« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »

May 25, 2006

Hammer. To. Head.

I don't know who this Stephen Van Dop guy is at Vineyard Columbus, but he brought the word. A word that I've heard many times, I know, but it just seems especially poignant right now. Based on the text of Matthew 5:17-20:

Jesus says, "I make no ranking among the commandments; they all stand as God's commands in our lives. If you're interested in living out life as it was meant to be, you need to live out all the Law and the Prophets, to all the commands that I've given to you."

And as Jesus makes this point, he presses it one step further by focusing in on teachers, and leaders, and parents. He speaks to those of us, as he spoke to those kinds of people back then, who have influence over someone else. Whether they're younger, or whether they're a peer, he speaks directly to those of us who have the capacity to educate other people, or to lead other people in some capacity - or as a parent, to raise up children - and he gives us a warning that we dare not miss.

He says, "If you neglect the least of these commandments," - using the language of Jewish leaders of the day, do you see that? - "if you neglect the least of these commandments, even if you neglect the lightest of the light category, and you undermine the faith of someone younger in the faith, you're in trouble with God. You're in trouble with God!"

You see, Jesus understood that followers of leaders, students of teachers, children of parents - while they pay attention to the words that we say, what really makes the mark on their life is what we do. Oh sure, they listen to our words, and our words are important, but what they're really looking for - those who follow us, those of you who are teachers, leaders, parents, what they are really looking for is whether our actions are matching up to our words. When there is a mismatch, when that fails to occur, we run the risk of washing them right off of the very foundations of their faith, of participating in a destructive act in their life.

I can't be reminded of that enough. None of us can, really.

Posted by Chuck at 10:18 AM | TrackBack

May 21, 2006

Big-Time Internet Theologian!

This ell-jay is absolutely HILARIOUS.

Chad Orzel provided the link with this clip-and-save reference guide to groups within Christianity that you probably DON'T want to show your pastor (even though I think I'm gonna show mine). And this faux Q&A on The da Vinci Code has absolutely hooked me.


Q: What does all this have to do with Jesus? Or, for that matter, Leonardo Da Vinci?
A: The premise of the book is that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and that the two had children, who passed along Jesus' bloodline through generations of French people. Leonardo was the member of a secret brotherhood of painters who protected this secret by painting pictures of men that look like ladies.

Q: Isn't this more or less a straight rip from the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"?
A: No! Ha ha! How silly of you even to mention that very obscure work! Next question...

Q: Okay, let's put the Unpopular Gospels aside for a second. If Brown's book is based on factual events, what evidence does he have for the marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene?
A: Oh, you know...sources.

Q: So, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"?
A: Yes. "Holy Blood, Holy Grail."

Winner.

Posted by Chuck at 06:55 PM | TrackBack

May 16, 2006

Remembering how to live

The guy at the top of this page is Rich Nathan, the senior pastor of Vineyard Columbus, the church where I spent a lot of time in grad school. (I have a hard time saying I actually went there, I did have some relationship there, but there's so much in the life of that church I was totally disconnected from.)

I've been in the process of rediscovering Rich's teaching over the past year or so, and as I've come to the conclusion that I need to reestablish some spiritual disciplines in my life, I had the hammer-to-head realization that Rich's teaching probably ought to be the background noise, instead of some of the other background noises I've had running around my head of late.

So this morning's "background noise" is this message called Life As It Was Meant To Be [note: mp3 file of SUBSTANTIAL size] (I clicked on it thinking it was "Changing the Price Tags of Life", something decidedly less dangerous, but no, God always has to go for the gusto).

And there are a lot of words in here that are hammer-to-head stuff. This isn't just one hammer to the head, no. This is the same ball peen hammer pounding repeatedly.

...it is really commonplace, in the American church scene, to not expect life change as a result of somebody declaring themselves to be a Christian. We no longer expect people to be transformed. Isn't it the case that in so much of American Christianity, in so many of our lives, in so many churches, people don't seem to change at all? They seem to be exactly as they were, even as they profess Christ...?

Young adults will often ask this question: "Does the Gospel really change people's lives? Don't tell me theory, now, don't tell me about your great doctrines and your ideas. Does this message that you preach, does it actually change people's lives so they're different than they were without it...?"

I don't mean becoming a self-righteous prick, where you judge people who has a glass of wine or watches a PG-13 movie. But don't you expect, and doesn't the world expect, that if somebody calls themselves a Christian, they'll be nicer? A little kinder, a little more loving, a little less abrasive, a little more tolerant?

Don't we expect that people who call themselves Christians, over time, they become safe people? What do I mean by a safe person? I mean, you can trust them around your wife? Around your husband? I mean, you can trust them around your teenage son or daughter? You can trust them in a business deal, you don't have to be self-protective and watch out for everything? That this person is going to protect your interests? That they're safe with personal and private information, that it's not going to be spread all over the world?

Shouldn't we expect, over a period of time, that the Gospel would make safe people and safe churches?

That's what Jesus expects. He expects our lives to be changed by coming to him. That's what He expects. That's what He intends.

Now, many people who know me (or, rather, who see me in a school context, or in a church context, or what have you) might say that some of those things are true of me much of the time. And that's a good thing.

But the text of that message is the Sermon on the Mount, and the standard of behavior in the Sermon on the Mount is ridiculously high. It's not just "be a good guy, be a good ear, be somebody who people can trust - well, the people you like, anyway." It's "anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement." It's "settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court." It's "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." It's "do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

It's "love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you."

That is NOT easy stuff. That's NOT a simple standard of living to adhere to.

And, if I'm going to avoid that "hypocrite" territory, that is the standard I have to adhere to.

There are a bunch of sermons on that page. I'm going to progressively go through them in these coming days. If you're reading this, come along and listen to 'em with me. (Think of 'em as podcasts if you must.) No obligation, you can just know what's going to be running through my head these next few weeks.

Posted by Chuck at 08:50 AM | TrackBack

May 05, 2006

Why are MySpace and YouTube popular?

Now that the semester is over, and now that I have time and space to think about stuff, I've been trying to string together three or four coherent thoughts about this "grand unified theory of YouTube and MySpace" that appeared on Slate last week.

Both YouTube and MySpace fit the textbook definition of Web 2.0, that hypothetical next-generation Internet where people contribute as easily as they consume. Even self-described late adopters like New York's Kurt Andersen recognize that that by letting everyone contribute, these sites have reached a critical mass where "a real network effect has kicked in."

But the focus on the collaborative nature of these sites has been nagging at me. Sites like Friendster and Blogger that promote sharing and friend-making have been around for years with nowhere near the mainstream success. I've got a different theory. YouTube and MySpace are runaway hits because they combine two attributes rarely found together in tech products. They're easy to use, and they don't tell you what to do.

But here's what's bugging me: So much of the stuff that turns up on both looks like crap.

Please don't get me wrong - both are treasure troves. One of the things I'm looking forward to doing over this summer is the mindless fiddling of weaving through MySpace and finding the cool bands I hadn't neard of yet (please note the following: Paramore) or the bands who I haven't heard from in a while who are now doing something completely different (please also note the following: Brandtson). And if you hack around the blogosphere AT ALL, you cannot help but notice how much that YouTube gets linked, or how insanely easy it is to link YouTube (heck, it's so easy, I've even done it).

But it doesn't change the fact that 99% of what you find on MySpace are way-too-emo kids (which I sympathize with, but it doesn't need to be reinforced) with way-too-ugly pages (which, frankly, sends me completely over the edge), and 99% of what you find on YouTube is horribly lip-synched or danced out stuff from people who think they're the next Star Wars Kid (always forgetting that Star Wars Kid never wanted to be Star Wars Kid in the first place).

I respect this about both sites: They do encourage community, and the community feeds off of itself. It is easier for me to reestablish contact with just about whoever now that I have a page on MySpace (yes, I have a page on MySpace, you are allowed to lose all respect for me now). There are so many cool tidbits you come across with YouTube (so much of the South Park stuff from the soon-to-be-legendary Scientology/Islam era is there...and people like Dean Esmay use the links, although I'm not sure that YouTube video still survives). And, because it's so easy to find people on MySpace, and it's so easy to post video and link video on a blog through YouTube, the sites are going to get used more and more.

(The above was not intended to be an obligatory trackback to Dean's World to get more traffic, but Dean's World is a wonderful blog and you should go read it now, thankee.)

But the simple question is: At what point does peer pressure begin to raise the level? How can we put pressure on such things to not just settle for crappy writing, or crappy video, but find pockets of goodness and get the goodness out there? Both sites, by allowing easy-access, open the door to a whole lot of people. But how do we then gently make a whole lot of people do a lot of things better?

I'm not sure that's quite coherent, but it's as coherent as I've been able to make the point yet, so I'm leaving it alone.

Which may yet be contributing to the problem and not the solution.

Posted by Chuck at 11:53 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack