Why things have become slow lately

Hello friends in the blogosphere!

For the past six months or so, I have taken the blogging a bit slower. I have moved to a new city, started a new ministry position (which keeps increasing in responsibility as God leads), and have become a full time student. Being full time in seminary and full time in ministry is truly a blessing, but also one that demands most of my time for the moment. I miss the daily interaction in the blogging world, but my spare time belongs to my wife! So, for the next several months I will be taking a break (with occasional interactions here and there) and will hopefully become re-engaged with blogging when time once again permits. For now, I am going to be developing a core team for a multisite campus I am launching out of our church, reading books for school, and hanging out with my gorgeous wife and silly puppies! Blessings to you who have truly become friends through this... and remember, I am a simple email away!

Future plans include possibly developing the Groans from Within podcast and possibly making this a collaborative blog with several voices that are adding value to the missional conversation.

Grace and Peace,

Kurt

Fundamentalism... Some Rants on Its Historical Development (repost)

This is a re-post from April of 2008:

I have been studying a bit on the origins of fundamentalist Christian faith in America (many of the following insights come from: UNGODLY WOMEN: Gender and the First Wave of American Fundamentalism; Betty DeBerg). This is a movement that emerged in the 1880's as a call back to Victorian family code values. Women are to organize the private sphere (home, church [which led to some feminizing in the church as women were the primary congregants], etc.) while men are to be competitive businessmen in the public sphere (all things public, politics, industry, etc.). When this system of separate spheres collapsed by women being liberated and allowed to enter into the public arena, Fundamentalism began as a movement to define a clear cut "moral code" that all should live by.

Male identity was being hurt by this move towards women's equality, and so men rose up to reclaim male dominance (which some would say was with some motives in 'self esteem' and finding a sense of manliness that had been threatened by this cultural shift).

In order to reclaim maleness, fundamentalism arose as a call that included a return to 'family values' and called women to embrace the godly calling of submissiveness. It also called the women to quit experimenting with sexual experiences outside of marriage, dancing, smoking... well, basically "flapperism." I would agree with many of the moral values that these and the new fundamentalist would put forth, but I think the way they went about it all has damaged Christian faith in the present.

In order to defend the 'moral code' that they were comfortable with, men in this movement began to do several things. They defeminized the church with militant themes (hmm, ever wonder where some of the modern impulse in right wing faith towards war came from?). They kicked women out of the pulpits (who many had taken leadership because of a lack of godly men who were too tied up with questionable public lives). They attacked the so-called modernists who began to rethink and challenge their assumptions about the Bible. They attacked any person or belief system that could be labeled as a threat to the defence of the 'moral code' that they claimed to be biblical. All of this, they did on the grounds that the Bible should be read in a "plain sense", taking the meaning that makes the most sense as we read it through our lens of culture (this apposed to a pre-modern understanding of Scripture as embedded in a very different cultural context that must not be ignored by proper biblical scholarship). This is why most of the early fundamentalists embraced dispensational theology, because it was based on setting up systems in the Bible so that it all made logical sense (this is where the "Left Behind" gets its view of end times from).

Well, what is my main point? I think that in an ignorant attempt to defend this new view of how to read the bible, driven by the need to preserve the ethics of the 'moral code' (a return to separate spheres mentality in order to allow men to feel manly again); that many unnecessary polarities have been constructed in Christian faith. For instance, why is evolution viewed as evil? Because it threatens the 'moral code' or the plain reading of the bible. Anyone who considers the first 11 chapters of Genesis are pre-history and that the first 3 chapters are written from an ancient worldview to express God's truth of creation and evil rather than as modern science, is automatically an evil liberal! So, instead of entering into intelligent dialogue about matters of faith and science, Christians are viewed as naive and irrelevant. So, what do these fundamentalists do? They claim that science is completely driven by atheism and if you believe in any form of evolution you must be a practical atheist... how ridiculous this has become! Science wars are divisive, and when a student is told their entire life that their faith rises and falls on whether God made the earth in 6 days or not, and then come to realize that the majority of scientist believe the earth to be billions of years old... many of these students lose their faith. This is one example of unnecessary polarities.

Finally, I want to call the average Christian to ask questions about their assumptions that were inherited by a late 19th Century reaction to a loss of male identity. Why do I believe this about life... or God... or the mission of the Gospel... or politics? Did I come to that conclusion because of inherited fundamentalism or because that is authentically what the Bible and the way of Jesus communicates? It is in finding new answers to some of these questions that the Church will find new ways of being the people of God in America.

Let me emphasize that these are some thoughts about the origins of the movement, but that other significant factors also existed that contributed to the formation of fundamentalism.

Please share your thoughts!

Youth miniStarZ: A video for anyone in Youth Ministry or who just likes to laugh!

This is a video a friend sent me about being in youth ministry! Tell me your thoughts!

(written by Benjamin Wallis for Student Life Camp 2009) Being a youth minister is hard work. Hard work that often, goes unthanked. so. THANK YOU ...)

http://babyguys.bandcamp.com/track/youth-mini-starz

Don't Forget to Take a Sword With You!

For the few months leading up to a class I took on the book of Luke, I listened the audio of Luke multiple times on my ipod as I drove to various places. It is interesting to me how much fresh insight you can gain when you hear the Scriptures as opposed to reading them. When I listen, I try to imagine that I am in one of the churches that Paul had planted or supported through his Apostolic ministry, and that I am hearing the text for the first time in one of our small house-church gatherings. I know that this is done with much naivety, for I know next to nothing about what it would be like to be a first century male living under the rule of the emperors. Nevertheless, I do all I can to hear the text with fresh ears.

As I did this with Luke’s gospel, I was struck by the odd dichotomy of verses about peace with verses about swords and violence. Why would Jesus say so much about peace and instruct his disciples to carry swords? Is Jesus a walking contradiction or is there more to the story? This semester, I learned that there is indeed more to the story.

The insight has to do with Luke 22.35-38:

35 Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" 
"Nothing," they answered. 36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." 38 The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." 
"That is enough," he replied.

On the surface, the above passage seems to be a contradiction to most of what Jesus has taught thus far in the gospel. However, this is when we need to take into account the language that is used here. Jesus tells his disciples after having enjoyed the Passover/ Last Supper together, that they will be facing a dark road ahead. In the past, Jesus had instructed them to not worry about taking anything with them such as: a purse, bag, or sandals because God would supply all that they need; however, this time around things will be different. Surely God will still be with them, but they need to be prepared for impending difficulty for the kingdom. Jesus will be handed over to be crucified, and animosity will surely come to the disciples now and in the near future (so much that Peter will deny Jesus on three separate occasions). In prior missionary endeavors, the disciples could expect hospitality, but now they will be met with animosity. Jesus tells them that they need to take a purse and bag with one addition; they will need to get a sword. Jesus will be handed over as the Scriptures foretold, and great frustration is awaiting them in the hours and days to come (even in Acts). The sword serves as a metaphor for the coming strife that they will face. But instead of understanding the metaphor, the disciples are so dense to what is about to happen that they take the idea literally! They actually grab two swords! But they Jesus answers them back again with, “That is enough” or as Joel B Green puts it, “Enough of this!” The way of the kingdom is difficult, and violence will not be returned with violence from Jesus followers. They must be ready to endure the coming persecution.

There are a few good arguments to defend this position. The first is that Jesus in all the gospels is known for his metaphorical and parabolic language. He seems to constantly use metaphors in his teaching, most of which would have made sense to the listener in the first century, but may have lost their impact in some ways to the modern reader. Second, it seems that violence goes against the theme of Jesus’ life and ministry. He never uses any form of violence towards another human being. He actually refuses to be violent in any way when violence is done to him. Third, when one of his disciples uses a sword and cuts off the ear of the priest’s servant, Jesus responds by healing the wound rather than condoning such behavior (Luke 22.49-51). Fourth, Luke has already used the sword as a metaphor for animosity (see 12.51-53). Finally, most scholars, nonviolent or not, interpret the passage as I have expounded above, not as an opportunity for the disciples to be prepared to use self-defense.

How have you read this passages (and others like it) in the past?

What other interpretations have you heard of this passage?

How do we discern metaphor from the literal?

Closer (Series), Forgiveness and Reconciliation, Philemon Message

Right Click and Save Target As to play

This is the opening message in a series we did called "Closer: Relationships in the Way of Jesus" (we borrowed the series title from Vintage Church, but the content is all original). In this message, we look at the whole of the letter to Philemon.

Quote To Ponder: Billy Graham on Evolution

This week I got a new book in the mail titled, I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution, Denis O. Lamoureux. I have read other resources by him on this blog who put together an EXCELLENT e-book on the subject of evolution and original sin, but have not yet read the book. The introduction page in the book directed me to the following quote by Billy Graham (whom I hold in the highest regard)...

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things that they weren't meant to say, and I think we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course, I accept the Creation story. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God." -- Billy Graham in "Doubt and Certainties" (1964)

Here are some of my questions:

Why was I never informed as a child that the most influential Christian leader of our time has an open posture towards evolution?

Why the war, when the key mouthpiece for evangelicalism has such an open mind to the "how" of the creation? Does anyone else feel a bit gypped?

What other thoughts does this quotation bring to your mind?

Atonement? Do Jesus' Words Get Priority and Do They Demonstrate the Rest of the NT as Heresy?

For the last couple of days, a kind man named Robert Roberg has been commenting on a post on the Atonement from just after Easter. If I am understanding him correctly, he believes that only the actual words of Jesus are authoritative and that the other parts of Scripture are simply commentary. Anything that seems to contradict a statement of Jesus is not true. Therefore, several statements in Paul are false, especially if they say anything having to do with “blood” or sacrifice being required to remove sin. From this perspective Jesus speaks the words of forgiveness, and that is how one finds eternal life. Here are some quotes:

“If he never died or rose he would have still completed his mission. You are cleansed (would that be forgiven?) by the word. He sent his word and healed them. The resurrection was to increase our faith and take away our fear of death as you said it vindicated everything Jesus said and did.”

Here is another quote regarding the NT:

"Although he was wounded and lost his throne of power, Satan was not giving up, he made sure the twisted blood atonement found it's way into the other NT books. He has succeeded in clouding and diluting the words of Jesus through mixing."

I want to invite you to read the conversation below and give some input. How would you respond to this ‘different’ kind of approach to Jesus and the Scriptures as a whole? Do Jesus’ words demonstrate that the rest of the New Testament has several contradictions? What would you say to him about issues of atonement? Are Jesus' words what had the power to forgive, or his defeat of the powers?

(Although you may have different views, I would ask you to treat Robert with respect in your comments)

______________________

­­Jesus told us how to restore the broken connection with the father without blood or death. He said If you love me the father will love you. (Restoration accomplished). Do you need a better connection? If you keep my sayings (commandments) the father and I will make our abode with you. No blood or death involved.

The Old boys (sages of the OT) thought blood was necessary for sin removal. Wrong! If you forgive others the father will forgive you. No blood required.

Stop readin all dem damn books and read Jesus.

Peace

Robert Roberg

Gainesville FL

___________________

(KURT)

Question for Robert: Then why did Jesus have to die and resurrect? The bible seems to think it was for the "remission of sins."

PS - I love to read Jesus... I also love to know and experience Jesus in my daily walk with his spirit!

_______________________

Sorry Kurt,

I didn't mean to imply you don't read Jesus, I can see you do, but like most believers you mix his truth in with the whole Bible as if all truth is equal. Plus you were recommending a list of books.

I think we get lost in the forest of the Bible and mislead by mixing. Only the word's of Jesus are the Light, and the bread, spirit and zoe life.

Even my words are lifeless compared to his.

The blood of Jesus is found in Proverbs 8, it is "wisdom".

It is wisdom that teaches how to remit our sins.

Jesus spoke the words of wisdom which shows us in 5 steps how to remove sins.

1.Confess your sins,

2. make amends

3. Forgive and you will be forgiven.

4. Because she loved much, her sins though many are forgiven.

5. Make a supreme effort, like the man coming down through the roof, to reach Jesus.

None of these steps involves blood, or death.

Jesus goal was not to die but to live a sinless life. It was his sinless life that broke the power of Satan. He offered his life as a ransom in a living prisoner exchange. One sinless man sinned and one sinless man conquered sin. God doesn't cheat. He didn't come to the earth in a skin suit and deceive the devil.

Satan was a murderer from the beginning and so Jesus knew he would die, his final temptation was to get through the final hours without sinning and he made it. He shouted in a loud voice tetlestai (the gladiator's cry of victory).

Although he was wounded and lost his throne of power, Satan was not giving up, he made sure the twisted blood atonement found it's way into the other NT books. He has succeeded in clouding and diluting the words of Jesus through mixing.

The point of the resurrection was so that we might believe, and prove to us that we too will rise on the final day if we follow our master and keep on studying his undiluted Gospel and keep on doing it.

Peace

Robert

__________________________

(KURT)

Robert: Thanks for coming back and giving me more to ponder. A couple of questions:

1. Do you believe that only the recorded words of Jesus are authoritative? If so why?

2. Do you not believe that the rest of the NT books are accurate in their depiction of Jesus' death and resurrection in regard to the issue of forgiveness? If this is your view or some version of it; on what grounds do you dismiss the writings of Paul, Peter, John, and others? Is this what you mean by "Mixing?"

3. Would you categorize your belief system with a specific name?

Finally, I agree that Jesus declared forgiveness without shedding his blood in some scenarios that you mention, but it seems that without the resurrection his words would not have been valid. Resurrection vindicated Jesus as the world's True Lord and the only one who has ever conquered death. Any thoughts here? Just trying to understand you position a bit more.

PS - Do you have a blog? Any recommended online reading I can do to further understand your views on Jesus?

____________

Hi Kurt,

. A couple of questions:

1. Do you believe that only the recorded words of Jesus are authoritative? If so why?

Jesus said heaven and earth would pass but his words would not. So yes they are authoritative.

Everything that harmonizes with the words of Jesus is true. He said his words are spirit and zoe life. He said " am the truth. He is our gold standard by which we judge all truth. His words for me are only in the 4 Gospels and that's why I call myself a Red Letter Christian (Not to be confused with Tony Camplos mixing of politics and Jesus).

I also call myself a "one viner" for I only draw my theology from the one vine of Jesus. The other writings I view as commentary, some of the commentary is in sync with Jesus but some of it is contrary. For example when Jesus says God does not want sacrifice and Paul , Hebrews and 2 Peter preach sacrifices I disregard their commentary and dismiss their comments as the thoughts of imperfect men being lead astray by adversaries.

2. Do you not believe that the rest of the NT books are accurate in their depiction of Jesus' death and resurrection in regard to the issue of forgiveness? If this is your view or some version of it; on what grounds do you dismiss the writings of Paul, Peter, John, and others? Is this what you mean by "Mixing?"

I dismiss anything that does not harmonize with Jesus whether it is said by Moses, Pau, Mt, Mrk, Lk, or Jn,l or any apostle (they were all fallible men)

No amount of blood can remove the sins of an unrepentant sinner who does not forgive everyone.

"If you do not forgive others, father cannot forgive you."

3. Would you categorize your belief system with a specific name?

"Berean" for I search the scriptures daily. I am not a teacher, preacher, prophet, expert scholar, but merely a serious student who has been wrong often and I do not inisist people agree with me. If you can show me scripture that harmonizes with Jesus, I am teachable.

Finally, I agree that Jesus declared forgiveness without shedding his blood in some scenarios that you mention, but it seems that without the resurrection his words would not have been valid. Resurrection vindicated Jesus as the world's True Lord and the only one who has ever conquered death. Any thoughts here? Just trying to understand you position a bit more.

His mission was to deliver the logos. He was the sower sowing the logos (note he does not claim to be the logos, but preached the logos and told us to preach it.

The logos is the message of the Father as revealed by Jesus . The law came by Moses but truth came by Jesus. If he never died or rose he would have still completed his mission. You are cleansed (would that be forgiven?) by the word. He sent his word and healed them. The resurrection was to increase our faith and take away our fear of death as you said it vindicated everything Jesus said and did.

PS - Do you have a blog? Any recommended online reading I can do to further understand your views on Jesus?

I have a book on AmazonThe Gospel of the kingdom: Retold and it can be downloaded here free. http://robertroberg.com/writings/kingdom35.pdf

Peace

Recommended Resources: "Spiritual Warfare" Series by Greg Boyd

I want to recommend an amazing resource. It is a short sermon series taught by Greg Boyd, Pastor at Woodland Hills Church and author of several books. The sermons are titled, "Spiritual Warfare." The first talk rocked my world: "a War-torn Creation." Greg gave me some 'handles' to further reflect upon some things I have been wrestling with for the past couple of years. He also raised more questions!!! (I like and hate this!). If you get a chance to listen to the talks, I would love to hear your thoughts... come back and comment if you can!

What are some good books on "Community?"

I would love to hear your top books on Community. What should community look like? What has it been and what should it be? These are the types of books I would like to know about! Thanks!

Biblical Authority, Postmodernism, and Patristic Hermeneutics...

It has been almost nine months now since my article "Postmodern Biblical Authority?" was published on www.theooze.com. I have heard many positive comments and some critiques, but nevertheless it has been a fun journey (it is funny how most of the critique has happened on the comments section of the article on The Ooze). This article was not so much addressing the 'whole' of my view of Biblical authority (for that, read The Last Word: Scripture and the Authority of God--Getting Beyond the Bible Wars ), but rather it served as my attempt to explore the ability to hold to 'biblical authority' from a postmodern perspective. Well, I am honored that Mark J. Boone has now written a "response" article to complement what I have already written titled "Ancient-Future Biblical Authority: A Reply to Kurt Willems." He addresses the issue of biblical authority from a 'pre-modern' or 'patristic' perspective, rather than from the viewpoint of fundamentalism. I appreciate much of his approach (with some nuancing), and would like to hear your thoughts on a 'side-by-side' reading of the articles. How does pre-modern/patristic readings help us understand biblical authority in a postmodern world? What other insights came to you as you read?

Pray For Kate McRae!!!!!!!

I am not one to post random chains or videos, but this is one that really touched me. A young girl needs your prayer support ASAP!
Click the title above to stay up to date...

Follow on Twitter

Hear a song inspired by Kate

An "unpopular" 4th of July Post... Why this is Not a Day to Celebrate...

UPDATE: After you read this post and comment, Mason pointed out a very good article from Christianity Today written by Historical Christian Scholar Mark Noll (he is read in seminaries across America)... It asks similar questions from a historical perspective.

_____________________________

ORIGINAL POST:

I want to start out this post with a huge disclaimer... what I am about to say may sound radical or irrational to some. I also want to say that I have a great respect for those who differ with me on this issue that I am about to discuss, so I invite your ideas on this post as well. Finally, I have a great deal of respect for those who are Christians and who 'support' military and our troops. Those who serve our country (although I may disagree with it to some extent from my standpoint theologically) deserve respect for their sacrifices and I am glad to have some friends who have served or are serving in the armed forces.

With all of that said, I have been struggling with the idea of the 4th of July for the past year or so. Each year we get together and remember the day when America won her freedom. We reenact the story through live action plays, we set off fireworks as a display of joy, and we sing prideful songs about our freedom from oppression. In many ways, we treat Independence Day like the Jews in Jesus' day (and even to this day) remember the exodus from Egypt. Now here is the issue I have: No matter what position you hold in regards to being a Christian and war (I happen to lean towards a nonviolent stance), I cannot justify glorifying the 'wining' of our independence from our friends across the pond, even from a 'just war theory' viewpoint. How can we celebrate that we killed thousands upon thousands of people (MANY OF WHICH WORSHIPPED THE SAME GOD!) over the fact that they were taxing our mammon with out giving us representation in parliament or whatever?!!!!! This seems just plain wrong!!!!! Yes, there might be some kind of justice issue here, but the greater injustice to taxation without representation is the violent killing of our brethren.

Is there anyone out there who agrees with me or am I just crazy [if you disagree take it easy on the crazy comments (-; ]? If you agree, why? If not, tell me your thoughts on this historic day and Christian biblical theology.

Help Me With PHILEMON Please! 1st Ever Video Blog

This is my first attempt at a Video Blog. I figure that now that I have converted to MAC-ism, that I should put it to good use. Give me your input on this idea as a whole, and what the video addresses. By the way, if you have a mac or a pc with a camera, you have the option to post video comments as well :-) (Facebook folks, you will have to come to my site to view the video... Also, make sure and give the video a minute to load...)

Do You Have the Mark of the Beast? 666: Greg Boyd

Here is an excellent video to ponder on the meaning of Revelation as a whole, and in regards to the Mark of the Beast in particular. Let me know what you think...

Can You Preach a Passage Using Only a Footnote? Romans 8:28

In seminary you come across great teachers and books that you probably wouldn’t encounter otherwise. I have been blessed to sit under Dr. Tim Geddert in multiple settings over the last couple of years. One of his books, Double Take: New Meanings From Old Stories, is a book that I HIGHLY recommend if you are a teacher or preacher or simply enjoy fresh insights!!!!

In one of the chapters, he draws out a ‘new meaning’ of a text that has huge implications for how we read Romans 8. Unfortunately, it is one of those passages that are often considered “life verses” or sacredly embedded with a particular meaning. This is Romans 8.28 which reads in the NIV:

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

This is a verse that is deeply impactful and can help us when we are in a dark or unknown place in our lives. God truly does work for good… but, what if this passage was trying to communicate something more? Tim Geddert thinks it does, and I happen to agree with him. He points out that the word “sunergei” means basically work together. But it is a bit more complicated than that:

“Sunergei in Greek is not about one party working various ingredients together; it is about more than one party ‘working together’ on a common project. It means, quite literally, ‘work together.’ If Romans 8:28 says that God ‘works together’, then the appropriate question is not, ‘What does God work together?’ The appropriate question is, ‘With whom does God work together?’…The traditional reading of Romans 8:28 takes the phrase ‘those who love God’ in the first way (God works ‘for us’ that is, ‘for our advantage.’)…” Tim Geddert, Double Take, 175-176

If we consider the above approach, there is something wrong or missing in our translations of this beloved passage. Tim suggests that the NIV footnote (also TNIV) gets this one correct. It renders this passage to say:

“In all things God works together with those who love him to bring about what is good…” (TNIV 2^nd footnote)

What does this mean in the context of the larger section of Romans 8? Well, I think it demonstrates that as we groan with the creation, by the Spirit of God within us; we are called to be God’s co-workers by joining in his mission to bring about good in our world! God’s mission is to point the broken places and people of the creation who are groaning, to the God who is groaning with them; and who promises to one day liberate the whole cosmos in new exodus fashion! This is missional theology at its finest!

Well, in case you are wondering how Tim justifies this translation for the passage, consider the following quote:

“In all four other occurrences of this word in the New Testament, it has the latter meaning (cf. Mark 16:20; 1 Cor. 16:16; 2 Cor. 6:1; James 2:22). Of these, the first three speak explicitly of God working with people or people working with each other. In the fourth, ‘faith and works’ are viewed metaphorically as two parties ‘working along with each other.’ The only way that sunergei is used in the New Testament is when there are two or more parties ‘working together.’ Moreover, the noun associated with this verb (sunergos i.e. co-worker, helper, fellow worker) is also always used to represent two or more parties that are working along with each other! (cf. Rom. 16:3, 9, 21; 1 Cor. 3:9; 2 Cor. 1:24; 8:23; Phil. 2:25; 4:3; Col. 4:11; 1 Thess. 3:2; Philemon 24; 2 John 8). Thus the word is not about making things work together; it is about two parties working together.” Tim Geddert, Double Take, 176

A Few Questions:

1. What are the implications for this approach to translating the passage in regards to interpretation?

2. What thoughts do you have in general on the above ideas?

3. Can we preach this translation of the text without causing controversy… can we preach from a footnote?