Just something to think about (regarding Osama Bin Laden and the fervor regarding his death) from another perspective…

“If you ignore every single thing Jesus commanded you to do you’re not a Christian, you’re just auditing. You’re not Christ’s followers, you’re just fans.”
Bill Maher

I do not have Royal Wedding fever… however, after listening to Dr. Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury, the priest who will perform the royal wedding, talk about marriage and the sacred image that is being presented I am now interested in listening to the ceremony at some point… take a gander at the video and listen to how he beautifully describes the marriage relationship.

Last week I had the opportunity to join with over 3,000 church planters down in Orlando, Florida for the annual Exponential Conference. It was a good time of networking and connecting with people from all over the country, hearing their stories of triumph and defeat, excitements and challenges. Coming together like this as a community who are on a similar path is extremely valuable to anyone in the preparation stage or early stages of planting a church.

During the conference, it seemed that at every turn, with every speaker and each of the breakout sessions the “topic” of the Holy Spirit was mentioned, sometimes in great detail. (It was nice to hear the Holy Spirit show up in conversations and presentations not being used as a weapon to win an argument or make a point.) It seems as if the Church is having an easier time talking about the mystical nature of the Holy Spirit even if we don’t necessarily know what to do with Him/Her. Yet, at each turn it seemed as if there was a “silo affect” taking place in our approach to the Holy Spirit. It seems that we, as the Church have become fairly comfortable with two separate trains of thought, or silos, that we use to understand the Holy Spirit and yet we never allow these two thoughts to merge into a more holistic reality of who He/She is and how He/She works.

One of the stated categorizations that is perhaps more well known because of how outspoken its proponents are is that Holy Spirit works and it’s our job to join in where the Holy Spirit is working. There’s nothing wrong with this statement but the application of this statement is less than desirable. In this silo, the Christian’s responsibility is to simply wander around aimlessly, with no strategy, no plan, no ideation and simply hope to stumble upon where the Spirit was moving. (This idea was blatantly visible in a couple of breakouts that I attended.) Although there can be some tremendously good experiences and benefits that can grow from this mode of understanding–faithfulness, follower-ship, a submissive spirit–it removes responsibility of the mind from the follower. The Christian, therefore becomes a mindless wanderer hoping to stumble onto the movement of God. Secondarily, we find that the Holy Spirit is already working without the activity of humanity and our participation is voluntary at best and unnecessary at worst (especially if you have a high view of the sovereignty of God.)

The second silo that was evident is the exact reverse. This silo gives more credit to humanity than it does to the Holy Spirit. In this stated silo, the mind of man with strategies and planning, a heavy sense of responsibility for success, is in the forefront. This mode of thinking places a tremendous sense of responsibility on the Christian to go out and do your best with the best thinking that you have at your disposal and in the midst of the “task” simply hope and pray that the Holy Spirit will bless it. This is more of a Type A personality approach to the Holy Spirit. Just lead and “hope” the Spirit follows. This approach relegates the Holy Spirit to an after-thought. The dilemma: If what we’re doing is working, then why is the Holy Spirit necessary? The Holy Spirit’s only role then is to catalyze an already existent human idea. Blessing, therefore is seen as catalyzing a good idea–any idea that fails was obviously a bad idea according to the Holy Spirit’s standard no matter how good it may seem on paper or in practice.

As we continue to transition out of modernism as the church, it seems that we’re still maintaining a categorization approach to our theology. We are still more comfortable with an either/or approach, especially when its in regards to the Holy Spirit. (I wonder if this may have more to do with the schism that’s prevalent between the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement and everyone else.) This is grievously unfortunate when understanding the Holy Spirit.

Jim Collins unveiled for the world in his book Good to Great the valuable and important slogan “The Genius of the And” whereby two seemingly contradictory or incompatible ideas or methods somehow find their way together to create an even stronger or more powerful idea than previously possible. The two silos that the Church is working from needs to be blended together under the moniker of “And” so that we can enjoy a more holistic and fuller understanding of not only who the Holy Spirit is, but how the Holy Spirit works.

Since the beginning of the 1900′s with the reemergence of Charismatic Christianity we have worked hard to entrench ourselves into one of these two silos of understanding in regards to the Holy Spirit. We’ve worked hard to nail down the Holy Spirit to one particular form of working or another. (In fact, it seems as if we’ve treated the Holy Spirit more as an object rather than a subject.) What’s truly interesting about this approach is that I don’t think it’s possible to truly nail down the Holy Spirit to one of these silos. I woud argue that the Holy Spirit will do what he/she wants, when/where he/she wants to do it, to whomever or through whomever he/she wants, however he/she wishes!

It’s when we try and silo the Holy Spirit that we miss out on a great deal of possibilities not only in our own lives, but in the life of the Church. I truly wonder what a holistic understanding of the Spirit looks like, how a truly blended ideation of these two silos functions and what else beyond the two understandings we’re missing out on as the Spirit works throughout the Church and beyond…

The first known Christmas sermon was preached in AD 386 by the “greatest preacher in the early church”, St. John Chrysostom (or ‘Golden Mouthed’ which is the meaning of his given surname). It is both beautifully written and profound.

BEHOLD a new and wondrous mystery. My ears resound to the Shepherd’s song, piping no soft melody, but chanting full forth a heavenly hymn. The Angels sing. The Archangels blend their voice in harmony. The Cherubim hymn their joyful praise. The Seraphim exalt His glory. All join to praise this holy feast, beholding the Godhead here on earth, and man in heaven. He Who is above, now for our redemption dwells here below; and he that was lowly is by divine mercy raised.

Bethlehem this day resembles heaven; hearing from the stars the singing of angelic voices; and in place of the sun, enfolds within itself on every side, the Sun of justice. And ask not how: for where God wills, the order of nature yields. For He willed, He had the power, He descended, He redeemed; all things yielded in obedience to God. This day He Who is, is Born; and He Who is, becomes what He was not. For when He was God, He became man; yet not departing from the Godhead that is His. Nor yet by any loss of divinity became He man, nor through increase became He God from man; but being the Word He became flesh, His nature, because of impassability, remaining unchanged.

And so the kings have come, and they have seen the heavenly King that has come upon the earth, not bringing with Him Angels, nor Archangels, nor Thrones, nor Dominations, nor Powers, nor Principalities, but, treading a new and solitary path, He has come forth from a spotless womb.

Since this heavenly birth cannot be described, neither does His coming amongst us in these days permit of too curious scrutiny. Though I know that a Virgin this day gave birth, and I believe that God was begotten before all time, yet the manner of this generation I have learned to venerate in silence and I accept that this is not to be probed too curiously with wordy speech. For with God we look not for the order of nature, but rest our faith in the power of Him who works.

What shall I say to you; what shall I tell you? I behold a Mother who has brought forth; I see a Child come to this light by birth. The manner of His conception I cannot comprehend.

Nature here rested, while the Will of God labored. O ineffable grace! The Only Begotten, Who is before all ages, Who cannot be touched or be perceived, Who is simple, without body, has now put on my body, that is visible and liable to corruption. For what reason? That coming amongst us he may teach us, and teaching, lead us by the hand to the things that men cannot see. For since men believe that the eyes are more trustworthy than the ears, they doubt of that which they do not see, and so He has deigned to show Himself in bodily presence, that He may remove all doubt.

Christ, finding the holy body and soul of the Virgin, builds for Himself a living temple, and as He had willed, formed there a man from the Virgin; and, putting Him on, this day came forth; unashamed of the lowliness of our nature’. For it was to Him no lowering to put on what He Himself had made. Let that handiwork be forever glorified, which became the cloak of its own Creator. For as in the first creation of flesh, man could not be made before the clay had come into His hand, so neither could this corruptible body be glorified, until it had first become the garment of its Maker.

What shall I say! And how shall I describe this Birth to you? For this wonder fills me with astonishment. The Ancient of days has become an infant. He Who sits upon the sublime and heavenly Throne, now lies in a manger. And He Who cannot be touched, Who is simple, without complexity, and incorporeal, now lies subject to the hands of men. He Who has broken the bonds of sinners, is now bound by an infants bands. But He has decreed that ignominy shall become honor, infamy be clothed with glory, and total humiliation the measure of His Goodness.

For this He assumed my body, that I may become capable of His Word; taking my flesh, He gives me His spirit; and so He bestowing and I receiving, He prepares for me the treasure of Life. He takes my flesh, to sanctify me; He gives me His Spirit, that He may save me.

Come, then, let us observe the Feast. Truly wondrous is the whole chronicle of the Nativity. For this day the ancient slavery is ended, the devil confounded, the demons take to flight, the power of death is broken, paradise is unlocked, the curse is taken away, sin is removed from us, error driven out, truth has been brought back, the speech of kindliness diffused, and spreads on every side, a heavenly way of life has been ‘in planted on the earth, angels communicate with men without fear, and men now hold speech with angels.

Why is this? Because God is now on earth, and man in heaven; on every side all things commingle. He became Flesh. He did not become God. He was God. Wherefore He became flesh, so that He Whom heaven did not contain, a manger would this day receive. He was placed in a manger, so that He, by whom all things arc nourished, may receive an infant’s food from His Virgin Mother. So, the Father of all ages, as an infant at the breast, nestles in the virginal arms, that the Magi may more easily see Him. Since this day the Magi too have come, and made a beginning of withstanding tyranny; and the heavens give glory, as the Lord is revealed by a star.

To Him, then, Who out of confusion has wrought a clear path, to Christ, to the Father, and to the Holy Ghost, we offer all praise, now and for ever. Amen.

Elizabeth Gilbert, author of Eat, Love, Pray talks about the divine spark of creativity. There is much to chew on and a great deal to wrestle with in terms of how we have shifted the self and human expression to the center of creativity, accepting all the credit, instead of seeing the Divine as the center utilizing humanity as the vessel through whom He wishes to express Himself to us. There are interesting implications and a great tension between the two.

So then, who ultimately is creator? Is it a Divine expression working through humanity? Is it humanity expressing itself back to the Divine? Is there a tandem at play, a Divine dance, between humanity and the Divine?

I’m not a big fan of Good Friday. As everyone takes today to reflect on Jesus’ sacrifice upon the cross, I’m already looking ahead to Sunday. Maybe it’s because I’ve never been much for waiting that I don’t particularly like to celebrate Good Friday, maybe it’s because I enjoy living too much in a post-resurrection world. Maybe it’s my silent protest against the Church for living as if it’s Good Friday everyday, living as if we’ve lost and are powerless by simply celebrating the crucifixion but forgetting about the resurrection. So, as Good Friday marches forward and hundreds of thousands of Christians around the world gather to celebrate let me offer up a few words of challenge from theologian N.T. Wright:

The wrath of the Lamb, of which Revelation speaks from time to time, is the anger of love against all that hurts and damages the beloved [you are the beloved]. The love of the Lamb is the great reality that under girds the entire vision. And it is that love which is revealed at Easter.

Without Easter, Calvary was just another political execution of a failed Messiah. Without Easter, the world is trapped between the shoulder shrug of the cynic, the fantasy of the escapist, and the tanks of the tyrant. Without Easter, there is no reason to suppose that good will triumph over evil, that love will win over hatred, that life will win over death. But with Easter we have hope; because hope depends on love; and love has become human and has died, and is now alive for evermore, and holds the keys of Death and Hades. It is because of him that we know–we don’t just hope, we know–that God will wipe away all tears from all eyes. And in that knowledge we find ourselves to be Sunday people, called to live in a world of Fridays. In that knowledge we know ourselves to be Easter people, called to minister to a world full of Calvary’s. In that knowledge we find that the hand that dries our tears passes the cloth onto us, and bids us follow him, to go to dry one anothers tears. The Lamb calls us to follow him wherever he goes; into the dark places of the world, the dark places of our own hearts, the places where the tears blot out the sunlight, the places where tyrants pave the grass with concrete; and he bids us shine his morning light into the darkness, and share his ministry of wiping away the tears.

This year, let us leave Good Friday behind and instead be Easter people, Sunday people, the people that we have been called to be and let us move forward in the power of the Resurrection and change the world.

Last week Annie Lobert, Mark Driscoll, Deepak Chopra & Carlton Pearson gathered together at Mars Hill Church in Seattle to debate one of the most heated issues in modern theology and philosophical thought: Does Satan Exist? If you were unable to catch the debate on television or would like to see the entire debate in its fullest you can find it here on Nightline’s “Face-off Website. I would recommend watching the full debate over the short 30 minute episode for the fact that there is more nuance and you can get a fuller understanding of the context from which they were debating.

At the beginning of the debate it was evident that both sides had different understandings of the Satan they were trying to prove/disprove. Bishop Carlton Pearson, after sharing his own life experiences went on to say: “I had tremendous faith in the devil in his omnipresence, his omnipower and omniscience…” and described him as a “hairy, horny, creature.” To which later Driscoll followed up by saying, “The Satan you reject, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipowerful, is the same Satan the Scriptures reject.” It seems the comic book (or South Park) depiction of Satan has so enraptured our minds that this is all we can think of when the name is mention. Along those same lines, I was amazed to see the qualities of God (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence) attributed to Satan in this setting by a former Bishop in the Pentecostal Church.

I think this points out a glaring weakness in the Pentecostal Church’s understanding of theology as they have in a great extent placed Satan on the same level as God–which is exactly what Satan wanted when he was cast from Heaven. Pearson goes on to say, “We (the church–specifically the Pentecostal Church–have as much faith in the devil as we do Jesus. We’ll defend the Devil more than we will God.” I couldn’t agree more with Pearson. From personal experience I have seen many churches in the Pentecostal tradition speak more of Satan and demonic forces/activity than they ever do about Jesus. It gives me pause and makes me wonder if Pearson is really rebelling against that notion–that Jesus became absent in the church–and it led him down the road to completely deny the existence of Satan.

No one, however could accuse Driscoll of doing the same. It seemed as if Driscoll at times was forcing Jesus into the conversation instead of creating space for Jesus to shine through. I was, however, very impressed with how he approached the debate, sitting quietly and in a real sense allowing the confusing words of Chopra and Pearson to strangle themselves.

Chopra continually tried to toe the line of the existence of Satan vs. the non-existence of Satan depending on the circumstances: “What’s good for me may not be good for you… I don’t need the Devil because I don’t have the guilt and shame that you people do.” To which later he returned saying, “God and Satan are complete allies, you cannot have one without the other.” Yet ultimately, “Belief is a cover up for insecurity.”

Chopra came off as extremely confusing, inarticulate, under-prepared and arrogant (something I wasn’t very much expecting.) Yet at the end an audience member came to ask Chopra a question saying, “You stated earlier, ‘All belief is a cover-up for insecurity.’ Do you believe that?” Chopra responded with a resounded “Yes.” To which the audience member responded, “Thank you” and walked away. It was a priceless moment as Chopra really was caught off guard and with no response but launched into an expanation of how it wasn’t really belief at all if it’s true.

Ultimately it seems this debate spiraled away from the question of “Does Satan Exist?” to “What is Truth?” Chopra ultimately stated, “I don’t trust my mind at all, but I do trust my spirit which is beyond my mind” which is more of a gnostic understanding of reality in which the material, present world is un-enlightened (not evil because evil ultimately doesn’t exist.)

Chopra and Pearson weren’t in sync, weren’t clear, and didn’t really communicate their positions well at all, however Driscoll and Lobert gave clear concise statements of their experience, their understanding and the reality of the existence of Satan. I’d love to hear some of your thoughts about this debate and what you picked up that I may have missed.