The Common Loon

This Blog Has Moved!

2010-10-09T00:35:00.006-10:00

To mark the occasion of my 30th birthday, The Common Loon blog has now moved from here to a new site:

That's right, I'm bidding Blogspot farewell and migrating to the warmer waters of Wordpress as we continue navigating high winds at the convergence of theology, culture and the local church.

And to all 3 of my regular readers (you know who you are), please point your links or bookmarks to the new web address.

Hope to see you over there!

Can Egalitarians Be Gospel-Centered Too?

2010-09-09T01:01:00.029-10:00

There aren't many topics more controversial within evangelicalism than the issue of women in ministry leadership. The debate between evangelical complementarians (those who believe Scripture prohibits all women from serving as pastors or elders in the local church) and evangelical egalitarians (those who believe Scripture does not prohibit women from serving in those roles) often gets pretty heated. I won't rehash the arguments here since most of us have probably made up our minds, but I do have some questions:

How big is the gulf between evangelical complementarians and evangelical egalitarians? Is it more like a crevasse or a chasm? And how much should we insulate ourselves from those on the other side of the great gender divide?

On some days, the gap seems pretty wide. Those are usually the days when I'm reading blogs, books or articles by anyone associated with The Gospel Coalition, an organization that for all its merits, appears to have elevated complementarianism to a level of non-negotiable orthodoxy to the exclusion of egalitarians like myself. I truly hope this isn't the case because there's a great deal to like about TGC as one of the most intellectually astute, culturally engaged and discipleship-oriented interdenominational networks in all of Western evangelicalism. I'd be willing to wager my ESV Study Bible that if I wasn't an egalitarian, I'd probably be a TGC enthusiast by now. But if my stance on women in ministry excludes me from certain fraternities, I'll learn what I can through my binoculars from across the canyon.

There are other days when the prospects for respectful disagreement and Kingdom-oriented collaboration among complementarians and egalitarians seem within reach. These tend to be the days spent closer to street level, where I see Christians across the evangelical spectrum coming together for parachurch conferences, seminary classes, small group Bible studies and yes, Sunday morning worship services despite their differences over gender roles. In these settings, the question of women in ministry seems more like a secondary theological debate open to more than one interpretation among committed believers. I've even heard of a few egalitarians reading books by Tim Keller, J.I. Packer and Jack Deere as well as complementarians benefiting from the writings of Scot McKnight, Richard Mouw and Dallas Willard.

In case you're wondering, this is not the part where I throw up my hands exclaiming, "Can't we all just get along?" Softening our convictions for the sake of a creating a mushy middle is not the answer. So long as both camps are making a sincere and prayerful effort to follow the teachings of Scripture in good conscience, I would not expect either side to discard their best theological arguments, websites and academic journals as if these differences of interpretation and ministry application did not matter in any significant way. To the contrary, they matter immensely. Just ask a gifted woman who is told she can never teach the Bible to men or a complementarian who is told that all gender distinctions are inherently oppressive and best left behind. The sheer potency of this explosive topic is enough to warrant sober theological reflection and discussion within the body of Christ.

Besides, it's logically impossible for both camps to be correct. God either calls and gifts certain women to serve in positions of pastoral authority or he does not. When a woman experiences a call to ordained ministry along with the preaching and shepherding responsibilities entailed, such a call is either compatible with Scripture or it is not. "Middle ground" approaches that leave matters up to congregational popular vote or veto depending on the "comfort level" of vocal parishioners are entirely unconvincing to me. Whether implicitly or explicitly, every church and denomination will eventually need to take some kind of stand, all the while remaining careful neither to prohibit what Scripture affirms nor affirm what Scripture prohibits.

Interestingly enough, I was originally a complementarian during my undergrad years at Wheaton. But after significant time wrestling with the "problem passages" and reviewing the arguments of both sides in the years since, I've decided to plant my flag with the other guys (and gals). Not that this switch has added much convenience to my journey of preparation for vocational ministry in evangelical contexts. If I was convinced the apostle Paul's prohibition of women teaching/leading men in 1 Timothy 2 was meant to be universal, I'd find a vast array of ministry resources and church planting networks eager to equip me from a complementarian perspective. It would also increase the pool of potential mentors, churches and denominations consistent with my theological convictions which are mostly of the old-school evangelical variety (not including my 'charismatic' understanding of the Holy Spirit which is another can of worms).

On a practical level, I've discovered this whole egalitarian thing to be a downright dealbreaker in many circles, keeping me (and my wife) at arm's length from an array of otherwise palatable opportunities for ministry networking and training. It's painful to admit this, but complementarians are increasingly in the middle of the action these days when it comes to a putting forward a theologically robust integration of church planting and discipleship resources for local congregations. While the real world doesn't always mirror what's happening online, I foresee TGC embodying more of a long-term trajectory than a short-lived trend. Living in Hawaii, it can take a while for the rumblings of Christendom (i.e. mainline decline or complementarian resurgence) to reach our shores, but it's only a matter of time before the well-equipped contingent of "gospel-centered" churches makes its mark (or should I say 9 Marks) on the islands' evangelical landscape.

Last year, I posed some questions looking at why one’s persuasion on gender roles carries far more weight in the 'Restless Reformed' movement than other secondary issues open to evangelical disagreement including one's view of baptism, the Lord's Supper, charismatic gifts, eschatology, church polity or young earth/old earth creationism. The line of reasoning typically offered by my TGC brothers tends to rely on slippery slope scenarios. The basic gist goes like this: "If we allow egalitarians into our movement (which would invariably include the voices of women pastors who are unfit for spiritual leadership), the stage would be set for additional theological compromises to inevitably follow." I'll grant that potential for doctrinal drift always exists, but this can work both ways. Are egalitarians more likely than complementarians to slip into certain forms of cultural accommodation including moral relativism, universalism and the denial of biblical authority? Yes, but couldn't it also be said that complementarians have been more susceptible to other vices in the direction of fundamentalist separatism, sexism and self-righteous legalism?

When terms like "gospel-centered" and "gospel-driven" are only used in the context of describing complementarian ecclesiology, it creates the perception that one does not have the Gospel right if one is not a complementarian. When egalitarians are excluded from any reference to participation in "gospel-centered ministry," the implicit message is clear: We will not recognize or affirm your commitment to the Gospel unless you hold to complementarian theology. Conversely, egalitarians (however orthodox) are disqualified from being trusted as ministry partners in the task of proclaiming the true Gospel. I could be wrong, but this appears to be more than just a case of like-minded parachurch organizations taking a strong stance on gender roles. It feels more like an attempt to marginalize egalitarians outside the boundaries of orthodoxy.

I can hear some of my egalitarian friends saying, “Relax Dan, you can’t expect those restless reformed guys to touch anything egalitarian with a ten-foot pole. If they want to isolate themselves as the only true bearers of the Gospel, so be it.” My response would be that the Gospel Coalition represents anything but an irrelevant, shrinking movement. Far beyond a loose affiliation among big-name pastors like Piper, Keller and Driscoll, the vibrant network of complementarian Calvinists continues to broaden and deepen through an effective strategy of vigorous church planting, publishing and of course, online resources up the wazoo. They are not so much isolating themselves as they are isolating us. Again, I'd love to be wrong because some of my favorite pastor-authors include guys like Tim Keller and Sam Storms, godly men who have been incredible role models in the development of my own approach to ministry. It is precisely because my fellow egalitarians have so much to gain from their wisdom that an evangelical schism over the gender debate would hurt both sides.

In essence, here's what I'd like to ask my brethren over at The Gospel Coalition/Desiring God/9 Marks/Ligonier/Acts 29/Sovereign Grace/White Horse Inn/T4G:

To what extent is complementarianism more than just a prominent feature of the New Calvinist movement, but essential to the Gospel itself?
Is adherence to complementarian theology a prerequisite for becoming "gospel-centered" or "gospel-driven?"
As someone who affirms the Nicene Creed, salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, the supreme authority/infallibility of Scripture, original sin, the existence of hell, Christ's sinless life, his penal substitutionary atonement on our our behalf, his propitiation of God's wrath, his bodily resurrection and his second coming but also holds to an evangelical egalitarian perspective on women in ministry leadership, have I failed to believe the Gospel?
In short, can egalitarians be gospel-centered too?

Since it is my conviction that the boundaries of historic Christian orthodoxy can (and must) include evangelicals of both the complementarian and egalitarian variety, here's what I hope we could say to one another:

"With all due respect for your sincere desire to follow Jesus and adhere faithfully to the teachings of Scripture, I disagree with your position on this important issue. Just as I would love for you change your mind on the question of women in ministry, I'm sure you feel the same way about my stance. But because our shared belief in the Gospel is more important than our differences on secondary matters, I'm hopeful we can respectfully disagree as brothers/sisters in Christ while encouraging each other to live joyfully and faithfully in light of the good news."

But if this sounds too much like key lime pie in the stratosphere, maybe we could just shout it across the canyon once in a while.

UPDATE: Scot McKnight has begun a related discussion over on his Jesus Creed blog.

Unfinished Summer Reading

2010-08-27T01:08:00.008-10:00

I like books. Or to be more specific, I like reading the first 3 chapters of a book. Better still, I enjoy browsing through book reviews, recommendations and back-cover blurbs en route to compiling my own ever-changing list of titles under consideration. These tendencies have given rise to a knack for delineating and categorizing the various 'tribes' of books and authors within the niche market of evangelical publishing, a world that never ceases to fascinate me. Besides, scanning back-cover blurbs requires far less of an attention span than actually sticking with a book all the way to its end.

These days, my 'radar screen' list of titles yet to be purchased or borrowed typically contains around 50 books at any given time- and that's if I'm being picky. Oh, and let's not forget the appeal of biblio-aesthetics with dust jackets, spines, cover art and binding providing plenty of fodder for scrutiny and classification. I'm especially smitten with the smell of brand new books (mail orders are usually best). And while it's always satisfying to finish reading a good book, it doesn't happen nearly often enough. Many are opened, but few are completed.

This could be due in part to the nature of non-fiction books, a genre not known for surprise endings. To be sure, there are plenty good titles and authors. But that's essentially what you're buying: a title and an author. The book's main thesis and author's reputation will often forecast the bulk of what's coming. In most cases, it's not difficult to extract 80% of a book's message by learning the author's background, scanning some key reviews/endorsements and reading the first 20% of its pages. Only in select cases is the remaining 80% of content worth plowing for the final 20% of insight. Which explains my increasingly crowded (but nice-looking and smelling) shelf of partially-read books. Why dig for substance when there's all that style on the surface?

A far cry from last year's productive summer, here's a sampling of my unfinished reading from the summer of 2010:

Wendell Berry- What are People For? (North Point Press, 1990)

Mike Bickle- Growing in the Prophetic: A Practical Biblical Guide to Dreams, Visions and Spiritual Gifts (Charisma House, 2008)

Julie Clawson- Everyday Justice: The Global Impact of our Daily Choices (IVP, 2009)

Jack Deere- The Beginner's Guide to the Gift of Prophecy (Regal, 2008)

Kevin DeYoung & Ted Kluck- Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion (Moody, 2009)

Annie Dillard- The Writing Life (Harper Perennial, 1990)

James Davison Hunter- To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (Oxford University Press, 2010)

Colin Marshall & Tony Payne- The Trellis and the Vine: The Ministry Mind-shift that Changes Everything (Matthias Media, 2009)

Eric Metaxas- Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (Thomas Nelson, 2010)

Lesslie Newbigin- The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Eerdmans, 1989)

Tim Stafford- Never Mind the Joneses: Taking the Fear out of Parenting (IVP, 2006)

Ed Stetzer- Planting Missional Churches (B & H, 2006)

Sam Storms- Convergence: Spiritual Journeys of a Charismatic Calvinist (Enjoying God Ministries, 2005)

John Stott- The Cross of Christ: 20th Anniversary Edition (IVP, 2006)

Trevin Wax- Holy Subversion: Allegiance to Christ in an Age of Rivals (Crossway, 2010)

Dallas Willard- Hearing God: Developing a Conversational Relationship with God (IVP, 1999)

Trivia and Trash

2010-07-27T00:27:00.008-10:00

Here's something I recently read in Eugene Peterson's book, Run with the Horses: The Quest for Life at its Best (IVP, 1983):

"There is little to admire and less to imitate in the people who are prominent in our culture. We have celebrities but not saints. Famous entertainers amuse a nation of bored insomniacs. Infamous criminals act out the aggression of timid conformists. Petulant and spoiled athletes play games vicariously for lazy and apathetic spectators. People, aimless and bored, amuse themselves with trivia and trash."

Try enjoying an evening of television consumption after reading that one.

What's Wrong with this Blog?

2010-07-20T01:24:00.005-10:00

Where to begin? For starters, the font is too small, the posts are too infrequent and the topics are more scattered than my 3-year-old's toys before bathtime. I'm like a disoriented wannabe archer lackadaisically shooting noodly arrows skyward with my eyes closed... once a month. No target + no practice = this blog.

And even if I miraculously developed the aptitude to generate semi-useful content with any regularity, the layout would still need a major facelift. Quite simply, I'm long overdue for a switchover to WordPress. Everyone knows that Blogspot is like, so 2008. But more than just greener cybergrass, WordPress is clearly the provider of choice for anyone who (unlike me) wants to actually keep their blog in functional working condition. And speaking of site maintenance (or the lack thereof), my book/music/film recommendations are never updated so they really need to go.

As for the pretentious "About Me" section, it tells you nothing except that I'm too concerned with your opinion of me to reveal what I really think (or even what I look like). If nearly all of my favorite bloggers are candid enough to post at least a tiny thumbnail photo of themselves, why am I still hiding behind a black-and-white sketch of a bird? Why wear a mask you don't even like? Why bring something for show and tell if you won't take it out of the bag?

There may come a day when I finally convert to WordPress, carve out a critical mass of "followers" and take the evangelical blogosphere by storm with a steady stream of ultra-clever, gospel-centered, justice-minded, mission-driven, skeptic-savvy, doctrinally-grounded, community-oriented, book-reviewing, article-linking, key thinker-interviewing, conference-promoting, speaking tour-date mentioning blog posts. The comments will flow, the web hits will show and the buzz will grow. Today is not that day.

Book Review: Evolving in Monkey Town

2010-06-30T01:53:00.010-10:00

Rachel Held Evans and I share a lot in common. We’re both 29-year-olds who were raised in evangelical homes and attended small Christian colleges from 1999 to 2003. We’ve both experienced our fair share of disillusionment with various aspects of American evangelicalism and have lived to blog about it. Topping off the similarities, her husband’s name is Dan while my wife Rebecca sometimes gets called ‘Rachel’ by mistake. So it comes as no surprise that I enjoyed reading my advance copy of Rachel’s winsome new book, Evolving in Monkey Town: How a Girl Who Knew All the Answers Learned to Ask the Questions (Zondervan).

Growing up in Dayton, Tennessee (site of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 which debated the teaching of evolution in public schools) as the overachieving daughter of a theology professor, Rachel was a Sunday School superkid raised in a Bible Belt subculture of zealous apologetics. Though adept at defending her Christian worldview against doubters and skeptics during her high school and early college years, everything changed when she began experiencing doubts of her own. The most potent ones involved questions concerning (you guessed it) why God would allow horrific human suffering or send millions of non-Christians to eternal torment in hell. Frustrated with the simplistic answers she knew so well, Rachel questioned her dad one Friday afternoon describing the quandary this way:

It’s like God runs some kind of universal sweepstakes with humanity in which all of our names get thrown into a big hat at the beginning of time… Some of us are randomly selected for famine, war, disease, and paganism, while others end up with fifteen-thousand-square-foot houses, expensive Christian educations, and Double Stuf Oreos. It’s a cosmic lottery, luck of the draw. (p. 99)

If such irreverent theological sniping makes you uncomfortable, you might have hard time with this book- which is precisely the point. Undergoing a process to re-evaluate all your previously unshakable beliefs from scratch is no fun, especially in the foothills of Southern Appalachia. But if you’ve ever felt conflicted about similar questions, you will be refreshed by Rachel’s intellectual honesty and courage in facing her fears. Far from drowning in a sea of skepticism, her faith re-surfaces more vibrant than ever. While critics might contend that Rachel is promoting doubt to the detriment of faith, this is not the case:

I would argue that healthy doubt (questioning one's beliefs) is perhaps the best defense against unhealthy doubt (questioning God). When we know how to make a distinction between our ideas about God and God himself, our faith remains safe when one of those ideas is seriously challenged. (p. 220)

As it turns out, Rachel's quest has not really been about finding good answers to life's toughest questions after all. If answers were all she wanted, she clearly demonstrates an intellect and theological acumen capable of researching them. This is not to say there aren't any good answers worth seeking on such important matters. If anything, Rachel's writing indicates she is already more familiar with apologetics than most people in our generation. And though she could articulate the correct evangelical responses with flair, she needed something different, namely, the simple permission and empathy of hearing someone say, "You know, I'm not sure what to make of that either." (p. 190)

Evolving in Monkey Town is a thoughtfully entertaining and engaging read packed with adventurous questions from start to finish. While I didn't always agree with the way she nuanced the nature of the atonement, biblical interpretation or the ever-controversial tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility, I have tremendous respect for Rachel's perspective, particularly on the important subjects of doubt and spiritual questioning. Based on the interactions we've shared via her excellent blog, I've been impressed by her uniquely provocative yet welcoming approach to theological dialogue. An attentive learner and genuine listener, she is one of the most gracious and authentic people I've encountered in the blogosphere. Evangelicals of all ages would be wise to give her survival story a good hard listen.

Our Son, God's Child

2010-05-31T19:36:00.014-10:00

Just over a week after his first birthday (May 10), we found out that our second son Vincent has a cancerous tumor in his liver. While there's more than enough bad news to call this a full blown family crisis, there's not quite enough to rule out the possibility of a full recovery. The scenarios are seemingly infinite at this point, not unlike the range of emotions that accompany this sort of thing. If fear and anxiety are like mosquitoes, we're navigating a swamp full of standing water.

And yet, there is light flickering in the darkness. I had no idea it was possible to feel so shocked, devastated, afraid, thankful, hopeful and at peace- all in the same moment. I'm certain it has something to do with the multitude of friends and loved ones praying for us around the globe. I suspect it also has something to do with my soul being anchored in the resurrection power of a Messiah familiar with suffering, a risen King who is before all things and in Whom all things hold together (Col 1:17).

In the midst of preparing for the worst, hoping for the best and praying for a miracle, I've found comfort from an unlikely source: theology. Yup, it turns out that theology, that supposedly dry and dusty set of doctrinal propositions, makes all the difference in the world when a crisis hits. Whether you're aware of it or not, your concept of God will affect how you pray in the midst of chaos and suffering. What kind of triune Being is He? Is the Father ultimately near or detached from those in pain? Can the Holy Spirit be called upon to work miraculous healings in the 21st century or not? Will Jesus really come back someday to vanquish all injustice and disease? Do we live with the recognition that His blood on the cross has inaugurated a reign of peace in which He is reconciling all things to Himself- including things like liver cancer?

John Stott put it this way: "I could never myself believe in God, if it were not for the cross... In the real world of pain, how could one worship a God who was immune to it?"

May the supernatural, unfailing, parental love of God for Vincent be sufficient for all of us who long to see him healed.

NOTE: Please visit Vincent's CaringBrige website for the most recent updates on how his treatment is going as well as prayer requests, photos and much much more!

School Every Friday? Now There's a Smart Idea!

2010-05-27T00:09:00.022-10:00

To the astonishment of 170,000+ kids and their parents, it appears that Hawaii's politicians and labor unions have consented to the unthinkable idea of keeping our schools open 5 days a week!

All sarcasm aside, I was glad to receive the following email yesterday from James Koshiba of Kanu Hawaii on the subject of Hawaii's K-12 students finally getting their lost school days reinstated for next year. Not only does he thoughtfully express the concerns shared by many of us who want to prevent a debacle like this from happening again, he also recaps how the school furlough standoff reached its conclusion in case you (like me) weren't keeping track of each twist and turn. For anyone with kids, grandkids, nieces, nephews, friends with kids or yet-to-be-born kids who might possibly attend public school someday in our beautiful state (whether in 2010 or 2025- the year my firstborn will graduate), I recommend reading what James has to say:

Aloha Friends,

Nine months after contract negotiations first cut instructional days for keiki, and seven months after the first citizen rally at the Capitol, Furlough Fridays have finally come to an end.
At a press conference this afternoon, the Governor, the DOE Superintendent, Speaker of the House and Senate President announced the plan to end school furloughs – essentially the same plan that had been floated by many, including us, as early as October of last year. Here’s how the furloughs ended:
The Legislature passed a bill allocating $67 million from the hurricane relief fund to reduce furlough days. The Governor said today that she would release $57 million instead of the full amount. Teachers apparently agreed to convert six of their paid planning days to instructional days. A small amount of federal stimulus funds ($2.2 million) and a $10 million, zero interest line of credit from private banks will be used if there is a remaining shortfall next school year.
We should take a moment to celebrate the fact that keiki will get a full school year next year.
Then, we should ask some hard questions about why it took so long to come up with a solution that is essentially the same as one proposed last Fall – a plan that, if adopted earlier, could have restored instruction for students this year, and left legislators, the Governor, the DOE and the teachers’ union time to come up with creative solutions for next year (or, at the very least, spread remaining furlough days across two years instead of concentrating lost learning). We should also ask some pointed questions of our leaders and ourselves:
What responsibility to the public do public unions bear during an economic and fiscal crisis? Did our unions’ actions help or hurt the public? Did it help or hurt the teaching profession?
What is the role of the Governor in negotiations? When parents and the public ask for a hearing with the chief executive, what is the appropriate response?
What was the proper thing for the Legislature to do? Did they act with the appropriate speed, thought, and resources? Did their actions encourage or discourage citizen participation?
Why wasn’t there more parent and community participation in the efforts to end school furloughs?
We should not ask these questions in a spirit of bitterness or blame (though righteous outrage shouldn’t be discouraged, either). Rather, we should ask to sharpen our understanding of what fundamental changes are needed to prevent something like this from ever happening again. And we should ask one final, important question of ourselves: What now?
Back in October, we wrote: “Getting 17 days back would be a real victory and good step. But, it's a step that only gets our kids back to where they were – behind other kids who are learning more elsewhere. We must channel the outrage about Furlough Fridays into a more sustained and organized effort to change our school system and support it with parent and community energy.”
That remains our charge today. For those willing to take it up, here’s a way to start:
The new Superintendent and many educational leaders are crafting a framework for reform. The framework is inspired, in part, by the federal Race to the Top program. Here are some essential elements that we may require citizen support:
Teachers and principals should be evaluated on a regular basis. Employment incentives (tenure, advancement, salary) should be based on performance, including student outcomes, parent surveys, peer reviews, and other metrics – rather than simple seniority.
We should invest in the collection and sharing of actionable data about students and their learning outcomes – data that can help inform planning for schools, parents, and the DOE.
Parents should be actively involved in education – supporting classroom learning at home, supporting teachers and schools through volunteerism, participating actively in parent-teacher dialogues, and advocating for their kids’ interests (at the school-level and higher levels of policy making).
There are more elements of the reform platform. We should get familiar with them. At the most basic level, though, it’s about shifting a pervasive mindset of low expectations to one of high expectations all around. Teachers should have high expectations of all students; they should believe that all students can achieve. Parents should have high expectations for every school and every teacher; they should insist that their schools and teachers be excellent. Teachers should expect much of parents in the home and at school; they should expect that parents are active supporters of learning. We should all expect more of our legislators, our BOE, our DOE, our unions, and our Governor.
Expecting excellence from each other doesn’t mean we have to be jerks – instead, it calls on all of us to be “critical friends,” acknowledging that we each have a role to play in education, and insisting that each puts forth our best effort for the sake of our keiki, speaking hard truths when someone isn’t pulling their weight.
Mahalo to all of you for doing your part to bring this crisis to a conclusion. Now, it's time to direct our energy to the hard work ahead.
Creating a system of education that calls on the best in all of us – parents, teachers, principals, and adult friends of children -- to shape an education that Hawaii's children deserve.
With aloha,
James

Emotional Men & Rational Women

2010-05-18T00:08:00.009-10:00

Here's something I recently read in Jim and Sarah Sumner's book, Just How Married Do You Want to Be? (IVP, 2008):

Christians have to be careful not to buy into the paradigms of the world. It's the world that says that men, being masculine, are rational and women, being feminine, are emotional. The Bible doesn't say that at all. It flies in the face of Scripture to say that men are not emotional- because that would make them incapable of rejoicing in the Lord or mimicking Christ's anger or grieving about sin with the Holy Spirit. It likewise flies in the face of Scripture to say that women are not rational- because that would make them incapable of following the commandments to renew their minds and meditate on Scripture and take every thought captive to Christ. According to the Bible, men and women alike are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27); thus both are emotional and rational.

A Few Questions

2010-04-30T00:05:00.003-10:00

A Few Questions

Why am I doing this?

What am I striving for?

Who is this about?

Where to next?

What have I gotten myself into?

Will I regret this?

Have I given it enough thought?

Am I thinking too hard?

What are my priorities?

Can I live with the trade-offs?

Am I a good husband and father?

According to who?

Am I overly ambitious?

Am I too easily satisfied?

Am I working too hard?

Am I slacking off?

Too driven?

Too lukewarm?

Aiming too high?

Settling?

Is the struggle really worth it?

What will it cost me?

Have I sacrificed too much or not enough?

Why so many questions?

Am I taking care of myself?

Am I too self-absorbed?

What am I trying to prove?

Do I understand grace?

Why are you downcast, O my soul?

Isn't my life now hidden with Christ?

Haven't I been found by the Great Shepherd?

If I know Who is God, why can't I be still?

Alex Trebek doesn't know it all?

2010-04-22T00:08:00.008-10:00

As a fan of useless trivia, I usually enjoy watching Jeopardy! despite the frequently condescending attitude of host Alex Trabek. On yesterday's show, the snootiness caught up with him while exchanging pleasantries with a contestant named Amy.

According to an unofficial transcript, the conversation went something like this:

Alex: Amy Wilson, our new champion, likes dressing up for Halloween.

Amy: I do. Literary figures.

Alex: Some of the figures you have, uh, dressed up as are?

Amy: Rhett Butler from Gone with the Wind, Dumbledore from Harry Potter...

Alex: [insulted] I know where Rhett Butler is from. I know where Dumbledore is from.

Amy: I'm sorry Alex. And also Sam, Sam Gamgee from... [pausing to offer Alex both an olive branch and an opportunity to show forth his encyclopedic knowledge]

Alex: [puzzled] Sam Gamgee? I'm not familiar with that character.

Amy: Sam Gamgee from Lord of the Rings?

Alex: Oh, good. Mm-hmm.

Down low, too slow

2010-04-19T09:30:00.001-10:00

Here's my problem with blogging: I'm too slow for it. I'm a slow thinker, a slow writer and consequently, a slow blogger. I have dozens, if not hundreds of ideas with nothing to show for them except unrefined fragments and incomplete thoughts.

Of course, I'm not slow at everything, just the things I care most about. Writing takes more time than reading. Coherence requires more effort than complaining. Creating demands more space than than consuming. It's easier to copy and paste than cultivate something halfway original. Even publishing a quick and ranty blog post takes me far longer than skimming through 150 posts on Google Reader.

So why do I spend most of my time on the things I care least about? Probably because I'm quick to dive but slow to swim. Over committed and under compensated, I've painted myself into more corners than I can count. A perfect case in point is my burdensome grad school investment that is "too big to fail" with no bailout in sight. It's too late to pull out, but too early to see any fruit.

Here's a good recipe for frustration: Commit yourself to things that take a ton of time and leave yourself no time to complete them with any degree of joy or satisfaction. Mix well and repeat. You'll soon be stewing in your own juices.

Stations of the Cross

2010-03-30T05:38:00.003-10:00

It's not a show, a performance or even a church service, but my wife and her tireless crew have spent untold creative hours working to put this event together for the third straight year.

If you live anywhere on the island, you won't regret coming by for this contemplative, haunting and original blend of art, liturgy and Scripture.

And now that it's been expanded to 4 nights, you also can't complain that it conflicts with all your other Holy Week activities!

"For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God's power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God's power we will live with him to serve you." - 2 Corinthians 13:4

Happy Birthday Blog!

2010-03-14T01:18:00.011-10:00

Since I first began this blog two years ago today, it's been a meandering journey of eclectic zig zags as I've sought to explore the topics that ricochet in and out of my goofy little brain. While 77 posts in 24 months is hardly the epitome of cyber-productivity (there are plenty of bloggers who can sprout 77 posts in a single month without a hitch), my thinking remains profoundly shaped by the ideas I've pondered, critiqued, suggested and defended in this space.

So to mark the occasion of The Common Loon's second birthday, here's a look back at the 7 most commented posts:

1. More than a private ceremony: Why government should stay in the "marriage business"

2. How (not) to argue about gay marriage

3. Further questions on torture and abortion

4. Is there a Calvinist-Complementarian connection?

5. The Manhattan Declaration: Ecumenical collaboration or culture war call to arms?

6. Who I'll be voting for (and my reasons why)

7. The feud rages on: 5 questions for Calvinists and Emergents

And while we're rummaging through the archives, here are 7 other posts that failed to generate much response, apparently because they're not about abortion, gay marriage or New Calvinism:

1. This is my Father's world: Reflections on a hymn

2. Simple pleasures: Some thoughts on growing old

3. Joining Facebook: Will I regret it?

4. Federal recognition for Native Hawaiians: Will this finally be the year?

5. End times gloom and doom: A historical reality check

6. Evangelicals in Hawaii: How are we different?

7. Will it always be cool to love U2?

Honolulu 2010 Conference Recap

2010-03-11T01:44:00.006-10:00

One of the unique benefits of being an evangelical in Hawaii is the opportunity to attend Honolulu's annual Hawaiian Islands Ministries (H.I.M.) Conference without ever driving to the airport or getting on a plane.

I can't think of another Christian conference (anywhere) that regularly assembles such a well-rounded cadre of local, national and international pastors, Bible scholars, missionaries, counselors, youth leaders, artists, activists, seminary professors, business professionals and local church practitioners. While I don't always agree with the theological particulars or methodology espoused by every presenter, the opportunity to learn from (and worship alongside) a broad range of Christian teachers representing diverse streams of the evangelical landscape is simply marvelous.

Ever since my first H.I.M. Conference in 2005, participating in this interdenominational, multicultural gathering has become one of the highlights of my year. Last week's installment, Honolulu 2010: Let Your Light Shine, was no exception. Here's a quick 'best of' according to yours truly:

Best plenary speaker (tie): Keith Battle (Why Christians Should Expect and Endure Suffering) & Nancy Beach (Toward Wonder)

Best seminar speaker: Jan Johnson (Practicing God's Presence All Day Long)

Best part of the David Crowder Band concert: Belting my lungs out to "How He loves"

Most nuanced exposition of 1 John 5:13: Voddie Baucham (who contrasted "what the gospel requires" vs. "what the gospel produces")

Most unconvincing sales pitch: Gary Hamel (who suggested we apply market-driven business models in order to "re-invent church" and bolster "the Christian brand")

Most surprising, yet eloquent defense of the old-school institutional church: Tony Campolo (who is clearly starting to get fed up with the trendiness of church bashing)

Most noticeably absent conference mainstay: Jim Miller (It didn't quite feel like a true H.I.M. conference without him there.)

Having grown accustomed to H.I.M.'s knack for drawing "big names" like Philip Yancey, Dallas Willard, Francis Chan, Jim Cymbala, Shane Claiborne, Dinesh D'Souza, John Ortberg, Gary Haugen and Richard Mouw in recent years, I didn't notice as much star power in glancing over this year's list of scheduled speakers. As the conference progressed however, I discovered plenty of depth, particularly in two key areas.

1) Local church leaders serving in Hawaii. Of the conference's 55+ speakers, I counted at least 30 who are currently ministering right here in the Aloha State. While H.I.M. has become well-known for importing flashy speakers from the mainland, this year's slate was well-stocked with excellent local teachers including Ada Lum, Jordan Seng, Steve Peich, Randy Furushima, Lisa Orimoto and Jonathan Wong among others.

2) Women leaders. Again, don't let the lack of "celebrity" names fool you because this was probably one of the the most accomplished groups of women leaders assembled by H.I.M in recent memory. Those who were fortunate enough to attend seminars by Jan Johnson, Nancy Beach, Christy Pierce and Margaret Spicer were not disappointed. Not too many evangelical parachurch conferences can say that over 20% of their speakers are women. Oh, and did I mention Ada Lum was there?

For those who attended, what will you remember as the 'best of' H.I.M. Conference 2010?

Wheaton's Next President: The Right Choice?

2010-02-20T10:00:00.009-10:00

The evangelical blogosphere is abuzz regarding the selection of Philip Ryken as the next president of Wheaton College once Duane Litfin retires this year. Given Dr. Ryken's theological background as a complementarian Calvinist minister in the PCA (a pretty conservative denomination even by evangelical standards), it will be interesting to observe the reaction from evangelicals who do not happen to be part of the Gospel Coalition/Restless Reformed movement.

As a Wheaton alum, I'm still processing this news for myself, but in the meantime, I'd be interested to hear from either:

A) Any complementarian Calvinists who are NOT excited about Dr. Ryken's selection

or

B) Any egalitarian non-Calvinists or "evangelical moderates" who are.

No matter how this plays out, my prayer is that it will all be for Christ and his Kingdom.

UPDATE: After learning a lot more about Dr. Ryken in recent weeks; as well as the desired qualifications and lengthy selection process undertaken by the College over the past 2 years, I am now supportive of Wheaton's choice. Denominational particulars aside, Dr. Ryken's record of scholarship, organizational leadership ability and intense devotion to Christ are undeniable.

Random (blogosphere) Question of the Week

2010-02-11T10:30:00.003-10:00

Aside from the perceptive and winsome Aaron D. Taylor, does anyone know of any good charismatic/pentecostal bloggers? I'm sure there are others.

Random (theology) Question of the Week

2010-02-05T00:51:00.000-10:00

Does anyone know R.T. Kendall's position on women in ministry? I can't seem to find it anywhere.

Am I a Liberal or a Conservative? Yes.

2010-02-04T01:01:00.016-10:00

In my little "about me" blurb, I describe myself as a "progressive evangelical Christian." This can be confusing since the word progressive is often taken to mean liberal, whereas evangelical is often used synonymously with conservative. Defining these terms gets tricky even before we grant that someone can be theologically liberal but politically conservative or theologically conservative but politically more liberal. So instead of opening a semantic can of worms, perhaps the following indicators will help to place me somewhere on the theological-political landscape. I report, you decide.

20 REASONS TO CALL ME A "LIBERAL"

1. The thought of living in the Bible Belt freaks me out.

2. I am not always proud to be an American.

3. I tend to vote for Democrats in state and national elections.

4. I enjoy listening to NPR on a regular basis.

5. I believe government agencies and publicly funded non-profit organizations have a significant role to play in preventing and alleviating poverty.

6. I believe human-induced climate change is not only real, but will have significant impacts if not mitigated by reducing emissions, hitting the poor the hardest.

7. I believe our nation urgently needs comprehensive reform in both health care and immigration policy.

8. I am morally opposed to preemptive war.

9. I am against the use of state-sponsored torture (including waterboarding).

10. I am opposed to capital punishment.

11. I believe there is great value in inter-religious dialogue and ecumenical collaboration for the common good.

12. When it comes to Christian political punditry, I'm more sympathetic to the Jim & Tony of the evangelical left (Wallis & Campolo) than the Jim & Tony of the evangelical right (Dobson & Perkins).

13. I believe the earth is (a lot) more than 10,000 years old.

14. I'm more likely to purchase books published by InterVarsity Press than Crossway.

15. I believe Scripture teaches that God calls and gifts women to serve at every level of church ministry leadership.

16. On the international front, I believe issues such as human trafficking, clean water/sanitation, food security, fair trade and debt cancellation deserve our attention.

17. I support the UN's Millennium Development Goals, which include halving extreme poverty and global disease by the year 2015.

18. I believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military.

19. I believe gays and lesbians should be legally protected against hate crimes committed on the basis of their sexual orientation.

20. On gun control, organized labor, energy independence and tax policy, my views tend to be left of center.

20 REASONS TO CALL ME A "CONSERVATIVE"

1. The thought of sending my kids to public school freaks me out.

2. I consider it a blessing and a privilege to be an American citizen.

3. I believe it's a good idea to abstain from sex outside of marriage (teenagers and grown-ups alike).

4. I am very concerned about the effects of Hollywood, MTV and video games on children.

5. I am opposed to physician-assisted suicide.

6. I am opposed to the legalization of marijuana use.

7. I am opposed to embryonic stem-cell research.

8. Like all forms of domestic violence, I believe abortion is a tragic and immoral.

9. I believe there really is such a thing as absolute Truth with a capital 'T.'

10. I do not believe all religions are different paths to the same destination.

11. I believe Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, God in the flesh and is the only Name by which we can be saved. Through His crucifixion, death and bodily resurrection, He has saved us by grace to reconcile us to God (which is very good news for sinners like me).

12. I believe the Bible, God's inspired Word, is authoritative and without error in all that it teaches (when interpreted correctly).

13. I believe Scripture teaches that marriage is a lifelong, monogamous covenant between a man and a woman.

14. I believe Heaven and Hell really exist.

15. I believe Satan (the Devil) really exists.

16. I believe prayer really does makes a difference.

17. I wholeheartedly believe in miraculous gifts such as divine healing, prophecy, words of knowledge, speaking in tongues and deliverance from evil spirits.

18. I affirm the often-trivialized concepts of "spiritual warfare," "attacks of the enemy," "prayer warriors" and "hedges of protection."

19. I have been known to lift my hands and act "shallow and emotional" while singing modern praise and worship choruses.

20. I'd rather spend money on a David Crowder concert than attend a free lecture by Phyllis Tickle (true story). Christian rock trumps mainline Protestant intellectualism once again.

Random (parenting) Question of the Week

2010-01-28T00:34:00.009-10:00

I have recently developed callouses on both my hands from constant attempts to rock our 8-month-old to sleep in his baby carrier. Can anyone relate?

No Time To Think = No Time To Blog

2010-01-25T11:55:00.011-10:00

Goodbye stability, hello chaos. The new year has brought with it some major changes for my vocational life: departing the civil service after 3 years with the City and County of Honolulu, starting a new part-time job at a residential mental health crisis shelter, beginning a new pastoral ministry internship at our church and preparing for another busy semester of MSW studies (including a 16-hour-per-week practicum). Oh, and I almost forgot to mention our two adorable toddling/crawling boys who are still toddling and crawling up the wazoo last I checked (unless Sesame Street is on).

Not surprisingly, this is not the most conducive schedule for blogging. Instead of reflecting on the intersection of evangelicalism and the public square in my spare moments, I'm now engulfed in a non-stop whirlwind of church-related meetings and activities that must be juggled with classes, homework, practicum and my "other" job. The time I used to allocate for reading up on theology and culture is now spent attending to the mechanics of our sharply tightened family budget thanks to the good old "envelope system." The scarce but precious hours I once devoted to the blogosphere have have all but evaporated.

People who experience a call to vocational ministry in the local church are probably not supposed to say things like this, but I kinda sorta miss my government cubicle and the (relative) predictability it represented. The intellectual/spiritual rewards were low, but so were the risks incurred by erratic scheduling and financial instability. When your job doesn't require much mental energy, you can use the remaining brain cells to think as you please. Ironically, the confines of a cubicle were more conducive to the free flow of blog post ideas than the fast-paced "real world" of bi-vocational ministry.

While this transition neither ambushed nor slowly snuck up on us (we planned, scrutinized, sought wisdom and prayed about it for over 6 months), adjusting to the practical implications will take some time now that the initial self-congratulatory luster of "taking a pay cut to do what you love" has worn off. And only time will tell if (or how) the Common Loon blog will adapt to its new habitat.

Somebody

2009-12-29T15:55:00.017-10:00

Somebody

You’re my client
But I don’t know you
I've read your case file
But it’s not your story
I've typed your résumé
But it’s not your identity

19 years old
18-month-old daughter
Boyfriend in prison
Parents across the ocean
Looking for housing
Living on the beach

Daughter is healthy
Misses her daddy
You met him at the skate park
He took you to a bonfire
Made you feel special
You thought it was love

He’s not a bad father
But drinks way too much
Works hard as a painter
Controlling in private
Sometimes cruel and abusive
The scars aren’t all visible

One night you defended yourself
With a kitchen knife
The cops called it a weapon
And you accepted the blame
Convicted of assault
With 2 years probation

Whether “homeless” or “poor”
You don’t look like the labels
Your handbag is stylish
Your voice pleasant and poised
You’re no threat to society
Just a girl with a baby

How am I supposed to know

What it's like to be you?

Grad school never taught me
How to fix your life
Am I teaching you anything?
Or are you teaching me?

Is Afghanistan Another Vietnam?

2009-12-03T12:23:00.011-10:00

I was born after the Vietnam War ended, but it's not like American involvement in foreign policy quagmires is a thing of the past. In his big speech Tuesday night, President Obama offered 3 reasons why the current war in Afghanistan is different from the Vietnam War:

1) "Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action.

2) Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular
insurgency.

3) And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border."

Sitting in rush hour traffic yesterday, I heard an NPR interview with Gordon Goldstein, an international affairs scholar who acknowledged Mr. Obama's points as fair ones, but proceeded to list 4 key "strategic parallels" between Afghanistan and Vietnam:

1) "Both Afghanistan and Vietnam are small powers that have been historically extraordinarily resistant to the efforts of large powers to impose order.

2) Both Vietnam and Afghanistan had corrupt and ineffectual regimes.

3) Both Vietnam and Afghanistan have contiguous border countries, through which support and sanctuary for an insurgency flows and fortifies that insurgency.

4) But most importantly, the parallel, really, that drives Afghanistan and Vietnam is in the realm of military strategy. In Vietnam, it was a strategy of counterinsurgency and clear and hold. In Afghanistan, General McChrystal has called for a strategy of clear, hold and build. So there are some parallels that I do not think can be easily dismissed."

So now that we've established there are both similarities and differences between Afghanistan and Vietnam, what should we make of Mr. Obama's war plan? In his Washington Post column today, E. J. Dionne describes the President's attempt to find middle ground as a "Goldilocks strategy: neither too hawkish nor too dovish, but just right."

I'm not sure I like the taste of this porridge.

The Manhattan Declaration: Ecumenical Collaboration or Culture War Call to Arms?

2009-11-24T12:31:00.010-10:00

To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the Religious Right's demise have been greatly exaggerated. Energized by the backdrop of President Obama's first year in office, an ecumenical but familiar group of influential conservative Christians (including prominent Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox and Evangelical leaders) have reasserted the primacy of abortion, gay marriage and religious liberty as the three foremost political issues that matter above all others.

If you haven't yet read The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience, here's the full text and list of 145+ original signatories, which includes names like Chuck Colson, James Dobson, Tony Perkins and Al Mohler. This excerpt provides the basic gist:

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.

I suspect where one stands on the Manhattan Declaration likely hinges on how one would answer the question: Should abortion, gay marriage and religious freedom be placed at the very top of a "hierarchy of issues" (to use drafting committee member Chuck Colson's term) when it comes to public policy concerns facing Christians?

So far, the Manhattan Declaration has received mixed reviews. Bloggers over at First Things can barely contain their enthusiasm for it, while others like Dan Gilgoff have said it "reads like a throwback to the culture wars of the 2004 election." Regent College theology professor John Stackhouse calls it "strangely useless" while Jonathan Merritt, founder of the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative, says the statement is unlikely to "sway a new generation of Christian leaders who take a broader view of cultural issues facing us today."

The document's backers point to the diverse range of theological perspectives represented by its signatories, not everyone in the evangelical world who typically contributes to these types of ecumenical public policy collaboratives has endorsed the Manhattan Declaration. A handful of names like Ron Sider, Cornelius Plantinga, David Neff and Richard Mouw notwithstanding, there doesn't seem to be much support from evangelical "moderates" who were instrumental in drafting last year's Evangelical Manifesto and 2004's For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility, both of which called for a broadened platform including issues like creation care, poverty alleviation, racial reconciliation, human rights and peacemaking. Those who have endorsed both the Manhattan Declaration and the Evangelical Manifesto (Timothy George and Leith Anderson for example) appear to be the exception.

So where are all the moderates?

Noticeably absent from The Manhattan Declaration's signatories are respected scholars like David Gushee, Jim Skillen, Mark Noll, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Stephen Monsma, J.P. Moreland, Os Guinness, Dallas Willard and Darrell Bock, not to mention other influential evangelical voices like Rick Warren, Joel Hunter, Bill Hybels, Gary Haugen and Rich Stearns. This doesn't mean Manhattan isn't an amazing feat of coalition-building across Evangelical-Catholic lines (Neuhaus would be proud), but such a narrow range of policy emphases might explain why many, including yours truly, are reluctant to sign on.

It looks like the culture wars are back, folks. Man your battle stations.

Will It Always Be Cool To Love U2?

2009-11-18T00:13:00.003-10:00

If I told you that U2 is one of my favorite bands, what would this tell you about me?

A) A lot (since U2 fans tend to exhibit certain distinctive attributes)

B) Basically nothing (since everyone and their mom likes U2 these days)

When your stadium-sized concerts from Moscow to Vancouver are selling out in minutes, attracting fans from nearly every stripe of the politico-religious spectrum (born-again evangelicals and agnostics alike), it's safe to say that people love you. U2's concert last month at Pasadena's Rose Bowl not only drew an estimated 97,000 fans, it was also the most-watched live webcast in YouTube's history with 10 million streams coming in from 188 countries. In fact, you can still watch the entire thing for free if you missed it.

Particularly interesting have been the ways in which evangelical Christians have taken to the Irish foursome. In addition to mainstream radio, TV commercials and supermarket playlists, I've been hearing U2 increasingly played in Christian bookstores and yes, even mixed into the CCM rotation on Christian radio. Theological seminaries have offered courses on U2. It's not uncommon to find advertisements and reviews of books written about U2's journey of faith and activism in Christian periodicals like Christianity Today, Relevant, Sojourners and Books & Culture, whose current issue includes an article examining "the state of U2 studies," as in, like, the study of U2. Last month, the first ever academic conference on U2 was held in Durham, North Carolina, exploring the band's music, work and influence.

Not that I'm complaining. Whether their millions of fans (including yours truly) are drawn by crowd-pleasing anthems dripping with blatantly Christian imagery or the band's passionate activism in fighting extreme poverty and HIV/AIDS, there's no denying the connection so many have experienced. Seriously, can anyone familiar with U2's body of work, both on and off stage, resist their magnetic charm and refreshing authenticity? Or have we all just been brainwashed by 30+ years worth of The Edge's signature digital delay guitar effects ringing in our ears?

Indeed, if any rock group has discovered a way to blend widespread commercial success with artful innovation and critical acclaim, it's U2. But as their fame and influence continue to expand, I wonder if we're approaching the point of U2 saturation. Just how much "bigger" can this iconic rock band become? Will there ever be such a thing as "Bono fatigue?" Will U2 eventually come to represent the epitome of a mainstream product packaged for the masses or will they forever be seen as non-conforming innovators who transcended the patterns of commercialism? In other words, will it always be cool to love U2?

For my sake, I hope so.

High Church vs. Low Church

2009-11-06T15:18:00.010-10:00

Andy Rowell's post over at Out of Ur describes how 'high church' and 'low church' streams of the Christians faith have much to learn from each other. Perhaps a few working definitions are in order:

High Church: Rowell describes these as "liturgical" churches who "emphasize historical and global continuity in their worship services," including Catholic, Episcopal and Lutheran churches. According to Rowell, "Liturgical clergy see their role as being a faithful steward of historic Christianity. This consists especially of serving the Lord’s Supper and preaching."

Low Church: Rowell describes these as the "free" churches who are characterized by "the relative autonomy of individual congregations," including Baptist, Pentecostal and non-denominational churches. According to Rowell, "Free church pastors tend to see their role as equipping their congregations for evangelism and social justice."

(In case you're wondering, Methodists and Presbyterians fall somewhere in between.)

Personally, my own Christian journey has been shaped by an ecumenical denominational background predominately in the "low church" evangelical world, but I'm also very much drawn to the idea of weekly Sacraments, liturgy, sacred spaces and contemplative practices found in the high-church tradition. Every time I visit a liturgical church, I'm stuck by how thoughtful and intentional everything is.

Sometimes I wonder how my faith would be different if I had been raised on creeds and catechisms instead of DC Talk and Breakaway magazine. While I would love to see more liturgy, written prayers and reverence for the Great Tradition incorporated into our local church's worship gatherings, much of it is still a second language to me.

It's as if I've become a long-distance admirer of the sport of cricket from watching it on TV, but at the end of the day my natural sport is baseball. I may be intrigued by the oval-shaped field, wickets and bowlers (instead of a diamond, home plate and pitchers), but I'm in no way qualified to teach the fundamentals of a game for which I barely understand the rules.

Perhaps my low church, pragmatic evangelical DNA is to blame for my desire to see some sort of convergence that blends the best of both worlds.

Fantasy Football Affections

2009-10-21T00:15:00.011-10:00

"You stir us up to take delight in your praise; for you have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you." - Augustine of Hippo

Fantasy football has become a cultural phenomenon in this country. Recent estimates suggest around 27 million Americans play fantasy sports in an industry that has grown over 20 percent in each of the last four years. As someone who has played every fantasy NFL season since I was a freshman in college 10 years ago, I guess you could say I'm a poster child for its appeal. From my perspective, online fantasy sports (when played in moderation of course) provide a more efficient and flexible way to remain engaged as a sports fan without having to watch hours of live games on TV that inevitably eat into one's precious weekend and family time. There may be other ways to rationalize this peculiar behavior, but that's the best excuse I've come up with so far. What a time-saver!

This fantasy football season (which is just about half-over) my 2 teams are heading in opposite directions. In our league of church friends, my squad known as Flea Flicker is currently in first place (5-1), but in another group composed primarily of Wheaton alumni, my languishing Y.A. Tittlers are 9th out of 10 teams (2-4). It's essentially an imaginary roller-coaster with (virtually) no bearing on reality.

When I first began gathering names for our annual church league a couple months ago, it wasn't hard to find other fans who check scores online or in Monday morning's paper. But I was surprised when one of my friends, a devout football enthusiast who follows the NFL very closely, told me he didn't want to join. When I tried to reassure him that managing one's team can take as little as 5 minutes per week and does not involve any money, my friend still declined. I mentioned that he already knew most of other guys in our league and would probably fare well against the casual competition, but he still wouldn't bite. He told me he'd rather abstain than worry about constantly tweaking his make-believe collection of real-life athletes. When he insisted he'd be utterly consumed by it if he joined, I finally backed off.

Looking back on the conversation, I respect my friend's courage and self-awareness in declining my invitation, an offer that must have been tempting for a well-informed football fan like himself. It's not that I believe fantasy sports are an inherently sinful cultural artifact any more than Facebook, Twitter or even the internet itself. But as 21st century Christians living in a society saturated by personalized technology and customized entertainment, we are inundated with products and services relentlessly vying for our time, attention and ultimately our affections.

In a recent interview with Leadership Journal's Skye Jethani, Reformed pastor Matt Chandler describes the sanctification process beginning with two questions:

"What stirs your affections for Jesus Christ? And what robs you of those affections? Many of the things that stifle growth are morally neutral. They’re not bad things. Facebook is not bad. Television and movies are not bad. I enjoy TV, but it doesn’t take long for me to begin to find humorous on TV what the Lord finds heartbreaking.

"The same goes for following sports. It’s not wrong, but if I start watching sports, I begin to care too much. I get stupid. If 19-year-old boys are ruining your day because of what they do with a ball, that’s a problem. These things rob my affections for Christ. I want to fill my life with things that stir my affections for him."

For some, playing frivolous fantasy sports, maintaining a blog or purchasing an iPhone will not consume us or rob our affections for Christ. For others like my spiritually mindful friend, it might. In either case, followers of Jesus must continually remain aware of the ways in which our affections and allegiances can be easily diverted by technological novelties as innocuous as imaginary football.

On the other hand, I don't believe fantasy football can be categorically dismissed as beyond redemption or antithetical to the Christian life. When done in the context of real-world friendships, it can be a healthy form of "male bonding" rather than an anti-social pursuit of superficial bragging rights or anonymous mind-numbing entertainment. This might be a stretch, but I'd like to suggest the joy of recreational competition, strategy and victory can even stir our affections for the One who satisfies like no other. On the subject of earthly pleasures, C.S. Lewis offered a balanced approach:

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. If none of my earthly pleasures satisfy it, that does not prove that the universe is a fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing. If that is so, I must take care, on the one hand, never to despise, or be unthankful for, these earthly blessings, and on the other, never to mistake them for the something else of which they are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage." (emphasis mine)

So yes, let us joyfully and soberly compete for the fading glory of fantasy football trophies. Let us enjoy the suspense and unpredictability of being sports fans. Let us marvel at comeback victories and rare upsets by the underdog. But let us not confuse these God-given blessings with the "real thing" who is Christ himself. He alone is our solid Rock in whom all things hold together. He alone is the true Bread and Living Water who satisfies our restless souls.

May our affections be stirred.

Evangelicals In Hawaii: How Are We Different?

2009-10-08T12:14:00.014-10:00

Here's a question I've been thinking about recently:

How is evangelical Christianity in Hawaii different from evangelical Christianity in the rest of the U.S.?

That's an easy one. We eat more SPAM here.

Some other possible answers:

1) The high cost of land and limited open space have prompted many churches (including a few megachurches) to meet in auditoriums, theaters, school cafeterias, golf courses and other non-traditional settings.

2) Since any travel out of state requires flying 2500+ miles, we are less likely to participate in popular Christian conferences, conventions, music festivals and other parachurch gatherings than our mainland counterparts. While I'm not too upset about missing Point of Grace (or Whitecross) live in concert, it would be nice if it didn't cost $1000 in airfare, room and board just to attend the nearest theology conference.

3) Hawaii lacks a fully-accredited theological seminary and often "imports" pastors who are (initially) unfamiliar with the nuances of Hawaii's multicultural landscape where Caucasians are in the minority. We probably also lose a fair number of homegrown future pastors who move away for college or seminary but do not return to the islands.

4) For better or worse, we don't seem as picky about denominational and theological particulars around here. Most evangelicals in Hawaii identify more with their specific congregation than the denomination to which it belongs. For example, does the 'typical' churchgoer know the difference between the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)? On the mainland, this is a monumental divide meriting follow-up questions like, "What kind of Presbyterian are you?" (or Baptist, Methodist etc.) In Hawaii, we're more likely to "peg" someone by where they attend church, if at all. Only oddball church geeks like me will actually pry into your denominational background.

5) While Christians in Hawaii experience ripple effects of broader trends in American ecclesiology (such as mainline Protestant decline and the rise of multi-site megachurches), our local denominational landscape is very unique. Hawaii's two most prominent denominations are the United Church of Christ (128 churches including Central Union, Makiki Christian and First Chinese among others) and the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel (49 churches including New Hope Christian Fellowship and Hope Chapel among others). I'm not aware of any other state where the UCC and Foursquare (or vice versa) are the two biggest Protestant bodies. Some of the rapidly growing denominations on the mainland like the PCA (3 churches in Hawaii), Evangelical Covenant Church (1 church) and the Anglican Mission in the Americas (no churches) have yet to make a huge impact in the 50th state.

6) Many of the cultural differences between Hawaii and the mainland affect the way we "do church." There is a greater representation of Asians and Pacific Islanders living in Hawaii, but less Latinos and African Americans. We tend to dress more casually and eat more rice/less potatoes than our mainland friends. We tend to prefer reggae over country music on the radio. We baptize people in the ocean and hold wedding receptions at hotels. I don't remember doing too much of that when I lived in Illinois.

I'm sure there are other differences between Hawaii's churches and those on the mainland. Any thoughts? What could we add to the list?

Now That's A Bookstore!

2009-10-01T11:08:00.005-10:00

Powell's City of Books in downtown Portland, Oregon, the world's largest bookstore.

3 Reasons Why MEN Must Speak Out Against Domestic Violence

2009-09-24T17:11:00.012-10:00

For those of us working in the social work field, many of our clients face the inexcusable reality of domestic violence. The statistics are staggering: domestic violence is the leading cause of injury among women, between 85 and 95% of all domestic violence victims are female and over 1200 women in America are killed every year by an intimate partner. Not only do the survivors of abuse endure a lifetime of physical and emotional scars, the cycle of violence impacts the next generation of abused and neglected children, who internalize violent behavior as a “normal” way to handle anger, stress and relationship difficulties. Awareness is on the rise, but a steady stream of local and national news stories describing incidents of women being viciously beaten and abused by their partners continually reminds us how far we still have to go.

Sometimes it even feels like the problem is becoming worse.

Social workers and victim advocates (most of whom are women) have understood the urgency of this crisis for a long time. But while many organizations and grassroots campaigns have formed to help prevent domestic violence before the next life is taken, men (for the most part) have been noticeably absent from these efforts. The question is: Why not? Perhaps it’s not “manly” to join a cause involving the rights of women. Perhaps men are socialized to “mind their own business” when it comes to another man’s domestic outbursts. Perhaps it’s more convenient to remain silent instead of raising one’s voice in favor of change.

From my perspective, there are at least three reasons why it’s critical for men in particular to speak out against domestic violence.

1. It shows that domestic violence is not just a problem affecting women and children. In the past, women and children have been predominantly responsible for the heavy lifting when it comes to confronting this problem. When people see a marginalized group marching for their own rights (minorities, women, the poor), privileged cynics can easily dismiss it as an act of self-interest. But when whites march for racial justice, men speak out for the protection of women or wealthy people stand up for the poor, people start to pay attention.

2. It resists the social approval of abusive behavior. When women are the only ones speaking out, observers conclude that men must not be too concerned about the problem. It's doubtful that domestic violence would go unreported so often if men were as outraged about it as women. In a society where men still constitute the overwhelming majority of those in positions of leadership and influence, values are communicated and reinforced by the actions of men (for better or worse). Conversely, when a social problem truly matters to the general public, you can be sure that men will be involved in the solution. Violence against women will never end until men prove they are serious about stopping it.

3. It promotes a healthy understanding of masculinity. Widespread depictions of "heroic" men by the entertainment and advertising industries prop up twisted caricatures of maleness in which the ideal man is muscular, aggressive and always gets the woman he wants. Women are expected to defer to the wishes of men, whose fulfillment is at the center of most movie plot lines and music videos. By peacefully taking a stand against domestic violence, men can demonstrate what mature and responsible manhood is really about: a commitment to non-violent conflict resolution, active fatherhood and respect for the dignity of women.

Until men care enough to speak out against domestic violence, our silence will be a passive endorsement of the status quo.

UPDATE: Joe Bloom, one of my instructors at UH, describes the recent Men's March Against Violence held October 15 at the Hawaii State Capitol in this Star-Bulletin op-ed piece. Thanks to all who came and spoke out!

Further Questions on Torture and Abortion

2009-09-12T16:39:00.006-10:00

As a follow-up to my previous post on torture and abortion, here are some of my questions for those who oppose one but defend the other.

Questions for those who are anti-abortion but believe torture can be justified:

1. If abortion is immoral (in part) because the procedure deliberately inflicts severe pain on a pre-born human being, why is it permissible to deliberately inflict incredible physical and psychological pain on a prisoner while torturing him or her?

2. If abortion is truly "worse than slavery" (an outlawed form of torture) as many pro-lifers say, should women who obtain an abortion be treated as criminals on par with someone who is found guilty of owning slaves?

3. If torture can be justified for pragmatic, utilitarian reasons (i.e. to prevent terrorism and save lives), what's wrong with the pragmatic, utilitarian reasons for abortion (i.e. to prevent poverty and unwanted pregnancy)?

Questions for those who are pro-choice but anti-torture:

1. If torture is immoral (in part) because it inflicts cruel, degrading and traumatic pain on a human being, why is abortion not also immoral, particularly in cases where the pre-born child has developed to a stage where trauma and pain can be experienced?

2. Why should prisoners of war have a greater right to life and dignity than pre-born children? Is one more human than the other?

3. If abortion is a matter of personal choice, why shouldn't torture be a matter of government discretion on a case-by-case basis?

Torture and Abortion: One is Evil But the Other is Justified?

2009-09-09T17:21:00.010-10:00

I believe that as followers of Jesus, Christians must hold to a consistent ethic of human life. Scripture teaches that all human beings have been created in God's image (Genesis 1:27) and therefore, every person, whether young or old, rich or poor, strong or weak, saint or sinner, bears the imprint of the Creator. Human rights and dignity, yours and mine, are ultimately derived from the One who loves us "with an everlasting love" (Jeremiah 31:3). Consequently, people are not cosmic accidents or disposable commodities to be bought and sold, used and discarded. If we indeed believe that life is immeasurably precious to the God who created it, we have a responsibility to be extremely careful in situations involving the choice to purposefully harm, wound or terminate another person's life.

Interestingly enough, the convoluted realm of American politics reveals a peculiar dynamic where opposing sides in the culture wars profoundly disagree on the question of which lives should be defended as sacred and which ones are more disposable. Conservatives are generally opposed to abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide and genetic engineering, but are more likely to support the use of preemptive military force, capital punishment and torture, including water-boarding (see diagram at right) and other "enhanced interrogation techniques." The liberal end of the spectrum often opposes capital punishment, war and torture, but is more likely to defend abortion, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide as matters of human rights. Is it just me or does anyone else find both sides to be inconsistent?

Two of the most contentions issues concerning the sanctity of human life in recent years have been abortion and torture. A Pew Research poll conducted earlier this year revealed that 62% of evangelical Protestants (my own faith tradition) believe "the use of torture against suspected terrorists to gain important information" is often or sometimes justified, whereas only 16% say it's never justified. It's especially disturbing that evangelicals are more likely to support torture than any other religious group in America including Catholics, mainline Protestants and those without any religious affiliation. The poll also found that those who attend religious services at least once a week are much more likely to support torture than those who seldom or never attend religious services. This is lamentable at best and shameful at worst.

When it comes to abortion, the statistics are flip-flopped. According to a separate Pew Research poll, evangelical Protestants remain the group most adamantly opposed to abortion, with well over 60% saying the procedure should be illegal in most or all cases. It's not difficult to find conservative religious organizations lobbying against abortion or liberal groups lobbying for the end of torture on religious grounds, but it's rare to find those who believe both practices are immoral. Opponents of abortion claim that it harms a sacred life and violates the dignity of another human being, a line of reasoning also used by those who oppose torture. Those who are "pro-life" seem the most likely to defend torture, but those against torture seem the most likely to defend abortion. How can this be?

The problem with our culture war categories of right vs. left is that everyone gets divided into two flawed packages of partisan platforms from which we assume the "other" side cannot possibly be correct about anything. We've confused Christian ethics with partisan ethics, deflecting every criticism along the lines of "Well, the other side clearly has it wrong on [fill in the blank: abortion/torture] so why should we listen to what they have to say about [torture/abortion]?" Have evangelicals considered the possibility that both torture and abortion are wrong on largely the same grounds, namely, the inherent dignity of human life created in God's image? Must we choose between the human rights of pre-born children and the sanctity of a prisoner's life? Aren't they both human? When the protection of a sacred human life conflicts with other important goals (national security or women's rights for example), do the ends justify the means?

Cue responses from conservatives defending torture and liberals defending abortion...

Summer Reading Recap

2009-08-26T19:54:00.007-10:00

Alas, summer is over (sigh) and it's back to the grind of social work studies, but I'm very thankful to have finished some non-required reading during my "freedom" these past few months:

Kevin DeYoung- Just Do Something: A Liberating Approach to Finding God's Will (Moody, 2009)

Cathleen Falsani- The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People (Sarah Crichton Books, 2006)

Collin Hansen- Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist's Journey with the New Calvinists (Crossway, 2008)

Tim Keller- The Reason For God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (Dutton, 2008)

R.T. Kendall- The Sensitivity of the Spirit: Learning to Stay in the Flow of God's Direction (Charisma House, 2002)

C.S. Lewis- Mere Christianity (Audiobook performed by Geoffrey Howard, Blackstone, 2000)

Andrew Marin- Love is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation with the Gay Community (Intervarsity Press, 2009)

Scot McKnight- The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible (Zondervan, 2008)

Sara Miles- Take This Bread: The Spiritual Memoir of a Twenty-first Century Christian (Ballantine, 2007)

Richard Mouw- Praying at Burger King (Eerdmans, 2007)

Mark Noll- The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Eerdmans, 1994)

Henri Nouwen- The Return of the Prodigal Son: A Story of Homecoming (Doubleday, 1992)

Jim Skillen- In Pursuit of Justice: Christian-Democratic Explorations (Rowman & Littlefield, 2004)

End Times Gloom and Doom: A Historical Reality Check

2009-08-19T17:50:00.012-10:00

I'm told that if you translate "Prince Charles of Wales" into Hebrew and calculate the symbols using an ancient Jewish number system, it adds up to 666. Sound the alarm!

One of my least favorite aspects of being an American evangelical Christian is getting lumped together with peddlers of apocalyptic speculation and escapism of the Left Behind variety. Unlike those who are convinced that a "secret rapture" will occur at any moment or that the current geopolitical landscape is God's cosmic chessboard where brutal dictators, wars, famines and genocide are part of an inevitable collision course to destruction, I'm in no rush to force-fit today's headlines though an end times filter.

So instead of wading into the deep theological waters of eschatology or the Scriptural basis for cultural engagement, I offer the following 3 meaty quotes to chew on. You'll likely need to read them at least twice to capture their full meaning, but it's an undertaking well worth the effort. I should also mention that each selection comes from the pen of a committed evangelical Christian. Enjoy:

The evangelical predilection, when faced with a world crisis, to use the Bible as a crystal ball instead of as a guide for sorting out the complex tangles of international morality was nowhere more evident than in response to the Gulf War in early 1991. Neither through the publishing of books nor through focused consideration in periodicals did evangelicals engage in significant discussions on the morality of the war, the use of the United Nations in the wake of the collapse of Communism, the significance of oil for job creation or wealth formation throughout the world, the history of Western efforts at intervention in the Middle East, or other topics fairly crying out for serious Christian analysis. Instead, evangelicals gobbled up more than half a million copies of several self-assured, populist explanations of how the Gulf crisis was fulfilling the details of obscure biblical prophecies. (Mark Noll- The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Eerdmans, 1994)
The current crisis was always identified as a sign of the end, whether it was the Russo-Japanese War, the First World War, the Second World War, the Palestine War, the Suez Crisis, the June War or the Yom Kippur War. The revival of the Roman Empire has been identified variously as Mussolini’s empire, the League of Nations, the United Nations, the European Defense Community, the Common Market and NATO. Speculation on the Antichrist has included Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler and Henry Kissinger. The northern confederation was supposedly formed by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Rapallo Treaty, the Nazi-Soviet Pact and then the Soviet Bloc. The “kings of the east” have been variously the Turks, the lost tribes of Israel, Japan, India and China. The supposed restoration of Israel has confused the problem of whether the Jews are to be restored before or after the coming of the Messiah. The restoration of the latter rain has been pinpointed to have begun in 1897, 1917, and 1948. The end of the “times of the Gentiles” has been placed in 1895, 1917, 1948 and 1967. “Gog” has been an impending threat since the Crimean War, both under the Czars and the Communists. (Dwight Wilson- Armageddon Now! The Premillenarian Response to Russia and Israel since 1917, Baker Books, 1977)
Revelation 21-22 makes it clear that the ultimate purpose of redemption is not to escape the material world, but to renew it. God's purpose is not only saving individuals, but also inaugurating a new world based on justice, peace, and love, not power, strife, and selfishness. (Tim Keller- Christianity Today, A New Kind of Urban Christian, May 2006)

Federal Recognition for Native Hawaiians: Will This (Finally) Be The Year?

2009-08-11T17:21:00.008-10:00

When it's all said and done, 2009 could be a special year for Native Hawaiians.

Thanks to President Obama's recent endorsement of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act (S.1011), better known as the Akaka Bill, Native Hawaiians are closer than ever to gaining federal recognition status comparable to Native American tribes and Alaska Natives. Once Congress returns from its August recess after Labor Day, the bill is expected to clear the Indian Affairs Committee to be voted on by the full Senate. In addition to Mr. Obama and all four of Hawaii's Democratic representatives in Congress, the bill is supported by a diverse range of public officials and organizations here in the islands including our Republican Governor, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and the editorial boards of both the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin.

[If you're not familiar with the Akaka Bill, here's a helpful article and timeline from the latest issue of Maui No Ka 'Oi magazine summarizing the nearly decade-long efforts of Senator Dan Akaka to pass this bill, as well as the opposition coming both from conservatives who say it goes too far and activists who don't think it goes far enough.]

As someone who interacts daily with low-income families receiving public assistance on Oahu's Leeward Coast, I can personally attest to the disproportionate socio-economic hardships experienced by the Native Hawaiian community. Measurements of poverty, homelessness, incarceration, obesity, infant mortality and other indicators of well-being reveal that Native Hawaiians are at a clear disadvantage in relation to other ethnic groups comprising Hawaii's multicultural landscape. But this isn't about pity, class warfare or bleeding heart sentimentalism. It's about acknowledging a systemic social injustice and creating a framework for reconciliation. It's about respecting the history, culture and dignity of an indigenous people group who inhabited these islands long before America's manifest destiny came ashore.

Being a locally-born hapa haole, I understand that while Hawaii is one of the most ethnically diverse states in the nation, we are by no means "colorblind" to the beauty and diversity of many cultural heritages. So how exactly are Native Hawaiians different from Chinese-Americans, Japanese-Americans, Filipino-Americans and hapa haoles like myself? The answer is quite simple: They are indigenous. They are the original inhabitants of lands that later became part of the United States. You cannot say the same about any other people group in the islands today. It is a simple historical fact that a fully independent monarchy exercised sovereignty in Hawaii centuries before it became a U.S. territory. As I see it, this places Native Hawaiians in the same category as Native American tribes and Alaska Natives. If you disagree with this comparison, you will probably oppose the Akaka Bill.

But given the reality of federal recognition for 561 Native American tribes (Cherokee, Sioux, Navajo, etc.) and Alaska Natives, there are only three positions available if you are opposed to the Akaka Bill:

1) You could argue that indigenous people groups are no different from other ethnic minorities and therefore none of them (Native American tribes, Alaskan Natives or Native Hawaiians) deserve any special federal recognition. This view would require Native Americans and Alaska Natives to be stripped of their semi-autonomous status, including the right to form domestic dependent "nations within a nation." In addition to losing their powers of self-government, 561 tribes would be denied access to benefits, services and protections currently in place. Or...

2) You could argue that Native Americans and Alaska Natives deserve recognition, but Hawaiians somehow do not. This view would require you to ignore the similarities between the lands taken away from Native American tribes and the overthrow of Hawaii's monarchy in 1893, in which power was seized at gunpoint from a self-governing indigenous people group. The U.S. government's 1993 Apology Resolution admitting wrongdoing in the overthrow of Queen Lili'oukalani makes this argument even harder to defend. Or...

3) You could argue that in order to turn back the clock on the injustices of American imperialism, everyone should be sent back to "wherever they came from." This all-or-nothing view would presumably require Caucasians to be sent back to Europe, Asians back to Asia and so forth. Some Hawaiian sovereignty advocates are demanding the United States to completely withdraw from Hawaii, but this essentially requires secession from the Union, something that is neither realistic nor beneficial in my opinion.

Since I disagree with all three options above, I support the Akaka Bill. It is not a silver bullet solution to the complex disputes over ceded lands and entitlement programs, but Native Hawaiians are far better off with federal political recognition than without it. Until they are validated on par with other indigenous people groups, attempts to improve conditions for Native Hawaiians (through Kamehameha Schools for example) will always be threatened by lawsuits and accusations of "race-based" discrimination. The way forward through these convoluted realities is not an endless barrage of litigation, but the establishment of a legal framework allowing Native Hawaiians to form their own nation within a nation (while still under the authority of federal and state laws) so that a new dialogue can begin.

Enacting the Akaka Bill is not the final goal, but the starting point.

An ITZBEEN To Remember

2009-07-28T20:33:00.012-10:00

As anyone with multiple young children knows, parenting can often be a simple test of survival from one day to the next. From tantrums to toilet-training, diapers to drool-wiping, mid-day messes to mid-sleep disruptions, there’s always an adventure lurking just around the bend. Unlike my wife, who has gracefully mastered the art of juggling competing needs of a toddler and a newborn, I tend to lose my bearings in the fog of perpetually unfinished tasks.

The craziest time of day in our household, 5 to 8 pm every evening, can almost be reduced to a series of questions (nearly always asked by me): Where’s Vincent’s pacifier? When is his next feeding? How long was Theo’s nap? When was his diaper last changed? And so on.

Sometimes it's the simplest things that are hardest to remember.

To preserve our sanity amid the chaos, we've come to lean heavily on an innovative new gadget, the ever-trusty ITZBEEN Baby Care Timer (pictured at right), a musubi-sized portable device that keeps track of how long “it’s been” since the most recent feeding, diaper change, nap or any other fine detail involving elapsed time. In addition to its four timers that can be individually reset with the touch of a button, I’ve even used the ITZBEEN as a handy reading light that won’t disturb anyone’s precious sleep.

And while the ITZBEEN’s backlit display provides important details to help ensure our newborn’s health and well being, it's no surprise my forgetful tendencies extend beyond my role as a parent. Even as a grown adult, I forget to put myself to bed on time. I forget to say “please” and “thank you.” I forget to floss my teeth and put away my 'toys.' I probably couldn't tell you where I last saw the ITZBEEN.

Beyond the physical realm, I am spiritually forgetful to the core.

I forget to practice God’s presence. I forget to celebrate His goodness. I forget to surrender my life daily to Christ. I forget to thank Him for the Cross. I forget the great cost of His sacrifice and consequently, I forget to tell others about His matchless grace.

Which makes me wonder: If I had a spiritual ITZBEEN, what would it tell me?

When did I last pray (not including mealtimes and church services)? How long has it been since I practiced hospitality or welcomed a stranger? When did I last enjoy the beauty of God’s creation? How long has it been since I shared the gospel (whether through actions or words)? When was the last time I gave to the poor or visited a sick person? How long has it been since I reflected on the Cross or pondered the Resurrection that changed human history?

Could it be that my drool-dispensing, diaper-soiling sons have a better grasp of their daddy's care and affection than I do of God's? As much as I adore those two boys, the Everlasting Father’s love goes so much deeper.

I think I can remember that.

More Than A Private Ceremony: Why Government Should Stay In The "Marriage Business"

2009-07-23T17:28:00.011-10:00

From the pages of Time magazine to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and everywhere in between, I've heard numerous calls for government to "get out of the marriage business." The heated national fracas over gay marriage has caused some to question whether government should have anything to do with marriage as a social institution. If I may paraphrase, the argument usually goes something like this:

Marriage is a church issue, not a state one. Since marriage is a private agreement between two individuals, it should not be subject to government interference. Just as one's personal religious beliefs should not be a matter of public debate, neither should someone's marriage. If the government doesn't regulate people's baptisms, confirmations, Bar Mitzvahs or other religious ordinances, what gives them the right to meddle with marriage? Most of the political-religious controversy surrounding same-sex marriage could be resolved if the government would simply stop issuing marriage licenses. This would allow states to maintain religious neutrality by not promoting or discouraging any form of relationship over another. People could define their relationships according to their own beliefs, religious or secular.

The appeal of this reasoning plays well in today's post-religious climate. Most people don't want the government telling them what to believe, who to love or how to behave in their private lives. Ceasing the government’s role in the recognition of marriage, so the theory goes, would be a way to validate gay partnerships in the civic square while protecting the religious freedom of churches and clergy. By simply removing the dreaded M-word from the vocabulary of government, we could all put away our bullhorns and go home happy.

Or could we?

These days, it's nearly impossible to discuss the civil-legal institution of marriage (namely, the kind of thing conferred by a marriage license) without opening a religious-political can of worms. Perhaps I'm naive to attempt such a feat, but instead of discussing the theological nature of holy matrimony (which in my Protestant tradition is a sacred, lifelong covenant uniting a husband and wife as "one flesh" in the sight of God) or adding my voice to the cacophony surrounding the politics of gay marriage (been there done that), I would like to address the following question: Is there any solid non-religious (dare I say "secular") basis for the government to issue marriage licenses?

The short answer is yes.

While some well-meaning libertarians and others see the elimination of civil marriage as a means of resolving the gay marriage controversy, this would create far more problems than it solves. It’s not that I believe government should be promoting a particular religious agenda or regulating what goes on in private between consenting adults. Nothing could be further from the truth. My concern is that political bickering over the issue of same-sex unions has caused us to lose sight of marriage's much broader sociological purpose beyond religious ceremonies and warm fuzziness shared between committed partners, gay or straight. In the public square, marriage is not merely about religion or sexual orientation. It's about the fundamental need for societies to gauge the comparative significance of human relationships.

To put it bluntly: Marriage provides a measuring stick we cannot do without. We can tweak it, re-think it, re-name it ("civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" anyone?) or re-define it however we think best, but until we decide that drinking buddies and pen pals should receive the same benefits and protections as couples who have pledged a lifetime of commitment to each other, government will always play a role in the so-called "business" of civil marriage. Even if marriage licenses were abolished and replaced with civil unions as some have suggested, I suspect most of the voices so loudly engaged in the gay marriage standoff would quickly re-direct their energies to the laws governing civil unions.

Let's say the government stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether and as an alternative to civil marriage, couples could create their own private contracts that would be enforced through contract law. Administering pensions, inheritances and custody battles would become more difficult, but not impossible. The bigger question would be how to legally distinguish between those who wanted an “old school” lifelong partnership type of arrangement (gay or straight) versus a pragmatic contract between drinking buddies who wanted to save money on health care coverage. Without the draconian categories of "single" and "married", what other simple criteria would employers and health care providers use to determine the seriousness of a relationship and consequently, who qualifies for benefits?

For example, if I signed a private civil contract with one of my friends who has a terrific health care plan or education benefit for "spouses", would his employer be willing to cover my medical expenses and pay for my grad school tuition since we signed a similar contract to the married couple next door? Would such a contract excuse me from testifying in court against my friend, as married couples are? If I were to obtain a “divorce” or terminate my contract with him, could I sign another contract with one of my international friends to secure U.S. residency for them, as married individuals can? What about those employers who actually DO want to provide certain benefits to an employee’s spouse (defined in the old-school, marriage license sort of way) instead of just a drinking buddy or casual acquaintance? If there were no civil marriage, would such an employer be guilty of discrimination for offering "special" benefits to certain types of contract signatories and not others?

As a deeply religious person who cringes at the conflation of God and country, I can understand why some people would like to throw the civil marriage baby out with the political bathwater. But just because the word “marriage” (a perfectly good and practical concept, even for non-religious folk) has become associated with culture war carnage does not mean government recognition for lifelong partners is a bad idea. Judging by the eagerness of gays and lesbians to obtain government validation and not merely sign a private contract, maybe there is something special about marriage licenses after all.

Is Jon Stewart a prophet? I think not.

2009-07-10T16:52:00.001-10:00

As a loyal subscriber to Sojourners magazine for nearly 5 years, I've seen a wide range of personalities and social activists covered in its pages. Even so, I'm thoroughly baffled as to why potty-mouthed fake newsman Jon Stewart was selected to grace this month's cover for the award-winning Christian publication whose stated mission is to "articulate the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope and building a movement to inspire individuals, communities, the church and the world."

Here's the best explanation I've come up with so far: Jim Wallis really, really likes him.

Sojourners' founder and editor-in-chief opens the interview by likening The Daily Show's host to an Old Testament prophet: "The Hebrew prophets often used humor, satire, and truth-telling to get their message across, and I feel you do a combination of all three." From that point on, the interview largely consists of Wallis trying to convince Stewart to 'admit' he's some sort of contemporary prophet/activist/sage while Stewart, with trademark self-deprecating wit, coolly deflects every attempt to conjure what simply isn't there.

Despite Stewart's insistence that he's actually who he appears to be, namely a successful TV personality doing his job attracting audiences in order to "sell enough Budweiser [so] that Comedy Central will let us stay on the air," Wallis remains unconvinced and tries in vain to frame him in the prophetic tradition of "speaking truth to power." The irony of it all is that Stewart recognizes his clear lack of prophetic/spiritual credentials even as Wallis continually offers him the mantle if he wants it.

Granted, Stewart's clever satire mocking politicians and 24-hour cable news coverage can be both entertaining and insightful when he's exposing the phoniness of Washington-style politics. And yes, The Daily Show still makes me laugh from time to time, although I'm starting to outgrow its crass humor and cheap laughs at the expense of religion. But last time I checked, Hebrew prophets in the Scriptures were not primarily comedians delivering applause lines for big audiences. They were typically unpopular and counter-cultural messengers who preached repentance and obedience to God.

In many ways, I fit the profile of a typical Sojourners reader. I'm a 20-something evangelical Christian who believes global poverty, the environment, human trafficking and health care access are the most pressing issues of our time, although abortion and gay marriage require healthy discussion as well. At its best, what has made Sojourners unique through the years is a commitment to Scripture-based activism, not commercial politicking cloaked in religious language. With all the untold stories of Christ-centered ordinaries doing justice, loving mercy and walking humbly with God among the least of these, I'm not convinced we need to co-opt the bright lights and celebrity of a mainstream entertainer to build the mustard seed kingdom Jesus spoke of.

If Jon Stewart is the closest approximation to a modern-day prophetic voice Sojourners can find for its cover story, we're in a lot more trouble than I thought.

Is There a Calvinist-Complementarian Connection?

2009-06-30T23:10:00.017-10:00

As a social worker by trade, I’m no theologian. But in my spare time between parenting, grad school, church life and employment responsibilities, I find it fascinating to observe the theological movers and shakers of the current American evangelical landscape. While the Gospel must never be defined by popular vote, the question of why assorted varieties of evangelicals believe as they do (for better or worse) is worthy of exploration. In recent years, I’ve taken an interest in the so-called “New Calvinists,” a growing movement recently described in Collin Hansen’s book, Young, Restless, Reformed, as well as a March 12 TIME magazine article calling it one of the “10 ideas changing the world.”

As an outside observer of the movement, I’ve noticed that in addition to Reformed soteriology (often summarized by the acronym TULIP), one of the key doctrinal distinctives for New Calvinists is complementarianism, the view that male leadership in the church and home is a Biblical imperative. It’s no coincidence that influential Reformed/Calvinist (I’m using these terms interchangeably here) leaders like John Piper, Al Mohler and Mark Driscoll are among evangelicalism’s most vocal opponents of women’s ordination. As a staunch egalitarian, I believe Scripture teaches that God gives the gifts of preaching, teaching and church leadership to both men and women, which puts me squarely at odds with the young, restless, Reformed camp. Complicating matters further, much of my own spiritual growth has occurred in the context of complementarian congregations, but that’s another story…

Despite our disagreements on gender roles, I share a lot in common with my New Calvinist brothers and sisters. I am very much drawn to the Reformed tradition, its covenant theology, historic confessions and doctrines of grace (TULIP included). I also adhere to a robust understanding of God’s sovereign grace, charismatic gift continuationism and the centrality of Christ’s cross. I agree that prosperity theology, self-help sermons and market-driven models of church growth are harmful to the Gospel. Like many in the movement, I enjoy expository preaching, Justin Taylor’s Between Two Worlds blog, Sam Storms’ books and the ESV Study Bible- its unyielding complementarian slant notwithstanding!

If I were capable of passing through the narrow doctrinal checkpoint affirming both TULIP and complementarian gender roles, I would find a community of New Calvinists refreshingly open to a range of positions on baptism, miraculous gifts, the Lord’s Supper and eschatology. This explains why a charismatic like C.J. Mahaney can partner with a cessasionist like John MacArthur at the distinctly Reformed Together for the Gospel (T4G) conference, not to mention fellow conveners Ligon Duncan, a paedo-baptist (one who practices infant baptism), and Mark Dever, a credo-baptist (believer’s baptism). As someone who welcomes evangelical collaboration across denominational lines, I am encouraged by these expressions of unity amid theological diversity.

In light of such ecumenism, it’s perplexing to consider why egalitarians are not also welcomed to the New Calvinist table. Complementarianism may not be at the forefront of New Calvinist identity, but it nonetheless serves as a distinct theological boundary not to be crossed. From what I gather, egalitarianism is categorically rejected by the full spectrum of interdenominational networks, ministries and conferences home to New Calvinists (including Tim Keller and Don Carson’s Gospel Coalition, Piper’s Desiring God Ministries, Driscoll’s Acts 29 Network, Mahaney’s Sovereign Grace Ministries, Dever's 9 Marks, R.C. Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries, Duncan’s Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and MacArthur’s Shepherd’s Conference among others). I hope I’m mistaken, but the young, restless, Reformed subculture seems to have built an impenetrable wall to keep out those who are not both Calvinists and complementarians. One out of two is not enough, and thus I have failed to qualify.

Naturally, this raises a series of questions. What exactly is the relationship between Calvinism and complementarianism? Why is opposition to the ordination of women a non-negotiable for New Calvinists? Why does one’s persuasion on gender roles carry more weight than one’s view of the sacraments, spiritual gifts or church polity? Are New Calvinists willing to recognize the existence of mature and authentic Christians on both sides the debate over women in ministry, a controversy that will not reach an evangelical consensus anytime soon? Is there something about Reformed theology that is inherently complementarian or is the Calvinist-complementarian connection unique to this particular neo-Puritan stream? Put another way: Is it possible to be a young, restless, Reformed egalitarian?

If the existence of “egalitarian Calvinist” denominations such as the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) are any indication, the answer the last question must be yes. At the scholarly level, there are numerous examples of well-respected evangelical Reformed theologians who are also egalitarians: Roger Nicole (Gordon Conwell, emeritus), Nicholas Wolterstorff (Yale), John Webster (Aberdeen), Bruce McCormack (Princeton Seminary), Donald Bloesch (Dubuque Seminary, emeritus), Todd Billings (Western Seminary), Jamie Smith (Calvin College), Bill Dyrness (Fuller Seminary), Mark Husbands (Hope College) and Laura Miguelez (Wheaton College) just to name a few. My personal favorite is Fuller President Richard Mouw, whose book, Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport, is a must-read for skeptics who have erroneously dismissed TULIP as dried out determinism for the “frozen chosen.” Mouw’s work on Christian ethics, common grace, cultural engagement and public justice embodies the convergence of rigorous Reformed thought and passionate social activism in the tradition of Abraham Kuyper.

But even once we accept that there are indeed thoughtful and sincere Reformed evangelicals who support the ordination of women, this does not fully explain why has the rigidly complementarian variety of Calvinism been making so many waves at the parachurch level in recent years. Why does there seem to be an overwhelming correlation between Calvinism and complementarianism at the street level of popular/semi-academic Christian publishing, online media, “celebrity” pastor/speaker/writers and interdenominational networks like the Gospel Coalition? Where are the egalitarian Calvinist counterparts to best-selling authors like Piper and Keller? Or popular bloggers Taylor and Tim Challies? Or burgeoning Gen X pastor/writers like Kevin DeYoung, Josh Harris and Tullian Tchividjian? Why do t-shirts declare that “Jonathan Edwards is my homeboy” and not Abraham Kuyper?

I suspect that much of New Calvinism’s magnetism is a reaction to the postmodern leanings of the emerging church movement as well as the market-driven approaches of seeker-friendly megachurches and other forms of cultural accommodation. It could also be that Reformed egalitarians at the popular level are publishing on different subjects than the T4G crowd, thus leaving the impression that egalitarianism is a topic best left to Anglicans, Wesleyans, Anabaptists and others from non-Reformed traditions. Perhaps the complementarian-Calvinist connection is not a feature of Reformed theology per se, but has more to do with Piper's contagious enthusiasm for neo-Puritan pietism.

In any case, there’s much to affirm about the New Calvinists and their passion for God’s glory. I only wish this egalitarian could be welcomed at the table. If it makes any difference, I’ll even bring my ESV Study Bible.

UPDATE: Kevin DeYoung has responded to my observations on his blog.

ALSO: Related discussions have started at Between Two Worlds, Emerging Women, Complegalitarian, New Leaven, BLOG and MABLOG, and The Wanderer.

Purple Reign: 10 Non-Lakers Who Made it Possible

2009-06-15T18:06:00.009-10:00

For the past 12 months, I have been haunted by a blog post in which I foolishly predicted the Lakers would defeat the Celtics in last year's NBA Finals. After watching my beloved purple and gold cough up a 24-point lead at home in Game 4 and eventually lose the series to their arch rivals from Boston, I renounced all forms of chicken counting and told myself I would never again declare Laker victory until the confetti was falling and the champagne was flowing.

Needless to say, I waited until the final buzzer sounded in last night's 99-86 Game 5 win over the Orlando Magic before celebrating the Lakers' first championship since 2002, the 15th in their storied history. Last year's bitter defeat only makes this victory sweeter, as Final's MVP Kobe Bryant can attest. In an apparent reference to the 'can-Kobe-win-without-Shaq?' question that has dogged him for the past 5 years, Bryant said, "It finally felt like a big old monkey was off my back."

Besides Bryant's redemption as the main storyline, much has also been made (and rightly so) of head coach Phil Jackson's record-breaking 10th title and #24's well-rounded supporting cast of Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, Derek Fisher and Trevor Ariza. But as any Laker fan will tell you, this season's championship was far from inevitable. There were plenty of bullets dodged, tense moments and chips that could have fallen either way. And just as L.A.'s shortcomings a season ago helped Boston to emerge victorious, we must not neglect to mention some of the non-Lakers who played an unintended role in this year's purple reign.

So on behalf of Laker Nation, I would like to thank the following individuals for helping make this year's championship run possible:

10. Paul Pierce. Last year's crushing loss to the Celtics was clearly the fuel for this year's Laker run. By scoring at will and outplaying Bryant on both ends of the court, no one was more responsible for the Lakers' '08 Finals humiliation than Pierce, Boston's captain and leading scorer.

9. Shaquille O'Neal. After the Lakers lost to Boston last June, Shaq bombastically performed a rap song in which he vulgarly flaunted how Kobe had not won a championship since O'Neal departed L.A. in 2004. Not that Bryant was lacking any motivation before this childish spectacle found its way to YouTube, but it reinforced public perceptions that Kobe needed to win another championship to step out from under O'Neal's 325-pound shadow.

8. LeBron James. In leading the Cavaliers to the league's best record and winning his first regular season MVP award, LeBron gave most observers the impression that Cleveland, not L.A., was this year's team to beat. Not only did this give the Lakers something else to prove, it allowed them to focus on their game plan without the limelight and pressure of being the favorite.

7. Kevin Garnett. When KG went down for the season in March with a knee injury, the Celtics lost their best interior player and defensive anchor (not to mention the reigning Defensive Player of the Year). Even without the Big Ticket and frontcourt mate Leon Powe in their playoff lineup, Boston still managed to push Orlando to a 7-game series, which tells me they would have reached the Finals and mounted a serious challenge to the Lakers' title hopes had Garnett been healthy.

6. Aaron Brooks. Standing just 6'0" tall and tipping the scales at 160, Houston's fleet-footed rookie point guard unexpectedly extended the short-handed Rockets' second round series with L.A. to a full 7 games, torching them for 34 points in a Game 4 blowout and 26 more in a Game 6 encore. Thanks to Brooks, the Lakers were forced to dig deep for the determination and teamwork needed to win a championship.

5. Courtney Lee. With Game 2 of the Finals tied at 88 and less than one second remaining in the fourth quarter, Lee misfired on a perfectly executed alley-oop layup attempt that would have stolen the Lakers' home court advantage. Thankfully, Laker Nation breathed a sign of relief as the ball bounced off the front of the rim as L.A. escaped with a 2-0 series lead after prevailing in overtime.

4. Dwight Howard. Ahead by 3 in Game 4 with 11.1 seconds remaining, Howard had an opportunity to seal victory at the free throw line and tie the series 2-2. Instead, he missed both shots and left the door ajar for Derek Fisher's unforgettable game-tying pull up 3-pointer with 4.6 seconds left. Fisher wound up hitting another huge 3 in overtime, leading the Lakers to a 3-1 series lead.

3. Stan Van Gundy. With the Magic ahead 87-84 after Howard's free throw misses, Orlando's coach made the baffling decision not to foul the Lakers in Game 4's closing seconds. Regretting this fateful error and Fisher's dagger that made him pay, Van Gundy later said, "That one will haunt me forever."

2. Red Auerbach. The legendary Celtics coach who won 9 titles in the 50's and 60's did not live to see the day Phil Jackson surpass his record, but as Yahoo's Adrian Wojnarowski observed, Red never hid his disdain for Jackson accomplishments. Even with his trademark psychological discipline and inner competitiveness, it's hard to imagine PJ being so focused on collecting his 10th ring had he not been tied with Auerbach for the all-time lead.

1. Chris Wallace. Better known as the Grizzlies General Manager who traded Pau Gasol to Los Angeles in one of the most lopsided deals in NBA history, Wallace should at least get a complimentary championship t-shirt for his role in helping the Lakers win it all. Without Wallace, Gasol would not be playing in Hollywood and without Gasol, Laker fans would not be celebrating today.

Strings With No Marriage Attached

2009-06-10T23:09:00.012-10:00

Old-school marriage is going out of style.

Last month, I was browsing through Time magazine at the grocery store when I noticed an article called "Everything but the Ring," which described the growing phenomenon of committed unmarrieds (CUs). From what I could gather, this is the politically correct term for co-habiting couples who are serious about staying together and having kids, but equally intentional about not tying the knot. According to the article, a record-breaking 40% of U.S. babies born in 2007 had unmarried parents (up 25% from 2002) and "nonmarital births have increased the most among women ages 25 to 39, doubling since 1980," debunking the myth that accidental teen pregnancy has caused this trend.

Once viewed as a moral indiscretion or a failure to properly plan, childbirth among unmarried parents has now gone mainstream. In contrast with stereotypes, minorities in poverty are not the only ones having children out of wedlock. From the middle class and affluent all the way up to gazillionaire media magnets like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, many couples are making the deliberate choice to have kids while remaining unmarried. And thanks to the tireless efforts of those in the grocery aisle gossip industry, everyone knows that Hollywood celebrities are the standard bearers of marital fidelity and lifetime commitment.

In a certain sense, it's not hard to understand why my generation of self-directed postmoderns in their twenties and thirties, burned by divorce and cynical about weddings, are choosing cohabitation over marriage. After all, if you could experience the joy of parenting, the pleasure of sex, the cost savings of shared living expenses and the comfort of knowing that your child's parents are still "together" without having to darken the door of a church (for a wedding) or courthouse (for a divorce), what's there to lose? In theory, you've got (almost) all the benefits of marriage without the religious, cultural and political baggage. Last semester, one of my classmates told me she doesn’t ever want to get married because her relationship with her boyfriend "shouldn't be anyone else's business" and marriage is a "sexist institution" anyway.

But is marriage really just a private religious ceremony that has little or no sociological impact? Is it just a profitable fabrication of the wedding industry that wants to sell more cakes, rings and pricey dresses? Is the decision to move in together just a modern equivalent of walking down the aisle or does that cumbersome and old fashioned marriage license thingy actually make a difference in people's lives? Should declining marriage rates be any cause for concern or should we just accept that we’ve "progressed" from the dark ages when unmarried people weren’t supposed to bear children even by accident, much less on purpose?

Contrary to the popular myth that getting married ruins perfectly good relationships, sociological research tells a different story. Even if you remove religious and homophobic arguments from the discussion, there is still a compelling “secular” case for why marriage is good for society, particularly the well-being of children. A nonpartisan study from Rutgers University observed, "Virtually all research on the topic has determined that the chances of divorce ending a marriage preceded by cohabitation are significantly greater than for a marriage not preceded by cohabitation." The study also found that "three quarters of children born to cohabiting parents will see their parents split up before they reach age sixteen, whereas only about a third of children born to married parents face a similar fate." Not only do cohabiting parents break up at a much higher rate than married parents, children living with stepfathers or mother's boyfriends are at higher risk of sexual abuse and physical violence than are children living with married biological parents.

Even my "liberal" social work textbooks acknowledge the irony that married people tend to live longer, earn more money and lead healthier lives than those who don't marry. Children born to unwed parents also face increased high school dropout rates and a greater likelihood of poverty and behavioral problems. Imagine you were a kid (as we all once were). Would you rather have parents who were officially married or would a really, really strong verbal agreement be good enough to do the trick? If your parents were going through a rough patch and were considering a split, would you want it to be easier or harder for them to do so? Is it too archaic to suggest that society is better off when biological parents stay together?

Don’t get me wrong. None of the cohabiting parents I know are villains or reprobates. They are kind and good-natured people who plan their kids' birthday parties and read them bedtime stories just like us married folks do. My goal is not to demonize these individuals or see their relationships fail. It's certainly possible to be happily committed parents without getting married, just as it's possible to avoid serious traffic injuries without wearing a seat belt. But the prevalence of divorce doesn't mean we should do away with marriage any more than the prevalence of car accidents means we should all switch to the even riskier habit of riding motorcycles without helmets. Walking down the aisle won’t magically turn bad relationships into good ones, but there’s something about a marriage that preserves and enhances lifelong commitment better than any other arrangement.

Instead of affirming sacred matrimony, it seems like the only socially acceptable way to talk about marriage nowadays is to poke fun at it. If I were to stand up in my office lunchroom and say, "Marriage is like an appendix. You don't really need it, but it can cause a lot of pain," I would probably get some laughs and scattered applause. Conversely, if I were to put forward the notion that getting married and staying that way is one of the best things we can do for the next generation, this would likely sound presumptuous and narrow-minded. Maybe I’m just a Neanderthal cave man disguised as a 21st century amateur blogger, but I’d like to humbly suggest that once the possibility of conceiving children is even on the horizon (much less the delivery room), the trial period for “test driving” your mate should be long gone.

If you are serious enough to move in with someone, co-sign a lease, work out the finances, share a bathroom, divide up the chores, battle for the remote, have procreative sex and raise a child together, how on earth could your relationship not be "serious" enough for marriage? If someone isn’t good enough for you to marry, what makes them good enough to be the father or mother of your child? The way I see it, the only thing riskier than bringing a helpless baby into the world is doing so without the legal, financial, social and spiritual protection of marriage. And if marriage is such a miserable, outdated, superfluous idea, why are gays and lesbians so eager to get married?

Remember that old saying, "First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage?" That’s so yesterday.

A Prayer for Baby Vincent

2009-05-31T17:36:00.005-10:00

Almighty God,
Be a bright flame before him,
A guiding star above him,
A smooth path below him,
A kindly shepherd behind him
All the days of his life.

Form him for your pleasure,
Strengthen him for your service,
Guard him for your glory,
In the power of the risen Christ.

Amen.

(adapted from a blessing by St. Columba c. 521-597)

A Hasty Poem

2009-04-30T15:32:00.010-10:00

FRAZZLED

Gridlock and sunshine
Family and church
Termites and research
Grad school and work

Case notes and résumés

Diapers and milk

Haphazard dustjackets

Strewn on a shelf

Baby is coming

Papers are due
Pirates and tea parties
Pigs with the flu

Forwarded emails

Notes and citations

Yawnings and whinings

Blog moderation

Budget cuts, layoffs

Safety nets gone

Bubble baths, basketball

Toys on the lawn

Sleep deprivation

A cough and a sneeze

I'd rather be drumming

Than tapping on keys

How (not) to Argue about Gay Marriage

2009-04-19T16:22:00.018-10:00

I realize this is a hot potato, but I'm going to touch it anyway.

The gay marriage debate drives me nuts. It's not just the nasty rhetoric, hyperbole, stereotyping and name-calling spewed by both sides, which is sickening enough. It's that there's so little light to show for all of this heat. The wheels are spinning and the mud is flying, but the arguments are going nowhere. Those with strong opinions seem increasingly louder while moderate and ambivalent observers like myself have shrunk deeper into our turtlenecks, silently waiting for the subject to change. The multiplied effect of our silence is a conspicuous absence of temperate voices which only makes an already divisive topic even more polarizing. With few exceptions, hope for any type of mutual respect has all but faded while attempts at civil dialogue are quickly dismissed as cooperation with the enemy.

A perfect storm of sex, religion, fear and anger has clouded our capacity to think critically about both marriage and homosexuality. Thanks to the culture war's carnage, it's become objectionable to draw distinctions between sexual orientation and behavior, respect and agreement, tradition and homophobia, theology and public policy, civil unions and sacred unions, legal marriage and religious marriage. I don't claim to have these complexities figured out, but I've found little comfort in the narrow explanations that dominate the current discussion at the popular level (if you can even call it a discussion). As long as the battle lines are drawn this way, we can expect to see significant chunks of the population gloating over incremental victories (i.e. conservatives in California last year or liberals in Iowa and Vermont this year) while the opposing camp plots its backlash. When the backlashers succeed, roles are reversed and the cycle continues. Peachy.

So what are the rest of us to do while the extremes are slugging it out in the courtrooms of law and public opinion? Should we hide under our desks until it's safe to peek out from the rubble? Should we keep our moderate views under wraps while we wait for someone to give them a voice? Should we make friends with both sides and see who disowns us first? If I knew that sweeping the gay marriage debate under the rug would it make go away, I would do it in a heartbeat. Like I said, it drives me nuts. My preference would be to focus our intellectual and political resources on the economic crisis, global poverty, climate change, Darfur, health care access, education, energy independence, abortion reduction and a host of other areas where much more is at stake.

Ironically, the vicious cycle of backlash and nastiness will continue even longer if we continue to allow the issue to be framed by all-or-nothing activists and protesters who dig their trenches deeper each year. This much is clear to me: gays cannot be expected to reverse their orientation any more easily than conservatives can be expected to sit idly while the historic understanding of marriage is redefined. Calling for a culture war ceasefire would be noble, but also unrealistic without a forum for respectful disagreement and dialogue. As I see it, the only way out of this briar patch is through the thorns. Our best option might be to actually sit down and have a sober conversation about the touchy stuff: sex, religion, fear and anger. Slogans and sound bites won't work in a thicket this tangled. So with the pie-in-the-sky objective of civility in mind, I've come up with a few recommendations to help each side argue their case more persuasively (for a change).

For those who oppose gay marriage:

1. Go easy on the slippery slopes, please. If legalizing same-sex marriage is truly a bad idea in and of itself, you should not need to bring in polygamy, incest, pedophilia, bestiality or marriage to a tree/rock/can opener as reasons to oppose it. None of these are options where marriage is defined as the union of two consenting adults, as is the case in Canada for example. Any valid points you make in favor of traditional marriage will be undercut if you start likening gays to criminals or psychopaths.

2. Acknowledge the problem of homophobia and the mistreatment of GLBT individuals. Whatever your position is on gay marriage, we should at least agree that it's not easy being gay. Verbal harassment, taunting, bullying and even physical violence are intense realities for many gays and lesbians, resulting in disproportionately high rates of depression and suicide. As an evangelical Christian, I believe my religious tradition needs to repent for the way we have often demonized the GLBT community. I have personally witnessed and read far too many stories of those who have rejected Christianity primarily because of the derision and animosity emanating from those who purport to follow Christ. Until homophobia is clearly and consistently rejected, it will undermine the case for traditional marriage.

3. Understand the difference between orientation and behavior. To use myself as an example, my behavior is a lot easier to change than my orientation. While I am certainly responsible for my sexual conduct, I can't remember ever "choosing" to become a heterosexual. However, just because I can't flip a switch to reverse my orientation, this doesn't mean my impulses and desires are impossible to resist. There are plenty of people, both gay and straight, who struggle with their sexuality but do not act on their desires. If altering one's sexual orientation were as simple as learning a foreign language or choosing a new career path, it's doubtful that very many would choose a life where they are looked down upon and treated as second-class citizens. Conservatives only make their task more difficult when they turn the gay marriage debate into a case against an orientation.

4. Don't scapegoat gays for problems caused by straight folks. The prevalence of divorce, out of wedlock births, absent fathers and single-parent households is largely the fault of heterosexuals, not gays. If us straight folks can't keep our marriages together or conceive children responsibly, how is that the fault of gays and lesbians? At the same time, the frequency of failed marriages does not mean that marriage is a bad idea, only that we need to take it more seriously. One of the best ways to "preserve and protect" traditional marriage is to accept responsibility for family fragmentation and let your actions do the talking.

5. Be prudent with your use of Scripture. This does not mean the Bible is off limits. After all, the great speeches of Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln would be significantly weakened without their Scriptural allusions. However, resorting to "the Bible says so" prooftexting as a conversation-stopper can make it difficult to persuade those who don't take its words authoritatively. If you oppose gay marriage on the basis that homosexual behavior is sinful, be prepared to explain how it's different from other sexual sins mentioned in the Bible such as adultery, no-fault divorce, promiscuity and lust, none of which are against the law. Instead of regurgitating patronizing clichés like "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," the better arguments for traditional marriage (like this one from David Blankenhorn) appeal to multiple cultures, religious traditions and civilizations throughout history that have seen the need to define marriage as an opposite-sex union.

Turning now to those who support gay marriage:

1. Please retire the "don't impose your beliefs on me" line. What's the difference between a belief and an opinion? What are laws, regulations and policies if not the expressions of "beliefs" about the ways things should be? Whether the controversy is gun control, greenhouse gas emissions, tax hikes or traffic laws, just about every political debate is driven by competing values. The arguments for and against gay marriage are no different as both sides appeal to various principles including tradition, equal protection, religion, sexual freedom, child welfare, biology, legal precedent and public opinion to name a few. Instead of trying to censor an argument without having to engage it, make your case for why it's a poor line of reasoning.

2. Acknowledge the civil purpose for marriage. More than just a public way to celebrate private love, marriage is a vital social institution that harmonizes the needs of children with the sexual desires of adults. Put another way, marriage provides the best context for the next generation of children (whose interests often clash with the sexual freedom of adults) to grow up in financially and emotionally stable homes. The most articulate proponents of gay marriage, such as Jonathan Rauch, recognize this. Instead of downplaying marriage as 'just a word', Rauch says that GLBT activists should "increase respect for the institution of marriage itself" and stress that gays will take their vows seriously if allowed the opportunity to marry. Whether you are for or against same-sex marriage, you should want the institution of marriage to thrive.

3. Recognize how culture war backlash can hurt your cause. Unlike other GLBT activists who want to the judicial system to override public opinion if necessary, Rauch says, "same sex marriage will work best when people accept and understand it, whereas a sudden national enactment, where it suddenly to happen, might spark a culture war on the order of the abortion battle." The Religious Right's influence may be on the decline, but their ability to rally around the gay marriage issue cannot be underestimated. Evangelicals, Catholics and other religious conservatives can organize very quickly when they feel the courts have circumvented the will of the majority. Persuading hearts and minds in the court of public opinion is no small challenge, but it is more likely to produce lasting gains.

4. Address the issue of religious freedom. While some Christian pastors fear they could be forced to perform same-sex marriages against their will, most gays and lesbians are not too keen on getting hitched in a conservative church. Even so, the legalization of gay marriage brings up some valid concerns related to religious freedom that must be addressed. In Massachusetts for example, Catholic Charities of Boston quit providing adoption services in 2006 because state anti-discrimination laws forced them to allow married same-sex couples to adopt, which goes against church doctrine. In situations like these, guarantees of religious exemptions could greatly help to ease tensions and fears. The push for GLBT rights would encounter less opposition if churches and faith-based groups could be confident that they won't be forced to support or facilitate gay marriage.

5. Don't let your anger get the best of your argument. According to a recent CBS poll, only about one third of Americans currently support gay marriage. Labeling the other two-thirds as "bigots" will not help to win them over to your side. As hard as it may be, resist the urge to return one evil with another. Calling all conservatives "bigots" only perpetuates the vicious cycle of backlash while damaging your credibility in the process. As Ghandi famously said, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." If you want to live in a more tolerant world, begin by tolerating those with whom you profoundly disagree. Don't expect your arguments to be heard if you will not listen to the other side.

The Hour of (no) Power: Reflections on Electricity

2009-03-27T16:39:00.005-10:00

As a city employee, I received an email today from the mayor's office about Honolulu's official participation in Earth Hour 2009 beginning tomorrow night at 8:30 pm local time. In case you haven't heard about it, Earth Hour is an international event organized by the World Wildlife Fund that began 2 years ago in Australia when 2.2 million Sydney residents turned off their lights for an hour to raise awareness of climate change and other environmental issues. Since then, the intentional blackout idea has spread around the globe and this year's affair is set to include at least 2100 cities in 82 countries (there, I just saved you a trip to Wikipedia).

I distinctly remember participating in last year's event because we took great care to ensure our 9-month-old was soundly asleep by 8:30 with enough lead time to allow his customary lullaby CD to run its course. Even though I grew up as a candle-literate missionary kid in countries with frequent blackouts (some scheduled, most not), I can't imagine raising a child without electricity. At least not in this county. How would his food and milk be refrigerated? Where would the energy come from to heat his bath water or wash his clothes and dishes? How many of his favorite toys and activities require a wall outlet or batteries? There would be no digital cameras to take his picture or vacuum cleaners to mitigate his messes. No cell phones to check in with his babysitter or Skype to chat with Grandma online. No electric fans for ambient noise, no air conditioners to keep cool and certainly no bathroom light switches to forget about.

It wasn't always this easy. The overwhelming bulk of world history pre-dates Thomas Edison's invention of the first commercially practical light bulb in 1879. With the exception of the last 130 years, every human civilization has been "in the dark" so to speak. There were no spotlights for the stage performances of ancient Greece or floodlights for the construction of China's Great Wall. The artists and revolutionaries of the Renaissance and Protestant Reformation did their work without any "power." From the ancient Egyptians to 19th-century European colonialism, empires rose and fell without so much as a mouse click. Sure, there were candles, lanterns and flames of varying sizes, but those would also be perfectly acceptable light sources for a measly hour without electricity tomorrow night.

So what exactly will I do with myself for 60 odd minutes of electricity-free darkness? At our house, 8:30 pm is usually when the TV, computer, dishwasher, microwave, DVD player and washing machine are all in use. As any parent knows, the time between your kid's bedtime and your own is very precious; hence the habitual consumption-fest. Earth Hour, for all of its simplicity, will change all of this, if only for one night. Since there will be no blogging, Facebook, YouTube, Amazon, craigslist, fantasy baseball, channel-surfing or microwave popcorn during this sacred hour, I might actually have to unplug my brain and interact with another human being the old-school way. Maybe we'll play cards, drink tea, tell stories or just quietly enjoy the solidarity with other darkened homes.

To the cynics who think this event is pure pageantry and does little to make a difference in reducing carbon emissions, say what you will. Exercise your energy guzzling rights for all I care. For me, Earth Hour is a timely reminder not only of my dependence on electricity and technology, but also the responsibility and stewardship required to use them well. That I'm a middle class American should not entitle me to frivolous energy consumption, even if I do "pay" for it every month. If renowned structures like Sydney's Opera House, Rome's Colosseum, the Empire State Building and even (oh yes) Manila's SM Mall of Asia can shut off their lights for just one Saturday night hour, I don't see why our household shouldn't do the same.

Joining Facebook: Will I Regret It?

2009-03-14T23:44:00.010-10:00

When I first began this blog exactly one year ago today, I reflected on why I wasn't quite ready for Facebook yet. For a variety of reasons, I decided to try blogging first since it seemed better suited to my goals and interests at the time. And while I have no regrets about the growth and enjoyment I've experienced through blogging, I've also been thinking a lot about whether or not to join Facebook, pondering the pros and cons for months on end. If you can't imagine why someone would have cold feet about something as prevalent as Facebook (over 175 million active users worldwide), perhaps I seem needlessly paranoid or at the very least, inconsistent in my approach to risk-taking. After all, if I'm willing to drive on slippery roads at night, eat fast food and use a credit card to shop online, what's so terrifying about Facebook? My thought process usually goes something like this:

1. Gee, it sure would be interesting to find out what some of my friends from high school and college are up to nowadays. It seems pretty clear that Facebook is the best way to accomplish this.

2. But what about the unintended consequences of releasing private information into the nebulous expanse of cyberspace? What if I or someone I know posts something that comes back to haunt me someday? What if it costs me a job opportunity, a friendship or worse? Besides, I've survived just fine without Facebook all these years so why should I join now?

3. Then again, I'm only kidding myself if I'm expecting to stay in touch with people only through e-mails, phone calls and a blog that no one reads. I don't even have the contact info for many of the wonderful people who used to be my closest friends.

4. But what about not-so-wonderful co-workers, classmates, relatives and acquaintances who I don't really want to include? Do I really want to put myself in a position where I have to blatantly ignore/refuse their "friendship" requests? Are the risks of online social networking worth the benefits?

5. I'll bet more people would read my blog if I joined Facebook.

6. Sure, but more people could steal my identity too while they're at it.

7. That's not likely to happen if I take the proper precautions. What it really boils down to is this question: Which would I regret more, joining or not joining? And If I were to join, how much time would it take to "do it right?" Furthermore, do I want to be the kind of person who spends copious amounts of time maintaining a slick online personality?

8. Maybe it would just be better to resist the trendy bandwagon and thereby avoid these lingering questions. This Facebook thing sounds time-consuming in addition to being somewhat risky and possibly very addictive.

9. Okay. So I guess I won't be joining Facebook then.

10. Gee, I wonder what so-and-so is up to these days.

Well guess what? I finally joined Facebook today. Go figure.

Book Review: The Future of Faith in American Politics

2009-03-09T16:39:00.007-10:00

What comes to mind when you think of the relationship between evangelicals and American politics? Fervent opposition to abortion and gay marriage? The convolution of God and Country? Culture wars and single-issue litmus tests? Whatever the prevailing image, it can probably be characterized more by partisan reaction than carefully nuanced, non-partisan reflection.

Piggybacking on the groundswell of opposition to George W. Bush's policies on issues like torture, climate change and the Iraq War, numerous books in recent years have critiqued the strong ties between evangelical Christianity and the Republican Party. Among the most influential of these bestsellers has been God's Politics by Jim Wallis, which captured this wave of frustration and energized a younger generation of Christians (myself included) to pursue social justice and fight global poverty. Wallis has often proclaimed the decline of hard-line social conservatism with phrases like, "the monologue of the Religious Right is over." But with 74% of evangelicals voting for John McCain in 2008, is American Christianity really shifting from right to left or is something more subtle and less reactionary taking place?

Evangelical scholar David Gushee, Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics at Mercer University, argues for the latter in The Future of Faith in American Politics: The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center (Baylor Press, 2008). He begins with a thoughtful and dispassionate survey of the political spectrum within evangelicalism: right, left and center. With surgical precision and refreshingly independent sensitivity, Gushee dissects and examines the strengths, flaws, key figures and organizations comprising each perspective. Based on his analysis of the evangelical right (including James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention among others) and evangelical left (Wallis, and influential author/speakers Tony Campolo and Brian McLaren), Gushee observes that both camps lack the independence to offer a biblically consistent approach to political engagement.

Gushee concludes most evangelicals do not identify with the either partisan extreme. As such, they increasingly seek to think holistically about a broader range of issues, transcending the polarizing dichotomies expressed on cable news and talk radio. While the vast majority of evangelicals still take conservative positions on gay marriage and abortion rights, traditionally "liberal" concerns like reducing poverty, defending human rights, fighting HIV/AIDS, expanding health care access and promoting environmental responsibility have become important factors in the discussion. Pointing to the work of "centrists" like Ron Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, Gary Haugen of International Justice Mission, Rich Stearns of World Vision and Joel Hunter of Northland Church, Gushee makes a strong case that the moderate middle is the most fertile place for biblical reflection, inclusive dialogue and critical thinking to occur in the coming years.

What makes this book stand out from other works of its genre is a steadfast commitment to both political independence and Christian civility. Although Gushee and Wallis voice many of the same critiques of the evangelical right, Gushee is not preoccupied with vilifying Dobson and Pat Robertson or stirring up anti-Republican umbrage. The solution to a conservative imbalance is not a counter flood of liberal talking points, but a fiercely consistent allegiance to a different Kingdom altogether. For those who buy into the caricature that all evangelicals take their political marching orders from right-wing extremists, televangelists and Republican political operatives, the book reveals persuasive evidence to the contrary. Others may dismiss the concept of evangelical balance and moderation as the height of oximoronic naivete, but Gushee contends that loud voices on the extremes have actually deepened the movement toward a more thoughtful and deliberately independent centrism.

If you are hoping to be told (directly or indirectly) who Jesus would vote for, Gushee will disappoint you. If you want partisan ideology cloaked in religious language or political strategies for how to attract evangelical voters, this book is not for you. But if you're looking for tools and principles to biblically grapple with the thorniest public policy issues of our time, The Future of Faith in American Politics is a must-read. Even if you only read the sub-chapter addressing the tangled moral and ethical web created by the debate over gay marriage, those insights alone are worth the cost of the book. Those looking for a sober and reasonable introduction to the world of faith and politics will be inspired by Gushee's Christ-centered passion for justice and truth.

Simply stated, this is the best book I've read on the relationship between evangelical Christianity and American politics; a feast for the mind and heart. Gushee is a master at synthesizing scholarly observation with passionate biblical conviction and reflective humility in a way that is engaging, persuasive and leaves you hungering for a better world. Christians of all stripes: right and left, young and old, hopeful and cynical, engaged and apathetic, have something to learn from this groundbreaking work. Those seeking to understand the full spectrum of evangelical politics, including both the truth and hyperbole behind the stereotypes, will value this insightful and compelling look at the way forward.

The Feud Rages On: Five Questions for Calvinists and Emergents

2009-02-19T06:55:00.019-10:00

Calvinists and Emergents are like two relatives at the evangelical Thanksgiving dinner table that just don't get along. They tend to sit at opposite ends of the table, conversing with family members who are strategically seated nearby, but they have next to nothing positive to say about each other. Some within the family have sympathies that clearly lie with one side, while others think they both are clearly wrong. One thing's for sure: they drive each other nuts.

There are plenty of competing theological streams and subcultures within the evangelical spectrum, but there's something especially frosty about the relationship between the New Calvinists, which I'm defining as the "Young, Restless, Reformed" movement described in Collin Hansen's book of the same title, and the Emerging Church movement, which has been more loosely defined in various ways, but is nonetheless recognizable by its disillusionment with mainstream contemporary Christianity, both ecclessiologically and politically. Want to know what's wrong with the Emerging Church movement? A New Calvinist will readily supply a robust list of its shortcomings. Want to vent about how you were burned by your experience in a Reformed church setting? Post-modern/post-evangelical Christianity will enthusiastically welcome you into their fold.

As is the case with all intra-religious disdain, the antagonism on both sides manifests itself in forms ranging from constructive critique at best to ad hominem attacks or worse. Escalating these dynamics is the fact that Reformed/New Calvinists and Missional/Emergents both maintain a very active blogosphere presence. This is a two-sided coin, offering unprecedented opportunities for productive dialogue as well as a steady supply of fodder to fan the flames of hostility. You may have noticed that my list of favorite blogs includes at least 3 from each camp. I haven't heard too many others who agree with me, but I believe each side has a valuable contribution to offer as part of the broader evangelical landscape (I wrote about this 9 months ago).

If you're wondering what prompted me to revisit this evangelical family feud for the third time in the past 9 months, there has been quite the blogosphere buzz of late surrounding words exchanged by Scot McKnight (whose Jesus Creed is one of my favorite blogs in the emerging movement) and Justin Taylor (whose Between Two Worlds is one of my favorite Reformed blogs). It all began with McKnight's blurb promoting N.T. Wright's forthcoming book on justification in which McKnight accuses what he calls the "neo-Reformed" of being "more committed to tradition than to the sacred text." Needless to say, Taylor and other Calvinists were taken aback by these strong words and felt they were being caricatured with too broad a brush. Telling Calvinists that their view of Scripture is too low is like telling a vegetarian they don't care enough about eating healthy. On his blog, McKnight has attempted to clarify (part 1 and part 2) his critique of the "neo-Reformed" while another of my favorite bloggers, Michael Spencer (Internet Monk) posted his thoughts yesterday in support of McKnight's view. The Calvinist vs. Emergent flames have ignited once again and the comments have been abundant on all 3 sites.

Instead of picking a winner in this latest blogosphere skirmish or discussing the merits and flaws of each viewpoint, I would like to propose some sort of Calvinist-Emergent peace summit where diplomatic talks can take place. I have suggested five questions that, if answered in the affirmative, could begin to ease family tensions. If someone as liberal as Jim Wallis and a former Bush speechwriter like Mike Gerson can co-found an advocacy group to address poverty, there is still hope for mutual respect and collaboration between evangelicals of different stripes.

5 Questions for Emergent Christians

1. Can you name a Calvinist writer/thinker who has written a book you consider to be a helpful and worthwhile read?

2. Can you name a complementarian writer/thinker who you consider to be a faithful follower of Jesus?

3. Can you name a public policy issue on which your views are at odds with the Democratic Party's general platform?

4. Can you name something you appreciate about either J.I. Packer or John Piper?

5. Can you name something that concerns you about either Brian McLaren or Rob Bell?

Five Questions for Calvinist Christians
1. Can you name an Arminian writer/thinker who has written a book that you consider to be a helpful and worthwhile read?
2. Can you name an egalitarian writer/thinker who you consider to be a faithful evangelical Christian?
3. Can you name a public policy issue on which your views are at odds with the Republican Party's general platform?
4. Can you name something you appreciate about either Dallas Willard or Eugene Peterson?
5. Can you name something that concerns you about either John MacArthur or Mark Driscoll?

Ode to Blue Beast

2009-02-15T22:09:00.020-10:00

This week, I'm getting the timing belt replaced on my beloved 1994 Honda Accord DX, who prefers to be called "Blue Beast." It seems like yesterday when Blue Beast was tenderly purchased (with what little tender us newlyweds could afford) in Rochester, New York with a mere 84,000 miles on her odometer. Five and a half years later, her milage has doubled to more than 175,000 which means that it's time for her third (and final?) timing belt. This auspicious milestone provides as good of an opportunity as any to croon my undying devotion.

(Sing to the tune of "On top of Old Smoky")

O marvelous Blue Beast,
My faithful Accord
The height of your beauty
Was back in '94

Your looks have since faded
From "good" down to "fair"
With "racing stripes" fashioned
By hot solar glare

Like all other stick shifts
Or "manual trans"
Your clutch pedal makes for
Left-footed demands

You've been to Mount Rushmore
And the Golden Gate Bridge
You crossed the Pacific
In a big metal "fridge"

(ok, so the container wasn't refrigerated, but anything to make it rhyme!)

My grimy face beamed when
I first changed your oil
To fuel-sipping imports
I'll always be loyal

With hubcaps from Wal-mart
And high beams so bright
You brought home my firstborn
His seat buckled tight

Despite rust encroaching
On your 15-year-old frame
I'll love you forever
Long as Blue Beast's your name

Lakers Beat the Celtics! (Only 8 Months Too Late)

2009-02-06T18:29:00.004-10:00

Now that football season is over, it's time for the sports world's spotlight to shift to the greatest game of all: hoops. With March Madness less than 6 weeks away and the NBA schedule starting to heat up, it's my favorite time of year to be a sports fan. Over the next several months, I'm looking forward to the sweet sounds of sneakers squeaking, rims rattling, nets swishing and coaches screaming from the sidelines in their Armani suits.

Last night, 4.3 million viewers watched the Los Angeles Lakers 110-109 overtime thriller over the Boston Celtics, making it the most watched NBA regular season game on TNT since 1996. In case you've forgotten, that was when the Michael Jordan era was at its peak. Due in large part to the renewed Lakers-Celtics rivalry, the NBA is officially back as both a source of compelling entertainment as well as premier-level basketball. I was fortunate enough to catch the second half of the game, which was a basketball junkie's dream thanks to barrage of fourth quarter 3-pointers nailed by the cold-blooded Kobe Bryant, silencing the jeers of a hostile Boston crowd. While the team could have played a lot better (only 59% free throw shooting) and the razor-thin margin of victory was too close for comfort, a win is still a win. The significance? Combined with their 92-83 Christmas Day victory at Staples Center, L.A. sweeps the season series between the two teams which means they now hold the tiebreaker for home court advantage in case they happen meet up in the NBA Finals again (I have a funny feeling they will).

For Lakers fans like yours truly who were still bitter from the memory of last year's Finals meltdown against the Celtics, especially the merciless 39-point blowout in the series-clinching Game 6, the payback was sweet. There aren't too many things I'd rather do on a Thursday night than watch Kobe stick 3-point jumpers with Paul Pierce's hand in his face. It was particularly encouraging to witness outstanding performances from both Pau Gasol (24 points, 14 rebounds) and Lamar Odom (20 points including 2 clutch free throws with 16 seconds left), two players who were badly outplayed against Boston last year. Critics of the Lakers often accuse them of being "too soft" (a fair point), but last night, the purple and gold showed they have enough muscle to hold their own against their arch rivals from Beantown.

While last night's victory came 8 months too late to wipe away the missed opportunities of 2008, it's clear the Lakers are not taking anything for granted this time around. As icing on the cake, it was nice to see them end Boston's' 12-game winning streak, doing it without presence of 21-year-old phenom Andrew Bynum, who hopes to return from a knee injury right before the playoffs begin in April. At the beginning of this season, the Celtics were cruising through their schedule as questions swirled about whether L.A. had the physical or mental toughness to de-throne the defending champions. Those questions are no longer being asked.

Without a hint of fan bias, I can proudly declare the Lakers are the team to beat.

For now, anyway.

Simple Pleasures: Some Thoughts on Growing Old

2009-01-29T21:38:00.008-10:00

“The great thing about getting older is that you don't lose all the other ages you've been.” - Madeleine L'Engle

This past week, one of my classes featured a guest speaker, Dr. Michael Cheang, who is an expert in the field of aging and gerontology. While he certainly could have used his time to deliver a scholarly lecture or powerpoint slide show full of data, Dr. Cheang chose to engage the class with a series of interactive role-playing activities to help us future social workers understand some of the challenges faced by the elderly, often due the ignorance of their own family members.

When I hear the term “elder abuse,” my mind immediately jumps to images of negligent nursing aides in a care home who fail to take proper care of Grandpa or sinister con artists who steal Grandma’s identity over the phone. Interestingly enough, it’s actually the people who are closest to you who are most likely to be guilty of elder abuse, not unlike domestic abuse and violent crime. I was astonished to realize how often families make life-changing decisions for an elderly parent without even asking the parent for permission or taking the time to find out how they feel about the change. In the rush to "fix" the situation, it seems everyone forgets to ask the elderly what they want.

Too often, assumptions are made about medical conditions, nursing homes and end of life decisions that are based more on fear than fact. If a teenager loses his glasses, we conclude that he is irresponsible. If 45-year-old can’t find his glasses, we reckon he must be very busy. But if a 70-year-old loses his glasses, the best explanation is that he’s probably senile. We assume that being forgetful is the same thing as memory loss. But it’s not. We assume that since Grandma can no longer drive or hear the phone ring, she needs to be placed in a nursing home. But she doesn’t. We assume that Grandpa wants a feeding tube to prolong his life. But he doesn’t. This is no way to treat our kupuna.

Instead of viewing the elderly as a population that can offer wisdom, perspective and sense of humor, we unfairly characterize them as out of touch, unattractive and objects of ridicule. “Humorous” stereotypes of grumpy and clueless grannies from movies and TV commercials haven’t helped either. Young is good. Old is bad. Wrinkles and silver hair are seen as flaws that have to be minimized or concealed, especially for women, who are expected to look a certain way in order to be taken seriously.

Our society is afraid of aging.

If this is true, we won't be able to hide from our fears much longer. By the time I retire, the life expectancy in this country is projected to be at 85 years or more. One out of every five Americans will be over 65. Close to one-third of the lifespan will be spent post-retirement. The number of elders who are 85 and older could quadruple over the next 50 years. These dramatic demographic shifts will certainly create daunting challenges: soaring medical costs and demand for long-term care, heavier tax burdens on the workforce, caregiver shortages and the depletion of Social Security. At the same time, my hope is that these realities will also force us to acknowledge, respect and value our elders, whose dignity and wisdom are assets to society, not liabilities.

One of the most memorable parts of Dr. Cheang’s presentation was when everyone in the class was asked to create a list of 5 simple pleasures they currently enjoy as part of their routine: brewing coffee every morning, reading the paper, sitting in a favorite chair, playing with a pet, gardening on the weekends, etc. If you must know, mine were 1) checking sports box scores and recaps online, 2) listening to NPR in the car, 3) eating jello before bedtime, 4) reading scattered chapters of unfinished nonfiction books and 5) watching Jeopardy on the days I make it home in time. These are the simple pleasures I take for granted.

Once everyone had written a personal list, Dr. Cheang instructed us to cross out the first three things from it. He informed us that a day will come when we will no longer be able to enjoy these things in our old age. Moans and groans erupted from all corners of the classroom. What??!! No more internet access, NPR or jello? It’s difficult to imagine survival without these necessities, but this is what happens to the elderly as many of their most treasured activities are taken from them. It should not be a surprise that elderly folks actually want the exact same things that are valued by the rest of us. Dignity. Respect. Companionship. A sense of home. The freedom to make independent choices.

And of course, the ability to enjoy life's simple pleasures.