SMITCHing

T here is no doubt that transformative power fills the New Testament. In fact, it fairly saturates it, and we're left with the question: Why the apparent discrepancy between the 21st and the 1st century church? Is the church now weak and sinful to such a degree that it is comparatively ineffective? The same might be asked of the Corinthians after reading Paul's first letter. Or the Ephesians ( led by Timothy) after reading of their Lord's warning in John's Revelation. Hmm , the first-century church, resplendent with transformative power seems a lot like the 21st century church in some quarters: practicing partisanship, embracing personality cults, indulging sexual immorality, and thriving as prideful doctrinaires who are good at religion, but lack any love for Jesus. What are to make of this? The answer lies with the Bible's writers. The New Testament writers were also editors, and while they reported sin as honestly as they reported the miraculous work of Jesus...

One of the pastors at my church, Beaverton Foursquare, is suffering from brain cancer. Bob is a Children's Pastors and a member of the senior staff. The doctors have done all they can, sending him home to be with his family and await his passing. I've been down this road a couple of times in the last four or five years. Men like Ron Mehl and Chuck Updike who have shepherded me have also succumbed to cancer, but this one hurts more. I'm not sure exactly why, but I do know that in some way Bob has gotten to me. And that's a good thing. The Scriptures talk of believers as the fragrance of Christ. With some, you only catch a faint whiff, but with others like Bob, the aroma is unmistakable. When you spent time with him, you knew you were with someone who unashamedly loved the Savior above all else. I first got to know Bob at a men’s retreat. He might not remember speaking, but his talk had a big impact on me. I was young, maybe 35, or so. Bob shared speaking duties that day ...

From a recent NYT article, quoted on The Sinner's Guide to the Evangelical Right: Ajinbayo Akinsiku wants the world to know Jesus Christ, just not the gentle, blue-eyed Christ of old Hollywood movies and illustrated Bibles. Mr. Akinsiku says his Son of God is “a samurai stranger who’s come to town, in silhouette,” here to shake things up in a new, much-abridged version of the Bible rooted in manga, the Japanese form of graphic novels. “We present things in a very brazen way,” said Mr. Akinsiku, who hopes to become an Anglican priest and who is the author of “The Manga Bible: From Genesis to Revelation.” “Christ is a hard guy, seeking revolution and revolt, a tough guy.” Publishers with an eye for evangelism and for markets have long profited by directing Bibles at niche markets: just-married couples, teenage boys, teenage girls, recovering addicts. Often the lure is cosmetic, like a jazzy new cover. Sales of graphic novels, too, have grown by double digits in recent years. ...

In the interests of full disclosure, This post is about a good friend's latest book, Consuming Jesus by Paul Louis Metzger. I studied with Dr. Metzger at Multnomah Biblical Seminary, and in the years since my graduate work there, we've become good friends and partners in the work of the Gospel. He argues that the divisions of race and class which plague us within North American evangelicalism are deeply ingrained in structures that are largely invisible to the average conservative American Christian. He continues by offering a theological model for overcoming barriers of race and class within the church. It is a well-sourced, well-written work, that's very accessible to the average pastor or informed lay leader. This is not a study attempting to jump on the latest emergent band wagon, nor is it a rehash of mid 20th century mainline social gospel concerns. It is a relatively short book that tackles a daunting subject with admirable depth. Check it out on amazon.com—or clic...

Bill Maher's argument is this: I don't know what happens after I die. Therefore, you can't know what happens after you die. Talk about an arrogant, unsupported assertion. I'll still see the film though, if for no other reason than to be able to affirmatively answer, when discussing his movie, the question, "Have you seen it?" I'm getting a little weary of "doubters" insisting we play on their non-metaphysical field. Maybe it's time to change the terms of the debate. This is all so 18th century!