City Night

"Seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper."

Jeremiah 29:7

Predictability

I don't like it when people are predictable.

Granted, I often fall into the predictable category on many occasions (i.e. "I knew you were going to say that", or "let me guess, no cheese, lettuce or mayonnaise"). I'm not talking about that kind of predictability. That comes from people knowing you well and being with you often. That's nice.

The kind of predictability I'm talking about is more of a "party line" mentality. It appears all across the spectrum of human experience, but it is most bothersome to me when it shows up in the Church. Let me give some examples:

1. Some theologians and church leaders from the traditional and conservative wing of the American evangelical church assume that if you are a member of their denominations you must, therefore, wear suits, appreciate only certain kinds of music for worship, read long tomes by Charles Hodge, and only speak about theology in certain ways. You must NEVER, therefore, use the terms "missional" or "narrative", change the format of worship services, or have a tatoo. This is definitely a bit of hyperbole meant to highlight the differences. I am a member of a traditional and conservative denomination, I like suits, and I appreciate the very old hymns. I also count many of these people as my friends and role models.

2. Some theologians at the other end of the evangelical spectrum seem to think that they've discovered truths long forgotten by the Western church. Traditional churches, they believe, have no idea what it means to be "authentic", "a community", "missional", or "pursuing shalom". Maybe churches made up of older people have all of these things, to a certain extent, just in a way that is less cutting edge. You wouldn't think so to read some from the emerging church movement. Again, also hyperbolic. But you get the idea.

Both sides are very fond of recommended reading lists. I am also very fond of such things. But both sides also imply that Christians need to choose their list and steer clear of the other. You can't read B.B. Warfield one day and Lesslie Newbigin the next. Some books are "dangerous" (Blue Like Jazz on the one side, and anything critical of the emerging church on the other). Telling me not to read something is a pretty sure way to guarantee that I'll read it.

I really don't like predictability. This is why I like people like Donald Miller, Phillip Ryken, Tim Keller, the guys at liberti, Mark Driscoll, and Aaron Messner. These guys are not predictable. They are surprising, challenging, and refreshing. You might listen to one sermon where they exhort people to cling to the truth of the Gospel and another sermon where they call people to be involved in social justice and communal ministry in poor neighborhoods. That's the way things should be.

Party lines and predictability are bad because they impose the beliefs of mortal men and women on the hearts and minds of other mortal men and women. Only the most delusional individuals or movements claim to have it all together theologically or spiritually. Our only sure guide is God's Word. Tradition is helpful, debate is helpful, innovation is helpful, but all of these must be measured up against the perfect standard of Scripture.

Burnside Writer's Collective

Donald Miller and some others have a new website called the Burnside Writers Collective. It has articles, reviews, a promising social justice section, and some pretty funny and insightful observations on American culture. Here's an example from Donald Miller:

I recently pitched a book to a publisher entitled “A Billion Little Pieces.”

Because readers have grown suspicious of the memoir genre, I began my book with a pledge of honesty, referring vaguely to the controversial memoir with a similar (though numerically inferior) title.

My pledge read:

“In an age when authors embellish historical accounts for dramatic effect, and in so doing delude hope for recovery, the author of this book swears to be forthright in every turn.”

The first sentence of my book then read:

“The moist breeze woke me, and though my vision was tinged red through the bubble-blood rings round my left cornea, I squinted to see I was gripping the wing of a 747 landing at Denver International Airport. ‘How did I get here?’ I wondered to myself, and ‘Why does that building look like a circus tent?’”

Christians and the Care of Creation

I have to admit that I wasn't always sold on the existence of global warming. At times it seemed like just another political issue that exists for the convenience of choosing a side. If you were a liberal Democrat you thought that global warming was a big problem; if you were a conservative Republican you thought that global warming was silly and imaginary. But sometimes real life issues don't fit conveniently on one side of the aisle or the other.

That's why I was glad to hear about the Evangelical Climate Initiative. The statement they produced (to read it, click on the title of this post) a few weeks ago basically says that global climate change is a problem that will eventually have a big effect on the world - especially on those from the world's poorest regions. I'm inclined to agree.

But I was even more excited when I saw the list signatories. Some made their expected appearance (Brian McLaren, Ron Sider, and others). Others were pretty surprising: Timothy George, Clive Calver, and Leith Anderson. Not exactly you're typical "liberal" evangelicals. But one signatory takes the cake. Allow me to reproduce the line as I read it:

Duane Litfin, Ph.D., President, Wheaton College, Wheaton IL.

Wow. I have to say that Dr. Litfin lends this statement a lot of credibility. I know how careful he is about making his views public. He would have to be convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that climate change is a man-made problem before he would agree to sign the statement. I respect Dr. Litfin for his willingness to lend support to ECI.

Another observation: not everyone is supportive of this declaration. Other influential evangelicals like Charles Colson and James Dobson disagree with the stance taken by ECI. Why? Well, it seems to me there are two reasons:

1. They argue that the scientific data is not conclusive enough to say that human beings are the major cause of climate change. Thus it is wrong to make pronouncements and recommendations for action.

2. ECI was supported by the Hewlett Foundation, an organization that also provides significant support to Planned Parenthood.

Okay, number 2 is a problem. ECI is life-affirming and Planned Parenthood is clearly not. But should the source of funding cause us to disregard the entire statement as a tool of pro-abortion advocates? No.

Number 1 might also be accurate. We truly do not have as much scientific data as we might want. But if there is going to be a miscalculation involved, shouldn't we err on the side of caution? Maybe some groundbreaking new finding will show us that global warming is not as big a problem as some think. If that happens will we bemoan the fact that we "wasted" time cutting down on pollution, researching alternatives to fossil fuels, taking care of our global neighbors, and thinking biblically about our role in Creation? I highly doubt it. And those are the types of things that ECI calls on believers and churches to start thinking about.

So read the statement, think about the world that God made, and take some action!