glenn packiam's blog

Prayer for the First Sunday of Lent

From the Anglican Book of Common Prayer:

"Almighty God, whose blessed Son was led by the Spirit to be tempted by Satan; Come quickly to help us who are assaulted by many temptations; and, as you know the weaknesses of each of us, let each one find you mighty to save; through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever.
Amen."

What is Ash Wednesday? Why Observe Lent? Why Should I Care About the Church Calendar?

I'm not in love with all things old.

I don't think then is better than now.

I'm not trying to get back to how things were.

My journey in learning about the liturgy and the liturgical year is not about nostalgia; it's about spiritual formation.

The people who wrote some of the best liturgical prayers-- from John Chrysostom (The Eastern Orthodox's "Divine Liturgy") in the 4th century to Thomas Cranmer in the 17th century (Anglican Book of Common Prayer)-- were passionate followers of Christ and diligent scholars of the Scriptures and of theology. When the seasons of the church calendar-- or the "Christian Year" or the "liturgical year"-- developed, it developed as way to aid in the spiritual formation of those who sought to follow Christ. Easter was the first church-wide event to commerate. (One could say the first Christians began celebrating the resurrection the very next Sunday after Christ's ascension as a "mini-Easter.") Lent was the earliest actual season to develop and be adopted by the church world-wide. It became a common Christian practice in AD 330, shortly after Christianity had been legalized in AD 313 at the Edict of Milan. The other seasons of the Church year (like Pentecost, Advent and Christmas) took shape later. By the High Middle Ages, the Church Year was fully developed, complete with special feast days for certain saints. 

But why? Why was this developed? Why would anyone today practice these things?

To say it simply, the liturgical year was developed as a way to help the spiritual formation of Christians. How does it do that? Two main ways:

1. It Centers Us On Christ
As Christianity spread, many of the Church's members (and for a time in the early Middle Ages, many of its clergy!) were illiterate and ignorant of the Scriptures and of theology. A year that would center them on Christ was a way of helping them, teaching them, placing them in a rhythm of living that helped them reflect on Christ.

You may not have seen this right away (I did not!), but the liturgical year follows the life of Christ. It begins with anticipating His arrival in Advent, celebrating His birth at Christmas, marvelling at His revealing during Epiphany, humbling ourselves in repentance as we join His fasting in the wilderness during Lent, reflecting on His love and sacrifice during Holy Week, remembering our sin and the weight of all the world's evil that He carried on the cross on Good Friday, embracing the silent emptiness of Holy Saturday, celebrating the breakig forth of new life at Easter and Eastertide, rejoicing at His giving of the Spirit and His work in the Church during Pentecost, and trusting that His presence is with us still during Ordinary Time. The liturgical year helps our lives revolve around Christ.

2. It Connects Us to The Body of Christ
Many of you began the new calendar year with a period of prayer and fasting. It's an excellent way to start the year. One of the benefits of celebrating Lent is that you'll be fasting along with millions of Christians all around the world at the same time! We talk all the time about wanting the Church to be in unity, but then dismiss traditions as empty ritual. But what if these sacred traditions can be a way for us to walk in unity together?

The bottom line is: no, you don't need to care about the Church Calendar. You don't have to celebrate Lent or participate in Ash Wednesday. These are not requirements or laws. But then again, you don't need to have a date night with your wife; you don't need to have family vacations. But rhythms and routines are ways of reinforcing a desire. It's because I want to nurture my relationship with my wife that we have date nights; it's because I want our family to be connected that we take vacations together, and have family traditions. In the same way, it's because I want to nurture my relationship with Christ and because I want to be connected to the Body of Christ that I am embrace the "family traditions" of the liturgical year. 

So, the liturgical year is not a requirement, but neither are they "empty rituals." They are sacred rhythms, routines that reinforce our desire to follow Christ and become like Him. They are helpful ways to center our lives on Christ. They create the space for His Spirit to shape us. And they are a powerful rememinder that we are not the first to follow Christ, nor are we the only ones attempting to do so. (For more on this, read my post written last year called "Sacred Rhythms: Preparing for Lent, 2011.") We are joining a great company of saints and sinners-- the people of God!-- travelling up this mountain together.

And, personally, I hope you'll join in. 

SO...a few things specifically about Ash Wednesday and Lent:

• Ash Wednesday is the beginning of Lent.
• At our Ash Wednesday service, we'll pray through the "Litany of Pentitance", found in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. It's a beautiful and quite thorough guide to allowing the Holy Spirit to work His conviction in us.
• The "imposition of the ashes" on our foreheads is an echo of the Scripture's injunction: "Remember that thou art dust and to dust thou shalt return." It's a way of confessing our finiteness, admitting our limitations, and trusting Christ to break through our own "dead ends."

• Lent itself is a season-- 40 days long-- of fasting. (It's technically 46 days, but the Sundays are "Feast Days"-- See the next bullet point.)
• Every Sunday in Lent is a "mini-Easter", which means you can enjoy anything you had been fasting from on Sunday!
• The fast is about lowering ourselves, humbling our hearts, confessing our sins, and trusting in Christ. It is also a way of "sharing in the fellowship of Christ's sufferings."
• The fast is also about caring for the poor and the helpless (See: Isaiah 58). Often, a Lenten offering is taking each week for the poor. (I encourage people to take the money they saved by giving up whatever it is they were giving up-- coffee, chocolate, etc-- and put it in the Lenten offering box.)

I'm no pro at this. But I can tell you that this discovery-- or recovery-- of the Church's path for spiritual formation has been refreshing to me. I pray it is for you as well.

May the Spirit lead you to Christ.

[For further reading from me on this, here are a few blogs I wrote, one called "Why I'm Observing Lent This Year" and one called "Sacred Rhythms: Preparing for Lent, 2011."]

____________________________________________________________________

New Life Church's Ash Wednesday service:

February 22, 6:30pm-7:30pm
320 South Weber 

________________________________________________________

The Saint That Almost Never Was

 

Churches were growing in influence. Many of them drew large crowds of people to their services. Church leaders were not merely spiritual leaders, they were civic and social leaders as well. They had created educational systems to train children and found ways to care for the poor.

But as the church became an essential part of the fabric of life, there were dissenters that arose. There were those who protested the large institutions, condemning their wealth. These dissenters want to "get back to how things were." They wanted to live as the early Apostles did. Many of those who were in various ways part of the "Apostolic Life" movement embraced poverty, lived simply, and spoke harshly against the Church. The Church returned the favor by marginalizing these preachers as lunatics and condemning these wandering preachers as heretics.

There was one wandering preacher, a friar, who gained a large following and was especially well-loved by the populus. He, however, refused to speak against the church. In fact, he sought a meeting with the pope to ask for his blessing on his way of life. His humility was met with graciousness. The pope said that he could keep preaching, but to keep his sermons to moral preaching, and to stay away from theological issues. After all, the young wandering preacher was only semi-literate, considered an idiotae to the clergy. The young preacher agreed and his movement continued to flourish.

Were it not for his refusal to curse the institutional church and his desire to seek their blessing instead...

Were it not for the Church's willingness to listen to his prophetic critique and bless his ministry...

...we may not have known St. Francis of Assisi.

This is a sketch of the cultural landscape of "Western Europe" in the 11th and 12th centuries. Sounds familiar, though, doesn't it? 

In our own day, there are many who are troubled, perhaps even disillusioned, with the institutional church. But the story of St. Francis may be instructive for us: we will never gain the right to change the Church if we are content to criticize it. 

Francis wrote:

 "...the Lord gave me and still gives me such faith in priests...I am unwilling to preach against their will in the parishes where they dwell. I wish to fear, to love, and to honor them and other [priests] as my lords. I do not wish to consider the sin in them, since I see the Son of God in them..."

There is, however, a mile of difference between being critical and offering a prophetic critique. Some who see clearly the faults of a consumer-oriented "machine church" want to "get back to how things were" with the Apostles. But the trouble is we can't. We are now. We live now. This is the state of things. So, what should do? How do we move forward?

For those who seek to reform the Church:

• Will you refrain from cursing the Church in order to gain the power to change it? 
• Will you "stay in your lane" and teach and preach what you know and not extend into areas you are not yet equipped for?

For those who lead the "Church":

• Are you willing to listen to the young "upstart" with a passionate vision, who imagines a "different way" of doing things? 
• Will you counsel him or her to stay within the bounds of their knowledge and experience? 

For all of us, whoever you see yourself as in the story-- the young friar or the pope-- can we accept that God works within imperfect, less than ideal situations? Are we willing to surrender our search for the Platonic ideal of a "true model" of "doing" or "being" Church and believe that God is at work right now, even in your church?

 

What Does the Visual Layout of Our Worship Service Say?

 

Children have a way of making you see things differently.

We were flipping through the channels on a snowy Saturday when we came across a Coldplay concert. We were mesmerized. It was an open-air show, with tens of thousands of people lifting their hands and singing at the top of their lungs. My five year old daughter, Norah, turned to me and asked, "Dad, are they worshipping?"

It's a good question, isn't it?

Had my children grown up attending rock concerts instead of church, they may have one day seen a large arena worship event and asked about the worship band, "Dad, are they entertaining?"

The merits and concerns of the many parallels between rock shows and modern worship services have been discussed at length in many other places, so I won't attempt to tackle the subject as a whole here. For now, I just want to raise a question about the impact of our how our worship services appear. To put it simply:

What does the visual layout of our worship service say-- about God and about us?

In both a rock concert and a modern worship service, the band takes center stage. While many churches have done away with fancy pulpits (which once were away of demonstrating the centrality of the Scriptures) and ornate altar tables (which once were a way of making Christ's body and blood the centerpiece), most of our modern worship environments feature a drumset or a stack of amplifiers quite prominently. Nothing "wrong" with this. But let's think for a moment about what it says:

- It says the musical presentation or performance dictates the layout of the stage.
- It says the worship leader must be seen by the people in order to lead them.
- It says that the people need a person to visually direct their worship.

So far, no inherent problem (debatable, I know!). 

But let's compare this to John's vision of heavenly worship in the Book of Revelation. In the Revelation, the "worship leaders"--  the ones who cast down their crowns and cry out night and day, "Holy, holy, holy"-- surround the throne in a circular fashion. The One who sits on the Throne and the Lamb are the visual center of heavenly worship. The "worship leaders" are the closest circle of many concentric ones to the throne. But they all face inward toward the Father and the Son.

In our modern worship contexts, the eyes of the worshipper are drawn to the worship leader, who does his or her sincere best to deflect the attention away from themselves and to Christ. But our eyes can't help themselves. We cannot see the Father and the Son, so we look at the worship leaders. 

The early Christians understood the need for symbols, images, and icons to direct our worship to Christ. That is why the Bread and the Cup were placed front and center in many Christian places of worship (once they had places of worship!).

If you visit an Eastern Orthodox Church (pictured) or a Roman Catholic Church, your eyes will be drawn to the Altar Table. Yes, there are priests who "lead us in worship." But, visually, they are not the center. The choir, when there is one, sings from the side "wings" of the church.

In many Protestant liturgical churches, the Gospel reading is done each week from the center of the room, with all the people standing, to symbolize that the words of Christ are the very center of our worship.

I suggest that the following is true:

When the worship leader and the Object of our worship occupy the same visual space, the worshipper is easily confused-- consciously or subconsciously-- about Who the Center truly is.

I'll share one small example of something we did at NewLifeSundayNight. Last year, during Lent, we turned all the chairs in the room to face the back wall. The band-- and the stage-- became effectively the back of the room. A simple wooden cross was placed against the wall that people were now facing. I preached by that cross without a stage. Think of all the things that visual layout communicated (at least, we pray it did!):

- It made the band "musical servants", leading from behind the people.
- It made the people focus their eyes on the cross, and not the worship leaders.
- It  showed them that they, along with the pastor-- the one proclaiming the Word of Christ-- stood on level ground before the cross.

Imagine praying that God will speak through the visual use of sacred space not in spite of it! Many people got tired of it after the first few Sundays, but many more thanked us for challenging the paradigm.

What are some ways we can make even the visual layout of our worship services communicate the centrality of Christ?

Poor Susan G. Komen

Poor Susan G. Komen. The foundation her sister created in her honor is now torn  between two sides. And its recent vacillation has alienated people on both sides.

And yet, there is hypocrisy on both sides.

__________

On the one hand, those who protested the SGK Foundation’s cutting ties with Planned Parenthood, tend to operate by the following logic:

We should not interfere with people’s freedom to choose their own morality.

I can see the value of this logic. Virtue is not virtue unless it is freely chosen. In Eden, both trees were set in the middle of the garden, both equally accessible and available to Adam and Eve. Their choice had to be a true one.

Yet there is hypocrisy from those who trumpet this logic. For example:

• Why is morality relative when it comes to Americans, but not relative when it comes to other nations? Why is OK to meddle with other nations and their notions of virtue?
• If morality is relative, on what ground do we stand when we cry out against the oppression of women or the trafficking of children?
• If the freedom is the ultimate value, then why do we not think people are free to hurt others? 
• And if people are not free to hurt others, why are they free to kill the unborn?

__________

On the other hand, those who were thrilled—albeit briefly—that the Susan G. Komen Foundation would no longer fund Planned Parenthood tend to operate by the following logic:

No amount of good done can make up for the amount of bad done.

Yes, the SGK foundation may provide free cancer screenings and save lives, but if they fund the possibility of taking innocent lives, then we cannot support it. As one who values the sanctity of life and believes that life begins at conception, I understand this logic.

What I don’t understand is how the people who hold this view do not often carry this same logic into other socio-political thought processes. Why is life-- all life-- not held as equally sacred? For example:

• Why do we defend unbridled capitalism that may do much good and yet do some harm? Why does the good outweigh the bad here but not with the SGK Foundation?
• Why is "freedom” the logic used to defend it and resist restraints that could curtail the greed that leads corporations to exploit workers and wages? Why is freedom not the logic used when opposing who the SGK Foundation donates money to?
• Why do we defend guns on the basis of the “good” they can do (protection, etc), but ignore the bad that they can do?
• Why does the bad not outweigh the good in war? Why does the “good” that our military efforts justify the bad that it does when innocent lives are killed as “collateral damage”? Aren’t lives being saved while others are being taken?
• Why is the life of the American unborn more sacred than the life of a living slave, or a Muslim extremist?
  

___________

Now, these issues-- abortion, war, guns, unbridled capitalism-- are very different. There is no universal template or logic for processing through them. I am not suggesting a universal logical template should be used. I am only raising the question of why people on both sides of this conversation use their "templates of logic" selectively. That is a kind of "logical hypocrisy." It may not be wrong to apply different logical templates to different issues, but we must at least admit it, and not pretend that there is one universal logic-- even a "Biblical" one!-- that can be applied to all issues. Things are often more nuanced than that.

God's Providence and Human Will in Genesis

As I was doing some reading for my class on the Pentateuch, I came across this from Robert L. Cohn (not the Hemingway character, the Jewish studies scholar):

Put simply, Genesis depicts the evolution of the divine-human relationship from the never-never land of Eden to the real world of exile. In the last narrative God is present in the same manner in which he is most often present in the final authors world, not hurling floods, inducing conception in geriatrics, or communicating directly in dreams, but rather present silently within the events and so acclaimed by believers. But also, human character has developed almost analogously to biological development. At first like infants, the primeval figures need to be watched closely, slapped down immediately. Then, like a growing child, Abraham is led and guided with the vision of the future always before him. Jacob, like a man who has reached maturity, takes charge of his life and responsibility for his actions. Finally Joseph, like a person wise in years, acts determinedly, with faith in God, and thereby preserves his family.

In the view of Genesis, then, the operating relationship between God and humankind did not emerge full-blown. God's choice of Abraham and his descendants to be the progenitors of the chosen people gave the human drama protagonists who gradually exercise greater human freedom in consonance with the divine will. The rebellious abuse of freedom in Eden gives way to the faith of Abraham, the boldness of Jacob, and the wisdom of Joseph. In scene, the divine director retreats from the stage permitting his actors to shape their own world. Finally, equilibrium is achieved as Joseph and his brothers, acting on their own initiative, unwittingly and ironically become the agents of providence.

There is something about this that I like.

It shows a God who has a Plan but not a Script. He is able to enter the Story as it is unfolding, correcting the characters, leading the characters, working against them at times, working through them at other times. 

It shows God as a good parent...which makes me wonder if seeing God's interactions with humans in the context of parent-child relations may help us get out of the "doctrinal boxes" of "Calvinism" and "Arminianism"-- or at least the caricatures of those views, which paint God either as puppet-master or passive bystander, respectively. 

Even as ones who have Christ—the full revelation of God—and the Holy Spirit-- the empowering presence of God with us—we are still living, in a sense, in exile. So it is comforting to note that God is at work, even when we cannot see Him, to bring about His purposes through His people as they learn to make wise choices.

Introducing...NewLifeDowntown!

 

As Pastor Brady announced today, the elders are commissioning me to launch a new campus for New Life Church. Here's a little more about our vision and the details. 

VISION:

1. This is not a church plant.
We have had the privilige of sending many of our pastors to plant churches over the past few years. We love and believe in that vision. This, however, is not a church plant. This is an extension of New Life Church. This is a new "campus"-- the word literally means "field" in Latin! It is a new ground for us to till, a new garden to tend, a new place for the Lord to bring about flourishing in the hearts and lives of the people of God. With shared resources and staff, our downtown congregation can make the most of all the conferences, events and ministries that happen up at the main New Life campus.

2. This is about fostering community.
A new "field"-- campus-- can sometimes allow a stronger communal identity to form. In the midst of a thriving large church, people often form smaller, mid-size communities where they worship, connect and serve together. In way, these are like several "micro-congregations" that together form a large church. NewLifeDowntown is a way to form community within the New Life Church family, to make meaningful relationships and walk with others as we follow Jesus. As is often the case with a community of people, culture trumps location. So, this new campus is not about defining ourselves by a zip code. You may find yourself connecting in community here even though you live in a different part of the city, as I do! But more than location and culture, Jesus trumps all loyalties. We have many ideals of community that we bring to "church", and yet, as Bonhoeffer wrote, we must have a certain disillusionment with those ideals in order for Christ to be the defining center of our community, of our connection, of our "life together" as the people of God.

3. This is about facilitating mission.
There are many reasons that may keep a person from coming up to the main New Life Church campus, size and distance being among the common ones. Part of our goal with NewLifeDowntown is to embody the mission of Christ by being in a different part of our city. This isn't about "reaching the downtown;" this is about being the people of God in the heart of our city. Because we believe in an incarnational approach to mission, we want the people of God to embody Christ in different ways right where they are. We gather to "Come and See;" we scatter to "Go and Be." This new campus is a way to Go and Be.  Who knows? Maybe this will be a way to remove the barriers for many who have yet to see the light of Christ shine.

DETAILS:

About the Church Building

The building was owned by the first African-American church in our city (AME), built in 1897 on land donated by General Palmer, the founder of Colorado Springs. While the congregation has moved to a different location, the building was bought by the same people who own the Garden of the Gods Gourmet company who now use it as an event center (It's wonderful to weddings!). They have completley remodeled it, and restoring some of its most beautiful features. They have graciously allowed us to rent the building on Sunday mornings for our use. The address is 320 S. Weber.

 

About the Church Service

• We will start with services at 9am and 11am on Sunday, April 8th.
• There will be full children's ministry, with the same curriculum as used at the main New Life Church campus. 
• There will be three classes: one for newborns to toddlers, one for pre-school to kindagrten, and one for 1st and 2nd graders.
• Worship will feature many of same songs we know and love at New Life Church, but will be led in a more rootsy, folk-acoustic sort of way. The room as very "live" acoustics that lend a natural musical approach.
• I will preach each week, mirroring the sermon series that Pastor Brady is preaching up at the main campus.
• Follow "NewLifeDowntown" on Twitter: @NewLifeDowntown for all the latest.

[SPECIAL NOTE: NewLifeSundayNight will continue as a service. I will lead both campuses for a short season.]

 

The Tension Between the Busyness of Church Life and the Beauty of the Contemplative Life

 

If you work in "vocational ministry" either at a local church or in a Christian organization, chances are there are many days where you find yourself downing in a sea of emails, tossed about by waves of appointments, beaten down by a torrent of opinions and complaints and expectations...OK, enough with the metaphor. You get it. Some times "ministry" is anything but "ministering"-- to you, to others, and least of all, to the Lord.

Well, you're not alone. Gregory was a Benedictine monk who was called out of the monastic life and appointed as the Bishop of Rome. But Gregory often missed his quieter, more contemplative life. In a letter to the Emperor's sister, he wrote:

"On every side I am tossed by the waves of business, and sunk by storms, so that I may truly say, 'I have come into the depth of the sea, and the storm has overwhelmed me' (Psalm 68:3). After business I long to return to my heart; but, driven therefrom by vain tumults of thoughts, I am unable to return..."

Gregory goes on to use a beautiful metaphor, comparing the business of church life to Leah, but the beauty of the comtemplative life to Rachel:

I have loved the beauty of the contemplative life as a Rachel, barren, but keen of sight and fair (Genesis 29), who, though in her quietude she is less fertile, yet sees the light more keenly. But, by what judgment I know not, Leah has been coupled with me in the night, to wit, the active life; fruitful, but tender-eyed; seeing less, but bringing forth more. I have longed to sit at the feet of the Lord with Mary, to take in the words of His mouth; and lo, I am compelled to serve with Martha in external affairs, to be careful and troubled about many things (Luke 10:39)."

Gregory was one of the greatest leaders the church had in the early medieval period. He brought about incredible reform and helped unify the church despite its spread among various languages and tribal cultures. Even Luther wrote that Gregory was "the last great pope." (Of course, Luther never lived to see John Paul, II!)

Some times I think: it would be easier-- and cleaner and quieter-- to retreat to a "hidden life." I need to fight for the quiet moments and make time to be alone. But for those of us in "ministry", we cannot live there. Like the donkey our Savior rode on into the busy, loud city of Jerusalem, "the Lord hath need of us" where we are.  

How do you feel the tension between the busyness of church life and beauty of the contemplative life?

Tim Tebow TailGate Reading: The Football Story, the Football Player, and the Nicest Guy You'll Ever Meet

As you prepare for tonights big divisional playoff game between the Broncos and the Patriots, here are three of my favorite articles on Tim Tebow from this week:

1. "My Take: The Momma's Boy Tim Tebow Meets Playboy Tom Brady" by Patton Dodd
Synopsis: My friend, Patton Dodd, writes about Tim Tebow, the football story, versus Tom Brady, the football player, on CNN's Belief Blog.

Excerpt:

"But the biggest difference is that, in Tebow’s case, religion is a factor. Brady, a cradle Catholic, became famous as an athlete. Tebow is becoming famous as an athlete, acolyte, and avatar all rolled into one...[skipping ahead]

Brady is a great football player. Tebow is a great football story, and stories are immersive – they give us a chance to get involved, to see ourselves through them.

Tebow’s story tees up the questions that frame many people’s lives: Is God involved? Can he help us overcome? Can he help us win? What if he stops helping us – where is God when our critics are correct, when our flaws are exposed for everyone to see?"

Read the full article HERE.

2. "Tim Tebow is John Elway's Long-Awaited Successor" by Woody Paige
Synopsis: Denver Post columnist Woody Paige makes his boldest statement yet as he compares Tim Tebow's unbelievable second year with Tom Brady's remarkable second year, complete with analysis from Josh McDaniels.

Excerpt:

"McDaniels was confident, despite skepticism of most others, Tebow would excel in the NFL.

'He's got such confidence that he will just not let himself fail. And that quality sometimes is very underrated. There are guys who will say they won't fail, our team's not going to fail, and they have a 'I'm not going to let you down' attitude. That's what you notice with Tim.'"

Read the full article HERE.

3. "I Believe in Tim Tebow" by Rick Reilly
Synopsis: ESPN columnist Rick Reilly won't say he believes in Tim Tebow the football player, but he can't help but love the selfless and inspiring off-field Tebow.

Excerpt:

"Every week, Tebow picks out someone who is suffering, or who is dying, or who is injured. He flies these people and their families to the Broncos game, rents them a car, puts them up in a nice hotel, buys them dinner (usually at a Dave & Buster's), gets them and their families pregame passes, visits with them just before kickoff (!), gets them 30-yard-line tickets down low, visits with them after the game (sometimes for an hour), has them walk him to his car, and sends them off with a basket of gifts.

Home or road, win or lose, hero or goat....[skipping to the end of the article]

Isn't that a huge a distraction?

'Just the opposite,' Tebow says. 'It's by far the best thing I do to get myself ready. Here you are, about to play a game that the world says is the most important thing in the world. Win and they praise you. Lose and they crush you. And here I have a chance to talk to the coolest, most courageous people. It puts it all into perspective. The game doesn't really matter. I mean, I'll give 100 percent of my heart to win it, but in the end, the thing I most want to do is not win championships or make a lot of money, it's to invest in people's lives, to make a difference.'

So that's it. I've given up giving up on him. I'm a 100 percent believer. Not in his arm. Not in his skills. I believe in his heart, his there-will-definitely-be-a-pony-under-the-tree optimism, the way his love pours into people, right up to their eyeballs, until they believe they can master the hopeless comeback, too."

Read the full story HERE.

BONUS:
To those of you who are new to the Tebow bandwagon, welcome. Here's a little GAME just for you. 

 

Who Are You "In Conversation" With?

Last week I raised the suggestion that our INPUT should be greater both in scope (quantity) and depth (quality) than our OUTPUT. As a pastor-teacher, I want to make sure I'm doing more than reading and listening to my peers; I want to learn from my betters. In a lecture at Regent College, Eugene Peterson suggested that pastors choose 4-5 theologians and scholars and read them extensively, be in "conversation with them" through their work.

I've been thinking about my list of theologians and scholars that I have been or am beginning to be in conversation with.

First, here's my criteria:

1. They Affirm the Nicene Creed
   While there are many great scholars who may not affirm the Trinity or the resurrection, when it comes to the ones that I am going to immerse myself in, I prefer those who do affirm the historic, core Christian beliefs. In this sense, I believe a theological reading of the Scriptures is what makes reading the Bible different than reading Cicero or Josephus.
2. They Draw from the Great Treasury of the Church
   Most of my list are people from the last century, but they are well-versed with the Church Fathers, the saints, and the great theological minds through the centuries. For example, if you read Bonhoeffer, you can't help but get Luther as well, and that's what makes Bonhoeffer trustworthy.
3. They Write and Speak Accessibly for the Church
   There is much need for academics who write and lecture for academics. In fact, theologians and scholars who don't stand the scrutiny of academic "peer review" are usually not worth their salt. But the ones I admire are those whose scholarship is academically rigourous and yet who able to communicate in a way that is simple and accessible. After all, if understanding and learning does not serve the Church so the Church can serve the Christ and His mission in the world, then we may as well close our books. 

OK, now, here is my list of theologians and Biblical scholars I am beginning to be "in conversation with":

1. N. T. Wright (Phd, Oxford; NT Chair at St. Andrews)
   Area of emphasis: New Testament, Christian Origins/History
   Recommended starting points:
   - "Simply Jesus"
   (Reading the life of Jesus in the Gospels through the lens of 1st-century Jewish expectations, Roman imperial culture, and Old Testament Israel images of salvation.)
   - "Surprised by Hope"
   (Why heaven is not our final home or our greatest hope...and why on earth that matters right now.)
   - "After You Believe"
   (How "living in the present in light of God's in-breaking future" gives "character" and "virtue" a competely different emphasis than simply "good works.")
   
   For the more ambitious:
   - "Justification"
   (A fresh view-- in light of a proper understanding of 1st-century Judaism-- of Paul's doctrine of justification as being more than being in right-standing with God but about also being in covenant membership with the people of God.)
    
2. Scot McKnight (Phd, Nottingham; Prof at North Park University)
   Area of emphasis: New Testament Studies
   Recommended starting points:
   - "King Jesus Gospel"
   (Paradigm-shift may be the wrong way to say it, though it will result in that; it is more like zooming out and seeing the "Gospel" as the whole Story of God's plan to redeem the world from within it, culminating in Jesus.)
   - "Blue Parakeet" 
   (A great book on reading the Bible as narrative-- Story.)
    
3. John Goldingay (Phd, Nottingham; OT Chair at Fuller Theological Seminary)
   Area of emphasis: Old Testament Studies
   Recommended starting points:
   - "For Everyone" Commentary series (He's done Genesis through Ruth at the moment)
   - 3 volume commentary on the Psalms
   
   For the more ambitious:
   - "Old Testament Theology, Vol. 1: Israel's Gospel"
   
   
4. Stanley Hauerwas (Phd, Yale; Ethics prof at Duke Divinity)
   Area of emphasis: Christian "Ethics"; Barth scholar
   Recommended starting points:
   - "Hannah's Child" 
    (His memoir-- how he became the theologian he is & how he came to believe what he does.)
   - "Resident Aliens"
   (On what the Church should be-- an alternate society/City within the world.)
   - "The Hauerwas Reader"
    (This is a compilation of his essays, articles, papers, and book excerpts, organized    thematically.)

NOTABLE MENTION (though he's not, strictly speaking, a Biblical scholar or a theologian):
C. S. Lewis
Area of emphasis: Christian theology, apologetics
Recommended starting points:
- "The Last Battle"
- "The Great Divorce"
- "Screwtape Letters"
- "The Four Loves"

For the more ambitious:
- "Mere Christianity"
- "The Problem of Pain"
- "Miracles" 

This is just my list, drawing from books I've read. I'm sure you could add more (I think of Stott and Barth and Bonhoeffer and Packer and Fee....).

So....who are theologians and Biblical scholars (who write accessibly!) that you are "in conversation with"?

Give us some names and recommended starting points.