The Adjustment Bureau

Last week I saw The Adjustment Bureau with Matt Damon (Potential spoiler alert!!). It was an interesting look at free will versus predestination/fate. The main character is a politician who just lost a race and due to a girl kissing him that motivates his concession speech he is now the frontrunner for the Senate race. Shortly after, he discovers the Adjustment Bureau, and they explain that the whole world has a plan, and that if people stray off plan, then it is their job to get those people back ON plan. A telling exchange: Damon—“But I have free will!” Adjustment Bureau Operative: “You have the appearance of free will.” Damon learns that he is not allowed that girl from the campaign, and sets out to beat the system.

           

            There were a lot of similarities to Christianity in the movie. The Adjustment Bureau was headed up by a single person, The Chairman, and all the operatives did his bidding. They even noted that they were called, “many different things in different cultures”. There was a worldwide plan.

Then came the jabs at Christianity. As it turns out, the plan was not perfect, and had in fact had a different version which is why they had trouble with the woman. The operatives started doubting whether it was just or not. They ruined some people’s lives just so that those people would promote other people who had been decided that they would succeed. And in relation to Damon’s character, The Chairman changed his mind and allowed Damon free will since he had risked everything by defying the system.

While it was not completely clear, the ending idea seemed to be that free will was a gift that needed to be earned. And, that we know what is best for our own lives—no one else should be allowed to make our life decisions for us.

(I am sorry if I did not do the movie, or the response, justice. I am working from memory, and am not terribly good at analyzing movies to start with.)

Islam Special

As I was checking the headlines at CNN this morning, I saw two articles on Islam that caught my eye, and I thought I would share with you.

The first one is about Muslims running for office in various races. Apparently this is the first organized drive in Illinois. It is always interesting to see various groups become politically active.

The second one is far more troubling. As part of a series on Islam, they are talking to a Christian, Mathew Miller, who converted to Islam. From what it seems, his family was very active in the church as he grew up. After his first prayer in a Muslim congregation, he said, “When I put my head on the ground with them, it felt like I could say anything to God, and what I was asking for at the time was guidance. I wanted to know whether what I was doing was the right thing to do.” Now, this is the question of our churches: if someone can go to those who do not have the truth, but yet they can convince him it is the truth, then why in the world are the guardians of The Truth squandering it?! I have seen this more commonly among people who switch denominations: they start asking questions, and the first people to answer them get the conversion (oftentimes, anyhow). Obviously our churches need to be better about explaining the Truth of the Gospel.

A Possible Future of the Middle East

With all of the turmoil in the Middle East a pastor in Houston, Dr. Randy White, has done a little hypothesizing as to how these events could connect to the return of Christ. It is quite interesting to read, I would suggest that you go read it here.

Among the highlights:
The Middle East is united through a charismatic leader. The new coalition manipulates the oil market into causing economic collapse in the U.S.  A united Middle East launches a war on Israel and is defeated. After the war, Islam declines and the way is paved for the "New Babylon", working closely with Europe. Out of Syria a new leader rises and takes the world stage, forming a powerful economic and political coalition that looks like it will dominate the earth for the next 100 years.


Go read the article and tell me what you think!

First United Lutheran Church

Next up on my tour of the various denominations was First United Lutheran Church, on Mockingbird. It was founded in the early 1900’s, and is a member of the ELCA. Their pastor, Dr. Russell Vardel, is professor of history at Paul Quinn College and dean of the Parish Lay Ministry Academy of the Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana Synod of the Evangelicl Lutheran Church in America. Mark Herbener was the assistant minister with the title of, “Theologian in Residence,” (which I thought is a good position for a church to have) and is a former bishop.

The first thing I noticed when I arrived was that 10 minutes before service time, the parking lot was nearly completely empty. After the service started, I realized why: there were 21 attendees, including myself and the two ministers. I spent my high school years in a church about that size so I was aware of their situation and immediate response to a visitor. They were very friendly and were interested to here about my exploration of Christendom.

The inside of the church was fairly plain. It had lots of woodwork that did not look like it had a finish. Interestingly was the “Sanctuary Lamp” which hung from the ceiling to symbolize God’s presence.

The liturgy was based around Communion as with the Catholic and Anglican churches. It was interesting to see the small church dynamic with a liturgy. For instance, when it was time to “spread peace”, instead of just saying, “Peace,” the congregation all took time to visit with each other, since they knew everyone there. Similarly, the pastor moved to the middle of the sanctuary with his homily, to try to be closer to everyone. Different from the other denominations was that they turned off the pastor’s microphone when they recited the creeds and Lord’s Prayer.

The homily was pretty good as far as homilies go. No real exegetical work done on the text, but a good application of the text nonetheless. I am coming to miss solid exegetical sermons.

Overall, the church was friendly and obviously meshed well together. I liked the “Theologian in Residence” staff position. Much like the Presbyterian and Methodist, I could not particularly tell any theological differences from the service.

The Solution to Illegal Immigration?

Kansas state Rep. Virgil Peck recently commented on a local radio show about the use of aerial gunman to shoot wild hogs. He then took that in an interesting direction (you can read about it here): "Looks like to me, if shooting these immigrating feral hogs works, maybe we have found a [solution] to our illegal immigration problem."

Now, I think most people, Republicans included, would say that that is wrong. However, I think Illegal Immigration is the new face of racism--just a more socially acceptable form. Defending himself, Peck said that his constituents are angry about illegal immigration and "I was just speaking like a southeast Kansas person."

A nation cannot stand firmly if their borders are under attack. But, the Christian is not called to primarily do what is best for their nation, but to primarily do what is best for the Gospel. We, as Christians, have been called to love everyone. The dividing wall between races has been broken down (Eph.2:14), praise God! We are now one humanity with our brother's and sister's in Christ, and are to bring all the people of the world into this new humanity. So, what if, instead of protesting these Illegal Immigrants (otherwise known as "people"), we showed God's love to them? What if instead of trying to check their id, we offered them shelter or a warm meal? Or, we could just shoot them from helicopters as they try to gain a better life.

In God We Trust Resolution

The House Judiciary Committee is considering a resolution to reaffirm the National Motto as, "In God We Trust". (If you are interested, you can read about it here.) So, this, of course, will be very important to social conservatives who will point to America as "One Nation Under God", and that this motto is a hill on which to die. However, I would argue that the statement is not true of the country. We trust in the dollar and our machine guns. Even in 1956, when that motto was created, I don't think it was necessarily true. They were certainly more religious than now, but is "White-only" drinking fountains really the mark of a society that trusts God?


What do you think?

Greg Boyd: Myth of a Christian Nation (1)

The kingdom of the world is intrinsically a tit-for-tat kingdom; its motto is "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." In this fallen world, no version of the kingdom of the world can survive for long by loving its enemies and blessing those who persecute it; it carries the sword, not the cross. But kingdom-of-God participants carry the cross, not the sword. We, thus, aren't ever to return evil with evil, violence with violence. We are rather to manifest the unique kingdom life of Christ by returning evil with good, turning the other cheek, going the second mile, loving, and praying for our enemies. (47-48)

Rebinding a Book: Part Two.

Well, sleep is avoiding me, do I will finish up my post on rebinding a book.

When I last left you, I had removed the sections, and tried to glue them into one cohesive section.

 

As you can see, it worked out fairly well in the goal of making one sections. Relatively smooth and even, especially compared to its older state.

After I finished this sections, I had to put the section into the book cover, and glue it together. I applied my webcam-clamp like before, and applied my own pressure. Here is the result!

The section I added was on the right hand side of the picture-you can see a line about halfway through the book which is where the section stops. The job wasn't perfect, but it did succeed in gaining a few extra serviceable years out of this book.

Rebinding a Book: Part One

So, a week ago, our library at Criswell was giving away some of their old dilapidated books for free. Among some of the books I picked up was Engaging the Powers by Walter Wink. After I took it home and started thumbing through it, the pages starting falling apart even worse. I tried just gluing what was visible but that did not work very well. So, I decided to just pull out the loose sections and try rebinding them in the book as one section. This is what it looked like after I got the sections together:

After this, I fitted the sections together and used that butter knife to spread blue over the back of the pages, to turn them into one solid section.

Check back tomorrow to see how it turned out!

Cathedral Santuario de Guadalupe

Read my disclaimer here.

The next church I visited was the Cathedral Santuario de Guadalupe (Cathedral Shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe). This is the cathedral for the Catholic Diocese of Dallas. This church was originally known as Sacred Heart Cathedral, but by the 60’s attendance had dwindled, and their bishop invited a local Hispanic congregation, Our Lady of Guadalupe, to combine with them. They have 5 services every morning, attended by 11,000 people.

           

The first thing I noticed was the overwhelming Hispanic presence in the service: it was roughly 90% Hispanic, 8% Caucasian, and just a few families that were Asian or Black. It was somewhat amusing to see the different socio-cultural background: most of the Hispanics sat very close together, but the whites all sat far apart from each other (myself included).

The leadership of the church reflected the Hispanic/Caucasian combination. The Rector was Hispanic, and spoke with such a thick accent that I only could understand perhaps one in five or ten words. He even pronounced “Jesus” as “Yaysoos Christ”. The Parochial Vicar was white and had an accent that sounded like he had come from the sticks of East Texas. They swapped back and forth while performing their duties, although the Rector was the one who performed the Mass.

The music at the service was distinctly Catholic sounding, but ironically was not as Gregorian sounding as the Episcopal music. This type of sound has started to appeal to me as I am becoming more used to. There is something very beautiful about it’s harmony and simplicity.

The homily was by no means an exegetical sermon, but was much closer than the Episcopal church’s was. It was over how to live out the Word in your daily life. It wasn’t half bad.

Overall, the service was very familiar to anyone who has been to Mass before. The architecture of the building was pretty, but the twenty million dollar belltower throws off the symmetry of the building. The one thing I really like about this church was the cross-racial-ness of it: I believe that this is what Christ had in mind for the church, especially if the racial ratio was a little bit more balanced.

Church Building Programs Part Three

I can see a need for buildings in the United States. In many people’s minds, the building IS the church. And buildings can serve very useful purposes, such as housing a food pantry or doubling as a seminary campus during the week. As brought up by Dr. Randy White of FBC Katy, a new sanctuary can also be an investment for the future (this was not an angle I had previously thought about, and it will require me to reconsider my position until I fully think it through).

However, I think that churches far too often use constructing a new building as a first resort rather than a last resort. Smaller churches could tag team in the same building like how Anchor conducted business instead of constructing their own buildings. Medium churches could add another service, operate a video service linked to a classroom or two, or some other method of taking care of the problem. And, large churches could actually—imagine this—peacefully separate, and form several smaller congregations that could potentially be more responsive to the actual day to day needs of the members.

I think the reason churches don’t think more outside the box is often a result of pride, convenience, security, or just genuinely not thinking through other options. I think one more option that many believe is that they are glorifying God. As a child I was told to be quiet inside the building because it was where God lived. God no more lives in a church building than he does in a believer’s home! After Christ died, God parted ways with the Temple, and never again dwelt in a building; instead He chose to indwell us! Praise God! I would much rather God live in believers instead of in an empty building! But, listen to what Dr. Jeffress said: “As I look around downtown Dallas, I see spectacular temples of commerce, of culture and of government - many new, some restored to former glory, and all intended to stand for generations. The Kingdom of God needs a home to equal them.” Of course. Because the Kingdom is contained inside the walls of First Baptist Dallas. Please. The God I serve is much larger than that and has much bigger plans for the world than a new auditorium!

Church Building Projects Part Two

My first encounter with a church building project was when I was five. Our church plant had outgrown the school that we met in, and a developer donated 10 acres to our church, so we built a modest building and settled in—nothing controversial.

My second encounter, and the first controversial circumstance, was when I was 12. I was a member of an Independent Fundamental Baptist church. Our pastor had been thinking about a new building for quite some time: When I was ten, our church reached capacity (a little over 200 seats), and he started talking about a new building, but a church split soon eliminated the need. After three years, the church had grown enough that we were again at capacity and about 20 people each week had to be in overflow in the fellowship hall, watching the service though a video screen. The pastor once again brought up a new building, that seemed a bit too grand for our congregation (The price tag was about 400,000 and the church budget every year was only 150,000). Some people mentioned other solutions such as adding a service, but the pastor would have none of that, and pushed through the building project. It passed, but almost a fifth of the congregation left. Seven years later, the new building is still not completed, and the church has continued shrinking, since every spare dollar goes to a new building instead of increased ministry.

Another major building project that comes to mind is at First Baptist Dallas. The church is pushing through a one hundred and fifteen million dollar new project. At one point, they were actually considering dissolving a ministry of the church that trained pastors—Criswell College—so that they could sell the property and KCBI to help fund the new project.

In contrast, when I was at Anchor, I saw a much more generous church with regards to its building. They owned a modest building, but there were actually four churches that met inside of it: Anchor, A Hispanic church (that met in the fellowship room), a Brazillian church (that met in the fellowship room before the Hispanics), and a Haitian church (that met in a classroom). The churches were each in their native language, and would usually meet every month or two to have a meal all together.

Church Building Projects Part One

I recently saw a free book at my school titled, Downtown Church: The Heart of the City by Howard Edington, which I thought was going to be a book on urban ministry and so I took it and brought it home. Once I started reading it, however, I soon realized that I was misguided. The book was instead on how the pastor had led the church to build a proposed 21 million dollar building project (30 million in today’s money, and it almost certainly cost more to actually finish) so that they could properly “do ministry” in the city. Here is an excellent quote that summarizes the book: “Here, then, is a cold, hard principle for the downtown church: secure enough property to make the church’s ministry viable. Beg or borrow the money. Spend whatever time it takes, but get your hands on the property you need.” This got me thinking about church building projects and how needed or useless they are. So, what do you think? Do you have to build a new church campus and buy a lot of property to carry out ministry? If so, then how did the early church carry out its ministry without owning property and buildings?