Have you seen the TV show Firefly? Firefly was a wonderful show by Joss Whedon that no one watched (he also did Buffy the Vampire Slayer—don’t let the weirdness detract from the show’s quality). It was cancelled before they had even aired all of the completed episodes. The few people who did watch it, however, formed just about the most dedicated fan base I’ve ever seen. They held a convention and even bought advertising trying to bring the show back. That didn’t happen, but they did help score a major motion picture called Serenity. I proudly count myself as one of those fans.

Tonight I watched Joss Whedon’s DVD commentary on the movie. It was fantastic! He continues to teach me how to tell stories both through his commentaries and through his work itself. Towards the end of the movie, as the character “Mal” finally achieves his goal,” Joss goes philosophical:

“This is the most important line, ‘I’m going to show you a world without sin,’ in the film to me because, obviously, the film is really about something. It’s about the right to be wrong, it’s about the idea that you cannot impose your way of thinking on somebody even if your way of thinking is more enlightened and ‘better’ than their’s, it’s simply not how human beings are.”

Amen! I’ll go straight to my favorite topic: evangelism. If a would-be evangelist tries to force their faith into a person’s life, it’s wrong (and therefore not really evangelism.) For that matter, if the evangelist tries to force religion into a conversation, it’s wrong. That is why separation of church and state is so important. Unless every single person believes in exactly the same way (never has been, never will be), then one person’s beliefs shouldn’t be forced on everyone. Freedom (as Americans define the word) means being able to think however you want, even if it’s ‘wrong.’ Joss continues:

“You take that further and you say the idea of sin is in fact outmoded, is in fact more archaic than anything Mal believes in. When he says, ‘I’m a fan of all seven [sins]…’ he’s saying that sin is just what people are. It’s been codified, it’s been given a name, but all of those things we take as false are also the source of pleasure and decency and we should, perhaps, rethink it.”

I love you, Joss, but here you lose me. My problem isn’t in your philosophy; it’s in your definition of the word “sin.” The ethics of Firefly/Serenity and the show’s concept of “sin” are very complex; I would love to write more on them sometime. The definition of sin referred to here is a definition that is all too common these days… Christians as a whole have harped so much on right behavior that people now label anything fun or enjoyable as “sin.” Think of a group of people going out to party responsibly—even with designated drivers—saying, “Let’s be sinful!” I think the most common place for this attitude, not surprisingly, is in the bedroom. How many references do we see in our society that say any type of physical love is “naughty,” “being bad,” or—wait for it—“sinful.” Premarital sex and other abuses are wrong, I’ll give you that. But other types of “fun” are part of what it means to be human.

(Why do we humans so enjoy rebellion, anyway? Even when we’re not rebelling, we like to think that we are! Another blog, another time.)

Joss is right to challenge this view. In that last line or two, though, he says that “all of those things we take as false are also the source of pleasure and decency…” The distinction is between what we take as false versus what is actually false. I love how Shirley Guthrie says that sin is precisely what God did NOT create. Sin, that which is truly false, is where we make choices that are apart from God. We often convince ourselves those things are enjoyable, but in our hearts we know they’re not. On the other hand, things that are both enjoyable and healthy, even if we ‘take them to be false,’ are not only not sin, but they are indeed the source of pleasure and decency as Joss says.

Isn’t it interesting that the culture whose view of sin has been warped so often takes God to be false? I don’t want to read ideas into Joss Whedon’s words that he didn’t intend, but perhaps he stumbled onto something great when he said, “those things we take as false are also the source of pleasure and decency.”

Isn’t it wonderful that our society has secularized Christmas?

The days when our culture was so strongly shaped by the Christian faith were bound to pass. It happened because of societal forces larger than any one person or group. Sooner or later our society was going to become secularized.

Now, Christmas has developed into a gift-giving, family-visiting holiday. Stores start putting up Christmas displays after Halloween. (pause to appreciate irony) People rush to stores to fight crowds and spend money to buy things that aren’t needed. Inevitably, they get fed up with all this consumerism, and pause to remember the “reason for the season.”

For many, this is the only religion they get all year.

If the popularity of the Christmas holiday had fallen away with Christendom, those people might not get any religion at all. But as it stands, many who would be completely sheltered from the gospel get at least one message per year. Some people who would otherwise live in complete secularity (new word?) even go to church once a year.

For Christians, perhaps the “reason for the season” needs a new addition: evangelism. Christmas is just about the only time many people would even think of setting foot in a church. It’s also an invaluable opportunity to share the gospel in non-threatening ways. (“Say, do you know why candy canes are shaped like that?”)

Is God in our secularized Christmas? You bet. Christmas is indeed the time to celebrate the God on earth—not only in Jesus, but in the Body of Christ.

Merry Christmas to ALL.

A couple of weeks ago, my girlfriend Amy and I had a “date night.”  It was Amy’s birthday, so we had a good excuse to cancel/turn down other appointments that night.  We went to dinner at Kona Grill on the Plaza and then went to see Serenity at the Plaza movie theater.  It was so refreshing!  It felt almost like we were different people, a different couple—our true selves.

There have been days where Amy and I have spent every waking moment together.  Even on days where conflicting class schedules keep us apart for a few hours, we still spend every moment we can together.  Often times we do fun things together like watch movies or go somewhere for dinner.  Why was it so different on Amy’s birthday?

—

I pray a lot.  I pray while walking down the hall.  I pray in the shower.  I pray while driving down the street (I think God understands when I pause for traffic.)  I pray when I read.  I pray when I write.  I carry symbols of God around in my pocket to remind me to pray.  Sometimes the prayer is with spoken words, sometimes with words in my head.  Sometimes I pray with actions, sometimes I pray by simply being aware that God is present.  This is what I think praying “without ceasing” (1 Thessalonians 5:17) means for me: spending every waking moment with God.

—

There’s something about spending “set apart” time with someone.  When Amy and I spend time together on normal days, it helps build our relationship.  It is a true blessing that we can share so much of our moment-to-moment lives with each other.  But those moments aren’t about each other; those moments spent together are about reading books and writing papers and processing our experiences in ministry and with the seminary.  When the time is “set apart,” those moments are about us and us alone.  It makes all the difference in the world.

—

Amy and I have another “date night” scheduled for tonight.  We’ve been carefully guarding our schedule ever since we planned it last week; we both need the night not only for our relationship, but also for our own refreshment and sustenance.  Today at lunch, Amy realized she had told someone she would be somewhere right in the middle of our planned time this evening.  I understood, but I was crushed with disappointment.  Amy was not only disappointed, but also felt guilty for letting it happen.

I walked my dog afterward, trying to sort out my disappointment and my anger—not at Amy, but at the whole situation we’re in with such high stress levels and busy schedules and all.  I couldn’t help but think about all the times I’ve postponed or cancelled my daily devotional time—my time “set apart” for God.  It’s really no different than “date night…”  It’s one thing to spend every waking moment with God, it’s quite another to set time apart to be only a child of God, nothing else.

I wondered if God felt the disappointment and anger that I was feeling.

—

Amy cancelled the appointment she had forgotten about.  We’ll probably have dinner then go see a late movie.

I just finished watching the movie Constantine. The geek in me was hoping for a movie about the Roman emperor and the rise of Christendom, but oh well. As it turns out, the movie is about John Constantine, a man with exceptional abilities who is caught quite literally in the middle of a very literal battle between God and Satan.

I will forgive the movie’s overly dramatic moments since it comes out of the increasingly present “dark comic book” genre. I rather enjoy a little of that. I’m not going anywhere near it’s theology, though…

What the movie did for me was to remind me of one of the theological battles currently engaged in open warfare in my head: Is there an actual evil being that tempts us, etc.? What of the existence of so-called demons? Are they real beings or are they metaphors?

Like many, I grew up believing that there was. Like many, such beliefs are often challenged in seminary. After learning about the nature of the Hebrew Bible character “Satan” and of Sheol, I realized that the existence of the devil we know and hate didn’t come about until New Testament times. That struck me as fishy right there. Add to that the nature of the apocalyptic genre of literature (including Daniel and Revelation,) and the devil starts to look a little different. I also know that much of what we THINK we know about Satan comes from authors such as Milton or Dante or from the writers of Constantine—NOT from scripture. The common interpretation of the “fallen angel” passage in Isaiah doesn’t sit well with me, either. (Never mind the Gabriel character in the movie…)

Shirley Guthrie, in his attempt to summarize reformed/protestant doctrine in “Christian Doctrine” talks about both the literal and metaphorical views. Almost no support is given for a literal interpretation of the devil, though the implications are explored. His explanation of the metaphorical side is also not as comprehensive as I would like. To greatly summarize, he says that since God is completely good, God could never create evil. Evil is precisely that which God did NOT create. Since God created/creates all beings (including so-called fallen angles), then how can there be an evil being?

Another problem in my mind is grace. The existence of a completely evil being implies that such a being is separated from God’s grace. “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38-39 TNIV) Sure Paul is referring to humans here, but surely the same love applies to whatever existence there is beyond us?

Indeed I fight the battle with sin every day. But is it the devil I fight or some sort of demon? Or is it my own sinful nature? The “spiritual warfare” model of thinking is often helpful, but I must admit I’m beginning to think it’s more metaphorical than literal.

But then what are we do with Jesus’ exorcisms (see title)? Other such Biblical accounts? Stories of modern day demons? I was talking to a trusted person a few months ago who said they had a demon, was prayed over, had a coughing fit, and had mental hang-ups disappear afterward. There are ways to argue interpretation of the afore mentioned scriptural passages, and you can always argue psychology with the modern story I heard, but both of those arguments quickly get uncomfortably fuzzy.

I haven’t told many people about this blog; I’m writing it more for my own good than for public debate. Still, I would welcome discussion on this topic if there’s anyone reading it…

If there’s not anyone reading it, then you can all go jump in a lake.

Idea #1: I’ve been reading Adam Hamilton’s latest book, “Selling Swimsuits in the Arctic.” It uses selling swimsuits in Barrow, Alaska as a metaphor for evangelism in a post-Christian culture. It’s a good book, looking past the usual shortcomings and dangers of the “business” model of ministry/evangelism.

Idea #2: I am at Licensing School right now to become a licensed Student Local Pastor in the United Methodist Church and today we talked about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

Neither of these two ideas are new to me, but exploring them both in one day led to an interesting train of thought. One of the problems with modern evangelism is that we tend to assume everyone has the same respect for the Bible that we do as Christians. It’s easy for us to open the Good Book, point to a passage, and say, “Don’t you get it?” Even if they understand how the passage applies to their lives, what reason do they have to trust a 1,900 plus-year-old book?

Paired with this is the tendency of many churches to have their people “check their brains” at the door. So many churches focus on emotion and feeling while neglecting the use of all those mental muscles God chose to give us. I have to admit that over the years many churches I’ve attended have tried pretty hard to push me away by not effectively engaging those muscles…

Many churches, mostly conservative ones it seems, take the approach of absolute inerrancy and literal interpretation of scripture. Now I’m certainly not saying scripture isn’t important, but is it right to take such a thought-less approach to the very word of God when God gave us each such remarkable brains?

Doubt, for instance, is a normal and healthy part of the growing process. If you take reason out of the picture, you’re requiring a bind faith. It tells would-be-Christians that their doubts are wrong and bad even though they’re really a normal part of the process. No wonder they don’t come back!

Here is were United Methodists (and other Wesleyan thinkers) have a special gift to offer the task of evangelism in a post-Christian culture: the concept commonly known as The Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

Scary name, isn’t it? Wesley never defined it himself, but by looking at his writings historians have figured out that Wesley held scripture as primary, but acknowledged that it was filtered through our experiences (oppressed people read Jesus’ message differently than do the elite), informed by tradition (thinking about God didn’t start with us, we have several millennia of other thinkers we can “talk” to), and confirmed by reason (does our interpretation make sense, is it compatible with the other things God teaches?). Four sides to the quadrilateral, get it? Scripture first, but also experience, tradition (the experience of others), and reason.

If we are to teach a new generation the value of the Bible, then we have to teach them to think about it. “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” is only part of the picture; by itself, it is not enough. Non-Christians and existing Christians alike must use their God-given reasoning abilities to explore the “how” and the “why” of the Bible if their faith is to be full and firm.

There’s something to be said, I suppose, for the blind faith many take toward scripture. But how much stronger is our faith when God heals the blindness of our faith and opens our eyes to every way God is revealed to us!

We must explore God’s revelation not only in the Bible, but also God’s revelation in our lives, God’s revelation in the lives of others, and God’s revelation in our very minds.

Is it just me, or does that not put United Methodists in a very special place for evangelism? Here stands a world that desperately needs Christ, but that can’t get past the formidable mental road blocks. Here stands United Methodism with a bulldozer.

As our Kansas Bishop, Scott Jones, is fond of saying, God’s will is where our gifts and the needs of the world intersect.

Have you ever noticed how many new United Methodist churches downplay their denomination? Many have the church’s name in great big letters then, in tiny letters below it, “(a United Methodist church)”.

I suppose the main reason for that is because it’s no longer “cool” to be part of a mainline denomination. The perception is that mainline churches are all mired in the 50s and have all been in decline for half a century; why would anyone want to be a part of that?

Sadly, I think that’s a pretty accurate analysis of the way we see our church. I’d like to offer an additional idea, though.

I’m just finishing my first year in seminary. Our seminary is unique from many others in that it welcomes people from any religious tradition, even in some cases non-Christian. It is a Christian, United Methodist seminary, but others are welcome if they want to study what we have to offer. We have a good number of Presbyterians, Lutherans, and even Unitarian Universalists who choose to earn their degree here. I think it’s wonderful that we have diverse viewpoints here; it betters all of our educations.

Now remember this is just the rambling of a first-year student, but sometimes it seems to me that classes go so far in accommodating varying viewpoints that they fall away from theology they are supposed to uphold. At times it seems like we’re taught a sort of “generic theology” that only very carefully address Christ or the Holy Spirit.

Often times it’s most striking when a professor prays before or after class in a more Trinitarian way and all of the sudden the air comes alive with the Spirit. Maybe it’s best that way, so that students are free to form their own theologies.

But I keep going back to the signs at the entrances to the parking lots—the ones that say, “A United Methodist Seminary.”

Could it be that we’re all afraid to offend anyone with our views? Could we be so “politically correct” that we swallow our opinions for fear of disagreement?

Could our declining denomination be so afraid of losing people that we shy away from saying anything that anyone, anywhere might disagree with?

We’ll never get anywhere denying who we are and what we believe. If someone is “lost” because they decide they’re better off Presbyterian, good for them!

I am a United Methodist by choice. Personally, I believe that John Wesley has much to offer the twenty-first century, and I’m proud that God has given us diverse ways to understand divine truth. I proudly wear my cross and flame pin every Sunday.

May God’s prevenient grace help us to see our errors as we remember our salvation through Christ and continue moving on to perfection.

“What about the wonder and possibility of being simply and utterly in love, the only reason being that once upon a time before a burning bush the One Who Is said, “I Am who Am!” The bush still burns. What about our love? How
bright is the flame?”