naked and nekid.  Naked, he quipped, is a polite term that means "not having any clothes on."  Nekid is a folksy, deep-fried twist on naked that means "not having any clothes on and being up to something."  Adam and Eve were naked.  Pam and Tommy Lee were nekid

But a quick tour of the New Testament shows that the Grizzard Rule doesn't say enough.   Biblically, there is naked, nekid, and naughty nekid.  Naked is the shameless state of Adam and Eve, often experienced by children ages 3 and younger and old men ages 70 plus (confession: I once impersonated a European fountain during the outdoor portion of my great grandmother's funeral. I was too innocent to be embarrassed.  Even at 3, I had a keen sense of comedic timing).  Nekid is not having any clothes on and being up to something.  Naughty nekid is a cotton-patch translation of the Greek word porneia, more properly rendered "fornication" or "sexual immorality."

Biblically we learn two things about the difference between nekid and naughty nekid.  First, naughty nekid is uniformly condemned.  "For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God" (1 Thess. 4:3-5).  Secondly however, nekid does not always have to be naughty.  In fact, nekid can actually be a safeguard against naughty: "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote, 'It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.'  But because of temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.  The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband" (1 Cor. 7:1-3).

So what does this have to do with art hanging on the walls on Sunday morning?  Using this teaching, we discovered several things: (a) there can be a genuine artistic distinction between various forms of no-clothes-wearing but...(b) many people are confused about these nuances, even the artists themselves, and so....(c) we took all naked/nekid/naughty nekid/we're-not-sure art down so as not to confuse the innocent or titillate the vulnerable or celebrate the vulgar.  It was a matter of not wanting to "force" people to accept art that might be troublesome to them.  We erred on the side of caution.  But just to be fair to good art, we also banned all cheesy Christian kitsch.    

Wither "Evangelical?"

"Evangelical: Can the E-word be saved?" asks USA Today.  With quotes from Baylor professor Francis Beckwith, Dallas Seminary president Mark Bailey, and activist Ron Sider, the article uncovers a confounding issue: the term "evangelical" has become so elastic as to be "misunderstood, misappropriated, and maligned."  Personally, the article resonates.  The e-word can be a quick conversation-killer in more eclectic enclaves outside the Bible Belt.

"Evangelical" arose in the 1940s and 50s as a reaction to "Fundamentalist," which arose as a reaction to "Liberal."  Christians then were asking two questions (which are still being asked today): What do we believe?  How do we live out those beliefs vis-a-vis the rest of the world?  Liberals answered by embracing culture but denying historic Christian beliefs.  Fundamentalists answered by affirming historic Christian beliefs but retreating to the sectarian countryside of culture.  Evangelicals answered by affirming Christian orthodoxy while taking a more winsome and critically-engaged approach to culture.  In this sense, I am happily an evangelical. 

In the 60 years since its birth, evangelicalism has become the predominant form of American Christianity.  Liberals became irrelevant because they turned off the power of the gospel (they've gutted the mainline denominations of both numbers and vitality and are currently finishing off the Episcopalians in a high-profile steel cage match).  Fundamentalists became irrelevant because half of life is just showing up, which they refused to do if there was going to be beer, dancing, rock music, or cuss words.  Evangelicals, meanwhile, were your neighbors, co-workers, PTA volunteers, and golfing partners who went to churches that preached the truth in a manner that seemed welcoming and accessible. 

But today, does the e-word evoke thoughts of people who believe the historic Christian evangel (gospel)?  Does it evoke thoughts of them winsomely engaging culture?  Hardly.  Today, it is a sociological and political term, less a theological one, and often provokes a gag reflex.  This is partly because evangelicals have never entirely escaped their fightin' fundy roots.  We could call this the "Pat Robertson problem," where many evangelical talking heads are not as winsome as our forefathers like Carl Henry and Billy Graham.  It is also partly due to what I'll call the "Michael W. Smith problem," where evangelical has become more of a style than a substance (disclaimer: I intend no disrespect to Mr. Smith or his music; I use him as an example of how evangelicals have developed their own subculture of celebrities, books, music, etc).  As the USA Today article notes, "Although 38% of Americans call themselves evangelical, only 9% actually agree with key evangelical beliefs." 

Because of the Pat Robertson problem and the Michael W. Smith problem, I'm hesitant to call myself an evangelical.  Will people really understand what I mean?  Will it be a barrier to them actually seeing the Christian gospel?  Do they realize that authentic Christianity embraces a common orthodox creed while allowing for cultural and even political diversity?  What's a label-maker to do?  Should the e-word be binned or should it be salvaged?

More new music fodder

If my last post on 2006's best music didn't plunge you into the deep end of iTunes, consider checking out another great list from Kevin Cawley, who suggests no less than 30 albums to help us shed our waterwings and swim with the cool kids.  Read: Cawley's favorite albums of 2006.

What a long, strange trip it must have been

From the January 11 New York Times on a new documentary "Friends of God: A Road Trip with Alexandra Pelosi" that will air on HBO:

"You are a young documentary filmmaker with a reputation for capturing politicians’ antics. In a deliberate departure from politics, your latest film is a road trip into the world of evangelical Christians that includes a drive-through church, a Christian wrestling federation, a stand-up Christian comic, an evangelical Elvis and a biblical miniature golf course complete with the empty tomb of Jesus."

"It just so happens, though, that your designated tour guide in that world is the Rev. Ted Haggard, then president of the National Association of Evangelicals who, after your film is finished, is accused of buying illegal drugs from a male prostitute and paying him for sex. And your mother, it turns out, makes history, becoming the first female speaker of the House just weeks before your film is broadcast..."  Read the entire article.

Clumsy justice in Baghdad

Friday's Already-Not Yet

Justice is a universal longing, yet it always seems like wrestling a greased pig.  Between Jesus' first coming to defeat death and his return to establish his kingdom in full, God has ordained government as a babysitter to keep us from killing each other before daddy gets home.  Government is God's "servant for good" who "bears the sword" by avenging evil and protecting good (Romans 13:1-7).  And yet, the government is run by humans, which means sometimes this servant is not good, not just, rewards evil and punishes good.

So it was with Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and he was rightly plunged through the gallows for it.  And yet, last week's hanging revealed something even more disturbing as the Shiite execution party taunted the former Sunni dictator: The new government in charge of executing justice on the old unjust governor is no messiah.  Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer called it a "rushed, botched, unholy mess" that skirted the edges of Iraqi law and "turned what was an act of national justice into a scene of sectarian vengeance" (read his entire commentary).  Daily Show correspondent John Oliver quipped, "When the most dignified man at an execution is the mass murder, you know things could have gone smoother."

And so, the world wobbles on...justice, perhaps, but disturbingly clumsy.  But will it always be so?  "Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom my soul delights.  I have put my Spirit upon him.  He will bring forth justice to the nations...He will not be disheartened or crushed until he has established justice on the earth" (Isaiah 42:1,4).  "And the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.  Of the increase of his government and of peace, there shall be no end" (Isaiah 9:6-7).

The Gospel among gospels

The gospel in a pluralist city

Pluralism is the existence of many gospels in one place.  "Gospel" literally means "good news," and everybody has some version of a gospel because everyone answers three kinds of questions: (1) Why are we here?  How did we get here?  What is our purpose?  (2) What is wrong with the world?  Why evil, suffering, chaos, war, and death?  Some introspective folks even ask, what's wrong with me?  (3) What is the solution?  How you answer that last question is your gospel; it's what you put your hope in as "good news." Some people answer these questions after careful thought and philosophizing.  Others unconsciously drink the majority gospel from the waters of culture. Regardless, everyone answers these questions; Christianity does as well. 

The Christian gospel is described in several ways in the New Testament: The gospel of the kingdom(Matt. 4:23, 9:35, 24:14; Mark 1:15), the gospel of salvation (Eph. 1:13; Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:1), the gospel of grace (Acts 20:24), and the gospel of Jesus Christ(Mark 1:1; cf. 1 Cor. 15).  Put all of these together, and you've got this message: through Jesus Christ, God is restoring the world (kingdom) and reconciling people to himself (salvation) as a gift of grace.  Or to answer the three questions: Why are we here? Because God made us for his kingdom.  What's wrong with the world?  The world is relational and the most fundamental relationship is broken, so the whole creation groans under a curse.  What's the solution? God enters history in the person of Jesus and restores it himself.

So how does this gospel relate to all other would be gospels?  There are actually two answers. First, this gospel is the gospel, claiming to trump all other gospels.  It says all other gospels may discover some truth but not total truth.  They might run fine for a little while but will ultimately break down like like a cheap car and leave you in the ditch.  But the gospel of Jesus won't.  And so, God is not restoring the world in some general, heavenly hocus-pocus way, but in a specific way, not through many "good people" but through one perfect man, not through many diverse roads cutting across the map of spirituality but through one way, truth, and life - Jesus Christ.  This gospel is "the word of truth, the gospel" (Eph. 1:13, Col. 1:5). 

And yet, there is a second truth: the kingdom comes not all-at-once, but in stages.  And in the present age, the kingdom of our Lord and the kingdom of this world overlap, a mustard seed sprouting in the midst of the garden.  Which means: God allows all other gospels to go about gospelizing while his gospel competes with them for hearts and minds. Because he is patient and long-suffering and desires for many to come to a knowledge of the truth, he allows the gospel to go out amongst the many gospels - the gospel in a pluralist city.

The gospel in a pluralist city

Last Sunday at Fellowship Denver, we began a new worship series called The gospel in a pluralist city.  These three themes - the gospel, pluralism, and the city - collide to create a bubbling whirlpool of questions for the urban church as we try to pass on the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints.  So, for the next few months, we're asking some serious questions: What is the unique Christian gospel?  How does it relate to other would-be "gospels?"  How does it go into a world that is increasingly urban and increasingly diverse?  How does the gospel teach its followers to live and act in pluralist cities like, say, Denver?  Each week, I'll make a series of posts for those who want to follow along with us.  Today, I'll introduce pluralist cities and why they are important.

City is defined by Websters as "a population larger and more important than a town."  The last part of the definition says a lot: - Cities are disproportionately influential to the rest of the country and the region they inhabit.  So, there is a reason why we are planting a church in Denver instead of, say, Fort Collins, Pueblo, Gunnison, Cheyenne, or even (blasphemy alert!) Colorado Springs.  Denver is our region's most influential place.  Even though it is a small fraction of the landmass and a fraction of the population, it is a majority of the cultural influence.  And within Denver, the city center is the most influential area.  It's where governments work, athletes play, businesses do business, artists create, doctors diagnose, students study, and professors profess.  It's also the place where people from all corners of the city meet and gather.  So there's also a reason we chose to plant the church in central Denver.  It's disproportionately influential to the city that is disproportionately influential to the region.

Pluralism is the mixing and mingling of many worldviews, philosophies, religions, and spiritualities in one place, often competing for public affection.  This culture defines most cities, especially city-centers. 

Pluralist cities create problems for Christians - not a problem for Christianity itself, but problems for Christians: (a) Though cities exert a disproportionate amount of influence on American culture, Christians in America are disproportionately found in the small towns, small-cities, and suburbs. (b) Christians don't know how to handle pluralism and interact with other beliefs.  They tend toward one of two ditches: syncretism (the blending of Christianity with other worldviews) or sectarianism (preservation by isolation). 

In this series, we'll argue that Jesus intends for us to be distinctively Christian while living in and among the city's diversity.  But how do we do that?  The Christian gospel itself contains all the answers we need.

Further resources:
"A New Kind of Urban Christian" by Tim Keller in Christianity Today
"Where the Brains Are" by Richard Florida in The Atlantic Monthly, October 2006

The Triumphal Entry

A savior comes to the Bible Football Belt

What are these women doing?
(a) Reenacting the triumphal entry of Jesus by waving palm branches during a Holy Week celebration at First Baptist Church of Tuscaloosa
(b) Telling pretty boy Nascar driver Jeff Gordon what they think about his new wife
(c) Responding to country diva Gretchen Wilson when she sings, "Let me get a big 'hell yeah' from the redneck girls like me"
(d) Welcoming new Bama coach Nick Saban
(e) All of the above

For the answer, click here

How to spend your iTunes gift cards

It's hard work staying as culturally hip and savvy as I am, so I'll let you in on a little secret: I'm not culturally hip or savvy.  Instead, I have friends who are culturally hip and savvy, and I just hitch my skateboard to their bumpers (very similar to the "rather than owning a ski boat, it's better to know someone who owns a ski boat" philosophy of life).  All that to say....2006 dealt a brutal blow to my street cred when my lead music scout, Todd Brogdon, moved to Rwanda.  In Brogdon's absence, I quickly fell off the wagon and was even caught in one unguarded sermonic moment quoting the "contemporary poet" Britney Spears.

After that red-faced incident, I went looking for a Todd Brogdon Too, someone to rehabilitate my flabby pop-cultured muscle.  In particular, I needed guidance into the best and brightest new music, and new friends like Kevin Cawley and Steve McCoy have quietly nursed me back to health via their blogs (although Cawley has an unhealthy non-sexual-man-crush on a fella named "Sufjan").

I knew I was getting better with my most recent purchase, The Crane Wife by The Decemberists, which brought smashing joy to my lyrical world (note to iTuners: the best song on the album, "The Crane Wife 1 & 2" is not available as an individual download, so get your money's worth by downloading the whole album).  In fact, I even feel healthy enough that I can now help others.  Do you have some iTunes bucks burning a hole in your hard drive?  Here's a couple of "Best of 2006" lists worth checking out:

Steve McCoy's Top 21 Albums of 2006
NPR's Best CDs of 2006

"When we arrive, sons and daughters, we'll make our home on the waters.  We'll build our walls aluminum.  We'll fill our mouths with cinnamon....hear all the bombs fade away."